The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-06-018_Miscllmltio,• Corridor Program U Cooseslioo Relief & Bos Ra,ld Tea aslt '"'"'' 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project FISHERIES AND AQUAT IC RESOURCES DISCIPLINE REPORT -f-ree .... ay Lake Washington State Department of Transportation Ren ton Nickel Improvements Project •l•t;• '"••r /flp,rl•" rorHr -r,.' .:I T U KW I L A 1 ' 7 \: ~ ,1fsi.. ,-,-; ,' /'. , '• \ I f .... :,, I •l Y ' , I I SW 311th St Detail U.S.Department ofTransportation Federal Hi ghway Administration \ \ f I ' RE NTON I -405 Northern t October 2005 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES DISCIPLINE REPORT 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation Urban Corridors Office And Federal Highway Administration Prepared by Derek Koellmann, Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. October 28, 2005 Title VI WSDOT ensures full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by prohibiting discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the provision of benefits and services resulting from its federally assisted programs and activities. For questions regarding WSDOT's Title VI Program, you may contact the Department's Title VI Coordinator at 360. 705.7098. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information If you would like copies of this document in an alternate format-large print, Braille, cassette tape, or on computer disk, please call 360.705.7097. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, please call the Washington State Telecommunications Relay Service, or Tele-Braille at 7-1-1, Voice 1.800.833.6384, and ask to be connected to 360. 705.7097. TABLE OF CONTENTS Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... iv Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in this Report ...................................................................... vi Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 What is the Renton Nickel Improvement Project? .......................................................................... 1 What is the No Build Alternative? ...................................................... 2 What is the Build Alternative? ................................................................................................... 2 How will stormwater from the project be managed?.... . ................................................... 12 What environmental and utilities issues influenced the project design? ................................... 13 What design features help to avoid and minimize project effects? ................................. 13 What benefits will the project provide? ..................................................................................... 16 How will the project incorporate community design preferences? ............................................ 16 How will the project be constructed? ........................................................................................ 17 Why do we consider fisheries and aquatic resources as we plan this project? ............................ 18 What are the key points of this report?... ................................................ .. 19 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 21 How and when was the information on fisheries and aquatic resources collected? .................... 21 What kind of policies and regulations exist to protect fisheries resources? ................................ 22 Is the project within a recognized tribal fishing area?....... . .................................... 22 What are the general habitat characteristics of the study area? .................................................. 23 What fish and aquatic species occur in the study area? ............................................................ 26 Do any federally listed aquatic species or federal aquatic species of concern occur in the study area?. . ........................................................................................... 27 Do any state-listed or other state priority aquatic species occur in or around the study area? .... 29 What are the habitat characteristics of the rivers and streams located in the study area? ......... 29 Gilliam Creek .............................................................. 29 Cottage Creek................................ . ............................................................................... 31 Unnamed Tributary to Gilliam Creek .. . ........................................... 31 Green River ......................................................................................................................... 32 Springbrook Creek....................... . ..................... 34 Panther Creek and the Panther Creek Wetlands ..................................................................... 36 Rolling Hills Creek and an Unnamed Tributary to Rolling Hills Creek ...................................... 39 Thunder Hills Creek .................................................................................................................. 40 Cedar River. ..................................................................... 41 Potential Effects ............................................................................................................................. 43 What methods were used to evaluate the project's potential effects on fisheries and aquatic resources?............................. ... ...... .. ..................................................................... . ... 43 Will the project affect fish and aquatic habitat? ........................................................................... 43 No Build Alternative ............. . ··································· 44 Build Alternative ............................ . ,,,,, .............................................................................. 45 Will project construction affect fisheries and aquatic resources? ................................................ 52 Direct Disturbance and Stream Diversions ...... 52 In-Stream Sedimentation............... ............... . ........................................................ 52 Stream Buffer and Riparian Vegetation ............................ 54 l~enton Nickel 1,nprovement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report ){·\ l~ll 'i6\33-il6 Rl·nt,,n '\kk,•I\ T,i~k I -DR QA-Q( \ 118 Fl I VV,\ ~ub1111 t:_,· , '1,1 ll•,' I-'., ._ H ·cl J,xs fwm authors\ D,Ks f<,r fn,,11 ,1ppm1·,i], \ Rm ton :\1,·kcl F & A DR hn.d.dn, TABLE OF CONTENTS Other Potential Construction Effects ......................................................................................... 54 Will the project affect federally listed species and federal species of concern? ............................ 55 Does the project have other effects that could be delayed or distant from the project? ............... 55 Measures to Avoid or Minimize Project Effects ........................................................................... 56 What will be done to avoid or minimize potential negative effects on fish and other aquatic species or aquatic habitat?.............................. .. .................... 56 What will be done to minimize construction effects? ..................................................................... 56 How will the project compensate for unavoidable negative effects to fisheries or aquatic resources?................................................................................................ .. ................... 58 References ...................................................................................................................................... 60 Appendices ii A -Memo from Derek Koellmann to Multi-Agency Permitting (MAP) and 1-405 Teams Summarizing Stream Survey Methodology B -Stream Survey Summaries Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\041 'ili\.\"\.()6 Rt>nton \l1chl\Task 4 -DR QA-QC\08 fl IWA subnnttal ctrafts\R,,,·ised chxs from autlwrs\Docs for final approv,110\Rt•nl,in '.\'ich•l r & A DR_fin,11.doc Exhibit 1. Project Vicinity Map ...... . Exhibit 2. Project Overview Section 1 Exhibit 3. Project Overview Section 2 . TABL£ OF CONTLNTS EXHIBITS . ............................................ 1 .3 . . .4 Exhibit 4. Project Overview Section 3 . . .......................................................................... 5 Exhibit 5. Project Overview Section 4 Exhibit 6. Project Overview Section 5 ....................................................................................... 6 ............................................................................... 7 Exhibit 7. Exhibit 8. Project Overview Section 6 ........................................................................ . Project Overview Section 7 Exhibit 9. Project Overview Section 8 Exhibit 10. Map of Gilliam Creek ......... . . ........... 8 . ........... 9 ...... 10 .29 Exhibit 11. Flap Gate at the Outlet of Gilliam Creek Into the Green River.... . ..... 30 Exhibit 12. Typical Open Channel Section of Gilliam Creek............................. . .................... 30 Exhibit 13. Map of Cottage Creek ............................................ 31 Exhibit 14. Map of Unnamed Tributary to Gilliam Creek ........................................ . Exhibit 15. Map of the Green River ..... . 31 32 Exhibit 16. Green River Upstream of Study Area .......... . .... 32 Exhibit 17. Springbrook Creek Main Channel South of SW 161h Street ......................................... 34 Exhibit 18. Map of Springbrook Creek ........................................................................................... 34 Exhibit 19. One of Five Openings in the Existing Springbrook Box Culvert .................................... 34 Exhibit 20. Upstream End of Fish Ladder at the Black River Pump Station ................................... 35 Exhibit 21. Downstream End of Fish Ladder at the Black River Pump Station . 35 Exhibit 22. Panther Creek Upstream of the East and West Forks ................................................. 36 Exhibit 23. Map of Panther Creek ............................................................ 36 Exhibit 24. Panther Creek Fish Ladder. . .......................................................... 38 Exhibit 25. Typical Rolling Hills Creek Channel on the North Side of 1-405 .................................... 39 Exhibit 26. Map of Rolling Hills Creek ................................................ 39 Exhibit 27. Map of Unnamed Tributary to Rolling Hills Creek.......................... .. 39 Exhibit 28. Thunder Hills Creek in Concrete Flume Immediately Downstream of Confluence With Mine Runoff ........... . . .. 40 Exhibit 29. Map of Thunder Hills Creek ...................................................................................... 40 Exhibit 30. Cedar River Looking Downstream Under 1-405 Bridge .... 41 Exhibit 31. Map of the Cedar River ................................................................................................ 42 Exhibit 32. Summary of Streams: fish use, temporary effects, and permanent effects ................... 48 Exhibit 33. Summary of Permanent Overwater. In-Stream, and Riparian Buffer Encroachment Effects........ . ................................................................................... 49 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report iii R:\ ll·l 156\ Cl:'>-ll(, R,,nton :\ich'i \T,l.',k .t -DR ()A -l)C:\ 11l-Fl II\' A "ubmilt",[ d, .LI I·-i{,·•. 1--vci ,I, 1cc frnm ,llllhor"\ D,xs for fin.ii ,1ppr,1\·,1ls\R,·nlot\ t\ tch•I F ,'.. t\ l)R fm,1] d", 1 Amphibians Bankfull Width Base Flow Best Management Practices Critical Habitat Ecosystem Electrofishing Emergent Wetlands Flap Gate Incised Infiltration Large Woody Debris Levees Management Unit iv GLOSSARY A group of vertebrate animals that spend part of their time on land and part in the water; so they are considered an intermediate form between fishes and reptiles. Amphibians must return to the water to breed and they have distinct larval and adult forms. The width of the stream channel between the top of the stream banks where, under high flow conditions, the water level would be even with the top of the banks, or in a fioodplain river, at the point just before water would spill over onto the floodplain. Base flow refers to the volume of flow in a stream or river during dry conditions, as opposed to conditions influenced by storm runoff. A method for preventing or reducing the negative effects of an activity. For example, only allowing in-stream construction to occur during times when salmon are unlikely to be present Under the Endangered Species Act, (1) the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a federally listed species on which are found physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a listed species when it is determined that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Community of organisms interacting with each other, and the environment in which they live. An in-river fish sampling method that involves capturing fish using an electric shock technique. Wetlands comprised of plants that are rooted below the water but have foliage that extends out of the water. An opening through which water may flow freely at low water elevations, but which closes automatically and prevents water from flowing in the opposite direction at higher water elevations. A term used to describe down-cutting (downward erosion) by a stream. Incision deepens and often steepens the stream channel. The passage of water through the soil surface into the soil. Coniferous or deciduous logs, limbs, or root wads 12 inches or larger in diameter and a length of at least 6.5 feet that intrude into or bridge above a stream channel. Levees are raised embankments along the edge of a river channel often constructed by humans living in low-lying areas as protection against flooding. A stock or group of stocks of fish which are clustered together for the purpose of achieving a desired spawning population. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R·\ 1).1-1 ;6\33-06 Renton a\'ich·I\ T~~k .1--DR QA-QC\ 08 FH\\' A ,ubmitl,11 dr,,fl~\R,·, ,,,ni docs frnni <1ulhors\ D<1c~ fr,. fm~l ,1ppro, ab\ Rent,m '\:1-:kel F & ,\ DR fin,11 <lor 2 Ordinary High Water Mark Peak Flow Primary Constituent Elements Refugia Habitat Revetments Riffle Riparian Riparian Habitat River Mile Salmonid Scrub-shrub Wetlands Substrate Trapezoidal Channel GLOSSARY The elevation marking the highest water level which is maintained for a sufficient time to leave evidence upon the landscape, such as a clear. natural line impressed on the bank, changes in soil character, or the presence of litter and debris. Generally, it is the point where the natural vegetation changes from predominately aquatic to upland species. Peak flow refers to a specific period of time when the discharge of a stream or river is at its highest point. Physical and/or biological habitat features needed for the survival and successful reproduction of a species. An area of a stream that provides shelter or safety for aquatic species. Revetments are facings of stone, concrete, or even such materials as tires, placed on a riverbank or levee to protect them from erosion. A shallow area of a stream or river in which water flows rapidly over a rocky or gravelly stream bed. Pertaining to anything connected with or immediately adjacent to the banks of a stream, river, or other waterbody. The aquatic and terrestrial habitat adjacent to streams, lakes, estuaries, or other waterways. Riparian habitat areas are also commonly referred to as riparian buffers. The distance of a point on a river measured in miles from the river's mouth along the low-water channel A fish of the fish family Salmonidae; for example, salmon, trout, and chars. Wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. Vegetation in scrub- shrub wetlands includes tree shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that may be stunted because of environmental conditions. Scrub-shrub wetlands are flooded for extended periods dur;ng the growing season. Organic and mineral materials that form the bed of a body of water. A water conveyance channel such as a stream or ditch with a flat bottom and steep side slopes. Trapezoidal channels are typically used to convey high volumes of water such as flood or stormwaler flows. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report V R \il-1 l'i(,\.'3-ll(, f.!c·nlu11 NiLh·I\ I ,,~k -1 -DR (Ji\-()(\ II~ FH \V,\ ~ubmil\,, ,>1-Hl·, I-'., ·, , .. , ·cl ,;.,c·s frt>m Ju!lwrs\ I )oc~ for fm,11 ,ipprn,·,ils\ R,·nlon "\:1<·kd F & A ] )l\_:1 ri,d.d,~ 3 4 BMPs BRPS CMP css CWA CZMA Ecology EMAP EPA ESA ESU GP HHD HOV IDT LWD NMFS OHWM PCEs RM SMA USFWS WDFW WRIA WSDOT 5 vi ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT Best Management Practices Black River Pump Station Corrugated Metal Pipe Context Sensitive Solutions Clean Water Act Coastal Zone Management Act Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program U.S Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Evolutionarily Significant Unit General-purpose lane Howard Hansen Dam High-occupancy Vehicle Interdisciplinary Team Large Woody Debris National Marine Fisheries Service Ordinary High Water Mark Primary Constituent Elements River Mile Shoreline Management Act U S Fish and Wildlife Service Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Water Resource Inventory Area Washington State Department of Transportation Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\ 0--1156\ 33-06 Rt•nton Nickl•I\ T <1sk l -DR QA-QC\ 08 FHWA ~ut>mitt,11 dr,,fh\ R,·,·i~,·d du<.~ hum c1uthor~\Doc~ for (mal <1ppn,,·<1ls\RL·n ton !\ id.cl F & ,\ DR fin.il.cl,l<" 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 INTRODUCTION What is the Renton Nickel Improvement Project? 1-405 Project -Arteria l Road -Freeway Q Muno c,pality Lake Park The Renton Nickel Improve m ent Project is a highway expa nsion project that w ill improve mobility and sa fety throu gh Tukw ila and Renton by adding lanes to 1-405 and S R 167. On 1-405 , this proje ct begins just east of the 1-5/1-405 interchange i n T ukwila and extends north past t he Cedar River to the SR 169 (Maple Valley Highway) interchange . The project will build an addi tiona l lane both northbound and southbound betwe en 1-5 and SR 169. On SR 167, th e project wi ll exten d the southbound high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane north to 1-405 and add a southbound auxi lia ry lane from 1-405 to the SW 41 st Street off-ramp. These limits comprise the study area for the proj ect. Pr ior to planning this spec ifi c project, WS DOT c reated the 1-405 Corridor Program. This prog ram provides a comprehens ive strategy t o reduce co ngestion and improve mobility throughout th e 1-405 corridor. The corr id or begins at the 1-5 intercha nge in the city of Tukw ila and extends northward 30 miles to the 1-5 interchange in Lynnwood . The program's purpose is to provi de an efficient, integrated , and multimodal system of trans portation solutions. Us ing the 1-405 Corridor Program 's Selected Alternative as the Master P lan to improve 1-405 , WS DOT de ve loped relatively low cost, congestion re li ef roadway improvements as an interim step in achiev ing the Master Plan . As part of this interi m step WSDOT began to define the Renton Nickel Improvement Project. The Renton N icke l Improvement Proj ect was developed as a fi rst step to provide a focus ed strategy to improve 1-405 between 1-5 in Tukwila and SR 169 in R ento n and SR 167 southbound from 1-405 to SW 41 s t Street. See Exhibit 1 for the locatio n of this proj ect re lative to the 1-405 corridor. Th is d iscip lin e report analyzes two project alternatives: the No Bu ild Alternative and the Build A lternative . 4 7 Exhibit 1. Project Vicinity Map R en ton N ickel I1npro11e1nent Project Fis h eries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Re port 1 R:\l4 I :;(,\).1-11'1 Re nton '\;i. l d \ I <l"'l .i . 1)1{ ~.\-Q(_ \O.S HI \\:\ ..,ul,111i tul l:1.1·t--. I~,\ 1-.,·.; .t,\v, t ro111 ,1u tlwr~\D,.~·.., for fin,,! ,1pprn\ .,1-.\Rl'llhlll \;t\ \...rl F & A DR fm ,lld oi. 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 [NTIWDUCTION Existing On-ramp On-ramp with proposed auxiliary lane What is the No Build Alternative? The No Build Alternative assumes that only routine activities such as road maintenance, repair, and safety improvements would take place over the next 20 years . This alternative does not include improvements that would increase roadway capacity or reduce congestion. For these reasons , it does not satisfy the project's purpose-improve 1-405 between 1-5 in Tukwila and SR 169 in Renton and SR 167 southbound from 1-405 to SW 41 st Street. The No Build Alternative has been evaluated in this discipline report to establish a baseline for comparing the effects associated with the Build Alternative. What is the Build Alternative? The new lanes that will be built under this project are: • An 1-405 northbound general-purpose (GP) lane from 1-5 to the SR 167 off-ramp . • An 1-405 northbound auxiliary lane from the SR 167 to 1-405 on-ramp to the SR 169 off-ramp. • An 1-405 southbound auxiliary lane from the SR 169 to 1-405 on-ramp to the SR 167 off-ramp. • An 1-405 southbound GP lane from the SR 167 to 1-405 on-ramp to the 1-5 off-ramp. • A SR 167 southbound auxiliary lane from 1-405 to the SW 41 st Street off-ramp . In addition, the existing inside HOV lane will be extended north to 1-405 from its present starting point in the vicinity of SW 21st Street. See Exhibits 2 through 9 for detailed maps of the project features. In addition to adding auxiliary and GP lanes to 1-405 and SR 167, this project will provide the following improvements . lrn prov in g Int erchan ges : Minor modifications will be made to the ramps at the SR 167 interchange: • The one-lane ramp from northbound 1-405 to SR 167 will be widened to a 2-lane off connection , which provides a dedicated lane to southbound SR 167 and one to northbound Rainer Avenue. See Exhibit 5. • The two consecutive single-lane off-ramps from southbound 1-405 to SR 167 will be revised. See Exhibit 5. Renton N i c k e l Improv ement Project 2 Fisheries and Aquatic Re source s Discipline Report R:\O..l l:;6\.11-06 RPntnn f\"irkd \Task 4 · DR QA-QC\O...C: fl l\\'A subm i tt .:il drafb;\R1 ·\'t'-<'<.i doc ... fr1m"I iluthor<.\Ooc.., for fm.it ili pprovaJ.;.\R~·nlon :\.'icb•I F & A OR finill.dot D D • D 90 ~ Proposed Retam1n9 Wall Proposed Detention Pond New Paverr-ent Areas of Const ruct•on Easement Acqui!,jtion Poree/ Acqu,sitron Ex,stmg ROW Proposed ROW I -405 Northbound bound Improvements : A general-pu r pose lane wil l be added by restriping t he ex isting pavement and adding pavement up to 15 feet t o the outside at some locations. I -405 Southbound Improvements : A general-pu rpose lane will be added by restriping t he ex isting pavement and adding pavement up to 15 fe et to the outside at some loca tions. 91 Exhibit 2. Project Overview Section 1 R enton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report I N TIWD U CTI ON -, I-405 NORTHBOUND Se Existing Feel t 3 R\t41 .:;f,\1l4l(1 R1.·n lnn '.\.11 k,,J\ T,1-.k ~ -OR QJ\-(.)C\tlS Fl lWA "11 h11::1 1.1 1l 1.,t : ... l \i ,,,,,1 ,l dn," fr Pm ,1u th1,r-,\D,x" fot tm ,11 a pJXO\dl,\ R1..'n llln '\1,._kl·l t-& t\ l)R f111<1I drx 92 I N Tl~OIJLIC TION Existing a· ~a a Prop osed -Proposed Ecology Embankment -Proposed Retain,ng Wall D Proposed De tentio n Pond New Pavement D Areas of Construction Easemen t Acqu1s1t 1on • Parcel Acqu,s ,r1on D Exist,ng ROW ~ Proposed ROW I -405 Northbot.r1d Improvements : A general-purpose la ne will be added by r es tripi ng the existing pa ve ment and adding pavement u p t o 15 f eet t o t he out side at some location s. I -405 Southbound Improvements: A ge neral-purpose lane will be added by r estriping t he ex ist ing paveme nt and add ing pavement up t o 15 feet to t he out side at some locat ions. 1-405 SOUTHBOUND ee Ex isting 0 250 t !IIOIUI f-cct 93 Exhibit 3. Project Overview Section 2 4 Renton N ickel Improv ement Project Fish eri es and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\0-ll :;6\.11-06 R,·nton '\J1 d ,1·l\ T a ... l 4 -O R QA-QC\08 FH \.\'A s ub m1tt.al dri1 fh\Kl'\'i'-l'd dt»<.·, fnim <1 l 1tlwr.,\D<.t<.:~ for fin.al ,,ppw\·als\Rt._•n ton '.'Jickl'i F & A D R fin,11.ch\C 94 95 D D • D L2d .rn a®A Existing ::? @@.a. Proposed Ret a,nmg Wall Proposed DetYttion Pond New Pavemen t Areas of Construe tion Easement Acqu1 s1t 1on Parce l A cqu1S 1T1on Exist,og ROW Proposed ROW Existing I -405 Northbot11d Improvements : A general-purpose lane will be adaed by restripirg the e xisting pav e ment and adding pavement up to 15 feet t o t he outs,de at some lo cations . The ex1sr ,ng Spri ngb r ook Creek a nd Oakesdale Ave nue bridges wd l be replacea w11h a sing le wider structure. I-405 Southbound I mproveme nts : A general-purpose lane will be adaed by r estrip1rg t he existing pavement and adding pavement u p to 15 feet t o t he outside at some locations. The ex,st,ng Sp'1ngbrook Cr eek and Oakesdale Av e nue bridges will be re placed w ,rh a sing le wider structure. Exhibit 4. Project Overview Section 3 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Re port I N TRODUCTION r eel t 5 I~ \1 4 I l6\ \ l-11(1 K,:nh.111 '\;id,l.'I\ I ,1,k 4 -l)I{ (J \-(J(_ \118 1-1 1\\ 1\ ... ul,1 ,,11 · 1 , 1.1 1 t-. I~, ·. 1,,.,. thlf.. ... f rn111 ,wtlwr ... \ l ~,._" h 1r f m,11 (l ppn1\ ,11'-\ Rentnn "\:1d,L'i F & 1\ DR fm,1 1 d tM 96 I N Tl~ODU CTI O N s " Existing a a 1-400 Nort hbou,d l"1)rovements : -Proposed Ecology Embankm ent A gerer al-pi.rpose lane will be added""' to the SR 16 7 rnterchonge 1Y1d m aux iliary lone woll be added from the SR 16 7 to I -405 on -romp north These lanes w,11 be odded by restrrp.ng the e.x 1st1""9 ?)Vetnent and oddr""9 pavement up lo 15 feet to the ou1Sidea t some loc atroris Proposed Retaining Wall D Proposed Detent,on Pond t\ew Pavement D Areas of Construct ion Easement Acquisition • Parcel Acqwsi tion D Exi sting ROW ~ Proposed ROW I -4-m Southbol.l'ld If'1l)r0~ments: An oo x1l1cry lone wrll be adde d up to the I-405 lo SR 107 on-ro"'l' and o genen::l ·p.Jrpose ICJ\e well be added south of the interchange. These la nes wdl be added by re.striping the existing pavemen t oM adding pa'-'ement up t o 15 feet to the oots,de at some locat.ons SR 167 Southbo"1d Improw,m<nts, An ouxi licry lane will be added by re.striping exist ing pave~nt aM addt'9 up t o 19 feet of pavement at t he outside ot some tooot,ons. The exist ing HOV lcr1e will be eJ(terded no rth from SW 21st Street t o t he inter change with 1-405 a Existing 6:s Proposed e e§ Existing @at ~ ~ § 250 t Feel 97 Exhibit 5. Project Overview Section 4 6 Renton Nickel T,npro ve,nent Project Fisheries and Aquatic Re sources Discipline Report R \CH156 \33·06 Rl·nhm Ni1..l-.l'I\ J'.;1 sk ,t -DR QA-(._X_"\08 Fl I\\'A subrmtta l draft-.\Rl '\'ist•d docs from ;lulhors \Oncs for fin;1l ~ippro\·,1 1 ... \Ren lon \lickl'I F & A DR fina l.d tx: Proposed Rela1nm9 'Wall D Proposed Derent,on Pond New Pavement D Are.as of Consrf'uction Easement Acqws1t1on • Parcel A cquis1r1on D Exost ing ROW 98 ~ Proposed ROW Existing 8 ® ~·~· Proposed SR 167 Improvement s: In addition t o ext ending -he HOV :ane north from SW 21st Street, an au xil iary lane vi,1/ be added by restri p ing t he existing pavement and addin g pavement up t o 19 fe et to the outside at some locations. 99 Exhibit 6. Project Overview Section 5 R en ton N ickel l111pro ve111ent Project Fisheries and Aquatic Re s ources Discip l in e R e port I N TR OD U CTI ON ,(l(l t 7 R\O-ll=itl\.T'.-1 16 RL'l1l\lll >.h.J,...:·1 \ l,bh. l ~ DI~ QA-()C\08 rl I\\A "-Uh1 •1tt.1I dr·,1 t :-... I\,., t"i ·d d ~"I\.'!-t rorn .. rnt flpr,\_D,x ... f\,r ti11~1! .1ppnl\t1l"\Re11ll111 '\.rLk.e l I-& A l >R f111.il i.h)(_ 100 101 I NTROD UCTION ~ ~~ Existing ~ ~ ~~ --Proposed Ret aining Wall D Proposed De tention Pond New Povemenr D N"eas of Construction Easement Acqu1:si r ,on • Parcel Acquis it ion D Ex,st,ng ROW ~ Proposed ROW SR 167 Improvements: An auxiliary lane will be added by r es t riping t he existing pavement and adding pavement up t o 19 f eet to the outsi de at some locations. The new lane will tie into the existing ramp connection t o SW 41st St reet. Exhibit 7. Project Overview Section 6 0 250 t Feet 8 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline R e port K:\lJ.-1)56\33-06 Rt•n ton .\Jickl'I\T ai.,k -l · D R QA-QC\O~ Fl 1\.\'A <.uhm1Ual d rafb\Rl'\ 1~·d <.h.X!-; from .iuthor..,\Don, for finJ I a ppro,·als\R('ntnn \hcJ..1•1 F & A D R fin~1Ldn( 102 103 -Proposed Ecology Embankment Proposed Reta,n,ng Wall D Proposed Detent,on Pond New Paverrent D Areas of Consrruction Easement Acqu1s1t1on. • Par'Cel Acqu1S1t1on D Ex,sr"'g ROW fZ3 Proposed ROW/EasemenT I-405 Northbo und I mprovements : An aux iliary lane will be added by restriping the ex isting pavement and adding pavement cp •o 15 'eet to r he outs,de at some locations. I -405 Southbound I mprovements: An a uxrl iary lone wi ll b e added by restr,ping the ex isting pavement and addrng pavement up to 24 feet to the outsrde at s ome loca t ,ons. Be ns on Rd S Improvements: The Benson Rd S overpass wrll be reconstruc ted and realigned to the west of its current loca•,on The new overpass wrll have 2 lanes wrth 5-foot brke lanes on b o th sides and a 6 foot s idewalk on the west side. Exhibit 8. Project Overview Section 7 Renton N ickel Tmprov e111e nl Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report I NTRODUCTION I-405 NORTHBOUND ~e Existing e 2!f a· 0 Existing ii ~ ~~ 250 500 t Feet 9 R:\0-l l C::.6\ 11 D6 R,•nhm :\:u.-l-.d\ I ,1'-'k .J -I )~~:\-~(.'\ DI:-, H l\\ A ...,ul·T 1tLII d · 111-.. l\.v\ -.,·d ~k~c :-frnrn .,uthor'-\ D,K ... for fm.1 ! ,1pprn,·,11.., \R,:ntnn '\ tl kel t-& A DK 1111.11 JP'- 104 I NTIWDUCTION O· WS® Existin g aae Existin g I-405 N orthbound Improvements : -Proposed Ecology Embankment An auxiliary lane will be added by rest rip ing the existing pavement and adding pavement up t o 15 feet to the outside at some locations. --Proposed Reta,n ,ng Wall D Proposed Detention Po nd New Pavement D Areas of Construct ion Easement A cq uisition Parcel Acquisition Ex ,st,ng ROW Proposed ROW I -405 Southbound Improvements : An auxi I iary lane will be added by restriping the existing pavement and adding pavement up to 15 feet t o the ou t side at some locat ions. 0 250 500 t Feet 105 Exhibit 9. Project Overview Section 8 10 Renton N ic kel Improvem ent Project Fish e ries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\04 !Sb\33-06 Rl•nton Nickl'!\ T.,sJ... l -DR QA~QC\08 Fi fWA submitt,\I d r,1f ts\ R'-'\'isl'd d1..lcs from ,rn thors \ Dt l(_·s for fin,11 Jppnw,1ls\Rt.•nton '.\."ick(.->I F & A DR tin,11.d or 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 A cross culvert under 1-405. These culverts go under roads, providing a means to move stormwater from one side of the road to the other. Renton Nicke l Improvement Project I N Tl{Ol>U C T/O N /111J1 rovi11g Ben so n Road: The Benson Road overpass wi l l be replaced and realigned to accommodate the so uthbo und auxiliary lane on 1-405 as well as future improve ments to 1-405 as shown on Exhibit 8. Imp rovements on Benson Road include a 6-foot sidew alk on the west side and 5-foot bike lanes on both sides. The proposed section wil l match into the improvements that the City of Renton plans to co nstruct on both ends. iVidc 11i11g or n cplac in g Bridges : Several bridges w it hin the study area will be widened or replaced based on present geometry, cost, life expectancy, and exis ting soil conditions. T o construct the new lanes, the project will : • Widen Talbot Road Bridge on both the northbound and the southbound sides . See Exhibit 8. • Replace Springbrook Creek Side Channel Bridge and Oakesdale Avenue Bridge with a single structure. See Exhibit 4. The project wil l not affect the 1-405 bridges over the G reen River, SR 181 , Union Pacific and Burlington No rt hern Santa Fe railroads , Lind Avenue , or the Cedar River. The project will also not affect the Cedar Avenue or Renton Avenue overpasses. The roadway wi ll be restriped in these areas to accommodate the new lanes . The Springbrook Culvert under 1-405 is not planned to be modified. Rct11i 11ing W all s: Widening 1-405 and SR 167 will requ ire retaining wal ls to minimize the construction foot print and minimize right-of-way acquisition . Reta ining walls will also help avoid and minimize effects to utilities , properties, wetlands, and other sen sitive areas . Culve rt s: WSDOT anticipates that construction will a ffect some existing cross culverts. Associated culvert improvements include extending the existing stru ctures due to widening the roadway and stabilizing c ul vert ends with rock or retaining wa ll s. The 1-405 Tea m will conduct a hydrau lic analysis of the culverts t o e nsure that the modifications will have no effect on the base flood elevations. See the Fisheries and Aqu atic Reso urces Discipline Report for detailed disc ussion on fish passage and culvert improvements . Noise Wnlls: One noise wall wil l be built on the no rthbound side of the freeway as shown on Exhibits Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report 11 K\141 i(,\ °'"\-tl(1 1~1.:n w n '\;H.kl"i\ I c1..,J.. -l -[)R QA-(?< \0·" HI\\ A ..,u J,1111 t d ,!1 1lt'-l.Z1·\ :-., d d nc-. frnrn ,1uth ,1r ... \D 1K-. for ftn,1 l .ippn•v,1l'-\R(•nt\)I) >.id,\,] F & J\ DR fin,\] d1K 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 I N TR O DUCTI ON 12 rop Filter Fabric atch to Erosion Blanket ROADWAY SHOULDER Grovel Borrow 5 and 8. Th e wall will begin at Talbot Road and end west of th e intersection of South 14th Street and South 15th Street. This wa ll will be approximate ly 2 ,150 feet long a nd 18 feet tall. How will stormwater from the project be managed? Stormwater from th e project will be managed for both quality and peak flows using currently accepted best management pra ctices (BMPs). The 1-405 Team has designed the stormwater management f acilities to comply with the fol lowin g guidelines and procedures : • WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16 , March 2004 • WSDOT Hydraulics Manua l M 23-03, March 2004 Stormwater Treatment Facilities The project wi ll add new impervious surface within the study a rea, most of which wi ll be within th e Springbrook Creek basin . Th is project w ill treat runoff for an area equi valent to 100 percent of these new surfaces. Treatment will be accomp li shed by a combination of fac ilities . In most of the study area, eco logy embankments wil l be added to capture runoff from the edge of the pavement and provide water quality treatment. The e co logy embankments a lso serve to th e n convey runoff to the receiving waters or to the flow c ontrol facilities as required . The project also includes a c ombined sto rmwater quality wetland and detention pond that addresses water qua lity and flow control in one faci lity. Exhibits 2 through 9 show the location of stormwater facilities that wi ll be built for this project. Match to Existing Slope Depth Depends an S t orage Requ ireme nts Ecology Embankment Cross-Section R enton N ick e l Improvem ent Projec t Fisheries and Aqua tic R e source s Discipline Report R:\O.l156 \33-06 l~l'l11on N ickt.'I\T,1sk t -OR Q/\-QC\Ofi Fl l\\'A subm1tt~1l d1~1ft~\Rl'Vbl•d d1.'C._.s fwm authnr ... \Dofs for fm a l ,lpprov;lls;\Rl·nlon '\."id,l'I F & A DR tinc1I d<.'<. 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 Existing spill control pond at the 1-405/SR 169 interchange. A pond liner is included to protect the City of Renton aquifer. Renton Nickel Improv ement Project I N TRODUCTION Drainage Collection and Conveyance Ex is ting drainage structures and systems wi ll be retai ned in places where they will not be disturbed by new construction. Where areas are modified to inclu de water quality treatment, existing collection and conveyance will be modified to in c lu de or direct flows to ecology embankment BMPs for enhanced treatment of the runoff. \;\1/zat environmental and utilities issues h~lluenced the project design? Thro ughout the development of the Renton Nickel Im provement Project design, numerous design refin ements were proposed that helped to avoid or minim ize negative effects to the environment. Influence on the project design came from: • Soil Conditions: the decision to widen or replace many of the project bridges was largely dependent on local soil conditions . • Noise: one noise wall was added to the project because of projected noise levels. • Wetland Locations: retaining walls reduced effects on wetlands. • Utilities: retaining walls were chosen over fill and pond sites were adjusted to minimize impacts to exist ing utilities. • Historical Sites: a proposed stormwater pond was shifted to avo id a historical site-the Renton Coal Mine Hoist Foundation. What design features help to avoid and minimize project effects? Seve ral design features have the benefit of avoiding or minim izing potentia l effects due to the project. Th e des ign features are described from south to north be low . I-405, I-5 to SR 167 Between the northbound 1-405 on-ramp from the Wes tfield Shoppingtown Mall (Southcenter) and the Green River Bridge , the 1-405 Team proposes bui lding a retaining wall as shown on Exhibit 2. Building this wa ll avoids effects on the City of Seattle 's 60-inch Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report 13 ts:·' 14 J=ih \ n-06 KL•11h111 '\id,t 'I\ I ...... 1,... -I· ()R (.)A-<.,.)C\tlS Fl l \\'A -;ul..,nit :t 11 dr.itl·· :\.,,. :·-nl d,x:-. •mn, ,wth,n·.\D,x-.. ti)r fmi1l ,l p p rnv,1l ... \l·frnton .\:u kt·I F N A OR f111,1l.d1x 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 I N TUO/JL/C f'IO N 14 water line and also reduces the encroachment on the City of Seattle's 30-foot right-of-way . In addition, the 1-405 Team proposes reducing the width of the northbound right shoulder in this location . Reducing the shoulder width provides more distance between the water line and the retaining wall. The 1-405 T earn proposes to construct a retaining wall from the on-ramp at Tukwila Parkway to the Green River. This wall av oids the need to construct a fill slope that would extend into Gilliam Creek. See Exhibit 2. The 1-405 Team proposes providing a narrower outside shoulder on northbound 1-405 at the Green River Bridge. The shoulder will vary from 10 to just over 3 feet at the west abutment of the existing bridge . Narrowing the shoulder avoids modifications to the existing bridge. As a result , the design also avoids effects to the river, the 100-year floodplain , the ordinary high water level , and adjacent riparian zones. At the SR 181 interchange , the bridge and ramp will be restriped to provide the new general-purpose lane and ramp improvements. This approach avoids the need to widen the existing SR 181 Bridge, reconstruct the SR 181 interchange , or modify the Southcenter Boulevard crossing of the Green River. This in turn avoids relocating or diverting the Interurban Trail , which goes under the bridge . See Exhibit 3. The 1-405 Team proposes to construct a narrower exit gore from 1-405 to the northbound ramp at the SR 167 interchange as shown in Exhibit 5. By building a narrower exit gore, the project can be constructed within the existing right-of-way. This has the benefit of avoiding right-of-way acquisition , avoiding effects to the wetland outside the right-of-way, and avoiding effects to the existing Lind Avenue Bridge . SR 167, southbound from I-405 to SW 41st Street The 1-405 T earn proposes to build a retaining wall along a large portion of the west edge of SR 167 southbound instead of an earth fill slope . See Exhibits 6 and 7 . The retaining wall minimizes effects on three wetlands. The retaining wall has the added benefit of minimizing right-of-way needs and reduces the effect on existing utility crossings , in particular, the City of Seattle's 60-inch water line and Olympic Petroleum 's two high pressure pipelines, which all cross under SR 167. l~enton Nickel Improv ement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R \0-il ~1\ -n-Of, Rnltnn \;1c1-.d\T<1,l-, 4 -UR QA-(JC\08 Fl IY\'A ..,ubm ill,1 1 d r.ilt~\Rt.•\'i">l-"d d<.'<.:s from du th(ir!->\Dc~s for final appro\'al'-\Rl'nlon :'\'ifkt,J F & A OR final d oc I I 272 I 273 274 275 I 276 277 278 279 I 280 281 282 I 283 284 I 285 286 287 288 I 289 290 291 I 292 293 294 I 295 296 297 I 298 299 300 I 301 302 303 I 304 305 306 I 307 308 309 I 310 311 312 I 313 314 315 I 316 317 I I Rento n Coa l Mine Hoi s t Foundati on site look ing w est R c11to11 N ickel I 111pro 11e111 e11t Project 1/\'TR O DUCTI ON I-405, SR 167 to SR 169 The 1-405 Team proposes to add a lane by restriping 1-40 5 northbound next to the Talbot Hill retai n ing wall imm ediately east of the SR 167 interchange. R es triping instead of widening avoids the need to reco nstruct the existing Talbot Hill retaining wall and avoi ds effects on properties south of 1-405 in this area . Between Talbot Road and the "S-Curves", northbound 1-40 5 will be widened to achieve standard lane and shou lder widths . Most of this length will be supported by re taining walls to minimize impacts to Thunder Creek, adjacent properties , and the existing c ut slope so u th of 1-405 . Whe re northbound and southbound 1-405 passes under the Renton Avenue and Cedar Avenue ove rpasses , the 1-405 Team proposes adding lanes by restriping . This design avoids replacing the two overpasses ; however, the available area does not allow the standard shoulder and lane widths. The 1-405 T earn proposes using retaining walls to support widening southbound 1-405 south of the Cedar Aven ue overpass . Using retaining walls versus a fill slope, avoids encroaching on Cedar Avenue and Main Aven ue in Renton . The 1-405 T earn shifted a proposed stormwater detention pond 300 feet west of milepost 2 .9 . This locat ion avoids the existing Renton Coal Mine Hoist Fo u ndation site south of Benson Road , whi c h is on the Na tional Register of Historic Places . T o support the fill required to widen the roadway on the north side of 1-405 next to the outfall for the o rigi nal Rolling Hills Creek culvert, the design uses a retai ning wall. By using the retaining wall , the project improvements at this location can be constructed wi th o ut affecting the existing culvert. The 1-405 Team proposes a non-standard design for the 1-405 to SR 167 exit ramp . The changes from the design standards include not providing a recovery lane , narrowing the distance between the through lane a nd ramp , and providing narrower shoulders . These featu res will avoid effects to the existing Rolling Hills Cree k/Thunder H ills Creek channel located between 1-405 and the Renton Cinema complex as shown in Exhi bit 5 . Using retaining walls along the west side of Benson Road avoids effects to Rolling Hills Creek and the wetlands east of Talbot Road . Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Disciplin e Re port 15 J{ 'q,JI~,· l1 ;}h K1..•nhm '\1~ll'I \ r.1 .. k. ~ -(lR (J \~( t)" H 1\\.-\ .. ut,1111' 1' ,, Tl • '· , ,I"'"' .... tnm1 ,n1tlu11 .. • l~x .. to r lirMI ,1 pp1 p \,1r,, K1.•11ti11 1 '{l J..d I & \ DI{ 111),11 do, 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 3 60 361 362 I fl<ODUCTIO N This rendering shows the new Bens on Road overpass with the 1-405 Urban Design Guidelines applied. 16 What benefits will the project provide? The Build Alternative will benefit the area by reducing congestion at chokepoints, reducing the duration of congestion during peak commuter travel hours , and improving freight movement. This section of 1-405, from the 1-5 interchange to SR 169 , is congested due to large traffic volumes and merging and diverging traffic. The new lanes will help relieve congestion and improve safety by providing motorists with more time and extra room to accelerate or decelerate and move into and out of the stream of traffic when getting on and off the freeway. This provides a smoother transition for motorists getting on and off 1-4 05 in Tukwila and Renton and helps decrease rear-end and sideswipe collisions . Because the project reduces congestion approaching the SR 167 interchange, it complements the completed so uthboun d 1-405 to southbound SR 167 flyover ramp . This project will construct one noise wall along northbound 1-405 from Talbot Road to the intersection of South 14th Street and South 15th Street. This wall will benefit residents in that area by lowering the overall noise levels . Another benefit of this project is that it begins the app li cation of the Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) design choices made by the communities within the 1-405 corridor. The Benson Road realignment will reflect the most comprehensive application of these design choices as explained further in the next section . How will the project incorporate community design preferences? The Renton Nickel Improvement Project is being planned , developed , and designed following guidelines called Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS). These guidelines establi sh the community design preferences used to design the proje ct features. The 1-405 Urban Design Guidelines Manual , incorporating the communities' CSS design preferences , developed for use in preparing th e Renton Nickel Improvement Project contract documents. The selected 1-405 theme of "Culture , Nature, and Progress ," with nature being the dominant theme , will be carried into corridor-wide and local 1-405 design s. Th e ne w Benson Road ov e rpass is th e main proj ect feature that will rec eive CSS treatm ent. The Renton icke l l 111pro ve111 ent Projec t Fisheries and Aquatic Resource s Discipli ne Report R\tl-11~\13--06 R,:ntt..,n '-'.1d,1..·l \ r.1,k ~ -Ok Q \-<..._1C\(~ fH \,\ A ... u bm ittJ I d r,1f~\Kt·vi~,1 do .. -~ fw m .rnthor--\l>o, .... tt,r fin.d ,1rrn.w,,f,\R'-·nton \.'Kt-d F & A OR tin,11 d1."- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 At-grade construction for this project will likely be staged similar what is shown above. Here, the southbound lanes of 1-5 were shifted toward the median and a concrete barrier closed off the shoulder t o provide crews a safe work area. Renton N ickel llllpro ve111ent Project I NTl~O l )UC /"I ON replace ment bridge over Springbrook Creek and Oak esdale Avenue will also receive CSS treatments. The remaining sections will be designed to match in colo r and vegetation type only , as many sections will be affected by construction of future Master P lan projects. During future Master Plan phases for the overall 1-405 corridor, the 1-405 Urban Design Guide lines will be applied throughout. How will the project be constructed? Construction of the entire Renton Nickel Improvement Project is expected to take two years, beginning in Nove mber 2007 and being completed at the end of 200 9 . However, construction activity will not be constant for the entire study area throughout this tim e, and in some locations , the work will take substantially less time than two years. Construction will pose some mino r inconveniences because of locali zed travel dela ys due to temporary lane closures and narrowed lanes and shoulders . At-Grade Construction At-grade construction, which occurs on the same elevation as the existing lanes , will be staged to mini mize t ra ffic delays and detours . Typically , lanes are sh ifted toward the med ian. WSDOT then places a concrete barrier to close off the shoulder. This staging allows construction to occur safely without closing la ne s for the duration of construction. Access to constru cti on areas will occu r from the roadway side to minimize property effects . Bridge Construction Construction o f the 1-405 bridges will occur in multiple stag es to minimize traffic delays and detours. During the first stage, traffic will be shifted toward the 1-405 median and the existing lanes and shoulders will be narrowed sligh tly to allow widening of the existing structure or co ns truction of the new bridge depending on the design. In the next stage, traffic will be shifted onto the new br id ge area. If the bridge is being replaced rather than simp ly widened , the old structure will be demolished after traffic is shifted to the new bridge. The new Ben son Road ove rpass wi ll a lso be staged. The new structure wil l be built to the west, while the exis ting overpass remain s in service. After traffic has been shifted onto the new overpass, the existing structure will be demolished. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Disciplin e Report 17 1-!. \ll-1 Fi6\'.',1-0t~ Rt..'11tP11 '.:i'-\...d\ J,1~\... -t -DR (.)A-(...)C \tl.~ Fl I\\A "l1l•111 1:t ii dr ,n .... l'\v •: ,\I d ti<.:~ fn1111 ,1U th,,r...,\Dr,, .. -.. l\1r f11 1<il dppn .. l\,1l,.,\R\.•11w 11 '\:ti.J,c1 t-& A DR fi11 ,1l.th11.. TN TRODUCTION 408 Staging Areas 409 Construction staging areas along 1-405 and SR 167 410 will be within the WSDOT right-of-way. Potential 411 staging areas have been identified as shown on 412 Exhibits 2 through 9 . 413 Traffic Control 414 Detour agreements with the local agencies will be 415 obtained after WSDOT awards the contract. A traffic 416 control plan will be approved by WSDOT prior to 417 starting construction. The plan 's primary objectives 418 will be to provide a safe facility, to streamline the 419 construction schedule, and to minimize reductions to 420 existing traffic capaci ty . To minimize effects on traffic , 421 the duration of activities will be minimi zed and 422 reductions in capacity will be targeted to a period 423 when they will have the least effect. 424 Why do we consider fisheries and aquatic resources as we 425 plan this project? 426 Understanding how the Renton Nickel Improvement 427 Project will affect fisheries and aquatic resources is an 428 integral part of the environmental review process. 429 Various federal , state, and local regulations exist to 430 ensure protection and long-term preservation of these 431 resourc es, and the regulations help to guide 432 development of various project elements. This report 433 quantifies the effects to fisheries and aquatic 434 resources , both beneficial and negative , stemming 435 from the Renton Nickel Improve ment Project. 436 Potential effects to fisheries and aquatic resources 437 from the project include altering water quality and 438 quantity conditions, modifying aquatic and riparian 439 habitats, and changing the amount of habitat 440 accessible by fish and other aquatic species . 441 Fisheries and aquatic resources are defined as 442 aquatic environments, such as streams, rivers, and 443 lakes, and the aq uatic-dependant organisms that 444 inhabit those environments. These res ou rces are 445 important elements of the ecosystem in which we live 446 and the significance of these resources for food , 447 livelihood , employment , income , and cultural value is 448 widely recognized. The habitats in which fish and 449 other aquatic organisms live also provide valuable 450 habitat and food sources for various terrestrial 451 species . 18 R enton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\041 5h\33-06 Rl·n ton 'J1 ck,•I\T ,1-.k 4 -OR QA-QC\O~ Fl t\.\'A "ub111itt.:1l dr.:tft~\R!!vi sl•d dc1Cs from ,mthors\DlX-S for fin ,1l ,1 r rro\',1J..,\Rrn ton 1"\!'ick<:I F & A DR f1n.:1 l doc TN TRODUCTIO N 452 What are the key points of this report? 453 T he Renton Nickel Improvement Project study area 454 con tains a variety of important fisheries and aquatic 455 reso urces that are integral to the long-term viability 456 a nd sustainability of the ecosystems in the study area. 457 The No Build Alternative would have few direct effects 458 o n the fisheries and aquatic resources in the study 459 a rea. This is because no streams would be removed , 460 fi ll ed, culverted , shaded , or otherwise directly 461 d is tu rbed . Riparian buffers would be minimally 462 d istu rbed through routine maintenance such as 463 mowing or brushing ; however, existing roadway- 464 re la ted stormwater r unoff patterns could result in 465 continued negative effects to aquat ic resources from 466 poor water quality from untreated stormwater and 467 la rge quantities of water stemming due to a lack of 468 stormwater volume controls (e.g., stormwater retention 469 pond s). Water quality and quantity impairment can 4 70 lead to the harm or mortality (death) of a variety of 471 aq ua tic organisms and can reduce the overall health 472 of a n ecosystem over time. 473 T he Build Alternative would hav e direct permanent 474 e ffec ts on the fisheries and aquatic resources in the 475 study area . Some of these effects would be beneficial 476 (e .g ., providing stormwater treatment facilities and 477 provi ding mitigation for impacted areas that will leave 478 the e nvironment in a more natural state than present 479 co nditions) and some negative (e .g., encroachment 480 into riparian buffers and culverting of sections of 481 certa in streams). A key effect to fisheries and aquatic 482 re sou rces from the project is overwater and/or in- 483 strea m construction in Springbrook Creek , its 484 associated side channel , and Panther Creek . Also, an 485 addi tional effect is encroachment into the riparian 486 buffe rs of Gilliam Creek, the Green River, Springbrook 487 Creek , Rolling Hills Creek, an unnamed tributary to 488 Rol ling Hills Creek, Thunder Hills Creek, Panther 489 Cree k , and a wetland on the west side of SR 167 that 490 is associated with Panther Creek. In total , 15 ,908 491 square feet of in-stream habitat and 49,552 square 492 feet of riparian buffers will be either temporarily or 493 permanently affected by the project. These effects will 494 be m itigated in accordance with applicable local, state , 495 and federal laws . 496 The Build Alternative also invol v es construction 497 activities that could temporarily affe ct fisheries and 498 aqua tic resources in the study area . These effects are 499 p ri m arily related to construction-related in-water Ren ton Nickel Improv ement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Disciplin e Report 19 l~:\01 1:::,6\ 13--06 RL•n t,111 '."\id,d \ I ,1•,I-. l D R QA <...X \tls' 1 1 H\ A ,,u b m 1:Lil d u ll·· I{,·,: ,n l due ... trnm ,mth 11rt..\Do 1.·-.. Im fm,1l ,1p p 1m ,,J-.\R1 ntn11 ,1 ... kd .. & /\ I )t-,: fr n,,I d l~ 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 I NTROD U CTI ON 20 disturbances and stream diversions , in-stream sed imentation , and stream buffer and riparian vegetation modifications. Appropriate and available construction best management practices (BMPs), such as o nl y allowing in-stream construction to occur during times when salmon are unl ike ly to be present , will be employed to minimize effects from construction . In all cases where direct temporary or permanent effects on fisheries and aquatic resources are unavoidable, mitigation actions will be implemented to compensate for affected resources. Mitigation will also help to offset any constru ction-related negative effects on fisheri es resources. Mitigation related to the project will occur either within the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (Springbrook Bank), on one or more waterbodies in the immed iate v icin ity of the project footprint (on-site mitigation), or through a combination of the Springbrook Bank and on-site mitigation sites. Renton Nickel Impro vement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\tJ..1156\3:0-06 Renhm l'\ickl'I\Tas k 4 -OR QA-QC\O.~ Fl 1\..\1 A "11hrnilt;,J draft<,\ R1.·,·1-.1.•d d 1x., frnm author.., \Docs fo r fi nc1 I <1 ppwv.a l-.\ Kl'nllin '\iLkl'i F & A l)J{ fmal.d1.,c 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 EXISTING CONDITIONS How and when was the information on fisheries and aquatic resources collected? Renton Nickel lmprovcmc11t Project Bi o logists on the 1-405 Team collected existing information on fisheries and aquatic resources in the stud y area by reviewing available literature ; performi ng internet searches; and conducting interviews with various state, county , and local agencies and tribal interests. The biologists collected additional information in the field by conducting surveys on the streams and rivers in the study area to deter mine the quantity and quality of existing riparian habitat and also through attending a series of Interdiscipl inary Team (IDT) site visits where experts in the fields of fisheries, wet lands, road design , drainage design, and permitting reviewed the natural and manmade features located in the study area. During March , April , and May of 2005, biologists su rveyed and characterized the in-stream and riparian habitats of the 10 streams and rivers where they cross ed or flowed with in the proximity of the study area: • Gilliam Creek • An unnamed tributary to Gilliam Creek • Cottage Creek • The Green River • Springbrook Creek • Panther Creek • Rolling Hills Creek • An unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek • Thunder Hills Creek • The Cedar River Hab itat features measured or described in the surveys inc l uded general stream characteristics such as lengt h , width , and depth of the waterbody, the quantity a nd quality of in-stream habitat, the nature and type of ripa rian vegetation , substrate compos ition , presence a nd size of large woody debris (LWD), and any obse rved fish use. The habitat surveys were cond ucted from 300 feet upstream to 1/4 mile Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report 21 K \ll-ll =i6 \_})-06 RL'l1:Pl1 '\11..J..L'i \ L bJ.. I DR l)A (J("\O:,,. Fl l\\ t\ "ilhm:11.1 dt.itt ... I\,·. r ... , .. ,:rn." f r om {ll.Jl ho, ... \lk"·"' f11r ft n <d .tpf•r,1,·t1l,\_Kc11h111 :\id,t •l ~ 6t A f)I{ ti 11c1l.dlx E X1STI NC CON DITlONS 560 downstream of the project footprint for each stream or 561 river. The stream surveys followed specific 562 methodologies, which are summarized in Appendix A. 563 The !-405 Team also identified existing fish passage 564 barriers in the study area . Based on the results of the 565 fish passage barrier investigation , the Washington 566 State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will 567 determine which fish passage barriers will require 568 retrofitting or replacement. 569 What kind of policies and regulations exist to protect 570 fisheries resources? 571 Fisheries and aquatic resources are protected by 572 federal , state , and local laws because of their 573 ecological functions and social value. The main 57 4 federal regulations or statutes regulating activities that 575 could affect fisheri es and aquatic resources in the 576 study area are the Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 577 401 (water quality) and 404 (discharge of materials to 578 waters of the US including wetlands), the Endangered 579 Species Act (ESA), the Rivers and Harbors Act 580 (Section 10), and the Coastal Zone Management Act 581 (CZMA). State laws that regulate these resources 582 include the State Hydraulic Code , Water Quality 583 Standards For Surface Waters Of The State Of 584 Washington, and the Shoreline Management A ct 585 (SMA) implemented through Washington 586 Administrative Code (Chapters 77.55, 90.48, and 587 90.58 RCW, respectively). Local critical area 588 ordinances are also in place to regulate effects to 589 these resources. In general , these regulations protect 590 aquatic habitats and the species , both aquatic and 591 terrestrial , that depend on these areas. 592 Is the project within a recognized tribal fishing area? 593 The Renton Nickel Improvement Project is located 594 within the tribal treaty rights for usual and accustomed 595 fishing areas of the Muckleshoot and Yakama Tribes. 596 The Muckleshoot Tribes usual and accustomed fishing 597 areas in the study area include the White, Green , 598 Cedar, and Black Rivers , and the tributaries to these 599 rivers. The Yakama Tribes usual and accustomed 600 fishing areas include the White, Green, and Black 601 Rivers , and the tributaries to these rivers. These 602 fishing areas were described in a judicial decision: 22 Renton N ick el Impro vem ent Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\0 11 56\:0.1-06 Rentnn i\"irkl'I\ Tc1sk"' -OR QA-QC\Oft Fl f\.V ,\ ..,nhnittl a l d ra fb,\ Rt>vt '-t>d dov, fr,1111 ,1utlwr~\Uoc3 f,11 fin~i l t1 ppn " <ti,\ !{1..•11tp11 \lid ,l·I t-& A DH f111a l.dU\. EXISTli\/G CON DITIONS 603 Before the Lake Washington ship cana l was 604 constructed in 1916 , Lake Was hington extended 605 fart her so uth and had its outlet th ro ugh the Black 606 a nd Duwam ish Ri vers . The Cedar River did not 607 e mpty into the lake , but rather into the Black River. 608 At the jun ction of the Cedar and Black Rivers were 609 several w inter vi llages and an important tribal 610 fishe ry. The Black River j oined the White Ri ve r to 611 form the Duwam is h River and there was another 612 important tribal settlement and fishery at th is 613 junction. Farth e r upstream , th e White River and 6 14 the Green River met and on the land b etween the 615 fo rk s was the most important and largest up-river 616 settlement and fishery.1 617 The Muckleshoot a nd Yakama Tribes and other tribes 6 18 harvest adu lt salmon from the study area p ursuant to 619 j udic ia l ly recognized treaty rights , as interpreted by the 620 Bo ldt Decision of 1974. Over the years, judicial 621 deci sions have affirmed that treaty tribes have a right 622 to ha rvest fish free of state interfe rence , subject to 623 conservation principals , to co-manage the fishery 624 resou rce with the state , and to harvest up to 50 625 pe rce nt of the harvestable fish . 2 626 What are the general habitat characteristics of the study 627 area? 628 T he Re nton Ni ckel Improvement Proj ect is primarily 629 lo cated in the lower Green Ri ver subwatershed of the 630 Gree n/Duwamish River watershed (Water Resource 631 Inve ntory Area [WRIA) 9) with the northernmost extent 632 o f the project extend ing into the Renton reach of the 633 Ceda r Ri ver in the Lake Washington Watershed 634 (WRIA 8). 635 The Green/Du wamish River wate rshed begins in the 636 Cascade Mountains about 30 miles no rthea st of 637 Mount Rainier and flows for over 93 miles to Puget 638 Sou nd . Histor ica ll y, the White, Green , and Cedar (via 1 Fo r detail s on the se judici al decisions . refer t o United State s v. Washingt on, 384 F . Supp. 312 (WO Wn.197 4 ), aff'd 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975). 2 For detail s on th ese judicial decisions , refer t o United Slates v. Wa shingt on, 384 F . Supp . 3 12 (W O W n.1974 ), aff'd 520 F.2d 676 (9 th Cir. 1975). Renton Ni cke l l111pr ove111ent Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report 23 R \1\.IJ;h\:1.1-0(1 R1·nt.m -....:11 k ,·1\ Ll' ... k -I -l W (.?,\-~C\D~ 1-1 I\\ \ .... ub111itt I d .. t I~\ 1.1,1 d d,~:,. trnni .i uthor~\_lA~-~ tnr tin,1 l ,1 pprn\·L1l,\RL·nt,1n ~id,l'i ,-& A DR fin,1! d,1-l· 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 EX ISTIN G CONV IT/ONS the Black) Rivers flowed into the Duwamish River, and th e system drained an area of over 1,600 square miles. Because of the diversion of the White Ri ver in 1911 and the Cedar River in 1916 , the Green/Duwamish drainage area has been reduced to 556 square miles.3 Of the 692 square mil es in WRIA 8, 607 are in the Cedar/Sammamish watershed , which contains two major river systems , the Cedar and the Sammamish , and three la rge lake s, Union , Washington , and Sammamish . The remainder of WRIA 8 consists of numerous small watersheds that drain directly to Puget Sound between Elliott Bay in Seattle in King County, and Mukilteo in Snohomish County. Lake Washington is the second largest natural lake in the state, with about 80 miles of s horeline and a surface area of about 35.6 square miles. Lake Washington arguably has the most highly altered watershed on the West Coast. Despite such heavy alteration , it continues to support numerous salmon run s.4 In general , the rivers and streams in the Renton Nicke l Improvement Project study area have been highly altered from their natural states to accommodate resi dential, commercial, and industrial land uses. This alteration has included bank hardening , s uch as installing riprap and placing streams in concrete channels; red ucing or removing streamside vegetation ; straightening stream ch annels; and re moving in-stream habitat. These alterations have also resulted in loss of the historic floodplains associated with most of these waterbodies. Significant changes have also occurred in the vegetation surrounding these waterbodies. What was once predominantly mature native vegetation has been replaced by a mix of immature native vegetation and non-native invasive plant species . The lower Green River subwatershed has been dramatically transformed over the last 130 years , but it still performs a vital role for salmon . The lower Green Ri ve r is the vital migration corridor used by fish 3 Kerwin and Nelson Habitat Li miting Fa ctors and Reco nnai ssa nce Assessment Report . Green/Duwamish and Central P uget Sound Watersheds (W RIA 9 and Vashon Isl and ) 2000. 4Kerwin , J . Salmon and Steel head Habitat Limiting Fa cto rs Report for the Cedar -Sammamish Basin (Water Reso urce Inventory Area 8) 2001 . 24 Renton Nickel Improvement Projec t Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report K \ll·i l S6\33-06 RL·nh,111 :\'ii.:kcl\ T,1s k ·I -D R Q A-OC\08 Fi l'N A su bm itta l d r.'.lf ts\Rl'\'i~·d doc.., from alllh ors\Ol"I<'> for fi nal ,1 rrrn\',1J ... \R1 ·nton ~1(ki:l F & 1\ OR fin,1Ldn (' 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 7 13 714 715 716 717 EXI STl/VG CONDITIONS moving between the m idd le Green River and the Duwam ish estuary. It also provides limited rearing habita t for fish produced upstream.5 The reach of the lower Cedar River within the study area is entirely artificial, is co mpletely constrained between levees and re vetments , and was regularly dred ged to prevent flood ing from approximately 1912 until the mid-1970s. Portions of this reach were again dred ged in 1999 , for the first time since the mid-1970s. Th is reach is essentially one long riffle with little habitat complexity. Urba n and residential use s along this reach contribute to local water quality problems , elimi nate natural floodplain connections , prevent the estab lishment of a riparian buffer, and eliminate th e opportunity for significant large woody debris (LWD) accu mulations in the channe l. Th is reach is where much of the river's sediment deposits , and as a resu lt, the s ubstrate tends to have higher level s of fine sedi ment than upstream substrate s. Despite its limitations, this reach of river serves as a migration route for many sa lm on id fishes and is used extens ively for spawning and lim ited rearing by sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka), ch in ook (0. tshawytscha), and coho (0. kisutch) sa lmon ; steel head (0. mykiss) and cutthroat trout (0. clarki); as we ll as longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys).6 The rivers and streams in WRIA 9 that are c ro ssed by 1-405 or are otherwise i n the vicinity of th e stud y area include Gilliam Creek , an unnamed tributary to Gilliam Cree k, Cottage Creek , the Green River, Springbrook Cree k , Panther Creek , Rolling Hills Creek , an unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek, and Thunder Hill s Creek. The only wa terb ody in WRIA 8 that is c ro ssed by 1-4 05 within the study area is the Cedar River . Habitat condi tion s in these waterbodies within the study area are described in further detail below. For more information on the waterbodies themselves, see t he Surface Water and Water Quality D iscipl in e R ep ort for this project. 5 KCDNR Lower G reen River Subwatershed. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/LowerGreen.htm 2004 . 6Kerwin , J . Sa lmon and Steel head Habitat Lim it i ng Fa c tors Report for the Cedar -Sammamish Basin (Water R esou rc e Inven tory Area 8) 2001 . Renton Nickel Impro vem ent Projec t Fi s heries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report 25 R·ql-l l::;t,\.:'n-1)(, Rt'ntlm \;kJ...l'I \ r.J:-k I DR <...)A-QC \tl..~ rl I\VI\ ~·lll'nwt 11 d 1 Ill ·· I\,·\ ··• ..I ... hKs fmrn ,wthPr-.\1).x-, for fin,1 1 ,1 pprtl\,l l'-\Re11 h m >.:id,t•I r N. r\ DR t in,1 l.tk11.. EXISTI N G CON DETIONS 718 What fish and aquatic species occur in the study area? 719 Many fish and other aquatic species inhabit the ri ve rs, 720 streams, and wetlands in the study area. Th e typ es of 721 specie s found in these different waterbod ies vary 722 greatly depending on the type , size , and quality of th e 723 wate rb ody, and its connectivity to other wate rb od ies. 724 Fish species found in the area includ e both anadromous 725 and resident salmonids and a variety of other resident 726 fish. Other aquatic species found in the area include 727 macro and microinvertebrates, lampreys, crayfish , 728 amphibians, and freshwater mussels a nd c lams . 729 Al l native species of salmonids can be found in the 730 study area, in cluding c hinook , coho , chum (0. keta), 731 pink (0. gorbuscha), and sockeye sa lm on , steel head 732 trout, and sea-run cutthroat ( 0. clarki clarki). In 733 add ition , bull trout (Sa/velinus confluentus), Dolly 734 Varden (Salvelinus ma/ma), and resident cutthroat 735 trout are known to use the waterbodies in the study 736 area . Anadromous sa lm onid species prim a ril y use t he 737 rivers and streams in the study area for upstream and 738 downstream migration and rearing . The study area 739 a lso cont ains l im ited spawning habitat for ch in ook, 740 coho, pink, sockeye , and chum sa lm on , and 7 41 stee l head. Resident cutthroat trout use the stud y area 742 for al l life stages. 743 Other fish species likel y to be found in th e study area 7 44 include three spine stickleback ( Gasterosteus 745 aculeatus),longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), 746 speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), longfin sme lt , 747 prickly scu l pin (Cottus asper), riffle sculpin (Cottus 748 gulosus), reticulated scul pin (Cottus perplexus), 749 shorthead scu lp in (Cottus confuses), torrent scu lp in 750 (Cottus rhotheus), largescale sucker (Catostomus 751 macrocheilus), peamouth chub (Mylocheilus caurinus), 752 redside shiner (Richardsonius ba lteatus), Pacific 753 lamprey (L ampetra tridentate), river lamprey 754 (Lampetra ayresi), and Western brook lamprey 755 (Lampetra richardsoni). 756 Other native species found in the study area in c lud e 757 severa l species of crayfish , frogs , and sa lamanders; 758 and freshwater c lams and mussels . 26 Renton Nick e l Impro v em ent Proj ect Fisheries and Aquatic Res ources Dis cipline Report K \01 156\33-06 Rl•nton Nid,1'1 \Tasl-. 'f -OR Q/\-QC\O...~ H -f\.V r'\ ... u bm itt~,t d rc1ft~\R1.:\'i~·d lhx., tro m author-.\ Doc._ hlr fina l .i rrro\·als\R\·n hm i\'1c k1•l F & ,\ D R fi n il l.doc EXISTI N G CONDITIONS 759 Do any federally listed aquatic species or federal aquatic 760 species of concern occur in the study area? 761 Seve ral of the rivers and streams in the study area 762 conta in various life stages of chinook salmon, bul l 763 tro ut , and Dolly Varden (hereafter referenced 764 syno nymously with bull trout), all of which are currently 765 l ist ed as threatened under the ESA. 766 Wate rbodies in the study area known to be used by 767 c hi no ok salmon include the Green River and the Cedar 768 River, though it is l ikely that some sma ller waterbodies 769 in the study area also support certain chinook salmon 770 l ife stages. chinook sa lmon use the study area primarily 771 fo r u pstream and downstream migration and rearing ; 772 however, streams in the study area provide some 773 lim it ed spawning habitat. The c hinook sa lmon found in 774 these waterbodies are a part of the Puget Sound 775 evol utionarily significant unit (ESU) of chinook salmon, 776 listed as threatened under the ESA. 7 777 On December 14 , 2004 , the Nati ona l Marine Fi she ries 778 Service (NMFS) published proposed rules for 779 desi gnating c ritical habitat for 13 ESU s of Pa c ific 780 Sa lmon and steelhead in Washington , Oregon , and 781 Idaho . Th is designation includes the Puget Sound 782 ESU of chinook salmon. Critical habitat is designated 783 for areas containing the physical and biological habitat 784 featu res , or primary constituent elements (PCEs), 785 essential for the conservation of the species or which 786 requi re special management co nsiderations. PCEs 787 inc lude sites that are essential to supporting one or 788 more life stages of the ESU and which co ntain 789 physical or biological features essential to the 790 conservation of the ESU. Proposed ch inook salmon 791 c ri tical habitat wi thin the study area includes the 792 Green Riv e r Springbrook Creek, and the Cedar River. 793 Histo rically , bull tro ut were reported to use the 794 Duwam ish R ive r and lower Green River in "vast" 795 num bers .8 However, bull trout are observed 796 infre quently in this system today . In recent times , bul l 797 trout have been reported on the lower Green River as 7 National Ma rine Fi sheri es Service (NMF S] End angered and threatened species 1998, Enda ngered and threatened spec ies 1999. 8 Suckley an d Cooper The natural history of th e Washi ngt on and Oregon te rr itory 1860. Renton Nickel Improv ement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipl ine Report I< \t~J;(,\ 11-116 R1·111t111 '.H.kel\ I d"k 4 -[)I{ (J:\-~('\Di.. t-t i \\':\ ... uh1111l:,1 :1,1·t ~ 1,,:.,.,.1 .... td d\x.., 1n 1111 d Utfu1r..,\Dl'>,.._.., hir rm.ii ~1 ppnn·.il..,\Rl'11 t,1n '.\.kh ·I t-& A DR tin,1] dn1. 27 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 EX tS'J'/NG CONIHTIONS far upstream as the mouth of Newaukum Creek at approximately r ive r m ile (RM) 41 and are consiste ntly reported in th e lower Duwamish Ri ve r.9 In ad dition, the Lake Washington system (including the Cedar River), the lower Green Ri ve r, and the marine areas of Puget Sound have been identified as co ntaining important foraging , migration , and overwintering habitat necessary for bull trout recovery_ 10 It is not known whether the bull trout observed in the lower Green Ri ve r basin are foraging individuals from other core areas , or if natural reproduction may still persist somewhere within the basin. Based on observed behavior from other systems within the management unit and based on the size of individuals typically reported , there is a strong likelihood that bull trout in the lower Green Ri ve r are anadromous migrants from other co re areas. Reports of histori c bull trout use of the lower Green River tributarie s are rare , and there have been no recent observations_11 On June 25 , 2004, th e U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published proposed rules for designating c ritical habitat for the Coastal-Puget Sound population of bull trout , which was listed as a threatened species in 1999 . For an area to be included as critical habitat, it must provide one or more of the following functions for bull trout: spawning , rea ring , foraging , or over-wintering habitat to support essential existing bull trout local populations; movement corridors necessary for maintaining essential migratory life history forms ; or suitable habitat that is considered essential for recovering existing local populations that have declined or that need to be re-established to achieve recovery. Waterbodies that are bull trout proposed critical habitat within the study area include the Green River and the Cedar River. Coho salmon and Pa c ific and river lamprey, all federal species of conce rn under the ESA, can be found in the waterbodies in the vicinity of the study area. 9 USFWS Draft Recovery P lan for the Coastal -Pug et Sound Distinct Pop ulat ion Segment of Bull Trout 2004. 10 USFWS Draft Recovery P lan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 2004 . 11 USFWS Draft Recovery Plan for the Coasta l-Pu get Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 2004 . 28 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\0--11~\33·06 Rl•nlon Nick<.•I\ Ta~k 1 • DR Q/\.Q\\O..<; Fl r\V/\ -;11 h mit1al <lrc1f 1..,\Rt'\'l'-t>d dvc" fwm (lutlwr-..\L>ll('" fo r find' dppn.1, dl..,\l{t'nllm \fo.:\...l'l F & A DR ti n.il.d lX EXISTI N G CON DITION S 836 Do any state-listed or other state priority aquatic species 837 occur in or around the study area? 838 P riority fish and aquatic species include all state 839 e nda ngered , threatened , sensitive, or candidate 840 spec ies, and species of recreational, commercial , or 841 tri bal importance that are considered vulnerable . All 842 fi s h s pecies with state candidate status that occur in the 843 stu dy area also hold a federal designation and have 844 bee n discussed earlier in this section. No other state 845 se ns itive , threatened , or endangered fish species occur 846 withi n the study area . Other fish species that are 84 7 designated as Priority Species that may occur within the 848 stu dy area include coho , chum and sockeye salmon , 849 stee lhead and coastal cutthroat trout, and river 850 lamp rey .12 These state-listed priority species are 851 in c luded in thi s report for informational purposes only. 852 What are the habitat characteristics of the rivers and 853 streams located in the study area? 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 / .:l / Exhibit 10. Map of Gilliam Creek Information on the streams and rivers in the study area was collected from a combination of existing in for mation, including literature reviews and personal interviews , and in-stream habitat surveys preformed by 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project staff. Sum maries of the stream information collected for this proj ect can be found in Appendix B. The habitat characteristics for the waterbodies listed below are specific to the areas of the waterbodies located within the p roximity of the study area. G i ! Liam Creek G illi a m Creek flows easterly, parallel to 1-405 , between 1-405 and Tukwila Parkway, as d e picted in Exhibit 10. Beg inning on the east side of the 1-5 right-of-way , G ill ia m Creek alternately flows between open channel and c ulverted sections to its confluen ce with the G ree n River, through a 108-inch flap gate located at approximately Green RM 12.7. Exhibit 11 shows the 12 WDFW Pri ority Species Li st: V ertebrates htt p://wdfw.wa .go v/hab/phsvert.htm 2004. Re11to11 Nickel Improve111 e11t Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline R e port 29 R:\l~li;b\ ti-Oh Rt·nh)ll ,H!..1•!\ L1 <..\.. -i -0 1~ (.J:\-Q( '\llS Fl I\•\',\ <..uh1111L.1 s1.1·1-.. i-.:1·•. 1,,.,t ,i.,,c ... from ,111th11r-.\Do1·.., for fu1.1l ,1ppnn .1I ... \R1·nton '\:11.·l...l'l I-& :\ [)I{ f111 ,1l dn, 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 89 1 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 EXIS TI NG CONl )l'f'IO NS Exhibit 11. Flap Gate at the Outlet of Gilliam Creek Into the Green River Exhibit 12. Typical Open Channel Section of Gilliam Creek flap gate at the ou tl et of Gilliam Creek into the Green Ri ver. Gilliam Creek has been highly modified throughout the study area. The creek is primaril y contained within a stra ight, concrete-lined , in cised , trapezo id a l channel, and co ntains little in-stream structure. E x hibit 12 shows a t y pi ca l open c hanne l section of the creek . It has a narrow ri parian buffer with some native coniferous and deciduous trees and s hrubs, but the r iparian b uffer is dominated by non-native plant species including Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Several of th e culverts located along the l ength of Gilliam Creek a ct as partial fish passage barriers . Three wetlands a ssociated with Gilliam Creek provide limited refugi a for fish during high flows a nd provide rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids . For additional information on these wetlands , please see the Wetlands Di scipline Repo rt for this project. Th e Gilliam Creek waters hed has a high p ercentage of imperv ious surfacing due to t he surro unding com me rc ia l , residential , and industrial land u ses. Becaus e of th is hea v il y urbanized condition , peak runoff flow rat es a re high and the runoff from this area contains relati v ely high co nce ntrations of a variety of pollutants .13 Anadromous fish species reported to occur in lower Gilliam Creek in c lud e ch inook and coho salmon , and sea-run cutthroat trout. Other anadromous species that ma y occur in lower Gilliam Creek include Pa ci fi c and river lamprey.14 Resident fish species expected to occur in Gilliam Creek in cl ude cu tthroat trout, Western brook lamprey, and sculpin. R es ident fish specie s that may occur in Gilliam Creek, based o n their geographic distribution a nd habitat req uirem e nts, include Longnose dace, speckled dace, larges ca le sucker, and three-spine sti c kleba c k_ 1 s 13 City of Tukwila Gill iam Creek Ba sin Stormwater Manage ment Plan 2001 . 14 Wydoski and Whitney Inland f ishes of Washingt on 1979. 15 Wydoski and Whitney Inla nd fishes of Washi ngton 1979. 30 Renton Nickel Improvem e nt Project Fi s he ri es and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\().I IS6\3~..fl(, Rl'nlon \Jid,,l'I\ l'<h\... .t -DK (JA-(.X.\0...1.\ FH\VA ~ubmill~t l cir~,fts\Rl'\'isl'd dnc!'-frnm ,1uth or,\.Dnc.., frn-fma l appn.1v,1l..,\Kl'n tl1n 1\'id .. l'I F & A DR t i11,d d lx· 91 1 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 94 3 944 94 5 946 947 948 i -. \ Exhibit 13. Map of Cottage Creek Exhibit 14. Map of Unnamed Tributary to Gilliam Creek E X I STING CON DITIONS Cottage Creek Co ttage C reek is a tributa ry t o Gilliam C ree k that o ri gi nates from the Ci t y Ha ll drainage basin lo cated t o th e north of 1-4 05 in the city of T u kwil a . Exhibit 13 is a map of Cottage Creek. T he c reek flows south erly fro m th e hillside, under So uthcen te r Bo u leva rd via a c ulve rt , dayl igh t s for approximate ly 12 lin ear feet immed iately no rth of 1-405 , fl ows under 1-405 via a no ther cu lvert, a nd con flu e nces w ith Gill ia m Creek v ia a stormwater outfall . In tota l, 80 sq ua re feet of Cottage Creek are locat ed in th e 1-405 right-of-way a nd the upstream e nd of Cot tage C ree k (north of Southcenter Bo ul eva rd ) is loc ated approximately 200 feet to the no rth of th e open c ha nnel section along 1-405 . No a nadromous fish a re anticipated to u se Cottage C ree k , as 1-405 acts as a comp lete u pstream fish pa ss age ba rri e r . Resident fish species a nti c ipated to use t he upper reac hes of Cottage Creek in clude c utthroat trout, Western brook lamprey, scu lp in , long nose dace , speck led dace , largescale sucker, and t hree spine stickleback .16 Unnamed TributanJ to Gilliam Creek An u nnamed t ribu ta ry to Gilliam Creek flows into Gill ia m Creek v ia a cu lvert immed iatel y east of w here Gill ia m Creek daylights befo re its confl ue nce w ith the Gree n R iver . Exh ibit 14 is a map of the unnamed trib utary . T his tributary has no o pen c hannel at its c on fluence w it h Gilliam Creek. The o nl y other portion o f th is stream located i n the study a rea is an approxi m ate ly 50-foot section that daylights into , and flows through , a sma ll riparian wet land imm ed iate ly nort h of 1-405. In th is area, the stre a m has a sma ll ri parian buffer and littl e in -stream h abi tat. 1-405 acts as a to t al barrier to upstream fi sh passage from Gil li a m C reek to this unnamed stream . N o add iti onal open c hannel habitat associated w ith thi s tributary i s loca ted wi th in 1/4 mi le of the project footp rin t. 16 W ydos ki and W hitney Inland f is hes of W ash ing ton 1979. Re11to11 Nickel Impro v ement Project Fish eries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Re po rt 31 R:\ll-11;(,\ 11-ill", R1·nton .'\11 \..l'i\ I <l'-\..-' -1 )1~ ~A-~C \ll~ t-1 IWA ... ub111 t:,1 ·~:1 ,1 ·t-.. 1-:_, . ._ t-.\·d d,x.., t rorn ~1uth~1r-..\l\)(..., f\,r tin~tl ,1ppr,1,-.d--.\l{l.'nton '\11.h.d F &. A f)I{ tin,,l.t.hx 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 98 1 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 EXI STING CON DITIONS Exhibit 15. Map of the Green R iver Exhibit 16. Green River Upstream of Study Area Ne ither res id e nt nor anadromous fi s h are antic ip at ed t o use this stream , as the 50 f eet of open ha bitat is bounded downstream by co mplete fi s h passage barriers. It is assumed that this stream was histori c all y used by co ho salmon , sea -run cutt hroat trout , cutthroat tro ut, West ern brook lamprey, sculpin, longnose dace, speckled dace , larg escale sucker, and th ree spine stickleback .17 Green River The Green Ri ver flows under 1-405 at approximately Green RM 12.7, as depicted in E x hibit 15. In thi s area , th e Green Ri ve r is co mple te ly contain ed w ithin a dike system maintain ed and regulated by t he Green Ri ve r Flood Control Zone Di strict. Flow levels in this reac h of th e Green Ri ver are primarily d ict at ed by co ntro ll ed releases fro m the Howard Hanse n Dam (HHD ), although the river is al so tid a ll y influ e nced in th e study area . Exhibit 16 s hows th e Green River upstream of th e study area . Ripa rian vegetati o n with in th is reach of the Green River co ns ist s primarily of non-native invas ive plant species in c luding Himalaya n b lackb er ry , reed canarygrass , and Scot's broom , though some native deciduous and coniferous trees a nd s hrubs are found infreq ue ntly along the ri ver banks . Th e Green River lacks in-stream habitat features including LW D. Du e to th e cond ition of riparian vegetation , it al so lacks opportunities for future woody debris recruitment. None of th e mainstem riparian habitat in the lo we r Green Ri ve r subwatershed is in good condition or is consid ered to be fun ctioning properly based on th e NMFS crite ria . A lso , th e Green Ri ver is listed on the Washington State Depa rtment of Eco logy (Ecology) 303(d) Li st in this a re a for t emperatu re , fecal co lifo rm , and mercury. Fo r more informati o n o n the water quality of the wate rbodi es in the stu dy area , see th e Surface Water a nd Water Quality Discipline Report for thi s p roj ect. Several hi sto ri c events a nd la nd use trend s have co mbin ed to have a profound effect o n th e hydro logy of th e Green Ri ve r. These includ e four larg e engineering proje cts: 17 Wydoski and W hitney Inland fishes of Was hington 1979 . 32 R enton N ickel Tmpro v eme nt Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\0.1156\33-06 Rl'nlon i\:id..(•I\ Task 4 · DR QA-QC\OFc Fl f\.\' /\ submllta l dr<i(t ... \ Rl1\·i~·d dl"-~ f wm aulhL1r...,\L>tx·.., for fo'ld! dppn.1\'dl.., \RL'nttm \!H.:J...l'l F & :\ DR tin.ii d tx· 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 EXISTING CONDITI ONS • Diversion of the White Ri ver in 1911 • Construction of Tacoma Water's Headworks Diversion Dam in 1911 • Diversion of the Cedar/Black River in 1916 • Construction of the HHD in 1962 More recently, urban development in the lower basin has resulted in substantia l in creases in stormwater runo ff from small tribu tary streams. This , in turn , has contributed to larger and more frequent peak flows during the w inter and reduced recharge of shallow aquifers that formerly sustained flows during the late sum mer and fall. The overall effect of development on flo w s in the lower mainstem G reen River is difficult to discern due to the overwhelming changes in flow resulting from the historic diversions and channel izat ion , and the construction of the HHD .18 The lower Green River is used by all native salmonids for u pst ream and downstream m igration and rearing. ch inook, coho , pink, sockeye, and chum sa lmon and steel head trout are known to spawn in this reach of the Green River , though spawning habitat is limited.19 Pacific and river lamprey are also present in the Green River, but little information is available on their present status.20 Re sident fish species expected to occur in this reach of the Green River in c lud e cutthroat trout, Western brook lamprey, and sculpin. Resident fish species that may occ ur in the Green River, based on their geographic distribution and habitat requirements , includ e speckled dace, largescale sucker, and three spine stickleback.21 18 Kerwin , J. Sa lmo n and Steel head Habita t Li mitin g Factors Rep o rt for the Cedar -Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inven tory A rea 8) 200 1. 19 Kerwin , J. Sal mon and Steel head Habitat Limiting Fa cto rs Report for the Cedar -Sammamish Bas in (Wa ter Resource Inventory Area 8 ) 2001 . 20 U .S . Army Corps of Engineers Juve ni le Sal monid Use o f Lateral Stream Habitats Middle Green River, Washington 2000 Data Report 2001 . 21 Wydoski and Whitney Inland fishes of Wa shi ng t o n 1979 . Renton Nickel lmpro v e111ent Project Fisheries and Aquatic Re sourc es Discipline Report K \ll-l J '"-<1\ n~ll(, 1--:L·nlon "id,._,t \ 1 <i..,J.. -I . 1 m (_;,.·\-Qt ·\ (]'-I 1-1 l\\ .·\ '-u l •rn r:t 11 dr it1-. h'.,·, '."' d do1.'" ttnm ,111th,1r,\ l )1 K" f1,r fm,11 ,1ppnn·,1 l -,\R,·11h11' :\ 11 i.._,,J !--1.t :\ DR h n ,1! dfl\· 33 1019 1020 102 1 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 10 32 1033 1034 1035 1036 10 37 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 105 1 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 EXI STI NG CONJJJ'/I ONS Exhibit 17. Springbrook Creek Main Channel South of SW 16th St. Exhibit 18. Map of Springbrook Creek Exhibit 19. One Opening in the Existing Springbrook Box Culvert Springbrook Creek Springbrook Cre e k is locate d east of the mainstem Green Ri ver, w ithin th e c ity of Renton. It flows into th e Bl ack Ri ve r through th e Black River Pump Station (BRPS), a nd subsequently in to t he Green Ri ver approximately 1,000 fe et down stream of the BRPS . E xhibits 17 and 18 depict Springbrook Creek. In th e immediate vic inity of 1-405 , Springbrook Creek is la rgely co ntained w ithin co nc rete wa ll s for fl oo d co ntrol purposes. Spring brook Cree k flows under 1-4 05 in a fiv e-ce ll box culvert that allows for fu ll fi sh passage at a ll flow leve ls, d ue to one of the cel ls ha vi ng been co nstructed at a lower e levation in re lati on t o the streambed than th e remain ing four cel ls. One of the openings in the existing c ulve rt is s hown in Exhibi t 19. Do w nstream of where Springbrook Creek fl ows under SW Grady Way, it is no lo ng er co nta ined in a concrete c ha nn el , but is still confined w ithin an incised riprappe d channel. Riparian vegetatio n surrounding Springbroo k Creek is a mixture of a lder (A/nus spp.) willow (Sa lix spp .), Hima layan blackb e rr y, and sedges (Carex spp.). Conifers a re almost non-exist ent and, in those a reas where shade is absen t , reed ca narygrass is abu ndant. Riparian habitat w ithin thi s creek does not meet the NM FS c riteria for properl y functioning habitat a nd is a l imi ting fa ctor to natural sa lmonid production.22 Springbrook Creek is li sted on Eco logy 's 303(d) Li st fo r feca l co liform , c hromium, mercury, di ss olved oxyge n , t emperatu re, cadmium , and z in c. Th ough not in th e imm ed iate stud y area , th e BRPS is a sign ifica nt fi sh passage barrier to upstream and downstream fi sh migrati o n. The purposes of thi s stru cture a re to co ntro l outflows from the Bl ack Rive r , prevent flows o n th e G reen River from back in g up into the Bl ack Riv e r/Springbrook Creek floodplain d uring flood s, and t o provide a mea ns of re leas in g fl ood flows from th e Black Riv er/Spring brook Creek system w h en th e Green River is at a hi g h ri ver sta ge. Th e BRPS is 22 Kerwin , J. Sa lm on and Steel head H abitat Limiting Fa ctors Report fo r th e Cedar -Sammamis h Bas i n (Wa ter Resource Inventory Area 8) 2001 . 34 R enton Nicke l Tmpro v ement Project Fi sheries and Aqu atic Resources Discip line Report R \Q.1 1 56\33-06 Rcntlm t\'ic:kl'l\T ,v-J., -t • OR QA-QC\08 Ft-fWA ..,ubm itldl dr~1fb\R1..•vbl•1..l d ocs from ,1ulho r-;\Oor..;; for final a pprO\'c1 I-..\K1.:ntt.m '\:id,l'I F & A DI{ fin,,l.dt~· 1058 1059 1060 1061 10 62 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 10 77 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 Exhibit 20. Upstream End of Fish Ladder at the Black River Pump Station Exhibit 21. Downstream End of Fish Ladder at the Black River Pump Station EXISTING CONDITI ONS curre ntly ope rated and maintained by Ki ng County Surfa ce Wate r Management. 23 The BRPS is a ba rrier to ups tream fi s h pa ssage . A uniq ue fi s h passage system has bee n constructed that allows upstream and d ownstream fis h pa ssage around the structure. A comb in ation of a fish ladd e r and fishway ch ute i s used for u pstream passage. Fish migrat in g downstream are diverted around the pumps using an ai r-l ift pump to raise th e fi sh to th e downstream water levels. Th is fish ladder was not in ope rat ion during time s when upstream co ho sa lm on migration wou ld ha ve been occurring .24 Exh ibi ts 20 and 21 s how the fish ladder . T he faci li ty is not equ ipped to hand le downstream migratin g adu lt steelhead trout or ch in ook salmon. Adul t steelhead and chinook salmon that move upstream past the BRPS ca nnot exit the Sp rin gbrook Creek subbasi n , and o nce th ere are bel ieved to expe rience h igh levels of stress or be killed outrig ht prior to successfu l spawn ing .25 Springbrook Creek is u se d by coho a nd ch in ook sal mon , cutt hro at tro ut , and steelhead trout fo r spawning and rearing.26 Addi t iona l res id e nt fish species expected t o o c cur in Springb rook Creek in clude Western brook lamprey and sculp in . Resident fish species that may occur in Spri ngbrook Creek, based o n their geographic d istributi on and habitat requirements , include speckled dac e, largescale sucker, a nd three spine stic kl eback.27 23 Kerwin , J . Salmon and Stee lhea d Hab itat L im itin g Fa c tors R eport for the Cedar -Sammamish Basin (Water R esou rce Inventory Area 8) 2001. 24 D ere k Koell mann , Anchor En vironme nta l, L .L.C. pers onal observation. 25 Kerwin , J. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat L imiting Factors Report for the Cedar -Sammamish Basin (Wa ter R esource Inventory Area 8) 2001 . 26 Kerwin , J . Salmon and Steelh ead Habitat Limiting Fac tors Report for the Cedar -Sammamish Ba sin (Water Res ource Inv entory Area 8) 2001. 27 Wydoski and Whitney In la nd fishes of Was hi ngton 1979 . R e11to11 N i ckel l111 prove111e 11 t Project Fis h eries a nd Aquatic Resources Discipline Report 35 K \0.1 J::;6 \~1-I)(\ Rn,tnn \:i, 1-.d\,Td-.l,.. -l DR 0A-Q(\t)~ Fl IWA -..u h1,dt.1 d1.1·t·. h:, ,. 1 ... 1.·1.-l d1>1:" frum ,H.llhor-..\01\+..-.. for f111,1\ ,1 p prn\·,1lc.\Rl'11 lun -..:u. kl'I F & A DI{ fm,11 dll1 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 EX ISTING CONDITIONS Exhibit 22. Panther Creek Upstream of the East and West Forks Exhibit 23. Map of Panther Creek 28 Da vid Masters . perso na l co mmunication 36 Panther Creek and the Panther Creek Wetlands The Panther Creek Wetlands cover approximately 67 acres on the east side of SR 167. Thi s we tland complex is associated with and directly connected to Panther Creek , and is located on City of Renton property. At SR 167, Panther Creek splits into two forks . hereafter referred to as the west and east forks of Panther Creek . Ex hibit 22 shows Panther Creek upstream of the forks , and Exhibit 23 is a map of Panther Creek . The flow in Panther Creek past the forks is divided into the east and west forks in an approximately 2 /3 to 1/3 ratio, respectively_2a The west fork of Panther Creek flows underneath SR 167, into a channel flow ing northerl y on the west side of SR 167. It then turns westerly between two businesses, ultimately flowing into a city stormwater system under East Valley Road to where it eventually outlets to Springbrook Creek . The west fork of Panther Creek crosses SR 167 via two culverts , one accommodating the main flow of the channel and the other acting as an overflow during higher flows. Both of these culverts are upstream fi s h passage barriers . The east fork of Panther Creek flows northerly along the east side of SR 167 through the Panther Creek Wetlands. Approximately one mile from where Panther Creek divides into the two forks , the east fork enters a fish ladder that directs flow under SR 167 . Flow from the east fork daylights between SR 167 and East Valley Road for approximately 100 feet , flows under East Valley Road , and outlets into a larg e wetland complex. The east fork of Panther Creek maintains a distinct cha nnel through the wetland complex and ultimately outlets to Springbrook Creek. There are two significant wetland complexes associated with Panther Creek: the Panther Creek Wetland, and an associated wetland located along the west side of SR 167. Both of these wetlands are discussed in this report due to their co nnection with Panther Creek and the associated fish use. Juvenile salmonids , especially coho salmon , use wetlands as Renton N i ckel Improvement Proje ct Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\0..1156\33-06 RL•nton :-,..,.ick<•I \ Ti.l~k 4 -OR QA-QC'\08 FHW1\ "llbrrntlc1l d rc1fl..,\RL·, i~·d Lk11. . .., from <1uthor..,\Dl)(.-~ fl)r fin ,11 c1 ppw, .lls\Hcn ton \Jid.l•I F & 1\ DR_fin ,,I.Joc· 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 Re nton Nickel Improvement-Projecl" E X I STING C O N DITIONS rearing and refugia habitat. Due to the size and com plexity of these wetlands, they provide the largest contiguous area of wetland salmon id rearing and refu g ia hab itat in the study area . Further information o n th ese wetlands can be found in the Wetlands Disc ipline Report for th is project. The Panther Creek Wet land is an approximat ely 67- acre wetland complex located on the east side of SR 167 , which is associated with and directly con nected with Panther Creek and is owned by th e City of R e nton. The Panther Creek Wet land contains e me rgent , scrub-shrub, and forested v egetation , and is co nsidered a category II wetland per Ecology wetl and definition s. For additional information on the Pant her C reek Wetland , please see the Wetlands D iscipl ine Report for this proj ect. T he second wetland complex is located immediately west of SR 167 from approximately SW 41 st Street to SW 19th Street. Thi s w etland c ontain s emergent, sc rub-shrub, and forested vegetation. This wetland com plex is connected to the Panther Creek Wetland via a series of culverts under SR 167 that make the wetl ands accessible by fish and other aquatic species from the Panther Creek Wetland. This wetland com plex is a lso considered a category 111 wetland per Eco logy wetland definitions. For add itional information o n t his wetland , please see the Wetlands D isciplin e Re port for this project. The reach of Panther Creek imm ed iately upstream of t he east and west forks flows through a largely native, deci duous tree-dominated forest that contains some inva sive species , primarily Himala yan blackberry . The stre am channel in this location is connected w ith its fl oo dp la in (not incised ) and has a large riparian buffer, but has a limited amount of in-stream cover. T he northerly flowing portion of the west fork of P an ther Creek flows through a large patch of reed can arygrass with no other vegetation apparent. When t his fork turns westerly , it flows into and through a ma naged bioswale until it flows into a city stormwater system under East Valley Road. The bioswa le is com pletely vegetated with upland landscaping g rasses . The west fork of Panther Creek is entirely cha nnelized , has no native riparian canopy, and co mpletely lacks in-stream structure. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report 37 R \O~ l ;(i\l 1-Wi R,·n ton '\1l kd\ I ,1,k ~ -I )t,: l,J1\-(J{ \il,i;: J-11\\ ,\ "lll 1•1'!,,I d, 1tt ... l~n 1,1·d dov , 111 11 n aulhllr-.\_ [ };,tt." t1_11 f in,,l <1 pprm .1 1-. \ l{entn n '\ 11..kd t" & A I )K imcll di" 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 EXISTING CON DITIONS Exhibit 24. Panther Creek Fish Ladder The east fork of Panther Creek flows northerly, between the previously mentioned dec iduous forest and the east side of SR 167, for approximately 400 feet to where it flows into a patch of reed canarygrass . Once the creek enters the patch of reed canarygrass , the creek's main channel is no longer visible . Flow continues through the reed canarygrass patch for • approximately 500 feet to where the main channel of Panther Creek becomes visible once again. The east fork of Panther Creek then flows immediately alongside SR 167 in a defined channel with a narrow deciduous canopy for approximately one mile to where it enters a fish ladder, shown in Exhibit 24. The wetlands immediately east of the main channel in this area are dominated by reed canarygrass . After flowing into the fish ladder and under SR 167 and East Valley Road , Panther Creek enters a wetland containing emergent, scrub-shrub , and forested vegetation. Panther Creek continues in this wetland to where it confluences with Springbrook Creek . The east fork of Panther Creek is constrained to the west by SR 167 , has a limited riparian buffer and canopy , and contains limited in-stream habitat. Because of its association with Springbrook Creek, Panther Creek is expected to be used by coho and chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, and steelhead trout as rearing habitat. There is little salmonid spawning habitat in Panther Creek throughout most of the study area, however there may be a small amount of suitable coho salmon , steelhead , or cutthroat trout spawning habitat within the study area east (upstream) of where Panther Creek divides into the east and west forks. Resident fish species expected to occur in Panther Creek include cutthroat trout, Western brook lamprey, and sculpin. Resident fish species that may occur in Panther Creek, based on their geographic distribution and habitat requirements , include longnose dace, speckled dace, largescale sucker, and three spine stickleback. 29 29 Wydoski a nd Whi t ney Inland fish es of Wa shington 1979 38 Renton Nickel Impro vement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\04 1'S6\:11-06 R('ntPn '\1Kkd\Ta ... \... -1-UK (JA-<..,.>C \O...~ FH\\'A <-.ubmitt.1,I \.lrafL-;\R<-•\'l <.:t'd doc~ fron, ,,11thor-.\01 )("s fo r f inal ~rpro\·c1J..,\KL·nton '\io..kt.:I F & A D K fi11"1l.d,:I(,; 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 12 4 3 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 124 9 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 Exhibit 25. Typical Rolling Hills Creek channel on the north side of 1-405 ;, Exhibit 26. Map of Rolling Hills Creek Q<,{lm9 Hit'·, Crt>P;.. Re ''"I/ '"IJ!/S C1eek I T1i1tur.--0 1 Exhibit 27. Map of Unnamed Tributary to Rolling Hills Creek R e11to11 Nickel l111prove111ent Project EXI STI NG CONDITIONS Rolling Hills Creek and an Unnamed Tributary to Rolling Hills Creek The headwaters of Rolling H il ls Creek fl ow from th e Rol li ng Hill s subbasin located so uth of 1-405 . Approxi mately 1,000 feet south of the study area , Rol ling H ills Creek fl ows through a seri es of culverts under severa l commercial parking lots to w here it ultimate ly daylights on the north s id e of 1-4 05 into an open channel between the parki ng lot associated with t he Renton C inema 8 and 1-405. Exhibit 25 shows a typica l portion of the c hannel on the no rth side of 1-405. T he c reek then flows westerly under th e 1-40 5/SR 167 Intercha nge a nd o ut lets into the Panther Creek Wetland . E x h ibit 26 is a map of R ol lin g Hills Creek. An unnamed tributary to Ro lling Hi lls Cre ek, likely the histo ric main channel of Rolling H ill s Creek, flows sout herly from the hil lside to a c ulvert under 1-405. Th e unnamed tributary dayl ights on the north side of 1-405 behind the Renton One Place building and f lows wes te rl y to where it con fl uences w ith Roll in g H il ls Creek in the location w here Rolling H ills Creek daylig hts between the parking lot associated with the Rento n C in ema 8 and 1-405. E xhib it 27 is a map of the un named tributary . Rol li ng Hill s Creek and its unnamed tributary have been highly modified throughout the study area. T he cre ek is contained w ithi n a straight channe l bounded by a comme rcial parking lot and 1-405. The c reek and it s u nnamed tributary have l ittle t o no in-stream stru c ture , and have narrow ri pa rian buffers comp rised of immatu re deciduous trees , shrubs , and non -native plant species including Himalayan blackb erry a nd reed canaryg rass . The upstream reaches (south of 1-40 5) of Rolling H ills Creek and its unnamed tributary have also been modified, but to a much lesser extent th an the reaches with in the study area. These upper reaches ha ve a more mature ri parian ca nopy with a greate r amount of native species th an the downstream reaches; however, Hima layan blackberry is stil l preva lent thro ughout both upper reaches. Both upper stream cha nnels a re inci sed a nd have lim ited opportunity to Fisheri es a nd Aquatic Resources Disciplin e Report 39 R:\041 ~6\1."\ 06 l~l'nhm .\,id,,<..·!\ I .i-.1,.. ·I ~ D R (..).~\·(..)C\ 11~ 1-11\\ /\ ,ulw 11 t • .al '1Ll'I I{,,,_ 1··\ d d\K'.S fr1.•rn dutlu1r..,\ I )p,_ .... k11 fin<1I ,,1~prnv,1l"-\ Rl1llhm '\i1. )..d I-& A I )I{ f11 1.il d,,l 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 12 77 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 EXI STING CONDITIONS Exhibit 28. Thunder Hills Creek in Concrete Flume Immediately Downstream of Confluence with Mine Runoff Exhibit 29. Map of Thunder Hills Creek meander due to the width of the floodplain in both reaches. No anadromous fish species are reported to occur in Rolling Hills Creek or its unnamed tributary .30 Th is is likely due to downstream fish passage barriers , including the Rolling Hills Creek culvert under 1-405 that acts as a partial fish passage barrier; however, based on habitat conditions, it is likely that Rolling Hills Creek historically supported populations of coho salmon and steelhead trout. Resident fish species likely to occur in the reaches of Rolling Hills Creek and its unnamed tributary that are within the study area include sculpin and three spine stickleback. 3 1 Thunder Hills Creek The headwaters of Thunder Hills Creek are located to the southeast of 1-405. Upstream of 1-405 , Thunder Hills Creek is contained in an incised channel with a n intact riparian buffer along the east side of the creek and a buffer of varying widths (from O to app ro x imatel y 20 feet wide) along the west side of the creek. At the downstream end of this upper section , Thunder Hills Creek flows under 1-405 and daylights into a concrete outfall located directly behind a Sam's Club. The culvert under 1-405 , which connects the up and downstream sections of Thunder Hills Creek , acts as a complete upstream fish passage barrier. After daylighting at the outfall, Thunder Hills Creek confluences with water flowing from a hi storic, now abandoned coal mine. There is a noticeably sulfurous smell from the water originating from the coa l mine at thi s confluence.32 From the confluence , the flow from Thunder Hills Creek and the coal mine runoff enters a three-sided concrete flume and flows along the southeast edge of the Sam's Club parking lot. Exhibit 28 shows Thunder Hills Creek in the concrete flume. The flume outlets into a wetland complex immediately east of Talbot Road South and north of 1-405. The 30 KCDNR Fish Distributi on Maps and Data http ://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias /9/F ishDist.htm 2004. 31 Wydoski and Whi tney Inland fishes of Washi ngton 1979. 32 De rek Koe llmann , Ancho r Environmental, L .L.C ., personal observation. 40 Renton N ickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report K \t..41 :i6\33-06 Ht•nlon Nield\ Tc1 ... k -l -l)!{ (JA-QC\08 Fl !Wt\ '-t1hrn1lt,1l d1.:1ft<:-\l{l'\'bt•d th\C~ from ;mthors\Doc.., ft1r find ! dppnwals\RPntnn :'\11k.1 •l F & Al)}{ fiu,11.dr, 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 13 11 13 12 131 3 13 14 13 15 1316 13 17 13 18 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 13 27 1328 1329 1330 1331 Exhibit 30. Cedar River Looking Downstream Under 1-405 Bridge EXI STI NG CONDITI ONS creek then flows west un der Talbot R oad , into a series of cu lverts, under sev eral parking lo t s, t o w here it daylig hts and conve rges w ith Rolling H ill s C reek in the lo ca tio n w here Rolling Hills Cree k daylights between th e pa rkin g lot associated with the Renton Cinema 8 and 1-405 . E x hibit 29 is a map of Thunder Hills Creek. As st ated above, the lower portion of Thunder Hill s Cree k flows through a three-s ided co ncrete fl ume and has no natura l chan n e l. T he re is almost n o vegetati ve cove r over th e stream. Most of th e stream bed is conc ret e , w ith sporadic patches of gravel located along the length of the stream . No anadromous fish s pecies are reported to occur in T hun der Hill s Creek, due to downstream fish passage barriers . 33 However, due to hab itat conditions in the upstream reaches, Thunder Hill s Creek lik ely histo rica lly supported population s of co ho salmon and stee lhead t rou t. It is u nl ikel y that fish occupy th e lowe r reach of Thunde r Hil ls Creek d ue to habitat and water quality cons ide rati ons; howeve r , there could be use by spec ies more to le rant t o such condi tion s such as t hree spi ne sticklebac k . R es id en t fis h species li kely to occu r in the uppe r reaches of Thunder Hill s Creek includ e cu tthro at trou t , scu lp in , a nd three spine stickleback .34 Cedar River Th e Cedar Ri ver flows under 1-405 at approximately Ced ar RM 1.6. Ex hibit 30 s hows the ri ve r under the 1-405 bridge , and Ex hib it 31 is a map of the Cedar R ive r . The reach of the Cedar Ri ver located in th e study area is know n as the Renton R each . The R en ton R eac h i s en ti re ly a rtifi cia l , is complete ly co nstra ined between levees and revetm e nts, and was regu larly dredg ed to prevent flooding (from its co mp letion in 19 12 un ti l th e mid-1970s). Porti ons of th is re ach were again dredged in 1999, for th e first time si nce the mid-1970s. This reac h is esse ntially on e long riffle w ith little ha bita t complexity.35 33 KCDNR Fi sh Distribution Maps and Data tittp ://dnr.met rokc.gov/Wrias/9/FishDist.htm 2004. 34 Wydoski and Whitney Inland f ishes of Washington 1979 . 35 Kin g County Depa rtm ent of Pub li c Works Ceda r Ri ve r Cu rre nt and Future Condition s Report 1993. R enton N ickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report 41 I{ \14 IS6\)1-06 Rt•n tn n \;'u. kt·I\ T,1:-.l... 4 D K tJt\ (!C\0~ 1-1 I\\ t\ -.uh11:l :.1 .:1,1·t · R,·•. 1·-nJ d o1._·, frnm ,wlh,1r:-.\Dl'..,.._ tor fi11 ,d ,lppro\·,tl ...,\l{1..,11 t11 ·1 '\1 ... hl t-& A ()I{ lm,11 d \x 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 EXI STI NG CUNIHTIONS Exhibit 31. Map of the Cedar River The Renton Reach is affected by urban and industrial uses along the river that contribute to local water quality problems , th at eliminate the potential for co nnection with a natural floodpl a in or the establishment of a riparian corridor, and that produce significant LWD accumulations in the channel. This reach is the depositional area for many of the ri ve r's sediments, and as a result , the substrates tend to have higher levels of fine sediments than upstream substrates. 36 Riparian vegetation i s severely lacking within this reach of the Cedar River and many areas along the river have been developed up to the edge of the dike system. In those places , virtually no riparian vegetation is present. Where development is set back from the Cedar River, vegetation consists primarily of non-native invas ive plant species including Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and Scot's broom, though some native deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs are infrequently found along the banks. Th e Cedar Ri ve r is on Ecology's 303(d) List for fecal coliform. Anadromous fish use in the Renton Reach of the Cedar River includes spawning, upstream and downstream migration, and some limited rea ring by sockeye, chinook , and coho salmon and steelhead trout. The Cedar Ri ver also has known uses by bull trout, which likely use the Renton Rea c h for upstream and downstream migration . 37 Resident fish species expected to occur in this reach of the Cedar River in cl ude cutthroat trout, Western brook lamprey, and sculpin. Resident fish species that may occur in the Cedar River , based on their geographic distribution and habitat requirements , include speckled dace, largescale sucker, longfin smelt, and three spine stickleback. 38 36 King County Department of Public Work s Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report 1993. 3? Kerwin , J. Sa lmon and Steel head Habitat Limiting Factors Report fo r the Cedar -Sammamish Basin (Wat er Resource Inv entory Area 8) 2001 . 38 Wydoski and Wh itn ey Inland fishes of Washington 1979. 42 Renton Nicke l l111pro v e111ent Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report K:\0.-1156\:U-06 RL•nlon :\'ich_,I\ Ti'.l~k ..J -OR QA-QC\lIB 1-f i\.\'A -.ubrmtt~,1 d r~1fts\Rl'\'isrci cir<!-. fnm1 ,111 th or~\ r>oc.., ro, fina l t1p pni, c11 ... \Rt·nll)fl :\"id,l.'i F & A DR final.doc 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 POTENTIAL EFFECTS What methods were used to evaluate the project's potential effects on fisheries and aquatic resources? Biologists eva luated the effects of the Renton Nickel Imp ro vement Project on fisheries and aquati c reso urces by reviewing the existin g info rmati on gath ered for the study a rea and by asses sing proje ct de s ig n data and WSDOT constru ction practices . This information was then analyzed to identify fisheries and aquatic resource changes that we re li ke ly to occur during and fo ll owin g construction of the proje ct. Both temporary and permanent effects from the project we re analyzed . Fo r the Build Alternative , permanent and temporary e ffects from the project were calcu lated by overlaying th e temporary and permanent construction areas onto a ma p detailing the streams and ri vers in the study a rea . From this map, bi ologists determined th e ripa rian habitat areas that wo ul d be permanently and tempora ril y affected by the project. In addition to perm anent and temporary effects, i ndirect effects from the p roject including shading from new structures or inc re ases in stormwater flow were evaluated. Fo r the No Build Alternati v e , existing WSDOT ma i ntenance pract ices and stormwater facilities were rev ie wed to determine existin g bui lt cond iti ons in the stu dy area. These existing built conditions were co m pared with existin g fi sh and aquat ic re source conditio ns in the study area to determine how exist ing b uilt conditions w ill affect future fish and aquatic reso urces into the future. Will the project affect fish and aquatic habitat? Renton Nickel I111pro v e111ent Project As a result of the Build Alternative , new roadways and roa dway stru ctures (e.g ., culverts) w ill be bu ilt w ithi n or nea r river and strea m habitats that support fish and o th e r aquatic species within the study area . In addition , mai ntenance of existing faci liti es in th e stu dy a rea w ill co ntinue. P roj ect effects come in two forms : permanent and t em po ra ry . Permanent effe cts are effect s o n fisheries a nd aq uatic resources that wi l l remain upon completion of t he project, w he rea s temporary effe cts are effects Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Re port 43 K \f4 l :;fi\.l1-t)(l R,·nhm .\,id,,·I\ L 1 ... k. -1 DR QA-0l .\ll1' Fl I\·\ A -.uh111tl:.1 .. t.1 't. I\,\ , .. ,.,l d,x-.. tnHn ,llllho r·•\ D,x·-. for f in.II ,1ppni,,1l-.\lknhm '-:i,.J.l'i I & ,-\ 1)1~ hn,111.k•'- 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 POTEN TIAL faFEC,S 44 that will affect fisheries and aquatic re sources only for the duration of construction of the project. Permanent and temporary effects of the project are summarized in Exhibits 32 and 33 . Project elements that will directly affect fisheries and aquatic resources include: • Construction of a new bridge over Springbrook Creek and its associated side channel to accommodate construction of new 1-405 north and southbound lanes. • Encroachment into the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the west fork of Panther Creek to accommodate a new SR 167 southbound lane. • Encroachment into the riparian buffers of Gilliam Creek, an unnamed tributary to Gilliam Creek, Cottage Creek, Springbrook Creek, Panther Creek, a wetland located on the west side of SR 167 that is associated with Panther Creek, Rolling Hills Creek , an unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek, and Thunder Hills Creek to accommodate various elements of project construction. • Construction of new stormwater facilities for the treatment of water quality and quantity associated with new impervious surfacing created by the project. For more information on stormwater facilities , see the Stormwater Discipline Report for this project. No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative assumes that the project will not be constructed and WSDOT will continue with ongoing maintenance activities in the study area. In this scenario , no physical changes would occur to the rivers and streams from construction activities , though some disturbance to riparian buffers may occur through routine maintenance activities such as mowing or brushing. The amount of untreated stormwater entering these waterbodies from 1-405 , SR 167, and Benson Road would remain unchanged . It is possible that emission-reducing improvements in automobiles or increases in traffic volumes could change the concentrations of pollutants and contaminants entering these streams; however, there is no means to accurately predict that such changes would occur. The No Build Alternative would not increase impervious surface areas . Therefore, it is assumed that it would Renton N ickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\04156\33-06 RL·nh.m i\'it:kt..•I \ T dsl-.. ,I -DR QA-QC\08 n f\-\':\ s uhm11till d raft-.\Rt·vi..,eti dl>C" from dl1l lwr~\lJo<:~ fL1r finJ \ c1 pprovals\Rl1nlon :'\'id.el r &: A D R fm~,l.dl'1c 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 Renton Nickel l,nprove,n ent Project POTEN T/AL ErrECTS result in little change to existing water quality in , and increased flow into, the streams and rivers in the study area . As there are no construction activities associated w ith this alternative, there would be no effects from construction of in-water structures or removal of riparian vegetation to accommodate construction activities. Exi sting fish passage barriers throughout the study area would remain . Thi s alternative will not change th e ex isting effects on fish and other aquatic organisms and the habitats in which they live. Build Altenzative The Build Alternative assumes that all of the com ponents of the project will be c onstructed per the description of the Renton Nickel Improvement Project found in the beginning of this report . Effects to fish habitat from the Bu ild A lternative stem from overwater and in-strea m co nstruction , riparian buffer encroac hment, and stormwater run off that cou ld affect stream flow and water quality and in turn affect fisher ies and proposed cri tical habitat. Overwater and In-Stream Construction Strea ms affected by overwate r and in-stream const ruction associated w ith the project include Springbrook Creek and its associated s ide channel (loc ated immed iately west of the Springbrook Creek main channel) and the west fork of Panther Creek. For the streams that wil l be affected by new overwater or in-stream structures, the associated effe cts to ri pari an vegetation are also quantified in this section. For l he streams where there are no direct overwater or in-stream effects, the effects t o riparian vegetation are discu ssed in the next section. At prese nt, six lanes of 1-405 (t hree north and three south bound) cross Springbrook Creek v ia a five-cell box culvert, and cross its associated high flow side channel via a bridge supported by concrete piers. Under the Build A lternative , two additional lanes (one northbound and o ne southbound) will be added to 1-405 over Springb rook Creek. To accommodate construction of the three additional lanes , a new bridge will be const ructed that will span both the Springbrook Creek box c ulvert and its side channel. Construction of the new bridge will result in approximately 11 ,960 additional square feet of the bankfu l l width of Springbrook Creek and its side channel (90 linear feet of stream channel) being permanently covered by the new structure (these numbers do not include the portions of Springbrook Creek and its side channel that are presently covered Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report 45 K\041 :;t,\31-H6 R1...•111on '\11.. l..d\ r.i:.~ -l DR QA Q ( \O.~ Fl I\\' i\ .. 1il.,mi t1.d d · 11t, !~,·,·,.,ti dn-.:~ tnirn .,utlwr'-\ I k ,_.., fdr tin,,I .1pp ro\·,1 I-.\ Rt•nhm :'\ 1d,1.·I F & t\ D R fin,11 dn .. 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 POTEN TIAL EFFCCTS 46 by the existing bo x c ulvert under 1-405). In addition, approximately 11 ,540 square feet of the riparian buffer of Springbrook Creek (90 linear feet of ri parian buffer) will be permanently removed . The existing Springbrook box culvert is not high enough to allow natural ve g etation to grow under the culvert . The new bridge will be constructed over an ex isting riparian buffer; however, it will be constructed a minimum of 3 feet above the existing box culvert. This high e r bridge elevation w ill allow for greater natural veg etation growth in the affected area than if the existing box culvert were expanded. The increased shading from the new bridge co uld have a positive effect on Springbrook Creek through limiting direct sunlight to the creek and, in turn , helping to lower temperatu res in the creek. The west fork of Panther Creek flo ws under SR 167 via a 24-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) immediately north of the SW 41 st Street Inte rc hange. It then flows northe rly along SR 167 until it heads westerly between two bus inesses. A second overflow channel flows under SR 167 via a 30-inch CMP approximately 480 feet north of the first crossing, and confluences with the main west fork channel immediately upstrea m of where th e main west fork channel heads westerly between the two businesses. This second channel is designed to accommodate high flows from Panther Creek and does not have flow under low flow conditions . SR 167 will be w idened to the west in this area. This widening will encroach into the bankfull width of the we st fo rk of Panther Creek and will primarily affect th e bankfull width , rath er than the typical wetted w idth , of the west fork. In total , approximately 2,590 square feet of the bankfull width of Panther Creek (450 linear feet of the stream channel) will be filled to accommodate construction of the new SR 167 southbound lane. No riparian buffer impacts will occur beyond the wet land buffer impacts to wetland 25 .9 as detailed in the Wetlands Discipl ine Report for this project. An additional approximately 1,850 square feet (450 linear feet) of the riparian buffer of the east fork of Panther Creek on the east side of SR 167 will be permanently affected by the project. In total , approximately 14 ,550 square feet of stream habitat (540 linear feet of stream) within or over the OHWM and approximately 41 ,530 square feet of riparian stream buffer (3,650 linear feet of riparian stream buffer) will be permanently affected by this project. The quality of the streams affected by the R enton N i ckel Impro v eme nt Project Fisheries an d Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\0-+156\.'.\:0.()6 Rt•n ton \Jickl'I \T.1sl-.-l -OR QA-(X"\OH Fl l\\'A s u bmi ttt1 l drilfl..;\R(•\'t.'-,('d doc, from .1ulhor ... \Doc-. for final .1 rrw\'.1l,\R1._•n ton "lch•I F & :\ DR tin,•l.doc 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 15 72 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 15 9 1 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 R enton N i ckel I111pro v e111e11t Projec t P OT[NTI AL EJTFCTS project is general ly low, due to historic modificatio ns to th e strea mbeds including channel straightening , removal of in -stream st r ucture, encroachment of non- native plant spe cies, and lack of ripa ri a n cover. The phys ical attributes of these streams a re su mmarize d in Appendix B of this report. The tempo rary and perma nent effects of the project are su mm arized in E xh i bi ts 32 and 33. A discussion of the riparian buffer encro achment is p rov ided in th e next secti o n. Riparian Buffer Encroachment The project foo tprint wi ll encroach in to the r ipa ri an buffe rs of several of the streams in the study area. In add ition t o the ripar ian buffer effects to the st ream s detai led in th e Overwat er and In-Strea m Construction sectio n above, Gilliam Creek , Ro lling Hills Creek , an unna med tributary to Roll ing Hill s Creek , T hunder Hills Cre ek , and the wetland on the west s ide o f SR 167 th at is as sociated with Panther Creek will also have permanen t riparian buffer effect s from construction of the p roject. T he wetla nd associated with Panthe r Creek is discussed in th is section as there are fisheries fu nctions associated w ith it that are not includ ed in the Wetla nd Di scipline R eport for this project. For further in fo rmation on this wetland , see the Wetland Di scipline R e port for this p ro ject. Effects on riparian buffers are summa rized in Exhibits 32 and 33. Altho ugh existing ri parian conditions vary along the str e ams in the study a re a , the majority of strea ms ha v e riparian buffers that are moderately to severely degraded under existing condi ti ons. Therefore, many of the fun ctions that riparian vegetation provides (s uch a s LW D rec ru itm ent, contribution of org an ic material , fish cover, bank stabilization, and stream temperature regulat ion) are already altered and wi ll not be s ub stan tially affected as compared to existing con di tions . In stream s where ripar ia n vegetation los ses will be la rge or wil l invo lve remov i ng trees o r larg e s hrubs that provide substa ntial shade, stream buffer mitigation will occur where feasib le (see the Mitigation section for deta ils). In tota l, approximately 49,580 square feet of rip arian vegeta t ion wil l be affecte d by th is proj ect ei the r tempo ra rily (8050 square feet) or perm anentl y (41 ,530 squ are feet). Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Disc ip li n e Report 47 R 141 ~·. :P.-.f(, Rt·nhlll ,11 \...d' I ,..,1,.. -t -DI{ (..l\ \_)( \I):-,. Ht\\·\ -.uhnnt ., 1.1·t--l-'.1 ·· 1-, -.., fn\111 ,\lllh\,r-.\Du .. , 1,,, l111.1l .1pprn\ .,I-. Kl'llhm '\.r~ \...d I-&. 1\ 1)1{ lm,\l1._h\t 1600 1601 POTEN TIAL EFFECTS Gill iam Creek Unnamed Tributary to Gi lli am Creek Cottage Creek Green River Springbrook Creek and Associated Side Channel Ro lling Hil ls Creek Unnamed Tributa ry to Ro ll ing Hills Creek Thunder Hills Creek Cedar River Panther Creek Summary of Streams: fish use, temporary effects, and permanent effects Known: chinook and coho salmon , sea-run cutthroat trout , resident cutthroat trout , Western brook lamprey , and sculpin Likely: Paci fic and river lamprey, longnose dace , Speckled dace , largescale sucker, and Three-Spine Stickleback Known : None Do cume nted Lik ely : Unlikel y to be used by fish due to the limited amount of available habitat Known: None Documented Like ly : Cutthroat Trout, Western brook lamp rey , Scu lpin , longnose dace , speckled dace , largescale sucker , Three-Spine St ickleback Kno wn: chinook , Coho, Pink , Sockeye , and Chum Sa lmon , Stee lhead Tr out, Pacific And river lamprey Likely : Cutthroat Trout , Western brook lam prey, Sculpin , speck led dace , largescale sucker, Three -Spine Stickleback Known : Coho and chinook Salmon , Cutthroat Trou t, And Stee lhead Trout Likely : Wes tern brook la mprey And Sculpin speck led da ce , largescale sucker , Three-Spine Stickleback Kno wn: None Documented Likel y: Sc ulpin , Thre e-Spi ne Stickleback Known: None Do cume nted Like ly: Sculp in, Three-Spine Stick leback Known: None Documented Likely : Cutthroat Trout , Scu lpin, Th ree-Spine Stick leba ck Known : Sockeye, chinook , and Coho Salmon , Stee lh ea d Trout , Bu ll Trout , Dolly Va rden, Cutthroat Trout Likel y: Western brook lamprey , Sculpin speckled dace , largescale sucker , longfin sme lt, Three-Spi ne Stickleback Known : Coho Salmon , Cutthroat Trout Like ly: chinook Salmo n, Steelhead Trout , Cutthroat Tro ut, Western brook lamprey , Sculpin , longnose dace , speckled dace, largescale sucker, Three-Sp ine St ickleback 2,560 a riparian buffer None None 400 ri par ian buffer 1,640 riparian buffer/1,370 with in OHWM 20 ripar ian buffer 240 riparian buffer 2,780 riparian buff er e None 410 riparian buffer 10,4403 riparian buffer None b None 1,250 riparian buffer 11 ,540 riparian buffer/ 11 ,960 within OHWM 1,400 riparian buffer 7,000 riparian buffer 8,050 riparian buffer c None 1,850 riparian buffer/ 2,590 within OHWM a -Approximately half of the doc umeni ed ri parian buffe r effects to Gill iam Creek occur furt her th an seventy-five (75) feet from the OHWM of Gilli am Creek and occur in areas where the dominant vegetation is upland grasses with no tree or shrub cove r. b -This number does not include effects to the buffer of the riparian wetland (wetland 0.5L) that is associated with this stream. See the Wet lands Discipline Rep ort fo r this project fo r more in form ation on th is we tl and. c -Does not include buffer encroac hme nt io Thunder Hills Creek west of 1-405 where Thunder Hills Creek 1s contain ed wit hin a co ncrete channel. 48 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\()..11:16\T\-f)(, R1'nlon N ick t•I\ T,1s k ·I -(JI{ QA-QC'\08 Fl fW A subm ittJ I d r~1ft..,\Rt·\·1-..·d dnc ... frpm ,iuthor,\L>oc .. ft.ir fmill t1prrov.1 I..,\R1.•nt o11 \!i1..1r,..d F & A OR hn.:1 1.do<.: 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1 617 1618 1619 1620 1621 P OT[NT I AL ErFECT S Exhibit 33. Summary of Permanent Overwater, In-Stream, and Riparian Buffer Encroachment Effects Linear Distance Linear Distance Overwater/ In-of Stream Riparian Buffer of Riparian Stream Effects OHWM Affected Encroachment Buffer Affected Name of Waterbody (sq ft} (feet) (sq ft) (feet) Gil liam Creek None None 10,440 a 1,450 3 Unnamed Tributary to Gill iam Creek None None No ne b None b Cottage Creek No ne Non e None None Gree n Riv er None None 1,250 100 Springbrook Creek and Associated 11 ,960 90 11 ,540 90 Side Channe l Rolling Hi lls Creek None Non e 1,400 610 Unnamed Tributary to Rolli ng Hi ll s No ne None 7,000 410 Creek Thunde r Hills Creek None None 8,050 540 Cedar Riv er None None None None Pa nther Creek 2,590 450 1,85 0 450 Total Effects (square feet) 14,550 540 41 ,530 3,650 a -Approxima:e ly half of the docume nted riparian ouffer effects tc G1ll 1am Creek oc:ur further tha n 75 feet from the OHWM of Gilliam Creek ard occur 1n areas where the domin ant vegetat on is upland grasses with no tree or shrub co ,'er b -Th s number does not include effects to the buffer of the ripar ar wetlanc I wetland O.SL ) thal 1s assoc1aleo with th is stream . See the Wellands Discip line Report for tn1 s project for more information on :h s wetla nc .. Renton Nicke l I111pro ve111e nt Project Stream Flow The Renton Nickel Improvement Project would add approximately 15 acres of new imperv ious surface withi n the study area. This is approximately a 13 percent increase in impervio us surface area over the existing impervious area associated with 1-405 and S R 1 67 . In c reases in stream peak flows resulting from s torm events can negatively affect fish. Peak flows and s u sta ined high flows in streams can cause harm to , or k ill , fish. H arm typically occurs when fish or other aquatic species are unable to get out of high flow areas and are swept downstream or battered against rocks or streambanks . In urbanized streams where litt le to no refugia habitat exists and where stormwater events can cause rapid rises in stream levels , peak or susta ined high flows can be especially detrimental to fish . Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discip li ne Report 49 I~ \ll-1 1 )(i\ n-!16 l-fr11l\111 '\.id,t.•I\ L,..,1,.. ·1-D R (IA-Q C\ tl8 rt f\\ :\ ,ubn11t :.il ,:i.l't -R, ·. 1·,,· .. : .i,,l -" frum ,H1l ht)1·-..\ Dr-... ... for fm,11 ,1 pp111\.1 l..,\Rcnto n '\.i..J,d t-& :\ [)I{ f 11 1d! d,~ 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 P OTCNTTAL EFF[CT S 39 WS DOT Highway Ru noff Manu al 2004 . 40 WSDOT Highway Runoff Ma nu al 2004. 50 Negative effects on stream hydrology would be expected to be minimized by the following factors : • WSDOT will provide flow control for runoff from new impervious area to address c hanges in stormwater discharge to fish-bearing streams. Stormwater flow control facilities will be designed in accordance with the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual.39 • The WSDOT Highway Runoff Manuai40 mandates that the duration and magnitude of stormwater discharge into streams and rivers during storms will be generally equal to or less than that experienced under existing conditions for the full range of design , from 50 percent of the 2-year through to the 50-year re c urrent storm events . The stormwater design defers flow controls being applied to existing highway surfaces until a future project. Flow controls are being deferred since the project , which adds approximately 13 percent of new impervi o us surfacing , is well below the 50 percent increase in impervious surfacing threshold for retrofit. Existing stormwater facilities for 1-405 and SR 167 in the study area are l imited . An ecology embankment exists along a portion of the west side of SR 167 in the study area and some additional stormwater facilities are located within the 1-405/SR 167 interchange. Although there is potential for these facilities to increase potential for infiltration , these facilities do not generally provide stormwater flow control. The stormwater facilities that will be constructed as part of the project are intended to mitigate any flow effects that the new pavement will ha v e on peak flows within the study area . Likewise, no negative effects to stream base flows are likely to occur from the increase in impervious surface , as the overall amount of impervious surfacing resulting from the project will only slightly increase the total percentage of impervious surfacing in the watersheds where the project is located . Renton Ni ckel T111pro v e111 e nt Projec t Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\C).J l :;h\11-()() R,•nton Nicki:!\ T,1~k -l -OR QA-(JC\(l._q Fl r\.\ A "lJll011 lt (1l dr(1ft~\R1..·\'l"l'd dvc~ frum ,1uthor~\Dr"-" for fina l apprtn'd i!,\t<l'nlon "-:1i..'l,l'l F & A I )R final.drh.. 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 41 WS DOT Highway Runoff Manual 2004 Renton Nickel Impro vement Project P OTENTI AL Errrcrs Stream Water Quality As d iscussed above in the Stream F lows section , ex isting stormwater facilities for 1-405 and SR 167 in the study area a re limited . Except for the water quality treatment provided by the faci litie s detailed above, most stormwater from 1-405 and SR 167 in the study area is not treated before it is discharged into the strea ms or ditches in the study area. Und er the Build Alte rnative , new storm drainage systems w ill co llect runo ff from an area equal to al l new impervious surfacing c reated by the project. Runoff from this area will be treated for enhanced water quality before being disch arged into streams or rivers . Enhanced trea tment goes beyond th e basic water quality goals for s uspended solids removal by targeting dissolved pollu tants such as co pper and zinc that could be inc luded in the highway runoff. Stormwater discharges t o the streams a nd rivers of the study area wou ld comply wi th water quality regul ations i n accordance with WSDOT's High way Runoff Manual.4 1 Therefore, the water quality of storm water discharge associated with the project is not e xpected to adversely affect aquatic life in the strea ms and rivers of the study area. For more information , see the Surface Water and Water Quality Discip line R eport for this project. Fish Passage All c ulverts affected by the project were assessed to determine if they are barriers to up or downstream fish passage. Culverts deemed to be fish passage barrie rs will be assessed further to determine if they will be replaced or retrofitted as part of the project. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline R e port 51 R \tL.l l "i(,\ 1'\-1)(, ~1.·nhin '.ic..l,.,L•I\ I ,1,l,..-I · 1)1{ (Jr\-QC\0~ 1-11\\ A -..u l,m i tt.,I d ,t: ... 1,,-1 1-., d dl"lti. .... frl)lll ,,uthnr,\l.Al\·, f,1r fin,t l ,1ppr,n·,1I•,\ R,·nhm ~id,,·[ r l'i.. r\ D R im,,l doc POTEN TIAL EFFECTS 1594 Will project construction affect fisheries and aquatic 1595 resources? 1696 Project construction will have several temporary effects 1697 on fisheries and aquatic resources . These temporary 1698 effects, discussed in the sections below, are primarily 1699 related to construction-related in-water disturbances 1700 and stream diversions, in-stream sedimentation , and 1701 stream buffer and riparian vegetation. A summary of 1702 temporary construction effects related to the project can 1703 be found in Exhibit 32. 1704 Direct Disturbance and Stream Diversions 1705 Construction activities over, in, or near a stream can 1706 disturb fish , other aquatic species, and aquatic habitat. 1707 Except where absolutely necessary (as in the case of 1708 culvert replacements or extensions), construction 1709 equipment will not enter streams below the OHWM , 1710 and streams will be dewatered prior to replacing or 1711 lengthening culverts. Dewatering and stream 1712 diversions could strand or entrain (draw in) fish and 1713 create temporary barriers to fish migration . 1714 Fish stranding and entrainment will be minimized or 1715 eliminated by following WSDOT policy, which requires 1716 that appropriate NMFS protocols for fish exclusion and 1717 handling be applied to all projects. Prior to the 1718 commencement of in-water work , all fish will be 1719 excluded (e.g., with a coffer dam) and removed from 1720 the work area with appropriate methods (e.g., 1721 electrofishing). Dewatering will occur during the driest 1722 time of the year when salmon migration is least likely. 1723 In-water construction will be limited to approved work 1724 windows, as defined by permit conditions , and in- 1725 water work will be completed in the shortest time 1726 possible . These measures should minimize any 1727 adverse effects to fish and other aquatic species from 1728 project construction. 1730 Constructing culvert extensions or replacements , 1731 retaining walls , and stormwater facility discharges 1732 could introduce fine sediments into the streams and 1733 rivers of the study area through runoff and erosion. 1734 Excessive fine sediment input into streams could 1735 cause salmon eggs in the gravel to become 1736 smothered (unable to receive enough oxygen to 1737 survive), decrease micro and macro invertebrate 52 Renton Nickel Impro vem e nt Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 P u n :N f"I A L £1TcCT S survival (limiting available food for fish), and c reate co nditions where visual predators (su ch as coho salmon) ha ve reduced capacity to capture prey. In additio n , ce rta in types of sedime nts ca n cause damage to the gills of fish, increasing the risk of anox ia (the absence or red u ce d supply of oxygen in arterial blood or tissues) and stress that can lead to fish mortality (death).42 The potential for erosion and sedimentation will be highest in areas where construction activities w ill occu r within or directly adjacent to streams. Within the study area , the se areas include streams that cross or flow adjacent to 1-405 and SR 167 and where in-water (belo w the OHWM) or adjacent to water construction occ urs. Pote ntial effects from sedimentation will be minimized by : • Avoidance and Minimization -The project will use retaining wa lls to minimize effects to streams, wetlands , and other critical areas. Ex cep t where absolutely necessary, construction equipment will not enter streams below th e OHWM . Staging and stockpiling areas w ill be located we ll away from streams and ri vers . • Construction Methods -Streams will be dewatered prior to c ulverts being replaced or lengthe ned. The conditions of all applicable permits and approvals wi ll be strictly followed . • Prevention -Appropriate BMPs (as outlined in the Mitigation section) will reduce the risk of erosion and reduce or minimize opportunities for sediment to enter waterbodies in the vicinity of the project. Erosion and sediment control BMPs will be properly implemented, m onitored , and mainta ined during co n struction , so no long-term water quality effects will occur. Even with BMPs, short-term effects to water quality from sedi me nt (such as temporary increases in stream turbidity) are possible, particularly during storm events; however, these effects would be expected to be small in magnitude 42 Lake and Hinch Acute effects of suspended sedimen t angularity on juvenil e coho salmon 1999 Renton N ickel Impro vement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Disciplin (' Report 53 I~ \!~IS6\ n.l)(l Rc11 l 1111 '\kk<.:I\ 1., .. 1,.. .• -DR ()A--<...)C \n~ n I \\ A ~.ubmitt.d d1 di·· 1{1·\ •Id ti, ... :-. frn111,111 th11r<,\D1)t· .... tur •1!1(11,lr'f'f•H',ll'-\Kl'nl\lll '.11 .. h.d r & t\ 1)1{ f irhl l dot. 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 POTENTIA L EFFECTS 54 and not likely to cause harm to fish in the study area. Stream Buffer and Riparian Vegetation The project construction footprint extends a maximum of 10 feet beyond the permanent footprint of any new structures resulting from the project. Most construction-related activities will occur within these limits, with the exception of staging areas or other related off-site construction activities . Minimal additional temporary clearing , grubbing , or construction effects to riparian vegetation are anticipated beyond the permanent effects to stream buffers and riparian vegetation described previously in this report. All temporarily cleared or disturbed areas will be replanted with appropriate native vegetation . Other Potential Construction Effects Other potential short-term effects from the project could include hazardous materials (for example, oil and gasoline), chemical contaminants, nutrients, or other materials entering the waterbodies in the study area . Control of hazardous materials is a standard provision in construction contracts and permits, and will be addressed with BMPs and standard contract provisions. Servicing and refueling of vehicles will not be allowed within 100 feet of streams and wetlands , to reduce potential spills of petroleum and hydraulic fluids in sensitive areas. WSDOT will create a Spill Prevention , Control , and Countermeasures Plan prior to commencing work . Construction noise that could disturb or displace fish could occur for relatively long periods (weeks to months) at any given stream crossing. For all in- stream work , the work window specified in various permits and approvals will limit the potential noise effects to fish because these windows are designed to allow work when fish will not be present. No in-stream pile driving is planned within the OHWM of the streams and rivers of the study area. Some construction will likely occur during hours of darkness or reduced light. Therefore , artificial lighting will be required for some work areas. Lighting will be directed to illuminate work areas and avoid direct illumination of the affected waterbodies to limit effects to fish behav ior. Renton N i ck e l Improv ement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\(H 156\33.()6 R1..•11t on \lickl•I \ T..isk ·1 -DR QA-OC\08 Fl !\.VA .,ubmitt.ll d r.1 fts\Rl'V i...,t•d docs from ,u1tho rs\D <K'-for fina l a rrrm·.ils\Rt•nl,m '.\"ick<.>l F & A D R fi n,1i.do, .. POTENTIAL ErrECTS 1824 Will the project affect federally listed species and federal 1825 species of concern? 1826 The federally listed aquati c species known or 1827 pres umed to be in the study area are chinook sa lm on 18 28 and bu ll trout. Coho salmon are the only federal 1829 aq ua ti c species of concern known to inhab it the study 1830 area . At various life stages, chinook and coho salm on 1831 a re known or presumed to use G ill iam , Panth er, and 1832 Springbrook Creeks , and the Green a nd Cedar Rivers . 1833 T hou gh b ull trout use of the stud y area is likely limited 1834 d u e to th e lack of quality bull trout hab itat, the Cedar 1835 a nd Green Rivers have been designated as bu ll trout 1836 c rit ic al habitat by the USFWS. 1837 Constru c tion wi ll occur over Sp ringbrook C reek where 1838 c hinook and coho sa lm on are known to occur. This 1839 w o rk w ill involve construction of a new br idge that wi ll 1840 span both Springbrook Creek and its assoc iated s ide 1841 c han ne l. No in-wa ter wo rk wil l occur in any 1842 waterbodi es where bul l t rout are known to occur. 1843 In-w ater construction througho ut th e study a rea wi ll be 1844 l imited to approved work w in dows, as defined by perm it 184 5 con ditions , and in-water work wi ll be comp leted in the 1846 s ho rtest time possible. Appropriate and av ai la b le BM Ps 1847 w ill be used to lim it effects from constructi o n . 1848 D ue to the timing of constru ction in w ate rbod ies 1849 co nt aining federally listed species and the u se of 1850 a p prop ri ate and a v ailable BMPs , the project wil l not 1851 re su lt in negat ive effects to f edera ll y listed species o r 1852 f ederal species of concern . 1853 Does the project have other effects that could be delayed 1854 or distant from the pro ject? 1855 E ff e cts that could be delayed or distant from the 1856 proj ect inc lud e effect s that ind u ce growth and 1857 asso c iated changes in land use , popu lation density, or 1858 growth rat e . De layed o r distant effects a l so includ e 1859 e ffects on air and water and other natural syste ms , 1860 inc lud ing ecosystems . 1861 T hi s project is not ant ic ipa ted to have any other effect s 1862 t hat w ill be delayed or d ista nt from the project. 1863 R en t-on N i ckel I111pro vem e11t Project Fi sheries and Aquatic Resources Discipl ine R e port 55 }{ \l).t Fil'\ n-06 Rl 'TltlH1 '\11..h.d\ I ,h\...-+ -I)~ QA-(.)C\tl~ Fl I\\ A "uh:1.1'.L,I ti· 11:·. I{,·\ ·., d d ,>1.._..., tnirn .. w tliur..,\ l k "·"' h.1r ltn.11 .. 1p p rtn ,d ,..\l-{1 ·11 1,m "\..1 , l..1,J F & :\ DR fm,ll ,.frx. 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 MEASURES TO A VOID OR MINIMIZE PROJECT EFFECTS What will be done to avoid or minimize potential negative effects on fish and other aquatic species or aquatic habitat? WSDOT designed the Build Alternative to avoid and minimize negative permanent and temporary project effects on fish and other aquatic species and aquatic habitat. Where possible , the project design located the new roadway and associated roadway structures away from existing fish habitat to prevent permanent habitat effects. In cases where avoidance was not possible , the project was designed to minimize effects to aquatic habitat. Throughout the study area, the project design includes retaining walls that will limit direct effects to streams and stream buffers. Although existing runoff from the study area is only treated at the 1-405/SR 167 interchange and along a portion of the west side of SR 167 , all stormwater runoff from new impervious surfacing will be treated for water flows and quality, including enhanced treatment for suspended solids and metals. What will be done to minimize construction effects? 56 The actions detailed in this section will be taken to minimize the effects of project construction . All in-water work will be restricted to authorized construction periods when juvenile salmon are not likely to be present in substantial numbers. Adherence to designated work windows , as defined by appropriate permitting agencies (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW], NMFS, and the USFWS), will also eliminate or reduce in-water interference during periods when returning adult salmon are likely to be present. Throughout construction , WSDOT will use BMPs to avoid unintentional discharges of sediment from bridge, culvert, and roadway construction . Henton Nicke l Impro vement Projec t Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\01156\33-06 Rt>nlon :\.'irl-.rl\ T.isl,. -l • l)}{ Q A-QC\O~ Fl !'WA subm itta l dr,1 ft'>\ R 1..'\'t'-1..'d dtM..·,., fn.mi dlllh<.1r-•\ Do<.·, fo r fina l i"l pprm·al..., \ Rl'n h.,n '\..'ilh.,:I r & r\ DR fin~1l.dt'IC MCA S URES TO A VOID OR MI N I M I Z L PROJLCT ErrECTS 1902 WS DOT w ill restore temporarily cleared areas to pre- 1903 co ns tru ctio n grades and rep lant the areas with 1904 ap propr iate native vegetation . 1905 A ddit ional BMPs that WS DOT cou ld use during 1906 co ns truction in c lude: 1907 • D eve lo ping and implementing a temporary 1908 erosion and sediment co ntrol plan for clearing, 1909 vegetation removal, grading, ditching , filling, 1910 emba nkment compact ion , or excavation . The 1911 BMP s in the plan will be used t o co ntrol 1912 sediment inp ut from a ll vegetation or ground- 1913 disturbance activities. 1914 • Using effe ct ive erosion co ntrol mea su res , such 1915 as filter-fabric fence , straw mulch, straw bales , 1916 and plastic sheeting t o prevent silt and soil from 1917 ente ring surface wa ters (including wetlands). 1918 • Hydroseed ing bare soi l areas following 1919 grading . 1920 • Clearly la beling streams and stream buffers on 1921 the co nstructi o n plans and in the field . 1922 • Dema rcati ng clearing li mits with orange barrier 1923 fencing w hereve r c leari ng is proposed in or 1924 near critical areas. 1925 • Locating staging areas and eq uipme nt storage 1926 areas away from se nsitive areas (e.g ., strea ms 1927 and wetlands). 1928 • Refra ining from veh icl e refueling and 1929 maintenance activities within 100 feet of 1930 streams, rivers , and wetl ands. 1931 • Minimizing the duration of in-water work (below 1932 the OHWM) and strictl y adhering to the 1933 appropriate fish wo rk w indows , as dictated by 1934 applicable permits . 1935 • Prohibi ting waste and excess materials from 1936 being disposed of or allowed to re main below 1937 the OHWM . 1938 • Complying with Washington State's surface 1939 water quality standards (C hapter 173-201A 1940 WAC), w hi c h specify a mixing zone beyo nd 1941 which wa ter quality standa rd s cannot be 1942 exceeded . Monitoring of water quality w il l 1943 occur during construction to e nsu re 1944 co mplian ce with Ecol og y's standards to protect 1945 fish and aquatic life. Renton Nicke l Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resourc es Discipline Report 57 MEASURES TO A VOID OR MINIMIZE PIW/f-."CT EFFECTS 1946 • Preparing and adhering to an approved a Spill 1947 Prevention, Control , and Countermeasures 1948 Plan for the project prior to beginning any 1949 construction , and maintaining a copy of the 1950 plan with any updates at the work site. 1951 • Containing excavated sediment in tanks , or 1952 other appropriate containers, to avoid discharge 1953 to surface water, and transporting the contained 1954 sediments to an approved disposal site. 1955 • Curing concrete before contact with surface 1956 water as required by WAC 110-220-070(1 )(g) 1957 to avoid increased pH that can occur when 1958 fresh concrete contacts water. 1959 • Regularly checking items such as fuel hoses, 1960 oil drums , and oil and fuel transfer va lves and 1961 fittings for drips or leaks to prevent spi ll s into 1962 surface water. 1963 • Keeping the illum inated area and intensity of 1964 nighttime lighting to the minimum that is necessary 1965 for the intended purpose. Lights will be directed 1966 onto the work areas and away from the water. 1967 How will the project compensate for unavoidable negative 1968 effects to fisheries or aquatic resources? 1969 In cooperation w ith resource agencies, WSDOT will 1970 help to develop plans for habitat improvement, 1971 restoration , or construction to mitigate the effects of 1972 the roadway widening and the increased width of 1973 stream crossings. Specific mitigation plans wi ll be 197 4 included in the permit applications for construction of 1975 the Renton Nickel Im provement Project. Mitigation wil l 1976 take the form of on-site, in-kind mitigation (such as 1977 underp lanting native trees in an area nea r where trees 1978 had to be removed to constru ct the project) or off-site 1979 mitigation to improve habitat conditions in areas away 1980 from the project where mitigation might be more 1981 beneficial. 1982 Most of the streams affected by the Build Alternative 1983 will experience limited riparian buffer effects. The 1984 effects to fish, if any , from riparian buffer effects 1985 related to this project wi l l be small in magnitude and 1986 difficult to measure, particu l arly considering the 1987 already degraded cond ition of the existing rip arian 1988 buffer. Furthermore , on-site mitigation at the affected 1989 sites like ly may not substantia ll y improve stream 1990 functions or values in those areas. 58 Renton Nic k e l Improv ement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R\04156\JJ-06 Rl'uf 1>11 i\.'i ck"I\T ll:;k 4 -J )H (JA -(JC\US J"IJ WA .suf1111ittul d rnfts\Revis l'd d llrs {mm autlrors\nor..;Jor final "l'J"'111ob \R.eutun .l\licke/ r fr A DR fiw1l.d1 >c 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Re11to11 Nic kel I111pro ve111e11t Project M[A S UR[S T O I\ VOID OR MI N IMI Z[ PROJ[CT EFFffTS Two of the streams in the study area w ill experience work w ithin or above the OHWM. In each case, the area s affected by the project contain li mited in-stream hab it at. As wi th the riparian buffer effects, o n-s ite mitigation at the affected sites likely may not subs tantially improve stream fun ctions or va lues in those areas based on the existing degraded condition of these streams. WSDOT w ill address overwater, in-stream, and ripari an buffer effects to sati sfy the requirements of the loca l c ritical areas reg ulations , the H ydrau l ic Code, and t he ESA, and to enhance in-stre am fish habitat t o the maximum extent practicable . To achieve th is end , there are several possible mitigation options: • Pl ant native riparian vegetation to improve habitat and provide stream shading a long each of the streams where vegetation wi ll be cleared. The extent of riparian planting will be dictated by the extent of the clearing effects. • Plant native riparian vege tation outside of the study area in areas where restor ing native rip arian buffers may have a greater benefit to fish and aquatic species. Mitigation cou ld be concentrated along streams with high fish use where important stream processes and functions related to riparian buffers (e .g., LWD recruitment levels , litter fall , and bank stabilization) are impai red. • Insta ll in-stream habitat features (e.g., boulders or LWD ) in the streambed up or downstream of the project to in crease the habitat complexity of the affected waterbody. • Participate in an off-site mitigation opportunity, such as a mitigation bank , that will offset the effects of the project. This type of mitigation can provide wa tershed sca le benefits that may not be realized by providing on-site mitigation. A ll m itigati on for th is project w il l be pro vide d in areas whe re mitigation is viable in the long-term. Mitigation related to the project w i ll occur either within the Springbrook Bank, on one or more waterbod ies in the immed iate vicinity of the project footprint (on-site miti gation), or through a combination of the Springbrook Bank and on-s ite mitigation sites. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report 59 60 Kerwin, J. 2001 REFERENCES Salmon and Stee lhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar - Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission . Olympia , WA. Kerwin , John and Nelson , Tom S. (Eds .) 2000 Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report , G reen/Duwamish a nd Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 a nd Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and the K in g County Department of Natural Resources . King County Department of Public Works 1993 Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report. King County Department of Public Works , Surface Wate r Management Division , Seattle. King County Department of Natural Resources (KCDNR) 2004 Lower Green River Subwatershed Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed WRIA 9. [Onl in e] Available http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/LowerGreen.htm , Decembe r 22 , 2004. 2004 Fish Distribution Maps and Data Green/Duwamish and Centra l Puget Sound Watershed WRIA 9. [Online] Available http ://d nr. metrokc .gov/Wrias/9/Fish Dist. htm . Lake , R.G . and S .G . Hinch 1999 Acute effects of suspended sediment angu la rity on juvenile coho salmon . Canadian Journal of Fish eries and Aqu atic Sciences 56:862-867. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2000 Guidelines for Sa lm onid Passage at Stream Crossings final draft. 1999 1998 National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regi o n . Last Revised May 16, 2000. Endangered and threatened species : threatened status for three c h i nook sa lm on ESUs in Washington and Oregon , and Endangered status for one c hinook salmon ESU in Wash i ngton. Fi nal Rule . Federal Register 63(56):14308-14328. (National Marin e Fisheries Service). March 24, 1999. En dangered and threatened species: Proposed endange red status for t wo ch inook salmon ESUs a nd proposed threatened statu s for five ch inook salmon ESU s; proposed redefinition , threatened status , and revision of critical habitat for one c hinook sa lm on ESU ; proposed designation of chinook sa l mon critical habitat in California, Oregon , Washington, Idaho . Federa l Register 63 (45): 11482-11520. (Nationa l Marine Fish e ri es Service). March 9 , 1998. Renton Nickel Improvement Projec t Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\0-11 :;r,\1:1-06 R,•nt on i\:1('k.1..'I\ r,1 "\.... 4 -UR QA-C:...>C\O,i.: FI-I WA st1l ... Irt i tt .1J dr.ifts\Rl'\'i~·d d oc, from .:iuthor-.\Ooc ... for-f in,1 1 a ppro\'al-..\KL·nlt,n \lid,d .. & A DI{ hrMl.1.h.~· RErERENCES Suckley, G., and J. G. Cooper 1860 The natural history of t he Washington and Oregon territory . Bailliere Brothers , New York . 399 pp . Tukwila , City of 2001 Gilliam Creek Basin Stormwater Management Plan . Consultant Report prepared for the City of Tukwila by He rrera Environmental Consultants . Tukwila Department of Public Works, Tukwila , WA. 44 p . U .S. Army Corps of Engineers 2001 Ju veni le Salmonid Use of Lateral Stream Habitats Middle Green River, Washington 2000 Data Report . Consultant report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of E ngineers by R2 Resource Consu ltants , Inc .. U .S. Army Corps of En gineers . Sea ttle , Washington. 63 + v ii pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS ) 2004 Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound D istin ct Population Segment of Bul l Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I (of II): Puget Sound Management Unit. Portland , Oregon . 389 + xvii pp. Washington Department of Fis h and Wild life (WDFW) 2004 Priority Spe cies List: Verte brates. [Online] Available http://wdfw.wa .gov/hab /p hsvert.htm , 2004. Wash ington State Department of Transpo rtation (WSDOT) 2004 Highway Ru noff Manua l (M 31-16). Williams , W .R., R.M . Laramie , and J.J . Ames 1975 A catalog of Wash ingto n streams and sa lmon utili zation. Vo lume 1: Puget Sound Reg ion . Washington Department of Fisheries . Wydosk i, R.S . and R.R. Wh it ne y 1979 Inland fishes of Washing ton . Un iv. of Wash. Press, Seattle, WA. Renton Nickel I111pr ove111 ent Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report 61 U:\0-ll ii>\JJ-06 l<t•n t,m .\'id.l'i\ Task -I -VI< Q . .-\-QC\fJS flH \'A s11bm1tt.t! chatt~ \li.(\'1~1·rl due~ /rom uutfwr.,\l )<,e."!> f,,r /1111d u1111ru 1•11{:... \ R.,,ntu11 .\Jid,d 1· t., A OU Ji11a l .dt1f APPENDIX A Memo from Derek Koellmann to Multi-Agency Permitting (MAP) and 1-405 Teams Summarizing Stream Survey Methodology To: 1-405 Team MAP Team From: Derek Koellmann Date: March 21, 2005 Re: Recommended Stream Survey Protocols Overview The 1-405 Bellevue and Renton Improvement Project study areas cross or are located within the proximity of a variety of streams and rivers. As such, various elements of the projects have the potential to affect these waterbodies. To help determine the nature and extent of these effects, the habitat in these waterbodies must be assessed to quantitatively and qualitatively document in- stream and riparian conditions. This document describes the methodology that will be used to collect information on the physical characteristics of the streams and rivers in the study areas. The specific habitat variables to be assessed in this study include: o Existing stream geomorphology o In-stream habitat type o Riparian vegetation o Substrate composition o Abundance of large woody debris o Quality of pools The information collected will be used in conjunction with existing fisheries information (i.e., from existing reports and data, interviews, etc.) for the study areas to assess the quality and quantity of fish spawning, migration, and rearing habitat and provide information on the current and potential fish and other aquatic species use of tho streams and rivers. This methodology has been developed to document existing habitat in the study area in a manner that can be repeated so that future habitat conditions can be assessed post project construction. Mercer Slough is located within the Bellevue study area, but does not fall under the definition of a stream or river per this section, nor would the protocols recommended herein be appropriate to assess the habitat values in Mercer Slough. A separate method for documenting habitat values in Mercer Slough is proposed at the end of this memo. Stream Survey Approach Stream surveys will be performed on all streams and rivers that are crossed by 1-405 and SR 167 or are located within the immediate proximity of the project area. The surveys will be conducted from approximately 300 feet upstream and 1.320 feet downstream (1 /4 mile) of the proposed project footprint. Up to eleven transects will be laid out perpendicular to stream flow at regularly spaced intervals along the streams to be surveyed. The minimum distance between transects will be 50 feet and the maximum distance will be 300 feet. The distance between transects will be based upon the Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report A-1 I{ \ :1~ I ~6\ n-11~ Rl'nlun '.\Kkci\ 1 «~k .t -DI{ (lA-1..!l"\ 11:S f-HIV t\ ,ub1111 I'.,! , : 1.1 ·I• is, ·, ,,, "" ~ from ,\Ill hm• \ Du,·, tor rrn,11 ,1p1•r,n·,,l~\ R,·nlun '\a kd ~ & A Im fm,li d,,, APPEND1XA bankfull width of the stream to be surveyed. For some streams that run parallel to 1-405 or SR 167, such as Gilliam and Panther Creeks, two sets of transects may be established to ensure that habitat values throughout the stream reach are appropriately documented. Slightly different protocols will be used in wadeable versus non-wadeable streams and rivers. At and in-between each transect qualitative and quantitative descriptions of in-stream and riparian habitat will be collected. A summary of the protocols to be used and habitat variables to be assessed is described further below. A field training day is scheduled prior to initiating the full field effort. It is anticipated that some minor adjustments to the protocols may be needed based on this training. Protocol adjustments would be considered where applicable to improve the characterization of target parameters and/or to improve sampling efficiency. Summary of Habitat Variables and Associated Protocols The following protocols will be used to quantify the various habitat variables. Existing Stream Geomorphology Existing stream geomorphology information will be collected using protocols detailed in the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) document Quantifying Physical Habitat in Wadeab/e Streams by Kaufmann et al. (1999) (Quantifying Physical Habitat). Quantifying Physical Habitat details the concepts, rationale, and analytical procedures for characterizing physical habitat in wadeable streams based on raw data generated from methods similar or equal to those of Kaufmann and Robison (1998) that are used by the EPA in its Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). Guidance is provided for calculating measures or indices of stream size and gradient, sinuosity, substrate size, habitat complexity and cover, riparian vegetation cover and structure, and anthropogenic disturbances. Two-person crews typically complete EMAP habitat measurements in 1.5 to 3.5 hours of field time per sampling reach. While this time commitment is greater than that required for more qualitative methods, these more quantitative methods are more repeatable (i.e., more precise). Variables to be surveyed using Quantifying Physical Habitat A-2 o Wetted width o Bankfull width o Bankfull height o Stream depth o Reach Length o Sinuosity of Reach o Slope of Reach o Bank angles o Existing Stream Geomorphology Metrics o Mean and standard deviation (SD) of wetted width, bankfull width, bankfull height, stream depth, reach slope, and bank angles o Reach Sinuosity Renton Nickel Imprmmnent Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R;\[14156\33-{lt, Rru/()11 Nickd\ Tusk 4-DR QA-QC\QS FIHVA s11'1mittal draft.~\Rl'l•ised dt>csfrom a11fhurs\1Ju,·sfi>rfim,l 111•1>n>val~\Rct1to11 .\'ickrl F & A. DR _final.doc APPENDIX A In-Stream Habitat Type In-Stream Habitat Type will be quantified using the Timber Fish and Wildlife (TFW) Monitoring Program Method Manual for the Habitat Unit Survey by Pleus et al. (1999). (Habitat Unit Survey) and the EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers by Plafkin et al. (1989) (Bioassessment Protocols). The Habitat Unit Survey provides methods for identifying habitat units, measuring their surface area, and collecting information on residual pool depth and pool-forming factors. Other information produced includes pool: riffle ratio, length of side channels, and the frequency distribution of residual pool depths and pool-forming factors. The Bioassessment Protocols were originally developed in the 1980's to provide cost-effective, efficient biological survey techniques. The assessment is done using a visually-based approach to characterizing the physical habitat structure of the stream site. The concepts underlying the Bioassessment Protocols are: o Cost-effective, scientifically valid procedures for biological surveys, o Provisions for multiple site investigations in a field season, o Quick turn-around of results for management decisions, and o Scientific reports easily translated to management and the public. o Variables to be surveyed using the Habitat Unit Survey o Stream Discharge o Core Habitat Units (e.g. pool & riffle sequences) o Surface Area Measurements of Core Habitat Units o Residual Pool Depths o Pool Forming Factors (e.g. LWD, boulder. etc) o Variables to be surveyed using Bioassessment Protocols o Epifaunal substrate/available cover o Channel Alteration (including armoring) o In-Stream Habitat Type Metrics o Stream discharge (cfs) o % of Core Habitat Units o Habitat Units per Kilometer and Bankfull Width o Pools per Kilometer o Factors contributing to pool formation (PFF) o % of units o % of primary PFF o % of pool surface area o Mean and SD residual pool depth o Mean and SD % epifaunal substrate/available cover Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report A-3 R: \ fJ41.~b \.3.3-116 lfr11fon Nickd\ T1,~k 4 -DR QA-()C\ f/8 /"/J\V_,, sulm, ,11,,/ ,I, .,n, \I<,.,·,,,,/ dn(~ (nm, ,wthor, \ D,><·~ for fiiwl <1/'f'!''-'rnls\ Henton Nickd r fr A /JH. fi11,./.,/v( APPENDIX A o % Altered channel o % Streambank armoring Riparian Vegetation Riparian vegetation will be quantified using a combination of protocols from Quantifying Physical Habitat and Bioassessment Protocols. Variables to be surveyed using Quantifying Physical Habitat o Canopy Cover o Riparian Vegetative Structure o Variables to be surveyed using Bioassessment Protocols o Bank Stability o Bank Vegetative Protection o Riparian Vegetative Zone Width Riparian Vegetation Metrics o Mean and SD of canopy densiometer values o % ground cover, mid layer vegetation cover, and canopy level cover, % total ground, mid layer vegetation, and canopy level cover, and % invasives o Mean and SD % Bank Stability o Mean and SD % Bank Vegetative Protection o Mean and SD % Riparian Vegetative Zone Width Substrate Composition Substrate composition information will be collected using protocols detailed in Quantifying Physical Habitat and Methods for Evaluating Riparian Habitats with Applications to Management by Platts et al. (1987) (Evaluating Riparian Habitats). For smaller stream segments where there is not adequate stream length to apply this method, a Wolman pebble count will be conducted to determine substrate composition. (Wolman 1954). Evaluating Riparian Habitats is a comprehensive compilation of methods for resource specialists to use in managing, evaluating, and monitoring riparian conditions adjacent to streams, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. Variables to be surveyed using Quantifying Physical Habitat o Substrate Size o Substrate Composition Variables to be surveyed using Evaluating Riparian Habitats A-4 o Substrate Embeddedness (%) NOTE: In non-wadeable systems, such as the Green River, substrate sizes will be estimated either visually (where possible) or by using the drag method as prescribed by Lazorchak et al. (2000) in the Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of Non-Wadeable Rivers and Streams. o Substrate Composition Metrics Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R: \04156 \33-06 Renton 1,iickd\ Ta.~k 4-nR QA,-QC\OR t Hi VA sulm1ittr1( 1/rufts \ l?.CT.:ised docs r·rom aiit}wr.~ \ nor5 for_fiual approua/s \nn,t(m Nickel r fr A DR_fimil.doc APP£NDIXA o Mean and SD of substrate size class o 75th percentile of substrate size class o Substrate median size class o 25th percentile of substrate size class o % breakdown of substrate size classes o Mean and SD % embeddedness Abundance of Large Woody Debris Abundance of Large Woody Debris (LWD) will be quantified using the Level 1 survey method from the TFW Monitoring Program (LWD Method) method manual for the large woody debris survey by Schuett-Hames et al.(1999). The LWD Method provides methods for documenting the number, volume and characteristics of large woody debris pieces in stream channels. The Level 1 survey involves a rapid tally of pieces by size category and produces information on total and key LWD pieces per channel width. Variables to be surveyed using the LWD Method o Number of LWD Pieces o Identification of Key LWD Pieces o Distribution of LWD in stream corridor o LWD jam composition Large Woody Debris Metrics o % LWD pieces by size class and channel zone o % key LWD pieces o LWD pieces per channel width o LWD pieces per kilometer o LWD jam composition by% size class Quality of Pools Quality of Pools will be measured using methods described in Monitoring Protocols to Evaluate Water Quality Effects of Grazing Management on Western Rangeland Streams by Bauer and Burton (1993) (Water Quality Effects). Water Quality Effects describes a monitoring system to assess grazing impacts on water quality in streams o the western United States. The monitoring methods were selected for application by natural resource professionals with backgrounds in soils, range, hydrology, fisheries biology, and water quality. Though designed to be used in an agricultural environment, many of the protocols in this document (such as assessment of pool quality) can be applied over a broad geographic range. Variables to be surveyed using the Water Quality Effects o Pool depth (in conjunction with the Habitat Unit Survey) o Substrate o Overhead Cover o Submerged Cover Renton Nickel Improvement Pro}ect Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report A-5 R:\1141.)li\ l.l-/lf, Jfrut,m ,'IJ,,·kd\ Ta~k 4 -IJH Q.--\-QC\OS rTHVA s11!,111il/,;i ,l.•,1//s\/\,·;·,se·d ,fon fro.,, ,,,.t/wrs\llocs for /i,rnl ,11,pr(11•r1fo\R,·11tu11 ,\'ickd /" 6 A DR /111<1/.,foc APPENDIX A o Bank Cover NOTE: The individual variables surveyed will be assimilated into a pool quality index that will detail habitat values for individual pools. o Quality of Pool Metrics o Mean and SD pool quality index Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) OHWM measurements will be conducted in accordance with the protocols contained in A Guide for Field Identification of Bankfu/1 Stage in the Western United States by the USDA, Forest Service, Stream Systems Technology Center Rocky Mountain Research Station. The OHWM for each stream will be marked for 60 lineal feet along the stream from the proposed toe of slope of impact line. In instances where the OHWM is located more than 60 lineal feet from the proposed toe of slope of impact line OHWM will not be marked and it will be documented in a technical memorandum that the distance to the OHWM exceeds 60 lineal feet. Establishing Reference Points A handheld GPS unit will be used to establish reference points at the upstream and downstream end of each surveyed stream reach to allow for future surveys to be conducted within the same reach. Photographic Documentation Photographs will be taken at the upstream end, downstream end, and mid-point of each survey reach. In addition, significant features (e.g. LWD jams, culvert outlets, etc) will also be photographed. Mercer Slough Mercer Slough is a unique feature within the Bellevue study area. Several streams in the study area outlet into the slough, however the slough itself is a lacustrine (lake influenced), rather than a riverine, system. The slough is used by a variety of aquatic species and acts as a migration corridor and rearing area for salmonids in various life stages. To assess the habitat values of Mercer Slough, habitat survey crews will determine the extent of inundated vegetated areas and deeper channel areas (those with no vegetation breaking the surface of the slough). A Differential Global Position System (DGPS) will be used to collect data along the outer margin of the wetted perimeter and deeper channel areas of Mercer Slough within the study area. This approach will provide information on the extent of the two main habitat types in Mercer Slough. A discussion of how these habitats could be affected by the project and/or used by fish could be prepared as part of the Bellevue Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report. Existing information will be used to determine fish use in Mercer Slough. References A guide for field identification of bankfull stage in the western United States [videorecording] I producers, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Stream Systems Technology Center; producer/director, Chris Frye. A-6 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\fl41.'i6\JJ-//6 Rl'tzt1>11 Nickel\ Task4 -DR Q."·QC\08 Flfl'VA submittal dmfts\Rcdscd docs from rrut!wr~ \Don j(irfiual an•roua/s\Re11tm1 Nickel f fr 4 llR fiwtl.doc APPENDIX A Bauer, S. B., and Burton, T. A. 1993. Monitoring protocols to evaluate water quality effects of grazing management on western rangeland streams. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Water Division, Surface Water Branch. Region 10, Seattle, Washington. pp. 145-148. Kaufmann, P.R., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. 1999. Quantifying Physical Habitat in Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-99/003. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Lazorchak, J M , Hill, B.H., Averill, D.K. D.V. Peck, and D.J. Klemm (editors). 2000. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program -Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of Non-Wadeable Rivers and Streams U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati OH. Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Ben/hie macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C. EPA 440-4-89- 001. Platts, W. S., C. Armour, G. D. Booth, M. Bryant. J. L. Bufford, P. Cuplin, S. Jensen, G. W. Lienkaemper, G. W. Minshall, S. B. Monsen, R. L. Nelson, J. R. Sedell, and J. S. Tuhy. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to management. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-221. lntermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 187 pp. Pleus, A.E., D. Schuett-Hames, and L. Bullchild. 1999. TFW Monitoring Program method manual for the habitat unit survey. Prepared for the Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources under the Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Agreement TFW-AM9-99-003. DNR #105. June. J. G. Scholz and D. B. Booth, 2001, Monitoring small urban streams: Strategies and protocols for humid-region lowland systems: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 71(2), p. 143-164 Schuett-Hames, D., A.E. Pleus, J. Ward, M. Fox, and J. Light. 1999. TFW Monitoring Program method manual for the large woody debris survey Prepared for the Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources under the Timber, Fish. and Wildlife Agreement. TFW-AM9-99-004. DNR #106. June. Wolman, M.G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river bed material. American Geophysical Union 35:951-956. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report A-7 R; \/I.J.IS6 \ U-/Jli R,•ut,)11 ,'1,'i,-kcl\ ·1 a,k 4 -DH Q,-\-QC\ OS U HVA ~11/Hnitf,, I ,/,·,r//_, \ /~,·, ·1,.-d ,/ors from ,111//101·~ \ l),lc".s f"r final "l'l'nH•t1/~\ R,·11tm1 ,\'ickel r fr A Im fi1m/.doc APPEN/JIX A A-8 This page intentionally blank. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\041:"if>\.lJ-f/6 Re11to11 Nickd\ Tusk 4-Im QA-QC\l!ti FHW4 su/m,ittal drnft;;\Rl'-vised docs fwm uut/1(!~\llocs j,ir fim,I a111mma!~\Re11to11 Nickel f fr A DR fi,w/.rloc APPENDIXB Stream Survey Summaries Habitat Survey Summary Information Sheet Pool Quality Pool quality is rated at a value between O and 10, with 10 being the highest complexity (quality) and O the lowest quality. Pool quality, as detailed in the summaries that follow, is the average of pool quality ratings for all of the pools evaluated in that stream reach. Pool quality measurements are qualitative ratings based on a combination of measurements of pool depth, size class of pool substrate, and overhead, submerged, and stream bank cover. Bank Angles Bank angles presented in the habitat survey summaries include data on undercut banks. Habitat Parameters Habitat Condition Cateaorv Parameter Ontimal Suboptimal Mar11inal Poor Channel Channelization or Some channciization Channelization may be Banks shored with Alteration dredging absent or present. usually 1n extensive; shoring gab ion or cement: over minimal; stream with areas of bridge structures present on 80% of the stream normal pattern. abutments; evidence of both banks; 40-80% of reach channelized and past channelization stream reach disrupted. In-stream may be present, but channelized and habitat greatly altered recent channelization is disrupted. or removed entirely. not present Bank Banks stable; evidence Moderately stable: Moderately unstable; Unstable: many eroded Stability of erosion or bank infrequent, small areas 30-60% of bank in areas; "raw" areas failure absent or of erosion mostly reach has areas of frequent along straight minimal; little potential healed over. 5-30% of erosion; high erosion sections and bends: for future problems. < bank in reach has areas potential during floods obvious bank 5% of bank affected. of erosion sloughing: 60-100% if bank has erosion scars. Vegetative More than 90% of the 70-90% of the 50-70% of the Less than 50% of the Protection stream bank surfaces strearnbank surfaces streambank surfaces streambank surfaces and immediate riparian covered by native covered by native covered by native zones covered by vegetation, but one vegetation: disruption vegetation; disruption of native vegetation, class of plants is not obvious. streambank vegetation vegetative disruption well-represented; is very high. minimal or not evident: disruption evident but almost all plants not affecting full plant allowed to grow growth potential to any naturally. great extent Riparian Width of riparian zone Width of riparian zone Width of riparian zone Width of riparian zone Vegetative >18 meters; human 12-18 meters; human 6-12 meters: human <6 meters; little or no Zone activities have not activities have impacted activities have impacted riparian vegetation due Width impacted zone. zone only rninimally zone a great deal to human activities. Bellevue Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report B-1 Laroe Woodv Debris Metrics Channel Zone 1 -Number of LWD Channel Zone 1 -% of total LWD Channel Zone 2 -Number of LWD Channel Zone 2 -% of total LWD Channel Zone 3 -Number of LWD Channel Zone 3 -% of total LWD Total number of LWD Number of Key LWD Pieces % Key L WD Pieces LWD Pieces per KM Existing Stream Geomoroholonv Metrics Mean Wetted Width Mean Bankfull Width Mean Bankfull Height Mean Stream Depth Mean Reach Slope Mean Left Bank Angle Mean Right Bank Angle SD of Wetted Width SD of Bankfull Width SD of Bankfull Height SD of Stream Depth SD of Left Bank Angle SD of Right Bank Angle Total Stream Length Surveyed (m) Qualitv of Pool Metrics Mean Pool Quality Index SD of Pool Quality Index Total Number of Pools Canoov Cover Measurements % Canopy Cover B-2 APPENIJIX B Gilliam Creek Habitat Survey Summary Sheet 6 15% 20 50% 14 35% 40 0 0% 55.2 3.19 m 5.53 m 0.92 m 37.02 cm 1% 64" 55" 0.52 m 1.03 m 0.14 m 17.68 cm 28" 25" 724.6 m 5.18 1.4 11 90% In-Stream Habitat Tvoe Metrics Stream Discharge 4.436 cfs HUs Per KM 46.92 Pools per KM 15.18 Mean Residual Pool Depth 39 cm SD of Residual Pool Depth 23.49 cm Mean Channel Alteration Marginal Mean Left Bank Stability Marginal Mean Right Bank Stability Marginal Mean Bank Stability Marginal Mean Left Bank Vegetative Protection Poor Mean Right Bank Vegetative Protection Poor Mean Vegetative Protection Overall Poor Mean Left Bank Riparian Zone Width Marginal Mean Right Bank Riparian Zone Width Marginal Mean Riparian Zone Width Marginal Substrate Comoosition Metrics Dominant Substrate Class Size Fine Gravel % Boulder (250 to 4000 MM) 3% % Cobble (64 to 255 MM) 7% % Coarse Gravel (16 to 64 MM) 3% % Fine Gravel (2 to 16 MM) 20% % Sand (.06 to 2 MM) 31% % Silt/Sand/Muck 26% % Hardpan 6% %Wood 4% Mean % Embeddedness 63% SD of% Embeddedness 44% Riparian Veaetation Metrics % Canopy Vegetation Cover Heavy (40-75%) % Mid Layer Vegetation Cover Very Heavy (>75%) Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R: \ (14156\3.3-06 lknfu11 .\'ickd\ T11~k 4 -IJR QA-QC\08 ff/WA srd1111ilta/ draft~ \Hcl'ised docs {row n11f/ior~\Oors for final appml'<ll.~ \Rcntmz Nickel r & A DR_jinal.duc APPENDIX H Cottage Creek Habitat Survey Summary Sheet Lariie Woody Debris Metrics In-Stream Habitat Tvne Metrics Channel Zone 1 -Number of LWD 0 Stream Discharge NIA Channel Zone 1 -% of total LWD 0% HUs Per KM 270.27 Channel Zone 2 -Number of LWD 0 Pools per KM 0 Channel Zone 2 -% of total LWD 0% Mean Residual Pool Depth NIA Channel Zone 3 -Number of LWD 0 SD of Residual Pool Depth NIA Channel Zone 3 -% of total LWD 0% Mean Channel Alteration NIA Total number of L WD 0 Mean Left Bank Stability NIA Number of Key LWD Pieces 0 Mean Right Bank Stability NIA % Key LWD Pieces 0% Mean Bank Stability NIA L WD Pieces per KM 0 Mean Left Bank Vegetative Protection NIA Mean Right Bank Vegetative Protection NIA Existin!l Stream Geomorpholoav Metrics Mean Vegetative Protection Overall NIA Mean Wetted Width NIA Mean Left Bank Riparian Zone Width NIA Mean Bankfull Width NIA Mean Right Bank Riparian Zone Width NIA Mean Bankfull Height NIA Mean Riparian Zone Width NIA Mean Stream Depth N/A Mean Reach Slope NIA Substrate Composition Metrics Mean Left Bank Angle NIA Dominant Substrate Class Size NIA Mean Right Bank Angle NIA % Boulder (250 to 4000 MM) NIA SD of Wetted Width NIA % Cobble (64 to 255 MM) NIA SD of Bankfull Width NIA % Coarse Gravel (16 to 64 MM) NIA SD of Bankfull Height NIA % Fine Gravel (2 to 16 MM) NIA SD of Stream Depth NIA % Sand (.06 to 2 MM) NIA SD of Left Bank Angle NIA % SilVSandlMuck NIA SD of Right Bank Angle NIA % Hardpan NIA Total Stream Length Surveyed (m) 37 m %Wood NIA Mean % Embeddedness NIA Quality of Pool Metrics SD of% Embeddedness NIA Mean Pool Quality Index 0 SD of Pool Quality Index 0 Riparian Veiietation Metrics Total Number of Pools 0 % Canopy Vegetation Cover NIA % Mid Layer Vegetation Cover NIA Canopv Cover Measurements % Canopy Cover NIA Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report B-3 I\:\ IH 136\ 11-llf: Fk·nlun !\i,;kl'i \T,1sk ~ -DR ():\-QC\Uh FH\.,'A ,ubnnlt,,I d, ail,\ R1.·,·i~l'd Jocs frorn ,lll thur~\ Doc~ for frn.ll •'Pl'"" ,,I~\ l{,·11tr111 .\;id.:,,] F & :\ 01\ ti ri.,I doc APPENDIX B Large Woody Debris Metrics Channel Zone 1 -Number of LWD Channel Zone 1 -% of total LWD Channel Zone 2 -Number of LWD Channel Zone 2 -% of total LWD Channel Zone 3 -Number of LWD Channel Zone 3 -% of total LWD Total number of LWD Number of Key LWD Pieces % Key LWD Pieces LWD Pieces per KM Existing Stream Geomorpholoav Metrics Mean Wetted Width Mean Bankfull Width Mean Bankfull Height Mean Stream Depth Mean Reach Slope Mean Left Bank Angle Mean Right Bank Angle SD of Wetted Width SD of Bankfull Width SD of Bankfull Height SD of Stream Depth SD of Left Bank Angle SD of Right Bank Angle Total Stream Length Surveyed (m) Quality of Pool Metrics Mean Pool Quality Index SD of Pool Quality Index Total Number of Pools Canoov Cover Measurements % Canopy Cover B-4 Unnamed Tributary to Gilliam Creek Habitat Survey Summary Sheet In-Stream Habitat Type Metrics 0 Stream Discharge 0% HUs Per KM 0 Pools per KM 0% Mean Residual Pool Depth 0 SD of Residual Pool Depth 0% Mean Channel Alteration 0 Mean Left Bank Stability 0 Mean Right Bank Stability 0% Mean Bank Stability 0 Mean Left Bank Vegetative Protection Mean Right Bank Vegetative Protection Mean Vegetative Protection Overall 1.2 m Mean Left Bank Riparian Zone Width 6.3 m Mean Right Bank Riparian Zone Width 1.3 m Mean Riparian Zone Width 11.33cm 6% Substrate Composition Metrics 39° Dominant Substrate Class Size 16° % Boulder (250 to 4000 MM) 0.14 m % Cobble (64 to 255 MM) N/A % Coarse Gravel (16 to 64 MM) 0.14 m % Fine Gravel (2 to 16 MM) 5.43 cm % Sand (.06 to 2 MM) 30° % Silt/Sand/Muck 08° % Hardpan 13.4 m %Wood Mean % Embeddedness SD of% Embeddedness N/A N/A Riparian Vegetation Metrics 0 % Canopy Vegetation Cover % Mid Layer Vegetation Cover 82% N/A 74.63 0 N/A N/A Suboptimal Suboptimal Suboptimal Suboptimal Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor SilUSand/Muck 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 90% 0% 0% 90% 32% Moderate (10-40%) Very Heavy (> 75%) Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R: \041.'16 \.1.1-1)6 Rnrfim Nickel\ T11sk 4 -l)R QA-QC\ (18 Fl-fW4 submittal r/rafts \lfrriised docs from m1f/wrs \noc.~ for_fi1111/ ap/'ro,m/s \rfr11t,m Nickd r & A UR fitrnl.doc ----------------.,l'P[i\"' - Green River Habitat Survey Summary Sheet Large Woody Debris Metrics In-Stream Habitat Tvoe Metrics Channel Zone 1 -Number of LWD 3 Stream Discharge NIA Channel Zone 1 -% of total LWD 38% HUs Per KM 1 Channel Zone 2 -Number of L WD 5 Pools per KM NIA Channel Zane 2 -% of total L WD 63% Mean Residual Pool Depth N/A Channel Zone 3 -Number of LWD 0 SD of Residual Pool Depth NIA Channel Zone 3 -% of total L WO 0% Mean Channel Alteration Poor Total number of LWD 8 Mean Left Bank Stability Optimal Number of Key LWO Pieces 0 Mean Righi Bank Stability Optimal % Key L WD Pieces 0% Mean Bank Stability Optimal L WD Pieces per KM 13.33 Mean Left Bank Vegetative Protection Poor Mean Right Bank Vegetative Protection Poor Existing Stream Geomorpholoav Metrics Mean Vegetative Protection Overall Poor Mean Wetted Width 28.31 m Mean Left Bank Riparian Zone Width Poor Mean Banklull Width 30 38 m Mean Right Bank Riparian Zone Width Poor Mean Bankfull Height 0.77 m Mean Riparian Zone Width Poor Mean Stream Depth 7·1 cm Mean Reach Slope N/A Substrate Composition Metrics Mean Left Bank Angle 47° Dominant Substrate Class Size Boulder Mean Right Bank Angle 38° % Bedrock (smooth) 4% SD of Wetted Width 2.95 m % Boulder (250 to 4000 MM) 39°/o SD of Bankfull Width 3.09 m % Cabble (64 to 255 MM) 0% SO of Bankfull Height 0.13 m % Coarse Gravel (16 to 64 MM) 4% SD of Stream Depth 8.48 cm % Fine Gravel (2 to 16 MM) 0% SO of Left Bank Angle 11 ° % Sand (.06 to 2 MM) 21% SD of Right Bank Angle 15' % SilVSand/Muck 32% Total Stream Length Surveyed (m) 600 m % Hardpan QO/o %Wood 0% Qualitv of Pool Metrics Mean % Embeddedness 59% Mean Pool Quality Index N/A SD of% Embeddedness 44% SD of Pool Quality Index N/A Total Number of Pools NIA Rioarian Veaetation Metrics % Canopy Vegetation Cover Moderate ( 10-40%) Canoov Cover Measurements % Mid layer Vegetation Cover Very Heavy (>75%) % Canopy Cover 15% Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report B-5 \\:\ll-\1'3(,\33-Ui, \{<·nl,,,, l-..ii<h'\\'l'.,~k 4 DR QA-l.)C\\lt fllW A ,·.1t1t\11it,,I d1.lfh\R,:v1~c•,I li"~' i,,,n, ~ulbni·,\D,,,-~ i,or fin,,1. -'<f'l'rt.1Y,1 1,,,\ R<.T.lrn', \.:kkl'I f, & ,\ PK fi,1,1 1 .. ,\<', ------APPENDIX B Laroe Woodv Debris Metrics Channel Zone 1 -Number of LWO Channel Zone 1 -% of total LWO Channel Zone 2 -Number of LWO Channel Zone 2 -% of total LWD Channel Zone 3 -Number of LWO Channel Zone 3 -% of total LWD Total number of LWD Number of Key LWD Pieces % Key LWD Pieces LWD Pieces per KM Existing Stream Geomorpholoav Metrics Mean Wetted Width Mean Bankfull Width Mean Bankfull Height Mean Stream Depth Mean Reach Slope Mean Left Bank Angle Mean Right Bank Angle SD of Wetted Width SD of Bankfull Width SD of Bankfull Height SD of Stream Depth SD of Left Bank Angle SD of Right Bank Angle Total Stream Length Surveyed (m) Qualitv of Pool Metrics Mean Pool Qualrty Index SD of Pool Quality Index Total Number of Pools Canoov Cover Measurements % Canopy Cover B-6 -------- Springbrook Creek Habitat Survey Summary Sheet In-Stream Habitat Tvoo Metrics 0 Stream Discharge 0% HUs Per KM 0 Pools per KM 0% Mean Residual Pool Depth 0 SO of Residual Pool Depth 0% Mean Channel Alteration 0 Mean Lett Bank Stability 0 Mean Right Bank Stability 0% Mean Bank Stability 0 Mean Left Bank Vegetative Protection Mean Right Bank Vegetative Protection Mean Vegetative Protection Overall 13.85 m Mean Left Bank Riparian Zone Width 17.35 m Mean Right Bank Riparian Zone Width 0.71 m Mean Riparian Zone Width 36.93cm 1% Substrate Composition Metrics 53° Dominant Substrate Class Size 67° % Boulder (250 to 4000 MM) 4.79 m % Cobble (64 to 255 MM) 5.12 m % Coarse Gravel (16 to 64 MM) 0.38 m % Fine Gravel (2 to 16 MM) 22.12 cm % Sand (.06 to 2 MM) 22° % Silt/Sand/Muck 28° % Hardpan 468.5 m %Wood % Other Mean % Embeddedness 6.5 SD of % Embeddedness 0.7 2 Rioarian Veaetation Metrics % Canopy Vegetation Cover % Mid Layer Vegetation Cover 84% ---- 16.907 els 21.34 4.27 110.5 cm 4.95 cm Marginal Marginal Suboptimal Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal Silt/Sand/Muck 0%> 2% 9% 13% 24% 46% 0% 2% 4% 78% 37% Heavy (40-75%) Very Heavy (> 75%) Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R;\041.'i6\J3~06 Rl'»ton Niciir/\ Ta!<k 4 -DR QA-QC\l}S I-HWA !<llbmitt»/ ,-/r11fts\Rl';,isrd 1fors from ,mtiwrs\Om'~ ft>r{ina/ np;mnm!s\Rw!vn N.irkd f' 6 A DR.__fmi!l.rfor - APPrNDIXH Panther Creek Habitat Survey Summary Sheet Larcie Woody Debris Metrics In-Stream Habitat Type Metrics Channel Zone 1 -Number of LWD 0 Stream Discharge 0.147cfs Channel Zone 1 -% of total LWD 0% HUs Per KM 13.99 Channel Zone 2 -Number of LWD 0 Pools per KM 349 Channel Zone 2 -% of total L WD 0% Mean Residual Pool Depth 25 cm Channel Zone 3 -Number of LWD 0 SD of Residual Pool Depth N/A Channel Zone 3 -% of total LWD 0% Mean Channel Alteration Poor Total number of LWD 0 Mean Lett Bank Stability Suboptimal Number of Key LWD Pieces 0 Mean Right Bank Stability Suboptimal % Key LWD Pieces 0% Mean Bank Stability Suboptimal L WD Pieces per KM 0 Mean Lett Bank Vegetative Protection Poor Mean Right Bank Vegetative Protection Poor Existing Stream Geomorpholoav Metrics Mean Vegetative Protection Overall Poor Mean Wetted Width 0 98 m Mean Left Bank Riparian Zone Width Marginal Mean Bankfull Width 3.64 rn Mean Right Bank Riparian Zone Width Poor Mean Bankfull Height 0 86 m Mean Riparian Zone Width Poor Mean Stream Depth 14 0 cm Mean Reach Slope 2% Substrate Composition Metrics Mean Left Bank Angle 71 ° Dominant Substrate Class Size SilVSand/Muck Mean Right Bank Angle 45° % Bedrock (smooth) 0% SD of Wetted Width 0.16 m % Boulder (250 to 4000 MM) 4% SD of Bankfull Width 1.25 m % Cobble (64 to 255 MM) 8% SD of Bankfull Height 0.21 m % Coarse Gravel (16 to 64 MM) 0% SD of Stream Depth 6.37 cm % Fine Gravel (2 to 16 MM) 8% SD of Left Bank Angle 36° % Sand (.06 to 2 MM) 12% SD of Right Bank Angle 20' % Silt/Sand/Muck 68% Total Stream Length Surveyed (m) 286 m % Hardpan 0% %Wood 0% Qualitv of Pool Metrics % Other 0% Mean Pool Quality Index 4 Mean % Embeddedness 87% SD of Pool Quality Index N/A SD of% Embeddedness 6% Total Number of Pools 1 Riparian Vegetation Metrics Canoov Cover Measurements % Canopy Vegetation Cover Absent % Canopy Cover 53% % Mid Layer Vegetation Cover Moderate (10-40%) Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report B-7 K\l\.l-J~r,\:tl-(161~,·nt,,n N,,h·I\ J.1~1-.. .J. -llR QA-QC\Ll/3 FH\'\':\ ,ul•n1i:L,1I dr,1f1,\lfrv1,nl d,,,, f,-.,,,, .,,,th,H,\1"1,-., f,,, ftn,11 ''l'Pn" ,il,\R,·nllln N1,l-..d F & I\ DR fm,11 ,:rn APPEJVDIX B Large Woody Debris Metrics Channel Zone 1 -Number of LWD Channel Zone 1 -% of total L WO Channel Zone 2 -Number of LWD Channel Zone 2 -% of total LWD Channel Zone 3 -Number of LWD Channel Zone 3 -% of total L WO Total number of LWD Number of Key LWD Pieces % Key LWD Pieces LWD Pieces per KM Existing Stream Geomorpholoav Metrics Mean Wetted Width Mean Bankfull Width Mean Bankfull Height Mean Stream Depth Mean Reach Slope Mean Left Bank Angle Mean Right Bank Angle SD of Wetted Width SD of Bankfull Width SD of Bankfull Height SD of Stream Depth SD of Left Bank Angle SD of Right Bank Angle Total Stream Length Surveyed (m) Quality of Pool Metrics Mean Pool Quality Index SD of Pool Quality Index Total Number of Pools Canopy Cover Measurements % Canopy Cover B-8 Rolling Hills Creek Habitat Survey Summary Sheet In-Stream Habitat Type Metrics 0 Stream Discharge 0% HUs Per KM 0 Pools per KM 0% Mean Residual Pool Depth 0 SD of Residual Pool Depth 0% Mean Channel Alteration 0 Mean Left Bank Stability 0 Mean Right Bank Stability 0% Mean Bank Stability 0 Mean Left Bank Vegetative Protection Mean Right Bank Vegetative Protection Mean Vegetative Protection Overall 2.29 m Mean Left Bank Riparian Zone Width 3.35 m Mean Right Bank Riparian Zone Width 0.68 m Mean Riparian Zone Width 18.25 cm 1% Substrate Composition Metrics 93" Dominant Substrate Class Size 47" % Bed rock (smooth) 0.31 m % Boulder (250 to 4000 MM) 0.56 m % Cobble (64 to 255 MM) 0.10 m % Coarse Gravel (16 to 64 MM) 11.58cm % Fine Gravel (2 to 16 MM) 32" % Sand (.06 to 2 MM) 26" % SilVSand/Muck 189.7 m % Hardpan %Wood Mean % Embeddedness 5.86 SD of% Embeddedness 0.69 7 Riparian Vegetation Metrics % Canopy Vegetation Cover % Mid Layer Vegetation Cover 89% 1.437 els 63.26 36.9 29.29 cm 10.70 cm Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Fine Gravel 3% 0% 15% 5% 35% 28% 15% 0% 4% 69% 34% Sparse (<10%) Moderate (10-40%) Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R:\04156\JJ-06 Renton Nickel\ Task 4-DR QA-QC\OS FIH'VA ~ubmjttal drafts\Rf"!,js,·d duo frum aut/wr~ \Docsfvr fim,111pprut•ub\R,•nto11 Nid,d r & A DR_jinal.,foc Larqe Woodv Debris Metrics Channel Zone 1 -Number of L WD Channel Zone 1 -% of total LWD Channel Zone 2 -Number of LWD Channel Zone 2 -% of total LWD Channel Zone 3 -Number of LWD Channel Zone 3 -% of total LWD Total number of LWD Number of Key LWD Pieces % Key L WD Pieces L WD Pieces per KM Existin~ Stream Geomorpholoav Metrics Mean Wetted Width Mean Bankfull Width Mean Bankfull Height Mean Stream Depth Mean Reach Slope Mean Left Bank Angle Mean Right Bank Angle SD of Wetted Width SD of Bankfull Width SD of Bankfull Height SD of Stream Depth SD of Left Bank Angle SD of Right Bank Angle Total Stream Length Surveyed (m) Qualitv of Pool Metrics Mean Pool Quality Index SD of Pool Quality Index Total Number of Pools Canoov Cover Measurements % Canopy Cover Renton Nickel Improvement Project Unnamed Tributary to Rolling Hills Creek Habitat Survey Summary Sheet In-Stream Habitat Tvoe Metrics 0 Stream Discharge 0% HUs Per KM 0 Pools per KM 0% Mean Residual Pool Depth 0 SD of Residual Pool Depth 0% Mean Channel Alteration 0 Mean Left Bank Stability 0 Mean Right Bank Stability 0% Mean Bank Stability 0 Mean Left Bank Vegetative Protection Mean Right Bank Vegetative Protection Mean Vegetative Protection Overall 2.61 m ~v1ean Left Bank Riparian Zone Width 373 m Mean Right Bank Riparian Zone Width 0.56 m Mean Riparian Zone Width 17.5 cm 4% Substrate Composition Metrics 46° Dominant Substrate Class Size 5T % Bedrock (smooth) 4.32 m % Boulder (250 to 4000 MM) 4.76 m % Cobble (64 to 255 MM) 0.16 m % Coarse Gravel (16 to 64 MM) 11.37 cm % Fine Gravel (2 to 16 MM) 16" % Sand (.06 to 2 MM) 11" % Silt/Sand/Muck 125.0 m % Hardpan %Wood Mean % Embeddedness N/A SD of% Embeddedness N/A 0 Riparian Vegetation Metrics % Canopy Vegetation Cover % Mid Layer Vegetation Cover 77% Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report I~·\ 1141.~b\ n-il/, R,·n!un ~,cls,:I\ I <1~ls 4 -IJJ{ (.)i\-(.)(_ \ (I~ f:11 \YA ~ubrnitkil d,At~ \ Rl·,·i~l·d do,·s tw111 .1uthor~ ,Dues i<'r fm.11 Jrr:·(l\·.il, \ R'"nhm '-.: "·kl'I F & :\ DR fl n.li.d,-.... APPENDIX l:i N/A 40 0 N/A N/A Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Sill/Sand/Muck 0% 0% 3% 10% 3% 17% 60% 7% 0% 83% 34% Sparse (<10%) Heavy (40-75%) B-9 APPENDIXB Large Woody Debris Metrics Channel Zone 1 -Number of LWD Channel Zone 1 -% of total LWD Channel Zone 2 -Number of LWD Channel Zone 2 -% of total LWD Channel Zone 3 -Number of LWD Channel Zone 3 -% of total LWD Total number of LWD Number of Key LWD Pieces % Key LWD Pieces LWD Pieces per KM Existing Stream Geomoroholonv Metrics Mean Wetted Width Mean Bankfull Width Mean Bankfull Height Mean Stream Depth Mean Reach Slope Mean Left Bank Angle Mean Right Bank Angle SD of Wetted Width SD of Bankfull Width SD of Bankfull Height SD of Stream Depth SD of Left Bank Angle SD of Right Bank Angle Total Stream Length Surveyed (m) Qualitv of Pool Metrics Mean Pool Quality Index SD of Pool Quality Index Total Number of Pools Canoov Cover Measurements % Canopy Cover B-10 Thunder Hills Creek Habitat Survey Summary Sheet In-Stream Habitat Tvoe Metrics 0 Stream Discharge 0% HUS Per KM 3 Pools per KM 60% Mean Residual Pool Depth 2 SD of Residual Pool Depth 40% Mean Channel Alteration 5 Mean Left Bank Stability 0 Mean Right Bank Stability 0% Mean Bank Stability 13.27 Mean Left Bank Vegetative Protection Mean Right Bank Vegetative Protection Mean Vegetative Protection Overall 1.83 m Mean Left Bank Riparian Zone Width 2.52 m Mean Right Bank Riparian Zone Width 0.52 m Mean Riparian Zone Width 9.77 cm 4% Substrate Comoosition Metrics 61 ° Dominant Substrate Class Size 69° % Bedrock (smooth) 0.83 m % Boulder (250 to 4000 MM) 1.26 m % Cobble (64 to 255 MM) 0.36 m % Coarse Gravel (16 to 64 MM) 7.45 cm % Fine Gravel (2 to 16 MM) 27° % Sand (.06 to 2 MM) 26° % Silt/Sand/Muck 376.8 m % Hardpan %Wood % Other 5 Mean % Embeddedness 2.65 SD of% Embeddedness 3 Rioarian Veaetation Metrics % Canopy Vegetation Cover 74% % Mid Layer Vegetation Cover NIA 34.5 7.96 33.67 cm 12.66 cm Poor Optimal Optimal Optimal Poor Poor Poor Marginal Marginal Marginal Other 8% 2% 10% 20% 14% 10% 2% 0% 0% 34% 22% 7% Sparse (<10%) Heavy (40-75%) Renton Nickel Improvement Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report R;\04156\33-Ub Reufou ,\'ickd\'lask 4-OR QA-QC\OR rHWA submittal drafts\Rn•ised docs from rwthon \Dvc~ /oT final appro1•afs\lfrut1m l\,'ickd F fr A DR fiw1I.doc 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report Washington State Department of Transportation December 2005 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. i Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................... iii Glossary .......................................................................................................................... iv Summary ...................................................................................................................... S-1 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Goals.. ................................................. .. ...... 1-1 1.2 Project Description .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .... .. .. .... .... .. .. ........................................ 1-1 2.0 Methods ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Wetland Identification, Delineation, and Classification .............................. 2-1 2.2 Wetland Functional Assessment ............................................................. 2-1 2.3 Agency Coordination and Field Review of Information...... . ............... 2-2 2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................... 2-5 3.0 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Project Area Setting ................ __________ ....................................................... 3-2 3.2 Wetland Determination ............................................................................. 3-2 3.2.1 Wetland Descriptions .................................................................... 3-4 3.2.2 Wetland Rating and Classification Summary ............................... 3-21 3.2.3 Wetland Functions and Values Summary .................................... 3-22 4.0 lmpacts .............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Permanent Impacts ....................................................................... .4-1 4.2 Temporary Impacts .................................................................................. .4-1 4.3 Functions and Values ............................................................................... 4-1 5.0 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ..................................................... 5-1 5.2 Mitigation Sequence .................................................................................. 5-3 6.0 Preliminary Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................ 6-1 7.0 References ........................................................................................................ 7-1 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 List of Tables Table 2-1: Summary of Agency Coordination for 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project ............................................................................................................................ 2-2 Table 2-2: City of Tukwila Wetland Regulations ........................................................... 2-4 Table 2-3: City of Renton Wetland Regulations ............................................................ 2-5 Table 3-1: Summary of Wetlands located within the 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Study Area ......................................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2: Wetland Ratings, 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project .................... 3-21 Table 3-3: Wetland Functions and Values, 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project3-23 Table 4-1: Filled or Disturbed Wetlands, 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project.. .. 4-2 Table 4-2: Summary of Renton Nickel Improvement Project Impacted Wetland Area (in Square Feet)1 ................................................................................................................ .4-3 Table 5-1: Avoidance and Minimization Measures, 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project ............................................................................................................................ 5-2 Table A-1: Plant Species List for the 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands Study ................................................................................................................................. 1 List of Figures Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Figure 2: Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands List of Appendices Appendix A: Common and Taxonomic Names of Plants Observed in the Study Area Appendix B: Wetland Data Sheets 1. Delineation Data Forms 2. Rating Forms 3. Functions Field Data Forms Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 ii Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym Corps DOT Ecology FAC FACU FACW MP NI NL NRCS NWI OBL OHWM PEM PFO POW PSS SMA UPL USDA WDFW WIS WSDOT Meaning United States Army Corps of Engineers US Department of Transportation Washington Department of Ecology facultative facultative upland facultative wetland milepost no indicator status not listed Natural Resources Conservation Service National Wetlands Inventory obligate ordinary high water mark palustrine emergent palustrine forested palustrine open water palustrine scrub-shrub Washington State Shoreline Management Act upland United States Department of Agriculture Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife wetland indicator status Washington State Department of Transportation Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 iii Glossary Word buffer dominant species emergent emergent wetland enhancement fill material forested wetland groundwater herbaceous homogenous vegetation hydric soil hydrology hydrophytic vegetation in-kind compensation inundation Meaning A designated area along the buffer of a stream or wetland that is regulated to control the negative effects of adjacent development from intruding into the aquatic resource. A plant species that exerts a controlling influence on or defines the character of a community. A plant that grows rooted in shallow water, the bulk of which emerges from the water and stands vertically. In the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979), a wetland characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens. An improvement in the functions and values of an existing wetland typically through the planting of native plant species. Any material placed in an area to increase surface elevation. In the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979), a wetland characterized by woody vegetation that is 20 feet tall or taller. That portion of the water below the ground surface that is under greater than atmospheric pressure. Having the characteristics of an herb; a plant with no persistent woody stem above the ground. A situation in which the same plant species association occurs throughout an area. A soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. The science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water. The sum total of plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. Compensation for lost wetland habitat with a replacement wetland of the same habitat type. A condition in which water from any source temporarily or permanently covers a land surface. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 iv Word invasive plant species mitigation ordinary high water mark out-of-kind compensation palustrine project area restoration saturated soil conditions Meaning Plant species that become established easily in disturbed conditions, reproduce readily, and often establish monocultures. Most invasive plants are non-native species (i.e., were introduced to the Northwest intentionally or unintentionally by humans). Examples of common invasive species in the Pacific Northwest are Scot's broom, Canada thistle, hedge bindweed, English ivy, reed canarygrass, and purple loosestrife. Defined in WAC 197-11-766 as: (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (5) compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing or providing substitute resources or environments: and/or (6) monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. The line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; changes in the character of soil or vegetation; shelving; or the presence of a line of litter or debris. Compensation for lost wetland habitat with a replacement wetland of a different habitat type In the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979), freshwater areas (having less than 0.5 parts per thousand ocean-derived salts) dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, mosses, or lichens. They can be non-tidal or tidal. Palustrine also includes wetlands lacking this vegetation but having the following characteristics: (1) area less than 20 acres; (2) no active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline; (3) water depth in the deepest part is less than 6.6 feet at low water. The entire area within the Renton Nickel Improvement Project. To improve a disturbed or altered wetland by returning wetland parameters that may be missing. The restoration may return an original wetland habitat. A condition in which all easily drained voids (pores between soil particles) in the root zone are temporarily or permanently filled with water to the soil surface at Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wet/and/Biology Report December 2005 V Word scrub-shrub soil matrix study area wetland wetland boundary wetland hydrology wetland indicator status Meaning pressures greater than atmospheric. In the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979), areas dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. The species include tree shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that are stunted because of environmental conditions. The portion of a given soil having the dominant color. In most cases, the matrix will be the portion of the soil having more than 50 percent of the same color. Areas that were specifically evaluated for the presence of wetlands as defined by the Scope of Work for this project. This area is similar to the project area, but only includes areas within the 1-405 right of way and storm water facilities footprints. Wetlands are formally defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Federal Register, 1982), the US Environmental Protection Agency (Federal Register, 1988), the Washington Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (SMA) (Ecology, 1991), and the Growth Management Act (GMA) (Ecology, 1992) as: ... those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. (Federal Register, 1982, 1986). The SMA and the GMA definitions add: Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass- lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990 that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificially-created wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. The point on the ground at which a shift from wetlands to non-wetlands or aquatic habitat occurs. These boundaries usually follow topographic contours. The total of all wetness characteristics in areas that are inundated or have saturated soils for a sufficient duration to support hydrophytic vegetation. Categories of plant species based upon the estimated Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 vi Word (WIS) Meaning probabilities (expressed as a frequency of occurrence) of a species occurring in a wetland or non-wetland. Wetland indicator status categories include the following: Obligate (OBL): species that almost always occur wetlands under natural conditions (estimated probability >99 percent). Facultative wetland (FACW): species that usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99 percent) but are occasionally found in non-wetlands. Facultative (FAC): species that are equally likely to occur in wetlands (estimated probability 34 to 66 percent) or non-wetlands. Facultative upland (FACU): species that usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99 percent) but are occasionally found in wetlands. Upland (UPL): species that almost always occur in non- wetlands under normal conditions (estimated probability >99 percent). Not listed (NL): species that are not listed and are presumed to be upland species. No indicator status (NI): species that have not yet been evaluated. A(+) or(-) following the WIS of a given species signifies a greater or lesser likelihood of being found in wetland conditions. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 vii Summary The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is planning construction to improve Interstate 405 (1-405) between approximately 1-5 in the City of Tukwila and the Cedar River in the City of Renton in King County, Washington (see Figure 1). The Renton Nickel Improvement Project is a highway expansion project that will build an additional lane northbound and southbound on 1-405 from 1-5 to SR 169. This project will also extend the southbound high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane on SR 167 to 1-405 and add a new southbound auxiliary lane from 1-405 to the SW 41 st Street off-ramp. Twenty-nine wetlands were delineated by WSDOT. Overall, wetlands in the affected environment are generally degraded with a history of disturbance due to road or interchange construction and past development. The wetlands are grouped into three wetland types: emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested. Emergent wetlands are primarily dominated by nonnative vegetation such as reed canarygrass, bentgrass, Himalayan blackberry, and soft rush. The majority of wetlands in the affected environment are emergent. Scrub-shrub and forested wetlands are characterized by deciduous species such as red alder, willow, and black cottonwood. Fifteen wetlands in the Renton Nickel Improvement Project study area are Category IV wetlands according to the Washington Department of Ecology Wetlands Rating System. One Category II wetland and thirteen Category Ill wetlands also occur within the study area. There are no Category I wetlands in the study area. Construction would result in the loss (filling) or temporarily disturbing an estimated 2.28 acres of wetland. Of this total, approximately 1.66 acres would be permanently filled and 0.62 acre would be temporarily disturbed during construction and subsequently restored. Temporary construction impacts may include sediment transport and erosion from disturbed soils onsite due to construction activities. During the preliminary design process, WSDOT made several adjustments to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands and their buffers. The most common avoidance and minimization measures included moving stormwater facilities and requiring retaining walls to reduce the extent of fill necessary to construct the road improvements. WSDOT proposes several measures to compensate for impacted wetland functions and values using a combination of wetland creation and enhancement of existing degraded wetlands at an off-site location. WSDOT will also implement drainage system improvements to provide stormwater treatment and detention within each basin. During project-level design, WSDOT will identify specific best management practices (BMPs) and other measures to be incorporated into construction specifications developed during the final design process. BMPs will be implemented during construction and operation of the project to minimize sedimentation and/or contamination of wetlands. Prior to final development of project-specific BMPs, WSDOT will meet with federal, state, and local agencies to identify mitigation priorities and options for avoiding or minimizing Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 S-1 wetland losses, and to compensate for any losses. In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations pertaining to mitigation, BMPs sequencing includes: 1. Avoidance measures that eliminate the onset of impacts. 2. Minimization measures proposed to decrease the magnitude or severity of the impact. 3. Rectification measures that are part of the project and repair or restore resources. 4. Reduction or eliminating measures that soften the impacts. 5. Compensation measures designed to offset unavoidable adverse impacts. 6. Monitoring measures that become part of the project to ensure that resources are not further degraded by the project. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 S-2 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose and Goals This Wetland/Biology Report has been prepared to meet requirements for wetland assessment outlined in the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Environmental Procedures Manual (WSDOT, 2004). This report supports environmental documentation and permitting for the Renton Nickel Improvement Project. Project biologists completed wetland investigations and prepared this report. The objectives of the wetland study include: • Determine the location and condition of wetlands within the study area • Evaluate project-related impacts • Outline appropriate measures for project planning and to help the project team meet federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. 1.2 Project Description The 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project (Project) is a WSDOT project that will result in improvements to 1-405 and SR 167 corridors in and around the cities of Renton and Tukwila, Washington. The project area begins just east of the lnterstate-5 (1-5)/1- 405 interchange and extends north past the Cedar River to the SR 169 interchange. It also includes SR 167 southbound from the 1-405 interchange to SW 41 st Street. On 1- 405, a northbound general-purpose (GP) lane from 1-5 to the SR 167 exit, a northbound auxiliary lane from the SR 167 entrance to the SR 169 exit, a southbound auxiliary lane from the SR 169 entrance to the SR 167 exit, and a southbound GP lane from the SR 167 entrance to the 1-5 exit will be constructed. Improvements to SR 167 include adding a southbound auxiliary lane from 1-405 to SW 41 st Street and extending the existing inside southbound High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane north to 1-405 from its present starting point near SW 21st Street. Additional improvements will be made to the one- lane ramp from northbound 1-405 to SR 167 and exits from southbound 1-405 to SR 167. Improvements will also be made to local roads, freeway structures, and the stormwater drainage system associated with the project. Benson Road, which crosses over 1-405, will be reconstructed and realigned to accommodate the southbound auxiliary lane on 1- 405 as well as future improvements to 1-405. The 1-405 bridge over Talbot Road will be widened, the existing bridge over Springbrook Creek will be replaced, and the bridge over Oakesdale Avenue Bridge will be replaced with a northbound (NB) and a southbound (SB) 1-405 bridge. The project also includes new stormwater management facilities and a substantial upgrade of existing drainage structures and systems. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Weiland/Biology Report December 2005 1-1 2.0 Methods This section describes the methodology used for preparing this Wetland/Biology Report, including the review of existing information and field investigation procedures. These methods are consistent with current federal, WSDOT, and other state agency requirements. 2.1 Wetland Identification, Delineation, and Classification Wetlands were delineated using the Routine Determination Method outlined in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology, 1997), a manual consistent with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ("1987 Manual") (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Wetlands were then classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979) and rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Revised developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (Hruby, 2004). Wetlands were also rated according to the local jurisdiction's sensitive or critical areas ordinance (Table 2-1). All wetlands located in the WSDOT right-of-way (ROW) in the study area were delineated and classified. In general, wetland delineation consisted of three main tasks: (1) assessing vegetation, soil, and hydrologic characteristics to identify areas meeting the wetland determination criteria, (2) evaluating constructed drainage features to determine if they would be regulated as wetlands, and (3) marking wetland boundaries. Common plant names are used throughout this report. A list of corresponding taxonomic names is provided in Appendix A. 2.2 Wetland Functional Assessment Wetlands perform a variety of biological, physical (hydrologic), and chemical (water quality) functions. For this project, wetland functions were evaluated using the WSDOT Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects manual (Null et al., 2000) and were assessed based on best professional judgment. The manual is a qualitative tool designed for linear projects to enable the rapid documentation and characterization of the functions provided by a given wetland. The methodology does not assign quantitative values to a particular function, but identifies functional strengths and weaknesses to help guide management decisions and aid in mitigation choices. Wetland functions are divided into the following 14 categories: • flood flow alteration, • sediment removal, • nutrient and toxicant removal, • erosion control and shoreline stabilization, • production of organic matter and its export, • general habitat suitability, • habitat for aquatic invertebrates, Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 2-1 • habitat for amphibians, • habitat for wetland-associated mammals, • habitat for wetland-associated birds, • general fish habitat, • native plant richness, • educational or scientific value, and • uniqueness and heritage. 2.3 Agency Coordination and Field Review of Information The following data sources were reviewed for information on vegetation patterns, topography, drainage, and potential or known wetlands or wildlife habitats in the project vicinity: • National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps (USFWS, 1987 and 1988) • US Geological Survey 1 :24,000 Topographic Maps • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils surveys and county Hydric soils lists (NRCS, 1995 and Snyder et al. 1973) • King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio (King County, 1990) • Renton's Critical Areas Inventory (City of Renton, 1992) • City of Tukwila Wetland/Watercourse Buffer Map (City of Tukwila, 2004) • Correspondence with Services: USFWS, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Table 2-1 contains a summary of the agency coordination conducted as part of this project. Table 2-1: Summary of Agency Coordination for 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project local Jurisdiction Wetland Wetland Rating Regulations 1 System Wetland Inventory City has 3-tier rating City of Tukwila Wetland/Watercourse City of Tukwila Yes Buffer Map DRAFT (City of Tukwila, system 2004) City has 3-tier rating Critical Areas Inventory-City of City of Renton Yes Renton Wetlands and Stream Corridors system (City of Renton, 1992) 1"Yes" indicates jurisdiction has a critical or sensitive areas ordinance that specifically applies to wetlands. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 2-2 Wetlands and associated buffers are regulated by the local jurisdiction. For the Renton Nickel Improvement Project, the local jurisdictions include the cities of Tukwila and Renton. Project biologists rated the wetlands identified in the Renton Improvement Nickel Project study area based on the pertinent city critical areas regulations, which then determined wetland buffer widths and mitigation ratios. Wetland buffers are vegetated upland areas immediately adjacent to wetlands that protect the many functions and values of wetlands. Scientific literature indicates that buffer widths are directly related to the degree of protection for a particular function. The following sections extract wetland information contained in the critical areas ordinances of Tukwila and Renton. The full text of each city's critical areas regulations should be consulted during application. City of Tukwila As required by the Growth Management Act, the City of Tukwila updated the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.45 Environmentally Sensitive Areas in accordance with best available science in December 2004. TMC 18.45 classifies wetlands into three types: Type 1 wetlands meet any of the following criteria: • Contain species listed by the federal government or State as endangered or threatened, or the presence of critical or outstanding habitat for those species • Have 40 to 60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation • Are equal to or greater than 5 acres in size and have 3 or more wetland classes, one of which may be substituted by permanent or open water • Documented as regionally significant waterfowl or shorebird areas by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife Type 2 wetlands meet any of the following criteria: • Are equal to or greater than 1 acre in size • Have 3 or more wetland classes and are less than 5 acres • Contain nesting sites for priority species as listed by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife • Hydrologically connected (non-isolated) to a Type 1 or Type 2 watercourse Type 3 wetlands are those wetlands not meeting the definition of Type 1 or 2 wetlands that are greater than 1,000 square feet and less than one acre in size with two or fewer wetland classes. According to the TMC 18.45.080, buffers from the wetland edge are required (see Table 2-2). The TMC also requires that commercial and industrial buildings shall be set back 15 feet from the buffer's edge, and all other development be set back 1 O feet (TMC 18.45 080 [Fl). Impacts to wetlands are to be mitigated according to the provisions under TMC 18.45.090: Wetland Uses, Alterations, and Mitigation. Section D2 states that "in order to achieve the City's goal of no net loss of wetland functions and acreage, alteration of wetlands will require the applicant to provide a restoration or creation plan." Mitigation Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 2-3 shall be implemented through the creation of wetlands (from non-wetland areas) or through the restoration of degraded wetlands. Table 2-2 provides a summary of the City of Tukwila's wetland buffer requirements. Table 2-2: City of Tukwila Wetland Regulations Wetland Classification Buffer Requirement Type 1 100 feet Type 2 80 feet Type 3 50 feet City of Renton As required by the Growth Management Act, the City of Renton updated the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3 Critical Areas Regulations according to best available science. RMC 4-3-050 classifies wetlands into three types, as follows: Category 1 wetlands meet any of the following criteria: • Contain species listed by federal or state government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species • Have 40 to 60% permanent open water (in dispersed patches or otherwise) with 2 or more vegetation classes • Are equal to or greater than 10 acres in size and having 3 or more vegetation classes, one of which is open water • Contain plant associations of infrequent occurrence, or at the geographical limits of their occurrence Category 2 wetlands meet any of the following criteria: • Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands • Have heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees, but are not Category 1 wetlands • Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, ie. a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands • Assigned the Significant #2 rating in the current King County Wetlands Inventory 1991 or as thereafter amended • Have minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization Category 3 wetlands meet any of the following criteria: • Severely disturbed wetlands. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: o Characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 2-4 o Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soil; and o May have altered vegetation. • Newly emerging wetlands. Newly emerging wetlands are wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness, and used minimally by wildlife. • All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. According to the RMC, Category 3 wetlands, less than 2,200 square feet in area, are exempt from the regulations if they meet the exemption criteria in RMC 4-3. According to the RMC Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 6, wetland buffers are required. All buffers are measured from the wetland edge as delineated in the field and are sized depending on the wetland category (see Table 2-3). Table 2-3 provides a summary of the City of Renton's wetland buffer requirements. RMC does not require building setbacks. Section 9 states that alterations to wetlands shall be mitigated through creation, restoration, and/or enhancement. Mitigation actions must recreate as nearly as possible the wetland being replaced, and result in no net loss of wetland acreage and/or function. Table 2-3: City of Renton Wetland Regulations Wetland Classification Buffer Requirement Category 1 100 feet Category 2 50 feet Category 3 25 feet 2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species Information on threatened and endangered species (TES) species and priority habitats potentially occurring in the project area was obtained from the WDNR Natural Heritage Program, the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Program, the USFWS, and the NOAA Fisheries databases. This information was used in conjunction with the wildlife and habitat observations to generally assess the potential presence of protected species/habitats in the project area. However, a separate Biological Assessment (BA) process has specifically evaluated the project area for the presence of TES species or their suitable habitat (WSDOT, 2005). Potential impacts to TES plant, wildlife, and fish species, as a result of construction and operation of the proposed project, are identified in that BA (WSDOT, 2005). Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 2-5 3.0 Affected Environment The following sections describe existing environmental information for the project vicinity and the findings of the wetland determinations made in the field. Wetland ratings established by state and local jurisdictions, wetland classifications, wetland functions and values, and wetland proximity to streams are also described below. The NWI (USFWS, 1987 and 1988) and King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio (King County, 1990) contain few mapped wetlands in the study area. Palustrine forested (PFO) and palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) wetlands identified in these documents are associated with the Springbrook Creek Area and associated with Panther Creek. These resources also contain maps of a few smaller palustrine emergent (PEM) and/or PSS wetlands. The WDFW Priority Habitats and Species database identifies the Panther Creek wetland, located east of SR 167, as priority habitat (WDFW, 2005). Project biologists delineated a portion of this wetland. All other priority wetland habitats identified in the vicinity are located outside of the study area. These include wetlands associated with the Cedar River at the eastern end of the study area, and a depressional wetland located southwest of the interchange between SR 167 and 1-405. Wetlands identified in Renton's Critical Areas Inventory (City of Renton, 1992) replicate those reported in the NWI and WDFW Priority Habitats database. The following mapped wetlands occur primarily outside of the WSDOT right-of-way: • A system of several wetlands associated with Springbrook Creek, located south of 1-405 between West Valley Highway and SR 167. The wetlands are 26.6 acres in size, and are identified as "Longacres" in the inventory_ • A 3-acre wetland located between 1-405 and SE 161h Street, and east of Springbrook Creek. The wetland is identified as "16 1h Street" in the inventory. • A 1-acre wetland located between Talbot Road and Benson Road, south of the Sam's Club warehouse store. The wetland is identified as "Puget Wetland" in the inventory. This wetland was identified and delineated by project biologists. • A 65-acre wetland located east of SR 167, between 1-405 and South 43rd Street. The wetland is identified as "Panther Creek" in the inventory. The City of Renton inventory describes the Panther Creek wetland as the third highest rated wetland in the City of Renton. This wetland was identified and delineated by project biologists. • Two PEM/PSS wetland located between SW 19th Street and SW 23rd Street to the north and south, and between Link Avenue SW and East Valley Road to the west and east, respectively. The wetlands are 24 acres in size and are identified as "East Valley B" in the City of Renton inventory. • A series of eight wetlands located south of SW 23rd Street, between Lind Avenue SE and East Valley Road. The wetlands are a total of 11. 7 4 acres in size, and are identified as "East Valley B" in the City of Renton inventory. The remaining wetlands identified in Renton's Critical Areas Inventory (City of Renton, 1992) are outside of the study area. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetiand/Bio/ogy Report December 2005 3-1 The City of Tukwila Wetland/Watercourse Buffer Map (City of Tukwila, 2004) shows locations of wetlands and streams in the city. The map identifies two wetlands associated with Gilliam Creek that are not given specific names. The wetlands are located south of the 1-5 northbound to 1-405 northbound ramp, and west of 61" Avenue South. The wetlands were identified and delineated by project biologists. The US Soil Conservation Service, now named the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), has mapped the majority of the project area as Urban land soils. Two soil units (Puget silty clay loam, Tukwila Muck) occur in the project vicinity near SR167 and are classified as hydric soils. 3.1 Project Area Setting The project area is located within both the city of Renton and the city of Tukwila. The majority of the project area where road improvements will occur is WSDOT right-of-way, with small portions in city, county, or private ownership. The topography in the project vicinity is typical of lowland areas south of Lake Washington. The entire project lies within the western hemlock vegetation zone of western Washington (Franklin and Dyrness, 1988). Vegetation is dominated by needle- leaved, evergreen tree species such as Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and western red cedar. Other dominant tree species include red alder and big-leaf maple, which occur in scattered patches of deciduous forest habitats in the vicinity of the project. Uplands in the project vicinity consist of areas adjacent to the existing roadway, residential properties, and disturbed areas. Vegetation in the right-of-way upland areas includes species typically associated with disturbance and past land-clearing activities. Himalayan blackberry, bentgrass, fescue, quackgrass, and other weeds have colonized these areas. Other uplands are landscaped residential areas or undisturbed mixed deciduous forest dominated by big-leaf maple, black cottonwood, Douglas-fir, and red alder. Dominant native understory shrubs include snowberry, Indian-plum, and beaked hazelnut. Upland soils in the study area have been intensively disturbed by roadway construction and maintenance, and ditching. 3.2 Wetland Determination Project biologists delineated 29 wetlands totaling approximately 19.40 acres within the study area for the Renton Nickel Improvement Project. Figure 2 Sheets A through H identify wetland locations in the study area. Table 3-1 presents a summary of these wetlands. The wetland areas shown represent the total area of wetland delineated, not within the area of impact. 1-405 intersects several rivers, streams, and their tributaries. The Renton Nickel Improvement Project area crosses the Cedar River, the Green River, Gilliam Creek, Springbrook Creek, Panther Creek, Rolling Hills Creek, Thunder Creek and several unnamed tributaries. The wetlands are located within two of the river basins crossed by the project: Springbrook Creek and Green River. The Green River basin contains 14 wetlands covering 4.01 acres. The Springbrook Creek basin contains the highest number of wetlands and the largest area of wetlands (15 wetlands covering 15.39 acres). Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 3-2 Table 3-1: Summary of Wetlands located within the 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Study Area Wetland Drainage Basin Area Cowardin Status' Riparian Identifier (acres) Classification 1 Association 0.15R Green River 0.52 PEM N y 0.1L Green River 0.11 PEM 0 N 0.1R Green River 0.05 PEM 0 N 0.25M Green River 0.07 PEM D N 0.3R Green River 1.29 PFO N y 0.4L Green River 0.11 PEM D N 0.5L Green River 0.05 PEM D N 0.6L Green River 0.17 PSS D N 0.7R Green River 0.03 PFO D y 0.88R Green River 0.02 PEM 0 N 0.92R Green River 0.09 PEM D N 0.94L Green River 048 PSS 0 y 0.99L Green River 0.01 PEM 0 N 0.9R Green River 1 01 PAB N N 1.57L Springbrook Creek 0.13 PSS 0 y 1.6R Springbrook Creek 0.16 PSS 0 y 1.7R Springbrook Creek 046 PSS D N 2.23L Springbrook Creek 0.04 PEM D N 2.25R Springbrook Creek 0.05 PEM D N 2.2R Springbrook Creek 0.10 PSS D N 2.31R Springbrook Creek 0.01 PEM D N 2.6L Springbrook Creek 0.02 PEM D N 2.7L Springbrook Creek 0.07 PEM 0 N 2.81L Springbrook Creek 0.03 PEM N N 2.9L Springbrook Creek 1.07 PSS N N 24.7R Springbrook Creek 6.98 PFO N y 250L Springbrook Creek 5.88 PSS N y 25.7L Springbrook Creek 0.30 PSS N N 25.9L Springbrook Creek 0.09 PSS D N 1 PEM = Palustrine Emergent; PFO = Palustrine Forested; PSS= Palustrine Scrub-Shrub; These tenns are defined in the Glossary of this document. 2 Status describes the nature of each wetland as follows: D = ditch, SD = stonnwater detention facility, N = natural wetland with stormwater detention capabilities, S = seep wetland, 0 = other wetland Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wet/and/Biology Report December 2005 3-3 3.2.1 Wetland Descriptions In the following sections, wetland descriptions are grouped into one of two drainage basins depending on wetland location: Green River and Springbook Creek. No wetlands were identified in the Renton Nickel Improvement project area in the Cedar River basin. Wetlands are described in location sequence from south to north. Each wetland identified in the field was assigned a number based on its MP location within the study area, starting with MP 0.0 at the west end of the study area and extending east to MP 3.0 on 1-405, and from MP 24.6 at the south end to MP 26.3 and the north end of SR 167. The wetland number also includes an "L" if the wetland is located on the left (north) side of 1-405 or the left (west) side of SR 167. The wetland number includes "R" if it is located on the right (south) side of 1-405 or the right (east) side of SR 167. For example, a wetland found at the midpoint between MP 2.0 and MP 3.0 on the left side of 1-405 would be Wetland 2.5L. Twenty-nine (29) wetlands were delineated and 69 data plots were established within relatively uniform areas of vegetation in wetland and upland areas. The majority of the wetland descriptions reflect late winter conditions observed when field investigations were conducted in early January to late February. Appendix B contains data forms corresponding to formal data plots, state and local wetland rating forms, and functional assessment forms. A glossary defining wetland classification and other terms is provided at the beginning of this report. Green River Wetlands in the Green River drainage basin are generally located between the western project boundary or 1-5 and Tukwila/Renton city limits (MP 0.0 to 1.2). Within this section, transportation improvements include widening of sections of both the north and southbound lanes and the construction of retaining walls. Wetland 0.1 L Size and location: The 0.11-acre wetland located east of 1-405 southbound to 1-5 northbound ramp. Wetland 0.1 L is a long, narrow swale that receives runoff from 1- 405 and 1-5. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass and soft rush. Soils: A surface layer of dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) sandy loam extending to 6 inches deep over a subsoil layer of dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) sandy loam with yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/4) mottles. Hydrology. Soils are saturated to the surface, with free water occurring at 9 inches deep in the soil pit. Standing water is present throughout most of wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.1 L is PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category IV under Ecology's rating system, and a Type 3 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 0.1 L are flood flow alteration and sediment removal. The wetland receives road runoff from 1-405 and 1- 5, and contains dense herbaceous vegetation. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.1 L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographic changes. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 3-4 Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of hydric soils and indicators of wetland hydrology. Wetland 0.1R Size and location: The 0.05-acre wetland located in the southeast portion of the 1-405/1- 5 interchange, between 1-5 northbound lanes and the 1-5 northbound to SR 518 ramp. Wetland is a small, isolated depression that receives road runoff. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass, soft rush, Himalayan blackberry, and bentgrass. Soils: Soils consist of an A layer of very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2) sandy loam extending to 8 inches, over a B horizon of dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) clay loam with brown (7.5YR 4/4) mottles. Hydrology: Soils saturated to the surface in the soil pit, with free water present at 15 inches deep. Areas of standing water are present elsewhere in wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland O 1 R is a PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category IV under Ecology's rating system, and a Type 3 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 0.1 R are flood flow alteration and sediment removal. The wetland receives road runoff from 1-405, and has a long duration for water retention. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.1 R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographic changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of hydric soils or indicators of wetland hydrology, and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 0.15R Size and location: The 0.52-acre wetland located north of Southcenter Parkway and south of 1-5 NB to 1-405 NB ramp. Wetland 0.15R is a previous WSDOT mitigation area that is associated with Gilliam Creek. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass. Soils: A layer of very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) clay loam extending to 7 inches, over a B horizon of very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) clay loam with dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) mottles. Hydrology: Soils are saturated to the surface, with free water occurring at a depth of 6 inches. Areas of ponding are present elsewhere in the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0. 15R is a PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category Ill wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Type 2 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 0.15R are flood flow alteration, sediment removal, nutrient and toxicant removal, and production and export of organic matter. The wetland receives road runoff from adjacent roads, contains dense herbaceous vegetation, and has a surface water connection to a stream. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.15R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wet/and/Biology Report December 2005 3-5 corresponded to the base of the fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack soil saturation or hydric soil indicators, and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 0.25M Size and location: The 0.07-acre wetland located in the median between 1-405 northbound lanes and the 1-405 to 1-5 northbound HOV ramp. Wetland 0.25M is a maintained swale that receives road runoff, and discharges to a culvert. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass and red alder saplings. Soils: An A 1 horizon of very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam extending to 4 inches, over an A2 horizon of black (1 OYR 2/1) sandy loam with dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) mottles. The B horizon, extending from 8 to 13 inches, consists of very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) sandy loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) mottles. Soils were too compact to sample below 13 inches deep. Hydrology: Soils are saturated to the surface and free water is present at a depth of 9 inches. The area is likely inundated during the early portion of the growing season. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.25M is a broad, swale PEM wetland that is seasonally inundated/saturated. It is a Category IV wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 0.25M are sediment removal and production and export of organic matter. The wetland receives road runoff, contains dense herbaceous vegetation, and has a surface water connection to a stream. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.25M was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of the fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators. Wetland 0.3R Size and location: The 1.29-acre wetland located south of 1-405 northbound lanes, and northwest of Tukwila Parkway/61 st Avenue South intersection. The wetland is located in a depression, and it is associated with Gilliam Creek. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass in the emergent area; and red alder, Himalayan blackberry, western red cedar, and Pacific willow in the forested area. Soils: Soils in the eastern portion of the wetland are characterized by a dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam extending to 10 inches deep, over a subsoil layer of olive gray (SY 5/2) loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) mottles. Soils in the western portion of the wetland are a very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 3/2) silty clay loam extending to 6 inches deep, over a subsoil layer of very dark gray (2.SY 3/1) clay loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) mottles. Hydrology: Soils are saturated to the surface in both test pits. Large areas of standing water are present elsewhere in wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.3R is a PFO wetland that is seasonally inundated. It is a Category Ill under Ecology's rating system and a Type 2 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Welland/Biology Report December 2005 3-6 Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 0.3R are flood flow alteration, sediment removal, nutrient and toxicant removal, and production and export of organic matter. The wetland receives road runoff, contains dense herbaceous and deciduous vegetation, and has a surface water connection to Gilliam Creek. Additionally, the wetland has fine-grained mineral soils and large depression areas. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.3R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of the fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators, and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 0.4L Size and location: The 0.11-acre wetland located southeast of the Southcenter Boulevardl61 51 Avenue South intersection. Wetland 0.4L is a long, narrow ditch adjacent to 1-405 southbound lanes. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass, common cattail, and bentgrass. Soils: An A horizon of black (5Y 2.5/2) loamy sand extending to 4 inches deep, over a B horizon of light olive gray (5Y 6/2) sand with yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/6) mottles. The soil below 8 inches was too compact to sample. Hydrology: Saturated soil at the surface with free water within 3 inches of the surface in the soil pit Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.4L is a ditch-associated PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category IV under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: The primary function of Wetland 0.4L is sediment removal. The wetland receives road runoff, and contains dense herbaceous vegetation. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.4L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographic changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators, the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 0.5L Size and location. The 0.05-acre wetland is located between Southcenter Boulevard and southbound 1-405. Wetland is a long, narrow ditch that is situated adjacent to 1- 405 southbound lanes. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass and soft rush. Soils: Soils in the wetland consist of an A horizon, extending from the surface to 1 O inches, of a black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam. The B horizon extends from 10 to 16 inches and is a dark gray (GLEY1 4/1) gravely loamy sand with yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/8) mottles. Hydrology: Soils were saturated at the surface and free water was present within 4 inches of the surface of the soil pit. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wet/and/Biology Report December 2005 3-7 Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.5L is a PEM ditch-associated wetland that is seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category IV wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: The primary functions of Wetland 0.5L are sediment removal and nutrient and toxicant removal. The wetland receives stormwater runoff, contains dense herbaceous vegetation, and water is exported via an unconstricted surface water outlet. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.5L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographic changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators. Wetland 0.6L Size and location: The 0.17-acre wetland is localed southwest of the Christensen Road/ Southcenler Boulevard intersection situated between Southcenter Boulevard and southbound 1-405. Wetland 0.6L is a long ditch that receives water from stormwater runoff and precipitation. It is associated with an unnamed tributary of Gilliam Creek. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass, black cottonwood, willow, soft rush, and Himalayan blackberry. Soils: Soils in the wetland consist of an A horizon, extending from the surface to 10 inches deep, comprised of a dark gray (1 OYR 4/1) loamy sand with dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) mottles. The B horizon, extending from 10 to 16 inches, is a loamy sand with a dominant brown (1 OYR 4/3) and subdominant dark greenish gray (Gley 1 4/5GY) soil matrix with dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 3/6) mottles. Hydrology Soils were saturated at the surface and free water was present within 4 inches of the surface of the soil pit. Standing water was present in a large portion of the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.6L is a PSS wetland that is seasonally saturated. It is a Category Ill under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 0.6L are sediment and toxicant removal and production and export of organic matter. The wetland contains dense shrub and herbaceous vegetation and has a surface water connection to a stream. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.6L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and indicators of wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded primarily to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of hydric soil indicators and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 0.7R Size and location: The 0.03-acre wetland located northwest of the Tukwila Parkway/66'h Avenue South intersection. Wetland 0. ?R is a narrow depression localed at the base of a slope, west of Christensen Road. Vegetation: Dominated by black cottonwood, Himalayan blackberry, and soft rush. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 3-8 Soils: An A horizon of very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 3/2) sandy loam extending to 6 inches, over a B horizon, extending to 14 inches, of dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) sandy loam with brown (7.5YR 4/4) mottles. Below 14 inches deep the soil is too compact to sample. Hydrology: No saturation observed in soil pit; however, soils are very moist within root zone. Soil saturation is expected to be present during the early portion of the growing season. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.7R is a PFO wetland that is seasonally saturated, and occasionally inundated. It is a Category IV under Ecology's rating system and is not regulated under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: The primary function of Wetland 0.7R is sediment removal. The wetland is densely vegetated, and receives runoff from adjacent roads. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0. 7R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and indicators of wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded primarily to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of hydric soil indicators and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 0.88R Size and location: The 0.02-acre wetland located within the off ramp from northbound 1- 405 to SR 181. Wetland is located in a small topographic depression within the interchange. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass and soft rush. Soils: Soils in the wetland consist of an A horizon, extending from the surface to 3 inches, of a black (10YR 2/1) gravelly sandy loam. A B horizon extends from 3 to 16 inches and consists of a dark gray (1 OYR 4/1) gravelly sandy loam with strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) mottles. Hydrology: Soils were saturated to the surface and free water was present at 3 inches below the surface in the soil pit. Standing water was located near the wetland outlet. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.88R is a PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated. It is a Category IV wetland under Ecology's rating system and is not regulated under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 0.88R are removal of sediment and toxicants as well flood flow alteration. The wetland receives water from precipitation and road runoff and has a surface water connection to a stream. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.88R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and indicators of wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded primarily to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of wetland hydrology indicators and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 0.9R Size and location: The 1.01-acre wetland located south of the southbound interchange of SR 181 from 1-405 that receives highway stormwater runoff. Wetland includes a large area of open water. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 3-9 Vegetation: Area immediately adjacent to the open water is dominated by Himalayan blackberry with spikerush, black cottonwood, and reed canarygrass occurring near the open water edges. Soils: An A 1 horizon of (1 OYR 2/1) sandy loam extends 2 inches deep, over an A2 horizon of (2.5Y 3/2) sandy loam with brown (1 OYR 4/4) mottles. Below 10 inches, the B horizon consists of sandy loam (2.5Y 4/4) containing cobbles and sand, with brown (1 OYR 4/2) mottles. Hydrology: Saturated soils to the surface and free water present within 8 inches of the surface of the soil pit. The wetland open water area contains standing water several feet deep. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.9R is a POW wetland that is seasonally inundated. It is a Category Ill wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Category 2 under the City of Tukwila's critical areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 0.9R are flood flow alteration, sediment removal, and wildlife habitat. This wetland provides the majority of functions evaluated under Null et al. (2000). The wetland receives road runoff and contains aquatic vegetation and its location near the Green River corridor provides adequate wildlife habitat. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.9R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to changes in topography. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the presence of upland plant species and change in topography. Wetland 0.92R Size and location: The 0.09-acre wetland located within the on ramp from SR 181 to northbound 1-405. The wetland is located in a ditch that receives water from road runoff and precipitation. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass, soft rush, and red fescue. Soils: Soils in the wetland consisted of a dark gray (10YR 4/1) gravelly sandy loam that extended from the surface to 12 inches. Below 12 inches, soil in the soil pit was too compact to sample. Hydrology: Soils were saturated to the surface and free water was present at 6 inches below the surface in the soil pit. No standing water was present at the time of the site visit. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.92R is a PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated and occasionally inundated. It is a Category IV wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 0.92R are removal of sediment and toxicants and flood flow alteration. The wetland receives water from direct stormwater runoff and precipitation. The wetland has a surface water connection to a stream. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.92R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and indicators of wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded primarily to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of hydric soil indicators and the presence of upland plant species. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 3-10 Wetland 0.94L Size and location: The 0.48-acre wetland located north of Southcenter Boulevard, west of Interurban Avenue South, and east of the Green River. The wetland is located in a mitigation site that was constructed in upland and exports water directly to the Green River. Vegetation: Dominated by red-osier dogwood, bluegrass, and red alder with smaller amounts of black cottonwood and thistle. Soils: A surface layer of black (10YR 2/1) silty loam extending to 3 inches deep, over a subsoil layer of brown (1 OYR 4/3) silty loam. Hydrology: Soils were not saturated in the soil pit. Some areas of standing water are present in the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.94L is a PSS wetland that is seasonally saturated. It is a Category Ill wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Type 2 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 0.94L are production of organic matter and its export as well as sediment and toxicant removal. The wetland receives road runoff from inletting culverts and exports water via a surface water connection to the Green River. Downed wood was present as a result of beaver activity; however, it did not appear to be recent. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.94L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and indicators of wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded primarily to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of wetland hydrology indicators and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 0.99L Size and location: The 0.01 -acre wetland located near the southeast portion of the SW Grady Way/SR 181 intersection, and adjacent to 1-405 southbound lanes. The wetland is a small depression that receives and discharges stormwater from 2 culverts. Vegetation: Dominated by common cattail, reed canarygrass, and Himalayan blackberry. Soils: A surface layer of black (2.5Y 2.5/1) loamy sand extending to 10 inches, over a subsoil layer of dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) sandy loam with dark yellowish brown ( 1 OYR 4/6) mottles. Hydrology: Soils saturated at 12-inches deep in the soil pit. Evidence of seasonal ponding is present in the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.99L is a small PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category IV under Ecology's rating system and is not regulated under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: The primary functions of Wetland 0.99L are sediment removal, and production and export of organic matter. The wetland receives road runoff, and sediment deposits were observed in wetland. Additionally, the wetland contains dense herbaceous vegetation and has a surface water connection to a stream. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 3-11 Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.99L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators, and the presence of upland plant species. Springbrook Creek Wetlands in the Springbrook Creek drainage basin are generally located between Tukwila/Renton city limits and the location where Benson Road South becomes Main Avenue South in the 1-405 corridor (MP 1.2 to 3.1), and the entire section of SR 167 that is in the project area (MP 24.5 to 26.3). Along this section of the 1-405 corridor, transportation improvements are proposed for both the north and southbound lanes. Improvements include roadway widening, retaining, walls, replacing the Springbrook Creek Side Channel bridge and Oakesdale Avenue bridge with a single structure, and widening the Talbot Road bridge. Along the SR 167 corridor, roadway improvements will be made to southbound lanes only. Improvements along SR 167 include roadway widening and retaining walls. Wetland 1.57L Size and location: The 0.13-acre wetland located southwest of the SW Grady Way/Oakesdale Avenue SW intersection, and adjacent to the 1-405 southbound lanes. The wetland is associated with Springbrook Creek, and extends north outside the project area. Vegetation: Dominated by Pacific willow and Himalayan blackberry. Soils: A surface layer of very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) silt loam with peat deposits. The subsoil layer, occurring below 7 inches, consists of dark greenish gray (gley 1 4/10Y) loamy sand with gravel. Hydrology: Saturated soils at the surface and free water present at a depth of 10 inches in the soil pit. Flowing water is present throughout the majority of the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 1.57L is a PFO wetland that is permanently inundated. It is a Category Ill under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 1.57L are erosion control and shoreline stabilization, production and export of organic matter, habitat for aquatic invertebrates, and general fish habitat. The wetland has dense deciduous shrubs along the banks that contribute organic matter and shade to Springbrook Creek. The wetland is permanently flooded, and has documented fish use. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 1.57L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators, and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 1.6R Size and location: The 0.16-acre wetland located south of 1-405 northbound lanes, and west of Oakesdale Avenue SW. Wetland 1.6R is a riparian wetland associated with Springbrook Creek. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wettand/Biofogy Report December 2005 3-12 Vegetation: Dominated by Pacific willow and Himalayan blackberry. Soils: An O horizon of black (1 OYR 2/1) muck, extending to 3 inches, over an A horizon of gray (2.SY 5/1) sandy clay loam with dark brown (7.SYR 3/4) mottles. The B horizon, occurring from a depth of 12 to below 16 inches, is a black (gley 1 2.5/N) sand. Hydrology: Soils saturated to the surface in the soil pit, and sediment deposits and water marks observed throughout the wetland. Wetland 1.6R receives occasional floodwaters from Springbrook Creek. Wetland Classification: Wetland 1.6R is a riparian PSS wetland that is seasonally saturated and occasionally flooded. It is a Category Ill under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 1.6R are erosion control and shoreline stabilization, production and export of organic matter, and general fish habitat. The wetland has dense deciduous shrubs along the banks, which contribute organic matter and shade to Springbrook Creek. Springbrook Creek is a documented salmon stream. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 1.6L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators, and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 1.7R Size and location: The 0.46-acre wetland adjacent to 1-405 northbound lanes, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and Lind Avenue SW. The wetland is a very long, narrow ditch that receives runoff from adjacent roads and developments. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass and Pacific willow. Soils: A surface layer of very dark gray (2.SY 3/1) silt loam with organic material, over a subsoil layer, occurring below 6 inches, of dark gray (SY 4/1) silty clay loam with dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/6) mottles. Hydrology: No saturation observed in the soil pit; however, saturation is expected in the growing season due to the presence of hydric soil and oxidized roots. Ponded water was observed elsewhere in the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 1. 7R is a long, narrow PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category Ill under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 1. 7R are flood flow alteration, sediment removal, and production and export of organic materials. The wetland receives road runoff and contains dense herbaceous vegetation. Additionally, the wetland has a surface water connection to a stream. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 1. 7R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators and the presence of upland plant species. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 3-13 Wetland 2.2R Size and location: The 0.10-acre wetland located south of the northbound 1-405 to southbound SR 167 ramp. Wetland 2.2R is a narrow depression/ditch that receives road and parking lot runoff. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Soils: An A horizon, extending to 8 inches deep, of very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 3/2) silt loam with brown (7.5YR 4/4) mottles. Below 8 inches is a B horizon dark grayish brown (2.5Y 412) sandy silt loam with brown (7.5YR 4/4) mottles. Hydrology. No saturation was observed in soil pit; however, signs of seasonal inundation are present in the wetland. Wetland hydrology is expected to be present during the early portion of the growing season. Wetland Classification: Wetland 2.2R is a long, narrow PSS wetland that is seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category Ill under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 2.2R are flood flow alteration, sediment removal, and production and export of organic material. The wetland receives road runoff from adjacent roads, contains dense herbaceous vegetation, and has a surface water connection to a stream. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 2.2R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and indicators of wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack hydric soil indicators and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 2.23L Size and location: The 0.04-acre wetland located in the northwest portion of the l- 405ISR 167 interchange, between 1-405 southbound lanes and the 1-405/SR 167 ramps. The wetland is a small depression that receives road runoff and discharges water to a catch basin. Vegetation: Dominated by bentgrass and reed canarygrass. Soils: A surface layer of very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 3/2) sandy loam extending to 3 inches deep, over a subsoil layer of dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) gravelly sandy loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR 416) mottles. Soils below 14 inches deep were too compacted to sample. Hydrology. Soils are saturated to the surface, and free water is present at a depth of 8 inches in the soil pit. Some areas of standing water were observed elsewhere in the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 2.23L is a small PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category IV under Ecology's rating system and is not regulated under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 2.23L are sediment removal, and production and export of organic matter. The wetland receives road runoff from 1-405 and contains dense herbaceous vegetation. Wetland Determination.· The boundary of Wetland 2.23L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 3-14 corresponded to topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators, and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 2.25R Size and location: The 0.05-acre wetland located in the southwestern cloverleaf of the 1- 405/SR 167 interchange. Wetland 2.25R is a long, narrow wetland associated with the perimeter ditch of the southbound SR 167 to northbound 1-405 ramp. Vegetation: Dominated by bentgrass and common velvet grass. Soils: An A horizon, extending to a depth of 5 inches, of very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 3/2) sandy loam. The 8 horizon is a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) and dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) loamy sand with strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) mottles. Below 10 inches deep, the soil was too compacted to sample. Hydrology: Soils in the soil pit were saturated within 5 inches of the surface, and free water was observed at a depth of 10 inches. Areas of standing water were observed throughout the majority of the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 2.25R is a small PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category IV under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 2.25R are sediment removal, and production and export of organic matter. The wetland receives road runoff from 1-405, contains dense herbaceous vegetation, and is interspersed with water and vegetation. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 2.25R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the presence of road shoulder and topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators, and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 2.31 R Size and location: The 0.01-acre wetland located in the SE section of the 1-405/SR 167 interchange. Wetland 2.31 Risa small depression that receives road runoff, which exits the wetland via a culvert. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass Soils: A surface layer of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) clay loam extending to 10 inches, over a subsoil layer of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy clay loam with strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) mottles. Hydrology: Soils saturated at 16 inches deep in the soil pit. Evidence of seasonal inundation was present in the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 2.31 Risa small, depressional PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category IV wetland under Ecology's rating system and is not regulated under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: The primary function of wetland 2.31 R is sediment removal. The wetland contains dense herbaceous vegetation, and receives runoff from adjacent roads. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland!B1ology Report December 2005 3-15 Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 2.31 R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded primarily to topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators. Wetland 2.SL Size and location: The 0.02-acre wetland located adjacent to 1-405 off ramp to north SR 167. Wetland is a narrow depression/ditch that receives road and parking lot runoff. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass, common velvetgrass, and Himalayan blackberry. Soils: An A horizon, extending to a depth of 11 inches, of black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam. Below 11 inches is a B horizon of greenish gray (gley 1 5/5GY) clay loam with dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) mottles. Hydrology: Saturated and free water were present at the surface of the soil pit. Wetland drainage patterns were also observed. Wetland Classification: Wetland 2.6L is a long, narrow PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category IV under Ecology's rating system and is not regulated under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 2.6L are sediment removal and production and export of organic material. The wetland receives road runoff from adjacent roads, contains dense herbaceous vegetation, and has a surface water connection to a stream. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 2.6L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and indicators of wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack hydric soil indicators, and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 2.7L Size and location: The 0.07-acre wetland located west of Talbot Road and south of the One Renton Place parking lot. Wetland 2.7L is a fenced, undeveloped area that contains a catchbasin near its center. Vegetation: Dominated by bentgrass and soft rush, with some red alder saplings present. Soils: The A horizon is a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam extending to 7 inches. The B horizon, extending from 7 to 12 inches, consists of dark gray (5Y 4/1) loamy sand with gravels with dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) mottles. Soils were too compacted to sample below 12 inches deep. Hydrology: Soils are saturated from the surface to 7 inches deep and moist from 7 to 12 inches. Wetland Classification: Wetland 2. 7L is a small, relatively flat PEM wetland that is seasonally inundated/saturated. It is a Category IV wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 2. 7L are sediment removal and production and export of organic matter. The wetland receives road runoff, contains dense herbaceous vegetation, and discharges into a catchbasin. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 3-16 Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 2. ?L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of the fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators. Wetland 2.81 L Size and location: The 0.03-acre wetland located on the east side of the Talbot Road South/South Renton Village Place intersection. Wetland 2.81 L is an isolated depression that receives water from runoff. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass with smaller amounts of Himalayan blackberry on the outer edges. Soils: Soils in the wetland consist of a surface layer of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silt loam with organics, extending from the surface to 10 inches. Extending below the surface layer, from 10 to 16 inches, is a dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) mottles. Hydrology: Soils were saturated to the surface and free water was present at 9 inches deep in the soil pit. Wetland Classification: Wetland 2.81 Lis a small, depressional PEM wetland that is seasonally/occasionally saturated. It is a Category Ill wetland under Ecology's rating system and is not regulated under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 2.81 Lare flood flow alteration and nutrient/toxicant removal. The wetland receives water from runoff and a hillside seep. It discharges to an adjacent wetland that has a surface water connection to a stream. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 2.81 L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of the fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation and by the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 2.9L Size and location: The 1.07-acre wetland located between Talbot Road and Benson Road, south of the Sam's Club warehouse store. Wetland 2.9L is a large, depressional area that receives flow from surface runoff and hillside seeps. The wetland is identified on the Renton Quadrangle NWI map (USFWS, 1988) and is identified as "Puget Wetland" in Renton's Critical Areas Inventory (City of Renton, 1992). Vegetation: Dominated by Pacific willow, Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and common cattail. Soils: Soils in the southern portion of the wetland consist of a surface layer of black (SY 2.5/1) loam extending to a depth of 8 inches, over a subsoil layer of dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) loamy sand with strong brown (2.5Y 4/2) mottles. In the northern portion of the wetland, there is a surface layer of very dark gray (1 OYR 3/2) silty loam with peat extending to a depth of 8 inches, over a subsoil layer of black (1 OYR 2/1) sandy loam. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetiand!Biology Report December 2005 3-17 Hydrology. Soils are saturated to surface in both soil pits, with free water occurring at a depth of 3 inches from the surface. An area of emergent vegetation and permanently ponded water is present in the center of the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 2.9L is a PSS with portions that are permanently ponded, permanently saturated, or seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category Ill under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 2.9L are flood flow alteration, sediment removal, nutrient and toxicant removal, habitat for aquatic invertebrates, and habitat for amphibians. The wetland is a large depression that is permanently ponded, has dense vegetation, and receives runoff from nearby roads and development. Additionally, the wetland contains vegetation in standing water areas, and is adjacent to a stream. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 2.9L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent development, topographical changes, and the boundary of wetland seeps. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of hydric soil indicators, and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 24. 7R Size and location: The 6.98-acre wetland within the WSDOT right-of-way, east of SR 167 and between 1-405 and SW 41 st Street. Wetland 24. 7R is a PFO wetland that is part of the larger wetland complex associated with Panther Creek. This complex is identified in the City of Renton's Critical Areas Wetland Inventory as being a PFO/PEM complex that is 65 acres in size. Vegetation: Dominated by black cottonwood, willow, red-osier dogwood, and reed canarygrass. Soils: Soils in the southern portion of the wetland are an A horizon of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silty clay loam with mottles ex extending to a depth of 9 inches, over a B horizon of dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) sandy clay loam with mottles. Hydrology; Soils are saturated to the surface in soil pits. Areas of standing water are present throughout the wetland. Wetland is seasonally flooded and receives flow form Panther Creek and adjacent uplands Wetland Classification: Wetland 24.?R is a large PSS wetland that is seasonally flooded. It is a Category Ill wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: The greater Panther Creek wetland complex provides the majority of functions evaluated under Null et al. (2000). Because it is depressional with a constricted outlet, it provides flood flow alteration, and nutrient and toxicant removal. It also provides higher value wildlife habitat because it is large, has multiple vegetation communities and an area of seasonal flooding. Wetland Determination: The boundary of wetland 24. 7R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to topographic changes, and the base of fill for adjacent developments and roads. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation and hydric soil indicators, and the presence of upland vegetation. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Welland/Biology Report December 2005 3-18 Wetland 25.0L Size and location: The 5.88-acre wetland adjacent to SR 167, between 1-405 and SW 41'1 Street. Wetland 25.0L is a long depression that is connected, via culverts, to the larger Panther Creek wetland complex east of SR 167. Vegetation: Dominated by black cottonwood, Pacific willow, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. Soils: Soils in the southern portion of the wetland are an A horizon of very dark grayish brown (10YR 312) sandy clay loam with cobbles extending to a depth of 9 inches, over a B horizon of dark grayish brown (1 OYR 412) sandy clay loam with yellowish brown (10YR 518) mottles. Hydrology. Soils are saturated to the surface in soil pits. Areas of standing water are present throughout the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 25.0L is a large PSS wetland that is seasonally flooded. It is a Category 111 wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: This wetland provides the majority of functions evaluated under Null et al. (2000). Because it is depressional with a constricted outlet, it provides flood flow alteration, and nutrient and toxicant removal. It also provides wildlife habitat because it is large, has multiple vegetation classes, and contains an area that floods seasonally. Wetland Determination: The boundary of wetland 25.0L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to topographic changes, and the base of fill for adjacent developments and roads. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation and hydric soil indicators, and the presence of upland vegetation. Wetland 25.7L Size and location: The 0.30-acre wetland located east of East Valley Road, across from Shurgard Storage. Wetland 25. 7L is a depression that is separated from Wetland 25.0L by a filled area under electric transmission lines. Vegetation: Dominated by Scouler's willow, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. Soils: An A horizon of black (10YR 211) sandy silty loam extending to a depth of4 inches, over a B horizon of black (1 OYR 211) sandy loam. Hydrology: Soils are saturated to the surface and free water is within 3 inches deep in the soil pit. Wetland Classification: Wetland 25. 7L is a depression al PSS wetland that is seasonally flooded It is a Category Ill wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Principal functions of Wetland 25.?L are flood flow alteration, sediment removal, and nutrient and toxicant removal. The wetland receives road runoff, and provides a long duration for water detention. Wetland Determination: The boundary of wetland 25. 7L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to topographic changes, and the base of fill for adjacent developments Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 3-19 and roads. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the Jack of soil saturation and hydric soil indicators. Wetland 25.9L Size and location: The 0.09-acre wetland located between SR 167 and East Valley Highway. Wetland 25.9L is a roadside ditch that drains to a culvert under East Valley Highway. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass, with Himalayan blackberry growing into the wetland. Soils: The A horizon is a very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) sandy loam extending to 2 inches deep. The B horizon, extending from 2 to 7 inches, consists of a very dark gray (1 OYR 3/1) gravelly sandy loam with brown (7.5YR 4/4) mottles. Soils were too compact to sample below a depth of 7 inches. Hydrology Free water was present to the surface of the soil pit and the area is likely inundated during the early portion of the growing season. Wetland Classification: Wetland 25.9L is a small, ditch-associated PEM wetland that is seasonally inundated/saturated. It is a Category Ill wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Renton's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Principal functions of Wetland 25.9L are flood flow alteration, sediment removal and production and export of organic matter. The wetland stores road runoff, contains dense herbaceous vegetation, and discharges into a culvert. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 25.9L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of the fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 3-20 3.2.2 Wetland Rating and Classification Summary Table 3-2 provides a summary of the wetland ratings identified in the wetland descriptions and identifies local wetland buffer requirements. Table 3-2: Wetland Ratings, 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Washington Local Identified on Wetland Area Cowardin State Local Jurisdiction Local Identifier (acres) Classification 1 Rating Jurisdiction Buffer Jurisdiction and Rating' Requirement Wetland (Ecology) (feet) Inventory? 0.15R 0.52 PEM Ill Tukwila-2 80 y 0.1 L 0.11 PEM IV Tukwila-3 50 N 0.1R 0.05 PEM IV Tukwila-3 50 N 0.25M 0.07 PEM IV Tukwila-3 50 N 0.3R 1.29 PFO Ill Tukwila-2 80 y 0.4L 0. 11 PEM IV Tukwila-3 50 N 0.5L 0.05 PEM IV Tukwila-3 50 N 0.6L 0. 17 PSS IV Tukwila-3 50 N 0.7R 0.03 PFO IV Tukwila-NR 0 N 0.88R 0.02 PEM IV Tukwila-NR 0 N 0.92R 0.09 PEM IV Tukwila-3 50 N 0.94L 0.48 PSS Ill Tukwila-2 80 N 0.99L 0.01 PEM IV Tukwila-NR 0 N 0.9R 1.01 PAB Ill Tukwila-2 80 N 1.57L 0.13 PSS Ill Renton-3 25 N 1.6R 0.16 PSS 111 Renton-3 25 N 1.7R 0.46 PSS Ill Renton-3 25 N 2.23L 0.04 PEM IV Renton-NR 0 N 2.25R 0.05 PEM IV Renton-3 25 N 2.2R 0. 10 PSS Ill Renton-3 25 N 2.31R 0.01 PEM IV Renton-NR 0 N 2.6L 0.02 PEM IV Renton-NR 0 N 2.7L 0.07 PEM IV Renton-3 25 N 2.81L 0.03 PEM Ill Renton-NR 0 N 2.9L 1.07 PSS Ill Renton-3 25 y 24.7R 6.98 PFO II Renton-1 100 y 25.0L 5.88 PSS Ill Renton-3 25 N 25.7L 0.30 PSS Ill Renton-3 25 N 25.9L 0.09 PSS Ill Renton-3 25 N TOTAL 19.40 1 NR -Non-regulated. City of Renton Category 3 wetlands less than 2,200 square feet are exempt from regulation under Renton Municipal Code Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-50 8(7)). City of Tukwila -Wetlands 1,000 square feet and less that do not meet any wetland rating criteria are exempt from requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.45 (TMC 18.45. 180A). Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 3-21 3.2.3 Wetland Functions and Values Summary Table 3-3 summarizes the wetland functional assessment for each wetland as determined on the functional assessment data sheets (Appendix B). Twenty-one (21) of the 29 wetlands (72%) within the entire study area are small (less than one-third acre). The two largest wetlands are located in the Springbrook Creek basin and are Wetland 24.?R and Wetland 25.0L, 6.98 acres and 5.88acres, respectively. Of the 8 wetlands greater than one-third acre in size or larger, four are located within the Green River basin and the other four are located in the Springbrook Creek basin. However, the Springbrook basin contains the majority of wetland area in the study area, 15.39 acres compared to 4.01 acres in the Green River basin. Twenty-five (25) of the 29 wetlands (86%) are dominated by emergent and/or scrub- shrub vegetation. Since forested wetlands are generally larger and located beyond the maintained road right-of-way, about 10% of the wetlands within the study area were classified as forested per Cowardin et al. (1979). Generally, larger wetlands in the study area are typically located in flat, low-lying areas. The smaller wetlands tend to be located in small closed topographic depressions or are hydrologically connected (linked to or associated with a water source) to hillside seeps, or roadside drainage ditches. Due to their size and topographic location, larger wetlands within the study area are more likely to provide a higher number and higher value of beneficial functions than smaller wetlands. All of the study area is located within the Urban Growth Area, with most of the study area comprised of existing road right-of-way. All of the wetlands within the study area have been disturbed to some extent by development, including the construction of 1-405 and commercial or residential development in the surrounding area. Consequently, the wetlands are compromised in their ability to provide functions and values. More than one-half of the wetlands were found to have the potential to provide valuable stormwater management functions including: flood flow alteration, sediment removal, nutrient and toxicant removal, and erosion control. Some of these areas have constricted outlets and dense woody vegetation, slowing floodwaters during storm events. Most wetlands have dense herbaceous vegetation that can remove sediment and toxicants present in road runoff. Approximately one-third of the total number of wetlands are likely to provide functions related to general habitat, habitat for amphibians, wetland-associated mammals and/or wetland-associated birds, or native plant richness. These wetlands may have diverse vegetation, seasonal or permanent open water, or have evidence of wildlife use such as dens, tracks, scat, or gnawed stumps. Six (6) of the wetlands are likely to provide general value as fish habitat (Wetlands 0.15R, 0.3R, 1.57L. 1.6R. 25.0L, and Wetland 24.?R (Panther Creek). Wetland 24.?R is likely to provide uniqueness and heritage value, and wetland 0.94L is likely to provide native plant richness. None of the other wetlands are likely to provide uniqueness or heritage value because they do not contain any listed plant or wildlife species and are not considered bogs or estuary wetlands. The wetlands in the study area are either in WSDOT right-of-way or extend onto privately owned properties, which limits their education and recreational uses. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Welland/Biology Report December 2005 3-22 Table 3-3: Wetland Functions and Values, 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project -c "' C .. 0 "' C " C "' .. C 0 ·c ~ .. .. .. a: 0 -:;, .. 0 :c ,; ii ,; " "' ii C ~~ " C E ~ "" .!! I! .. "' C. "' :i: C ,n " ·.; > " ~ .. .. .!l! E .!l! .., "' .. .!! 0 ow -C. -·;. 0 ·-.l! :, -.. -~ "' ., "' <( E ~ .0 0~ .,. .. E i:;; "·-.!l! 0 -.. 3::m C ., " c-:c < " < " u C I- :!! 0 :t a: o"' C.., .. .§ ~ ~ ~.., ~" ! C -0 -"' u " . 2 C :i::~ .E 0 .. 0 " .., " ~ C) ii: C -.. C: ·= -.. ii:: -"" :; ~ :: .! C .!!. C Cl) C > " ~ .; :i: E o-~ .0 s~ .. " .l! " .. 3 .., -~ 0 ·-Q) :, Cl) .. 1/J ~ Cl) .l! -:!:: 0 ·-0 ., ., 0 :;; .:, E .., ;:: :s J :c Cl) 0 0 C ·-.0 "' .0 .. ~ ::; '~ .. 0 " ::, Cl) ~ .c 0 .. .. :, .. .. ., .... 3:: ii: "' z a: w"' .l: :;; C) "' ~c :i:: :i:: <( :i:: < 0.15R 0.52 PEM Ill ,/ ,/ ,/ ./ ,/ ./ ./ 0.1L 0.11 PEM IV ,/ ,/ ./ ./ 0.1R 0.05 PEM IV ,/ ,/ ./ 0.25M 0.07 PEM IV ,/ ./ ,/ 0.3R 1.29 PFO Ill ,/ ,/ ,/ ./ ,/ ./ ./ ./ 0.4L 0.11 PEM IV ,/ ./ ./ 0.5L 0.05 PEM IV ,/ ,/ ./ ./ ./ 0.6L 0.17 PSS IV ./ ,/ ,/ ./ ./ ./ 0.7R 0.03 PFO IV ./ ,/ ./ ./ 0.88R 0.02 PEM IV ,/ ,/ ./ ./ ./ 0.92R 0.09 PEM IV ,/ ,/ ./ ./ 0.94L 0.48 PSS Ill ./ ,/ ,/ ,/ ./ 0.99L 0.01 PEM IV ,/ ,/ 0.9R 1.01 PAB Ill ,/ ,/ ./ ,/ ./ ,/ ./ 1.57L 0.13 PSS Ill ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ./ ./ 1.6R 0.16 PSS Ill ,/ ,/ ./ ,/ ./ ./ 1.7R 0.46 PSS Ill ,/ ,/ ./ ,/ ./ 2.23L 0.04 PEM IV ,/ ,/ 2.25R 0.05 PEM JV ,/ ./ ,/ 2.2R 0.10 PSS Ill ,/ ,/ ./ ,/ 2.31R 0.01 PEM IV ,/ ./ 2.6L 0.02 PEM IV ,/ ,/ 2.7L 0.07 PEM IV ,/ ,/ 2.81L 0.03 PEM Ill ,/ ./ ,/ 2.9L 1.07 PSS Ill ,/ ,/ ,/ ./ ,/ ,/ ./ 24.7R 6.98 PFO II ,/ ./ ,/ ./ ./ ,/ ./ ./ ./ ./ 250L 5.88 PSS Ill ,/ ,/ ,/ ./ ,/ ./ ./ ./ ./ 25.7L 0.30 PSS Ill ,/ ,/ ,/ ./ ,/ ./ ./ ./ ./ 25.9L 0.09 PSS Ill ,/ ,/ ,/ ./ ./ TOTAL 19.40 1 PEM -Palustrine Emergent; PFO -Palustrine Forested; PSS -Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 2 .,-= function likely provided by this wetland ,/ = function considered a primary function Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report " a: .. "' .. C .; " " -C ·;; :c .c "' .. " :i:: ~ ii: 0 .c -ii 1/J C u: .. C ii: 0 ii ., ~ Cl) .. Cl) .. > " :, C ., :, -.. .. "Cl .. C) z W> ./ ./ ./ ./ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ December 2005 3-23 .., C .. lb .. .. C Cl) .. C) :, .l! .,. ·-·-~ Ca, ::, :i:: ./ 4.0 Impacts During the course of the Renton Nickel Improvement Project, all or portions of 12 of the 29 wetlands in the project corridor will be filled or temporarily disturbed. Of the 2.28 acres of wetland impacted in the corridor (Table 4-1 and Table 4-2), approximately 1.66 acres will be permanently filled or graded to construct road improvements and 0.62 acre will be temporarily disturbed. 4.1 Permanent Impacts Permanent direct impacts would result from WSDOT filling 1.66 acres of wetland to construct new facilities; diverting or re-directing surface runoff that would be necessary to support wetland hydrology; or filling such a high percentage of the area of a wetland that the remaining area would not function at pre-construction levels (Table 4-1). 4.2 Temporary Impacts Temporary impacts produce short-term loss of wetland functions during construction and for up to five years following construction. They do not, however, result in a permanent loss of wetlands after the project is completed because disturbed vegetation or wetland hydrology will eventually be reestablished. Approximately 0.62 acre of wetlands would be temporarily disturbed during construction activities; including vegetation clearing and the placement of fill material (Table 4-1). The extent of short-term degradation would vary depending on the intensity of the temporary impact. Wetlands where the vegetation is cleared or trimmed would still retain some water quality and quantity function, although at a diminished level. Filled wetlands would provide no beneficial functions until they were restored. Wetlands temporarily impacted during construction would be restored to their pre-existing conditions following the completion of work and it is anticipated that they would return to a functioning state within five years. 4.3 Functions and Values Overall, the wetlands within the Renton Nickel Improvement Project study area are lower value wetlands related to habitat functions because of their proximity to, and association with 1-405. Their primary function is to improve water quality and abate the effects on downstream waters from stormwater flows. Therefore, the temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands in the project area will primarily result in a loss of the stormwater management functions provided by these wetlands. Because of the implementation of stormwater BMPs as part of the project, stormwater quality will be significantly improved for the corridor as a whole, but wetland loss will reduce the flood water desynchronization, sediment removal, nutrient and toxicant removal, and erosion control functions provided by the impacted wetlands. The project will also result in a reduction of habitat functions provided by wetland areas, and those habitat functions will not be mitigated through stormwater treatment and detention or other water quality BMPs. Therefore compensatory wetland mitigation (discussion in Section 6.0) will be implemented primarily for impacts to wetland habitat. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 4-1 Table 4-1: Filled or Disturbed Wetlands, 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Permanent Temporary Filled or Filled or otherwise Otherwise Washington Local Wetland Disturbed Disturbed State Rating Jurisdiction Identifier Area lacresl Area lacresl Area tacresl IEcolO""' and Ratina 1 0.15R 0.52 --Ill Tukwila-2 0.1L 0.11 --IV Tukwila-3 0.1R 0.05 --IV Tukwila-3 0.25M 0.07 --IV Tukwila-3 0.3R 1.29 --Ill Tukwila-2 04L 0.11 0.08 001 IV Tukwila-3 0.5L 0.05 05 IV Tukwila-3 0.6L 0.17 0.01 0.01 IV Tukwila-3 0.7R 0.03 --IV Tukwila-NR 0.88R 0.02 0.01 0.01 IV Tukwila-NR 0.92R 0.09 --IV Tukwila-3 0.94L 048 --Ill Tukwila-2 0.99L 001 --IV Tukwila-NR 0.9R 1.01 0.01 0.01 Ill Tukwila-2 1.57L 0.13 0.01 Ill Renton-3 1.6R 0.16 0.01 Ill Renton-3 1.7R 046 046 Ill Renton-3 2.23L 0.04 --IV Renton-NR 2.25R 0.05 --IV Renton-3 2.2R 0.10 --Ill Renton-3 2.31R 0.01 --IV Renton-NR 2.6L 0.02 0.02 IV Renton-NR 2.7L 0.07 0.01 0.01 IV Renton-3 2.81L 0.03 -Ill Renton-NR 2.9L 1.07 --Ill Renton-3 24.7R 6.98 --II Renton-1 25.0L 5.88 0.99 0.56 Ill Renton-3 25.7L 0.30 --Ill Renton-3 25.9L 0.09 001 Ill Renton-3 TOTAL 19.40 1.66 0.62 1 NR-Non-regulated. City of Renton Category 3 wetlands less than 2,200 square feet are exempt from regulation under Renton Municipal Code Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4- 3-50 8(7)). City of Tukwila -Wetlands 1,000 square feet and less that do not meet any wetland rating criteria are exempt from requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.45 (TMC 18.45.180A). Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 4-2 Table 4-2: Summary of Renton Nickel Improvement Project Impacted Wetland Area (in Square Feet)' -,,,7 Pennan<111t T11mporary . ,,_,' . -.·:u, FIiied or Filled or Wetland \illi,nc:1 sii~ ~.~i.Scft: Otherwise Washitlgtoro Name/ID foRightof Oistui'bed •Oistui'bed ~-Rati119 local urisdlctiOll . W-· Ar.;,;tij, Area<srfi !1[:: <£colon"\ and Ralina 0.4L 4,670 3,348 63 IV Tukwila-3 0.5L 1,805 1,805 0 IV Tukwila-3 0.6L 7,379 32 276 IV Tukwila-3 0.88R 634 67 78 IV Tukwila-NR 0.9R 43,697 187 293 Ill Tukwila-2 1.57L 5,456 107 0 Ill Renton-3 1.6R 6,923 104 0 Ill Renton-3 1.7R 19,763 19,763 0 Ill Renton-3 2.6L 683 683 0 IV Renton-NR 2.7L 2,681 230 150 IV Renton-3 25.0L 255,830 42,698 23,978 Ill Renton-3 25.9L 3791 0 188 Ill Renton-3 TOTAL 353,312 69,024 25,026 1 Table includes information for impacled wetlands only. An additional 17 wetlands were delineated within the study area but will not be affected by the project. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 4-3 5.0 Recommendations Throughout the design process, WSDOT has identified several opportunities to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands and their buffers. The most common avoidance and minimization measures included moving stormwater facilities and requiring retaining walls to reduce the extent of fill necessary to construct the road improvements. The overall project footprint has been reduced to the greatest extent in areas near wetlands to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts. WSDOT has also identified specific best management practices (BMPs) and other measures to be incorporated into construction specifications. Final BMPs will be developed during the final design process and will be implemented during construction and operation of the project to minimize sedimentation and/or contamination of wetlands. 5.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures The following avoidance and minimization measures have been incorporated into the project design to allow WSDOT to meet the transportation improvement challenge without directly affecting important natural resources: • All wetlands are to be avoided where practicable. • Associated facilities, such as stormwater treatment systems and access roads are to be located outside of the identified sensitive areas where practicable. • The project footprint is to be minimized. , Operational analysis will allow project designers to use existing shoulders or access lanes and thereby reducing the need to extend the road prism. Specific avoidance and minimization measures are identified in Table 5-1. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wet/and/Biology Report December 2005 5-1 Table 5-1: Avoidance and Minimization Measures, 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Pennanen Temporary Filled or Filled or Otherwise Otherwise Disturbed Disturbed Wetland Area Area Area Identifier lacresl /acresl /acresl Avoidance and Minimization 0.15R 0.52 --Avoided 0.1 L 0.11 --Avoided 0.1R 0.05 --Avoided 0.25M 0.07 --Avoided 0.3R 1.29 --Avoided 0.4L 0.11 0.08 0.01 Unavoidable due to roadway design standards. Retaining wall not viable due to safetv concerns. 0.5L 0.05 0.05 -Unavoidable due to roadway design standards. Retaining wall not viable due to safetv concerns. 0.6L 0.17 0.01 0.01 Unavoidable due to roadway design standards. 0.7R 0.03 --Avoided 0.88R 0.02 0.01 0.01 Stormwater intake designed to minimize impacts to wetland. Com, lete avoidance not feasible. 0.92R 0.09 --Avoided 0.94L 0.48 --Avoided 0.99L O.Q1 --Avoided 0.9R 1.01 0.01 0.01 Stormwater outfall designed to minimize impacts to wetland. 1.57L 0.13 0.01 -Unavoidable impacts minimized by bridge design. 1.6R 0.16 0.01 -Unavoidable impacts minimized by bridge design. 1.7R 0.46 0.46 -Unavoidable due to roadway design standards and to avoid impacts o local business. 2.23L 0.04 --Avoided 2.25R 0.05 --Avoided 2.2R 0.10 --Avoided 2.31R O.Q1 --Avoided 2.6L 0.02 0.02 -Unavoidable due to roadway design standards. Direct impacts minimized by retaining wall, but construction reqs 2.7L 0.07 0.01 0.01 require safety considerations for WSDOT. It is not possible to alter the impact line to comoletelv avoid imoacts to this wetland. 2.81L 0.03 --Avoided 2.9L 1.07 --Avoided 24.7R 6.98 --Avoided A retaining wall will be constructed along the entirety of this wetland to avoid and minimize impacts. A new ecology embankment will 25.0L 5.88 0.99 0.56 need to be constructed that will "bump out" the wall an additional ten feet to the west. This additional ten feet is required to meet the flow head) reas to allow the ecolo~" embankment to function orooerlv. 25.7L 0.30 --Avoided. 25.9L 0.09 -0.01 Unavoidable due to roadway design standards. Retaining wall added to minimize imoacts. TOTAL 19.40 1.66 0.62 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wet/and/Biology Report December 2005 5-2 5.2 Mitigation Sequence In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, mitigation sequencing includes: 1. Avoidance measures that eliminate the onset of impacts. 2. Minimization measures proposed to decrease the magnitude or severity of the impact. 3. Rectification measures that are part of the project and repair or restore resources. 4. Reduction or eliminating measures that soften the impacts. 5. Compensation measures designed to offset unavoidable adverse impacts. 6. Monitoring measures that become part of the project to ensure that resources are not further degraded by the project. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 5-3 6.0 Preliminary Compensatory Mitigation WSDOT, in partnership with the City of Renton is developing a mitigation bank called the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. Mitigation banking is one early-action approach identified in the 1-405 Corridor FEIS and the project is part of WSDOT's watershed approach to wetland mitigation. By consolidating the mitigation into one large site, WSDOT has the opportunity to work with a panel of resource agency representatives to create mitigation that specifically contributes aquatic ecosystem functions that are lacking in the local watershed while providing safe, high-quality wildlife habitat away from the dangers of a roadside location. This approach will be used as the wetland mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands within the Bank service area, which includes the 1-405 corridor area from the 1-405 and 1-5 intersection north to the northern city limits of Renton. Therefore, the 1.66 acres of permanent impacts to wetlands for the Renton Nickel Improvement Project will be compensated with credits from the Bank. Washington State Executive Order 90-04 mandates that the actions and activities of state agencies achieve a goal of "no net loss" of wetland acreage and function. In recognition of the "Wetlands Executive Order," WSDOT has adopted the "no net loss" goal as agency policy and will meet this requirement for the Renton Nickel Improvement Project at both the project-wide and intra-jurisdictional level. The Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) was developed to determine the mitigation ratios to be used at the Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. The mitigation ratios that will be used to compensate for impacts to wetlands have been designed to meet the "no net loss" guidance mandated under federal and state executive orders. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 6-1 7 .0 References City of Renton. 1992. Renton's Critical Areas Inventory. Prepared by Jones and Stokes. City of Tukwila. 2004. City of Tukwila Wetland/Watercourse Buffer Map. Dated July 15, 2004. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Pub!. # FWS/OBS-79/31. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. Hruby, T 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Wes/em Washington - Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 04-06-025. Olympia, WA: King County. 1990. King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio. NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1995. Hydric Soils of the State of Washington. Washington, DC. Null, W.S., G. Skinner, and W. Leonard. 2000. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Transportation Environmental Affairs Office. www. wsdot. wa. gov/environment/biology/docs/bpjtool .pdf Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. Washington, DC. US Soil Conservation Service. USFWS (United States Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service). 1987. National Wetland Inventory, Des Moines Quadrangle. USFWS (United States Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service). 1988. National Wetland Inventory, Mercer Island Quadrangle. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2005. Priority Habitats and Species data. Olympia, WA. WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2004. Environmental Procedures Manual M31-11 Volume 1 and 2. Olympia, WA. WSDOT Environmental Affairs, Engineering Publications. WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2005. 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment, HUG # XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. WSDOT Urban Corridors Office. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 7-1 Figures Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 Figures ZOIH ,tJ,\J s s"T""R"PIA N!ftb!"='E"""R -s-L~Vo SE 76TH S 18Qi H ST SW 43RD ST st CAR~ RD V) V) SR 167 SOUTHE RN PROJECT LI M IT AT SW 41ST ST SE 208TH ST Renton Nickel Project Vicinity Map FIGURE 1 Washin gto n State Department of Transportation I Re nton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands Discipline Report Source: WSDOT 2005 Km Counr CIS 2002 2004 L \NATURAL SCIENCES\20021.2~116 l.._WSOO I Re11 to..C::C'-"1S,..,,1P-"la""c a"-'H"-o daaae..,,M"'a""s-""m'-'xc....._Laa.Sl""U"-d"-ata.ad'-"'09'-'·0=9-0=5~---------------, Stream s ~ Permane nt Impact Te m porary Impac t •Wetlands Nation al Wetl and Inve ntory CJ Proposed Footprint -Proposed Retaining Walls 0 150 300 600 ---Feet Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands FIGURE 2-A Wash ington State Depart ment of Tra nsportation I Re nton Nickel Improvement Proj ect Wetlands Discipline Report Source. WSDOT 2005 Km Coun t G I$ 2002 2004 L \NATURAL SC IENCES\2002\2211 6 7 WSDOT Ranton\G IS\P laceHo!derMa mll.d last U dated 09-09-05 Stream s t:i'.l Permanent Impact Temporary Impact •wetlands National Wetland Inventory Cl Proposed Footprint -Proposed Retaining Walls N W+E s 0 150 300 600 --- \l ',._, Seatt le " Feet " ·-" "'•{ '-,--"I~ . I \-! ., I Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands FIGURE 2-B Washington State Department of Transportation I Ren ton Nicke l Im provement Project Wetlands Di scipline Report Source WSDOT 2005 Kin Coun G IS 2002 2004 L \NATURAL SCIENCES\2002\221 'ti / 11\'SUOT qert~(::.:,•'G<!:1$""\P""lao,:ces:..H:,::ol,.,de::,c,M::::a=m,:,,d'-'-"'La"'stc.:U,o:>d,.,.ateecd'--':-"09,:,·09'-'--0:,c5'----------------- Streams Ci'.! Permanent Impact Temporary Impact •Wetl ands National Wet land Inventory c:J Proposed Footprint -Proposed Retaining Walls N W+E s 0 150 300 600 -Feet ,:_ Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands FIGURE 2-C Washington State Department of T ransportation I Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands Discipline Report Source: WSOOT 20 05· Kn Coun GIS 2002 2004 L \NATURAL SC IENCES\2002\221 16 .7 WSDOT Renton\GIS\P!aceHolderM a s.mxd 09-09-05 Streams CXJ Permanent Impact e;:;; Temporary Impact •wetla nds National Wetland Inventory Cl Proposed Footprint -Proposed Retaining Walls N W+E s 0 150 300 600 ---Feet ' I ( Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands FIGURE 2-D Washington State Department of Transportation I Rento n Nicke l Improvement Project Wetlands Discipline Report Streams Pe rmanent Impa ct Temporary Impa ct •Wetland s National Wetland In ventory CJProposed Footprin t -Proposed Retaining Walls 0 150 300 600 -Feet Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands FIGURE 2-E Was hin gton State De partment of Transportation I Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland s Discipline Report Source WSOOT 2005 Kin< Coun l GI$ 2002 2004 L-\NATURAL SCIENCE S\2002\22116 7 WSOOT Ren lon\GIS\PlaceHolderMa s mxd Last U ated 09-09--0 5 Streams l:lll Permanent Impact Temporary Impact •wetland s Nati ona l Wetland Inventory CJ Proposed Footpri nt -Proposed Retaining Walls 0 150 300 600 M Feet Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands FIGURE 2-F Washington State Department of Transportat ion I Renton Nickel Improvement P roject Wetlands Discipline Report Stream s Di.. Permanent Impact Temporary Impact •Wetlands National Wetla nd Inventory CJ Proposed Foo tprint -Proposed Retai ni ng Wa ll s 0 150 300 600 M Feet Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands FIGURE 2-G Washington State Department of Tra nsportation I Renton Nicke l Improve ment P roject Wetlands Discipline Report Source WSOOT 2005 Kin Count GI$ 2002 2004 L \NATURAL SCIENCES\2002\22116 7 WSDOT Re n!On\GIS\PlaceHo derMa s mxd l ast U ated 09--09.-05 St reams Ci:I Permanent Impact Temporary Impac t •Wetl and s National Wet land Inventory CJ Proposed Footprint -Proposed Retaining Wa ll s 0 150 300 600 NHN Feet Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands FIGURE 2-H Washington State Department of Tra nsportation I Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands Discipline Report Appendix A: Common and Taxonomic Names of Plants Observed in the Study Area Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wet/and/Biology Report December 2005 A Table A-1: Plant Species List for the 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands Study Common Name Scientific Name TREES big-leaf maple Acer macrophyllum bitter cherry Prunus emarginata black ccttonwood Populus balsamifera cascara Rhamnus purshiana Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii mountain ash Sorbus aucuparia one-fruited hawthorn Grataegus monogyna Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia Pacific crabapple Ma/us fusca Pacific madrona Arbutus menzeisii paper birch Betula papyri/era quaking aspen Populus tremula red alder A/nus rubra Sijka spruce Picea sitchensis western hemlock Tsuaa heteroohvlla western red cedar Thuja plicata SHRUBS beaked hazelnut Cory/us comuta black hawthorn Crataegus douglassi black raspberry Rubus /eucodermis black twin-berry Lonicera involucrate clustered rose Rosa pisocarpa currant Ribes spp. devil's club Oplopanax horridus Douglas' spiraea Spiraea douglasii English holly /lex aquifolium English ivy Hedera helix evergreen blackberry Rubus laciniatus Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor honeysuckle Lonicera spp. Hooker's willow Salix haokeriana huckleberry Vaccinium spp. Indian plum Oemleria cerasiformis long-leaved Oregon grape Berberis nervosa Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report WIS 1 FAGU FAGu· FAG FAG- FAGu· NL ORN FACW FAGW NL FAG• FAC FAG FAG FAGU- FAG FACU FAC NL FAG+• FAG FAG-FAG+ FAG+ FAGW NL NL FAGU FAGU FAGU-FAC FAGW- NL-OBL FACU NL December 2005 A-1 Common Name Scientific Name Nootka rose Rosa nutkana ocean spray Holodiscus discolor Pacific blackberry Rubus ursinus Pacific ninebark Physocarpus capita/us Pacific willow Salix lasiandra red elderberry Sambucus racemosa red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium red-osier dogwood Comus stolonifera salal Gaultheria shallon salmon berry Rubus spectabilis scotchbroom Cytisus scoparius Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana Sitka willow Salix sitchensis snowberry Symphoricarpos a/bus tall Oregon grape BerfJeris aquifolium thimbleberry Rubus parvillorus vine maple Acer circinatum western snowberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis white willow Salix alba HERBS American brooklime Veronica americana American vetch Vicia americana American waterlily Nymphaea odorata aster Asterspp. bedstraw Galium spp. birdsfoot-trefoil Lotus comiculatus bitter nightshade Solanum du/camara bracken fern Pferidium aquilinum bull thistle Cirsium vulgare buttercup Ranunculus spp .. Canadian goldenrod So/idago canadensis Canadian thistle Cirsium arvense catchweed bedstraw Ga/ium aparine coltsfoot Petasites spp. common cat-tail Typha latifolia common groundsel Senecio jacobaea Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report WIS1 FAC NL FACU FACW- FACW+ FACU NL FACW FACU* FAC+ NL FAC FACW FACU NL FAC- FAC- NI FACW OBL NI OBL NL-OBL UPL-FACW+ FAC FAC+ FACU FACU NL-OBL FACU FACU+ FACU FAC-FACW OBL FACU December 2005 A-2 Common Name Scientific Name common plantain Plan/ago major common shepards' purse Capsella bursa-pastoris common speedwell Veronica officinalis common St. John's wort Hypericum perforatum common tansy Tanacetum vufgare common vetch Vicia sativa common varrow Achil/ea millefolium Cooley's hedge-nettle Stachys cooleyae cow parsnip Heracleum lanatum creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens cress Rorippa spp. curly dock Rumex crispus dandelion Taraxacum officinale deer fern Blechnum spicant dock Rumex spp. duckweed Lemna minor English ivy Hedera helix English plantain Plan/ago lanceolata false lily-of-the-valley Maianthemum di/a/alum field horsetail Equisetum arvense fireweed Epilobium angustifolium foamflower Tiarel/a trifo/iata forget-me-not Myosotis spp. foxglove Digitalis purpurea giant horsetail Equisetum telmateia hairy cats-ear Hypochaeris radicata horsetail Equisetum spp. Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum lady fern Athyrium filix-femina large-leaf avens Geum macrophyllum licorice fern Po/ypodium glycyrrhiza mint Mentha spp. mustard Brassica campestrls oxeye-daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Pacific bedstraw Galium cymosum Pacific bleedingheart Dicentra formosa Pacific silverweed Potentilla anserlna Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report WIS1 FACU+ FACU NL NL NI NL FACU NL FAC+ FACW FAC+-OBL FAC+ FACU FAC+ FAC-.OBL OBL NL FAC FAC FAC FACU+ FAG- FAC-FACW FAcu· FACW NL FAC-OBL FAcu· FAC FACW-• NL FAC-OBL NL NL FACW FAcu· OBL December 2005 A-3 Common Name Scientific Name pearly everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea pig-a-back-plant T o/miea menziesii pineapple weed Matricaria matricarioides pondweed Potamogeton spp. purple loosestrife Lythrum sa/icaria red clover Trifolium pratense scouring horsetail Equisetum hyemale sheep sorrel Rumex acetosella skunk cabbage Lysichitum americanum smartweed Po/ygonum spp. speedwell Veronica spp. sphagnum moss Sphagnum spp. spreading bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera stinging nettle Urtica dioica strawberry Fragaria virginiana sweet coltsfoot Petasites frigidus sword fern Polystichum munitum thistle Girsium spp. vetch Vicia spp. water cress Rorippa nastursium-aquatica water parsley Oenanthe sarmentosaa water starwort Gallitriche spp. Watson's willow-weed Epilobium watsonii western St. John's wort Hypericum formosum white clover T rifolium re pens GRASSES, RUSHES, AND SEDGES bluegrass Poa spp. bulrush Scirpus spp. colonial bentgrass Agrostis tenuis common spike-rush Eleocharis palustris common timothy Phleum pratense common velvetgrass Holcus lanatus creeping velvetgrass Holcus mollis Dewey's sedge Garex deweyana fowl bluegrass Poa palustris hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wet/and/Biology Report WIS1 NL FAC* FACU OBL FACW+ FAGU FAGW FACU+ OBL FACU-OBL NL-OBL NL FAC+ FAC+ NL FAGW- FAGU FAGU-OBL NI-NL NL OBL OBL FAGW- FAG- FAG* NL-FAGW OBL FAG OBL FAG- FAG FAGU* FAGU* FAG OBL December 2005 A-4 Common Name Scientific Name WIS 1 Kentucky bluegrass Paa pratensis FAC mannagrass Glyceria spp. FACW+-OBL meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis FACW orchard-grass Dactylis glomerata FACU perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne FACU quackgrass Agropyron repens FAC- red fescue Festuca rubra FAC+ reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea FACW rush Juncus spp. FAC-OBL sedge Carex spp. FAC-OBL slough sedge Carex obnupta OBL small-fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus OBL soft rush Juncus effusus FACW spike-rush Eleocharis spp. FACW-OBL spreading bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera FAC+ tall fescue Festuca arundinacea FAC- tall mannagrass G/yceria e/ata FACW+ wheatgrass Agropyron spp. FACU-FAC 1 WIS (Wetland Indicator Status) OBL /Obligate): species almost always occur wetlands under natural conditions (est. probability >99%). FACW (facultative wetland/: species usually occur in wetlands (est. probability 67 to 99%), but are occasionally found in non-wetlands. FAG (facu/tative): Species equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (est. probability 34 to 66%). FACU (Facultative upland): species usually occur in non-wetlands (est. probability 67 to 99%), but are occasionally found in wetlands. UPL (.Upland): species almost always occurring in non-wetlands under nonnal conditions (est. probability >99%). NL (Not listed): species not listed and presumed to be upland species. + indicates a species more frequently found in wetlands -indicates a species less frequently found in wetlands * identifies a tentative assignment based on either limited information or conflicting reviews Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wet/and/Biology Report December 2005 A-5 Appendix B: Wetland Data Sheets See Enclosed CD ROM Wetland Delineation Forms Functional Assessment Forms Wetland Rating Forms Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report December 2005 B ] ) TUKWILA ,. 181 '-.. _ _, I I ---· ----- . . • : ., ',w.,, ... r ,, .... I :Ulh Si I lw 1hl II \ ~H ·" I \,_, ,·,ut ru:«1.0,,1· ,,1.-11,.,,, • Talbot Hill P•M~*' I': ,Cr•<: I ~ W,o!oor.~, q,' Valleyiue ,• Attachment 6 -Land Use Map Renton Hill • .c,.Terrace ,, .. , ... Y. . ' •, t M!n i:,169) Figure 1 -Renton Nickel Improvement Project Adjacent Land Use Map Renton Nickel Improvement Project Page 1 City of Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit - Corridor Program To: Christina Martinez From: Allison Ray Date: January 5, 2005 MEMORANDUM Subject: Draft Stream Mitigation Memo This memo is intended to describe the conceptual stream mitigation at the Springbrook Creek crossing for the I-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project. A draft conceptual plan is not available at this time but will be submitted to the MAP Team as soon as it is available. Stream mitigation is intended to offset impacts from the reconstruction and widening ofl-405 northbound and southbound bridges over Springbrook Creek. Reconstruction and widening is anticipated to add a single bridge support column within the OHWM of the main channel impacting 414 ft 2 ofstream bed and shade an additional 11,920 ft 2 ofmain channel and side channel streambed. An additional 222 f\2 of impacts will occur to the Springbrook Creek side channel from a proposed stormwater culvert discharge outfall. Stream impacts will also occur to the West Fork of Panther Creek along SR-167 from the placement of fill impacting 2,405 ft2 ofstreambed from construction ofan ecology embankment. The widening along SR-167 will also require the lengthening of a culvert in the West Fork of Panther Creek by approximately 2 feet impacting an additional 4 fr of stream bed. Proposed stream mitigation will inclL1de complete removal of the existing five celled concrete box culvert under I-405 in the Springbrook Creek main channel and complete restoration of the substrate and bank to the greatest extent feasible witl1in tlie box culvert removal area. Additionally, mitigation will include complete removal of the existing bridge piles and pile stubs under the I-405 Springbrook Creek side channel and complete restoration of the substrate and streambank to the greatest extent feasible within the pile removal area. Additional stream mitigation measures that will be explored include planting riparian plantings, lowering the elevation of the Springbrook Creek side channel or other enhancements. Planting riparian plantings is intended to offset the effects from additional shading from the new, wider bridge spans. Currently the Springbrook Creek side channel is approximately 2 feet higher than the main channel and only receives flows during high flow events. Reducing the elevation oftlie Springbrook Creek side channel to create low flows may create additional rearing habitat. However, an assessment will need to be completed to verify if enough water is present during low flows to support sufficient hydrology in both the main and side channels of Springbrook Creek to support fish use. ~'I Washington State "'" Department of Tninsportatlon ~ ~, . ' ate De .. ~J7Lgj)') ·~: _, Uil. < • ~ ' .. , • -t ' h j,., ~ : _,ij: Biological Assessment For I-405 -Renton Nickel Improvement Project November 2005 Urban Corridors 40 I 2nd A venue South Seattle, WA 98104-3850 Prepared by: Washington State Department of Transportation 1-405 Project Team ate De Biological Assessment For I-405 -Renton Nickel Improvement Project November 2005 Urban Corridors 40 I 2nd Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104-3850 Prepared by: Washington State Department of Transportation I-405 Project Team Executive Summary The I-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project (Project) is a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) project that will result in improvements to the Interstate-405 (I-405) and State Route 167 (SR 167) corridors in and around the cities of Renton and Tukwila, Washington. The Project area begins just east of the Interstate-5 (I-5)/1-405 interchange and extends north past the Cedar River to the SR 169 interchange. It also includes SR 167 southbound (SB) from the I-405 interchange to SW 41st Street. On I-405, a northbound (NB) general-purpose (GP) lane from I-5 to the SR 167 exit, a NB auxiliary lane from the SR 167 entrance to the SR 169 exit, a SB auxiliary lane from the SR 169 entrance to the SR 167 exit, and a SB GP lane from the SR 167 entrance to the I-5 exit will be constructed. Improvements to SR 167 include adding a SB auxiliary lane from I-405 to SW 41st Street and extending the existing inside SB High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane north to I-405 from its present starting point near SW 21st Street. Additional improvements will be made to the one-lane ramp from NB I-405 to SR 167 and exits from SB I-405 to SR 167. Improvements will also be made to local roads, freeway structures, and the stormwater drainage system associated with the Project. Benson Road, which crosses over I-405, will be reconstructed and realigned to accommodate the SB auxiliary lane on I-405 as well as future improvements to I-405. The I-405 overpass over Talbot Road will be widened. The existing I-405 bridge over the Springbrook Creek Side Channel, the Springbrook Creek box culvert, and the I-405 overpass over Oakesdale Avenue will be replaced with new, longer NB and SB bridges. The Project also includes new stormwater management facilities and a substantial upgrade of existing drainage structures and systems. Mitigation will be provided to compensate for the loss of wetland and stream resources within the Project area as anticipated requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Section 404 permit and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). Wetland and floodplain mitigation for the Project will be performed at the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (Springbrook Bank). Stream mitigation will consist of removing the existing five-cell box culvert and bridge (including the tops of associated bridge piles below the ordinary high water mark) that span Springbrook Creek and constructing two new bridges, one NB and one SB. These compensatory mitigation actions are included in this Biological Assessment (BA) as offsetting measures that are a part of the Project. The Project is one of three "Nickel Projects" stemming from the I-405 Corridor Program Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that are the first phase of a multi-year transportation improvement plan for the I-405 corridor. The FEIS was developed to improve personal and freight mobility and reduce foreseeable traffic congestion in the I-405 corridor from Tukwila to Lynnwood in a manner that is safe, reliable, and cost-effective. The Project uses the Design-Build model, in which WSDOT executes a single contract with a Design Build Contractor (Contractor) for design and construction services to provide a finished product. In this model, WSDOT defines the basic objectives of the Project and develops outcome-based requirements to 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment ............ ._..._ ... ___ _ n i i cJ Table of Contents I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... I I. I Project Location ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Project Begin and End Location .......................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.2 Watershed in Which Project is Located ............................................................................................................... 3 1.2 General Project Description ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2 ProjectFootprint ................................................................................................................................................ 12 1.3 Detailed Project Description(s) ................................................................................................................................ 24 1.3. l Bridge Replacement .......................................................................................................................................... 24 1.3.2 Pile Driving ....................................................................................................................................................... 36 1.4 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ..................................................................... .' ............................................ 43 1.4.1 Conservation Measures ..................................................................................................................................... 43 1.4.2 Best Management Practices ............................................................................................................................... 44 1.4.3 Performance Standards ...................................................................................................................................... 49 2. Project Action Area ............................................................................................................................................................ 53 2.1 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Action Area ................................................................................................... 53 2.2 Action Area Description .......................................................................................................................................... 55 2.3 Noise Considerations ............................................................................................................................................... 55 2.4 Aquatic Considerations ............................................................................................................................................ 56 3. Species Information ........................................................................................................................................................... 59 4. Occurrence of Federally Listed and Proposed Species in the Project Action Area ............................................................ 61 4.1 Terrestrial Species .................................................................................................................................................... 61 4.1.1 Species 1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 61 4.2 Aquatic Species ........................................................................................................................................................ 62 4.2.1 Species 2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 62 4.2.2 Species 3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 66 5. Environmental Setting Within the Project Action Area ..................................................................................................... 69 5.1 Environmental Baseline of Action Area .................................................................................................................. 69 6. Effects Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 73 6.1 Direct Effect.. ........................................................................................................................................................... 73 6.1.l Potential Impact(s) to Federally Listed Species ................................................................................................ 73 6.2 Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................................................................... 80 6.3 Effects of Interrelated and Interdependent Actions .................................................................................................. 82 6.3.1 Effects Analysis for Interrelated and Interdependent Actions: .......................................................................... 82 6.4 Summary of Avoidance and Minimization Measures .............................................................................................. 83 6.4.1 Impacts Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 83 6.5 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................................................. 85 7. Effects Determination ........................................................................................................................................................ 87 7.1 Puget Sound Chinook (listed species) ...................................................................................................................... 87 7.2 Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout (listed species) ................................................................................................... 89 7 .3 Bald Eagle (listed species) ....................................................................................................................................... 91 8. References .......................................................................................................................................................................... 93 J.405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment iii ............ w.._. ...... .,, __ _ 1. Introduction The I-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project (Project) is a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) project that will result in improvements to the Interstate-405 (I-405) and State Route 167 (SR 167) corridors in and around the cities of Renton and Tukwila, Washington. The Project area begins just east of the Interstate-5 (I-5)/I-405 interchange and extends north past the Cedar River to the SR 169 interchange. It also includes SR 167 southbound (SB) from the I-405 interchange to SW 41st Street. On I-405, a northbound (NB) general-purpose (GP) lane from I-5 to the SR 167 exit, a NB auxiliary lane from the SR 167 entrance to the SR 169 exit, a SB auxiliary lane from the SR 169 entrance to the SR 167 exit, and a SB GP lane from the SR 167 entrance to the I-5 exit will be constructed. Improvements to SR 167 include adding a SB auxiliary lane from I-405 to SW 41st Street and extending the existing inside SB High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane north to I-405 from its present starting point near SW 21st Street. Additional improvements will be made to the one-lane ramp from NB I-405 to SR 167 and exits from SB 1-405 to SR 167. Improvements will also be made to local roads, freeway structures, and the stormwater drainage system associated with the Project. Benson Road, which crosses over I-405, will be reconstructed and realigned to accommodate the SB auxiliary lane on 1-405 as well as future improvements to I-405. The I-405 overpass over Talbot Road will be widened. The existing I-405 bridge over the Springbrook Creek Side Channel, the Springbrook Creek box culvert, and the 1-405 overpass over Oakesdale Avenue will be replaced with new, longer NB and SB bridges. The Project also includes new stormwater management facilities and a substantial upgrade of existing drainage structures and systems. Mitigation will be provided to compensate for the loss of wetland and stream resources within the Project area as anticipated requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Section 404 permit and the Washington State Department offish and Wildlife (WDFW) Hydraulic Project Approval (HP A). Wetland and floodplain mitigation for the Project will be performed at the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (Springbrook Bank). Stream mitigation will consist of removing the existing five-cell box culvert and bridge (including the tops of associated bridge piles below the ordinary high water mark [OHWM]) that span Springbrook Creek and constructing two new longer bridges, one NB and one SB. These compensatory mitigation actions are included in this Biological Assessment (BA) as offsetting measures that are a part of the Project. The Project is one of three "Nickel Projects," stemming from the 1-405 Corridor Program Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that are the first phase of a multi-year transportation improvement plan for the I-405 corridor. The FEIS was developed to improve personal and freight mobility and reduce foreseeable traffic congestion in the 1-405 corridor from Tukwila to Lynnwood in a manner that is safe, reliable, and cost-effective. The Project uses the Design-Build model, in which WSDOT executes a single contract with a Design Build Contractor (Contractor) for design and construction services to provide a fmished product. In this model, WSDOT defines the basic objectives of the Project and develops outcome-based requirements to ensure that the Project is designed and constructed in accordance with environmental regulations. The Contractor is then required to complete the Project in accordance with the outcome-based requirements; however, specific details of design and construction are up to the Contractor to complete. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment SR 167 End project (southern boundary of SR 167 improvements) Section: 31 Latitude: 47.444232 Township: 23 N Longitude: -122.216684 Range: 5E 1.1.2 Watershed in Which Project is Located Water Body or Bodies (if doing in-water work): The Project is located in the Lower Cedar River Subarea of the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (Water Resource Inventory Area [WRIA] 8) and the Lower Green River Subwatershed of the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9). In-water work related to the Project will occur at Springbrook and Panther Creeks, which are both located in WRIA 9. River Mile (if doing in-water work): In-water work will occur on Springbrook Creek at approximately River Mile (RM) 0.84 and Panther Creek at approximately RM 1.15. Tributary to: Springbrook Creek is a tributary to the Green River. Panther Creek is a tributary to Springbrook Creek. WRIA Number: 8 & 9 Name and Number of Sixth Field HUC: Lower Green River: 171100130399 Lower Cedar River: 171100120106 Figure 1 is a site map of the Project area. 1-403 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 3 ____ .. __ _ FIGURE 1 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Site Map Data Sources. State Routes and Streams from WSDOT at 1.24K Lambert Conformal Conic Projection Washington State Plane. North Zone. U.S. feet North American Datum 1983 0 0.25 0.5 Miles ~ C Springbrook Bank ~ Streams ,· "' t,' Culverts Railroad Arterial Road / Freeway {_ SNOHOMISH I \ I 1) KING •I { D -c"- ---~~- PIERCE 1.2 General Project Description The Project area begins just east of the I-5/1-405 interchange and extends north past the Cedar River to the SR 169 interchange. It also includes SR 167 SB from the 1-405 interchange to SW 41st Street. Figure 2 details the Project footprint. 1~405 Renton :'.'fickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 5 ............... ~ .. --- 0 Data Sources.- FIGURE 2 Renton Nicke l Improvement Project Project Footprint State Routes and Streams from WSOOT at 1:24K Lambert Conformal Conic Projection Washington State P1ane, North Zone, U.S feet North A m erica n Datum 1983 0.25 0.5 • Miles New Pavement 0 Exi sting ROW Spri ngbrook Bank U Proposed Detention Pond or Vault ~ Proposed Conveyence -Streams Cul vert s Ra ilroad Roadway Improvements ·,/ ~ SNOHOMIS H ( ·,. i. ~ ""° ·~ PIERCE ·~ / The new lanes that will be built under the Project are: • An I-405 NB GP lane from I-5 to the SR 167 exit • An I-405 NB auxiliary lane from the SR J 67 entrance to the SR 169 exit • An I-405 SB auxiliary Jane from the SR 169 entrance to the SR 167 exit • An I-405 SB GP lane from the SR 167 entrance to the I-5 exit • A SR 167 SB auxiliary Jane from 1-405 to SW 41 st Street • The existing inside HOV lane will be extended north to I-405 from its present starting point near SW 21st Street • The one-Jane off-connection from NB I-405 to SR 167 will be converted to a two lane off- connection Additional improvements include: • The two consecutive single-lane off-ramps from SB I-405 to SR 167 will be combined into a single two-lane off-ramp. • Benson Road (including the overpass over I-405) will be reconstructed and realigned to accommodate the SB auxiliary lane on T-405 as well as future improvements to I-405. Improvements on Benson Road include a 6-foot sidewalk on the northwest side and 5-foot bike Janes on both sides. • The existing I-405 overpass over Talbot Road will be widened on both the NB and the SB sides. • The Springbrook Creek Side Channel Bridge and the Oakesdale Avenue overpass will be replaced with new, longer NB and SB bridges. In addition, the existing Springbrook Creek five- cell box culvert will be removed. • Existing utilities impacted by the Project will be protected and/or relocated. The Project will not structurally modify the 61 st Avenue Underpass, the Christensen Road Underpass, the Green River Bridge, the SR 181 Bridge, the Union Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) railroad crossing, the Cedar River Bridge, or the Lind Avenue, Cedar Avenue and Renton Avenue underpasses. The roadway will be restriped in these areas to accommodate the new lanes, resulting in narrowed travel Janes and shoulders. WSDOT anticipates that Project construction will affect some existing cross-culverts. Associated culvert improvements include extending the existing structures due to widening the roadway and stabilizing culvert ends with rock or retaining walls. Other Project components include the use of retaining walls to minimize the construction footprint and to minimize additional right-of-way (ROW). Retaining walls will also help avoid and minimize effects to wetlands and other sensitive areas. A noise wall will also be constructed to minimize noise impacts on nearby residents. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 7 -·---.. --- Improvements to the Stormwater Management System Managing stormwater drainage for the Project entails the collection and treatment of rainfall runoff to mitigate the potential changes associated with the new impervious surface created by the Project. The Project will treat the stormwater from an area equal to the new pavement surfaces using enhanced treatment per the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual (WSDOT 2004a), hereinafter referred to as the HRM. Enhanced treatment, as defined in the Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) 2001 Storm water Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2001 ), is a treatment system optimized to improve the capture of dissolved metals through processes involving absorption, ion exchange, biofiltration, or precipitation. The runoff that is collected to mitigate the new pavement areas will remain separated from the environment until it is conveyed through quality treatment facilities. Flow control will be provided to match peak flows and durations for a specific range of storms. However, flow control will not be provided when discharge is made directly to the Cedar River. Stormwater detention is not required for discharge to the Cedar River because it is large enough that no measurable increase in hydraulic conditions and velocities will occur with increased runoff. The Cedar River is designated as an exempt waterbody, per updates to the HRM completed in February, 2005 (WSDOT 2005a). For Project discharge to tributaries and existing storm drains, the peak rate and duration of discharge will be controlled to match the theoretical flows from the Project area prior to the start of construction. Flow control using infiltration has been generally determined as a non-viable method due to the high groundwater and/or low permeability nature of the soils in the Project area. Thus, flow control has been initially designed using detention storage, primarily in open ponds. There are five Threshold Discharge Areas (TDAs) in the Project area. The HRM defines a IDA as "an on-site area draining to a single natural discharge location or multiple natural discharge locations that combine within '4 mile downstream (as determined by the shortest flow path)." The Project will add approximately 15.3 acres of new impervious surface within the Project area. This is an approximately 13 percent increase in impervious surface area over the existing conditions in the Project area. Existing impervious surface area refers to all impervious surface within WSDOT ROW within the Project limits. The 13 percent increase is based on comparing the new impervious surface area to the existing impervious area. Figure 3 details the TDAs and stormwater facilities in the action area. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 8 FIGURE 3 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Proposed Drainage Facilities 0 Data Sources: State Routes and Streams from WSDOT al 1:24K Lambert Conformal Conic Projection WaShington State Plane, North zone, U.S fe et North Amencan Datum 1983 • 0 .25 0 5 Miles Threshold Discharge Areas (TDAs) 0 Proposed Detention Ponds _ Springbrook Bank ~~-./) Ecology Embankments ~ St ream s C ul ve rt s Railroa d {/ SNOHOM ISH ,- I ( \ I ,) K .N G { 0 ~\_~ P IE RC E ' ··1 The preliminary design proposes stormwater treatment facilities, or best management practices (BMPs), for the Project consisting of ecology embankments, detention ponds, and stormwater treatment wetlands. In total, five new detention ponds will be constructed as a part of this Project. In addition, one existing detention pond will continue to be used. Each of these detention ponds is associated with an ecology embankment and one of the ponds is also coupled with a stormwater treatment wetland. Ecology embankments are installed off the shoulder of the new roadway and use an amended media filtering system suited for limited ROW applications. Storm water treatment wetlands satisfy the enhanced water quality treatment requirement while adding aesthetic properties. The stormwater BMPs will be designed and constructed, in accordance with the BRM. Details of the Project's stormwater facilities are in Table 1. Table 1. Proposed Water Quality and Flow Control Treatment Facilities TDA Facility I.D. Approximate Contributing Area Water Quality Flow Control Milepost (ac) Facility Type Facility Type .. RT Gl.l 1-405: 0.2 -0.3 I.I I Ecology Embankment • Detention Pond Green River 1 . ... ------------------ (GI) RT Gl.2 • 1-405: 0.8 -1.0 0.29 Ecology Embankment Detention Pond • RT Sl.l 1-405: 1.2-1.6 4.I4 Modified Ecology Embankment Detention Pond Springbrook : • . ----- Creek I (SI) ' l i RT Sl.2 1-405: 1.9-2.0 0.62 Ecology Embankment Detention Pond . ' RT ! 0.96 i Modified Ecology Embankment S2.2.l . i ' Springbrook 1-405: 2.8-3.I ---------------~ RT : Creek 2 : 0.30 Ecology Embankment I Detention Pond (S2) . S2.2.3 i RT 1-405: 2.9-3.1 ; Modified Ecology Embankment . S2.2.2 2.55 Cedar River I RT 1-405: 3.1-3.2 1.04 Modified Ecology Embankment Direct Discharge (Cl) Cl.I RT : : i S3.1 SR 167: 25.3-25.7 1.31 ! Ecology Embankment ' i Springbrook co SR 167: 25.2 -25.3 2.82 ' Combined Creek 3 S3.1 ' : Stonnwater Wetland Detention Pond (S3) RT SR 167: 24.8 -25.1 1.59 Ecology Embankment S3.2 ' RT ' i S3.3 I SR 167: 24.7 -24.8 0.23 Ecology Embankment ' In addition to the water quality BMPs described above, the Project will adhere t0, the terms and conditions of the Compliance Implementing Agreement Regarding Compliance with the State of Washington Surface Water Quality Standards between WSDOT and Ecology (WSDOT and Ecology 1998), and WAC 173-20 I (A): Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. 1~405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 10 ......... --~..---- Mitigation Compensatory mitigation will be provided to address the loss of wetlands and riparian vegetation within the Project area, as anticipated requirements of the Corps Section 404 permit and the WDFW HP A. These compensatory mitigation actions are included in this BA as offsetting measures that are included as a part of the Project. Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank The Springbrook Bank is a WSDOT and City of Renton project that will re-establish, rehabilitate, enhance, and preserve approximately 130 acres of wetland, wetland buffer, and riparian and upland habitat areas on five parcels located in Renton, Washington. The Springbrook Bank will provide compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources resulting from WSDOT Projects and additional development projects in the City of Renton that are within its service area. A portion of the Springbrook Bank will be used to compensate for wetland impacts resulting from the Project. The Springbrook Bank is an Early Environmental Investment (EEI) Project under the I-405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects, will be permitted and consulted on separately from the Project, and is included in this description for reference only. Stream Mitigation Stream mitigation will consist of removing the existing five-cell box culvert that contains the main channel of Springbrook Creek and removal of existing bridge columns in the Springbrook Creek side channel to 2 feet below the mudline. The existing structures will be replaced with two new longer span bridge structures. Removal of the culvert will improve fish passage conditions in Springbrook Creek, as at low flows typically only two of the five cells pass water (Koellmann and Patterson 2005). In addition, the stream channel in the location of the culvert will be graded to match the profile of the Springbrook Creek channel up and downstream of the culvert. Removal of the existing box culvert is part of the Project and will not be permitted and consulted on separately. 1.2.1.1 Overall Project Timeline: Begin: November 2007 End: March 2010 Total No. of Working Days: 650 1.2.1.2 In-Water Work: Will any in-water work occur in water bodies containing federally listed fish or marine species: [gj Yes D No In-water work will occur on Springbrook Creek which has known Chinook salmon and presumed bull trout use. Springbrook Creek is also designated as Chinook salmon critical habitat. In-water work will also occur on the west fork of Panther Creek, a tributary to Springbrook Creek. Panther Creek is not known to contain Chinook salmon or bull trout (WDFW 2005). The location of the in-water work is 1.5 miles upstream of known or presumed occurrences of Chinook salmon or bull trout in Springbrook Creek. There is no direct stream connection from the main channel of Panther Creek to the area where work will occur, as the west fork of Panther Creek downstream of this area enters a wetland dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) with no distinct stream channel. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 11 During site visits conducted during the winter and spring of 2005, little to no surface water was present within this wetland (Koellmann and Patterson 2005) and, under existing conditions, this wetland area acts as a natural barrier to fish movement into the west fork of Panther Creek. As such, work below the OHWM of Panther Creek are not anticipated to impact Chinook salmon, bull trout, or designated critical habitat for either species. The appropriate in-water work window, as approved by WDFW: Springbrook Creek: From: June 15 Through: September 30 Panther Creek: From: June 15 Through: September 30 Will all in-water work occur during the approved in-water work window: [2J Yes D No All in-water work will occur within the above mentioned in-water work windows unless additional in- water work windows are determined to be viable by WDFW and/or other permitting agencies. Provide the anticipated dates of all in-water work: Springbrook Creek: From: June 15, 2008 From: June 15, 2009 Panther Creek: From: June 15, 2008 From: June 15, 2009 Through: September 30, 2008; and Through: September 30, 2009 Through: September 30, 2008; and Through: September 30, 2009 Will any in-water work occur outside the appropriate in-water work window: D Yes [2J No All in-water work will occur within the above mentioned in-water work windows unless additional in- water work windows are determined to be viable by WDFW and/or other permitting agencies. 1.2.2 Project Footprint Table 2 details the area and linear distance of temporary and permanent disturbances to stream channel, wetland, and riparian and upland vegetation. Details of these impacts are discussed in Section 1.2.2.1 - Disturbance to Vegetation and Section 1.2.2.2 -Disturbance to Aquatic Habitats (wetlands/streams). Table 2. Area and Lineal Distance of Temporary and Permanent Disturbance to Habitat Habitat Types l---Area ~g_uare (eet)of Distur_b_a_n_c_e _ _,. ______ ~-~o_f_D_is_t_u_r_ba_n_c_e--< to be Disturbed ! Tern ora · Permanent Permanent Stream Channel J,~2~ 11,9_5_2_ 540 Wetland , 27,878 72,309 --'--~------- Ri arian ' __ · __ 8,072 ______ ____ 3 3,,~07~8~-~,..._-_-=.-=.-==3-::_,-1~1:8-::_-::_-::_=:~'~--3~,=I =18~--, Upland 2,944,656 483,516 67 .6 acres (11.1 acres 1.405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 12 ........... .._ .............. _d __ 1.2.2.1 Disturbance to Vegetation UPLAND VEGETATION Temporary (i.e., area will be replanted with native vegetation or allowed to regenerate naturally): Square Feet: 2,944,656 Acres: 67.6 Describe vegetation removed (species, numbers, sizes and condition): The upland vegetation types in the Project area include urban forest, roadside vegetation, and urban matrix. Urban forest is a cover type that is typically dominated by big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and alder (A/nus spp.) with an understory of smaller herbaceous and shrub species. Roadside vegetation is dominated by grasses, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius) in most areas. Roadside vegetation is typically disturbed, may be mowed regularly, and does not generally provide suitable habitat for a diverse array of wildlife species. Urban matrix is comprised of a mix of buildings, pavement, manicured lawns, and ornamental vegetation, which provides very little habitat for wildlife. Wildlife also generally tend to avoid urban matrix areas because of the high level of human use. As the available habitat for listed species found in urban matrix and roadside vegetation is generally limited, the impacts to these two upland vegetation types are quantified together in this BA. Approximately 1.6 acres of urban forest and 66 acres of urban matrix and roadside vegetation will be temporarily removed during construction. Much of this area will be replanted with native vegetation when construction is completed. Permanent (i.e., area will be permanently affected by the project): Square Feet: 483,516 Acres: I I.I Describe vegetation removed (species, numbers, sizes and condition): Approximately 0.1 acres of urban forest and 11 acres of urban matrix and roadside vegetation will be permanently converted into storm water detention facilities and impervious surfaces as a result of the Project. RIPARIAN VEGETATION Springbrook Creek and the Green River are the only waterbodies in the action area that contain federally listed species and will incur impacts to their riparian buffers. Springbrook Creek has known Chinook salmon use, and is designated as Chinook salmon and bull trout critical habitat. The Green River has known Chinook and bull trout use, and is designated as Chinook salmon and bull trout critical habitat. Additional temporary and permanent riparian buffer impacts stemming from construction of the Project will occur on Gilliam Creek, Springbrook Creek, Panther Creek, Rolling Hills Creek, an unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek, and Thunder Hills Creek. Temporary (i.e., area will be replanted with native vegetation or allowed to regenerate naturally): Square Feet: 8,072 1-405 Renton Nkktl Impronment Project Biological Assr:ssment Acres: 0.19 13 -------- Describe vegetation removed (species, numbers, sizes and condition): Riparian buffers in the action area are highly degraded from natural conditions. They are largely dominated by non-native invasive plant species including Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and Scot's broom. Though they do contain some native deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs, most of the riparian trees in the Project area are immature. As the existing riparian condition of these streams are degraded, many of the functions provided by riparian vegetation, such as large woody debris (L WD) recruitment, contribution of organic material, fish cover, bank stabilization, and stream temperature regulation are already impaired as compared to natural conditions (Kerwin 2001). Portions of the riparian buffers of Gilliam Creek, the Green River, Springbrook Creek, Panther Creek, Rolling Hills Creek, an unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek, and Thunder Hills Creek will be temporarily impacted by construction of the Project. Temporarily impacted areas will be replanted with native vegetation when Project construction in the area is complete. Permanent (i.e., area will be permanently affected by the project): Square Feet: 33,078 Acres: 0.76 Describe vegetation removed (species, numbers, sizes and condition): The riparian buffers of Gilliam Creek, the Green River, Springbrook Creek, Panther Creek, Rolling Hills Creek, an unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek, and Thunder Hills Creek will be permanently converted into stormwater detention facilities or impervious surfaces as a result of the Project. 1.2.2.2 Disturbance to Aquatic Habitats (wetlands/streams): Will a Hydraulic Project Approval (HP A) be required for the project? ~ Yes Has the WDFW issued an HPA for this project? D Yes ~ No If no, when will an HP A be obtained for this project? An HPA is anticipated to be issued by July 14, 2006. D No Describe the temporary and permanent impacts to each aquatic habitat affected as prompted below. WETLANDS Wetlands in the Project area include palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS), palustrine forested (PFO) and aquatic bed (AB) wetlands. PEM wetlands are generally dominated by common emergent vegetation such as reed canarygrass and cattails. PSS wetlands are dominated by hardhack, red-osier dogwood, and willows, while PFO wetlands are dominated by black cottonwood. The AB wetlands are primarily dominated by pond lily. All of the impacted wetlands in the Project area are classified under Ecology's 2004 wetlands rating system as a mix of both Category III and Category IV wetlands. Figure 4 details the wetlands in the Project action area. I-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 14 0 CJ FIGURE 4 Renton Nicke l Improvement Project Wetland Loca tions Data Sourres: State Routes and Streams from WSDOT at 1:24K Lambert Conformal Conic Projection Wash ington State Pla ne , North Zone, U. S feel N011.h A merican Da tum 19 83 • 0.15 03 Miles Y/, Wetlands _ Springbrook Ba nk ~ Streams Culverts Railroad K ING PI ER CE Temporary (i.e., area will be dewatered or otherwise affected temporarily during project activities): Square Feet: 27,878 Acres: 0.64 Temporary impacts produce short-term loss of wetland functions during construction and for up to 5 years following construction. They do not, however, result in a permanent loss of wetlands after the Project is completed and once disturbed vegetation or wetland hydrology is reestablished. The extent of short-term degradation will vary depending on the intensity of the temporary impact. Wetlands where the vegetation is cleared or trimmed would still retain some water quality and quantity function, although at a diminished level. Filled wetlands would provide no beneficial functions until they were restored. Wetlands temporarily impacted during construction would be restored to their pre-construction conditions following the completion of work and it is anticipated that they would return to a functioning state within 5 years. In total, nine wetlands will be temporarily impacted by the Project: four Category III and five Category IV wetlands. The total area of temporary wetland impacts is approximately 0.64 acres. Eight of the affected wetlands will incur temporary impacts of 0.0 l acres each or less. The remaining 5.88 acre Category III wetland (Wetland 251-Y) will incur 0.56 acres of temporary impacts. Wetland l.6R is associated with Springbrook Creek and will experience temporary impacts ofless than 0.01 acres. Permanent (i.e., area will be permanently affected due to culvert extension or placement of spawning gravel): Square Feet: 72,309 Acres: 1.66 Permanent wetland impacts would result from the filling of 1.66 acres of wetland to construct new facilities, diverting or re-directing surface runoff that would be necessary to support wetland hydrology, or filling such a high percentage of the area of a wetland that the remaining area would not function at pre-construction levels. Eleven wetlands will be permanently impacted by the Project: five Category III and six Category IV wetlands. Six of the affected wetlands will incur impacts of 0.01 acres each or less. Two additional wetlands will be partially filled: 0.08 acres of a 0.11 Category IV wetland (Wetland 0.41) and 0.99 acres of a 5.88 acre Category III wetland (Wetland 251-Y). The remaining three wetlands will be wholly filled: a 0.05 acre Category IV wetland (Wetland 0.51), a 0.46 Category III wetland (Wetland l.7R), and a 0.02 acre Category IV wetland (Wetland 2.61). Wetlands 1.571 and l .6R are associated with Springbrook Creek and will each experience permanent impacts of less than 0.01 acres. STREAMS Springbrook Creek is the only waterbody in the action area that contains federally listed species and will also incur in-and overwater impacts. Overwater impacts stem from construction of new I-405 NB and SB bridges that will shade Springbrook Creek, could limit the viability of riparian vegetation under the 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 16 ____ ,. __ _ bridges, and could impact stream temperatures. In-water impacts to Springbrook Creek will occur below the OHWM and may include installing permanent bridge pilings, placing a riprap outfall in the side channel of Springbrook Creek, and installing temporary coffer dams or other structures to exclude water from construction areas. Permanent removal of the existing Springbrook Creek box culvert and the Springbrook Creek Side Channel bridge, including partial removal of the associated bridge piles below the OHWM, may impact the waterbody. However, it is anticipated that removal of the culvert and associated grading of the stream channel will result in a more natural stream channel and an increase in overall in-stream habitat in Springbrook Creek. Work below the OHWM will be conducted during the WDFW in-water work window, June 15 through September 30, 2008 and 2009. Figure 5 details the streams and rivers in the Project action area. 1~405 Renton Nic~I Improvement Project Biological Assessment 17 o FIGURE 5 Renton Nicke l Improve ment Project Stream Locat ions Data Souroes : State Roures and Streams from WSDOT sr 1 ·2 4K Lambert Conformal Come Proj6Cl1on Wasll1noton Seate Plane. North Zo ne, U S feet North Amencan Darum 1983 0.25 0 5 Mile s Springbrook Ba nk Railroad ~ ~ Streams Culverts SNO-OMISH D K ING Temporary (i.e., area will be dewatered or othenvise affected temporarily during project activities): Square Feet: 1,225 Acres: 0.03 Temporary in-water impacts will occur in Springbrook Creek from construction of two bridge structures over Springbrook Creek and its associated side channel. Removal of the existing Springbrook Creek box culvert and the Springbrook Creek Side Channel Bridge, including partial removal of the associated bridge piles below the OHWM, will temporarily impact the waterbody. Temporary impacts may include pile driving within the OHWM of Springbrook Creek required to construct the new bridge, and use of a coffer dam or other dewatering method to isolate the bridge foundation area and accommodate removal of the existing box culvert and pilings related to the existing bridge. Temporary in-water impacts will also occur on a section of Panther Creek to accommodate construction ofa new SR 167 SB lane, associated improvements to the SW 41st Street off-ramp, and construction of a new ecology embankment to treat stormwater runoff from SR 167. Panther Creek is not known to contain Chinook salmon or bull trout (WDFW 2005). The location of the in-water work is 1.5 miles upstream of known or presumed occurrences of Chinook salmon or bull trout in Springbrook Creek. There is no direct stream connection from the main channel of Panther Creek to the area where work will occur, as the west fork of Panther Creek downstream of this area enters a wetland dominated by reed canary grass with no distinct stream channel. During site visits conducted during the winter and spring of 2005, little to no surface water was present within this wetland (Koellmann and Patterson 2005) and, under existing conditions, this wetland area acts as a natural barrier to fish movement into the west fork of Panther Creek. As such, work below the OHWM of Panther Creek is not anticipated to impact Chinook salmon, bull trout, or designated critical habitat for either species. Lineal Feet ofDewatering: Springbrook Creek: Up to 200 feet of Springbrook Creek will be temporarily dewatered to accommodate construction of the new Springbrook Creek Bridge and removal of the existing Springbrook Creek box culvert and the Springbrook Creek Side Channel bridge. Panther Creek: Up to 540 feet of the West Fork of Panther Creek may need to be dewatered to accommodate construction of a SR 167 SB auxiliary lane from I-405 to SW 41 st Street. Permanent (i.e., area will be permanently affected due to culvert extension or placement of spawning gravel): Square Feet: 11,959 Acres: 0.33 Permanent impacts to Springbrook Creek include shading of the creek from the new bridge structure and impacts from pilings and a riprap outfall installed below the OHWM. The existing Springbrook Creek box culvert and the Springbrook Creek Side Channel bridge will be removed, including nine pilings presently located within the OHWM. In addition, the stream channel in the location of the culvert will be graded to match the profile of the Springbrook Creek channel up and downstream of the culvert. It is anticipated that removal of the culvert and associated grading of the stream channel will result in a more natural stream channel and an increase in overall in-stream habitat in Springbrook Creek. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 19 Permanent impacts to the West Fork of Panther Creek include the installation of a retaining wall and placement of structural fill (i.e., road base and sub-base material) within the OHWM that, in total, will cover approximately 2,600 square feet within the OHWM. The retaining wall and associated fill will be used to accommodate construction of a new SR 167 SB lane, associated improvements to the SW 41st Street off-ramp, and construction of a new ecology embankment to treat stormwater runnoff from SR 167. The retaining wall will minimize impacts within the OHWM of Panther Creek. Provide the following information for in-water work requiring fish removal and exclusion: Will fish removal and exclusion be performed in accordance with the WSDOT fish removal and exclusion protocols (Appendix A): IZJ Yes D No Who will carry out the fish removal/exclusion protocol: Fish removal/exclusion in Springbrook Creek and Panther Creek, if required, will be carried out by a qualified WSDOT biologist(s). The biologist will be trained in WSDOT's fish removal and exclusion protocols. These protocols are detailed in Appendix A -WSDOT Fish Removal Protocols and Standards. Stream bypass/dewatering of work area. Will work within the streambed be performed in the dry (i.e. channel dewatered): IZJ Yes D No If yes, indicate how the channel will be dewatered, or if not dewatered how replacement activities will be performed: D Ephemeral stream, anticipated to be dry during construction period IZJ Stream will be dewatered using a full diversion, and a bypass flume or culvert IZJ Stream will be partially dewatered using a partial diversion (e.g. from shore encircling a bent of piling) IZJ Stream will be partially dewatered using a cofferdam ( e.g. isolating a bridge pier) IZJ Stream will be partially dewatered using a steel cylinder ( e.g. isolate a single piling) IZJ Other (describe): All diversions (full and partial) will be of sufficient height and bypass systems will be of sufficient size to isolate the work area from all anticipated flows during construction. The final Project design has not been determined and the method( s) used to dewater will be determined by the Contractor. The Contractor shall adhere to all permit conditions related to the Project. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow the conditions of the Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plans for the Project. Fish exclusion will be conducted in accordance with WSDOT's fish removal and exclusion protocols found in Appendix A of this BA. 1.2.2.3 Disturbance to Other Habitat Types: If applicable, describe other habitats that may be temporarily or permanently disturbed and the extent of disturbance to those habitats: No other habitat types will be disturbed as a result of the Project. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 20 -.--, .. _____ ... __ M 1.2.2.4 New Impervious Surface Area Will the project create new impervious surface area: ~ Yes D No Will any increase in impervious surface area occur as a result of the project: ~ Yes If yes, what is the total increase in impervious surface area: Total amount of pollution generating impervious surface area: Total amount of non-pollution generating impervious surface area: 666,468 square feet 666,468 square feet 0 square feet D No What amount of existing impervious surface area is to be retrofitted 0 square feet; 0 acres Will the new impervious surface area occur in the vicinity of a waterbody: ~ Yes D No If yes, describe the activities, the water body and the distance between the new impervious surface area and the water body: New impervious surface area on new bridges will span portions of the OHWMs of Springbrook Creek and its associated side channel. New impervious surface area will cover portions of the OHWM of Panther Creek. Impervious surface area will also be located within the riparian buffers of Gilliam Creek, Springbrook Creek, Rolling Hills Creek, an unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek, Thunder Hills Creek, and Panther Creek. In addition, eleven wetlands will be permanently filled to accommodate new impervious surface area created by the Project. Details on these impacts can be found in Section 1.2.2.2 - Disturbance to Aquatic Habitats (wetlands/streams). Will the new impervious surface area require the conversion of undisturbed lands to highway or other associated roadway features (i.e. unpaved shoulders): ~ Yes D No If yes, define the area to be converted and what the conversion will consist of: The Project will permanently convert various types of undisturbed lands to highway or other associated roadway features including the OHWMs and riparian buffers of several streams, parts or all of eleven wetlands, and 0.1 acres of urban forest cover type. Details on these impacts can be found in sections 1.2.2.1 -Disturbance to Vegetation and 1.2.2.2 -Disturbance to Aquatic Habitats (wetlands/streams). What design standard will be employed for treatment ofstormwater generated by the new impervious surface area per the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual (HRM): Managing stormwater drainage for the Project entails the collection and treatment of rainfall runoff to mitigate the potential changes associated with the new impervious surface created by the Project. The Project will treat the stormwater from an area equal to the new pavement surfaces, using enhanced treatment per the HRM. Enhanced treatment, as defined in Ecology's 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 200 I), is a treatment system optimized to improve the capture of dissolved metals through processes involving absorption, ion exchange, biofiltration, or 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 21 •------- precipitation. The runoff that is collected to mitigate the new pavement areas will remain separated from the environment until it is conveyed through quality treatment facilities. Stormwater flow control facilities will be designed in accordance with the HRM. The HRM mandates that the duration and magnitude of stormwater discharge into streams and rivers during storms be generally equal to or less than that experienced under existing conditions for the full range of design from 50 percent of the 2-year through to the 50-year recurrent storm events. Flow control will be provided to match peak flows and durations for a specific range of storms. However, flow control will not be provided when discharge is made directly to the Cedar River. Stormwater detention is not required for discharge to the Cedar River because it is large enough that no measurable increase in hydraulic conditions and velocities will occur with increased runoff. The Cedar River is designated as an exempt waterbody, per updates to the HRM completed in February, 2005 (WSDOT 2005a). For Project discharge to tributaries and existing storm drains, the peak rate and duration of discharge will be controlled to match the theoretical flows from the Project area prior to the start of construction. Flow control using infiltration has been generally determined as a non-viable method due to the high groundwater and/or low permeability nature of the soils in the Project area. Thus, flow control has been initially designed using detention storage, primarily in open ponds. Describe any other stormwater manual that will be used, besides the WSDOT HRM: No other stormwater manuals will be used as part of the Project. Water Quality Treatment Describe the basic water quality treatment BMP(s) that will be employed. If more than one will be employed, describe the treatment train: Basic water quality treatments will be allowed in the final design where impervious areas are subject to traffic demands less than 30,000 average daily trips (ADI). The final design has not been determined at this time and the Contractor will determine whether to use basic water quality treatment BMPs where allowed. Enhanced treatment will be employed where traffic demands exceed 30,000 ADI. Will enhanced water quality treatment be provided: [gJ Yes D No If yes, describe the water quality treatment BMP(s) that will be employed. If more than one will be employed, describe the treatment train: The preliminary design proposes stormwater treatment facilities, or BMPs, for the Project consist of ecology embankments, detention ponds, and stormwater treatment wetlands. In total, five new detention ponds will be constructed as a part of this Project. In addition, one existing detention pond will continue to be used. Each of these detention ponds is associated with an ecology embankment and one of the ponds is also coupled with a stormwater treatment wetland. Ecology embankments are installed off the shoulder of the new roadway and use an amended media filtering system suited for limited ROW applications. Stormwater treatment wetlands satisfy the enhanced water quality treatment requirement while adding aesthetic properties. The stormwater BMPs will be designed and constructed in accordance with the HRM. Details of the Project's storm water facilities are in Table I. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 22 -.--,--..... ·--- Water Quantity (Flow Control) Treatment Describe the water quantity treatments: Flow control will be provided for discharges to tributary watercourses or existing storm drains. Flow control will protect the capacity of existing storm drain systems to avoid increased erosion at unstable outlet locations. However, stormwater flow control will not be provided when discharge is made directly to the Cedar River. Stormwater detention is not required for discharge to the Cedar River because it is large enough that no measurable increase in hydraulic conditions and velocities will occur with increased runoff. The Cedar River is designated as an exempt waterbody, per updates to the HRM completed in February, 2005 (WSDOT 2005a). For Project discharge to tributaries and existing storm drains, the peak rate and duration of discharge will be controlled to simulate pre-Project flows. Flow control using infiltration has been generally determined as a non-viable method due to the low permeability nature of the soils in the Project area. Thus, flow control has been initially designed using detention storage, primarily in open ponds. Describe each outfall and the BMP for each outfall, as appropriate: The Project will use existing outfalls to the maximum extent possible to avoid impacts associated with new outfall construction. A summary of the Project's outfalls is provided below. The BMPs and performance measures associated with the new outfalls are detailed in Sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.3. TDA SI has two outfalls. The first one is from a modified ecology embankment that will be piped under the existing pedestrian path to discharge into the Springbrook Creek side channel. This outfall will require installation of an approximately 256 square foot (16 foot by 16 foot) riprap pad within the OHWM of the Springbrook Creek side channel. The second will discharge into a drainage ditch on the south side ofl-405 between Springbrook Creek and SR-167. TDA S2 will discharge into a new connection to the existing Thunder Hills Creek culvert under Benson Road. TDA S3 will discharge into an existing ecology embankment that will be modified as part of the Project. This ecology embankment will sheet flow into the wetlands on the west side of SR 167. The proposed stormwater treatment wetland/stormwater pond includes a pipe discharge over and into the wetlands on the west side of SR 167. TDA GI has two outfalls. The first is to a stormwater drainage system that is a tributary to Gilliam Creek. The second drains to the Nelson Side channel (Wetland 0.9). Work will occur below the OHWM of the Nelson Side Channel; however, there are no listed species associated with the Nelson Side Channel. The only new outfall that will impact listed species in the Project area is the first outfall associated with Springbrook Creek that outlets to the Springbrook Creek side channel (IDA SI). Installation of the riprap pad below the OHWM of the side channel will result in the loss of approximately 256 square feet of in-stream habitat in the side channel. However, the existing Springbrook Creek box culvert will be removed, resulting in an overall increase in available in-stream habitat within Springbrook Creek. J.405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 23 ____ .. __ _ Pavement Removal (if applicable) Indicate how much pavement will be removed as a result of the new impervious surface area (e.g. a roadway may be abandoned in conjunction with new impervious surface area): No pavement will be abandoned as part of the Project. Clearing and Grading (if applicable) Describe the clearing of vegetation associated with the new impervious surface area (area, species and condition of vegetation, etc.): Permanent clearing impacts will occur throughout the Project area. Upland vegetation will be cleared along the Project corridor where road widening will occur. Riparian vegetation will only be cleared along the lengths of Gilliam Creek, Springbrook Creek, Panther Creek, Rolling Hills Creek, an unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek, and Thunder Hills Creek. Wetland vegetation will be cleared only where the Project footprint intersects with regulated wetlands. In addition to the permanent impacts listed above, upland, wetland, and riparian vegetation may also be cleared for up to 5 feet outside the permanent Project footprint to accommodate Project construction. Areas outside the permanent Project footprint that are temporarily cleared to accommodate construction activities will be replanted with appropriate native plant species upon completion of construction. Grading will occur throughout the Project area to accommodate construction of the Project. The areas to be impacted by grading activities will not exceed those areas impacted by clearing activities. Permanent and temporary impacts from clearing are detailed in Table 2 -Area and Lineal Distance of Temporary and Permanent Disturbance to Habitat, in Section 1.2.2. 1.3 Detailed Project Description(s) 1.3.1 Bridge Replacement New I-405 NB and SB bridges will be constructed over Oakesdale Avenue and Springbrook Creek and its associated side channel to replace the existing overpass, five-cell box culvert, and bridge. These are the only bridge replacements related to the Project that will occur over a waterbody containing listed species. The existing Benson Road overpass will also be replaced and the I-405 over Talbot Road overpass will be widened, but these bridges do not span any type of surface water. Further information on pile driving associated with this bridge replacement can be found in Section 1.3.2-Module 4 -Pile Driving. 1.3.1.1 Existing Bridge/Culvert: I-405 crosses Springbrook Creek via a five-cell concrete box culvert and over Springbrook Creek's associated side channel via a concrete slab bridge. The existing bridge numbers, per the Washington State Bridge Information System Inventory, are: • Springbrook Creek Culvert -#I-405/13C 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 24 .................. .......------- • Springbrook Creek Bridge -#405/13 Indicate the type of existing bridge: D Concrete arch D Concrete box girder D Concrete T-beam D Steel truss D Timber trestle D Concrete rigid frame D Pre-tensioned concrete beam D Post-tensioned concrete beam ~ Culvert crossing with a span greater than 6 meters (20 feet) -Springbrook Creek Culvert (#450/BC) D Floating bridge ~ Concrete slab -Springbrook Creek side channel bridge (#405/13) D Other (describe below) Does the existing bridge span any type of surface water: ~ Yes D No If yes, describe: The existing Springbrook Creek box culvert spans the main channel of Springbrook Creek and the existing Springbrook Creek bridge spans Springbrook Creek's associated side channel. Does any part of the existing bridge occur below the OHWM of the surface water: ~ Yes D No If yes, describe: Nine piles related to the existing Springbrook Creek bridge are below the OHWM of Springbrook Creek. In addition, the bottom slab and part of the sidewalls of the Springbrook Creek box culvert are below both the OHWM and the typical wetted width of Springbrook Creek. Describe the materials the existing bridge is constructed of: The Springbrook Creek box culvert is a conventionally reinforced five-cell concrete box culvert with bottom and top slabs and supporting walls. The Springbrook Creek bridge is a conventionally reinforced concrete slab supported on 13-inch diameter concrete pilings. Define the area of the existing bridge square feet or square meters: Name of Existing Bridge Springbrook Creek Culvert Springbrook Creek Bridge 1.3.1.2 Replacement Bridge: Area of Existing Bridge (square feet) 9,600 23,000 Indicate the type of the replacement bridge: The final design option for the replacement bridge has not yet been determined, however the following replacement options are feasible: 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvtment Project Biological Assessment 25 D Concrete arch ~ Concrete box girder ~ Concrete T-beam D Steel truss D Timber trestle ~ Pre-tensioned concrete beam ~ Post-tensioned concrete beam D Culvert crossing with a span greater than 6 meters (20 feet) D Floating bridge ~ Other -I. Reinforced Concrete Slab; 2. Steel Girder Will the placement of riprap be associated with the new bridge: D Yes D No ~ Undetermined The final design option for the replacement bridge has not yet been determined. The Contractor will be required to install any necessary riprap outside the wetted perimeter of Springbrook Creek and will be required to follow the Washington State Aquatic Guidelines Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (ISPG 2003) for Project components that require bank stabilization. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow WSDOT plans and specifications and all permit conditions associated with placement ofriprap. If yes, describe the location, the quantity (total amount as well as the amount above and below the OHWM), amount within the wetted perimeter, square footage of coverage, and whether vegetation will be planted within the interstitial spaces of the rip rap: The final design option for the replacement bridge has not yet been determined. The Contractor will be required to install riprap and other material outside the wetted perimeter of Springbrook Creek and will be required to follow the Washington State Aquatic Guidelines Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (2003) for Project components that require bank stabilization. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow WSDOT standard specifications and all permit conditions associated with installation of rip-rap and replanting of areas disturbed by construction. Describe the new bridge construction sequence: The bridge construction sequence has not yet been determined for the replacement bridge. The entire Project will occur between November 2007 and March 20 I 0. The Contractor will confine construction activities to the minimum area necessary to complete the Project. Work below the OHWM will be conducted during the WDFW in-water work window, June 15 through September 30, 2008 and 2009. Will the project require the installation of a temporary detour bridge? D Yes D No ~ Undetermined The need for a temporary bridge has not yet been determined. If yes, describe activities: Should a temporary bridge be required, activities that may occur include pile driving and temporary dewatering of the construction area. Work below the OHWM will be conducted during the WDFW in- water work window, June 15 through September 30. The Contractor will be required to follow WSDOT standard specifications and all permit conditions associated with construction of a temporary bridge. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvemir:nt Project Biological Assessment 26 -.--··----.. -"'1*"'-- Additional information on pile driving related to the Project can be found in Section 1.3.2-Module 4- Pile Driving. If no, describe how traffic will be detoured around the project site: No traffic detour routes have been determined. Traffic detour routes will be designed in accordance with WSDOT standard specifications. Will project activities require in-water work? ~ Yes D No If yes, describe: Nine new piles will be placed within the OH\VM of Springbrook Creek to accommodate construction of the new Springbrook Creek bridges. In addition, the existing Springbrook Creek box culvert will be removed and the pilings associated with the existing Springbrook Creek Side Channel bridge, which are within the OHWM, will be removed to a depth of2 feet below the streambed. While this removal will require in-water work, it is anticipated removal of the culvert and associated grading of the stream charrnel will result in a more natural stream channel and an increase in overall in-stream habitat in Springbrook Creek. The Contractor will be required to confine construction activities to the minimum area necessary to complete the Project. Work below the OHWM will be conducted during the WDFW in-water work window, June 15 through September 30. All concrete will be poured in dry conditions, or within confined waters not connected to surface waters, and will be allowed to cure a minimum of 7 days before contact with surface waters. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow WSDOT standard specifications and all permit conditions associated with in-water work. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 29 -.............. .,..._ .. _, 111111 1.3.1.3 Project Sequencing Bridge Replacement Related Activities: Activity Duration (number of Project Activity: hours, days, weeks, and/or months) and Calendar Timing The specific Project schedule is undetermined at this time. Access Road(s) and Staging Area(s) The specific Project schedule is undetermined at this time. Work below the OHWM in Springbrook Creek will be conducted during the WDFW in-water work window, June Fish Removal/Exclusion 15 through September 30, (if applicable) 2008 and 2009. The existing Springbrook Creek culvert and bridge will be removed. The specific Project schedule Removal of existing is undetermined at this time. Work below the OHWM in bridge Springbrook Creek will be conducted during the WDFW in-water work window, June 15 through September 30, 2008 and 2009. The specific Project schedule Installation of temporary is undetermined at this time. construction Work below the OHWM in bridge/platform Springbrook Creek will be conducted during the WDFW 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 30 List of Anticipated Location of Equipment (e.g. Equipment Required to in-water or adjacent to water) Complete Activity Should a construction Locations of access roads staging area be required and staging areas are to replace the bridge and undetermined. The culvert, it will be Contractor shall confine constructed in accordance construction activities to the with permit conditions minimum area necessary to for the Project and complete the Project. WSDOT standard specifications. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow the conditions of the 1ESC and SPCC p !ans for the Project. The Contractor will be allowed to determine the appropriate equipment to complete this activity. Fish exclusion will be Fish exclusion will occur in conducted in accordance the vicinity of the existing with WSDOT's fish Springbrook culvert, the removal and exclusion piers associated with the protocols found in existing Springbrook Bridge, and the area where piles will Appendix A of this BA. be placed below the OHWM The Contractor will be for the new bridge. allowed to determine the appropriate equipment to The Contractor shall confine complete this activity. construction activities to the minimum area necessary to complete the Proiect. Removal of the existing Work related to the removal bridge will be conducted of the existing Springbrook in accordance with the Creek box culvert and bridge permit conditions for the will occur in the immediate Project and WSDOT vicinity of the box culvert standard specifications. and bridge. The Contractor will be The Contractor shall confine allowed to determine the construction activities to the appropriate equipment to minimum area necessary to complete this activitv. complete the Proiect. Installation of a Locations of temporary temporary construction construction bridges or bridge/platform (if platforms (if needed) are required) will be undetermined. conducted in accordance -~-----·...... r5ee Activity Duration (number of I List of Anticipated Project Activity: hours, days, weeks, and/or Equipment Required to months) and Calendar Timing Complete Activity in-water work window, June with pennit conditions 15 through September 30, for the Project and 2008 and 2009. W SDOT standard specifications. The Contractor will be allowed to determine the appropriate equipment to complete this activity. The specific Project schedule Stream is undetennined at this time. bypass/dewatering will be Work below the OH\VM in conducted in accordance Springbrook Creek will be with WSDOT standard Stream conducted during the WDFW specifications and will bypassldewatering or in-water work window, June follow WSDOT's fish 15 through September 30, removal and exclusion separation of surface 2008 and 2009. protocols found in water/work area (if Appendix A of this BA. applicable) The Contractor will be allowed to determine the appropriate equipment to comolete this activitv. The specific Project schedule The new bridge will be is undetennined at this time. constructed in accordance Work below the OHWM in with permit conditions Springbrook Creek will be for the Project and Construction of new conducted during the WDFW WSDOT standard bridge in-water work window, June specifications. 15 through September 30, 2008 and 2009. The Contractor will be allowed to determine the appropriate equipment to complete this activitv. The specific Project schedule Pavement and bridge is undetermined at this time. deck installation will be Work below the OH\VM in conducted in accordance Springbrook Creek will be with pennit conditions conducted during the WDFW for the Project and Pavement/bridge deck in-water work windov..\ June WSDOT standard installation: 15 through September 30, specifications. 2008 and 2009. The Contractor will be allowed to determine the appropriate equipment to comolete this activitv. Construction of Access Road(s) and Staging Area(s) Will Construction Access Road(s) be required to replace the bridge: D Yes D No ~ Undetermined 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 31 Location of Equipment (e.g. in-water or adjacent to water) The Contractor shall confine construction activities to the minimum area necessary to complete the Project. A stream bypass or other dewatering method will occur in the vicinity of the existing Springbrook culvert, the piers associated with the existing Springbrook Bridge, and the area where piles will be placed below the OH\VM for the new bridge. The Contractor shall confine construction activities to the minimum area necessary to comolete the Proiect. The new bridge will be constructed in the vicinity of the existing Springbrook Creek box culvert and bridge. The Contractor shall confine construction activities to the minimum area necessary to complete the Project. New pavement and the new bridge deck will be installed in the area of the new Springbrook Creek bridge. The Contractor shall confine construction activities to the minimum area necessary to complete the Project. It is undetermined if a construction access road will be required to replace the bridge and culvert. If yes, please describe clearing, grading, and construction methods: Should a construction access road be required, all clearing, grading, and construction methods related to the access road will be constructed in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow the conditions of the TESC and SPCC plans for the Project. Will Construction Staging Area(s) be required: D Yes D No lz;J Undetermined Construction staging areas will be required for the Project, however, it is undetermined if a specific construction staging area is required to replace the bridge and culvert. If yes, please describe: Should a construction staging area be required to replace the bridge and culvert, it will be constructed in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow the conditions of the TESC and SPCC plans for the Project. Installation of Temporary Construction Bridge/Platform Will a temporary construction bridJ:1! or platform be required to remove the existing bridge or construct the new bridge: D Yes LJ No lz;J Undetermined It is undetermined if a temporary construction bridge or platform will be required to construct the new Springbrook Creek bridge. The top of the existing box culvert will be used as a construction platform to the greatest extent feasible. If yes, describe: Any temporary construction bridge/platform will be constructed in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow the conditions of the TESC and SPCC plans for the Project. Removal of Existing Bridge Specific methods regarding removal of the existing Springbrook Creek box culvert and bridge have not been determined. The existing bridge will be removed by one of the following means: Lowered into the water and dragged out Dismantled segmentally over the water and pieces lowered on to a barge or a shoreline dismantling site Dismantled over water and sections removed by crane to trailers or containers to be towed off- site False work will be built under and around the bridge, and the bridge will be dismantled by sections Other ( describe below) 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 32 .-.......... --~ ... --- Additional methods for removal of the existing bridge may be proposed by the Contractor. WSDOT will confirm that any addition bridge removal methods are in accordance with WSDOT standard specifications and the permit conditions for the Project. Provide rationale for method being used: It has not been determined how the existing bridge and culvert will be removed. When removing the bridge, the Contractor will be required to confine construction activities to the minimum area necessary to complete the Project. Work below the OHWM will be conducted during the WDFW in-water work window, June 15 through September 30. Fish exclusion will be conducted in accordance with WSDOT's fish removal and exclusion protocols found in Appendix A of this BA. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow the conditions of the TESC and SPCC plans for the Project. Provide additional information regarding the removal and disposal of tbe existing bridge. Include discussion on removal of piers, abutments, rip rap, etc: Removal and disposal of the existing bridge will be conducted in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. All Project deleterious materials will be contained, retrieved, and disposed of at an approved upland disposal site. Separation of Surface Water/Work Area (i.e. Coffer Dam) Will the project require installation of a cofferdam, or other method of surface water/work area separation: [SJ Yes D No Separation of the surface water/work area may be required to install piers associated with the new Springbrook Creek bridge and for removal of the existing Springbrook Creek box culvert and removal of the existing bridge pilings to at least 2 feet below the streambed. If yes, describe: Separation of the surface water/work area will be conducted in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow the conditions of the TESC and SPCC plans for the Project. Work below the OHWM will be conducted during the WDFW in-water work window, June 15 through September 30. Fish exclusion will be conducted in accordance with WSDOT's fish removal and exclusion protocols found in Appendix A of this BA. Construction of New Bridge Describe the installation and location of the new bridge supports: The final bridge design option is undetermined. Construction of the new bridge will require the placement of an undetermined number of pilings, some of which will be located within the OHWM of Springbrook Creek. The bridge abutments will be located outside of the OHWM of Springbrook Creek. Construction of the new bridge will be conducted in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow the conditions of the TESC and SPCC plans for the Project. Work below the OHWM will be conducted during the WDFW in-water work window, June 15 through September 30. Fish exclusion will be 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 33 conducted in accordance with WSDOT's fish removal and exclusion protocols found in Appendix A of this BA. Describe any excavation, clearing, grading, grubbing, or filling that will be required as part of the project: The final bridge design option is undetermined. Clearing, grading, grubbing, and filling will be limited to the minimum area necessary to complete the Project and will be conducted in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow the conditions of the TESC and SPCC plans for the Project. Temporary fills will be entirely removed and the site will be restored to pre-Project conditions. All excavated material will be removed and placed in upland locations where it cannot enter waters of the State. All deleterious materials generated by Project activities will be retrieved, and will be disposed of at an approved upland disposal site. Describe the construction of the new bridge: The final design option for the replacement bridge has not been determined. Activities related to the construction of the new bridge will be limited to the minimum area necessary to complete the Project and will be conducted in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow the conditions of the TESC and SPCC plans for the Project. Pavement/Bridge Deck Installation Describe the installation of the new bridge deck: The final design option for the replacement bridge has not been determined. Activities related to the bridge deck installation will be limited to the minimum area necessary to complete the Project and will be conducted in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow the conditions of the TESC and SPCC plans for the Project. Describe any stormwater collection, conveyance, and discharge that will be associated with the new bridge: The Springbrook Creek Culvert and the associated side channel bridge are in TDA S 1. Stormwater runoff from TDA SI will be treated as detailed Table I -Proposed Water Quality Treatment Facilities. Project Duration The Project will be constructed from November 2007 to March 2010. Project schedule specifics are undetermined at this time, however work below the OHWM will be conducted during the WDFW in- water work window, June 15 through September 30. 1-405 Renton Nickel [mprovement Project Biological Assessment 34 •-------- Project Sequencing Construction of Access Road(s) and Staging Areas(s) Installation of Temporary Construction Bridge/Platform (if annlicable) Removal of Existing Bridge Separation of Surface Water/Work Area Activity Duration (;'<.·umber of Hours, Days, Week!! and/or Months) and timing of activities (anticipated dates) Project schedule specifics are undetern1ined at this time. Project schedule specifics are undetermined at this time. Proiect schedule soecifics are undetermined at this time. Project schedule specifics are undetermined at this time. Construction of New Bridge Proiect schedule specifics are undetern1ined at this time. Pavement/Bridge Deck Installation Proiect schedule soecifics are undetermined at this time. 1.3.1.4 Effects Analysis Will the bridge replacement have any temporary or permanent effect to the hydraulics of the waterbody it will span due to the placement or removal of piling, abutments, footings, or riprap: D Yes D No r2J Undetermined The final design option for the replacement bridge has not been determined. The Contractor will be responsible for completing a hydraulic analysis to determine how the new bridge will impact Springbrook Creek and for obtaining any required permit modifications resulting from the hydraulic analysis; the Contractor will be required to follow all WSDOT standard specifications and applicable existing or modified permit conditions related to the Project. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow ISPG standards and the WDFW manual -Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts: A design manual for fish passage at road crossings. If yes, describe how that will affect federally listed species: In general, construction activities over, in, or near a stream can disturb fish, other aquatic species, and aquatic habitat. In Springbrook Creek, construction equipment will not enter streams below the OHWM except where absolutely necessary (as in the case of pile installation and culvert replacement, removal, or extension), and streams may be dewatered prior to this work. Dewatering and stream diversions could strand or entrain ( draw in) fish and create temporary barriers to fish migration. Fish stranding and entrainment will be minimized or eliminated by following WSDOT policy, which requires applying appropriate National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) protocols for fish exclusion and handling. Prior to the commencement of in-water work, all fish will be excluded (e.g., with a coffer dam) and removed from the work area with appropriate methods ( e.g., electrofishing). Dewatering will occur during the driest time of the year when salmon migration is least likely to occur. Work below the OHWM will be conducted during the WDFW in-water work window, June 15 through September 30, and in-water work will be completed in the shortest time possible. These measures will minimize any adverse effects to listed species from Project construction. 1-405 Renton Sickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 35 1.3.2 Pile Driving The Project may require installation of piling for retaining walls, and for supports at four bridges: the two new longer span bridges crossing over Springbrook Creek and Oakesdale Ave, the widening of Talbot Ave overpass, and the replacement Benson Road overpass over I-405. Springbrook Creek is the only waterbody in the Project area where pile driving below the OHWM will occur. The remaining piles will be driven in up land areas. The final design for the Project has not been determined, including all specific areas where pile driving may occur. Additional pile driving may be required at other sites in the Project area based on the final Project design, however, no pile driving below the OHWM will occur beyond that discussed for Springbrook Creek above. 1.3.2.1 Pile Driving Activities Are the piling to be installed intended to replace any existing piling: [ZI Yes D No If yes, describe the existing piling to be removed and replaced (number, size, material, and treatment of existing piling): Existing pilings may be cut a minimum of 2 feet below the streambed and removed at supports for the four bridges and new piles may be installed for retaining walls and potentially for supports at four bridges. As mentioned above, Springbrook Creek is the only waterbody in the Project area where below the OHWM will occur. The final design for the Project has not been determined, including the number, size, material, and method of installation of the pilings to be removed and replaced. Wood piling may be abandoned and left in place on the condition that they are no longer required for ground support and are completely covered by soil or construction material in accordance with Section 2-02 of the WSDOT standard specifications, except that treated timber shall not be buried but shall be removed entirely. Creosote treated wood shall not be used for any temporary or permanent in-stream structures. How will piles be removed? [ZI Vibratory extractor [ZI Direct pull IZJ Clam she II dredge IZJ Other Piles will likely be removed by a vibratory extractor, direct pull, or a clamshell dredge. Reinforced concrete piles will be demolished in-place by jack hammer to I to 2 feet below existing ground. The Contractor will be required to adhere to all permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications related to pile removal. Will containment structures be used to minimize turbidity: [ZI Yes D No D Undetermined The Contractor will be required to use containment structures to minimize turbidity where necessary. All containment structures will be designed and installed in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow the conditions of the TESC and SPCC plans for the Project. Describe method: 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 36 ii ......... -. ....... -------N General area/habitat where piling will be installed: ~ Upland ~ Freshwater D Marine D Estuarine D Other Describe: New piles may be installed for retaining walls and for supports at three reconstructed overpasses and two new bridges: the Benson Road overpass over 1-405 will be reconstructed and realigned to accommodate the SB auxiliary lane on 1-405, as well as future improvements to 1-405; the existing 1-405 overpass over Talbot Road will be widened on both the NB and the SB sides; and the Springbrook Creek Side Channel Bridge and Box Culvert and Oakesdale Avenue overpass will be replaced with new, longer NB and SB bridges. The final design for the Project has not been determined, including the number, size, material, and method of the pilings to be removed and replaced. Piles will be installed below the OHWM of Springbrook Creek to accommodate construction of the new Springbrook Creek bridges. Will piling be installed in-water: ~ Yes D No If yes, describe: Nine piles will be installed below the OHWJvl of Springbrook Creek to accommodate construction of the new Springbrook Creek bridges. However, piles will be installed during the WDFW in-water work window, June 15 through September 30, 2008 and 2009, and will not be installed when the area is inundated. Piling will be constructed per the permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications related to pile driving. Depth of water piles will be installed in: In Springbrook Creek, nine piles will be constructed below the OHWM. If necessary, the area where piles are to be placed will be isolated from the creek. Separation of the surface water/work area will be conducted in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. Work below the OHWM will be conducted during the WDFW in-water work window, June 15 through September 30, 2008 and 2009. Fish exclusion will be conducted in accordance with WSDOT's fish removal and exclusion protocols found in Appendix A of this BA. Number of piling to be installed: The final design for the Project has not been determined, including the number, size, material, and method of the pilings to be installed. Piles may be installed for retaining walls and for supports at one reconstructed, one widened, and two new bridges, including nine piles to be installed below the OHWM of Springbrook Creek to accommodate construction of the new Springbrook Creek bridges. The Contractor will be required to adhere to all permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications related to pile driving. Provide the dimensions of the new piling (diameter, taper, length): The final design for the Project has not been determined, including the number, size, material, and treatment of the pilings to be used. 1405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 37 -............................... _ ........ Indicate the material the new piling will be constructed of: ~ Metal ~ Wood D Plastic ~ Concrete D Other Indicate the type of metal, wood, or other materials (i.e. steel, Douglas fir): Plastic piling will not be allowed by WSDOT. Wood piling will only be allowed for temporary operations. Wood piling may be abandoned and left in place on the condition that they are no longer required for ground support and are completely covered by soil or construction material in accordance with Section 2-02 of the WSDOT standard specifications. Treated wood shall not be used for any temporary or permanent in-stream structures. Will the piling be treated to promote preservation: D Yes D No ~ Undetermined If yes, describe the treatment: It has not been determined if piles will be treated to promote preservation. Steel piles may be treated in accordance with WSDOT standard specifications. Untreated wood piling will only be allowed for temporary construction and will not be allowed to remain in place after construction. Treated wood pilings will not be used. Describe the substrate where the new piling will be installed: The final design for the Project has not been determined, including the location, number, size, material, and treatment of the pilings to be used. The soil conditions in areas slated for pile driving will be determined by the Contractor after award of contract. Does the installation site contain contaminated sediments: D Yes There are no known contaminated sediments within the Project area. Is it subject to a cleanup action (MTCA or CERCLA): D Yes ~ No ~ No There are no known MTCA or CERCLA cleanup requirements within the Project area. Define the depth the new piling must be driven to: The final design for the Project has not been determined, including the location, number, size, material, and treatment of the pilings to be used. The depth of any pile driving is dependant on soil and loading conditions, which will be determined by the Contractor. The Contractor will be required to adhere to all permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications related to pile driving. Approximate duration for installation of each piling: The final design for the Project has not been determined, including the location, number, size and , material of the pilings to be used. The Contractor will be required to adhere to all permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications related to pile driving. Will pile driving activities occur during daylight hours only: D Yes ~ No 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 38 -·--....... ,_ .. __ .... ___ M If no, define the hours pile driving activities will occur : The current design does not restrict the hours when pile driving activities could occur. However, state and local laws regulate the types and durations of noise generating activities that can occur beyond daytime hours. The Contractor will be required to obtain a noise variance for pile driving extending beyond daytime hours. If work occurs at night, describe any lighting that will be required: If work occurs at night, the Contractor will be required to use directional lighting, to minimize the night lighting that is cast on water bodies. Within 300 feet of waters known to contain fish life all temporary Project lighting will be minimized between sunset and sunrise from November 1 to January 15, and from March 15 to May 15. When will pile driving occur (time of year, tidal cycle): Pile driving below the OHWM of Springbrook Creek will be conducted during the WDFW in-water work window, June 15 through September 30. The current Project design does not restrict the times when piling construction outside of the OHWM can occur. The Contractor will be required to adhere to all permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications related to pile driving. Will sound attenuation devices be used: D Yes No sound attenuation devices are proposed. Will hydroacoustical monitoring occur: D Yes ~ No ~ No Type of pile driver to be used: D Vibratory D Impact ~ Both Describe the pile driver (mounted on a truck or a barge) and anticipated noise levels Generally, pilings for foundations could be installed with an impact pile driving method. Sheet piles may be installed using vibratory or impact methods. Some piles may be installed in drilled shafts. The loudest construction activities anticipated for the Project are impact pile driving of steel piles, if the Contractor elects to install steel piles. In a worst-case scenario, driving of steel piles with an impact hammer are expected to generate an Lmax averaging between 105 to 115 decibels (dBA) at 50 feet from the source, and Leq levels on the order of 100 to I 05 dB A at 50 feet (WSF 2000). Anticipated noise levels, and associated impacts to listed species from the Project are further discussed in Section 2 - Project Action Area and Section 7 -Effects Determination of this BA. Ifan impact hammer is used what type is anticipated (drop, diesel, or hydraulic hammer): The final design for the Project has not been determined, including the type of impact hammer that may be used. The Contractor will be allowed to determine the appropriate equipment to complete this type of activity in accordance with applicable permit conditions and WSDOT standard specifications. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 39 If vibratory pile driver is used, will proofing with an impact hammer be required: D Yes D No ~ Undetermined The final design for the Project has not been determined, including whether proofing with an impact hammer be required if a vibratory pile driver is used. The Contractor will be allowed to determine the appropriate equipment to complete this type of activity in accordance with applicable permit conditions and WSDOT standard specifications. 1.3.2.2 Project Sequencing Pile Driving Related Project Activities: Project Activity: Access Site(s) and Staging Area(s) Fish Exclusion/Noise Attenuation (i.e. bubble curtain): Stream bypass/dewatering of work area (if applicable): Removal and Disposal of Existing Piling (if applicable): Installation of New Piling Li:§t of Anticipated Equipment Required to Complete Activity The Contractor will be allowed to determine the appropriate equipment to complete this activity. Access sites and staging areas will be constructed in accordance with WSDOT standard specifications. The Contractor will be allowed to determine the appropriate equipment to complete this activity. Fish exclusion will be conducted in accordance with WSDOT's fish removal and exclusion protocols found in Appendix A of this BA. The Contractor will be allowed to determine the appropriate equipment to complete this activity. Stream bypass/dewatering of the work area will be performed in accordance with applicable permit conditions and WSDOT standard specifications. Fish exclusion will be conducted in accordance with WSDOT's fish removal and exclusion protocols found in Appendix A of this BA. The Contractor will be allowed to determine the appropriate equipment to complete this activity. Removal and disposal of the existing piling will be conducted in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. All Project deleterious materials will be contained~ retrieved, and disposed of at an approved upland disposal site. The Contractor will be allowed to determine the appropriate equipment to complete this activity. Pile driving below the OHWM of Springbrook Creek will be conducted during the WDFW in-water work window, June 15 through Seotember 30. Construction of Access Road(s) and Staging Area(s) Access to the project site will be by: 0 Water ~ Land If by land, provide information on the equipment access to the site: The final design for the Project has not been determined, including how equipment will access the site. Access sites and staging areas will be constructed in accordance with permit conditions and WSDOT standard specifications. Where will project related equipment and materials be staged/stored during construction: The final design for the Project has not been determined, including where Project-related equipment and materials will be staged/stored during construction. The Contractor shall not place temporary material storage piles, including rebar, precast concrete pipe, steel pipe, and other hard items, in the 100-year 1405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 40 floodplain between October I and May I. Material used within 72 hours of deposition will not be considered a temporary material storage pile. All temporary material storage piles will be protected by appropriate BMPs to prevent sediments from leaving the piles and entering surface waters. When practicable, the Contractor shall fuel and maintain all equipment more than 300 feet from the nearest wetland, drainage ditch, or surface water body (fueling large cranes, pile drivers, and drill rigs over 300 feet away may not be practical). Fish Exclusion and Noise Attenuation Will Fish Exclusion be required for the project: ~ Yes D No Fish exclusion may be required for some elements of the Project. If yes, please describe the methods for fish removal, relocation, and/or exclusion from the project site: Fish exclusion, if required for pile driving, will be conducted in accordance with WSDOT's fish removal and exclusion protocols found in Appendix A of this BA. Will Noise Attenuation measures be incorporated as part of the project: D Yes D No [SJ Undetermined Noise attenuation measures may be incorporated as part of the Project. Pile installation measures will be determined by the Contractor. Piles may be installed in-water. Pile driving will be conducted in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. If necessary, noise attenuation measures may be required for in-water pile driving. · Will hydroacoustical monitoring occur: D Yes [SJ No Stream Bypassillewatering of Work Area Will pile driving activities be performed in the dry (i.e. dewatering work area): D Yes D No [SJ Undetermined The final design for the Project has not been determined, including whether piles may be installed in- water. Pile driving will be conducted in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. If yes, indicate how the work area will be dewatered: D Low tide-no water present D Ephemeral stream is anticipated to be dry during construction period. D Construction activities will occur during low tide. [SJ Other. Please Describe: Pile driving will only occur below the OH\VM in Springbrook Creek during the WDFW in-water work window. For work within the OHWM of Springbrook Creek, the area where piles are to be driven may be separated from the creek, if necessary, to prevent in-water pile driving. Separation of the surface 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 41 water/work area will be conducted in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. Describe any treatment of dewatering water that will be necessary: The method of treatment of dewatering water, if required, will be determined by the Contractor. The Contractor shall adhere to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit requirements and shall follow Section 401 Water Quality Certification conditions. All applicable state and local water quality standards will be complied with and the most stringent standards will be followed. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow applicable permit conditions for the Project and the conditions of the TESC and SPCC plans for the Project. Removal and Disposal of Existing Piling If applicable, please describe the removal and disposal of any existing piling: Removal and disposal of existing piling will be conducted in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. All Project deleterious materials will be retrieved and will be disposed of at an approved upland disposal site. Installation of New Piling Describe the installation of new piling: The final design for the Project has not been determined, including how new pilings will be installed. The Contractor will comply with all permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications related to installation of new pilings. Project Activity Sequencing and Duration Project Sequencing Access Sitersl and Sta2in2 Are•'sl Fish Exclusion/Noise Attenuation (i.e. bubble curtain) Activity Duration (Number of Hours, Days, Weeks and/or Months) and timing of activities (anticipated dates) Proiect schedule specifics are undetermined at this time. Project schedule specifics are undetermined at this time. Stream bypass/dewatering of work area Project schedule specifics are undetermined at this time. (if a""licable 1 Removal and Disposal of Existing Piling Project schedule specifics are undetermined at this time. /if annlicable 1 Installation of New Pilino Proiect schedule specifics are undetermined at this time. 1.3.2.3 Effects Analysis If the project will require the removal of any existing piling and the existing piling are treated with any preservatives, describe the effect to federally listed species of removal of the treated piling: Pile removal, if required, will be concrete piles. These have not been treated with preservatives. No federally listed species will be affected by the removal of concrete piling. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 42 -____ .. , __ _ Describe the effect to federally listed species and their habitat from pile driving activities, considering impacts to both aquatic and terrestrial species, from sound waves and noise: Pile driving related to a new bridge will occur within the OHWM of Springbrook Creek. If necessary, dewatering of the work area will be performed in accordance with applicable permit conditions and WSDOT standard specifications. Fish exclusion will be conducted in accordance with WSDOT's fish removal and exclusion protocols found in Appendix A of this BA. The Contractor shall adhere to NPDES construction permit requirements and shall follow Section 401 Water Quality Certification conditions. All applicable state and local water quality standards will be complied with and the most stringent standards will be followed. In addition, the Contractor will be required to follow the conditions of the TESC and SPCC plans for the Project. Noise impacts to terrestrial and aquatic species associated with pile driving are discussed in Section 2 - Project Action Area and Section 7 -Effects Determination of this BA. 1.4 Avoidance and Minimization Measures 1.4.1 Conservation Measures Conservation measures and BMPs will be employed throughout the Project area to minimize impacts to threatened and endangered species. Note that, because this is a Design-Build Project, there are considerably more performance standards (Section 1.4.3) than conservation measures. Specifically, the following conservation measures will be implemented: WETLAND CONSERVATION MEASURES 2. 7L -Impacts to this wetland are being minimized through construction of a retaining wall that will limit encroachment into the wetland. However, due to construction requirements to build the retaining wall, including safety considerations for the Contractor, it is not possible to alter the impact line to completely avoid impacts to this wetland. 25L-Y-The entirety of the new SR 167 alignment will be widened to the west, avoiding impacts to the Panther Creek Wetland (Category II). A retaining wall will be constructed along the entirety of this wetland to avoid and minimize encroachment impacts. A new ecology embankment will need to be constructed that will "bump out" the wall an additional 10 feet to the west. This additional 10 feet is required to meet the flow (head) requirements to allow the ecology embankment to function properly. 25.9L -A retaining wall is being installed to minimize encroachment impacts to this wetland. This wetland could not be completely avoided due to roadway alignment considerations. STREAM CONSERVATION MEASURES Gilliam Creek-The OHWM of Gilliam Creek will not be impacted by this Project. Buffer effects to Gilliam Creek cannot be completely avoided due to roadway alignment considerations. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 43 Unnamed Tributary to Gilliam Creek-The construction impact line was shifted to avoid impacts to the OHWM of the Unnamed Tributary to Gilliam Creek. Cottage Creek-The construction impact line was shifted to avoid impacts to the OHWM of the Unnamed Tributary to Gilliam Creek. Springbrook Creek-New NB and SB bridges will be constructed over Springbrook Creek, in lieu of extending the existing Springbrook Creek box culvert. Construction of the two new bridges will avoid OHWM impacts associated with extending the existing box culvert. Rolling Hills Creek-A retaining wall will be installed along a portion of Rolling Hills Creek to avoid impacts to its OHWM. Buffer impacts to this stream cannot be completely avoided due to roadway alignment considerations. Unnamed Tributary to Rolling Hills Creek-A retaining wall will be installed along the Unnamed Tributary to Rolling Hills Creek to avoid impacts to its OHWM and buffer. In addition, the construction impact line was shifted to avoid impacts to the OHWM of the Unnamed Tributary of Rolling Hills Creek at the northernmost end of the creek. Buffer impacts to this stream cannot be completely avoided due to roadway alignment considerations. Panther Creek East Fork-A retaining wall will be installed along the entirety of the affected area of the east fork of Panther Creek to minimize impacts to the creek buffer. The OHWM of the East Fork of Panther Creek will not be impacted by the Project. Panther Creek West Fork-A retaining wall will be installed along the entirety of the affected area of the West Fork of Panther Creek to minimize impacts to the OHWM. Impacts to the OHWM of the West Fork of Panther Creek cannot be avoided due to roadway alignment considerations. 1.4.2 Best Management Practices Project Related Best Management Practices (BMPs): Table 3. Project Related Best Management Practices (BMPs) Applicable to All Project Action(s) General Project Related Best Management Practices (BMPs) A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) [:2J All equipment to be used for construction activities Plan and a Source Control Plan will be developed shall be cleaned and inspected prior to arriving at and implemented for all projects requiring clearing, the Project site, to ensure no potentially hazardous vegetation removal, grading, ditching, filling, materials are exposed, no leaks are present, and embankment compaction, or excavation. The BMPs the equipment is functioning properly. in the plans will be used to control sediments from all vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. Delineate clearing limits with orange barrier fencing wherever clearing is proposed in or adjacent to a stream/wetland or its buffer. Install perimeter protection/silt fence as needed to protect surface waters and other critical areas. Actual location will be specified in the field, based upon site conditions. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 44 Construction equipment will be inspected daily to ensure there are no leaks of hydraulic fluids, fuel, lubricants, or other petroleum products. Should a leak be detected on heavy equipment used for the Project, the equipment shall be immediately removed from the area and not used again until adequately repaired. Erosion control blankets will be installed on steep ~ slopes that are susceptible to erosion and where ground-disturbing activities have occurred. This will prevent erosion and assist with establishment of native vegetation. The Contractor will designate at least one employee ~ as the erosion and spill control (ESC) lead. The ESC lead will be responsible for the installation and monitoring of erosion control measures and maintaining spill containment and control equipment. The ESC lead will also be responsible for ensuring compliance with all local, state, and federal erosion and sediment control requirements. Inspect all temporary and permanent erosion and cg] sedimentation control measures on a regular basis. Maintain and repair to assure continued performance of their intended function. Inspect silt fences immediately after each rainfall, and at least daily during prolonged rainfall. Remove sediment as it collects behind the silt fences and prior to their final removal. Where practicable for soil stability, native vegetation ~ will be planted in areas disturbed by construction activities. Hydro-seed all bare soil areas following grading ~ activities, and revegetate all temporarily disturbed areas with native vegetation. For Projects involving concrete, a concrete truck ~ chute cleanout area shall be established ta properly contain wet concrete. Implement a 3-year monitoring plan of revegetated ~ areas to ensure 100 percent survival of vegetation by stem count at the end of one year and 80 percent survival by stem count at the end of the 3-year monitoring period. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 45 Material that may be temporarily stored for use in Project activities shall be covered with plastic or other impervious material to prevent sediments from being washed from the storage area to surface waters. Temporary storage of excavated materials will not occur within the 100-year floodplain between October 1 and May 1. Material used within 12 hours of deposition will not be considered temporary. Exposed sails will be seeded and covered with straw mulch after construction is complete. Any temporary construction impact areas will be revegetated with native plants. All silt fencing and staking will be removed upon Project completion. If necessary, a biologist shall re-evaluate the Project for changes in design and potential impacts associated with those changes, as well as the status and location of listed species, every 6 months until Project construction is completed. Consultation with the Services will be reinitiated if there are changes in Project design or changes in listed species. Before, during, and immediately after isolation and dewatering of the in-water work area, capture and release fish from the isolated area using trapping, seining, electrofishing, or other methods as to minimize risk of injury to fish, in accordance with the WSDOT Protocols for such activities (Appendix A). Seasonal restrictions, i.e., in-water work windows, will be applied to the Project to avoid or minimize potential impacts to listed or proposed species based on the HPA issued by the WDFW and consultation with the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries. The appropriate in-water work windows for this Project are: From: June 15 To: September 30 For the protection of (identify species): Chinook salmon and bull trout The Contractor shall prepare a Spill Prevention, ~ Control, and Countem,easures (SPCC) Plan prior to beginning construction. The SPCC Plan shall identify the appropriate spill containment materials, which will be available at the Project site at all times. For all Projects located within a listed fish ESU or ~ DPS that involve 0.4 or more hectare (one or more acres) of clearing, grading or grubbing, a Stom,water Site Plan will be developed and implemented. The Stom,water Site Plan shall include a SPCC Plan, TESC Plan, a Hydraulic Report, a BMP selection /om,, a water quality discipline report, and a BMP maintenance schedule. All construction activities will comply with water ~ quality standards set forth in the Implementing Agreement Between the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Washington State Department of Ecology regarding Compliance with the State of Washington Surface Water Quality Standards (WSDOT and Ecology 1998) and the State of Washington Surface Water Quality Standards (WAC 173-201A). The current WSDOT/Ecology Water Quality Implementing Agreement allows for a mixing zone not to exceed a specified distance downstream of the Project corridor based on the characteristics of the waterbody. For Projects that require placement of clean rock ~ below the OHWM, clean rock shall consist of various types and sizes, depending upon application that contains no fines, soils, or other wastes or contaminants. Where practicable, excavation activities shall be ~ accomplished in the dry. All surface water flowing towards the excavation shall be diverted through utilization of cofferdams and/or ben11s. Cofferdams and berms must be constructed of sandbags, clean rock, steel sheeting, or other non-erodible material. Bank shaping shall be limited to the minimum necessary. All bank am,or shall be inspected by the Contractor to ensure quality control of am,or size and cleanliness. There will be no visible sheen from petroleum products in the receiving water as a result of Project activities. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 46 All exposed soils will be stabilized during the first available period, and shall not be untreated for more than seven days without receiving the erosion control specified in the TESC Plan. For western Washington, no soils shall remain unstabilized for more than two days from October 1 to April 30, and for more than seven days from May 1 to September 30. Revegetation of construction easements and other areas will occur after the Project is completed. All disturbed riparian vegetation will be replanted. Trees will be planted when consistent with highway safety standards. Riparian vegetation will be replanted with species native to that geographic region of Washington State. Perfom, all work according to the requirements and conditions of the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) issued by the WDFW and appropriate concurrence recommendations identified by the federal agencies during ESA consultation. All in-water work will occur during the approved in-water work window, as stipulated by the HPA and ESA consultation. No paving, chip sealing, or stripe painting will occur during periods of rain or wet weather. If equipment use within the wetted perimeter is pem,itted the following provisions shall apply: • Equipment shall be thoroughly cleaned of mud, petroleum products, or other deleterious material. • Turning and spinning within the streambed shall be avoided. The streambed shall be returned to pre-Project condition at Project completion WSDOT policy and construction administration practice is to have a WSDOT inspector on site during construction. The role of the inspector will include ensuring contract and pem,it requirements. WSDOT environmental staff will provide guidance and instructions to the onsite inspector to ensure the inspector is aware of pennit requirements. -.------ Project Specific B:\IPs -Bridge Replacement Activities Accumulations of bird feces, road grit, sand and C2J loose paint chips shall be removed to the greatest extent practicable prior to disassembling the existing bridge. The Contractor shall protect all inlets and C2J catchments from fresh concrete, tackifier, paving, or paint stripping if inclement weather unexpectedly occurs. Drip tarps shall be suspended below paint platforms to prevent spilled paint, buckets, brushes, etc. from entering State waters Debris accumulations on the bridge, road surface and within the bridge drains shall be collected or swept up and properly disposed of prior to fresh water flushing. Flushing will involve the use of clean water only, to prevent detergents or other cleaning agents from entering waters of the State. Projects that create more than 467 square meters (5,000 square feet) of new impervious surface area will meet the conditions of the current WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual. Project Specific Bi\'lPs Culvert Replacement Activities If necessary, divert stream flow around culvert replacement sites through a temporary culvert, or a trench lined with plastic, rocks, or other suitable material to prevent erosion. All replacement culverts will be designed and installed in accordance with the WDFW manual - Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts: A design manual for fish passage at road crossings. Fish removal/exclusion in Median Stream in Springbrook and Panther Creeks will be carried out by a qualified WSDOT biologist(s). The biologist will be trained in WSDOT's fish removal and exclusion protocols. Project Specific B~IPs -Bridge Scour Activities The amount and duration of in-stream work with machinery will be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the work. Scour protection shall be designed and installed to C2J prevent impairment of flow. Fueling of equipment shall not take place within 200 C2J feet of surface waters, except small equipment necessary as part of the BMPs for the Project Placement of material for scour protection or repair cg) shall be limited to clean rock, riprap, rock-filled wire baskets or mattresses, or concrete contained by formwork for footing repair. Stabilization materials shall not include gravel, sand, sediments, chert, soil, or other unconsolidated materials. Materials to be discharged shall be free of pollutants, contaminants. toxic materials, hazardous substances, waste meta!, construction debris and trash, and other wastes 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 47 No excavated material will be placed in the existing stream channels. Excavated material will be removed to a location that will prevent its reentry into waters of the State. Scour protection shall not disrupt the movement of fish and or other aquatic life. Materials to be discharged shall be free of pollutants, contaminants, toxic materials, hazardous substances, waste metal, construction debris and trash, and other wastes. All equipment used in or around state waters shall be clean, in good repair, and inspected prior to use, to ensure that no fluid leaks are present. This inspection shall take place at least daily while in use to ensure it remains clean and in good repair. Should a leak occur, the equipment shall be immediately removed from the area and not used again until adequately repaired. At the end of each workday, the in-water work area, below the OHWM shall contain no pits, potholes, or depressions, to avoid stranding of fish. The drive mechanisms of equipment shall not enter or operate below the ordinary high water line, except when specifically designated by WFDW. Project Specific BMPs -Pile Driving Activities (including removal of existing piling) Existing piling are either removed completely or cut a ~ minimum of two feet below the substrate elevation. Whenever activities will generate sawdust, drill ~ tailings, or wood chips from treated timbers, tarps of other containment material shall be used to prevent debris from entering the water. If tarps cannot be used (because of the location or type of structure) a containment boom will be placed around the work area to capture debris and cuttings. The Contractor will be required to retrieve any ~ floating debris generated during construction. Debris will be disposed of upland. ACZA-treated wood used for the rub timbers will be ~ treated using the April 17, 2002 revised Amendment to Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments; USA Version-Revised July 1996-Westem Wood Preservers Institute. Plastic piling will not be allowed by WSDOT Wood ~ piling will only be allowed for temporary operations. Wood piling may be abandoned and left in place on the condition that they are no longer required for ground support and are completely covered by soil or construction material in accordance with Section 2-02 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications, except that treated timber shall not be buried but shall be removed entirely. Creosote treated wood shall not be used for any temporary or permanent in-stream structures. Excess or waste materials will not be disposed of or abandoned waterward of Ordinary High Water (OHW) or allowed to enter waters of the State. All creosote-treated material, pile stubs, and associated sediments will be disposed of by the Contractor in a landfill which meets the liner and leachate standards of the Minimum Functional Standards, Chapter 173-304 WAC. The Contractor will provide receipts of disposal to the Project Engineer to ensure proper disposal. Steel, concrete, or untreated wood piling will be used. No creosote-treated piling will be used. Will comply with water quality restrictions imposed by Ecology (Chapter 173-201A WAC), which specifies a mixing zone beyond which water quality standards cannot be exceeded. Compliance with Ecology's standards is intended to ensure that fish and aquatic life are being protected to the extent feasible and practical. The Contractor will be required to ensure that uncured concrete will not come in contact with any wetlands, streams, rivers, or other natural waterbodies. Project Specific B.MPs -Bank Stabilization Activities Installation of riprap and other bank stabilizing ~ materials will occur from the banks or outside the wetted perimeter as much as possible. Living plant material and large woody debris will be ~ incorporated in the bank protection designs where appropriate. At the end of each workday, the work area within the ~ ordinary high water line shall contain no pits, potholes, or depressions to avoid stranding of fish. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 48 The Project will follow the ISPG or the HEC 23 (FHWA) recommendations as much as practicable. All stream bank armor shall be placed with full suspension so as not to alter the bed. Armor shall not be dragged or pushed into place All stream bank armor shall be inspected to ensure quality control of armor size and cleanliness 1.4.3 Performance Standards Describe all appropriate performance standards that will be employed as part of the Project action(s): Erosion Control • The Contractor will comply with NPDES construction permit requirements. • The Contractor will follow Section 401 Water Quality Certification conditions. All applicable state and local water quality standards will be complied with and the most stringent standards will be followed. • All exposed and disturbed soils will be stabilized using the BMPs described in the HRM during the first available period, and will not be left untreated for more than 7 calendar days without receiving the erosion control-specific measures in the TESC plan. No soils shall remain unstabilized for more than 2 calendar days from October I to April 30, and for more than 7 calendar days from May I to September 30. The treatment methods will be those described in the HRM or WSDOT standard specifications. • A Stormwater Plan will be developed and implemented. The Stormwater Plan will include the SPCC Plan, a TESC Plan, a Hydraulic Report, a BMP selection form, and a BMP maintenance schedule. Water Quality • Stormwater management measures described in the approved HRM will be in place at the time of construction. • No paving, chip sealing, or stripe painting will be initiated in rainy weather per WSDOT standard specifications (5.04). • The Contractor will protect all inlets and catchments from fresh concrete, tackifier, paving, or paint striping until the facility construction is complete and signed off by the inspector per WSDOT standard specifications. • Stormwater Chemical Treatment BMPs may be employed as approved by Ecology if necessary to meet discharge turbidity and/or pH requirements between October I and May I. Staging • Temporary material storage stockpiles will not be placed in the 100-year floodplain between October 1 and May 1. Material used within 72 hours of deposition will not be considered a temporary material storage stockpile. All temporary material storage stockpiles will be protected by appropriate BMPs to prevent sediments from leaving the stockpiles. • When practicable, all fueling and maintenance of equipment will occur more than 300 feet from the nearest wetland, ditches, flowing or standing water (fueling large cranes, pile drivers and drill rigs over 300 feet away may not be practicable). 1·405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 49 • The Contractor will confine construction projects to the minimum area necessary to complete the Project as defined by the flagged clearing limits. Grubbing and Clearing • Vegetation will only be grubbed from areas undergoing permanent alteration. No grubbing will occur in areas slated for temporary impacts. Lighting • No temporary Project light, including mobile units, will shine directly on any waters known to contain listed fish outside of the in-water work window time periods. • Within 300 feet of waters known to contain listed fish life, all temporary Project lighting will be minimized between sunset and sunrise from November I to January 15, and from March 15 to May 15. Fish and Wildlife • During the WDFW in-water work window (June 15 through September 30, 2008 and 2009), work will not inhibit passage of any adult or juvenile listed salmonid species throughout the construction periods or after Project completion. • Construction equipment will not enter any water body without authorization from WDFW. Equipment shall be operated as far from the water's edge as possible. • Culvert extensions, replacements, or maintenance will occur during construction windows defined in the HPA. Bank Protection • Installation of riprap and other material will occur from the banks or outside the wetted perimeter as much as possible. • Projects that include bank stabilization (i.e., riprap along a streambank) will follow the Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines as much as is practicable. • Living plant material and L WD will be incorporated in the bank protection designs where appropriate. Restoration and Revegetation • Revegetation of construction easements and other area will occur within the first growing season after the particular segment of the Project is completed and signed off by the inspector per WSDOT standard specifications. To the extent feasible, all disturbed riparian vegetation will be replanted. 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 50 • Riparian vegetation will be replanted with species native to the region. Revegetation with native plant species will occur in the first growing season after Project completion (as determined by the inspector per WSDOT standard specifications) and will be monitored for 3 years by WSDOT. • Disturbed areas will be replanted with native plant species. Miscellaneous • The Project Contractor will implement spill control measures at each construction site to keep uncontrolled release of fuels from entering receiving waters through stormwater runoff. • For projects involving concrete mixing, concrete truck chute cleanout areas shall be established to properly contain wet concrete and ,vash water. • All concrete shall be poured in the dry, or within confined waters not connected to surface waters per WSDOT standard specifications, and shall be allowed to cure a minimum of 7 days before contact with surface waters. • All deleterious materials associated with the Project will be retrieved and will be disposed of at an approved upland disposal site. • All excess excavated material will be removed and placed in upland locations where it cannot enter waters of the state. • All fill material will be placed according to Project design, not randomly dumped (per WSDOT standard specifications) • Temporary fills must be entirely removed and the site restored to pre-Project conditions. J.405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Biological Assessment 5l 2. Project Action Area 2.1 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Action Area The action area is the defined geographic area potentially affected by the Project. For the pwposes of establishing baseline conditions from which to evaluate potential effects of the Project, the types of activities and physical site conditions were examined and evaluated. Project components that pose potential impacts to endangered or threatened species and proposed or designated critical habitat are construction noise (including pile driving), turbidity, sedimentation, and stormwater impacts from new impervious surfaces and construction areas. Figure 6 details the action area for the Project. WSDOT Biological Assessment 53 ____ .. __ _ 0 FIGURE 6 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Action Area Oats Sources· State Routes and Strea ms from WSDOT at f ·24K Lambert Conformal Conic Pro,action Wllshmgton Stare Plane. North Zone, U S feet Nonh American Datum 1983 ' 0 25 0.5 Miles Threshold Discharge Areas (TDAs) ,--c:..... ~-Mile Buffer t. _;;/ Around Project Area 0 Existing ROW ~ Springbrook Bank Streams Culverts Ra ilroad "\, .. , Arterial Road ~ Freeway SN O HOMI S H D K,r>.G 2.2 Action Area Description The action area extends 0.5 mile from the Project footprint. The 0.5 mile distance is based on the distance at which construction noise levels are expected to attenuate to background levels, as discussed below in Section 2.3. Within this action area, waterbodies could be affected by sediment mobilization and increased stormwater discharge. The Green River is not anticipated to be impacted by the Project because no construction is proposed in or adjacent to it, and because no new stormwater discharges to it are proposed as part of the Project. Gilliam, Rolling Hills, Thunder Hills and several unnamed creeks could be affected by sediment mobilization up to I 00 feet downstream of construction activities or stormwater discharges. Springbrook Creek and the Cedar River could be affected by sediment mobilization up to 200 and 300 feet, respectively, downstream of construction activities or stormwater discharges. In addition, Gilliam, Thunder Hills, and Springbrook Creeks and the Cedar River could also be affected by an increase in stormwater discharge immediately at the discharge locations. The wetland immediately west of SR 167 (Wetland 25L-Y) could be affected by sediment mobilization up to 150 feet from construction activities or stormwater discharges. The rationale for the extents of potential aquatic effects is discussed below in Section 2.4. The action area contains areas designated as EFH (PFMC 1999) and is in an area where environmental effects of the proposed Project may affect EFH for Chinook, coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and pink (0. Gorbuscha) salmon (PFMC 1999). 2.3 Noise Considerations The Project element with the greatest potential to affect endangered or threatened species is noise generated during construction, particularly impact pile installation of steel piles. For the purposes of this BA, the extents of the action area are based on noise effects extending 0.5 miles from the Project footprint. Beyond 0.5 miles from the Project area, construction noise levels are expected to attenuate to background levels. Sound is defined as a density disturbance that propagates through a medium. In-air sound measurements are often recorded in dBA using the A-frequency weighing scale. The A- weighted rating of noise is used because it relates to human interpretation of noise. Peak sound emitted from a source is called Lmax. All sounds averaged during a measured period of time are referred to as Leq. Existing noise levels conditions in the Project area were modeled using FHW A Traffic Noise Model (TNM) and levels ranged between 55 and 85 dBA. These levels range from typical suburban outdoor sound levels between 50 to 60 dBA (EPA 1974) to very noisy levels of75 to 85 dBA that are typical of locations within 50 feet ofa busy freeway (WSDOT 2005c). WSDOT Biological Assessme11t 55 -----. __ .. -- Noise attenuates as the distance from the source of the noise increases. A general equation shows noise propagation loss as 6 dBA for each doubling distance in areas of hard ground cover. For example, if sound levels were measured at 85 dBA at 50 feet from the source of the noise, at I 00 feet the sound would have decreased to 79 dBA, at 200 feet it would decrease to 73 dBA, at 400 feet it would be 67 dBA, and so on. In addition, land masses, buildings, and vegetation between a noise source and the receptor can greatly reduce recorded noise levels. Freeways and buildings can reduce noise from construction by between 10 and 15 dBA, respectively (Corps and Port of Oakland 1998). Additional factors play into noise attenuation at greater distances from a noise source. Atmospheric absorption effects decrease noise levels by an additional I dBA beyond 1,000 feet (Corps and Port of Oakland 1998) and molecular absorption accounts for another 1 dBA beyond 2,000 feet (WSDOT 1994). However, actual measurements taken at various Washington State Ferries terminals during pile driving activities have shown that noise can attenuate by as much as 7.8 to 9.4 dBA per doubling distance (WSDOT 1994). This is likely due to elevation changes, wind conditions, and vegetation, which accelerate noise attenuation. The loudest construction activities anticipated for the Project are impact pile driving of steel piles, if the Contractor elects to install steel piles. In a worst case scenario, driving of steel piles with an impact hammer is expected to generate an Lmax averaging between 105 to 115 dBA at 50 feet from the source, and Leq levels on the order of I 00 to I 05 dBA at 50 feet (WSF 2000). These sections ofI-405 and SR 167 are generally surrounded by dense residential, industrial, and commercial development associated with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila. Ambient conditions are consistent with urbanized areas and are characterized by heavy truck noise, helicopters, airplanes, trains, construction noise, and other human-induced noise. In addition to the existing 6-lane I-405 and SR 167 corridors, I-90, SR 169, and local high traffic roads such as SW Grady Way and Southcenter Boulevard, as well as frequent residential, commercial, and industrial construction increase ambient noise levels well above 70 dBA (LaLonde 2005). Based on the attenuation rates noted above, noise rates from driving steel piles with an impact hammer would attenuate to background levels of75 dBA between 1,900 and 3,200 feet from the source. This attenuation rate, coupled with the additional reduction in dBA from the topography and buildings surrounding the area, will result in worst-case noise impacts from driving steel piles with an impact hammer attenuating to background levels at approximately 0.5 mile (2,600 feet) from the source. No other noise impacts from the Project would exceed these levels and therefore, the action area encompasses a worst-case scenario for construction impacts. Noise levels from the built Project are predicted to increase by O to 2 dBA above existing ambient levels (WSDOT 2005c). 2.4 Aquatic Considerations Increases in stormwater discharges are not expected to affect Gilliam and Rolling Hills Creeks up to I 00 feet , Springbrook Creek up to 200 feet, and the wetland immediately west of SR 167 (Wetland 25.7L) up to 150 feet downstream of the stormwater discharges. An increase in stormwater discharge will only affect the Cedar River immediately at the discharge location. WSDOT Biological Assessment 56 These distances are based on the Implementing agreement between the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Washington State Department of Ecology regarding the compliance with the state of Washington surface water quality standards (WSDOT and Ecology. 1998) and associated defined mixing zones. The distance of sediment mobilization affects to the above mentioned waterbodies are based on BMPs to be developed by the Contractor to avoid or minimize Project impacts and to meet state water quality requirements. WSDOT Biological Assessment 57 ' ' 3. Species Information Date obtained species list from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): June 15, 2005 Date obtained species list from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) web site: June 15, 2005 The species lists from the USFWS and NMFS are included in Appendix B of this BA. Table 3. Species Listed Under the Federal ESA Addressed in this BA Species Common Name ' Federal Endangered Species Act Status (i.e., (Scientific Name) • Endangered, Threatened, Proposed or Include ESU or DPS and Critical Habitat Candidate) . 1) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephal_us) -···· ! Threatened ··-----··-·---------·- 2) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), ! Threatened Puget Sound ESU 3) Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) _1)_Sh.i11gok salmon critical habitat i _.T ... hr"-'e,,,.ac.t,e"'n"'edcc___ __ ---·----···-· ·-· ________ _ Design_at_e_d __________ ·--·---...... -·-·- 5) Bull trout critical habitat Desicmated The following species, and/or designated or proposed critical habitat, do occur, or may occur within the county this Project is located in, as indicated by the species list(s), but are not being addressed in this BA for the reasons provided below Table 5. Table 4. Species Listed on the Species List but Not Addressed in this BA Species Common Name Federal Endangered Species ,A.ct Status (i.e., (Scientific Name) Endangered, Threatened, Proposed or ·· · Include ESU or DPS and Critical Habitat · · Candidate) -· e-c..l ~C~a=n=ad~a~I ~nx==L=nx~c~an~a=d=e~n=s=is~-----i Threatened 2 Gra wolf(Can,i-"s-"l"'up°'u-.,s.,_)_____ ' Endan~(:_d 3 Grizzl bear Ur_s_us arctos=Ua. horribli~) Threatened -----~-------·--------l 4) Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus Threatened marmoratus~--------~ 5) Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis ------------·-···-···--- ' Threatened caurina >----~--------~-... --. .,------------------~·-·------------··-·-------------, 6 Marsh sandwort Arenaria aludicola ' Endan ered 1-""'-"-====="-'==::..:.:::.c:.:===:L. __ _ 7) Golden paintbrush (Castilleia levisecta) I Threatened 81 Fisher (Martes pennanti) 1 Candidate 9 Yellow-billed cuckoo Cocc zus americanus) 1 c·~ndidate No suitable habitat exists within the action area for the species listed in Table 4. Examination of the Priority Habitats and Species maps from the WDFW and an analysis of habitat types in the action area showed that these species do not occur in or near the action area. WSDOT Biological Assessment 59 4. Occurrence of Federally Listed and Proposed Species in the Project Action Area 4.1 Terrestrial Species 4.1.1 Species 1 Name of Species: Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Is the species documented as occurring with the project action area: D Yes Source of information pertaining to documented occurrence: [2J WDFW PHS Data [2J Federal, State, or Tribal Biologist D Other Source(s) (please cite): Name of biologist: Julie Stofer Agency or Tribe: WDFW Date of Communication: June 2005 Phone Number: 425.379.2301 Distance from project site to the nearest documented occurrence: [2J No The nearest eagle nest is approximately 2.1 miles from the Project area and 1.6 miles from the 0.5 mile action area boundary. The eagle's territory extends no closer than 1.8 miles to the Project area. If species has not been documented, is it likely to occur in the project action area: D Yes L2J No Provide justification: Eagle occurrence in the region is well documented by WDFW. Eagles enter an area for perching, nesting, foraging, and migratory purposes. There are few tall trees close to the highway and few foraging opportunities in the urban development corridor along the highway. More suitable areas exist along the shore of Lake Washington and in the less-developed areas southeast of the Project area, toward Mount Rainier. Life history stage(s) that occur within the project action area (i.e., breeding/nesting, roosting, dispersal, rearing, foraging, migration, etc.): Eagles are not documented to occur within the Project area. Eagles do occur in the surrounding area along the Lake Washington shoreline and the Cascade Foothills. The Project area is within the Western Flyway, a major bird migration corridor. Eagles from outside the area may be present in winter, but prefer high perch sites with a water view. These eagles are likely to avoid the urbanized highway corridor in favor of the surrounding areas, which contain forested shoreline habitat with less urban encroachment. WSDOT Biological Assessment 61 Describe the suitability of the habitat within the project action area for the species (if suitable, assume presence): The Project action area is highly urbanized. While some forested areas exist, less developed areas exist outside of action area that are far more suitable for use by eagles. Describe the species use of the project action area (i.e., nesting, roosting, foraging, etc.): There is no known bald eagle nesting, over-wintering, or roosting habitat in the action area. The nearest eagle territory does not extend to the Project action area boundary. Migrating eagles could fly over the site, but are unlikely to forage or perch there due to the lack of suitable perching trees and the limited prey availability. Describe the time of year the species will use, or is likely to occur within the project action area: Eagles are unlikely to use the Project action area. In the less-developed areas surrounding the action area, nesting occurs from January 1 to August 15 (USFWS 1986). Wintering occurs from October 31 to March 31. Eagles from outside the region may forage in the action area during this time. Perches are most often associated with food sources near water that have visual access to adjacent habitats (Stalmaster and Newman 1979). Perching is not likely to occur near the highway. Foraging may occur year-round, and is most likely near rivers and streams. Has Critical Habitat been Designated or Proposed: D Designated D Proposed fZl None Is it Designated or Proposed within the project action area, if applicable: D Yes D No Describe: Critical habitat has not been designated for bald eagles in any of the contiguous 48 states (60 FR 35999, August 11, 1995) 4.2 Aquatic Species 4.2.1 Species 2 Name of Species: Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Is the species documented as occurring with the project action area: [ZJ Yes Source of information pertaining to documented occurrence: fZl WDFW PHS Data fZl Federal, State, or Tribal Biologist fZl Other Source(s) (please cite): Name of biologist: Larry Fisher Agency or Tribe: WDFW Date of Communication: September 2005 Phone Number: 425.649.7042 D No WSDOT Biological Asstnmtnt 62 ........... --~ ... --- • WDFW Priority Habitat Species maps for WRIAs 8 and 9 Distance from project site to the nearest documented occurrence: 0 miles Chinook salmon are known to occur in the Green and Cedar Rivers, and Springbrook Creek. Though there is no documented use, it is assumed that Chinook salmon use Gilliam and Panther Creeks. No in- water work will occur on Gilliam Creek. In-water work will occur on the west fork of Panther Creek; however, the location of the in-water work is 1.5 miles upstream of known or presumed occurrences of Chinook salmon in Springbrook Creek. There is no direct stream connection from the main channel of Panther Creek to the area where work will occur, as the west fork of Panther Creek downstream of this area enters a wetland dominated by reed canary grass with no distinct stream channel. During site visits conducted during the winter and spring of 2005, little to no surface water was present within this wetland (Koellmann and Patterson 2005) and, under existing conditions, this wetland area acts as a natural barrier to fish movement into the west fork of Panther Creek. Due to this natural wetland barrier, Chinook salmon are not presumed to use the area of the west fork of Panther Creek where in-water work will occur. If species has not been documented, is it likely to occur in the project action area: ~ Yes D No Provide justification: It is assumed that Chinook salmon use Gilliam and Panther Creeks up to 0.5 mile from the confluences of the Green River and Springbrook Creek, respectively. The portion of Gilliam Creek in the action area falls within 0.5 mile of its confluence with the Green River. In-water work proposed for Panther Creek related to the Project will occur more than 0.5 miles upstream of its confluence with Springbrook Creek, thus Chinook salmon are not presumed to use the area of Panther Creek where in-water work will occur. Life history stage(s) that occur within the project action area (i.e., spawning, rearing, foraging, migration, etc.: Green River Life history stages of Chinook salmon that occur in the Green River in the action area include adult spawner, fry, alevin, and egg stages. Chinook salmon also use the Green River for foraging and migrating. Cedar River Life history stages of Chinook salmon that occur in the Cedar River in the action area include adult spawner, fry, alevin, and egg stages. Chinook salmon also use the Cedar River for foraging. Springbrook Creek Life history stages of Chinook salmon that occur in Springbrook Creek in the action area include adult spawner, fry, alevin, and egg stages. Chinook salmon also use Springbrook Creek for foraging. Gilliam Creek Chinook salmon use is not documented in Gilliam Creek. However, due to its association with the Green River, life history stages of Chinook salmon that could occur in Gilliam Creek in the action area are likely limited to fry that would use Gilliam Creek as an off channel rearing or foraging area. WSDOT Biological Assessment 63 -.. ---~·--- Panther Creek Chinook salmon use is not documented in Panther Creek; however, Chinook salmon are presumed to be present in portions of Panther Creek due to its association with Springbrook Creek. Chinook salmon are not presumed to be present in the west fork of Panther Creek due to a reed canary grass wetland that acts as a fish passage barrier downstream of where in-water work will occur. Describe the suitability of the habitat within the project action area for the species (if suitable, assume presence): Green River The Green River in the action area is completely contained within a dike system maintained and regulated by the Green River Flood Control Zone District. Flows are controlled by the Howard Hansen Dam, and the river is tidally influenced at the Project area. Riparian vegetation within this reach of the Green River consists primarily of non-native invasive plant species including Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and Scot's broom, though some native deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs are found infrequently along the river banks. The Green River lacks in-stream habitat features including L WD. Due to the condition of riparian vegetation, it also lacks opportunities for future woody debris recruitment. None of the mainstem riparian habitat in the lower Green River subwatershed is in good condition or is considered to be functioning properly based on the NMFS criteria. Also, the Green River is listed on the Ecology 303(d) list in this area for temperature, fecal coliform, and mercury. Despite its generally low habitat quality, use by Chinook salmon is documented within this reach of the Green River (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Cedar River The reach of the Cedar River located in the action area is known as the Renton Reach. The Renton Reach is entirely artificial, is completely constrained between levees and revetments, and has been regularly dredged between 1912 and the 1970s to prevent flooding. Portions of this reach were again dredged in 1999, for the first time since the mid-1970s. This reach is essentially one long riffie with little habitat complexity. The Renton Reach is affected by urban and industrial uses along the river that contribute to local water quality problems that eliminate the potential for connection with a natural floodplain or the establishment of a riparian corridor, and that produces significant L WD accumulations in the channel. This reach is the depositional area for many of the river's sediments, and as a result, the substrates tend to have higher levels of fine sediments than upstream substrates (King County Department of Public Works 1993). Riparian vegetation is lacking within this reach of the Cedar River. In many areas along the Cedar River, development is present to the edge of the dike system. In those places, virtually no riparian vegetation is present. Where development is set back from the Cedar River, vegetation consists primarily of non-native invasive plant species including Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and Scot's broom, though some native deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs are infrequently found along the banks (Kerwin 2001 ). The Cedar River is on Ecology's 303(d) list for exceedances of fecal coliform. Springbrook Creek In the immediate vicinity ofl-405, Springbrook Creek is largely contained within concrete walls for flood control purposes. Springbrook Creek flows under I-405 in a five-cell box culvert that allows for WSDOT Biological Assessment 64 fish passage at all flow levels because one of the cells was constructed at a lower elevation in relation to the streambed than the remaining four cells. Downstream of where Springbrook Creek flows under SW Grady Way, Springbrook Creek is no longer contained in a concrete channel, but is still confined within an incised riprapped channel. Riparian vegetation surrounding Springbrook Creek is a mixture of alder and willow species, Himalayan blackberry, and sedges (Carex spp.). Conifers are almost non-existent and, in those areas where shade is absent, reed canarygrass is abundant. Riparian habitat within this creek does not meet the NMFS criteria for properly functioning habitat and is a limiting factor to natural salmonid production (Kerwin 2001). Springbrook Creek is listed on Ecology's 303( d) list for exceedances of fecal coliform, chromium, mercury, dissolved oxygen, temperature, cadmium, and zinc. Gilliam Creek Gilliam Creek, a tributary to the Green River, has been highly modified throughout the action area. The creek is primarily contained within a straight, concrete-lined, incised, trapezoidal channel, and contains little in-stream structure. It has a narrow riparian buffer with some mature native coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs, but the riparian buffer is dominated by non-native plant species including Himalayan blackberry, Scot's broom, and reed canarygrass. Several culverts in Gilliam Creek act as partial fish passage barriers, though none of these culverts will be impacted by the Project. Three wetlands associated with Gilliam Creek provide limited refugia for fish during high flows and provide rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids. Flows in Gilliam Creek vary greatly with rain events due to numerous direct discharge outfalls associated with commercial and residential development in the areas surrounding the creek (Derek Koellmann, personal observation 2005). Panther Creek Chinook salmon use is not documented in Panther Creek and use in the Project area is not presumed as all in-water work on Panther Creek will occur more that 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Springbrook Creek. Describe the species use of the project action area (i.e., run timing, spawning, outmigration, etc.): Chinook salmon are known to use the Green and Cedar Rivers and Springbrook Creek for spawning, rearing, migration, and foraging. Chinook salmon use is not documented in Gilliam and Panther Creeks; however, Chinook salmon are presumed to forage in Gilliam Creek due to its association with the Green River and portions of Panther Creek due to its association with Springbrook Creek. Chinook salmon are not presumed to be present in the west fork of Panther Creek where in-water work will occur, due to a reed canary grass wetland that acts as a natural fish passage barrier downstream of the construction area. Describe the time of year the species will use, or is likely to occur within the project action area: Various life stages of Chinook salmon could be found in the waterbodies located in the action area at any time of year, and are very likely to be in the area from late summer through spring. Fall-run Chinook salmon typically spawn from late summer to late fall. Their eggs hatch in 30 to 50 days, depending on water temperature. The majority of juvenile fall Chinook emerge as fry in the winter and migrate to the ocean the following spring, however, a small percentage of Fall Chinook follow a life history stage in which they remain in fresh water for up to a year. According to WDFW, fish are most abl!Ildant between October I and June 14. WSDOT Biological Assessment 65 Has Critical Habitat been Designated or Proposed: [:SJ Designated D Proposed D None Describe Designated or Proposed Critical habitat within the project action area, if applicable: Chinook salmon critical habitat in the action area includes the Green and Cedar Rivers and Springbrook Creek (WSDOT 2005b). The remaining waterbodies in the action area are tributaries to one of these waterbodies, thus flow from these tributaries could affect the Green and Cedar Rivers and Springbrook Creek by carrying turbidity or other contaminants downstream. 4.2.2 Species 3 Name of Species: Bull trout (Salvelinus conjluentus) Is the species documented as occurring with the project action area: [:SJ Yes D No Bull trout are infrequently observed in the action area. Historically, they used the Green/Duwamish and Cedar river systems in greater numbers (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Source of information pertaining to documented occurrence: [:SJ WDFW PHS Data D Name of biologist: Larry Fisher Agency or Tribe: WDFW Date of Communication: September 2005 Phone Number: 425.649.7042 D Other Source(s) (please cite): Distance from project site to the nearest documented occurrence: Bull trout use has been documented in Lake Washington, which is located approximately 2.5 miles from the action area. Bull trout have been documented to use the Green River up to RM 41, and are consistently reported in the lower Duwamish River (USFWS 2004). Bull trout are also known to use the lower Cedar River for foraging and as a migration corridor. Bull trout use of any of the remaining waterbodies in the action area has not been documented. If species has not been documented, is it likely to occur in the project action area: [:SJ Yes D No Provide justification: Historically, bull trout were reported to use the Duwamish River and lower Green River in "vast" numbers (Suckley and Cooper 1860). However, bull trout are observed infrequently in this system today. In recent times, bull trout have been reported on the lower Green River as far upstream as the mouth ofNewaukum Creek at approximately RM 41, and are consistently reported in the lower Duwamish River (USFWS 2004). In addition, the Lake Washington system (including the Cedar River), the lower Green River, and the marine areas of Puget Sound have been identified as containing WSDOT Biological Assessment 66 .;;.......----~----- important foraging, migration, and ovenvintering habitat necessary for bull trout recovery (USFWS. 2004). It is not known whether the bull trout observed in the lower Green River basin are foraging individuals from other core areas, or if natural reproduction may still persist somewhere within the basin. Based on observed behavior from other systems within the management unit and based on the size of individuals typically reported, there is a strong likelihood that bull trout in the lower Green River are anadromous migrants from other core areas. Reports of historic bull trout use of the lower Green River tributaries are rare, and there have been no recent observations (USFWS 2004). Bull trout use of the other waterbodies in the action area is unlikely due to the highly urbanized nature of these waterbodies. Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids. Habitat components greatly influence bull trout distribution, abundance, and rearing and reproductive abilities. High water temperatures and large amounts of fine sediment resulting in high embeddedness, such as is found in the streams of the action area, typically limit bull trout use of a waterbody. Life history stage(s) that occur within the project action area (i.e., spawning, rearing, foraging, migration, etc.): Adult bull trout are the only life history stage likely to occur in the action area. The Lake Washington system has been identified as containing important foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat necessary for bull trout recovery, but no known bull trout spawning occurs in Lake Washington and the bull trout found there are likely from the Snohomish-Skykomish and Stillaguamish river systems (69 Fed Reg 35795). Describe the suitability of the habitat within the project action area for the species (if suitable, assume presence): Green River The Green River in the action area is completely contained within a dike system maintained and regulated by the Green River Flood Control Zone District. Flows are controlled by the Howard Hansen Dam, and the river is tidally influenced at the Project area. Riparian vegetation within this reach of the Green River consists primarily of non-native invasive plant species including Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and Scot's broom, though some native deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs are found infrequently along the river banks. The Green River lacks in-stream habitat features including L WD. Due to the condition of riparian vegetation, it also lacks opportunities for future woody debris recruitment. None of the mainstem riparian habitat in the lower Green River subwatershed is in good condition or is considered to be functioning properly based on NMFS criteria (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Additionally, the Green River is listed on the Ecology 303(d) list in this area for exceedances of temperature, fecal coliform, and mercury. Cedar River The reach of the Cedar River located in the action area is known as the Renton Reach. The Renton Reach is entirely artificial, is completely constrained between levees and revetments, and was regularly dredged to prevent flooding (from its completion in 1912 until the mid-1970s). Portions of this reach were again dredged in 1999, for the first time since the mid-1970s. This reach is essentially one long WSDOT Biological Assessment 67 - riffle with little habitat complexity. The Renton Reach is affected by urban and industrial uses along the river that contribute to local water quality problems, that eliminate the potential for connection with a natural floodplain or the establishment of a riparian corridor, and that produce significant L WD accumulations in the channel. This reach is the depositional area for many of the river's sediments and, as a result, the substrates tend to have higher levels of fine sediments than upstream substrates (King County Department of Public Works 1993). Riparian vegetation is lacking within this reach of the Cedar River. In many areas along the Cedar River, development is present to the edge of the dike system. In those places, virtually no riparian vegetation is present. Where development is set back from the Cedar River, vegetation consists primarily of non-native invasive plant species including Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and Scot's broom, though some native deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs are infrequently found along the banks. The Cedar River is on Ecology's 303(d) list for exceedances of fecal coliform. Describe the species use of the project action area (i.e., run timing, spawning, outmigration, etc.): Bull trout use the Cedar and Green Rivers for up and downstream migration and for foraging (WSDOT 2005b ). Bull trout use has not been documented in any of other waterbodies in the Project area. Describe the time of year the species will use, or is likely to occur within the project action area: Bull trout could be present in the Green or Cedar Rivers at any time of year, though high summer temperatures in these rivers may limit use during that time of year. It is not presumed that bull trout will be. present during any time of year in the remaining waterbodies in the action area. Has Critical Habitat been Designated or Proposed: ~ Designated D Proposed D None Describe Designated or Proposed Critical habitat within the project action area, if applicable: The USFWS has designated the Green River as foraging, migration, and overwintering critical habitat for bull trout. WSDOT Biological Assessment 68 ............. ~ .. --- 5. Environmental Setting Within the Project Action Area Describe the condition of the habitat elements occurring within the project action area: Foraging Habitat: Large trees and open areas conducive to bald eagle foraging are limited in the action area. Prey Over-Wintering Areas: There is no documented over-wintering habitat in the action area; however, eagles from outside the area may be present in the action area during winter, as described under Migration Corridor, below. Migration Corridor: The Project is located in the Western Flyway, a major bird migration corridor. As a result, eagles from outside the area may be present in the action area during winter. Perch Trees: Trees that could be used by bald eagle for perching are located along the Project corridor. However, due to noise associated with the existing freeway, lack of open space in which to forage, and the large amount of existing impervious surface limiting prey species, these trees do not provide good perching habitat. There are no documented nesting or roosting sites or prey over-wintering areas within the Project action area. 5.1 Environmental Baseline of Action Area Table 5 provides an overview of the environmental baseline conditions at the Project action area and watershed scales. Additional information on environmental baseline conditions can be found in Appendix E-Environmental Baseline for Aquatic Habitats. WSDOT Biological Assessment 69 G---.. --- Table 5. Overview of the Environmental Baseline Conditions at the Project Action Area Scale and the Watershed Scale . ' Baseline EnVironmental Conditions i Effects of Project Actjv:ities . Diagnostic/Pathway ~-'---···--·-~··, .. ---- Indicators ' Project Actfon Area l · Watershed Scale ' Project Action Area ' \v~~ershed sc·a1e . . · ' . . Scale " ; i Scale . . _',! Water Quality I Not Properly f Not Properly ' I ; ! Functioning/ J Functioning/ I ' Temperature Maintain j Maintain ! Functioning at l Functioning at ' ! [JJnacceptable Risk ! Unacceptable Risk i ·~-----I Not Properly ' Not Properly j ' ! Functioning/ i Functioning/ i ' Sediment/Turbidity ! Maintain3 ' Maintain11. i Functioning at ( Functioning at I ' I Unacceptable Ri* ___ _i Unacceptable Risk I i ----------···-·· ···-····-----i Not Properly 1 Not Properly I I Chemical ! Functioning/ ; Functioning/ I Maintain Contamination/Nutrients i Functioning at I Functioning at ! Improve ' I ' i Unaccentable Risk ! Unaccentable Risk ! i Habitat Access i Not Properly · Not Properly ! i ' Physical Barriers I Functioning/ Functioning/ j Improve Improve I Functioning at Functioning at 1 I ! Unacceptable Risk Unacceptable Risk 1 Habitat Elements i Not Properly I Not Properly ' ' l l Substrate Embeddedness ! Functioning/ f Functioning/ l Maintain Maintain ! Functioning at l Functioning at ' I Unacceptable Risk i Unacceptable Risk ! ! -' I 'Not Properly i Not Properly i • I Large Woody Debris ! Functioning/ i Functioning/ Maintain Maintain ! Functioning at f Functioning at I I I Unaccepgple Risk I Unacceptable Risk ' [ • ! Not Properly ! Not Properly ! ; I Functioning/ I Functioning/ ! ' Pool Frequency • Maintain Maintain l Functioning at i Functioning at j ' ! ' 1 Unacceptable Risk i UnacceQtable Risk i Pool Quality ! At Risk/Functioning j At Risk/Functioning i Maintain l Maintain --! at Risk ! at Risk ; ! ---f Not Prop~rly : Not Properly ! : ! Off-Channel Habitat i Functioning/ ; Functioning/ ! Maintain ; Maintain i Functioning at 1 Functioning at ' ! ! ------i Unacce_J)table Risk i Unacce~table Risk ! --·-··----~---T-------··---I Not Properly I l , Not Properly I Functioning/ IF . . g/ Refugia i unchomn Maintain i Maintain i Functioning at i Functioning at I ! Unaccentable Risk l Unacceotable Risk i Channel Conditions/Dynamics Not Properly Not Properly i Width/Depth Ratio Functioning/ Functioning/ Maintain I Maintain Functioning at Functioning at ! Unacceptable Risk Unacceptable Risk ; ' WSDOT Biological Assessment 70 Diagnostic/Pathway Indicators Streambank Condition Baseline Environmental Conditions Project Action Area . Scale Watershed Scale At Risk/Functioning At Risk/Functioning Effects of_Pr4:1ject Activities Project Action Area ! Scale ! Watershed Scale Maintain Maintain at Risk : at Risk I------------·'-'==~-~----,-:==~-.,-----; ·--·-·-------~----------< Not Properly I Not Properly Floodplain Connectivity Flow/Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flows Increase in Drainage Network Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location Functioning/ I Functioning/ Functioning at '. Functioning at Unacceptable Risk i Unacceptable Risk I Not Properly , Functioning/ i Functioning at ! Unacceptable Risk i Not Properly I Functioning/ f Functioning at I Unacceptable Risk : Not Properly , Functioning/ I Functioning at ' Unacceptable Risk I Not Properly Functioning/ Functioning at Unacceotable Risk I Not Properly l Not Properly i Functioning/ i Functioning/ Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain Degrade Degrade ! Functioning at j Functioning at 1 1-----------_,i_U=na~c~c~eLpt=a=b~le~Ri=· s~k~~l_U=n~ac~c~eLp=ta=b~le~Ri=' s~k~...,i---·--····--------<-----------j ! Not Properly ! Not Properly : : Functioning/ , Functioning/ I Functioning at i Functioning at Disturbance History Maintain Maintain ' Unacceptable Risk • Unaccentable Risk >-----------------~·-·--··-c-"=======--;-'=======-~---------i----------, ! Not Properly Not Properly Riparian Conservation Areas I Functioning/ Functioning/ i Functioning at Functioning at Maintain Maintain ! Unacceptable Risk ! Unacceptable Risk ' Sediment levels will be temporarily degraded during construction; however, as a result of the Project, they will improve to levels above current conditions. Table 6. Overview of Environmental Baseline Conditions at the Project Action Area Scale and the Watershed Scale Specific to Bull Trout . Baseline Environmental Conditions • ·cc.i-.;-: .. -Effe~ts ·or Project Activities 1 . Diagnostic/Pathway Project Action Area Watershed Scale ' Project Action Area -_·--watershed Scale -Indicators i i l i .. Scale Scale ' Subpopulation Character'stics within Subpopulation Watersheds There are no There are no documented bull documented bull . ' Subpopulation Size Maintain : Maintain trout subpopulations trout subpopulations . in the action area in the action area i ' There are no There are no . ' Growth and Survival documented bull documented bull Maintain Maintain trout subpopulations trout subpopulations in the action area in the action area , .. There are no There are no Life History Diversity documented bull documented bull Maintain Maintain and Isolation trout subpopulations trout subpopulations in the action area in the action area ' WSDOT Biological Assessment 71 -DiagnoStic/Pathway Indicators - Persistence and Genetic Integrity - Integration of Species and Habitat Conditions WSDOT Biological Assessment Baseline Enviroomeota] Conditions _, EffeC~ of Project Activit_ies Project Action Area -~watersh~-a SC~ie Pj,oject ACtioii Area Watershed Scale Scale_ ! -_,_--.. . _ --__ _ -Scale _ -- There are no l There are no , documented bull i documented bull i trout subpopulations ! trout subpopulations l._in_tp.e action_ :irea ---~-.. ~j -"in"--"th,..e .... ac .... t,..io"'n"-"ar._.e.,a,____--'------------' Maintain Maintain There are no ! There are no documented bull l documented bull trout subpopulations i trout subpopulations in the action area ! in the action area Maintain Maintain 72 6. Effects Analysis 6.1 Direct Effect Direct effects are the direct or immediate impacts of the Project action(s) to federally listed species and their habitat. 6.1.1 Potential lmpact(s) to Federally Listed Species Check all the potential impacts that may occur and cause a direct effect to federally listed species as a result of project actions. ~ Changes in Sedimentation/Turbidity ~ Impervious Surface Area/Stormwater ~ Removal of Vegetation ~ Noise D Filling, Removing or Fragmenting/Isolating Habitat ~ Hazardous Materials ~ Artificial Lighting ( night work) ~ Changes in Traffic Volume/Congestion ~ Modifications of Habitat Conditions ~ Dewatering of Stream Channel ~ Changes in Hydrology/Hydraulics ~ Conversion of Habitat to Non-Habitat ~ Changes in Fish Passage/Migration D Other (identify) 6.1.1.1 Effects Analysis for Changes in Sedimentation/Turbidity: Construction of the various Project elements, including the roadway, bridges, culvert replacements, retaining walls, and stormwater treatment facilities could introduce fine sediments into the streams of the action area through erosion and sedimentation. Excessive fine sediment input into streams can result in multiple impacts to salmonids and bull trout. Potential impacts of sediments include: smothered salmon eggs in gravels and decreased micro and macro invertebrate salmonid prey survival as a result of reduced dissolved oxygen, reduced ability for visual predators' capacity to capture prey, damaged gills and increased risk ofanoxia (the absence or reduced supply of oxygen in arterial blood or tissues), behavioral changes, and stress that can lead to fish mortality. However, turbidity is anticipated to be below Ecology thresholds at the point of compliance. Sedimentation will be highest in areas where construction activities occur within or adjacent to rivers and streams that cross, or flow adjacent to, 1-405. Bull trout are known to be present in the Green and Cedar Rivers; however, no construction will occur in or over these waterbodies. Chinook salmon are known to be present in Springbrook Creek, and assumed to be present in Gilliam and Panther Creeks in the action area. In-water work will occur in the west fork of Panther Creek; however, Chinook salmon WSDOT Biological Assessment 73 .......................... ____ _ are not presumed to use this portion of Panther Creek due to a natural wetland barrier downstream of where construction will occur. Ninety lineal feet of Springbrook Creek and its associated side channel will be impacted by construction of a new bridge and pile driving activities both above and below the OHWM that will temporarily disturb soil and may result in erosion and sedimentation. In addition, the existing Springbrook Creek box culvert and bridge ( and associated pilings) will be removed which may further result in erosion and sedimentation. All work areas below the OHWM will be dewatered prior to construction commencing. Dewatering of the work area will be performed in accordance with applicable permit conditions and WSDOT standard specifications. Associated fish exclusion will be conducted in accordance with WSDOT's fish removal and exclusion protocols found in Appendix A of this BA. The Green River and Springbrook and Gilliam Creeks will be affected by permanent clearing of riparian buffers and grading, which will temporarily disturb soil and may contribute to long-term sedimentation by reducing the capacity to stabilize streambanks from erosion. The eight streams that cross, or flow adjacent to, I-405 are tributaries to the lower Green River, which has known Chinook salmon and bull trout use, and could contribute turbidity to the Green River during construction. None of the streams are tributaries to the Cedar River, which will not experience direct construction impacts from the Project. The limiting factors assessment for WRIA 9 states that the extent to which Total Suspended Solids (TSS) is of concern in the watershed is unknown, but concludes turbidity and TSS are currently possible factors of salmonid decline in terms of water column impacts in the lower Green River and Springbrook Creek (Kerwin 200 I). Habitat surveys conducted from 300 feet upstream to V. mile downstream of the Project footprint for each stream in 2004 and 2005 show high mean embeddedness (Koellmann and Patterson 2005). With the exception of Thunder Hills Creek, mean embeddedness ranges from 59 to 90 percent. Baseline conditions indicate that the action area and the watershed are currently not functioning property with respect to sediment and turbidity. All in-stream construction work below the OHWM will be conducted during the WDFW in-water work window, June 15 through September 30 and BMPs, conservation measures, and performance standards will be implemented as previously discussed in this document. Turbidity and sedimentation could be introduced into waterbodies with listed species during construction; however, the turbidity levels are not anticipated to exceed allowable levels per Ecology's Water Quality Certification (WQC). 6.1.1.2 Effects Analysis for Change in Impervious Surface/Stormwater: The Project is expected to add approximately 15.3 acres of new impervious surface within the action area. This is an approximately 13 percent increase in impervious surface area over the existing impervious area associated with I-405 and SR 167. Existing impervious surface area refers to all impervious surface within WSDOT ROW within the Bellevue Nickel Project limits. The 13 percent increase is based on comparing the new impervious surface area to the existing impervious area. This does not take into account that the Project will remove portions of existing impervious surface. The effects of additional impervious surface include the following: • Removal of vegetation (discussed in Section 6.1.1.3) • Impacts to water quality (discussed in Section 6.1.1.1 and in Section 6.2.1.1) WSDOT Biological Assessment 74 -----, ... .,. ______ _ • Impacts to water quantity within the basin (discussed in Section 6.2.1.2) • Impacts to wetlands (discussed in this Section 1.2.2.2) The new impervious area will result in permanent effects (whole or partial filling) to 1.66 acres of wetlands in the action area. Of the impacted wetlands, only two wetlands with 0.02 acres of total impacts are directly associated with Springbrook Creek. These two wetlands are the only wetlands impacted by the Project that are associated with a waterbody containing listed species. The other functions provided by the wetlands to be filled include stormwater retention (discussed in Section 6.2.1.2), improved water quality ( discussed in Sections 6.1.1.1 and 6.2.1.1), and groundwater recharge (discussed in Section 6.2.1.2). Credits from the Springbrook Bank will be used to mitigate for wetland impacts resulting from the Project. One new outfall will be constructed in the side channel associated with Springbrook Creek. Construction of the outfall will include installation of a riprap pad below the OHWM of the side channel that will result in the loss of approximately 256 square feet of in-stream habitat in the side channel. 6.1.1.3 Effects Analysis for Removal of Vegetation: Removing riparian vegetation can affect fish by increasing stream temperatures, reducing the potential for L WD recruitment and for contribution of organic material for macroinvertebrates, eliminating in- and over-stream cover, and decreasing bank stability. Removal of mature trees can affect bald eagles by removing perching, foraging, wintering and nesting opportunities. Eagles are not likely to use the smaller, immature trees that would be permanently removed by the Project for perching, nesting, foraging or wintering. Temporary and permanent impacts to upland and riparian vegetation are discussed in Table 2 in Section 1.2.2. Temporary and permanent riparian impacts will occur on eight streams and rivers within the Project area, as discussed in Table 2 in Section 1.2.2. Bull trout are not known or likely to be present in any of these streams. Chinook salmon are known to be present in the Green River and Springbrook Creek, and are presumed to be present in Gilliam Creek in the action area. All temporarily cleared or disturbed areas will be replanted with native vegetation. Permanent riparian buffer impacts will occur adjacent to Gilliam Creek, Springbrook Creek, Panther Creek, Rolling Hills Creek, an unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek, and Thunder Hills Creek. Less than 1 acre of mature coniferous and deciduous trees will be removed as part of this Project. The majority of vegetation to be removed consists of invasive plant species, native grasses and shrubs, and immature trees. Many of the functions that riparian vegetation provide are already altered and will not be substantially affected as compared to existing conditions (WSDOT 2005b). The effects to fish, if any, from riparian buffer effects related to the Project will be small in magnitude and indiscernible, particularly considering the already degraded condition of the existing riparian buffer (WSDOT 2005b). In addition, temporarily disturbed areas will be revegetated to the greatest extent feasible. 6.1.1.4 Effects Analysis for Noise: Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout The impacts of above-water noise on fish are not well understood. Construction noise could disturb or displace fish for relatively long periods (weeks to months) at any stream crossing within the action area WSDOT Biological Assessment 75 .;---.. --- during construction. Displacement could result in altered migratory behavior, such as holding up or downstream for extended periods. It could also result in increased predation if fish are displaced from cover, or become habituated to excessive noise, which could decrease the ability to detect approaching predators. Noise impacts will be greatest at construction sites on or near stream crossings; however, impacts to Chinook salmon are most likely to occur on Springbrook Creek. Impacts to bull trout are even less likely to occur, as bull trout are not known or likely to occur in any of the streams affected by in-water construction. Sound pressure levels generated during impact installation of steel piles could cause instant or delayed fish mortality; however, all pile driving below the OHWM will be isolated from surface waters. Noise impacts to fish will be minimized, as piles in the OHWM of Springbrook Creek will be driven outside of the wetted perimeter and, if necessary, the area where piles are to be driven will be separated from Springbrook Creek. Separation of the surface water/work area will be conducted in accordance with permit conditions for the Project and WSDOT standard specifications. Work below the OHWM will be conducted during the WDFW in-water work window, June 15 through September 30. Bald Eagle Construction noise in the action area may include general equipment operation and pile driving activities. Noise from construction equipment (e.g. bulldozers) will not exceed highway traffic noise and pile driving is likely the only construction noise that will be audible over baseline conditions. However, this noise is unlikely to affect bald eagles during nesting activities, as there are no identified nests within 1 mile of the Project vicinity (WDFW 2005). The USFWS established a I-mile setback guideline to protect nests from noise impacts associated with pile driving. Pile driving is anticipated during construction; however, the type of piles, methods of installation, and locations are not yet determined in the current design stage, and therefore noise levels are undetermined. Construction noise may affect, but is not likely to affect perching and foraging behavior along the Green River. Noise levels are not expected to exceed current ambient noise levels in the vicinity generated by existing traffic from three highways (I-405, I-5, and SR167), an airport, railroad, local industrial uses, and occasional helicopter flights, to which local eagles are accustomed as background noise levels. Alternate perching and foraging opportunities exist to the west of the Project at Angle Lake, and to the north of the Project at Lake Washington. In a worst case scenario, driving of steel piling with an impact hammer would create an Lmax averaging between 105 to 115 dBA at 50 feet from the source and Leq levels on the order of 100 to 105 dBA at 50 feet (WSF 2000). Based on the attenuation rates described in Section 2, noise rates from driving steel piling with an impact hammer would attenuate to background levels between 1,900 and 3,200 feet. As described in the Action Area section of this report, this attenuation rate coupled with the additional reduction in dBA from the topography and buildings surrounding the area will result worst-case noise impacts from driving steel piling with an impact hammer attenuating to background levels at no greater than 1/2 mile from the source. No other noise impacts from the Project would exceed these levels. 6.1.1.5 Effects Analysis for Hazardous Materials: Hazardous material spills could have lethal and sublethal effects on fish and micro-and macroinvertebrate prey at any stream within the action area. During construction, oil, fuel, industrial fluid, grease, paint, solvents, concrete, asphalt, tar, heavy metals and other hazardous materials from construction equipment and stormwater runoff could accidentally enter streams within the action area. WSDOT Biological Assessment 76 ................. pa __ .... .,.. ... Contaminants can be suspended in the water column or settled on the bottom, and may adhere to sediment particles. As the particles are deposited, these compounds, or their degradation products, can bioaccumulate in benthic organisms at much higher concentrations than in the surrounding waters. Contaminants can be assimilated into fish tissues by absorption across the gills or through bioaccumulation as a result of consuming contaminated prey or incidental consumption of sediments, and into bald eagle tissue by consuming contaminated fish (PFMC 1999). BMPs will be implemented during Project construction to reduce or eliminate potential sources of hazardous material contamination. A SPCC Plan for the Project will be prepared by the Contractor, and submitted to and approved by the Project Engineer prior to commencing construction. Additional BMPs, conservation measures, and performance standards will be implemented to avoid, minimize, and control potential discharges of hazardous materials into the environment. 6.1.1.6 Effects Analysis for Artificial Lighting Artificial lighting could cause behavioral effects that could alter migratory fish behavior. This change could be beneficial, such as increasing avoidance behavior, as found in one study that showed decreasing predation success of northern pikeminnow on Chinook salmon with increasing light intensity (Petersen and Gradomski 1994). Alternately, the change could result in negative impacts, as observed with increasing piscivorous bird predation under artificial lights around Lake Washington (WSF 2000), or predation by sculpin due to slowed outmigration of fry caused by lighted conditions (Tabor 1998). Some construction will likely occur during hours of reduced light. Therefore, artificial lighting will be required for some work areas. Artificial lighting is currently used on I-405; however, additional lighting will be required for Project construction. Within 300 feet of waters known to contain listed fish, all temporary Project lighting will be minimized between sunset and sunrise from November I to January 15, and from March 15 to May 15. Lighting will be directed towards work areas and away from affected waterbodies to limit effects to fish behavior. Additional BMPs, conservation measures, and performance standards to minimize impacts from artificial lighting will be implemented, as discussed previously in this document. 6.1.1.7 Changes in Traffic Volume/Congestion In general, the Project will provide higher levels of general traffic reliability, result in shorter travel times for general purpose traffic, will reduce congestion, and provide greater mobility and improved travel options compared to pre-Project conditions (WSDOT 2002). Increased traffic levels may result in higher levels of contaminants entering the waterbodies in the action area; however, the Project will treat the stormwater from all of the new pavement surfaces using enhanced treatment per the HRM. Increased traffic mobility will result in lowered pollutant concentrations in the action area as individual vehicles will spend less time on the roadway. Increases in traffic volume from the Project are not expected to significantly increase ambient noise levels in the action area. 6.1.1.8 Effects Analysis for Modifications of Habitat Conditions Riparian habitat conditions will be modified in seven streams and/or rivers in the Project area, including the Green River and Gilliam Creek. In addition, in-stream habitat conditions will be modified in Panther and Springbrook Creeks. Of these streams and rivers in the action area, only the Green River and Springbrook Creek are known to be used by Chinook salmon. Gilliam Creek, due its relation with the WSDOT Biological Assessment 77 Green River, is presumed to have Chinook salmon use. The Green River is the only impacted waterbody with known bull trout use. The habitat quality of the segment of Springbrook Creek that will be impacted by the Project is generally low due to historic modifications to the streambed including channel straightening, removal of in-stream structure, encroachment of non-native plant species, and lack of riparian cover. Therefore, the impacts to in-stream habitat functions from Project construction are expected to be minimal when compared to pre-Project conditions. Removal of the existing Springbrook box culvert and bridge and the associated rehabilitation of the Springbrook Creek channel will improve habitat conditions in Springbrook Creek through creation of a more natural Springbrook Creek streambed. One new outfall will be constructed in the side channel associated with Springbrook Creek. Construction of the outfall will include installation of a riprap pad below the OHWM of the side channel that will result in the loss of approximately 256 square feet of in-stream habitat in the side channel. Effects from changes to riparian conditions are discussed in section 6.1.1.3 above. 6.1.1.9 Changes in Hydrology/Hydraulics Changes in the hydrology/hydraulics of the Project area will occur as a result of increased impervious surfacing from the Project, filling of wetlands, impacts to streams, and improvements to the stormwater system in the action area. In total, 1.66 acres of wetland will be filled to construct the Project. Of the wetlands to be filled, only two are associated with Springbrook Creek and will each experience permanent impacts ofless than 0.01 acres each. A portion of Panther Creek below the OHWM will also be filled; however the portion of Panther Creek to be filled is assumed to not be used by listed fish species due to a reed canary grass wetland that acts as a fish passage barrier downstream of where in- water work will occur. New piles will be installed below the OHWM of Springbrook Creek. To offset potential impacts to listed species from these changes in the hydrology and hydraulics in the action area, new stormwater treatment facilities will be constructed, new wetlands will be created at the Springbrook Bank, and the existing Springbrook Creek box culvert and bridge will be removed. 6.1.1.10 Conversion of Habitat to Non-Habitat Portions of the riparian buffers of Springbrook Creek, the Green River, and Gilliam Creek will be permanently converted to impervious surface or storm water facilities as part of the Project. Impacts to riparian vegetation are summarized in Table 2 -Area and Lineal Distance of Temporary and Permanent Disturbance to Habitat in Section 1.2.2. Riparian buffers in the action area are highly degraded from natural conditions. They are largely dominated by non-native invasive plant species including Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and Scot's broom. Though they do contain some native deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs, most of the riparian trees in the Project area are immature. As the existing riparian condition of these streams are degraded, many of the functions provided by riparian vegetation, such as L WD recruitment, contribution of organic material, fish cover, bank stabilization, and stream temperature regulation are already impaired as compared to natural conditions (Kerwin 2001). WSDOT Biological Assessment 78 . ..._... ____ ... _..,. ..... Two wetlands associated with Springbrook Creek will each be partially filled; however, each will incur permanent impacts of less than 0.01 acres each. The existing box culvert and bridge will be removed from Springbrook Creek and new bridges will be constructed over Springbrook Creek that will result in an overall increase in the amount of available habitat for listed fish species in Springbrook Creek. In addition, wetland impacts will be compensated for at the Springbrook Bank. Approximately 0.1 acres of urban forest will be permanently converted into impervious surface as a result of the Project. Urban forest is a cover type that is typically dominated by big leaf maple and alder with an understory of smaller herbaceous and shrub species. Urban forest areas could be used by bald eagles as perch trees. However, due to noise associated with the existing freeway, lack of open space in which to forage, and the large amount of existing impervious surface limiting prey species, these trees do not provide good perching habitat. 6.1.1.11 Effects Analysis for Dewatering of Stream Channel Segments of two streams may be temporarily dewatered prior work within the OHWM or bridge construction: Springbrook and Panther Creeks. The purpose of dewatering is to isolate the work area, thereby minimizing impacts to fish; however, if not properly implemented, dewatering can entrain fish in pumps when surface water is moved, strand fish in remaining pools, or create temporary barriers to fish migration. Neither creek that will be dewatered is known or likely to have bull trout; however, Springbrook Creek is known to be used by Chinook salmon. Stranding and entrainment will be minimized or eliminated by the application ofWDSOT policy, which requires appropriate NMFS protocols for fish exclusion and handling to be applied to all Projects. Prior to the commencement of in-water work, all fish will be excluded (e.g., with a coffer dam) and removed from the work area with appropriate methods (e.g., electrofishing). In-water construction will be limited to approved in-water work windows as defined by permit conditions, and completed in the shortest time possible. Additional BMPs, conservation measures, and performance standards will be implemented, as previously discussed in this document. 6.1.1.12 Effects Analysis for Changes in Fish Passage/Migration: New bridges will be constructed over Springbrook Creek and its associated side channel and the existing Springbrook box culvert and bridge will be removed. Removal of the existing box culvert and bridge and restoration of substrate and stream banks will improve fish passage conditions in Springbrook Creek through re-establishing a more natural stream bed. Additional beneficial effects of new bridge structure include reduced predation by eliminating line of sight for raptors and reduction of direct sunlight, resulting in reduced water temperatures in Springbrook Creek. Negative effects of the new bridge include permanent removal of riparian vegetation. Effects from changes to riparian conditions are discussed in Section 6.1.1.3 above. Additional BMPs, conservation measures, and performance standards to minimize potential impacts to listed species will be implemented as discussed in Sections 1.3, 1.4, and 6.1 of this BA. WSDOT Biological Assessment 79 6.2 Indirect Effects Indirect effects are effects caused by the action(s), or that will result from the action(s), but will occur later in time, generally after the construction period. Check all the potential impacts that may occur as a result of this project 0 Changes in Water Quality 0 Changes in Water Quantity D Improved Fish Passage 0 Changes in Hydraulics, Scouring, Flooding D Changes in Habitat Conditions 0 Increased Traffic Conveyance 0 Increased Development D Other (identify) D Other (identify) D Other (identify) 6.2.1.1 Effects Analysis for Water Quality: Increased impervious surface area and the likely increase in associated vehicle use can result in increased exposure to hazardous materials, increased stormwater runoff, and decreased water quality in streams within the action area. Oil, fuel, industrial fluid, grease, paint, solvents, concrete, asphalt, tar, heavy metals and other hazardous materials from vehicle traffic and stormwater runoff could enter streams within the action area, potentially affecting salmonids and salmonid prey. The mechanisms and potential impacts of these hazardous chemicals to salmonids, their prey, and bald eagles are discussed previously in Section 6.1.1.5 of this BA. A storm drainage system will collect and treat runoff from an area equal to all new impervious surface created by the Project. Stormwater runoff from this area will be treated for enhanced water quality before being discharged to streams through a system of ecology embankments and stormwater ponds. Enhanced treatment exceeds basic water quality goals for suspended solids removal by targeting dissolved pollutants such as copper and zinc that could be included in highway runoff. Stormwater discharges to the streams and rivers of the action area will comply with water quality regulations in accordance with WSDOT's HRM (2004). The quality of stormwater discharge associated with the Project is not expected to adversely affect aquatic life in the streams within the action area (WSDOT 2005b). 6.2.1.2 Effects Analysis for Water Quantity: The Project is expected to add approximately 15 .3 acres of new impervious surface within the action area. This is an approximately 13 percent increase in impervious surface area over the existing impervious area associated with I-405 and SR 167 (see Section 6.1.1.2). Precipitation historically absorbed by permeable soils, stored in groundwater, and slowly contributed to surface water recharge will be intercepted by the new impervious highway, and diverted into a stormwater system. During storm events, this could result in increased velocity and flow, which can potentially damage in-stream habitat and harm juvenile fish. Harm to fish typically occurs when fish or other aquatic species are WSDOT Biological Assessment 80 ____ .. __ _ unable to get out of high flow areas and are swept downstream or battered against rocks or streambanks. In urbanized streams where little to no refugia habitat exists and where stormwater events can cause rapid rises in stream levels, peak and or sustained high flows can be especially detrimental to fish (WSDOT 2005b). Alternately, decreased groundwater could also affect surface water recharge and lower summer flows. Lower flows can result in fish stranding or increased in-stream water temperatures. Potential hydrologic impacts could occur throughout the action area and downstream of the action area, but would have the greatest effect on streams that are known or likely to have Chinook salmon: Gilliam Creek, Springbrook Creek, and the Green River. Existing stormwater facilities for I-405 and SR 167 in the action area provide some potential for infiltration; however, these facilities do not generally provide stormwater flow control. An ecology embankment exists along a portion of the west side of SR 167 and some additional stormwater facilities are located within the I-405/SR 167 interchange. To improve upon these facilities, the new stormwater system will provide peak flow control and enhanced water quality treatment for dissolved metals for the new impervious area. Stormwater flow control facilities will be designed in accordance with WSDOT's H&\1 (WSDOT 2004a). These new stormwater facilities are intended to fully mitigate any flow impacts that the new pavement would have on peak flows within the action area. 6.2.1.3 Changes in Hydraulics, Scouring, Flooding Changes in hydraulics and scouring in Springbrook Creek may occur as a result of removing the Springbrook Creek box culvert Hydraulic modeling to determine the extent of any potential impacts will be completed by the Contractor upon selection of a final bridge replacement design. BMPs will be used to minimize impacts from hydraulics and scoming. Changes to floodplain storage will be compensated for at the Springbrook Bank through excavation of floodplain areas that were historically filled. As the Springbrook Bank will be constructed prior to the Project, there will be a temporary period where overall floodplain storage is increased. 6.2.1.4 Effects Analysis for Increased Traffic Conveyance: The Federal Highway Administration investigated the relationship between the I-405 Projects and land use change. This investigation was performed at the request of the USFWS and NMFS. The resulting document is titled Land Use Analysis -A Supporting Document to Endangered Species Act Review of the I-405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects (WSDOT 2004b ). The Land Use Analysis finds that the I-405 Projects are intended to accommodate planned growth and development, not result in new development or unplanned growth. The Land Use Analysis also indicates that the I-405 Projects may result in: • Planned development being approved that may otherwise have been denied based on the level- of-service for local streets. • Jurisdictions changing land use designations for some properties • Focused development in areas with infrastrncture to accommodate development. The Project will not result in planned development being approved that may otherwise have been denied. The cities of Renton and Tukwila do not currently have permit conditions or any moratorium on WSDOT Biological Assessment 81 development activities based on I-405 traffic levels. The I-405 Team has found no evidence that the cities of Renton and Tukwila will change land use designations for properties based on the Project. This is based on a review of the Land Use, Transportation, and Capital Facilities portions of the cities of Renton's and Tukwila's Comprehensive Plans. The Project is not anticipated to result in focused development at any location. Development within the Renton and Tukwila areas is based on the Cities' Comprehensive Plans, which in tum are based on Puget Sound Regional Council planning and the Growth Management Act. As such, state, regional and local land use planning already identifies the expected land use and the I-405 Projects, including the Project, are built to accommodate this planned development. 6.2.1.5 Effects Analysis for Increased Development: No new roads or interchanges will be added as a result of the Project, and the additional lanes to be constructed will not provide new access to previously undeveloped areas. The Land Use Analysis for the I-405 Projects reviewed zoning ordinances and did not identify any instances of developments being tied to the I-405 Projects by permit condition or building moratoria (WSDOT 2004c). The analysis also reviewed the local Comprehensive Plans for Land Use, Transportation, and Capital Facilities goals and policies, and found that there are no developments tied to the I-405 Projects by permit conditions or moratoria (WSDOT 2004c). The Renton Comprehensive Plan indicates that the Cities policies will improve transportation facilities to meet existing and future (proposed) development transportation needs, illustrating that local transportation projects are in response to need, as opposed to a catalyst to future development (WSDOT 2004c). In addition, The Renton Comprehensive Plan includes policies that require transportation improvements, strategies, and actions to be in place at the time new development occurs or be financially committed and scheduled for completion within 6 years. 6.3 Effects of Interrelated and Interdependent Actions An interdependent activity is an action that has no independent utility apart from the proposed action. An interrelated activity is an action that is part of a larger action and depends upon the larger action for its justification. 6.3.1 Effects Analysis for Interrelated and Interdependent Actions: The only interdependent action related to the Project is potential clearing and grading for construction staging areas. The Contractor is required to meet performance standards for locations of staging areas as described in Section 1.4.3 under the headings Erosion Control, Staging Areas, and Clearing and Grading. Due to the protective nature of these performance standards, staging areas are not anticipated to result in any impacts beyond those already described in this. document. The only interrelated action associated with the Project is the Springbrook Bank. WSDOT Biological Assessment 82 -·--,--..... -.. , ... -.......... A portion of the Springbrook Bank will provide compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources resulting from the Project. The Springbrook Bank will re-establish, rehabilitate, enhance, and preserve approximately 130 acres of wetland, wetland buffer, and riparian areas on five parcels located in the southwest portion of Renton, Washington. The Springbrook Bank will be developed by WSDOT and the City of Renton and will provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts caused by the Project as it is in the service area of the Springbrook Bank. The Springbrook Bank is an EEi project under the 1-405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects. The Springbrook Bank will be permitted and consulted on separately from the Project. Construction of the Springbrook Bank will provide new and enhanced wetland habitat in the vicinity of the action area. There may be temporary impacts associated with construction of the Springbrook Bank; however, it is anticipated that construction of the bank will result in an overall improvement to habitat conditions in the vicinity of the Project. 6.4 Summary of Avoidance and Minimization Measures 6.4.1 Impacts Summary Table 7 provides a summary of the Project impacts and the avoidance or minimization measures used to limit effects from the impacts. Table 7. Summary of Impacts and Impact Avoidance or Minimization Measures Impact Impact Avoidance or Minimization Measure Increased erosion, sedimentation and turbidity as a result Except where absolutely necessary, construction of construction. equipment will not enter streams below the OHWM. Where in-water work is necessary, it will be restricted to authorized construction periods as defined by appropriate permitting agencies. The Contractor will comply with Washington State's surface water quality standards (Chapter 173-20 IA WAC), which specify a mixing zone beyond which water quality standards cannot be exceeded. Water quality monitoring will occur during construction to ensure compliance with Ecology's standards to protect fish and aquatic life. A TESC Plan for clearing, vegetation removal, grading, ditching, filling, embankment compaction, or excavation will be developed by the Contractor and approved by WSDOT prior to initiating construction of the Project. The TESC Plan will be implemented throughout all phases of construction. Throughout construction, the Contractor will use BMPs, which may include filter-fabric fence, straw mulch, straw bales, and olastic sheetin2, to orevent silt and soil WSDOT Biological Assessment 83 Impact Impact Avoidance or Minimization Measure from entering surface waters (including wetlands). Staging and stockpiling areas will be located well away from streams and rivers. The Project will use retaining walls to minimize effects to streams, wetlands, and other critical areas. All bare soil areas will be hydroseeded following grading. Excavated sediment will be contained in Baker tanks or other appropriate containers to avoid discharge to surface water. Contained sediments will be disposed of at an approved waste facility. Loss of riparian buffers All temporarily cleared or disturbed areas will be replanted with appropriate native vegetation. Temporarily cleared areas will be restored to pre- construction grades. Native shade-tolerant vegetation will be planted in areas under the elevated roadway and ramps, where feasible and practical. Human activity and noise above ambient noise levels There are no active bald eagle nests within the Project (pile driving). action area. Contribution of hazardous materials to surface waters Where practicable, vehicle refueling and maintenance activities will not occur within 100 feet of streams, rivers, or wetlands. This will not be possible for some equipment such as water pumps, which require continuous operation. A SPCC Plan for the Project, will be prepared and submitted by the Contractor to the Project Engineer prior to commencing any construction. Fuel hoses, oil drums, and oil and fuel transfer valves and fittings for drips or leaks will be checked regularly to prevent spills into surface water. Artificial lighting may affect fish behavior Intensity of artificial lighting will be minimized and directed towards work areas and away from water to limit effects on fish. Within 300 feet of waters known to contain listed fish life, all temporary Project lighting will be minimized between sunset and sunrise from November I to January 15, and from March 15 to May 15. Dewatering may result in fish stranding or entrainment Streams will be dewatered prior to culverts being WSDOT Biological Assessm,eot 84 --------- Impact Impact Avoidance or l\'linimization Measure installed. The conditions of all applicable permits and approvals will be strictly followed. Except where absolutely necessary, construction equipment will not enter streams below the OHWM. V.lhere in-water work is necessary, it will be restricted to approved in-water work windows as defined by appropriate permitting agencies (WDFW, Mv!FS, and the USFWS). Fish stranding and entrainment will be minimized or eliminated by the application ofWDSOT policy, which requires appropriate NNIFS protocols for fish exclusion and handling to be applied to all projects. Prior to the commencement of in-water work, all fish will be excluded (e.g. with a coffer dam) and removed from the work area with appropriate methods ( e.g. electrofishing). Dewatering will occur during the driest time of the year when salmon migration is least likely. In-water construction will be limited to approved in- water work windows, as defined by pennit conditions, and completed in the shortest time possible. Increase in impervious surface may alter peak flow and Flow control for runoff from new impervious area will water quantity address changes in stormwater discharge to fish bearing streams. Stormwater flow control facilities will be designed in accordance with the HRM (WSDOT 2004). Increase in impervious surface and traffic may affect Stonnwater runoff from new impervious area will be surface water quality treated for enhanced water quality before being discharged into streams. Enhanced treatment exceeds basic water quality goals for suspended solids removal by targeting dissolved pollutants such as copper and zinc that could be included in the highway runoff. Concrete will be cured before contact with surface water as required by WAC 110-220-070(1)(g) to avoid increased pH that can occur when fresh concrete contacts water. 6.5 Cumulative Effects Identify all state, local and private actions that are reasonably certain to occur within the project action area: State, local, and private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area include local road improvements and private residential, commercial, and industrial development. WSDOT Biological Assessment 85 Describe the potential cumulative effects to federally listed species that may occur as a result of these actions: The cities of Renton and Tukwila have land use regulations, including critical areas and shoreline ordinances, that protect the various habitat types found in the action area. In addition, state regulations are in place that protect water quality and wildlife habitat in the action area. Enforcement of these regulations is anticipated to minimize impacts to listed species as a result of any new development. Based on the existing protections provided by local and state regulations related to new development, there are no anticipated cumulative effects to federally listed species as a result of these potential actions. WSDOT Biological Assessment 86 -_____ ,._ .... __ _ 7. Effects Determination 7.1 Puget Sound Chinook (listed species) Name of Species: Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ESU or DPS, if applicable: Puget Sound The project: 0 Will have No Effect to this species, or [gl May Affect this species The Project May Affect this species because of the following reason(s): Project-related sedimentation and turbidity may affect Chinook salmon in the following ways: • Smothering salmon eggs in gravels • Decreasing micro-and macroinvertebrate survival as a result of reduced dissolved oxygen • Reducing ability for visual predators to capture prey • Damaging gills and increased risk of anoxia (the absence or reduced supply of oxygen in arterial blood or tissues) • Behavioral changes • Stress that can lead to fish mortality Project-related artificial lighting may cause behavioral effects to Chinook salmon, such as avoiding areas with light, and could increase predation by birds or other predators. Noise impacts from pile driving may disorient or cause mortality of Chinook salmon. Fish stranding may occur as a result of dewatering associated with in-water work. If the Project May Affect this species, it is: D Not Likely to Adversely Affect this species, or [gl is Likely to Adversely Affect this species. Provide the reason(s) for this determination: The determination of may affect, likely to adversely affect is based primarily on the effects from fish handling during fish removal and dewatering at Springbrook Creek, and from potential construction disturbance during impact pile driving for bridge construction at Springbrook Creek, if it occurs. The following actions will be taken to minimize the above mentioned effects from the Project: • Conservation measures, performance standards, and BMPs will be implemented to minimize impacts to Chinook salmon. Springbrook Creek may receive sediment inputs related to construction activities; however, monitoring will be conducted and construction activity will comply with Ecology's WQC. A TESC Plan will be developed and implemented. WSDOT Biological Assessment 87 • • • • • Fish exclusion will be conducted in accordance with WSDOT's fish removal and exclusion protocols found in Appendix A of this BA. Noise from construction equipment could temporarily disturb or displace fish; however, it will be restricted to approved in-water work windows as defined by appropriate permitting agencies including WDFW. No temporary Project light, including mobile units, will shine directly on any waters with listed species outside of approved in-water work windows as defined by appropriate permitting agencies, including WDFW. All temporary Project lighting within 300 feet of waterbodies with listed species will be minimized between sunset and sunrise from November 1 to January 15, and from March 15 to May 15. Water quality and quantity conditions are expected to remain consistent or improve as a result of construction of new storm water treatment and detention facilities related to the Project. If Critical Habitat has been Designated or Proposed for this species, indicate the recommended effect determination. For proposed critical habitat, this determination is tentative, should the critical habitat become designated: D NoEffect [gj May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect D May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect If proposed, indicate whether the project will D destroy or D adversely modify critical habitat. The Project will not destroy or adversely modify Puget Sound Chinook salmon designated critical habitat. Provide the reason(s) for the determinations, indicated above. Critical habitat has been designated for the Puget Sound Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) of Chinook salmon. Within the Duwamish Subbasin, Unit 11 (HUC 17110013), lower Green River watershed, the Green River and Springbrook Creek are identified as critical habitat. Within the Lake Washington Subbasin, Unit 10 (HUC 17110012), the Cedar River watershed, the Cedar River is designated as critical habitat. The relevant Primary Constituent Elements (PC Es )s related to the Project area are: I. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning incubation and larval development 2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth, and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks; and 3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. WSDOT Biological Assessment 88 ______ , __ _ In-stream work and riparian buffer modification are proposed on Springbrook Creek and its associated side channel. No other in-stream work will occur in areas containing critical habitat. Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) in Springbrook Creek that may be affected by Project construction activities include a decrease in water quality related to an increase in impervious surface that could result in a slight increase in water temperatures, and from potential temporary turbidity during construction activities. BMPs, including a TESC Plan and other measures to reduce turbidity, will minimize potential effects on Puget Sound Chinook salmon critical habitat. In-stream work is not proposed on the Cedar River or any tributaries to the Cedar River within the scope of this BA; however, it is within the action area. In-stream work and riparian buffer modification is proposed on Springbrook Creek and its associated side channel. In-stream work and/or riparian buffer encroachment on streams that have not been proposed as critical habitat are not expected to contribute sediment to the Green River. Project-related sedimentation impacts are expected to be avoided and minimized by the use of appropriate conservation measures and BMPs. Potential long-term water quality and quantity impacts are not expected to affect creeks in the action area or the Green River as a result of stormwater flow control facilities and enhanced water quality treatment for the new impervious surface area. Based on the analysis above, it is determined that the Project May Affect, is Not Likely to Adversely Affect, critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 7.2 Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout (listed species) Name of Species: Salvelinus conj/uentus ESU or DPS, if applicable: Coastal -Puget Sound The project: D Will have No Effect to this species, or C2J May Affect this species The project May Affect this species because of the following reason(s): Project-related sedimentation and turbidity may affect bull trout in the following ways: • Decreasing micro-and macro invertebrate survival as a result of reduced dissolved oxygen • Reducing ability for visual predators to capture prey • Damaging gills and increased risk of anoxia (the absence or reduced supply of oxygen in arterial blood or tissues) • Behavioral changes • Stress that can lead to fish mortality Project-related artificial lighting could cause behavioral effects such as avoiding areas with light and could increase predation by birds. WSDOT Biological Assessment 89 •~---~ ... --...... _ If the Project May Affect this species, it is: ~ Not Likely to Adversely Affect this species, or D is Likely to Adversely Affect this species. Provide the reason(s) for this determination: The determination of may affect, is not likely to adversely affect is based on the fact that bull trout are unlikely to occur in any of the streams where in-water work will occur. Bull trout occur in the Green and Cedar Rivers in the action area; however, no in water work will occur in those river systems. In addition, the following actions will be taken to minimize the above mentioned effects from the Project: • Conservation measures, performance standards, and BMPs will be implemented to minimize impacts to bull trout. • Noise from construction equipment could temporarily disturb or displace fish; however, it will be restricted to approved in-water work windows as defined by appropriate permitting agencies including WDFW. • No temporary Project light, including mobile units, will shine directly on any waters with listed species outside of approved in-water work windows as defined by appropriate permitting agencies including WDFW. • All temporary Project lighting within 300 feet ofwaterbodies with listed species will be minimized between sunset and sunrise from November I to January 15, and from March 15 to May 15. • Water quality and quantity conditions are expected to remain consistent or improve as a result of construction of new stormwater treatment and detention facilities related to the Project. If Critical Habitat has been Designated or Proposed for this species, indicate the recommended effect determination. For proposed critical habitat, this determination is tentative, should the critical habitat become designated: D No Effect ~ May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (if listed) D May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect If proposed, indicate whether the project will D destroy or D adversely modify critical habitat. Provide the reason(s) for the determinations, indicated above Critical habitat has been designated for the Coastal -Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of bull trout. Critical habitat in the action area consists of the Cedar and Green Rivers and is primarily used for rearing and migration. For an area to be included as bull trout critical habitat, it must provide one or more of the following functions for bull trout: spawning, rearing, foraging, or over-wintering habitat to support essential existing bull trout local populations; movement corridors necessary for maintaining essential migratory life history forms; or suitable habitat that is considered essential for recovering existing local populations that have declined or that need to be re-established to achieve recovery. In-stream water work is not proposed on the Cedar or Green Rivers and in-stream work within the action area is not expected to contribute sediment to the Cedar or Green Rivers. Potential long term water quality and quantity impacts are not expected to affect critical habitat as a result of stormwater flow control facilities and enhanced water quality treatment for the new impervious surface area. WSDOT Biological Assessment 90 _____ ..... __ _ Based on the analysis above, it is determined that the Project will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout and, if listed prior to construction, will have no effect on critical habitat. 7.3 Bald Eagle (listed species) Name of Species: Haliaeetus /eucocephalus The project: ~ Will have No Effect to this species, or D May Affect this species Provide the reason(s) for this determination: The determination of No Effect is based on the closest bald eagle nest being located 2.1 miles from the action area and the nearest bald eagle territory being located 1.8 miles from the action area. In addition, bald eagles are not known to use or depend on habitat within the action area for perching, foraging, nesting, or roosting. The completed Project is expected to increase ambient noise levels in the action area by Oto 2 dBA and will not result in long-term effects on bald eagles because of the minor increase in noise over ambient conditions. If Critical Habitat has been Designated or Proposed for this species, indicate the recommended effect determination. For proposed critical habitat, this determination is tentative, should the critical habitat become designated: Critical habitat is not proposed or designated for this species. WSDOT Biological Assessment 91 8. References Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (ISPG). 2002. Washington State Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Program. A joint program comprising Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Dept. of Ecology, and Washington State Dept. of Transportation. Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA Kerwin, John and Nelson, Tom S. (Eds.). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of Natural Resources. King County Department of Public Works. 1993. Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report. King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Seattle. Koellmann, Derek and Bryan Patterson. 2005. Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. Personal observations during I-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Stream Surveys, April-June, 2005. LaLonde. September 2005. Personal communication between Ginette LaLonde of Jones & Stokes and Derek Koellmann of Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Endangered and threatened species: threatened status for three Chinook salmon ESUs in Washington and Oregon, and Endangered status for one Chinook salmon ESU in Washington. Final Rule. Federal Register 63(56):14308-14328. (National Marine Fisheries Service). March 24, 1999. NMFS. 1998.Endangered and threatened species: Proposed endangered status for two Chinook salmon ESUs and proposed threatened status for five Chinook salmon ES Us; proposed redefinition, threatened status, and revision of critical habitat for one Chinook salmon ESU; proposed designation of Chinook salmon critical habitat in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho. Federal Register 63 (45): 11482-11520. (National Marine Fisheries Service). March 9, 1998. Petersen, J.A., and D.M. Gadomski. 1994. "Light-Mediated Predation by Northern Squawfish on Juvenile Chinook Salmon." Journal of Fish Biology, volume 45, pages 227-242. PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Identification and Description of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan, Appendix A. PFMC. Portland, Oregon. Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1979. Perch-site preferences of wintering bald eagles in northwest Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43:221-224. WSDOT Biological Assessment 93 Suckley, G., and J. G. Cooper. 1860. The natural history of the Washington and Oregon territory. Bailliere Brothers, New York. 399 pp. Tukwila, City of. 2001. Gilliam Creek Basin Stormwater Management Plan. Consultant Report prepared for the City of Tukwila by Herrera Environmental Consultants. Tukwila Department of Public Works, Tukwila, WA. 44 p. USA CE and Port of Oakland. 1998. Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement [-50 foot] Project Environmental Impact Statement 1998-http://www.50ftdredge.com/EIS/ EIS_5.8.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Report Number 550/9-74-004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I (of II): Puget Sound Management Unit. Portland, Oregon. 389 + xvii pp. USFWS. 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific bald eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 160 pp. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2001. Water Quality Program. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Publication number 99-12. l 75p. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2005. Priority Habitats and Species maps. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)WSDOT 1994. Field note sound level measurements, Friday Harbor Wingwall Replacement, December 1994. WSDOT. 2002. 1-405 Corridor Program NEP NSEPA Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Preliminary Section 4(f) Evaluation. June 2002. WSDOT. 2004a. Highway Runoff Manual M3 l-l 6. Olympia, WA. WSDOT Engineering and Regional Operations Division, Environmental and Engineering Programs, Headquarters Environmental Affairs and Hydraulics. WSDOT. 2004b. Land Use Analysis -A Supporting Document to Endangered Species Act Review of the 1-405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects. WSDOT. 2005a. Highway Runoff Manual Post-publication Updates. [Online] Available http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/wgec/docs/PostPub HRM Table2.5 120604.PDF. WSDOT. 2005b. Draft Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report, Renton Nickel Improvement Project. July 2005. WSDOT. 2005c. Draft Noise Discipline Report, Renton Nickel Improvement Project. July 2005. WSDOT Biological Assessment 94 WSDOT and Ecology. 1998. Implementing agreement between the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Washington State Department of Ecology regarding the compliance with the state of Washington surface water quality standards. February 13, 1998. Available at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environmental/Programmatics/docs/impagfin.pdf WSF (Washington State Ferries). 2000. Technical memorandum, Ambient Noise and the Potential Impacts of Pile Driving on Bald Eagles. August 28, 2000. WSDOT Biological Assessment 95 -·---.. --- ' i Appendix A WSDOT Fish Removal Protocols and Standards Federal resource agencies have expressed an interest in the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOD developing a work area isolation/fish removal protocol for agency activities where fish removal may be necessary. The following protocol was developed in an attempt to standardize WSDOT's activities when they are required to remove fish from work areas. This protocol may not apply or may be modified in emergency situations or in certain areas that have unique site-specific characteristics. WSDOT Fish Removal Protocols and Standards Isolation of the work area, fish removal and release offish shall be conducted or directed by a biologist who possesses the competence to ensure the safe handling of all Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed fish, and who is also experienced with work area isolation. I. Isolation of the Work Area: Installation of block nets will occur at predetermined locations, based on site characteristics, to prevent fish and other aquatic wildlife from moving into the work area. When selecting a suitable site look for an area that has desirable attributes such as slower flows, suitable locations for stake and/or gravel bag placement. Whenever conditions allow, the downstream block net shall be placed first. The upstream block net shall then be used as a seine to herd fish from the downstream block net location upstream to the point selected for the upstream block net installation. If feasible, this action will potentially move significant numbers of fish upstream, out of the impact area prior to other removal methods. If herding fish upstream is prohibitive because of flow velocities, installation of the upstream block net first, then the herding of fish downstream and installing the downstream block net may be effective. Both approaches have the added benefit of relocating fish without physically handling them. Block net mesh size, length, type of material, and depth will vary based on site conditions. The directing biologist on site will base the design of block nets on specific site characteristics such as water depth, velocity and channel width. Typical block net material is 9.5 millimeter stretched mesh. Block nets shall remain in place until in-water work is completed. Block nets will require leaf and debris removal. An individual should be assigned the responsibility of frequently checking the nets to maintain their effectiveness and integrity. The frequency of such checks will be determined on a case-by- case basis, dependent upon the system, season and weather conditions. An individual shall be stationed at the downstream block net continuously during electrofishing sessions, to recover stunned fish in the event they are washed downstream and pinned against the net. Block nets need to be secured along both banks and in-channel to prevent failure during unforeseen rain events or debris accumulation. Some locations may require additional block net support (examples include galvanized hardware cloth and metal fence posts). 2. Fish Removal: The following methods provide alternatives for removal of fish from the area between the block nets. All other aquatic life encountered will also be released at an appropriate site. These methods are given in order of preference and for many locations a combination of methods will need to be applied. The use of visual observation techniques (ex. snorkeling, surveying with polarized glasses or plexiglass bottomed buckets) should be considered for evaluation of removal method effectiveness and to identify specific locations of fish concentrations prior to removal attempts. Site specific project differences will determine the degree of aggressiveness in removal attempts. For instance, in areas where the streambed will be completely dewatered, highly aggressive techniques may be required to remove all fish and prevent death to individual fish due to suffocation and/or dessication. In contrast, large unconfined areas where isolation is impossible and in-water work is limited to a very specific area, total removal of fish is likely impossible and possibly not necessary due to the ability of fish to relocate and avoid disturbance and associated impacts. Fish shall not be sampled during removal activities as this protocol is intended to address fish removal not research. Fish species, number and an age class estimate will be the default information that is documented. 3. Use of a seine net shall be the preferred method. The remaining methods shall be used when seining is not possible or to enhance the effectiveness of semmg. • Seines made from 9.5 mm stretched nylon mesh shall be used to remove fish from the isolated stream reach. Seine design will be dependent upon site- specific characteristics. The on-site biologist will plan seining procedures based on an evaluation of site characteristics. • On projects where dewatering will occur, aquatic life will be collected by hand or with dip nets as the site is slowly dewatered. • Capture of fish by personnel in water or on shore using hand held nets when in water work will occur without dewatering (typically used in conjunction with seining). • Baited minnow traps (typically used in conjunction with seining). • Electrofishing shall be performed only when other methods have been determined to be unfeasible or ineffective by the directing biologist. Electrofishing studies document injury rates to fish even at low settings. Therefore, use of this method is discouraged when unnecessary. The potential for injury to ESA-listed fish may outweigh the benefit of capture and relocation of all fish present in the work area. Electrofishing research results reveal a trend that as number of vertebrae and spine length increase, injury potential also increases. Therefore, the following guidelines are for juvenile ESA-listed fish and exclude adult ESA-Iisted fish. Areas where redds are present shall not be exposed to electrofishing activity. Capture and removal of adult ESA-listed fish will have to be accomplished using an alternate method other than electrofishing if herding them out of the area to be isolated is not possible. The following conditions shall apply to use of electrofishing as a means of fish removal: I. Electrofishing shall only be conducted when a biologist with at least 100 hours of electro fishing experience is on site to conduct or direct all activities associated with capture attempts. The directing biologist shall be familiar with the principles of electro fishing including the interrelated effects of voltage, pulse width and pulse rate on fish species and associated risk of injury/mortality. The directing biologist shall have knowledge regarding galvanotaxis, narcosis and tetany, their respective relationships to injury/mortality rates, and have the ability to recognize these responses when exhibited by fish. 2. The following chart shall be used as guidelines for electrofishing in water where the potential to encounter ESA-listedjuvenile fish exists. Visual observation of the size classes of fish in the work area is helpful to avoid injury to larger fish by the mistaken assumption that they are not present. 3. Seasonal timing restrictions for conducting electrofishing shall be dependent upon the river system, fish composition and an analysis of the life history of documented species. Spawning adults and redds with incubating eggs should not be subjected to the effects of electrofishing. As a general rule, anadromous waters should not be electrofished from October 15 to May 15 and resident waters from November 1 to May 15. It shall be the responsibility of the directing biologist to research and assess the time of year (for each river segment) when electrofishing is appropriate. 4. Each session shall begin with low settings for pulse width and pulse rate. Voltaoe If fish present in the area being electrofished do not exhibit an appropriate response the settings should be gradually increased until the appropriate response is achieved (galvanotaxis). Conducting electrofishing activity at the minimal effective settings is imperative because as pulse width and pulse rate increase, fish injury rates increase. Minimum effective voltage settings are dependent upon water conductivity and will need to increase as conductivity decreases. Higher voltages elevate the risk of serious injury to fish removal personnel. Use the lowest effective setting for pulse width, pulse rate and voltage to minimize personnel safety concerns and Initial Setting Conductivitv '"Siem) Maximum Settings IOOV < 100 1100 V 100-300 800V > 300 400V Pulse Width 500 "0 5 ms help minimize fish injury/mortality rates. 5. The operator shall avoid allowing fish to come into contact with the anode. The zone of potential fish injury is 0.5 m from the anode. The directing biologist shall determine whether netting shall be attached to the anode. When site conditions allow use of an unnetted anode this method is preferred, due to the fact that this capture technique reduces mortality/injury rates. Techniques employed when using an unnetted anode keep fish farther from the anode and expose them to significantly less time in the zone of potential injury mentioned earlier. Extra care shall be taken near in-water structures, undercut banks, in shallow waters, or high-density fish areas. Voltage gradients may be abnormally intensified in these areas and fish are more likely to come into close contact with the anode. Consider lowering the voltage setting in shallow water sections. When electrofishing areas near undercut banks or where structures may provide cover for fish, use the anode to draw the fish out by placing the activated anode near the area fish are likely present and slowly draw the anode away. Fish experiencing galvanotaxis will be attracted to the anode and will swim away from the structure toward the anode so that they can be netted. This will not work on fish that experience narcosis or tetany. Therefore, fish response should be noted in adjacent areas prior to attempts made near structures. This should help avoid prolonged exposure of fish to the electrical field while in an immobilized state. 6. Electrofishing shall be performed in a manner that minimizes harm to fish. Once an appropriate fish response (galvanotaxis) is noted, the stream segment shall be worked systematically, moving the anode continuously in a herringbone pattern through the water. Do not electrofish one area for an extended period of time. The number of passes shall be kept to a minimum, will be dependent upon site specific characteristics, and be at the discretion of the directing biologist. Adequate numbers of personnel shall be on-site to minimize the number of passes required for fish removal. Adequate staff to net, recover, and release fish in a prompt manner shall be present. Fish shall be removed from the electrical field immediately and recovered when necessary. Fish shall not be held in the net while continuing to capture additional fish. 7. Carefully observe and document the condition of the captured fish. Dark bands on the body and extended recovery times are signs of injury or handling stress. When such signs are noted, the settings for the electrofishing unit and/or manner in which the electrofishing session is proceeding need adjustment. These characteristics may be an indication that electrofishing has become an inappropriate removal method for that specific site. Specimens shall be released immediately upstream of the block nets in an area that provides refuge. Each fish shall be capable of remaining upright and actively swimming prior to release (see Fish Release section). 8. Electrofishing shall not occur when turbidity reduces visibility to less than 0.5 meters and shall not occur when water temperature is above l 8°C or below 4°C. 9. If the water conductivity exceeds 350 µSiem electrofishing shall not occur. • Pumps used to temporarily bypass water around work sites shall be fitted with mesh screens to prevent aquatic life from entering the intake hose of the pump. The screen shall be installed as a precautionary measure to protect any fish and other wildlife, which may have been missed in the isolation and fish removal process. The screens will also prevent aquatic life from entering the intake hose if a block net should fail. Screens shall be placed approximately 2-4 feet from the end of the intake hose to assure fish are not pinned upon the screen. Screening techniques must be in compliance with Washington State Laws RCW 77.16.220, RCW 77.55.040 and RCW 77.55.070. • All fish shall be removed from stream crossing structures within the isolated stream reach. Connecting rod snakes may be used to help move fish out of the structure. The connecting rod snake is made of wood sections approximately three feet in length. When dewatering is to occur a seine may be placed at the downstream end of the crossing structure. As the water level goes down fish inside the culvert, in theory, will evacuate downstream into the seine that is in place at the outlet. The snake may be wiggled slowly through the pipe to encourage evacuation of fish out of the culvert. Other previously listed capture techniques shall be employed if required. 4. Fish Release: For the period between capture and release, all captured aquatic life shall be immediately put into dark colored containers filled with clean stream water. Fish removal personnel shall provide: a healthy environment for the stressed fish; minimum holding periods; and low fish densities in holding containers to avoid effects of overcrowding. Large fish shall be kept separate from smaller prey-sized fish to avoid predation during containment. Water-to-water transfers shall occur whenever possible and the use of sanctuary nets are encouraged. Frequent monitoring of holding container temperature and well being of the specimens will be done to assure that all specimens will be released unharmed. Potential shade areas for fish holding periods and supplemental oxygen shall be considered in designing fish handling operations. Captured aquatic life will be released in an appropriate area, designated by the directing biologist, that provides cover and flow refuge. The release site(s) will be determined by the directing biologist and may be based on specific site characteristics (flow and cover) and type of fish captured ( out migrating smolt, kelt, prespawn migrating adult, etc). More than one site may be designated to provide for the varying migrational needs and to separate prey size fish from larger fish. The directing biologist shall consider fish migration requirements, size classes of fish and duration of work area isolation when designing fish release plans. Each fish shall be capable of remaining upright and have the ability to actively swim upon release. One person shall be designated to transport specimens in a timely manner to the site selected for release. All ESA-listed dead fish shall be preserved and delivered to the pertinent regulatory agency. All work area isolation, fish removal and fish release activity shall be thoroughly documented. Specifically, any injuries or mortalities to ESA-listed or proposed species shall be provided to National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA fisheries) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), depending on which agency has jurisdiction over that species. In-Water Work Fish Removal Monitoring Report Start Date: End Date: Waterway: County: Construction Activities: Number of fish observed: Number ofsalmonidjuveniles observed (include species): Number of salmonid adults observed (include species): What were fish observed doing prior to construction: What did the fish do during and after construction: Number offish stranded as a result of this activity: How long were the fish stranded before they were captured and released to flowing water: Number of fish that were killed during this activity (include species): Send Report to: National Marine Fisheries Service Washington State Habitat Branch Attn: Transportation Team 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 103 Lacey, WA 98503 Appendix B Species List from the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Page 1 of3 LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN LISTED IN WESTERN WASHING TON AS PREPARED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WESTERN WASIDNGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised October 8, 2004) KING COUNTY Wintering bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occur in the county. Wintering activities occur from October 31 through March 31. There are five bald eagle communal winter night roosts located in the county. There are two bald eagle wintering concentrations located in the county along the Skykomish-Beckler- Tye Rivers and Foss River. There are 38 bald eagle nesting territories located in the county. Nesting activities occur from about January 1 through August 15. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) occur in the county. Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) may occur in the county. Gray wolves (Canis lupus) may occur in the county. Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos = U. a. horribilis) may occur in the county. Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) occur in the county. Nesting murrelets occur from April I through September 15. Northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) occur in the county throughout the year. Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed species include: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. 2. Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from project activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise levels, increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat) that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. Arenaria paludicola (marsh sandwort) may occur in the county. http ://western washington. fws .gov /se/SE .. Lis I/KING. htm 6/15/2005 Page 2 of3 Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush) may occur in the county. Major concerns that should be addressed in a Biological Assessment of listed plant species include: I. Distribution oftaxon in project vicinity. 2. Disturbance (trampling, uprooting, collecting, etc.) of individual plants and loss of habitat. 3. Changes in hydrology where tax on is found. DESIGNATED Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl has been designated in King County. Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet has been designated in King County. PROPOSED Critical habitat for the bull trout (Coastal-Puget Sound distinct population segment) has been proposed in King County. CANDIDATE Fisher (Martes pennanti) (West Ccast distinct population segment) Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) SPECIES OF CONCERN Belier's ground beetle (Agonum be/leri) California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchi) Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Northern goshawk (Accipiter genti/is) Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Northwestern pond turtle (Emys (= Clemmys) marmorata marmorata) Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) http ://western wash ington.f\vs. gov /se/SE _List/KING .htm 6/15/2005 Tailed frog (Ascaphus true,) Valley silverspot (butterfly) (Speyeria zerene bremeri) Western toad (Bufo boreas) Aster cur/us (white-top aster) Botrychium pedunculosum (stalked moonwort) Cimicifi1ga elata (tall bugbane) http://westemwashington.fws.gov/se/SE_List/KING.htm Page 3 of3 6/15/2005 Salmonid Speci_~ Sodr.eYJ! $ahmm ( 011cr,1'ff)',1dws m1rka) Chim121!. Salmori (0. 1shawy1scha) : Coho Salmon (0. l:1$lltch) Chum Salmon (0. kel<l) -(0. mykis.r) rink Salmon (0. gorbNJcha) Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead LO II " 13 " " 16 17 18 19 20 ll 22 " 24 25 " 27 SMke Rive-r ESU ()z,:cre l oke ESU Bn~cr River ESU Obm"'P" Rh·cr ESU Lake ,velllllCh'-'.~ ESU Quinnll Lr.1ki: ESU Lnke Ple:is.1n1 Sacmmemo Ril·er Wi11rcr-run ESU 1/ppcr Columbia River Spring-nm ESU S11ako; River SrninglS,mungr-nm ESU Sn.1kr Bivs:r F;J!l-nm ESlJ pugct Sound ESU Lower (olumlfr1 ~i,·cr ESI I )Jppcr Willamcnc River £SI J c~'Tilru[ V~llcy Spring-nm ESll C-1lifnmia Coastal ESU ('Cfl!rnl Volley f,ill :111,l L;nc FalJ.mn ESU lipper Kbm~th-Trinily jl:ivc;,., ESL: On;oon Cu;,,;1 ESU \Vgshington Coa~l ESU .Middle ('olumbin River snring-n,n EStJ 1 ·PPl·r Cnl•1mhia River wmmc:rlfoll-nm ES\ I S0u1hem On;wn nnd Northern Calilbrnia Co.ism] Jilli 111 · Riv~ sm me / -llln ESU Centtill Oi!ifomiil Cmst fSI J S0u1hcm Qre0 on.'Nprlhem Cu]i(omia ESU Qrg.•001 Cuast ESI I ; 28 Lower(",1lumbia Ri,·cr ESU : 29 S0111hwcs1 Washn,gwn ESU 30 PuL>ct S0und'Sm1i1 o(Georpio ESU 31 i Olvrn ic P,:,1i1m1la ESU 32 Hood Conal Summer-n,n Pit! ll 34 " (o!L1mbia River ESU 1>111.<et Suund!Stmi1 or Georgia ESU ESU 36 South('m (alifumja FSl) 37 L 'pp<;r Colu,nbia River ES\/ 38 . Cemml C;iiifomin Coa . .i ESU 39 Suulh Cemrnl (nlifomia Clli!Sl ESU '4-0 41 " 4J .. 4S Snake River Qasin ESll lower Columbia River ESU C~lifornia Central Valley CSU Upm:r Wilhmcnc River ESU Middle Columbia Riv~ Northern California ESU 46 Qn;pon Coos[ ESU 47 .. 49 so SI Sl S2111lnvr&t Wil'ihi111•1on FS1 1 _Dlvmni•· Penins,110 FS!I Pugel Sound ESU Klammh Moumains Pmvince ESU E\'c11-veM d-~e"r Current Nur Warra11kd Not War1Ymted Neil Warrm1ted Not JYarrmllw NotWmnm1eJ Not Wrvr011ied Not /Y(ll•""'ted Not Wmn1111ed Nol IVarT,111/ed NDI Wwnmled ~; ii;'k"f$"'~Jc:;;;;1;~~;:, Nat Warramed Not WarTrmlinl Nol Wurnmted Nol Worromed Nol H'al'TW1ted Nol Wurnu,11!{} Nol Warromed ESA Listillg_Acripns , Under' RePiew ESA Listing Status ESA lillting Sialus; Critital Habitat Designalion ESA Listing Status ESA Listing S1atus; Critical Habilal Designation ESA Listing Slatus ESA Listin11 Status ESA Listing Status; Critical Habitat Dll:;.igrnition ESA Listing Status; Critical Habim Designation ESA Listing Status; Crilical Habit.at Desigootioo ESA Listing Status; Cri1ical Habitat Designation ESA listing Slatus; Critical Habitat Ocsignotion ESA Listing s1arus ESA Listing St'Jlllll ESA Listing Status; Critical Habitat Oe~ignation ESA Listing Statu3 ESA Listing S111tu3; Critical Habitat Designn1ion ESA Liscing S1arns: Cri1icsl Habital Desi11nmion ESA Listing Stnrus; Critical Habitat Designation ESA Listing Status; Critical Habitat Designation ESA Listing Status; Critical Habitat Designation ESA Listing Status; Critical Habitat DesigMtion ESA Listing Starns; Cri1ic.i .Habiun Designo1ioo ESA Lisllng Swrus; Critical HnbilDt Dcsigi1a1ioo ESA Li.$1ing S1aius; Cri1ica! Hnbi1111 Dcsignntion ESA Listing SU1rus; Critical Hnbita! Designation ESA Lming Swus; Critical Habi1.a1 Dcsignmion ESA Lisring Smms; Critical Habitat Designation ESA listing petition received and under review An Evo!111ionmrily Significant Unit, or "ESU". ill a dislinclive group or Pacific salmon or stec!head. NOAA Fisheries considers an ESU a "species" Wider the ESA See propnscd lis1ing dc1erminatio11s for 27 West Coast salmon nnd steel head ES Us ((,9 FR 1310?' hm,. 14 ~()(14]. mamrnmlist Fisheries N ortllwest 1.legi~_n Table 2. Endangered and Threatened Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles Under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) That May Occur off Washington and Oregon MARINE MAMMALS: Humpback Whale Blue Whale Fin Whale Sei Whale Sperm Whale Steller Sea Lion MARINE TURTLES: Leatherback Sea Turtle Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E) Megaptera novaeangliae (E) Balaenoptera musculus (E) Balaenoptera physalus (E) Balaenoptera borealis (E) Physeter macrocephalus (T) Eumetopias jubatus (E) Dermochelys coriacea (T) Caretta caretta Endangered and Threatened Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles Under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) That May Occur in The Puget Sound MARINE MAMMALS: Humpback Whales Steller Sea Lion MARINE TURTLES: Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) Megaptera novaeangliae (T) Eumetopias jubatus (E) Dermochelys coriacea http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/mmammals/whales/nonkw/mannamlist.html Page I of I 6/15/2005 Appendix C Biology of Listed Species 1. Biology of Listed Species 1.1 Terrestrial Species 1.1.1 Species 1 Name of Species: Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) or Distinct Population Segment (DPS), if applicable: NIA 1.1.1.1 Habitat Requirements and Ecology Nesting Nesting occurs from January I to August 15 (USFWS 1986). Abundant food is critical during nesting because young bald eagles are less tolerant to food deprivation than adults. Bald eagle nests are frequently associated with water, such as the Puget Sound, and most often occur close to shorelines. The Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1986) recommends limiting construction activities near bald eagle nests during critical wintering and nesting periods. The plan recommends construction and disturbance setbacks of 400 meters (1,313 feet) if the nest does not have a line of sight to the proposed construction activity, or 800 meters (2,625 feet) if the nest is within line of sight of construction. The nearest eagle nest is approximately 2.1 miles from the Project area and 1.6 miles from the 0.5 mile action area boundary. The eagle's territory extends no closer than 1.8 miles to the Project area. Foraging Foraging habitat for bald eagles is typically associated with water features such as rivers, lakes, and coastal shorelines where fish, waterfowl, and seabirds are preyed upon. Bald eagle foraging is opportunistic and they feed on dead or weakened prey. Their diets include fish such as salmon, catfish, pollock, cod, rockfish, carp, dogfish, sculpin, and hake. They also feed on marine birds and their offspring, and small terrestrial mammals. They prefer high structures for perching such as trees along the shoreline, but will also use other structures such as cliffs, pilings, and open ground. They are usually seen foraging in open areas with wide views (Stalmaster and Newman 1979). The Lake Washington shoreline, especially on Mercer Island across the water from the Project area, provides good foraging habitat. Piling in the lake, both abandoned and part of actively used structures, furnish above-water perches in many places along the shoreline. The developed area close to the highway is of lower quality, supporting few prey mammals and lacking in suitable perching viewpoints. Perching Perch sites may be used for activities including hunting, prey consumption, signaling territory occupation, and resting. Perches are most often associated with food sources near water and will have visual access to adjacent habitats (Stalmaster and Newman 1979). Bald eagles will often choose the highest tree on the edge of a stand, selecting the strongest lateral branches. Migrating eagles could fly over the site, but are unlikely to forage or perch there due to the lack of suitable perching trees and the limited prey availability. Wintering Wintering activities for bald eagles occur from October 31 through March 31. During the winter months, bald eagles forage, construct nests, and engage in courtship activities. There may also be bald eagles from outside the region that forage along the coastline of Puget Sound in the winter. Winter is a high-stress period for bald eagles because food is scarce and adverse weather requires the birds to expend more energy to survive. There is no known bald eagle wintering habitat in the Project action area. The nearest eagle territory does not extend to the Project action area boundary. 1.2 Aquatic Species 1.2.1 Species 2 Name of Species: Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 1.2.1.1 Habitat Requirements and Ecology/Designated Critical Habitat Habitat requirements for Chinook salmon are listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in terms of primary constituent elements (PCEs). PCEs include sites that are essential to supporting one or more life stages of the ESU and which contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the ESU. Specific sites and features designated for Puget Sound Chinook salmon include the following: I. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning incubation and larval development. 2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth, and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. 3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. 4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels; and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. 5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels. 6. Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes supporting growth and maturation. Puget Sound Chinook salmon are anadromous ( spawning in freshwater and migrating to marine waters to mature) and semelparous (spawning once, then dying). Adult females spawn in gravel beds (called redds) with suitable gravel size, water depth, and velocity. The female guards the redd for 4 to 25 days before dying (NOAA Fisheries 2004). Chinook salmon exhibit great variability with respect to the duration and types of habitats used for rearing. Juveniles can spend several days to a year in freshwater prior to migrating to the estuary (Healey 1991). This variability can occur within a single stock, but more typically, stocks are classified as "ocean type" or "stream type." Ocean type salmon stay in freshwater only briefly (from a few days to several months) and spend a greater amount of time feeding in estuaries than spring type Chinook salmon. Stream type salmon can spend 1 to 2 years in freshwater as juveniles, and migrate rapidly to marine waters. Ocean type salmon are more common in Puget Sound. Chinook salmon generally require habitat diversity within a single stream for their spawning, rearing, and foraging activities. They also require cover for protection from predators. Riprap revetments provide the least suitable habitat for Chinook salmon (ISPG 2002). In small streams, undercut banks with slower water velocities are often used for rearing habitat. In larger rivers, nearshore areas of lower water velocity, such as scour pools associated with logs and roots, serve as rearing habitat. Foraging is done in faster waters, but access to lower-velocity areas, such as eddies behind boulders, are important "holding" areas where the salmon can expend less energy while waiting for prey to appear in the faster water (ISPG 2002). Salmonids are closely associated with woody debris, which offers cover from predators (ISPG 2002. Chinook salmon use the Green and Cedar rivers and Springbrook Creek, for spawning, rearing, migration, and foraging. Chinook salmon also likely use Gilliam and Panther creeks for rearing and foraging. 1.2.2 Species 3 Name of Species: Bull trout (Salve Ii nus conjluentus) 1.2.2.1 Habitat Requirements and Ecology Habitat requirements for bull trout are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in terms of functions and PCEs. Bull trout require the following habitat functions: I. Spawning, rearing, foraging, or over-wintering habitat to support essential existing local populations. 2. Movement corridors necessary for maintaining essential migratory life history forms. 3. Suitable habitat that is considered essential for recovering existing local populations that have declined or that need to be re-established to achieve recovery. These functions are provided by areas containing these PCEs: I. Water temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 °F (2 to 15 °C), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence. 2. Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and in-stream structures. 3. Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fine substrate less than 0.25 inch (0.63 centimeter) in diameter and minimal substrate embeddedness are characteristic of these conditions. 4. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or, if regulated, a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations by minimizing daily and day-to-day fluctuations and minimizing departures from the natural cycle of flow levels corresponding with seasonal variation. 5. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity to contribute to water quality and quantity. 6. Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows. 7. An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. 8. Few or no nonnative predatory, interbreeding, or competitive species present. 9. Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction, growth and survival are not inhibited. Very few of these PCEs occur in the action area. Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. The anadromous type inhabits upper tributary streams and lake and reservoir systems. Bull trout feed on terrestrial and aquatic insects, and as they grow in size, their diets include whitefish, sculpins, and other trout. Bull trout spawn from August through November when they reach maturity, between 4 and 7 years and when temperatures begin to drop, in cold, clear streams. Bull trout can spawn repeatedly, and can live over 20 years. Adults and juveniles return to the marine environment between May and early July. Resident forms of bull trout spend their entire lives in freshwater, while anadromous forms live in tributary streams for two or three years before migrating to estuaries as smolts. Char species are generally longer-lived than salmon; bull trout up to 12 years old have been identified in Washington (Brown 1992). Bull trout habitat requirements are similar to those of Chinook and coho salmon, but they need slightly colder water temperatures for successful spawning (ISPG 2002). Adult bull trout are the only life history stage likely to occur in the action area. The Lake Washington system has been identified as containing important foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat necessary for bull trout recovery, but no known bull trout spawning occurs in Lake Washington and the bull trout found there are likely from the Snohomish-Skykomish and Stillaguamish river systems (69 Fed Reg 35795). 1.3 References Brown, L. G. 1992. Draft management guide for the bull trout Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley) on the Wenatchee National Forest. Washington Department of Wildlife, Wenatchee, Washington. 75 pp. Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history ofchinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311-393 in C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds) Pacific Salmon Life Histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (ISPG). 2002. Washington State Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Program. A joint program comprising Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Dept. of Ecology, and Washington State Dept. of Transportation. NOAA Fisheries. 2004. Office of Protected Resources. Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/fish/Chinook_salmon.html Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1979. Perch-site preferences of wintering bald eagles in northwest Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43 :221-224. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific bald eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 160 pp. Appendix D Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 1. Essential Fish Habitat 1.1 Background Public Law 104-297, the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, amended the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to establish new requirements for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) descriptions in federal fishery management plans and to require federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on activities that may adversely affect EFH. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires all fishery management councils to amend their fishery management plans to describe and identify EFH for each managed fishery. The Pacific Fishery Management Council ( 1999) has issued such an amendment in the form of Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan, and this amendment covers EFH for the Pacific salmon (Chinook salmon, coho salmon and pink salmon) under NMFS jurisdiction that will potentially be affected by the Project. EFH for Pacific salmon in freshwater includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other currently viable bodies of freshwater and the substrates within those waterbodies accessible to Pacific salmon. Activities occurring above impassable barriers that are likely to adversely affect EFH below impassable barriers are subject to the consultation provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species includes all waters from the mean high water line along the coasts of Washington upstream to the extent of saltwater intrusion and seaward to the boundary of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (370.4 km.) (PFMC 1998a and 1998b). Designated EFH for salmonid species in estuarine and marine areas includes nearshore and tidally submerged environments within state territorial water out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone (370.4 km.) offshore of Washington (PFMC 1999). The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires consultation for all federal agency actions that may adversely affect EFH. EFH consultation with NMFS is required by federal agencies undertaking, permitting, or funding activities that may adversely affect EFH, regardless of its location. Under Section 305(b )( 4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is required to provide EFH conservation and enhancement recommendations to federal and state agencies for actions that adversely affect EFH. Wherever possible, NMFS utilizes existing interagency coordination processes to fulfill EFH consultations with federal agencies. For the proposed action, this goal is being met by incorporating EFH consultation to the ESA Section 7 consultation, as represented by this BA. EFH in the action area includes Gilliam Creek, the Green River, Springbrook Creek, Panther Creek, and the Cedar River. Coho and Chinook salmon are known or presumed to use all of these waterbodies, and pink salmon are only known to use the Green River. Of these waterbodies, only Springbrook Creek and the west fork of Panther Creek will sustain in-stream impacts below the OH WM. An existing stormwater outfall to Gilliam Creek will be used to convey stonnwater from the Project; however, no new construction will occur below the OHWM of Gilliam Creek. There is no direct stream connection from the main channel of Panther Creek to the area where in-water work will occur, as the west fork of Panther Creek downstream of this area enters a wetland dominated by reed canary grass with no distinct stream channel. In site visits conducted during the winter and spring of 2005, little to no surface water was present within this wetland (Koellmann and Patterson 2005) and, under existing conditions, this wetland area acts as a natural barrier to fish movement into the west fork of Panther Creek. Therefore, the west fork of Panther Creek where work will occur is not EFH. In-water work will occur in Springbrook Creek as a result of the Project. This work will consist of installation of nine piles and an approximately 256 square foot riprap outfall, and removal of three existing piles and an existing five-cell box culvert through which the main channel of Springbrook Creek flows. Upon removal of the box culvert, the stream channel will be regraded to match the existing channel up and downstream of the existing culvert. As a result of these activities, the overall amount ofEFH in Springbrook Creek will be increased. BMPs will be implemented to minimize impacts from Project construction. In addition, the Design-Builder will be required to adhere to WDSDOT standard specifications and performance standards that will further minimize impacts from Project construction. In accordance with the actions listed above, the Project will have No Adverse Effect on pink, coho, or Chinook salmon EFH. 1.2 References Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). 1998a. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8. PFMC. 1998b. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. PFMC. 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast salmon plan, Appendix A: Identification and description of Essential Fish Habitat, adverse impacts, and recommended conservation measures for salmon. Available: <http://www.psmfc.org/efh.html>. Accessed: June 18, 2002. Pacific Fishery Management Council. Portland, OR. Appendix E Environmental Baseline for Aquatic Habitats 1. Environmental Baseline for Aquatic Habitats The Project is located in the Lower Cedar River Subarea of the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (Water Resource Inventory Area [WRIA] 8) and the Lower Green River Subwatershed of the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9). The tributaries of Lake Washington are among some of the most altered hydrological streams in the Puget Sound Region. They are typically low gradient streams, have their origins in rain-on-rain elevations, and exist in heavily urbanized settings and are subjected to the adverse habitat impacts that accompany these settings. These drainage basins generally have high levels of impervious surfaces, altered hydro logic regimes, loss of floodplain connectivity, poor riparian conditions, and water quality problems. Upstream habitat conditions show some improvement but still do not meet many of the criteria necessary for properly functioning habitats important for salmonid survival (Kerwin 2001 ). The reach of the lower Cedar River within the action area is entirely artificial, is completely constrained between levees and revetments, and was regularly dredged to prevent flooding from its completion in 1912 until the mid-1970s. Portions of this reach were again dredged in 1999, for the first time since the mid-1970s. This reach is essentially one long riffle with little habitat complexity. Urban and residential uses along this reach contribute to local water quality problems, eliminate natural floodplain connections, prevent the establishment of a riparian buffer, and eliminate the opportunity for significant large woody debris (L WD) accumulations in the channel. This reach is where much of the river's sediment deposits and, as a result, the substrate tends to have higher levels of fine sediment than upstream substrates. Despite its limitations, this reach of river serves as a migration route for many salmonid fishes and is used for extensive spawning and limited rearing by sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka), Chinook (0. tshawytscha), and coho (0. kisutch) salmon; steelhead (0. mykiss) and cutthroat trout (0. c/arki); as well as long fin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). In general, the rivers and streams in the Renton Nickel Improvement Project (the Project) action area have been highly altered from their natural states to accommodate residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. This alteration has included bank hardening, such as installing riprap and placing streams in concrete channels, reducing or removing streamside vegetation, straightening stream channels, and removing in-stream habitat. These alterations have also resulted in loss of the historic floodplains associated with most of these waterbodies. Significant changes have also occurred in the vegetation surrounding these waterbodies. What was once predominantly mature native vegetation has been replaced by a mix of immature native vegetation and non-native invasive plant species. 1.1 Water Quality 1.1.1 Water Temperature: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Temperature conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed are not properly functioning per the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmonids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Matrix of Diagnostics!Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. The Green River and Springbrook Creek are is currently on the Ecology 303(d) list for exceeding allowable water quality criteria for temperature. Temperature information is not available for the remaining streams in the Project area. Temperature characterization information has been identified as a data gap in the Lower Cedar River Subarea. The project will: D Improve k2'J Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Overall impervious surfacing in the impacted watersheds will increase by 15 .3 acres as a result of the Project. Stormwater facilities will be constructed to collect stormwater from an area equal to all new impervious surfaces resulting from the Project. As a result of the increased impervious surfacing, stormwater inputs into selected waterbodies in the Project area during peak summer temperatures are anticipated to marginally increase water temperatures near the new stormwater outfalls associated with the Project; however, storm events during peak temperatures are anticipated to be rare. 1.1.2 Sediment/Turbidity: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Sediment/turbidity conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed are not properly functioning per the NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmonids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix ofDiagnostics!Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. Sediment/turbidity information has been identified as a data gap in the Lower Cedar River Subarea. Turbidity and TSS are possible factors of decline in terms of water column impacts. No data were available for the duration of exposure, so it is difficult to determine the extent to which TSS is of concern (Kerwin 200 I). The project will: D Improve k2'J Maintain D Degrade, or k2'J Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Temporary increases in turbidity can result from construction-related activities, but a TESC and associated erosion control BMPs will be designed and implemented to minimize these impacts. Stormwater facilities constructed for the Project will also reduce sediment levels through enhanced stormwater treatment. 1.1.3 Chemical Contamination/Nutrients: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Chemical contamination/nutrients conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed are not properly functioning per the NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmonids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. The Green River is currently on Ecology's 303( d) list for exceeding allowable water quality criteria for chromium and mercury. Springbrook Creek is currently on Ecology's 303(d) list for exceeding allowable water quality criteria for cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, and zinc. The majority of the ambient metals data in the Cedar River Subarea were collected as part of the stormwater monitoring program; therefore, baseflow metals concentrations are generally unknown (Kerwin 2001). The project will: D Improve ~ Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Stormwater discharges to the streams and rivers of the action area will comply with water quality regulations in accordance with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highway Runoff Manual (HRM; WSDOT 2004). New storm drainage systems related to the Project will collect runnoff from an area equal to all new impervious surfacing created by the Project. Runoff from this area will be treated for enhanced water quality before being discharged into streams or rivers. Enhanced treatment goes beyond the basic water quality goals for suspended solids removal by targeting dissolved pollutants such as copper and zinc that could be included in the highway runoff. The enhanced treatment will result in fewer contaminants entering the waterbodies in the Project area. 1.2 Habitat Access 1.2.1 Physical Barriers: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Physical barrier conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea are not properly functioning per the NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmonids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. In the action area, existing barriers to fish passage associated with development and flood control activities are common (Koellmann and Patterson 2005). Two new longer span bridge structures will be constructed over Springbrook Creek; however, neither the new bridge nor the existing five- cell box culvert acts as a barrier to fish passage. The project will: D Improve ISi Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Physical barrier conditions are not anticipated to significantly change at either the watershed or scale as a result of the Project. Physical barrier conditions at the Project action area scale will improve as a result of removing the Springbrook Creek box culvert and replacing it with two new bridges. 1.3 Habitat Elements 1.3.1 Substrate: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Substrate conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea are not properly functioning per the NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmonids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. In the Lower Green River Subwatershed, channelization and confinement of the channel between levees prevent high flows from accessing the floodplains, reducing groundwater recharge. Narrow, deeper channels have higher water velocity and bed shear stress, thus even small flood events may scour streambed materials (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). The Howard Hansen Dam on the Green River effectively prevents delivery of coarse sediment from the upper basin to downstream reaches, although suspended sediment continues to be carried past the darn (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). The majority of the existing mainstem Cedar River habitat has been disconnected from historic floodplains through the construction of revetments. This, in turn, results in a loss of channel habitat complexity and a reduction in the supply and stability of spawning gravels (Kerwin 2001 ). The project will: D Improve [2J Maintain D Degrade, or [2J Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: WSDOT will provide flow control for runoff from new impervious area to address changes in stormwater discharge to fish bearing streams. Storm water flow control facilities will be designed in accordance with the WSDOT HRM (2004 ). Existing stormwater facilities for I-405 in the action area are limited. Most stormwater from I-405 in the action area is not treated before it is discharged into the streams or ditches in the Project area. New storm drainage systems will collect and treat runoff from an area equal to all new impervious surfacing created by the Project. Stormwater treatment will include treatment for suspended solids that will reduce fine sediment inputs into the waterbodies of the Project area. 1.3.2 Large Woody Debris: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: L WD conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea are not properly .functioning per the NMF S Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmonids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. Ninety seven percent of the riparian zone in the lower Green River is considered to have poor L WD recruitment potential and microclimate conditions because native vegetation communities have largely been converted to grass or shrubs, and because development often extends to within 75 feet of the channel. None of the riparian zone along the lower Green River is considered to have good L WD recruitment potential (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). L WD recruitment is currently rated poor along almost I 00 percent of the lower Cedar River, and land use practices generally preclude active recruitment. Large amounts ofL WD are removed at Landsburg Dam due to liability concerns (Kerwin 2001). Stream surveys conducted for the Project found the streams and rivers in the action area to be lacking in L WD. The project will: [2J Improve D Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: No impacts to L WD are anticipated in any waterbody with listed species. 1.3.3 Pool Frequency: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Pool frequency conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea are not properly .functioning per the NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmonids and .functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. In the Lower Green River Subwatershed, increased fine sediment delivery from upstream reaches and urbanized tributaries is filling pools and substrate interstitial spaces, thereby reducing the amount and quality of habitat available for rearing juvenile salmonids (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). The majority of the existing mainstem Cedar River habitat has been disconnected from historic floodplains through the construction of revetments. This, in turn, results in a loss of channel habitat complexity and a reduction in the supply and stability of spawning gravels (Kerwin 2001 ). The project will: D Improve ~ Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: No changes to pool frequency will occur in any waterbodies with listed species. 1.3.4 Pool Quality: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Pool quality conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea are not properly .functioning per the NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmonids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. In the Lower Green River Subwatershed, increased fine sediment delivery from upstream reaches and urbanized tributaries is filling pools and substrate interstitial spaces, thereby reducing the amount and quality of habitat available for rearing juvenile salmonids (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). The majority of the existing mainstem Cedar River habitat has been disconnected from historic floodplains through the construction of revetments. This, in tum, results in a loss of channel habitat complexity and a reduction in the supply and stability of spawning gravels (Kerwin 2001 ). The project will: D Improve ~ Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: No changes to pool quality will occur in any waterbodies with listed species. 1.3.5 Off-Channel Habitat: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Off-channel habitat conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea are not properly functioning per the NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmonids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. In the Lower Green River Subwatershed, alterations in the natural flow regime during Howard Hansen Dam refill operations may adversely impact spring spawning and incubation success by disconnecting off-channel habitats. Channelization and confinement of the channel between levees prevents high flows from accessing the floodplains, reducing groundwater recharge. Narrow, deeper channels have higher water velocity and bed shear stress, thus, even small flood events may scour bed materials. At the same time, simplification of the channel, including elimination of access to off-channel areas, reduces the availability of high flow refugia used by salmonids to escape the high velocity flows and the stability of spawning gravel (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). The majority of the existing mainstem Cedar River habitat has been disconnected from historic floodplains through the construction of revetments. This, in tum, results in a loss of channel habitat complexity and a reduction in the supply and stability of spawning gravels (Kerwin 2001). The amount of available fish habitat in the lower mainstem Cedar River has been reduced by approximately 56 percent due primarily to water diversion and flood control activities. The loss of off-channel rearing habitat is particularly severe for juvenile chinook. Historically, this habitat would have been utilized by juvenile Chinook salmon for rearing which, in tum, would have resulted in a larger and later timing out-migrant from the Cedar River. Because of the loss of this habitat, this life history trajectory has been reduced. This loss of habitat forces juvenile Chinook salmon to migrate as very young fry into Lake Washington, a life history trajectory which may not favor their survival (Kerwin 2001). The project will: D Improve [g] Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Off-channel habitat conditions are not anticipated to significantly change at either the watershed or Project action area scale as a result of the Project. 1.3.6 Refugia: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Refugia conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea are not properly functioning per the NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmonids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. Adequate refugia is lacking in both watersheds: L WD, pool frequency, and off-channel habitat conditions are all not properly functioning. Existing refugia is fragmented and insufficient in size to maintain viable populations. The project will: D Improve ~ Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: No changes to refugia will occur in waterbodies with listed species. 1.4 Channel Conditions and Dynamics 1.4.1 Width/Depth Ratio: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Per information collected in the stream surveys for the Project, width/depth ration conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea are not properly functioning per the NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmonids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. Width/depth ratio conditions at the watershed level are not well documented, and little information was found in this regard. The project will: D Improve ~ Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Width/depth ratio conditions are not anticipated to significantly change at either the watershed or project action area scale as a result of the Project. 1.4.2 Streambank Condition: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Streambank conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea are not properly functioning per the NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmon ids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. While there are some areas of riparian vegetation that have a width and vegetation type sufficient to maintain good bank stability, over 80 percent of the banks in the Lower Green River are comprised of levees or revetments. These structures artificially maintain bank stability and prevent erosion (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Streambank conditions in the Lower Cedar River Subarea are not well documented, and little information was found in this regard. The project will: D Improve ~ Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Streambank conditions are not anticipated to significantly change at either the watershed or Project action area scale as a result of the Project. Existing streambank armoring will remain in place throughout the Project area and overall watershed. 1.4.3 Floodplain Connectivity: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Floodplain connectivity conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea are not properly functioning per the NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmonids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. In the Lower Green River Subwatershed, 6 miles of floodplain channel type and 14 miles of palustrine channel type have been channelized. Both palustrine and floodplain channel types typically have complex planforms and dissipate flood energy by overbank flows. Consequently, channelization has presumably resulted in the loss of almost all mainstem winter rearing habitat and a reduction in the quality of summer rearing and adult holding habitat in these segments (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Virtually all of the former palustrine channel between RM 11 and RM 25 is currently confined between levees and/or revetments (Fuerstenberg et al 1996). The majority of the existing mainstem Cedar River habitat has been disconnected from historic floodplains through the construction of revetments (Kerwin 2001). The project will: D Improve C2] Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Floodplain connectivity conditions are not anticipated to significantly change at either the watershed or Project action area scale as a result of this Project. 1.5 Flow/Hydrology 1.5.1 Road Density and Location: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Road density and location conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea are not properly fimctioning per the NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmonids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. Road densities in both watersheds are greater than 3 miles per square mile, with many roads on the valley floor. The project will: D Improve D Maintain [21 Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Construction of the Project will result in an a net increase of 15.3 acres of impervious surfacing in the impacted watersheds. 1.5.2 Disturbance History: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Disturbance history conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea are not properly functioning per the NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmonids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. Both watersheds are highly urban in nature and have a long history of disturbance. The project will: D Improve C8J Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Disturbance conditions are not anticipated to significantly change at either the watershed or Project action area scale as a result of the Project. The areas that will be impacted by the Project are already in a highly-disturbed state. 1.5.3 Riparian Reserves: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Riparian reserve conditions in the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea are not properly functioning per the NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for salmon ids and functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. Cumulatively, there is less than 1 mile of intact riparian zone comprised of medium to large mixed deciduous and coniferous trees along the lower mainstem Green River. Approximately 18 percent (12.4 miles) of the riparian zone in the Lower Green River sub-watershed supports native deciduous trees. However, in most cases, deciduous stands are narrow (less than 100 feet) or comprised of small, sparse trees mixed with patches of grass, pavement, or bare ground. Almost 50 percent of the riparian zone is comprised offorbs and grass, or shrubs, many of which are non- native (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Riparian vegetation is severely lacking within this reach of the Cedar River. In many areas along the Cedar River, development is present to the edge of the dike system. In those places, virtually no riparian vegetation is present. Where development is set back from the Cedar River, vegetation consists primarily of non-native invasive plant species including Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and Scot's broom, though some native deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs are infrequently found along the banks. The project will: D Improve [g] Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Riparian reserve conditions are not anticipated to significantly change at either the watershed or Project action area scale as a result of the Project. The areas that will be impacted by the Project are already in a highly-disturbed state. 1.6 Pathways and Indicators Specific to Bull Trout Only 1.6.1 Subpopulation Characteristics within Subpopulation Watershed 1.6.1.1 Subpopulation Size Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: There are no distinct bull trout subpopulations associated with the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea, although a portion of the action area falls within the Lake Washington foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat (USFWS 2004). Lake Washington foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat consists of the lower Cedar River below Cedar Falls, the Sammamish River, Lakes Washington, Sammamish and Union, the Lake Washington Ship Canal, and all accessible tributaries (Mercer Slough and Kelsey Creek are included in this habitat area). Population status information, extent of use, and complete recovery value of this area is currently unknown (USFWS 2004). No spawning activity or juvenile rearing has been observed and no distinct spawning populations are known to exist in Lake Washington outside of the upper Cedar River above Lake Chester Morse. The potential for spawning in the Lake Washington basin is believed to be very low as a majority of accessible habitat is low elevation, below 152 meters (500 feet), and thus not expected to have the proper thermal regime to sustain successful spawning (USFWS 2004). Aside from spawning, the Lake Washington drainage has both potential benefits and challenges to adult and subadult bull trout. Two large lakes with high forage fish availability are dominant parts of the lower watershed, and provide significant foraging habitat. A number of observations of subadult and adult sized bull trout have been made in Lake Washington (USFWS 2004). The connection with the Chester Morse Lake core area (population located in the upper Cedar River) is one-way only, and currently the level of connectivity with other core areas is unknown. Observations of bull trout in the Ballard Locks suggest migrations from other watersheds is likely occurring (USFWS 2004). The project will: D Improve ~ Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator N/ A Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: The Project will have no effect on bull trout subpopulation size as there is no distinct bull trout subpopulation associated with the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea. 1.6.1.2 Growth and Survival Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: There are no distinct bull trout subpopulations associated with the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea. The project will: D Improve ~ Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator N/A Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: The Project will have no effect on bull trout growth and survival as there are no distinct bull trout subpopulations associated with the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea. 1.6.1.3 Life History Diversity and Isolation: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Life history diversity and isolation conditions are functioning at unacceptable risk per the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout. Migratory forms of bull trout are anticipated to use the Project area, but no bull trout subpopulations are close to the Project area. Habitat in the Project area has been disrupted and there are numerous fish passage barriers in the action area barrier to bull trout migrating through the waterbodies of the Project area. The project will: D Improve [z;I Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Life history diversity and isolation conditions are not anticipated to significantly change at either the watershed or Project action area scale as a result of the Project. 1.6.1.4 Persistence and Genetic Integrity: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: As mentioned above, there are no distinct bull trout subpopulations associated with the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea The project will: D Improve [z;I Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator N/ A Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: The Project will have no effect on persistence and genetic integrity as there are no distinct bull trout subpopulations associated with the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea. 1.6.1.5 Integration of Species and Habitat Conditions: Briefly describe the current condition of this indicator at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: There are no distinct bull trout subpopulations associated with the Lower Green River Subwatershed and the Lower Cedar River Subarea. High stream temperatures, low levels of dissolved oxygen, and highly disturbed in-water habitat in the waterbodies of the watershed likely limits bull trout use in this watershed. Stream water temperatures and the presence of pesticides may limit the natural production of salmonids. The project will: D Improve [z;i Maintain D Degrade, or D Temporarily degrade this indicator N/ A Briefly describe how, at both the watershed scale and the project action area scale: Integration of Species and Habitat Conditions are not anticipated to significantly change as a result of this project. 1.7 References Fuerstenberg, R.R., K. Nelson, and R. Blomquist. 1996. Ecological conditions and limitations to salmonid diversity in the Green River, Washington U.S.A. King County Surface Water Management, Bellevue, WA. Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar - Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA Kerwin, John and Nelson, Tom S. (Eds.). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of Natural Resources. Koellmann, Derek and Bryan Patterson. 2005. Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. Personal observations during 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Stream Surveys, April-June, 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal- Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I (of II): Puget Sound Management Unit. Portland, Oregon. 389 + xvii pp. WSDOT. 2004. Highway Runoff Manual M31-16. Olympia, WA. WSDOT Engineering and Regional Operations Division, Environmental and Engineering Programs, Headquarters Environmental Affairs and Hydraulics. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BASELINE REPORT 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RENTON ANO TUKWILA, WASHINGTON OCTOBER 14, 2005 FOR 1-405 PROJECT TEAM AND WSOOT File No. OJ8fJ...J73-00 October 14, 2005 1-405 Project Team 600 -I 08'h Avenue NE, Suite 405 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Anthony Stirbys, PE We are pleased to submit our report titled '·Geotechnical Baseline Report, 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project, Renton and Tukwila, Washington." Our services were completed in general accordance with those described in Work Order No. XL2068 of Agreement No. Y-8124, Task No. AB. Preliminary information, conclusions and recommendations were provided to the project team throughout the course of the project. We submitted a draft report for the project dated May 31, 2005 for review by the project team. The information presented in this report incorporates comments on our draft report and is consistent with that given previously. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services on this interesting project. We are available to meet with the project team to discuss the information presented in this report. Please call if you have any questions, or if you require additional information. Respectfully submitted, GeoEngineers, Inc. Daniel J. Campbell, PE Principal TB2:SDS:DJCja Redm:\00\finals\O 18017300R f doc Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table. and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Geotechnical Baseline Report 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project File No. 0180-173-00 Prepared for: 1-405 Project Team 600 -1081" Avenue NE, Suite 405 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Anthony Stirbys, PE Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 1541" Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 Timothy D. Bailey Geotechnical Engineer Shaun D. Stauffer, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer Daniel J. Campbell, PE Principal TB2:SDS:DJC:ja Rcdm:\00\finals\O 180 l 7300Rfdoc October 14, 2005 Copynghtt :::'.005 by GeoEngineers. Inc. All rights reserved Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of 1he original document (email, text table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document The original document 1~ stored hy Gt'oEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the oITicia! document of record. File No. 0/80-173-00 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................... . 1.1 GENERAL. ........................... . 1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 1.3 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................ . 1.4 PREVIOUS AND CURRENT STUDIES ............... . 2.0 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 2.1 GEOLOGIC SETIING. 2.2 PUBLISHED MAPS .... . 2.2.1 Geologic Maps ................................. . 2.2.2 Sensitive Area and Geologic Hazard Area Maps. 2.3 GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE ............................... . 2.3.1 General. ........ . 2.4 SEISMICITY .................... . 2.4.1 Introduction ........ . 2.4.2 Shallow Crustal Earthquakes ... 2.4.3 Benioff Source Zone Earthquakes ...... . 2.5.4 Subduction Zone Earthquakes ........ . 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................... . 3.1 EXISTING DATA .............. . Page No. ········ .... 1 ..... 1 ..... 1 . ....... 2 ......... 3 . .. 3 . ... 3 ..4 . .. .4 . ..... .4 . ..... 5 ........ 5 . ...... 6 ........ 6 . ...... 6 . ................ 7 . .................................. 7 . ......................... 7 . ... 7 3.1.1 Historical Explorations........ . ...................................... . .......................... 7 ················ .... 8 3.1.2 WSDOT 1-405 Team Borings Completed As Part Of This Study .. . 3.2 SOIUROCK UNITS AND ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS .................. . ..... 8 3.2.1 General... 3.2.2 Modified Land........... . ................................ . 3.2.3 Younger Alluvial Deposits ...... . 3.2.4 Wetland Deposits ........................................ . 3.2.5 Recessional Outwash Deposits .............................. . 3.2.6 Glacial Till and Undifferentiated Glacial Drift .......... . 3.2. 7 Intrusive Rocks (Bedrock) ............... . 3.2.8 Renton Formation (Bedrock) .................... . 3.2.9 Exceptions to Mapped Soil Unit Locations. 3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS. . ........ 8 . ..................................... 9 . ...... 9 . ................................................... 10 . ... 10 . ....... ······· ............... 11 .12 . ... 12 . ... 13 4.0 EXISTING STRUCTURES (AS-BUILT CONDITIONS) ALONG PROJECT CORRIDOR .. ..13 . ..... 16 5.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS ......... 16 5.1 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING ...................... . 5.1.1 Design Earthquake Parameters ........ . 5.1.2 Liquefaction Potential. .......................... . 5.1.3 Lateral Spreading .. 5.1.4 Mitigation of Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading ................... . 5. 1. 5 Ground Rupture ............................ . 5.1.6 Landsliding ............................................ . 5.2 BRIDGE FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS. 5.2.1 Specific Bridge Recommendations ........ . 5.2.2 Shallow Foundations. 5.2.3 Pile Foundations ............ . 5.2.4 Drilled Shafts .................. . 5.2.5 Bridge Approach Slabs ....................... . File No. 0180-173-00 October 14. 2005 Pagei . ..... 16 ...................... 16 . ....... 16 . ....... 18 ................................. 18 . ........ 19 . ... 19 . ..... 19 ...... 19 . .... 21 . .... 21 ....... 22 . ............... 23 GEOENGINEER~ TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 5.3 WALL RECOMMENDATIONS .. 5.3.1 General.. .................. . 5.3.2 General Wall Design and Construction Considerations 5.3.3 Walls Supporting Cuts .. . 5.3.4 Walls Supporting Fills ... . 5.3.5 Specific Retaining Walls .. 5.3.6 Bridge Structure Abutm·ent Walls 5.4 STORMWATER FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS 5.4.1 General. ...................... . 5.4.2 Design and Construction Considerations 5.4.3 Specific Facilities ........... . 5.5 SIGN, SIGN BRIDGE AND SIGNAL POLE FOUNDATIONS .. 5.6 EMBANKMENTS AND CUT SLOPES 5.6.1 General 5.6.2 Design and Construction Considerations 6.0 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS .... 70 LIMITATIONS ... 8.0 REFERENCES .. List of Tables Table 1. Renton Nickel Improvements .... Table 2. Groundwater Level Measurements Table 3. Summary of Preliminary Liquefaction Assessment of Bridges .. . Table 4. Bridge Design and Construction Considerations ....................... . Table 5. Retaining Wall Design and Construction Considerations ....... . Table 6. Estimated Long-Term Infiltration Rates for Stormwater Facilities List of Figures Figure 1. Project Location Map Figure 2. Index to Site Plans Figures 3A ... 3K. Site Plan Figure 4. Index to Alignment Geology and Critical Areas Maps Figures 5A ... 5C. Alignment Geology Figures 6A .. 6C. Sensitive Areas Figures 7 A .. 7C. Geologic Hazard Areas Figures 8A .. 8G. Bridge Profiles Figures 9A. .. 9M. Retaining Wall Profiles APPENDICES Appendix A -Field Explorations Completed For This Study Appendix B -Laboratory Testing Completed For This Study Appendix C -Existing Structures (As-Built Conditions) Along Project Corridor File No. 0180-173-00 Oclober 14, 2005 Page ii Page No. . ....................... 23 ...... .23 .. ..... 23 ...... .23 . ....... 24 . ......... .24 ... 27 ......... 27 . .............. 27 .... 27 .......................... 28 . ..... 30 ................... 30 .......................... 30 ............... 30 . .................. 31 ............... 32 . ............... 32 . ....... 1 ............ 14 . ..... 17 . .... 20 . .......... .25 ........................... 28 GeoENGINEER~ GEOTECHNICAL BASELINE REPORT 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RENTON AND TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR 1-405 PROJECT TEAM 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL This report presents the results of our geotechnical baseline evaluation for the 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement design-build project. The 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement project corridor extends from approximately the 1-5 interchange at Southcenter (milepost 0.0) to the SR 169 (Maple Valley Highway) interchange (milepost 4.0). The project corridor also extends along SR 167 from the 1-405 interchange (milepost 26.3) south to SE 180th Street (SW 43'd Street) (milepost 24.4). The project corridor is shown on the Project Location Plan, Figure 1. 1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING We understand the 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project includes the addition of a new northbound and southbound lane to 1-405 between 1-5 and SR 167 and between SR 167 and SR 169, and a new southbound lane to SR 167 between 1-405 and SE 1801h Street. The addition of the new lanes will require restriping, widening and/or replacement of seven bridges, installation of nineteen new retaining walls and associated embankments, and construction of water quality facilities including five ponds and eleven ecology embankments. We understand the Master Plan for the 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project will include the addition of two new northbound and two new southbound lanes to 1-405 between 1-5 and SR 169. This report focuses mainly on the Renton Nickel improvements which are presented in the following table. The improvements represent the most likely option of many options being examined by the 1-405 Project Team at the time this report was prepared. Structure Bridges 405111 (15) 405112 (16) 405113 (17) 405113G (18) 405113.5 (19) 405116 (22) 405117 (23) Retaining Walls 4100 4008 4115 4010 4111 4020 4130 4040A 40408 4140 4050 4110 File No. 0/80-/73-00 October 14, 2005 Table 1. Renton Nickel Improvements Location 1-405 over SR 181 -Restripe only. 1-405 over BNSF/UP RR -Restripe only. 1-405 over Springbrook Creek -New bridge. Culvert for Springbrook P-1 Channel New bridge. l-405 over Oakesdale Avenue -New bridge. 1-405 over Talbot Road -Widen existing bridge. Benson Road over 1-405 -New bridge. SB 1-405 near 64 1h Avenue NB 1-405 between Tukwila Parkway and 68 1h Avenue SB 1-405 near 661h/Christensen Road NB l-405 between BNSF/UP RR and Oakesdale Avenue SB 1-405 between BNSFIUP RR and Oakesdale Avenue NB 1-405 between Oakesdale Avenue and SR 167 , .... SB 1-405 between Oakesdale Avenue and Lind Avenue SB 1-405 between Talbot Road and SR 167 SB 1-405 west of Talbot Road NB 1-405 west ofTalbot Road SB 1-405 between Benson Road and Talbot Road SB Benson Road near 1-405 Pagel Approximate Stationing Begin Station End Station 1114+00 NB 1116+00 NB 1124+10NB 1131+75 NB 1145+15NB 1147+20 NB 1147+70 NB 1148+02 NB 1148+20 NB 1148+98 NB 1209+95 NB 1215+10 NB BRS 19+80 BRS 29+50 Begin Station End Station 1089+20 1091+75 1090+05 1105+25 1102+50 1105+25 1131+54 1145+40 1132+35 1144+95 1149+35 1175+00 1148+50 1165+80 1201+20 1205+45 1208+85 1210+30 1207+40 1209+65 1212+65 1214+50 BENSON 15+25 BENSON 19+75 GEOENGINEERSg Structure Location Approximate Stationing 4120 SB Benson Road BENSON 29+40 BENSON 39+00 --- 4150 NB 1-405 Between Benson Road and Thunder Hills 1213+10 1224+65 Creek. ----- 4060 SB 1-405 along Benson Road I Main Ave. S 1230+30 1244+55 4160 NB 1-405 along Renton Hills and connects to existing 1229+40 1238+50 Wall 4070 SB 1-405 near Cedar Avenue 1247+55 1248+85 4080 SB SR 167 along East Valley Road SR16711120+10 SR16711141+75 4090 SB SR 167 between SW 43'd Street and SW 23rd Street SR16711068+30 SR167 11120+35 Detention Facilities Approximate Station Storm Water Pond# MP 0.2 Infield of 1-5/1-405 Interchange 1070+50 - Storm Water Pond# MP 0.9 South of NB 1-405 offramp to SR 181 1110+00 Storm Water Pond# MP 1.9 South of NB 1-405, Near Seneca Ave SW 1165+60 - Storm Water Pond# MP 2.9 Between SB 1-405 and Benson Road 1219+00 ~-- Storm Water Pond # MP 25.2 Between SB SR 167 and East Valley Road SR16711097+70 Ecology Embankments Begin Station End Station EE # MP 0.3 Infield of 1-5/1-405 Interchange 1071+20 1076+40 EE # MP 0.9 South of NB 1-405 offramp to SR 181 1109+40 1112+40 - EE# MP1.5 South of Oakesdale 1145+00 1147+00 EE # MP 2.0 North of SB 1-405 along SW 13th ST between Seneca 1165+80 1171+70 Ave and Lind Ave ·----·· ------·-··"···-·-·-·-------. --..... EE# MP 2.9 Between SB 1-405 and Benson Road 1216+70 1224+70 EE # MP 2.8 Between SB 1-405 and Benson Road BENSON 28+30 BENSON 30+70 EE # MP 3.0 Between SB 1-405 and Benson Road BENSON 31+90 BENSON 34+80 --···--EE # MP 3-2 Between SB 1-405 and Benson Road BENSON 36+60 BENSON 39+10 -----~-·····-----·----- EE # MP 24_7 West of SB SR-167 SR 167 11072+40 SR16711074+90 -·-····----- EE # MP 24.9 West of SB SR-167 SR 167 11077 +00 SR16711088+80 EE # MP 25.4 West of SB SR-167 SR16711105+60 SR16711120+10 Notes: Stationing is referenced to 405 Line unless otherwise noted. NA Indicates information not available at the time this report was prepared. The proposed improvements are presented on the Site Plan, Figures 3A to 3K. An index to the site plan is provided on Figure 2. 1.3 SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our geotechnical services is to characterize the ex,stmg subsurface conditions and document the as-built conditions for the existing structures along the project corridor, with limited geotechnical analyses. Our specific scope of services is presented in Work Order No. XL2068 of Agreement No. Y-8124, Task No. AB. File f.io. 0180-/73~00 October 14. 2005 Page2 GeoENGINEERS _g 1.4 PREVIOUS AND CURRENT STUDIES Numerous geotechnical studies have been completed along the project corridor. The geotechnical studies, along with exploration logs, were provided to GeoEngineers by the 1-405 Project Team. The geotechnical studies reviewed by GeoEngineers are listed in Section 8.0 of this report. Elevation datum presented throughout this report are NA VD 88 unless otherwise noted. GeoEngineers is also currently completing a liquefaction study of the Renton Nickel Improvement Project bridges. The results of this study are being provided in a separate report. 2.0 GEOLOGY AND SE1SM1CITY 2.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING The project corridor is located within the central Puget lowland bordered by the Cascade mountains to the east and the Olympic mountains to the west. The Puget lowland is a north-south trending trough consisting of Holocene period deposits generally overlying a sequence of relatively unweathered glacial and interglacial sediments deposited during the ice ages of the Quaternary period. This region has experienced at least six glaciations in the past 2 million years. In the central Puget lowland, the most complete geologic record of the Quaternary period exists for the most recent glaciation, the Vashon stade of the Fraser glaciation. The advance and retreat of the Vashon age Puget glacial lobe, between roughly 18,000 to 13,000 years ago, deposited most of the near surface materials and sculpted most of the present landforms within the Puget lowland. The deposits of this glacial episode reflect a wide range of glacial depositional environments. As the glacier advanced southward, streams deposited sediment that formed a broad plain in front of the advancing glacier. Gravel size material was deposited close to the glacier, while silt and clay material was transported farther from the glacier. The advance deposits therefore grade from coarse to fine with increasing depth, with silts and clays (lake deposits) at the base, then coarse grained sand and gravel at the top. Lodgement till, consisting of a non-stratified, well-graded deposit of particle sizes ranging from clay to large boulders, was deposited directly from the glacier itself. The most conspicuous aspect of glacial till is its consolidation, the result of being overridden by the glacial ice. The maximum ice thickness was roughly 3,000 feet in the project vicinity. As the glacier retreated, the depositional sequence was repeated in the reverse order of the glacial advance, with first coarse grained gravel and sand, then fine grained silts and clays. The retreat was rapid relative to the advance of the glacier, and the recessional deposits are generally not as thick as the advance deposits. Following the Fraser glaciation, Holocene period sediments were deposited over the glacial soils. These deposits typically consist of alluvial soils in river valleys, beach and marine deposits along shorelines, and colluvial deposits (landslide materials) along slopes. Peat and other organic soils occur in numerous depressional areas at the surface. Some of these Holocene period sediments have been modified by human activity, including overexcavation and replacement beneath portions of the South Renton project corridor. Bedrock outcrops are present along the project corridor in two areas: I) along the north side of I-405 just west ofSR-181 and 2) along I-405 between about Benson Road and Cedar Avenue. In the Green River valley (between the two outcrop areas) the bedrock is located at depths greater than 100 feet below the existing ground surface (Yount et. al., 1985). File No. 0180-173-00 October 14, 2005 Page3 GEOENGINEERS,g 2.2 PUBLISHED MAPS 2.2.1 Geologic Maps Published geologic information for the project vicinity includes United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps for the Renton quadrangle (Mullineaux, 1965) and the Des Moines quadrangle (Waldron, 1962), and a State of Washington Department of Natural Resources map for King County, Washington (Livingston, 1971). The maps indicate that eight geologic units are present within the project corridor (generally youngest to oldest): • Modified land (m) consisting of land modified by widespread or discontinuous fill placement. • Younger alluvial deposits (Qyal) consisting primarily of sand, silt and clay deposited by the Green River and sand and gravel with thin beds of silt and clay deposited by the Cedar River. Locally, the alluvial deposits contain thin peat lenses. • Wetland deposits (Qw) consisting of peal and organic material with minor amounts of silt and clay or mixtures of silt, clay, sand and peat. Some deposits also contain a thin layer of volcanic ash. Where mapped, the peat and organic material is consistently 3 feet or more thick. • Recessional outwash deposits (QHI and Qvi). The lowland lacustrine deposits (Qvrl) consist mostly of loose, stratified sand and gravel with silt and clay layers. The kame-terrace deposits (Qvi) consist mainly of unconsolidated glaeiofluvial sand and gravel deposited against or close to the glacial ice. • Glacial drift, uudifferentiated (Qvu) generally consisting of thin deposits of recessional outwash overlying glacially consolidated till, described below. • Glacial till (Qvt) consisting of a very dense, nonsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders. The upper 2 to 5 feet is often weathered and typically medium dense to dense. • Intrusive rocks (Ti) (bedrock) consisting of irregular masses of porphyritic andesite and basalt. This material is generally intersected by numerous faults and joints, and by veins of montrnorillonite, calcite, quartz and other minerals. • Renton formation (Tpr) (bedrock) consisting of fine-to medium-grained arkosic and feldspathic, micaceous sandstone, but includes some siltstone, sandy shale, and beds of coal and carbonaceous shale. The mapped alignment geology, based on the Washington State Department of Natural Resources GJS Layer and the above referenced maps, is depicted on Figures 5A through 5C. Figure 4 provides an index to the alignment geology figures. 2.2.2 Sensitive Area and Geologic Hazard Area Maps The majority of the project corridor lies in or adjacent to area designated as Sensitive Areas or Geologic Hazard Areas. Published sensitive area maps for the project vicinity include wetlands, erosion, flood and anadromous fish. Wetland data was obtained from the National Wetland Inventory, severe erosion potential data was obtained from the NRCS soils database, flood data was obtained from FEMA, and anadromous fish data was obtained from Washington Department of Ecology. The sensitive areas in the project vicinity are shown on Figures 6A through 6C. Figure 4 provides an index to the sensitive area figures. Published geologic hazard areas for the project v1c1mty include coal mine hazards, seismic hazards, landslide hazards, and steep slope hazards. The data for these hazards was provided by the City of Renton and King County. The geologic hazard areas in the project vicinity are shown on Figures 7 A through 7C. Figure 4 provides an index to the geologic hazard area figures. File No. 0180-173-00 October I 4, 2()05 Page4 GEOENGINEER~ Figures 7 A through 7C indicate that the floodplains of the Green and Cedar Rivers are designated as a seismic hazard area because of the potential of the soil to undergo liquefaction during an earthquake event. A significant portion of the project corridor is within this hazard area, including portions of the southbound lanes of 1-405 between 1-5 and the Green River, both directions of 1-405 between the Green River and SR 167, portions of the southbound lanes of 1-405 between Cedar Avenue and SR 167, and along the entire length of SR 167. Figures 7 A through 7C also identify several areas along the project corridor as having steep slopes (slopes greater than 40%) and landslide hazards. These areas are mainly along the northbound lanes of 1-405 between SR 167 and Cedar Avenue. These hazards are likely minor because the Renton formation is located at shallow depths in these areas. The type of landslide, iflandsliding occurs, would most likely be shallow surficial sliding of the soil overburden or highly weathered, decomposed sandstone. The Renton formation (bedrock) has been mined for coal throughout the Renton area. The mined areas are shown as coal mine hazards on Figures 7 A through 7C. The mined areas are generally east and/or south of the project corridor. A rock tunnel to access the mined area crosses below 1-405 at approximately milepost MP 3.05. According to historical records (Geo. Watkins Evans Consulting, 1919), the entrance of the rock tunnel was located at Elevation 55.3 feet. The tunnel sloped towards the southeast to the first mine level area, located roughly 500 feet east of the project corridor, at Elevation 58.7 feet. Based on WSDOT personnel's daily records during construction ofl-405, they noted that the rock tunnel was "quite large and will take considerable concrete and material to block it. (WSDOT, September 26)." Over the next five working days (WSDOT, September 27 to October 3) they "placed gravel and concreted inside face in the mine tunnel" and "completed placement of gravel at the mine tunnel entrance and placed concrete on the outside face and in the top to seal the tunnel entrance." Since construction ofl-405, there has been no evidence of roadway subsidence in the vicinity of the rock tunnel. Based on the above information, it appears that there is a low coal mine hazard risk along the South Renton project corridor. 2.3 GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE 2.3. 1 General A geologic reconnaissance was completed to identify geologic or other sensitive areas along the project corridor. Our geologic reconnaissance was completed in two steps. The first step consisted of a desk- level study and involved reviewing the above geologic, sensitive areas, and geologic hazard area maps and available previous explorations and geotechnical reports. In addition, we reviewed "bald earth" LiDAR images of the project corridor to aid in assessing geologic hazards. LiDAR stands for Light Detection and Ranging and consists of transmitting laser pulses from the air (such as a helicopter) and then recording the reflected laser pulses as they return from the earth, vegetation, structures and other features. A "bald earth" image can be generated with the recorded data by plotting only those laser pulses that were reflected from the earth. Hence, a "bald earth" image shows the terrain (topography) with the vegetation, structures and other features stripped from the image and reveals previously hidden features such as landslides, faults and erosion hazards. The second step consisted of field-truthing and defining more accurately the geologic features, sensitive areas and hazard areas identified during the desk-level study. Additionally, sensitive and/or hazard areas observed during the field study that were not mapped or apparent during the desk-level study were identified and documented. The field geologic reconnaissance was completed by senior level and staff level personnel from our firm. File No. ()180-173-00 October 14. 2005 Pages GEOENGINEER!O Based on the results of our geologic reconnaissance, it appears that the sensitive areas and geologic hazard areas along the project corridor have been fairly accurately portrayed in the published maps. In several locations, it was noted that geologic conditions differ from those presented on the published geologic maps (Figures 5A through SC). In particular, areas of significant man-made fills (modified land) placed during construction of 1-405 and SR 167 are not included on the published geologic maps. This is discussed further in Section 3.2.9 of this report. 2.4 SEISMICITY 2.4. 1 Introduction The Seattle area is located at the convergent continental boundary known as the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). The CSZ is the zone where the westward advancing North American Plate is overriding the subducting Juan de Puca Plate. The CSZ extends from mid-Vancouver Island to Northern California. The interaction of these two plates results in three potential seismic source zones. These three seismic source zones are: (I) the shallow crustal source zone, (2) the Benioff source zone, and (3) the CSZ interplate source zone. 2.4.2 Shallow Crustal Earthquakes The shallow crustal source zone is used to characterize shallow crustal earthquake activity within the North American Plate. Shallow crustal earthquakes typically occur at depths ranging from 3 to 19 miles (5 to 30 kilometers). The shallow crustal source zone is characterized as being capable of generating earthquakes up to about magnitude 7.5. Large shallow crustal earthquakes are typically followed by a sequence of aftershocks. Shallow crustal faults with known or suspected displacements within the general project area include the Seattle Fault Zone, the Tacoma Fault and the Southern Whidbey Island Fault. The Seattle Fault Zone crosses 1-405 in the vicinity of the 1-90 interchange, about 8 miles to the north of the 1-405/SR 167 interchange. The Seattle rault Zone is a 2Y,-to 4-mile-wide, east-west trending zone of three or more south dipping reverse faults (Johnson et al., 1999). The Seattle Fault ruptured about 1,100 years ago and caused broad uplift and subsidence on either side of the fault. The rate ofrecurrence of large earthquakes on the Seattle Fault is thought to be on the order of thousands of years. The Tacoma Fault is located approximately 9 miles to the south of the 1-405/SR 167 interchange. The Tacoma Fault is a west-to northwest-trending reverse-slip fault structure extending from near the southern end of the Hood Canal on the west end to near Auburn on the east end. The fault zone is located just north of downtown Tacoma. It is postulated that if the Tacoma Fault were to rupture along its entire 30 mile length, the earthquake generated would likely be a magnitude 6.5 to 7.5. The most recent major earthquake is estimated to have occurred about 1, I 00 years ago, resulting in several meters of vertical displacement (Sherrod et. al., 2003). The South Whidbey Island Fault is located approximately 23 miles to the north and west of the 1-405/ SR 167 interchange. The South Whidbey Island Fault is a northwest trending reverse-and strip-slip fault structure extending from the southern end of Whidbey Island to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The most recent major earthquake and fault displacement is estimated to have occurred about 3,000 years ago (Kelsey et. al., 2003 ). The largest known earthquakes associated with the shallow crustal source zone in Western Washington include an event on the Seattle Fault about 900 AD and the 1872 North Cascades earthquake. The Seattle Fault event was believed to have been magn itudc 7 or greater (Johnson, 1999), and the 1872 North Cascades earthquake is estimated to have been between magnitudes 6.8 and 7.4. The location of the 1872 File ,Vo. 0180-173-00 October 14, 2005 Page6 GEO ENGINEER~ North Cascades earthquake is uncertain; however, recent research suggests the earthquake's intensity center was near the south end of Lake Chelan (Bakun et. al, 2002). 2.4.3 Benioff Source Zone Earthquakes Benioff source zone earthquakes are also referred to as intraplate, intraslab, or deep subcrustal earthquakes. Benioff zone earthquakes occur within the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate between depths of 20 and 40 miles and typically have no large aftershocks. Extensive faulting results as the Juan de Fuca Plate is forced below the North American plate and into the upper mantle. The Olympia 1949 (magnitude = 7.1), the Seattle 1965 (magnitude = 6.5), and the Nisqually 2001 (magnitude = 6.8) earthquakes are considered to be Benioff zone earthquakes. The Benioff zone is characterized as being capable of generating earthquakes up to magnitude 7.5. The recurrence interval for large earthquakes originating from the Benioff source zone is believed to be shorter than for the shallow crustal and CSZ source zones--damaging Benioff zone earthquakes in Western Washington occur every 30 years or so. The deep focal depth of these earthquakes tends to dampen the shaking intensity when compared to shallow crustal earthquakes of similar magnitudes. 2.5.4 Subduction Zone Earthquakes CSZ lnterplate Source Zone. The Cascadia Subduction Zone is an approximately 650-mile long thrust fault that extends along the Pacific Coast from mid-Vancouver Island to Northern California. CSZ interplate earthquakes result from rupture of all or a portion of the convergent boundary between the subducting Juan de Fuca plate and the overriding North American plate. The fault surfaces approximately 50 to 75 miles off the Washington coast. The width of the seismogenic portion of the CSZ interplate fault varies along its length. As the fault becomes deeper, materials being faulted become ductile and the fault is unable to store mechanical stresses. The CSZ is considered as being capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude 8 to magnitude 9. No earthquakes on the CSZ have been instrumentally recorded; however, through the geologic record and historical records of tsunamis in Japan, it is believed that the most recent CSZ event occurred in the year 1700 (Atwater, B.F., 1996 and Satake, et. al, 1996). Recurrence intervals for CSZ interplate earthquakes are thought to be on the order of 400 to 600 years. Paleogeologic evidence suggests five to seven interplate earthquakes may have been generated along the CSZ over the last 3,500 years at irregular intervals. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 EXISTING DATA 3. 1. 1 Historical Explorations Subsurface conditions along the project corridor were evaluated in-part by reviewing available geotechnical explorations and laboratory data completed for previous projects. The exploration logs and laboratory data were provided to us by the 1-405 Project Team. Approximately 400 explorations (test pits and borings) were completed by others between the late-l 960s to 2003. The locations of the historical explorations are presented on the Site Plan, Figures 3A through 3K. An index to the site plans is provided on Figure 2. The logs of the explorations and laboratory test results are not included in this report but are part of the information available to prospective design-build teams from the 1-405 Project Team office. File No. 0180-173-00 October I 4, 2005 Page 7 GEOENGINEER~ 3.1.2 WSDOT 1-405 Team Borings Completed As Part Of This Study Thirty-four borings (SRP-1 through SRP-6, SRW-1, SRX-1 through SRX-4, SRX-5a, SRX-5c, SRX-6, SRX-7a, SRX-7b, SRX-8 through SRX-22, and SRX-24 through SRX-26) and were completed by the WSDOT 1-405 team as part of the current study. Eight additional borings (SRL-1 through SRL-8) were completed by the WSDOT 1-405 team as part of the ongoing liquefaction study. The borings were drilled using mud rotary techniques with truck-and track-mounted drilling equipment and were completed to depths of about 24 to 110 feet below the ground surface. The boring locations were selected by the 1-405 Project Team and the WSDOT Geotechnical Division. Soil samples were obtained from the borings at selected depths using a 1.4-inch-inside-diameter split- barrel sampler (SPT sampler). The split-barrel sampler was driven into the soil using a 140-pound automatic hammer free-falling a vertical distance of30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches, or other indicated distance, is recorded on the boring logs. The SPT values presented on the logs are actual field measured SPT values. They have not been corrected for hammer energy, silt content, rod weight and flexure, or overburden pressures. The eight liquefaction borings were observed and logged by GeoEngineers personnel and the remainder of the borings were observed and logged by WSDOT personnel. Laboratory tests were completed by WSDOT on selected samples from the borings, except for the liquefaction borings. GeoEngineers completed laboratory tests on selected samples from the liquefaction borings. Laboratory testing for both studies included determination of the moisture content and Atterberg Limits (liquid and plastic limits), as well as particle size analyses. The locations of the thirty-four borings for the current study and the eight explorations completed for the liquefaction study are presented on the Site Plan. Figures 3A through 3K. The Jogs of the borings and the results of the laboratory tests are presented in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. All borings completed for this study and the liquefaction study were surveyed by the 1-405 Project Team using mapping grade GPS survey equipment with differential correction. The accuracy of the survey data noted on the boring logs is +/-3.3 feet (+/-I meter) in the horizontal direction and +/-4.9 feet (+/-1.5 meters) in the vertical direction. 3.2 SO!UROCK UNITS AND ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS 3.2.1 General Based on our review of explorations along the project corridor, the soil and rock conditions described on the logs are generally consistent with those presented on the geologic maps and our observations during the geologic reconnaissance. Exceptions are discussed in Section 3.2.9 of this report. The subsurface conditions along the project corridor generally consist of eight soil and rock units: modified land, younger alluvial deposits. wetland deposits, recessional outwash deposits (lowland lacustrine and kame-terrace deposits), glacial till. undifferentiated glacial drift, intrusive rocks, and the Renton formation. These soil/rock units and their typical engineering characteristics are presented below, beginning with the most recently deposited. It is important to note that the engineering properties described are general in nature. The existing boring logs should be reviewed to assess subsurface conditions and engineering characteristics of the soils at specific locations. File No. 0180-173-00 October 14, 2005 Page8 GEO ENGINEER~ 3.2.2 Modified Land Modified land or fill was encountered in some of the borings along the project corridor. The fill ranges from loose to dense and typically consists of sand, silt and gravel. The fill observed in the explorations varies in thickness. A comparison of the existing finished grade elevations and the boring elevations at some of the structure locations indicates that significant amounts of fill have been placed in and around bridge approaches. Additionally, the embankments supporting 1-405 between SR 181 and SR 167 and the embankments supporting SR 167 between SE 1801h Street and SR 167 were constructed using fill materials. Significant amount of construction rubble and debris is present in the fill embankments between SR 181 and the BNSF/UP RR tracks. Coal tailings were encountered in the fill near the rock tunnel mine access near MP 3.05. In general, the existing bridge structures along the project corridor are supported on deep foundations which extend through the existing fill materials. Several existing retaining walls are supported on shallow foundations supported on existing fill. Allowable bearing pressures range from 2 to 3 ksf (kips per square foot) in areas where the fill overlies alluvial or wetland deposits to up to 7 ksf where the fill overlies shallow bedrock. Portions of the fill have relatively high fines content (material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) and will therefore be moisture sensitive. These soils may become muddy and unstable when exposed to moisture. It will also be difficult to operate equipment on or adequately compact these soils during wet weather conditions because of the high fines content. The existing fill soils generally meet the criteria for "Common Borrow" as described in Section 9-03.14(3) of the WSDOT (2004) "Standard Specifications." The exception is the rubble and debris-laden fill encountered in the 1-405 embankments between SR I 81 and the BNSF/UP RR tracks. The coal tailings encountered near MP 3.05 may also not meet the "'Common Borrow" criteria. Infiltration rates into fill deposits can vary tremendously because of the variable composition and layering of the fill materials. In general, existing fill soils are not considered suitable for infiltration. 3.2.3 Younger Alluvial Deposits Alluvial deposits typically consist of loose to medium dense, stratified sand and gravel with minor silt and clay layers and some organic layers locally. Alluvial deposits are generally present along 1-405 between SR 181 and SR 167 and along SR 167 between SE 1801h Street and 1-405. The thickness of alluvial deposits is highly variable, and is over I 00 feet at its thickest location. In the Puget Sound area, typical allowable bearing capacities for spread footings supported on alluvial deposits, provided soft or organic soils are not present, range from 2 ksf to 6 ksf. If soft or organic soils are present, they are typically overexcavated. A long the project corridor, existing bridges were typically supported on deep foundations in the medium dense or denser alluvial deposits at depth. The soft or organic layers within the alluvial deposits are moderately compressible. Based on our review of previous geotechnical reports, several retaining walls and embankments are founded on I to 2 feet of fill placed over these soils. For these support conditions, settlement estimates ranged from I to 2 inches for walls or embankments up to 8 feet in height, and between 2 to 6 inches for wall or embankment heights varying from 14 to 26 feet. Preloading and surcharging were generally not recommended for the alluvial deposits; rather the geotechnical reports recommended that future improvements (pavements or bridge foundation construction) be postponed approximately 30 days to allow the fill to settle. Typical allowable bearing capacities for spread footings, provided I to 2 feet of overexcavation and replacement occurs, range from 2 ksf to 3 ksf. File No. 0180-173-00 October 14. 2005 Page9 GeoENGINEE~ The upper loose to medium dense sandy zones in the alluvial deposits generally are susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake event. Liquefaction could result in significant damage to structures if not properly mitigated. The liquefaction potential of the alluvial deposits is discussed further under Section 5.1.2 of this report. Alluvial deposits with relatively high fines content will be moisture sensitive and will become muddy and unstable when the amount of moisture in the soil rises above the optimum moisture content. Provided the material is granular and organic material is separated from these soils or is present in minor amounts, these soils generally meet the requirements for ··Common Borrow." Cleaner deposits may be suitable for use as "Gravel Borrow" or "Select Borrow" as described in Sections 9-03.14(1) and 9-03.14(2), respectively, of the WSDOT (2004) "Standard Specifications." Infiltration rates into alluvial deposits typically range from moderate to high (I inch per hour to greater than IO inches per hour) depending on the silt content of the sandy soils and the presence of interbedded silt layers. The presence of interbedded organic layers or large thicknesses of organic layers will significantly decrease the rate of infiltration. Infiltration is generally not feasible because of the high groundwater level in the alluvial deposits along the project corridor. 3.2.4 Wetland Deposits The wetland deposits consist of at least 3 feet of peat and organic material with minor amounts of silt and clay or mixtures of silt, clay, sand and peat. Some of these deposits also contain a thin layer of volcanic ash. These deposits are very soft and under load may flow laterally, or if confined, may compress to as little as 10 percent of their original undisturbed volume. The wetland deposits are present along the majority of SR 167, from north of SE 180'" Street to south ofl-405. Deep foundations are typically used for support of bridge structures due to the compressible behavior of the wetland deposits. If the wetland deposits are relatively thin and competent soils are present below, the wetland deposits can be completely overexcavated and replaced with engineered fill to allow the use of shallow foundations to support bridge structures. Shallow foundations for lightly loaded structures (such as low height retaining walls) can be used, although some overexcavation and replacement is generally required to provide adequate support. Previous geotechnical studies have recommended overexcavation depths as much as 3 to IO feet along SR 167. Preloads and surcharges are also often used to accelerate compression and settlement of the wetland deposits prior to final retaining wall facing installation or final paving ofroadway embankments. Typical recommended preload/surcharge heights Vvere 4 to 5 feet. Typical durations for settlement to occur under this loading were estimated to be between I 5 days and 4. 7 months, depending on the thickness of wetland deposits below the embankment fill. Typical alloVvable bearing capacities, provided overexcavation and replacement occurs, for wall spread footings range from 1.5 ksfto 3 ksf. Wetland deposits typically have very high natural water contents and are very compressible under load or when dried. It will be difficult to operate equipment on these soils because of their compressibility. Wetland deposits are not suitable for re-use as structural fill. Infiltration of storm water in these deposits is also generally not feasible. 3.2.5 Recessional Outwash Deposits The recessional outwash deposits consist of either lowland lacustrine deposits or kame-terrace deposits. These deposits are combined for discussion in this report because their engineering characteristics are relatively similar. These units were typically deposited during the same geologic period, but are differentiated on geologic maps because of different depositional environments or minor differences in File lv'o. 0180-173-00 October 14, 2005 Page JO GEOENGINEERS_O' compostllon. These deposits generally consist of loose to medium dense sand and gravel layers with varying amounts of silt and clay (more fine material in the lowland lacustrine deposits). Along the project corridor, these materials are located in a ravine just north of Benson Road, and along the east slope north of Cedar A venue. No existing bridge spread foundations are founded in the recessional outwash deposits along the project corridor. Typical allowable bearing capacities in the Puget Sound area for spread footing foundations in recessional outwash range from 2 ksf to 6 ksf. Provided the material is granular, these soils generally meet the requirements for "Common Borrow." Cleaner deposits may be suitable for use as "Gravel Borrow" or "Select Borrow." The finer grained soils are moisture sensitive and will be susceptible to the same degradation described in previous sections when the moisture in the soil rises above the optimum moisture content. Infiltration rates into recessional outwash deposits typically range from moderate to high (I inch per hour to greater than 10 inches per hour) depending on the silt content of the sandy soils and the presence of interbedded silt layers. The presence of interbedded silt or clay layers will significantly decrease the infiltration rate. 3.2. 6 Glacial Till and Undifferentiated Glacial Drift Glacial till and undifferentiated glacial drift are also combined for discussion in this report because their engineering characteristics are relatively similar. Glacial till typically consists of a dense to very dense, nonsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders. The upper 2 to 5 feet of the till is often weathered and typically medium dense to dense. Undifferentiated glacial drift generally consist of thin deposits of recessional outwash overlying glacial till. The thin recessional deposits are similar to weathered till, making it difficult to distinguish between the two; hence the undifferentiated classification. Glacial till is present along the project corridor near 61" Avenue South (near existing Bridge 405/5) while undifferentiated glacial drift is present along 1-405 at Christensen Road (existing Bridge 405/9). Typical allowable bearing capacities for spread footing foundations in dense to very dense glacial till or undifferentiated glacial drift range from 6 ksf to 16 ksf. Our review of existing structures did not identify the presence of existing bridge foundations founded on these deposits. It is important to note that cobbles and boulders are often encountered in glacial soils. Boulders ranging up to IO to 20 feet in diameter have been observed in glacial soils within the Puget Sound region. Design-build teams should expect to encounter cobbles and boulders in these glacial deposits and be prepared to deal with them during construction. Glacial till and undifferentiated glacial drift typically contain a significant percentage of fines (silt and clay) and are moisture sensitive. When the moisture content is more than a few percent above the optimum moisture content, these soils become muddy and unstable and operation of equipment on these soils can be difficult. Wet weather construction is generally not recommended for these soils without the use of admixtures to control moisture content. These soils typically meet the criteria for "Common Borrow." Relatively low infiltration rates (less than 0.5 inches per hour) are typically encountered in glacial till and undifferentiated glacial drift because of the high fines content and the density of the soils. File No. 0180-173-00 Ocrober 14, 2005 Page II GeoENGINEER~ 3.2.7 Intrusive Rocks (Bedrock) The intrusive rocks consist of irregular masses of porphyritic andesite and basalt. This material is generally intersected by numerous faults and joints. and by veins of montmorillonite, calcite, quartz and other minerals. Intrusive rocks are present as an outcrop along the north side of 1-405, just west of SR 181. Our review of existing structures along the project corridor did not identify the presence of existing shallow bridge or retaining wall foundations founded on intrusive rocks. Several deep foundations (driven piles or drilled piers) supporting bridge structures near SR 181 and the Green River are founded on the intrusive rocks. Deep foundations for these bridges were designed using very high foundation capacities. No record of uniaxial compressive strength testing is available for the intrusive rock along the project corridor. Intrusive rocks may be suitable for riprap or may be crushed to meet the criteria for "Gravel Borrow". Intrusive rock is not expected to be excavated as part of the project. 3.2.8 Renton Formation (Bedrock) The Renton formation consists of fine-to medium-grained arkosic and feldspathic, micaceous sandstone, but includes some siltstone, sandy shale. and beds of coal and carbonaceous shale. The sandstone is highly variable and ranges from completely weathered to fresh. It also contains seams and zones which are poorly lithified or even uncemented. The Renton formation is present as an outcrop in two areas: I) along the east side ofl-405 between about Benson Road and Cedar Avenue and 2) along the north side of 1-405, just west of SR I 81. The Renton fonnation is encountered at depth throughout the majority of the project corridor. Numerous bridge foundations along the project corridor are supported on the Renton formation. Allowable bearing capacities for spread footing foundations ranged from 6 to 16 ksf. Deep foundations, consisting of driven piles and/or drilled shafts bearing on the Renton formation, with high capacities have also been used along the project corridor. A total of 86 uniaxial compressive strength tests were completed on rock core samples obtained from historical explorations. The majority of the testing (82 tests) was completed on rock core samples obtained from borings between Benson Road and Cedar Avenue. The remaining 4 tests were completed on samples from the SS2 flyover structure borings at the 1-405/SR I 67 interchange. The uniaxial compressive strength test results range from a low of 2.1 ksf to a high of 1,150 ksf. A statistical analysis of test results indicates an average strength of I 07 ksf, a median strength of 69 ksf, and a standard deviation of 153 ksf. A total of 63 point load tests were completed on rock core samples obtained from the current explorations. The point load test results were converted to equivalent uniaxial compressive strengths by WSDOT using the procedures and equations shown on the laboratory test result sheets in Appendix B (conversion based on procedure developed by the International Society for Rock Mechanics). The equivalent uniaxial compressive strengths range from a low of3 ksfto a high of7,810 ksf. A statistical analysis of data indicates an average strength of 940 ksf, a median strength of 60 ksf, and a standard deviation of I, 780 ksf. Based on the laboratory testing, the strength of the Renton formation is highly variable. Several excavation methods were recommended for rock excavations in the Renton formation along 1-405 between Benson Road and SR 169, including conventional excavating and ripping, hoe rams, or expansive cement to fracture the rock. Blasting was considered undesirable as the project was within urban limits (WSDOT, 1990). File lv'o. 0180-173-00 October 14. 2005 Page 12 GeoENGINEER~ Several packer tests were completed in piezometers installed in the historical borings. The calculated hydraulic conductivity from the packer tests in fresh Renton formation ranged from 1.4 x 10 4 cm/second to 3.4 x I 0-6 cm/second (WSDOT, 1990). The Renton formation encountered during construction of 1-405 between Benson Road and SR 169 contained a high groundwater table. WSDOT records indicate that "most drainage south of the Cedar River was installed with a specialty trenching machine in the solid sandstone" (Preedy, 2003). Additionally, the WSDOT records note that "high groundwater table in vicinity of 3'd Avenue overcrossing required a concrete seal to be poured to install the spread footing under the south abutment" (Preedy, 2003). We presume that the 3'd Avenue overcrossing refers to Bridge 405/17.3 (Cedar Avenue overcrossing) since this is the only bridge with a spread footing at the south abutment. WSDOT construction records regarding the Renton formation along 1-405 near SR 181 state that it consists of "uneven sandstone formations and ledges, underlain by basalt." The sandstone does contain "abundant fossils" but the fossils were "ruled common" and construction was allowed to proceed. The topography of the sandstone surface was "highly unpredictable" and "caused claims on this project" (Preedy, 2003). The Renton formation is typically not suitable for "Gravel Borrow" because the rock is poorly lithified and breaks down rapidly to a fine silty sand. The Renton formation will be suitable for "Common Borrow" provided that the material is properly processed. 3.2.9 Exceptions to Mapped Soil Unit Locations As previously discussed, notable exceptions to Figures 5A through 5C exist at several locations, based on review of the exploration logs and our geologic reconnaissance: • Significant thicknesses of fill (modified land), up to 30 feet, have generally been placed at the bridge approach abutments. Minor amounts of fill, generally between 10 to 15 feet along 1-405 and less than about 10 feet along SR 167, have also been placed to construct the roadway embankments above the mapped younger alluvial (Qyal) and wetland deposits (Qw). • The area along the southbound lanes of 1-405 between the Cedar River and the Cedar Avenue South overcrossing (Bridge 405/17 .3) are mapped as the Renton formation. Several explorations along the west side of 1-405 in this area indicate the presence of fill and/or recessional outwash overlying the Renton formation. The location and extent of these soils will need to be further evaluated during the Implementation Phase of the project, particularly if a bridge structure is constructed. • During construction of 1-405, the Green River channel in the vicinity of SR 181 was moved to reduce the number of bridge structures required during construction. The approximate location of the old channel extended below the west abutment of the SR 181 overcrossing structure (Bridge 405/11 ). Boring SRL-4-05, located at the west abutment, was drilled through the old channel. The boring indicates that the old channel bed was lined with a layer of boulders at a depth of 50 feet prior to placing granular fill material. 3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Variable groundwater conditions were observed in historical and current borings completed along the project corridor. Groundwater levels in the Green River and Cedar River valleys (i.e. modified land, younger alluvial deposits and wetland deposits) are essentially at the same elevation as the river levels, approximately Elevation 8 to 25 feet. In areas upland of the river valleys, the water table was encountered at elevations significantly higher than the river valley areas. It is likely that most of the File No. 0/80-173-00 October I 4, 2005 Page 13 GEOENGINEERS_B groundwater in the upland areas is perched condition within the Renton formation or soils overlying the Renton formation. Perched groundwater typically develops where a relatively impermeable horizon impedes the vertical infiltration of surface water. It should be noted that multiple perched water levels can form within stratified or interlayered deposits. We anticipate that groundwater levels along the project corridor will fluctuate as a function of season, precipitation and other factors. The following table presents groundwater elevations in the current borings observed during drilling as well as measured groundwater elevations in piezometers installed in the WSDOT 1-405 Team borings. Surface Boring+ Elevation (ft) SRP-1-05 42.1 - SRP-2-05 84.6 ---- SRP-3-05 69.0 ----- SRP-4-05 Not Provided SRP-5-05 Not Provided . -- SRP-<l-05 123.5 SRW-1-05 161.1 SRX-1-05 30.5 SRX-2-05 30.1 -·-····---.,- SRX-3-05 27.8 SRX-4-05 44.2 SRX-5A-05 34.9 SRX-SC-05 27.6 SRX-<l-05 55.0 SRX-7A-05 65.1 SRX-7B-05 60.0 SRX-8-05 39.0 SRX-9-05 23.5 ·--·----"--""""""""""" SRX-10-05 File No. 0180-173-00 October 14, 2005 28.3 Table 2. Groundwater Level Measurements Elevation of Groundwater Groundwater Measured in Piezometer Observed During Drilling (ft)t Date Elevation (ft)* 26.5 03/01/05 26.5 ' 05/17/05 36.3 06/16/05 35.7 07/26/05 34.8 08/24/05 34.3 --.,. .....•... -- ' 05/17/05 DRY 06/16/05 DRY ---··· 07/26/05 DRY .... 08/24/05 DRY _,__., ____ -·----·-· ------------ 56.4 03/10/05 56.4 05117/05 56.1 06116/05 55.9 ... 07126105 55.4 08/24/05 55.2 ................. ' _12 (bgs) 06123/05 12 (bgs) ·-·-·-·-·-·-·--···--·---... -·-·-·-·----' 11.3 (bgs) --------·-·---06/06/05 11.3 (bgs) 103.4 08/11/05 103.4 .................... -. ·---·-·"· 82.4 ---... ,. 19.5 ---·---------- 15.7 --·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-··-·-·-·-·-- 24.3 ---------·--·----··-· .. -·-·-·-·-·-·-··· ., . ------------·-·-·-····-"--"--·-·-............. 24.0 03120/05 24.0 ·············· 05/17/05 25.3 ......... 06/16/05 24.5 ....... 07/26105 23.4 08/24/05 22.8 -----·····-.... . . •.•...... 9.6 -----····---·--·---.. ·-·-·-·---·--- 12.0 ----··· ·····-··-·-·-··-·'"···-·-. ·······-·--·-·-·- 24.4 --.................. ·········· 12.5 --·-·-·-·-·-·-·-----------~ . 10 4 --·-·-·-·--·--·-·---·-·-·--·---- 13.7 --... """""""•··········-·-··"· """""""""""""""" , ......... 9 o 05/17/05 15.0 , ................ 06/16/05 14.7 07/26/05 14.1 08/24/05 13.7 Page 14 GeoENGINEERSg Surface Elevation (ft) Elevation of Groundwater Observed During Drilling (ft)t Groundwater Measured in Piezometer Boring• Date Elevation (ft)* SRX-11-05 21.2 7.7 03124/05 7.7 ---- 05117/05 8.7 ... 06116/05 8.4 07126/05 7.5 08/24/05 7.0 f---------+------+---------------·--·---·-·--·--·"···-·-·-·-·-·-·----···t . ---------------------------------------------- SRX-12-05 27.6 15.2 f-----------t·---·-·--·-·----·-·-··--·---··-·-·--·----- SRX-13-05 32.3 SRX-14-05 30.1 SRX-15-05 29.9 f-----------t--------·----------·-·-·-·-·-·---·-···-·-·-····-..................................................... , ..... . SRX-16-05 37.7 21.0 . ----------------------------------------- SRX-17-05 35.7 ---------~~-.4------j--------------------------------------------------------------------------+--------------1 47.8 -5.7 SRX-18-05 f---------1----·-·----·---------·-............. . SRX-19-05 85.2 65.2 SRX-20-05 149.5 l-------------- 03104/05 05117/05 06116105 07126/05 08124/05 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY f---------+------+----------------- SRX-21-05 89.6 66.5 --+-------! SRX-22-05 75.4 SRX-24-05 31.9 20.1 . -f-------------, SRX-25-05 28.0 f---------+--------t·----·-·-·-·----------------·--------....j-.. ·-----------------------------------------------------------. +---------1 SRX-26-05 30.7 19.8 --------------------l----------------------------------------------------------------------. -t--------------, SRL-1-05 22.0 12.0 SRL-2-05 19.0 13.0 f---------+------+·-·"·-·······-·--·-····-·--···-·--·-·-·-·----- SRL-3-05 15.7 2.0 f---------+------+-·----------····--··--------- SRL-4-05 48.0 10.9 SRL-5-05 36.0 33.0 SRL-6-05 46.0 35.0 ---------------------· ··-·--·-"""""'""""""" ..................... . ----+----------- I·-------------- 1------------ 05/17/05 06/16/05 07126/05 08/24/05 05/17/05 06/16/05 07/26/05 08/24/05 05/17/05 06/16/05 07/26/05 , ________________ _ 08124/05 11.2 10.9 10.1 9.9 9.7 9.0 8.0 7.6 33.0 32.6 32.1 31.8 f---------+--------t----·-·-·------·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·-·-·--·-·--·-·--·-·-t-------------------------------------------------------. 1------------t SRL-7-05 31.0 9.0 06/16/05 8. 9 -----------: __ : __ : _________________ --+------"-'------....j 07/26/05 7_9 08/24/05 7 _ 7 .•.• ., ............ , .. SRL-8-05 29.0 17.0 Notes: + Piezometers installed in borings SRP-1-05, SRP-2-05, SRP-3-05,SRP-4-05, SRP-5-05, SRP-6-05, SRX-5A-05, SRX-10-05, SRX-11-05, SRX-20-05, SRL-1-05, SRL-4-05, SRL-5-05, and SRL-7-05 t The groundwater levels observed during drilling were measured in the drill casing prior to removal or shortly after well installation. This water level may not truly represent actual groundwater elevation. * The water level measured in a piezometer is representative of a static groundwater condition. bgs ---below ground surface. File No. 0180-173-00 October 14, 2005 Page 15 GEOENGINEER!O 4.0 EXISTING STRUCTURES {AS-BUILT CONDITIONS) ALONG PROJECT CORRIDOR As part of our services, we completed a detailed review of the available as-built plans for major structures and facilities along the project corridor. The structures and facilities included in our review consisted of bridges, retaining walls and stormwater facilities. Our review consisted of documenting the structure type and location, pertinent design and construction information (i.e. allowable bearing pressure and footing elevation for shallow foundations), and summarizing representative exploration logs and subsurface conditions. Summary sheets for each of the major existing structures and facilities are presented in Appendix C. 5.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 5.1.1 Design Earthquake Parameters The seismic design of the Renton Nickel Improvement Project structures can be completed using the design criteria presented in the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. The design manual references the 2002 USGS National Seismic Hazards Mapping project for determining a peak ground (bedrock) acceleration coefficient for design. A peak ground acceleration of 0.33 is provided in the 2002 USGS mapping project. The acceleration coefficient is based on the expected ground motion at the project site that has a 10 percent probability of exceed an cc in a 50-year period ( 4 75-year return period). The design response spectra presented in the 2004 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications are considered appropriate for seismic design of this project. A Type II Soil Profile response spectrum with a Site Coefficient of 1.2 should be used for seismic design of the improvements. 5.1.2 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a phenomenon where soils experience a rapid loss of internal strength as a consequence of strong ground shaking. Ground settlement, lateral spreading and/or sand boils may result from liquefaction. Structures supported on liquefied soils could suffer foundation settlement or lateral movement that could be severely damaging to the structures. Conditions favorable to liquefaction occur in loose to medium dense, clean to moderately silty sand that is below the groundwater level. Dense soils or soils that exhibit cohesion are less likely to be susceptible to liquefaction. The evaluation of liquefaction potential is complex and is dependant on numerous site parameters including soil grain size, soil density, static stresses. and the magnitude and ground acceleration of the design earthquake. In accordance with Chapter 22 of the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual, a preliminary assessment of the depth and extent of potentially liquefiable soils at the planned bridge locations was completed as part of this geotechnical baseline report. This assessment involved identifying loose to medium dense granular soils (i.e. soil samples where blow counts were Jess than about 20 blows per foot) located below the groundwater table. Site-specific liquefaction analyses were not completed as part of our services for this project but are being completed by GeoEngineers as part of the liquefaction study. Based on our preliminary assessment, we conclude that there is moderate to high potential for liquefaction in areas where loose fill, younger alluvial deposits, and recessional outwash are present at the site (see Figures 5A through 50 and Section 3.0). Settlement associated with liquefaction could affect the overall stability of the structure and cause downdrag loads on deep foundations. A summary of our preliminary File ,Vo. 0180-173-00 October 14, 2005 Page 16 GEOENGINEER~ liquefaction assessment for both Renton Nickel Improvement Project bridges and potential Master Plan bridges is provided in the following table. Table 3. Summary of Preliminary Liquefaction Assessment of Bridges Estimated Thickness of Potentially Estimated Elevation Bridge Structure Liquefiable Range of Potential (if applicable) Location Soils (ft) Liquefaction (ft) Renton Nickel Improvement Project I----.., ·------ 405111 (15) 1-405 over SR 181 -Restripe only 17 to 68+ 17 to -60+ -·----------- 405112 (16) 1-405 over BNSF/UP RR -Restripe only 121022 16 to -48 ... .. . -----·-·-····-··"· _,,_ ----------···-····-· -·-------- 405113 (17) 1-405 over Springbrook Creek -New bridge 19 13to-6 405/13C (18) Culvert for Springbrook P-1 Channel -New bridge 18 12to-15 405113.5 (19) 1------ 1-405 over Oakesdale Avenue -New bridge 10 2to-12 405116 (22) 1-405 over Talbot Road -Widen existing bridge 12 to 14 35 to 7 -····------·------······-·-·-·-·---•.•.•. ,. .. ---·-·-·-·-·-·----·-·------,--------------·-·-·-·-·-·-·---405117 (23) Benson Road over 1-405 -New bridge. NL NL Master Plan ~-- 51521 N-W (4) '---·----- NB 1-5 to WB SR 518 (replacement) 4 to 10 19 to 9 ------- 40515 (7) 61" Street over 1-405 (replacement) NL NL ··-·-----·---1-----,-,-,., .............................................. _______ -.............. ,., _________ ------·--·-····----···-·-·-·-·-·----- 405/9 (8) Christensen Road over 1-405 (replacement) NL NL ~----·····--·--------- Tukwila Parl<way over Green River (new) 8± 8 to 0± Onramp from Tukwila Parkway to NB 1-405 ( 2 new 9 to 65+ 13 to -<30+ structures) near SR 181 ·-405110 (9) 1-405 over Green River (replacement) Nlto 18 to -4 !------------·-- NB 1-405 offramp to SR 181 (new) Nlto 18 to-4 .•. 405111 (15) 1-405 over SR 181 (replacement) 9 to 65+ 13 to -60+ ·-+-·-----·-·" --·-------·-·-· (14) SR 181 over Green River (widening) 17 to 19 NA (1 Oto 35 bgs) ·--·-·-- Onlofframps over Southcenter Blvd (2 replacements) 10 NA (16 to 26 bgs) -c-----------·---- 405/12 (16) 1-405 over BNSFIUP RR (new/replacement) 6 to 31 18to-37 ------------------·-·-····-·-··-·-·--·---·-----------··"·····-··-·--·· ·----···-----·········· ······-······-·-·-·· 405113 (17) and 405113.5 (19) 1-405 over Springbrook Creek and Oakesdale Avenue (new) 5 to 33 13to-24 . ----·-·----·- 405114 (20) Lind Avenue over 1-405 (replacement) 9 9 to -0 -·-- 1-405 and SR 167 interchange (9 new/replacement 13to25 15to-21 f--·--- structures) 1-405 over Talbot Road (3 new/replacement structures) 4 to 25 35 to -2 SB 1-405 from Renton Avenue to Grady Way (new) NL NL 405/17.7 (25) Renton Avenue over 1-405 (replacement) NL NL ~--------------·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-------- 405118E (26) and 1-405 over Cedar River (replacement or widening) Piers 1-4: NL Piers 1-4: NL 405118W (27) Pier 5: 4-10• Pier 5: 20 to 16 (18E)+ Pier 5: 29to 17 (18W)• 405120 (29) 1-405 over SR 169 (replacement) NL NL Notes: The thickness and elevation of liquefiable soils for the Renton Nickel Improvement Project bridges is consistent with the results of the detailed liquefaction evaluation completed by GeoEngineers under separate cover. NL No potentially liquefiable soils identified on exploration logs. ± Historical borings reviewed do not penetrate potentially liquefiable soils. bgs -below ground surface. +Soils at Pier 5 may not be liquefiable as the low blow count material consisted predominantly of gravel with wood debris. File ."i'o. 0180-173-00 October 14. 2005 Page 17 GeoENGINEER!O The subsurface conditions at the Renton Avenue bridge (Bridge 405/17. 7) indicate the soils directly below the bridge are non-liquefiable. However, the west approach embankment may have experienced liquefaction induced settlement as a result of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake (Halpert, 2001). The west approach embankment to the bridge was constructed using a geotextile wrapped face retaining wall. The soils below the approach consist of 12 to 1 8 feet of loose to very dense silty sand over weathered sandstone (WSDOT, 1989). The approach embankment settled as much as 2Y, inches relative to the west bridge abutment (Halpert, 2001). The WSDOT bridge inspector indicated that it was common for structures to settle that are constructed over till but that it was possible that the earthquake created more settlement activity. The bridge inspector also noted that the bridge itself was not moving at all. The liquefaction potential of the soils below the west approach for the new replacement bridge (Master Plan) will need to be evaluated by the design-build team. The dense to very dense soils and bedrock located along the project corridor have a low potential for liquefaction during a design earthquake event. 5.1.3 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading involves lateral displacements of large volumes of liquefied soil during an earthquake. Lateral spreading can occur on near-level ground as blocks of surface soils displace relative to adjacent blocks. Lateral spreading also occurs as blocks of surface soils are displaced toward a nearby slope (free face) by movement of the underlying liquefied soil. A free face can include nearby river channels or highway embankments. Because of the moderate to high potential for liquefaction in the younger alluvial deposits and recessional outwash, we conclude that there is also a moderate to high potential for these soils to spread laterally. Lateral spreading is addressed in more detail in the liquefaction evaluation study completed by GeoEngineers in a separate report. The seismic design completed by the design-build team should include a detailed evaluation of the potential for lateral spreading, if not fully addressed in the GeoEngineers study. The analyses should also include appropriate mitigation measures for lateral spreading. 5. 1.4 Mitigation of Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading As discussed in Chapter 6 of the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual, geotechnical seismic design of structures should be consistent with the philosophy for structure design that loss of life and serious injury due to structure collapse or severe distortion arc minimized, to the extent possible and economically feasible. This "no collapse" philosophy requires that bridge approach embankments and fills through which cut-and-cover tunnels are constructed be designed to remain stable during the design seismic event because of the potential to damage or initiate collapse of the structure should they fail. The typical distance of evaluation and mitigation is within 100 feet of the bridge abutment or tunnel wall. Instability or other seismic hazards including liquefaction, lateral spreading, downdrag, and settlement may require additional mitigation near the abutment or tunnel wall to ensure that the structure is not compromised during a design seismic event. Additionally, Chapter 6 of the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual requires that all retaining walls and abutment walls be evaluated for seismic stability internally and externally. Walls directly supporting the traveled way, or walls that are directly adjacent to the traveled way and are IO feet in height or more, should be designed to remain sufficiently stable under seismic loading conditions and anticipated displacements associated with liquefaction and lateral spreading such that loss of life and serious injury due to collapse or serious distortion are minimized. Mitigation to achieve overall stability may be required. Walls which do not meet the specifications described above are considered to have a relatively low risk to the traveling public and do not need to be designed to meet overall stability under seismic loading and/or liquefaction effects. Fife No. 0180-I 7 3-00 October I 4, 2005 Page 18 GEOENGINEERS_D Several techniques are feasible for mitigating the potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading. These include: 1. Structural reinforcement such as piles. 2. Ground densification such as stone column soil improvement. It should be noted that stone columns may not be appropriate adjacent to existing structures as vibrations may initiate liquefaction below nearby facilities, resulting in damage to these facilities. 3. Ground modification such as deep soil mixing, jet grouting, or compaction grouting. The limits of mitigation are dependant on the type of structure and stability requirements. For new bridges and associated retaining walls supporting embankments near the bridges, mitigation typically occurs below the entire width of the new embankment. This pattern generally results in the least amount of mitigation. For existing bridge structures, mitigation typically occurs in a much larger horseshoe or "U-shaped" pattern around the existing bridge and embankments. The bottom of the "U" is completed below the existing bridge structure and the legs of the "U" are generally completed along the toe of the existing embankments behind the structure. For bridge widenings (and associated retaining walls if present), a "U-shaped" or horseshoe mitigation pattern is also completed around the existing structure, with the intent of trying to install one the legs of the "U" below the bridge widening and new embankment fill, if possible. For retaining walls, mitigation may be completed below the new wall and embankment fill or may be completed in front of the wall, depending on the need to mitigate lateral spreading. The limits of mitigation depends highly on the residual strength of the liquefied soils, the internal strength of the embankment fill, the structural capacity of the foundation elements, and the type of mitigation method. The appropriate mitigation technique, if needed, should be evaluated by the design-build team during final design. A detailed evaluation will be required as discussed in the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. 5.1.5 Ground Rupture Because of the estimated distance to the closest known fault (in excess of 5 miles), it is our opinion that the potential for surface fault rupture along the project corridor is low. 5.1.6 Landsliding Based on our geologic reconnaissance, there does not appear to be large-scale active landsliding along the project corridor. Thus, earthquake shaking will have a low likelihood of initiating large-scale landsliding, in our opinion. As with most slopes in western Washington, shallow surficial sliding is possible, particularly when the ground is saturated. Surficial slides typically occur in the upper 2 to 5 feet of soil or weathered bedrock and movement occurs episodically, generally in response to heavy rainfall. Earthquake shaking would tend to increase the size of the surficial slide area as well as the frequency of movement. 5.2 BRIDGE FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 5.2.1 Specific Bridge Recommendations The project plans currently include restriping, widening or replacement of seven ex1stmg bridges. Details regarding as-built foundations and subsurface conditions for the existing bridges are presented in Appendix C. Cross sections of the proposed widened or replacement bridges are shown in Figures 8A through 8G. Preliminary design and construction considerations for the bridges are presented in the following table. File lv'o. 0180·/73·00 October 14, 2005 Page 19 GEOENGINEERSg Table 4. Bridge Design and Construction Considerations Bridge 405/11 (15) Location 1-405 over SR 181 Approximate Dimensions (ft) 170 (length) x 170 (width) Existing Pier Foundations Driven Concrete Piles (original and widening) L_ ···············-....•......•....•.•.•.•....•.......•.• , .•................•............. L.._.._ _____ _ 405/12 (16) 1-405 over BNSF/ UP RR 770 (length) x 65 (width) Driven Concrete Piles (original and widening) Feasible Pier Foundations Deep Foundations (driven or drilled) Deep Foundations (driven or drilled) Design/Construction Considerations * Potentially liquefiable soil conditions, 17 to 68+ feet thick * Potential liquefaction-induced settlement of existing structures during pile driving * Explorations indicate that old channel for Green River ran through west abutment -boulders present in fill at depth of 50 feet * Shallow groundwater table, casing likely needed for drilled foundations. Coring may be necessary to penetrate boulders at west abutment • Driven piles may encounter refusal on boulders in old channel prior to penetrating potentially liquefiable soils • Existing bike paths supported by MSE walls below and around east ~r,i_dg~ -~~-L:J~~-~-~.!.:... ------""""""""" ........ ., ....... ,., _________ ,,. • Potentially liquefiable soil conditions. 12 to 22 feet thick • Potential liquefaction-induced settlement of existing structures during pile driving • Crosses BNSF/UP railroad -railroad lines must slay in operation during construction "'Shallow groundwater table with standing water in areas, casing likely needed for drilled foundations. • Rubble on ground in areas and possible large rubble fill from railroad. I 1----1----~-------.1-------1-----______ ~--__ Rubble~sent in existing emba_n~ment_fill ············-·-·· ·-------·- 405/13 (17) 1-405 over Springbrook Creek 200 (length) x 65 (width) I f--+------1-···-··· ~05/13C Culvert for 162 (length) x (18) Springbrook 65 (width) P-1 Channel -..•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•..... 405/13. 1-405 over 80 (length) x 5 (19) Oakesdale 65 (width) Avenue ----·---··- 405/16 1-405 over 215 (length) x (22) Talbot Road 75 (width) Driven Concrete Piles (original and widening) Box Culvert on Shallow Foundations Steel H-piles (original) ______ ,. ________ ,. Steel H-piles (original and widening) Deep * Potentially liquefiable soil conditions, 19 feet thick Foundations • Potential liquefaction-induced settlement of existing structures during (driven or pile driving drilled) * Crosses Springbrook Creek, construction over water Shallow Foundations Deep Foundations (driven or drilled} * Shallow groundwater table, casing likely needed for drilled foundations • Existing 90-inch sewer pipe near existing pier 3 * Rubble on ground in areas • ~x!~~.i.n.!;l b_i~~ path_SlJPeo.rt~_d .~Y __ ga_~ic:,_n __ w_~[l_('.;~9-~~~-~-u_n,_~e!_J_~_Q.t_ ...... . • Potentially liquefiable soil conditions. 18 feet thick .. Potential liquefaction-induced settlement of existing structures during pile driving * Water flowing in P-1 channel, in water construction .. Shoring, dewatering, and diversion of flowing water in P-1 channel required for shallow foundations • Soft, wet soils near surface will require overexcavation for shallow fo~!\~~tion~ Deep .. Potentially liquefiable soil conditions. 1 O feet thick Foundations * Potential liquefaction-induced settlement of existing structures during (driven or drilled) pile driving * Dense soil conditions at depth may limit selection of driven pile * Shallow groundwater table with standing water in areas, casing likely 1 n_ee_de_d .fCl.r .. ~ri[l~9 .... ~-~D.9.~J!2!'.~., .............. _ .......................................................... . Deep * Potentially liquefiable soil conditions, 12 to 14 feet thick Foundations * Potential liquefaction-induced settlement of existing structures during (driven or drilled) pile driving * Shallow groundwater table, casing likely needed for drilled foundations * Bedrock at depth may limit selection of driven piles * Existing rockery at toe of abutment will likely need to be replaced, 1------1-------··--·-·············· .. ---·-·-·+--------l---_ ,-___ .. Pc1.rtic:lJ.l.ar1y.t~ .. '!li~i!;l.ate .. 1at~@U>Preadin.9, .. ..i.f .. ciPPlicab1e ... _~------~- 405/17 (23) Benson Road over 1-405 F1/e /Vo. 0180-173-00 October 14. 2005 970 (length) x 40 (width) Shallow Foundations (original) Shallow Foundations Deep Foundations (driven or drilled} "' Existing bridge must be removed "' New bridge piers to be constructed in median and near shoulders of 1-405, which will remain open during construction of bridge "' May be inadequate space to allow for the excavation of shallow foundations "' Bedrock at depth may limit selection of driven piles *Bridge will need to be designed for 1-405 Master Plan alignment which includes new HOV lanes below the bridge. However; the HOV lanes will not be constructed as part of the Nickel Improvements. Foundation design and construction will need to account for this phased construction (I.e. bridge foundations need to be designed and constructed such that they are not lmnacted bv future HOV lane construction\ Page20 GEOENGINEERS_B 5.2.2 Shallow Foundations Shallow foundations are feasible for Bridge 405/13-C (P-1 Channel) as this structure will consist of a box culvert for the P-1 channel. Shoring, dewatering, and diversion of flowing water will be required to construct the shallow foundations. Shallow foundations are also feasible for Bridge 405/1 7 (Benson Road) but space limitations may preclude the excavation of shallow foundations at this bridge. If shallow foundations are selected they should be designed in accordance with the design criteria presented in the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. These criteria include acceptance requirements for bearing capacity, sliding, and overturning. For Bridge 405/17 (Benson Road), primary and secondary settlement of shallow foundations must not exceed the tolerance of the bridge structure, which generally will be less than 1 inch total. Allowable bearing capacities used for design of the existing bridge were 16 ksf due to the shallow depth to bedrock. Groundwater seepage should be anticipated for shallow foundation excavations for the new bridge piers. If groundwater is not properly controlled, the bedrock could break down and become muddy and/or unstable, requiring overexcavation. Groundwater should be channeled away from the footing subgrade to limit saturation and deterioration of the subgrade. The stability of temporary footing excavations will need to be addressed in order to construct shallow foundations. Open cuts may be completed where space allows. Driven shoring, e.g. sheet piling, should be expected to meet refusal in the bedrock at the proposed bridge piers. In areas where space limitations and dense soils or bedrock reduce the feasibility of excavations and shoring required for shallow foundations, deep foundations such as piles or drilled shafts may be more suitable. For Bridge 405/13-C (P-1 Channel), total allowable settlements may be greater than I inch as this structure will be a box culvert. The tolerable settlement limit should be evaluated by the design-build team. Liquefaction-induced settlements should also be considered in the design of this structure. The existing structure was supported on a 1.5-foot-thick concrete slab overlying 3 feet of Gravel Backfill for Foundations (Class B). Additional as-built information for this structure is provided in Appendix C. Groundwater control will be a critical success factor if shallow foundations are considered. Along with shoring, dewatering, and diversion of flowing water, a concrete seal will likely be necessary. 5.2.3 Pile Foundations Pile capacity and settlement should be evaluated using the design criteria presented in the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. Lateral load resistance for pile foundations should also be evaluated using the design criteria presented in the Geotechnical Design Manual. The lateral loading effects of pile groups should be included in the analyses. Evaluation of the soil conditions at the bridges indicates that standard soil profiles are not appropriate. The design should take into account downdrag loads associated with liquefaction-induced settlement and lateral loads associated with lateral spreading, if liquefaction and lateral spreading are not mitigated. Pile driving should be completed in general accordance with the WSDOT (2004) "Standard Specifications." Dense to very dense soil conditions and bedrock will likely affect the ability to drive various types of piles. Open-ended piles or H piles may be easier to drive than closed-ended or concrete piles in the gravelly alluvial deposits or bedrock. Selection of driven piles should also consider the File No. 0180-173-00 October 14, 2005 Page 21 GEOENGINEER~ presence of liquefiable soils near bridge piers and any effects induced liquefaction may have on existing structures. Cobbles and boulders should be expected at the west abutment of the SR 181 overcrossing (Bridge 405/11 )and rubble and other debris should be expected in the existing embankment fill. The presence of these materials may impede pile driving activities. It should be specifically understood that WSDOT does not allow or approve the use of augercast piles. Cast-in-place concrete piles may be used provided they are installed within a casing driven to the appropriate acceptance criteria. The travel lanes of 1-405 will likely need to remain open during bridge widening and replacement, which will result in heavily congested work areas. Pile installation, movement of pile driving equipment and staging of construction materials will need to be considered in order to maintain operation of 1-405. 5.2.4 Drilled Shafts Drilled shaft capacity and settlement should be evaluated using the design criteria presented in the Geotechnical Design Manual. Lateral load resistance for drilled shaft foundations should also be evaluated using the design criteria presented in the Geotechnical Design Manual. The lateral loading effects of shaft groups should be included in the analyses. Evaluation of the soil conditions at the bridges indicates that standard soil profiles are not appropriate. The design should take into account downdrag loads associated with liquefaction-induced settlement and lateral loads associated with lateral spreading, ifliquefaction and lateral spreading are not mitigated. Groundwater seepage should be expected in drilled shaft excavations, and the contractor should be prepared to deal with these conditions. Control of groundwater may require the use of temporary casing or "wet" construction using drilling slurries to maintain sidewall stability of the drilled hole. Temporary casing may also be required to maintain support of the existing embankment fill material during drilled shaft construction. If "wet" construction methods are used, it will be necessary to use tremie methods for placement of concrete. Nondestructive testing of shafts using Cross Sonic Logging (CSL) is required for all drilled shafts constructed using "wet" methods. Installation of the CSL logging tubes should occur during construction. Drilled shafts should be drilled with equipment that reduces the amount of loose cuttings or slough at the bottom of the drilled hole. Slough and loose cuttings should be removed from the hole prior to placing the concrete. Cobbles and boulders are frequently encountered in glacially deposited soils. Cobbles and boulders should be expected at the west abutment of Bridge 405/1 I (SR 181) as this area was previously the Green River channel and was backfilled with boulders during the original 1-405 construction. Rubble and other debris should also be expected in existing embankment fill. The contractor should be prepared to remove cobbles, boulders, rubble, and debris during drilled shaft construction. The travel lanes of 1-405 will likely need to remain open during bridge widening and replacement, which will result in heavily congested work areas. Shaft installation, movement of drilling equipment and staging of construction materials will need to be considered in order to maintain operation of 1-405. File No. 0/80-173-00 October /4, 2005 Pagell GEOENGINEER~ 5.2.5 Bridge Approach Slabs Approach slabs will be necessary for this project, as referenced in the Geotechnical Design Manual. 5.3 WALL RECOMMENDATIONS 5.3.1 General The Renton Nickel Improvement project plans currently include construction of nineteen new retaining walls. The locations of the new retaining walls are shown on the Site Plan, Figures 3A through 3J. A list of the retaining walls is tabulated in Section 1.2 of this report. Bridge structure abutment walls are also planned for some of the widening and replacement bridges. Numerous existing retaining walls are present along the project corridor. Details regarding the wall type, foundation conditions, design criteria and subsurface conditions for the existing walls are presented in Appendix B. The majority of new retaining walls support fills. The exceptions are retaining walls 4100, 4150 and 4160 located near a bedrock outcrops; a small section of retaining wall 4020 below Lind Avenue (existing Bridge 405/14 (20)); and retaining wall 4115 and a small section of retaining wall 4008 below Christensen Road (existing Bridge 405/9 (8)). Considerations for cut and fill walls are provided in the following report sections. 5.3.2 General Wall Design and Construction Considerations Wall design guidelines are dependant on the relative location of the wall to bridge structures. Criteria and guidelines for design of the various retaining walls for the project are presented in the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. The design guidelines in Section 5.1 for earthquake engineering and the construction considerations presented in Section 5.2 for bridge foundations are also appropriate for retaining wall foundations, depending on the type of wall and foundation support option selected during design. For all retaining walls, adequate drainage should be installed behind walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures. Slopes above retaining walls should be 2H: 1 V or flatter, and the wall designs should include appropriate surcharges for any slopes or loads above the wall. 5.3.3 Walls Supporting Cuts Feasible wall types for supporting cuts at the site include soil nail walls and rock bolted walls (appropriate only for retaining walls 4100, 4150 and 4160). Groundwater seepage should be expected in cuts and the design of retaining walls supporting cuts should consider the stability of cut faces. Criteria and guidelines for design of soil nail walls and rock cuts are presented in the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. If soil nail or rock bolt walls are chosen to support the cut slope at retaining wall 4100, face instability and localized caving may occur during installation due to the presence of decomposed bedrock at the surface and shallow groundwater. Face stability and localized caving may also occur during soil nail wall installation for retaining walls 4008, 4115, and 4020, particularly since the soils are abutment fill below existing bridges and are expected to be loose to medium dense. The contractor should be prepared to modify their excavation and soil nailing or rock bolting methodology to reduce caving, as excessive caving could impact facilities beyond the 1-405 right-of-way. File No. 0180-/73-00 October 14, 2005 Page23 GEOENGINEER~ Typical allowable anchor design values for design of soil nails in the Renton formation are presented below (WSDOT, 1990) along with typical values for soil nails in fill: • Weathered sandstone-1.4 to 1.7 kips per foot • Fresh sandstone -3.5 kips per foot • Fill -0.5 to 1.5 kips per foot (cased holes likely required) It should be noted that the anchor load transfer value is highly dependant on installation techniques. Lower values are typical of gravity feed grouting. Significantly higher values can be achieved using pressure injection grouting or secondary grouting. 5.3.4 Walls Supporting Fills Most of the new fill walls along the project corridor will be underlain by soft silt or organic soils (younger alluvial deposits, wetland deposits, or recessional outwash) which will likely settle significantly under the load of a Standard Plan wall (concrete cantilever retaining wall). Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) or structural earth walls, gabion walls, gravity block walls, and rockeries (herein referred to as "flexible wall systems") are generally more feasible than Standard Plan concrete cantilever retaining walls because they can tolerate large settlements. MSE walls include proprietary wall systems listed in Appendix 15-D of the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. The primary issues with regard to wall selection are settlement, facing requirements, and shoring requirements. Two-stage MSE walls may be required due to the expected large settlements of the younger alluvial and wetland deposits. The first stage of two-stage MSE wall construction consists of building a full-height wall with a temporary facing. After settlement of the underlying soils occurs, the second stage of construction is completed. The second stage involves installation of the permanent facing. The need for two-stage MSE wall construction should be evaluated by the design-build team. Soldier pile walls could also be considered where space is limited for excavation to provide adequate reinforcement length for MSE walls or footing width for standard plan walls. Limited space may occur where roadway widening is planned adjacent to the travel lanes where little to no existing shoulder is present. Soft subgrade soils and/or unsuitable soils are likely to be encountered during construction in areas adjacent to existing mapped wetlands and areas mapped as younger alluvial or wetland deposits. Soft/unsuitable soils may require overexcavation and replacement with suitable borrow materials, depending on the wall type selected. In addition to the use of flexible wall systems for walls constructed over soft younger alluvial or wetland deposits. the contractor may consider overexcavation and/or pre loading to reduce the amount of post-construction settlement, as discussed in Section 5.6. 5.3.5 Specific Retaining Walls In addition to the general wall design and construction considerations, specific details and considerations for the new retaining walls are presented in the following table. Cross sections of the retaining walls, along with available subsurface information, are presented in Figures 9A through 9M. The list of feasible wall types in the table is not exhaustive and other wall types may also be considered as discussed in Chapter 15 of the Geotechnical Design Manual. The construction considerations listed in the table were identified during the geologic reconnaissance phase of this project. In addition to the listed construction and design considerations, existing signs and utilities will need to be relocated or replaced and vegetation will need to be cleared. File No. 0180-173-00 October 14. 2005 Page 24 Geo ENGINEER~ Table 5. Retaining Wall Design and Construction Considerations Retaining Wall Location 4100 SB 1-405 near 641h Avenue 1--... ________ 4008 NB 1405 between Tukwila Parkway and 681h Avenue - 4115 SB 1-405 near 661h/ Christensen Road ' 4010 NB 1405 between BNSF/UP RR and Oakesdale Avenue ·-----~. 4111 SB 1405 between BNSF/UP RR and Oakesdale Avenue --4020 NB 1-405 between Oakesdale Avenue and SR 167 -·-·-·-·-···--···-·-·-·- 4130 SB 1405 between Oakesdale Avenue and Lind Avenue File No. 0]80./73.00 October I 4, 2005 Max Wall Height Application (It) • Cut 8 Cut and Fill 10 (fill) 6 (cut) Cut 3 Fill 17 Fill 13 Cut and Fill 6 (cut), 22 (fill) Fill 22 Feasible Wall Types Design/Construction Considerations Standard Plan, * Topography slopes up to north with existing rock slope at Soil Nail. Rock 1/2H:1V Bolt * Outcrop is weathered and decomposed, no drill or blasting holes observed (see Section 3.2.7) * Existing wall along Southcenter Blvd (top of slope) * Drainage ditch with quarry spalls along base of embankment drains into culvert that heads east, standing water -soft, wet soils may need to be overexcavated * Temporary shoring needed for excavation of footing for standard plan wall • Existina culvert mav need to be relocated -'Flexible Wall • Topography slopes down to south except at bridge abutment System, where topography slopes down to north Soldier Pile * Portion of wall will replace an existing MSE wall (fill)/ * Will extend below south abutment of bridge at Christensen Rd Soil Nail (cut) (cut wall) * Soil nails may need to be splayed to avoid existing bridge pile foundations * Up to 10 feet of potentially compressible silt and organic soil * Previous geotechnical reports estimated up to 2 inches of settlement for 8 foot high embankment fills " Potentiallv liouefiable soil conditions nresent below wall Standard Plan, "'Topography slopes down to the south Soil Nail "'Wall will extend below north abutment of bridge at Christensen Rd (cut wall) "' Soil nails may need to be splayed to avoid existing bridge pile foundations """···-·-·-·-····· Flexible Wall * Topography slopes down to south at 2H: 1V System, * Drainage swale at base of existing embankment Soldier Pile * Up to 10 feet of potentially compressible silt * Existing tiered metal bin wall may interfere with wall reinforcement * Existing fire hydrant and electrical equipment will need to be relocated "'Trees, brush and landscaping " Potentially liauefiable soil conditions nresent below wall --F·1e·xible Wall "Existing 1-405 lanes supported by MSE walls. Modular block walls System, for bike path also present near the bottom of the MSE walls. Wal Soldier Pile design for the western portion of wall will need to account for these existing facilities. " Drainage swale at base of existing embankment "' Coal tailings encountered in existing fill soils * Up to 13 feet of potentially compressible silt, based on explorations "Trees, brush and landscaping " Potentiallv liauefiable soil conditions nresent below wall Fi"exible Wall " Topography slopes down to south at about 1 • 1/2H: 1 V System, "Will replace existing gabion basket wall at base of embankment Soldier Pile (east end of wall) -gabion walls fonn a drainage channel (fill)/ " Soil nails may need to be splayed to avoid existing bridge Soil Nail (cul) foundations • Drainage swale at base of existing embankment {west end of wall), standing water-soft, wet soils may need to be overexcavated " Up to 15 feet of potentially compressible silt wilh variable peat thickness; Previous geotechnical reports estimated up to 4 inchei of settlement for approximately 16 foot high embankment fills * Existing catch basin near Oakesdale Avenue and electrical equipment may need to be relocated * Potentiallv liauefiable soil conditions nresent below wall Flexible Wall *Topography slopes down to north at about 1-1/2H:1V System, *Drainage swale present along portions of base of existing Soldier Pile embankment *Up to 1 O feet of potentially compressible silt with variable organic content * Soft soils may need to be overexcavated * Potentiallv liauefiable soil conditions oresent below wall Page25 GEOENGINEER~ Max Wall Retaining Height Feasible Wall Wall Location Application (ft) • Types Design/Construction Considerations 4040A SB 1-405 Fill 8 Flexible Wall * Topography slopes down to north at 2H:1V between Talbot System, * Will replace existing rockery wall Road and SR Soldier Pile * Drainage ditch with quarry spalls at base of embankment along 167 One Renton Place building -soft, wet soils may need to be overexcavated " Up to 1 0 feet of potentially compressible silt f---c-_-·---" Potentiallv liauefiable soil conditions oresent below wall 40408 SB 1-405 west Fill 15 Standard Plan. "Topography slopes down to north at 2H:1V of Talbot Road Flexible Wall "Will replace existing rockery wall System, " Potentially liquefiable soil conditions present below wall Soldier Pile ........... ,-.... .. 4140 NB 1-405 west Fill 4 Standard Plan. "Topography slopes down towards south and east of Talbot Road Flexible Wall * Significant vegetation along wall alignment System ·----·----·--·-·-· SB 1-405 Fill Flexible Wali --"Topography slopes down to northwest at 2H:1V 4050 11 between System, * Trees and heavy brush Benson Road Soldier Pile " Potentially liquefiable soil conditions present below wall and Talbot Road 4110 SB Benson Fill 15 Flexible Wall * Topography slopes down to west at 2H:1V Road near System. " No subsurface data available within 300 feet of wall; geologic 1-405 Soldier Pile maps indicate recessional outwash * Trees and hea"" brush -- 4120 SB Benson Fill 34 Standard Plan, '* Topography slopes down to west at 2H:1V Road Flexible Wall "Coal tailings likely present in fill soils System. '* Wall design may need to take into account culvert at base of Soldier Pile slope below wall " Heavv brush and vegetation 4150 NB 1-405 Cut and Fill 10 (cut). 3 Soil Nail. Rock * Topography slopes down to northwest Between (fill) Bolt (cut)/ "Wall alignment along old rock cut slope Benson Road Flexible Wall * Heavy brush and vegetation System. * Wall design could be similar to existing wall 2A in Appendix C and Thunder Standard Plan Hills Creek. (fill) 4060 SB ·1-4()5 ·a10n9 ~· Fill 18 Standard Plan, * Topography sloPe·s down to west at 1 H:1V Benson Flexible Wall * May surcharge existing concrete retaining wall along east side of Road/Main Ave System, Benson Rd Soldier Pile * Coal tailings present in existing fill * Hea\l\J brush ········· 4160 NB 1-405 along Cut 10 Soil Nail, Rock * Topography slopes down to west Renton Hills Bolt * Wall alignment along old rock cut slope and ties in existing wall and connects 2A * Heavy brush and vegetation to existing Wall * Wall desian could be similar to existina wall 2A in ll.nnendix C -4070 ""'"" ........ "'" ... ·-· SB 1-405 near Fill 6 Standard P!an, * Topography slopes down to west at 2H:1V Cedar Avenue Flexible Wall * May surcharge existing concrete wall along Cedar Ave System, Soldier Pile --·--·-·--·-· ··--· 4080 SB SR 167 Fill 9 Flexible Wall * Topography slopes down to west along East System, * Up to 15 feel of potentially compressible silt, clay and peat Valley Road Soldier Pile * Previous geotechnical report estimated 4 to 8 inches of wall settlement for wall heights of 8 to 15 feet and recommended surcharge prior to construction of wall * Heavy brush * Potentiallv liauefiable soil conditions oresent below wall ----"·--···· .. 4090 SB SR 167 Fill 14 Flexible Wall * Topography slopes down to west at 2H:1V between SW System, * Mapped wetlands, standing water 43'd Street and Soldier Pile * Soft and wet soils need to be overexcavated, may require SW 23'd Street surcharge * Erosion control fabric and mat along exisling embankment slope * Up to 20 feet of potentially compressible silt and peat * Heavy brush * Potentially liQuefiable soil conditions nresent below wall Notes: •Maximum wall height is based on preliminary 20% design plans. Final wall heights may vary. File /li'o. 0180-173-00 October 14. 2005 Page 26 GeoENGINEER~ 5.3.6 Bridge Structure Abutment Walls Bridge structure abutment walls may be constructed for the Renton Nickel Improvement Project bridges. Feasible wall types for consideration include "Standard Plan" walls or pre-approved proprietary MSE walls, provided requirements for wall settlement and stability are satisfied. The abutment wall design should take into account sloping conditions in front of and behind the wall, as well as traffic surcharge loading, as appropriate. The potentially liquefiable soils at the bridge locations, as discussed in Section 5.1, will also need to be considered in design of bridge structure abutment walls. Evaluation and mitigation of potentially liquefiable soils should be evaluated by the design-build team as discussed in Section 5.1. 5.4 STORMWATER FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS 5.4. 1 General The project includes construction of five stormwater detention ponds and eleven ecology embankments. A list of the stormwater facilities is tabulated in Section 1.2 of this report. The ecology embankment is a flow-through runoff treatment device developed for use where available right-of-way is limited, lateral gradients are generally less than 25 percent ( 4H: 1 V), and longitudinal gradients are less than 5 percent. The ecology embankment provides runoff treatment utilizing filtration through a pervious, alkalinity-generating treatment medium, called the ecology mix, that was designed to remove suspended solids and soluble metals from highway runoff through physical straining, ion exchange, carbonate precipitation, and biofiltration. The locations of these facilities are shown on the Site Plan, Figures 3A through 3K. The groundwater information in this section of the report is presented as a depth below the ground surface (bgs) because the datum of many of the historical borings is unknown. The elevation of the groundwater measured in the explorations completed for this study (NA VD 88 datum) is summarized in Section 3.3. 5.4.2 Design and Construction Considerations The design of the stormwater detention ponds, constructed wetlands and ecology embankments should be completed in accordance with guidelines presented in the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual. If infiltration is desired, the guidelines provide two methods for infiltration design: I) a detailed analysis which considers the site specific hydraulic gradient for the site and 2) a simplified method which considers the estimated infiltration rate of the site soils. The site specific hydraulic gradient in the detailed analysis is estimated using an empirical equation based on several ASTM gradation properties of the soil. For critical designs, in-situ hydraulic gradient values can be obtained through field tests such as packer permeability tests, piezocones, or through the use of a pilot infiltration test (PIT). The infiltration rate using the simplified method is estimated using the ASTM 0 10 gradation value (particle size for which IO percent of the sample is finer). The table below presents the anticipated soil conditions at each stormwater facility, available laboratory test results from nearby explorations, as well as the estimated long-term infiltration rates using the simplified method. File l•./o. 0180-/73-00 October I 4, 2005 Page27 GEOENGINEER~ Table 6. Estimated Long-Term Infiltration Rates for Stormwater Facilities Number of Results of Stormwater Sieve Sieve Analyses Estimated Facility Location Soil Type Analyses D,, (mm) lnfi ltration Rate Detention Ponds Storm Water Infield of 1-5/1-405 Younger alluvial deposits 2 <0.075 < 1 inch per hour Pond# MP 0.2 Interchange Storm Water South of NB 1-405 offramp Younger alluvial deposits 2 <0.075 < 1 inch per hour Pond# MP 0.9 to SR 181 -------------- Storm Water South of NB 1-405, Near Younger alluvial deposits None -"'< 1 inch per hour Pond#MP 1.9 Seneca Ave SW ------ Storm Water Between SB 1-405 and Fill or Renton formation 5 <0.075 < 1 inch per hour Pond# MP 2.9 Benson Road (decomposed) ··-----·-·---····--------·--·-------~ -------.......... ................ -------------····--···----..... . ............ ····-······--·""" Storm Water Between SB SR 167 and Wetland deposits or Younger 2 <0.075 < 1 inch per hour Pond# MP 25.2 East Valley Road alluvial deposits Ecology Embankments EE# MP 0.3 Infield of 1-511-405 Younger alluvial deposits 2 <0.075 < 1 inch per hour Interchange --· EE# MP 0.9 South of NB 1-405 offramp Fill over younger alluvial 2 <0.075 < 1 inch per hour to SR 181 .. ~_eposits EE# MP 1.5 South of Oakesdale Younger alluvial deposits 1 <0.075 < 1 inch per hour ·-EE# MP 2.0 North of SB 1-405 along Fill over younger alluvial None -*< 1 inch per hour SW 131n ST between deposits Seneca Ave and Lind Ave -·· .. --.. ---·-----,-...... EE# MP2.9 Between SB 1-405 and Fill or Renton formation 4 <0.075 < 1 inch per hour Benson Road (~_~composed) --·----··~ ---·------------.. ---"· EE# MP 2.8 Between SB 1-405 and Fill or Renton formation 2 <0.075 < 1 inch per hour Benson Road (decomposed) EE# MP 3.0 Between SB 1-405 and Fill or Renton formation 2 <0.075 < 1 inch per hour Benson Road (decomposed) EE# MP 3.2 Between SB 1-405 and Fill or Renton formation 2 <0.075 < 1 inch per hour Benson Road (decomposed) ··------··-·······-·····--·-·----·----· ----·-------··"···-·- EE# MP 24.7 West of SB SR-167 Fill over wetland deposits or 2 <0.075 < 1 inch per hour younger alluvial deposits ··---·----·---·--··---····-··--···--·-·------------. -------------------------··---------------·---·-----------·----------··-- EE# MP 24.9 West of SB SR-167 Fill over wetland deposits or 2 <0.075 < 1 inch per hour _y~_un_ger alluvial deposits ____ EE# MP 25.4 West of SB SR-167 Fill over wetland deposits or 2 <0.075 < 1 inch per hour younger alluvial deposits Notes: * Estimated based on laboratory testing in similar soil types at other pond/ecology embankment locations listed in table. A specific long-term infiltration rate of the soils in the planned facility areas generally cannot be estimated using the simplified method because the soils generally contain greater than IO percent fines (silt and clay). For soils with greater than IO percent fines, the long-term infiltration rate is less than 1 inch per hour. Additional laboratory testing, including hydrometer analyses, is required to define the long-term infiltration rate using the ASTM D 10 gradation methods. Because of the low infiltration rates for soils in the vicinity of the planned facilities, the facilities should be primarily designed for detention rather than infiltration. 5.4.3 Specific Facilities Pond #MP 0.2 and Ecology Embankment #0.3 Pond #MP 0.2 will be constructed in the infield of the 1-5/1-405 interchange at Southcenter and ecology embankment #MP0.3 will be constructed along the ramp from 1-405 southbound to SR 518 westbound. The pond will be constructed with a 4Y, foot cut below the existing topography, which slopes down to the south. One exploration was completed in the vicinity of the pond, SRP-1-05 (Current). The groundwater File lVo. 0180-173-00 October 14, 2005 Page28 GEOENGINEER!O level was measured at Elevations varying from 26.5 feet to 36.3 feet (6 to 15 feet below the existing ground surface). Pond #MP 0.9 and Ecology Embankment #MP 0.9 Pond #MP 0.9 will be constructed south of the northbound 1-405 offramp to SR 181. The pond will be constructed with a 4 foot cut below the existing topography. Ecology Embankment #MP 0.9 will be constructed along the north side of the northbound 1-405 offramp to SR 181. Five explorations are present in the vicinity of this pond and ecology embankment: L-22, L-24, BR-30, and AR-23 (L-6166) and SRP-4-05 (Current). The groundwater level was reported at 12 feet below the existing ground surface in SRP-4-05. No groundwater was encountered in the other borings as they were stopped at less than 4 feet. Since the Green River is approximately 200 feet west, the groundwater level should be essentially the same as the water level in the Green River. Ecology Embankment#MP 1.5 Ecology Embankment #MP 1.5 will be constructed south of 1-405 along Springbrook Creek. Five explorations are present in the vicinity of the ecology embankment: PB-2, PB-4, PB-6, and PB-7 (L-2181) and SRL-2-05 (Current). The groundwater level was observed in SRL-2-05 at approximately Elevation 13 feet (6 feet below the existing ground surface). Pond#MP 1.9 Pond #MP 1.9 will be constructed south of northbound 1-405 near Seneca Avenue. The pond will be constructed with a 4 foot cut below the existing topography. No explorations have been completed within 200 feet of this facility. However, soils are expected to be fine-grained and groundwater is expected to be within about 5 to IO feet of the existing ground surface. Ecology Embankment #MP 2.0 Ecology Embankment #MP 2.0 will be constructed north of southbound 1-405 between Seneca Avenue and Lind A venue. Four explorations are present near the alignment: 1-1 7, 1-18, and L-146 (L-6166), and SRX-10-05 (Current). The groundwater level was measured at Elevations varying from 13. 7 feet to 15 feet ( 13 to 14 feet below the existing ground surface). Pond #MP 2.9 and Ecology Embankments #MP 2.8, #MP 2.9, #MP 3.0, and #MP3.2 Pond #MP2.9 and ecology embankments #MP 2.8, #MP 2.9, #MP 3.0, and #MP3.2 will be constructed between southbound 1-405 and Benson Road. The pond will be constructed with a 3 foot cut below the existing topography, which slopes down to the north. Three current explorations were completed in the vicinity of these facilities: SRX-19-05, SRP-2-05 and SRP-3-05. These explorations encountered sandstone (Renton formation) at depths of 6\1, to ]5Y, feet below the ground surface. Groundwater was encountered during drilling at depths of about 12Y, to 20 feet (Elevation 56.4 to 65.2 feet). Measurements of groundwater in SRP-2-05 indicate water is at an Elevation of 55.2 to 56.4 feet. No water has been measured in the well in SRP-3-05. Numerous historic explorations have been completed near these storrnwater facilities including: L-10 I through L-108 (L-6166). These explorations encountered sandstone at I to 8 feet below the ground surface. The presence of groundwater was not noted on the logs. Ecology Embankments #MP 24.7 and #MP 24.9 Ecology embankments #MP 24.7 and #MP 24.91 will be constructed west of southbound SR 167 between SW 41'' Street and SW 29"' Street. Two explorations were completed in the vicinity of the embankments: SRX-25-05 and SRX-26-06 (Current). Groundwater was noted during drilling at a depth of 12 feet below the ground surface (Elevation 19.8 feet) in SRX-26-05. No groundwater information is available for SRX-25-05. File No. 0180-173-00 October J 4, 2005 Page29 GeoENGINEEAS,D Pond #MP 25.2 Pond/wetland #MP 25.2 will be constructed between southbound SR 167 and East Valley Road. The facility will be constructed with a 4 foot cut below the existing topography, which slopes down to the west. One exploration was completed in the vicinity of the facility, SRX-24-05 (Current). This exploration encountered groundwater at a depth of 12 feet below the ground surface (Elevation 20.1 ); however, the boring was completed along SR 167 which has a ground surface 6 to IO feet higher in elevation than the ground surface near the pond/wetland. The shallow groundwater table may reduce the detention capacity of the facility. Ecology Embankment #MP 25.4 Ecology embankment #MP 25.4 will be constructed west of southbound SR 167 near SW 23'' Street. Two explorations were completed in the vicinity of the embankment: SRX-14-05 and SRX-15-05 (Current). Groundwater was noted during drilling at a depth of about 16 feet below the ground surface (Elevation 13.2 feet to 13.6 feet). 5.5 SIGN, SIGN BRIDGE AND SIGNAL POLE FOUNDATIONS The number and location of new signs, sign bridges, and signal poles were not available at the time this report was prepared. However, based on the general soil conditions along the project corridor and previous geotechnical studies, "Standard Plan" foundations will generally be feasible for the design of these structures. The foundations of these structures should be designed in accordance with Chapter 17 of the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. For foundations placed on or near a slope, the foundation depth will need to be increased or special foundation designs will be required. Special designs may also be required for other reasons, such as structure configuration (i.e. cantilever signs with long mast arms). Special foundation designs should be completed using the guidelines presented in the manual. 5.6 EMBANKMENTS AND CUT SLOPES 5.6.1 General Existing fill embankments and cut slopes into native soils are present along both sides of 1-405. The inclinations of the existing slopes typically range from about I Y,H:1 V to 3H:l V. Steeper cut slopes, up to Y,H:IV, were observed along the rock cut near planned retaining wall 4100. This cut was completed in the Renton formation. Based on our observations, in general the embankment side slopes and cut slopes appear stable throughout the project corridor. 5.6.2 Design and Construction Considerations The design requirements for embankments and cut slopes are dependant on the location along the project corridor. All embankment design must meet the requirements outlined in the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. The factor of safety for bridge approach embankments should be at least 1.5 for static conditions and I. I for seismic conditions if the embankment supports the structure foundation or if an abutment wall supports the embankment. Bridge approach embankments require "Gravel Borrow" material. For all other embankments not defined as bridge approach embankments, "Select Borrow," "Gravel Borrow," or "Common Borrow" may be used for fill embankment construction. Global stability analyses should be completed for each embankment or cut slope, and the factor of safety should be at least 1.25 for static conditions. If embankments support non-critical structures such as walls, the factor of safety should be at least 1.3 for static conditions. These embankments or cut slopes generally do not need to be designed for seismic conditions. File No. 0180-173-00 October 14, 2005 Page 30 GEO ENGINEER~ New slope inclinations may match existing inclinations provided the stability of the slope is evaluated by the design-build team and the slopes have adequate factors of safety. If retaining walls are designed to support embankments or cut slopes, the overall stability of the embankments and slopes in the vicinity of the walls shall be considered as part of the design of retaining walls. Soft subgrade soils and/or unsuitable soils are likely to be encountered during construction m areas adjacent to existing mapped wetlands and areas mapped as younger alluvial or wetland deposits. Soft/unsuitable soil may also be present in other areas along the project corridor. Soft/unsuitable soils may require overexcavation and replacement with suitable borrow materials in order to achieve adequate embankment stability. Alternatively, staged construction and/or preloading may be more appropriate depending upon the thickness, composition and total volume of the unsuitable or compressible soils that would otherwise be overexcavated. A significant amount of embankment fill settlement should be expected where younger alluvial or wetland deposits are present. Settlement estimates for existing retaining walls and embankment fills (based on previous geotechnical reports) are summarized in Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 and Appendix C of this report. Preloading and surcharging were generally not recommended for the alluvial deposits; rather the geotechnical reports recommended that future improvements (pavements or bridge foundation construction) be postponed approximately 30 days to allow the fill to settle. Preloading and surcharging were recommended in areas where wetland deposits were present. Typical recommended preload/surcharge heights were 4 to 5 feet. Typical durations for settlement to occur under this loading were estimated to be between 15 days and 4. 7 months. The duration is largely dependant on the thickness of wetland deposits below the embankment fill. Most soils along the project corridor contain a high percentage of fines (material passing the US No. 200 sieve) and are moisture sensitive. Operation of equipment on the site soils will be difficult if embankment construction is completed during wet weather. Disturbance of shallow subgrade soils should be expected if construction is completed during periods of wet weather. "Gravel Borrow" will likely be required for embankment construction during wet weather. "Select Borrow" and "Common Borrow" materials are not considered to be wet weather construction materials. It should be noted that compaction of borrow materials, even "Gravel Borrow," may be difficult during wet weather, unless the fines content is restricted to less than 5 percent. Section 3.2 of this report provides some general guidance regarding the re-use of on-site soils for fill and what gradation criteria ("Common Borrow", "Select Borrow", or "Gravel Borrow") they often meet. The contractor should expect limited work and staging areas for embankment and cut slope construction because of right-of-way constraints and the need to maintain operation of 1-405 during construction. 6.0 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS The thirty-four new explorations for this study were completed to fill-in data gaps along the project alignment and to aid in general site characterization. Since specific borings were not completed for the planned facilities, supplemental geotechnical explorations will be necessary to confirm subsurface conditions and to develop final design criteria for the facilities. The number and location of supplemental explorations should meet the minimum criteria provided in the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. File No. 0180-173-00 October I 4, 2005 Page31 GEOENGINEER~ 7.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use hy the 1-405 Design Team. WSDOT and other members of the project team for the Renton Nickel Improvement Project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the fields of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared.· No warranty or other conditions. express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. 8.0 REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004, "LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Third Edition." Atwater, B.F., 1996, "Coastal Evidence for Great Earthquakes in Western Washington." Assessing Earthquake Hazards and Reducing Risk in the Pacific Northwest, USGS Professional Paper 1560 Vol. I: pp. 77-90. Bakun, W.H., Haugerud, R.A., Hopper, M.G., and Ludwin, R.S., 2002, "The December 1872 Washington State Earthquake," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 8. CH2M Hill, July 29, 1987, "Geotechnical Report (draft copy), Oakesdale Avenue.'" (part of documentation for project S-2181). CH2M Hill, September 17, 1987, "Gcotcchnical Report, Oakesdale Avenue Connection." (part of documentation for project S-2181). Geo. Watkins Evans Consulting Mining Engineer, 1919, "Geologic Structure Map of Renton Coal Mine, Renton Coal Company, Renton, Washington," March 13, 1919. GeoEngineers, Inc., February 7, 1994, ·'Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services, Widening of SR 181 Overcrossing Bridge on SR 405, Tukwila, Washington." Johnson, S.Y., Dadisman, S.V., Childs, .I.R., and Stanley, W.D., 1999, "Active Tectonics of the Seattle Fault and Central Puget Sound, Washington: Implications for Earthquake Hazards," Geological Society of American Bulletin, Vol. 11, No. 7. Halpert, 0. September 12, 200 I, "Renton Avenue Bridge Sound, Inspector Says," Renton Reporter. Hart-Crowser, February 24, 1993, "Geotcchnical Engineering Design Study, SR 405, SR 181/Green River Interchange Modifications, Tukwila, Washington" (part of documentation for project J.] 082). Kelsey, H.M., Sherrod, B.L., and Johnson. S.Y., 2003, "A Late Holocene Earthquake on Central Whidbey Island: Surface Folding Above a Blind Fault," Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 35, No. 6. File No. 0180-173-0() October 14. 2005 Page32 GEOENGINEER!O King County, Washington, 1990, "Sensitive Areas Map Folio" King County, Washington, 2004, GIS Center: http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/sdc/raster/elevation/index.htm King County, Washington, 2004, GIS Center: http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/sdc/raster/ortho/index.htm Livingston, Jr., V.E., 1971, State of Washington Department ofNatural Resources, Division of Mines and Geology, "Geology and Mineral Resources of King County, Washington," Bulletin No. 63. Mullineaux, D.R., 1965, United States Geologic Survey, "Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington," Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-405. Preedy, M., 2003, "1-405 Geotech info:" internal WSDOT correspondence, September 9, 2003. Satake, K., et al., 1996, "Time and Size of a Giant Earthquake in Cascadia Inferred from Japanese Tsunami Records of January 1700." Nature, Vol. 379, pp. 247-248. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., February 22, 1993, "Geotechnical Report, SR 167, HOV Lanes, Renton, Washington" (part of documentation for project W-6391). Sherrod, B.L., Bracher, T.M., Weaver, C.S., Bucknam, R.C., Blakely, R.J., Kelsey, H.M., Nelson, A.R., and Haugerud, R.A., 2003, "Evidence for a Late Holocene Earthquake on the Tacoma Fault, Puget Sound, Washington," Geological Society of America, Vol. 35, No. 6, September, 2003. Sherrod, B.L., Nelson, A.R., Kelsey, H.M., Bracher, T.M., Blakely, R.J., Weaver, C.S., Rountree, N.K., Rhea S., and Jackson, B.S., 2003, The Catfish Lake Scarp, Allyn, Washington: Preliminary Field Data and Implications for Earthquake Hazards Posed by the Tacoma Fault", USGS Open File Report 03-0455. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, November 1973, "Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington." United States Geological Survey, "Earthquake Hazards Program, Interpolated Probabilistic Ground Motion for the Conterminous 48 States by Latitude Longitude, 1996 Data," accessed via http://egint.cr.usgs.gov/eg/html/lookup-intem.html, on May 11, 2005. Waldron, H.W., 1962, United States Geologic Survey, "Geologic Map of the Des Moines Quadrangle, Washington," Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-159. Walsh, T.J. and Bailey, M.J., 1987, "Coal Mine Subsidence at Renton, Washington," Engineering Geology in Washington, Volume 11, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin 78, pp. 703-712. Warren, W.C., Norbisrath, H. Grivetti, R.M. and Brown, S.P., 1945, "Preliminary Geologic Map and Brief Description of the Coal Fields of King County, Washington." Washington State Department of Transportation, September 20-0ctober 7, WSDOT personnel daily field records (Mr. Jolley) regarding original 1-405 construction. File No. 0/80·173·00 October 14, 2005 Page33 GEOENGINEER!O Washington State Department of Transportation, December 28, 1983, "L-6166, SR 405, C.S. 1743, C.M. ST P. and P.R,R. and N.P.R.R., Overcrossing Widening, Vicinity Station 130, Foundation Recommendations." Washington State Department of Transportation. June J 0, J 987, "SR-167, C.S. J 766, L-8612, S l SO'h to SR 405 -NB HOV Lanes, Embankment and Retaining Wall Foundation Recommendations." Washington State Department of Transportation, May 11, 1989, "CS 1743, SR 405, L-7974, South Renton to Sunset Blvd. HOV Lanes, Retaining Walls 3, 5, 6, I 0, and Temporary Detour Wall at Bridge 405/l 7B, Foundation Recommendations,'' Washington State Department of Transportation, July 5, 1989, "CS J 743, SR 405, L-7974, South Renton to Sunset Blvd. HOV Lanes, Cedar Ave. S. U'Xing 405/J 7A, Foundation Recommendations,'' Washington State Department of Transportation, July 11, 1989, "SR 405, CS 1743, L-7974, South Renton to Sunset Blvd. HOV Lanes, Renton Ave. S. U'Xing No. 405/J 7B, Foundation Recommendations." Washington State Department of Transportation, March 27, 1990, "CS J 743, SR 405, L-7974, Renton Ave. U'zing No. 405-l 7B, Addendum to Bridge Foundation Report." Washington State Department of Transportation, May I, 1990, "C.S. 1743, SR 405, L-7974, So. Renton 1/C to Sunset Blvd., Walls I, 17, 18. 20, 21, and 22, Foundation Recommendations." Washington State Department of Transportation, August I, 1990, ·'C.S. 1743, SR 405, L-7974, South Renton VC to Sunset Blvd., Walls 2A. 28, and 4, and M-Line Design, and FR-Line Design, Final Foundation Recommendations." Washington State Department of Transportation. August 2, 1990, "C.S. 1743, SR 405, L-7974, South Renton VC to Sunset Blvd., Detour Wall at Bridge 405/l 7B, Design Revision." Washington State Department of Transportation, September 20, 1990, "Geotechnical Report-Volume I, SR 405, South Renton Interchange to Sunset Boulevard HOV Lanes, CS 1743/1744 , L-7974, Milepost 2.30 to 4.55." Washington State Department of Transportation, December 23, 1994, "Geotechnical Report, Tukwila to Factoria, SC and DI and HOV Ramp 13yPass. C.S. 1744, SR 405, XL-0560." Washington State Department of Transpo11ation, August 5, 1999, "SR405, OL-3478, SR405/167 Interchange Flyover Ramp, Geotechnical Recommendations." Washington State Department of Transportation, November 2004, "Geotechnical Design Manual." Washington State Department of Transportation, March 2004, "Highway Runoff Manual" M31-16. Washington State Department of Transportation, 2004, "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction." Yount, J.C., Dembroff, G.R., and Barats. G.M., 1985, "Map Showing Depth to Bedrock in the Seattle 30' by 60' Quadrangle, Washington." Fife No. 0180-173-00 October 14, 2005 Page34 GEOENGINEERSg "' 0 ~~~' >, ro ::e "O :J\ ~--r -·. &.p,o.~--W ,• > .. ··---~ <I> . - a: a. "' ::e "O " E ~ ::, "' u: a: ui S2 N ,_ 0 "" 9 "O C: 0 E "O <I> a: ;§ ~I 0 Data Sources : Ph oto from USGS seam less data system, B ase data fro m ESRI web service. 0 2 ,500 --~ u .i:: '" a_ 5,000 -Feet --- a w a: Th is map is for information purposes. Data were compiled from multiple so urces as list ed on th is map. The data sou rces do not guarantee these data are accurate or comp lete. Th ere may have bee n updates t o the data since the publica t ion of this map. T he master fi le is stored by GeoEngineers , Inc. and wi ll serve as the official record of this co m mun ication. The locations of all feature s shown are approximate. Project Location Plan ~+z tI'l Geotechnical Baseline Report 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project GEoENGINEERS C) Figure 1 '-" a a N '"'~- >-"' ::; " <lJ "' ·s; <lJ O'. a. "' :::; ;; OJ 9 " C 0 E " <lJ O'. ;§ <lJI > 0 Figure 3K ....,_~ -Figure 3J 23 I Data So urces : Ba se data from King Cou nty GIS . Hillshade from Department of Ecology. .c iii a.. Figure 31 Figu re JD: 111 \\11 Renton Th is map is fo r information purposes. Data were compiled from multiple sources as listed on this map. The data sources do not guara ntee these data are 0 I accurate or complete . There may have been updates to the data since the pub lication of this map . The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and wil l ~ serve as the official record of thi s communication. The locations of all features shown are approximate. ~--"' "\__ Lake Washington \ I I \_\ ./L ' ~-z tTl Legend Streets Interstates/ High w ays D Index To Figures River 'vVaterbody 0 3,000 --6 .000 -Feet --- Index To Site Plans Geotechnical Baseline Report 1-405 Renton Nicke l Improvement Project GEoENGINEERS Q Figure 2 .. ,~.. .. . --·-. -· ----.. . ... , -. v \. ., < . u ~ -t \\\1»\1\, \~ ~~"'c-~~~. ~··-:--, ',-.,,___ ('~ ··Yv.;,(/ ---·: i .. , r==:J[ -c, ,>. ::1."-\\'\ \\ \ ••.. :\ ~~ ... "c~~<... ----~' ' "' ,>;._ 1 , \ \ '-' \ · ,,< .. ·· ::~ :f' IL . _J'. i>, l_1 -.-.~.\·1\.\. \, ·.·. :--..:~<:-~·.. · · ·.~~~ " ~ ... · _,,r-----\. . \;)"'· ~· O LJ · ···· ' -.. ··~.·.· · _---··-·-·"·· \\\~\ --•--::----'c:c-----.. -~~ " ". --~ . \ L , JC i\) . -::-cc-::---------~-.. ~"'-' -~< \ -~ 1-_ ·.~ . . ~-I' .. . . N ---------.....,_ '. -=------:-------.. ~ ~ --............ \ ---., ' __ f _. --.=-_ i----~-~-~ __ _ ___ • --------1 . ~ I ---~-------::... ---~1 , -~ . ----.---------. c;-,-~. . _.:::]· .. ··L . . __J .• '(· • . .. ---------.-. -. ·. :_ L/ -~-, , , ,. . , I· ·· ,-1 ,-\. '.----i : :·· 'b L] ·-· [1 . :1 ' \ . \ I \1\\ \\\ \ \\\ \\~ 111 ! II---~~ ~~~/-: ; z;-----)~-~~ ·~J ~~] (" ~I· F--2__Q1 "~ _g~ .. :,;:J_-... i b i '. 200 -'.?\ I \I\\''(\ \\\• ,l, -~ 111/1 !( / -~ '•<v•,, ~ ~ •'<' . ··1' "'[\\ 11\~. •,111 \•\ ' ' . ·, --',, -L , ·-' --· .· 0 \ I \ \\ •,, 1 • \ \ ii ---.>, ".._ -.......J 1 1------------, '-......, \\;•\\ I\ \ (SH-178\\ ----'-------,, ----, -l--1 ""··. C~ ,_\ ~,\(;~ \ \ \ ,) \ \ \~~6166 I ...... x· ' -----I -----' Q___Q. --a [ I D ' ...• 1 .· . ( SCALE IN FEET ;;-1 I\\ \\ ,;, \, 1\\1 ' :\. ~ \ -~ 5~ --[_.=JD LJL-1 . ' -( i\' \\ ')\\ \~ \ \ \ ~ '-('-} -,· ' .... -s_ w \ ~' ·,~ \•, II 1· \ \ \ ''" ,_ -------------------. . , z , ·\'1\i,1\\ 1\'\., \\, '-~ ----::::--~-=--. EMBANKMENT ·. '·j, _ _-_I _J (/) "~~~ '' ' \\ ~.,.,-=· --=-----=---=-c_---. IMP0.3 ----· · ~ Sl \ \ ~\\ \ \ \~ \ \ \ )\ / , __ ---~~------;_=--::::::::::::::_-:,=--__ H-'76 '-:C-, ', C-, r _ '-I \ \ ~\ \ \~ \ \ \ ~ -=,~~----=:__ --==---~ --s L6166 --..::::: :::::-_ _ I ,~~~ -~ '~\ :,\ \ --~ --------------------------' ' l ~~ \ 1 ,\ \ 1\ \ \ L[-192 --= -----------------=:-.::::---_ H-175 ~ _'· · , ' .. _L ____ . -· \\ \ \ ~\\ ~, i'r~;s \i1 \\ \\ , ""~ --=::~-fr'=:--=~=-----========-~~~1'"~ a,,~:_ _ 1 -~-r:..:_ . . ·· ··· ~::: -___:~'. _ \ :\\:\1 \ \\\'1 \\ 1 \ 1 11 1 1 11 BRIDGE 405/1 (5) ~ -----Cc--.._ 1Trrs --~--°':c.__ ,s~:;_, ---':i:::.---____ 'U(, · ·-::-. .C:: ~ 1 ' , , , ' i\ Ii ' '\ \ . . ~ , ~-"'L0166 -.__--.: . s-_s __ . --.___ ; -. , ,1\\ \'\ \ \ I -, \ \\ ~ ~-----... '--, , -i~.~6166 ·,-/ ---~-, II \{ f'l U. Li .· ('\\. ', \j ~ /"---_ / -~-< \\';,\U'\,\y~\ -,\1111 r '\\ 1' "___:::::::-..:::--c-c __ ~ .. · ··... -----~~:.~ ~ .. ~"'-. ..__ ,--<::" . ···.;n··.'.1. ~6.-.'·" .·-·.. { ? 1,I '\1\ \' \ 1 1 ~ --~, POND "'~;;,":~----. ', 1 -1..:.~)1, --I "" I .:'I SRP-:w, \ i , 1 \ 0~"'1. "·-:,, '',. #MP0.2 . Sc""=-_:-_':i '':'~·: .. __ • '· v _ /, y: ,._ ,._ r :'.' _CJ_ \\ \ \\ ~ '\<'\ ----_l6166 _______ -..... -.-;;;,. ••,,. 1 / -,, _z L ·-- '\ \\. (Ll 1 ' ' ' E \ -. , ,_, .. , ------.. _ ... " ---r I 0 z --~-.,..... .-1, : ~, __ ,_·~ \' I '\ " 0 400 I '1 J In·-; ~~ .Cs~ ... ., Ii .o ,~o;;o ~ \;)f \ 0 . • ... --.---:::::----_ ... ~. ·· ... ~--.1 ~, ... ---.·.·.-= ... ----·':,,,.;.~ ... · Lblbb"«"-._-..._ "-// ' ·. '· ~c.-. ' ~-.Ba1·· -._:'."--.._, --_·--._-·· • .5 ~/fl;.,, ,1 \\\~~. BRIDGE. 405/5 (7)~[,'s' .. ''' 1 """''~;;::~.::__· " 1Ve§. .••.·.·.· .•• k;:·'·::--..,."---..· .. -... ' ... ''. -~-:::'::>, .~-,, \\~ ' "''r'' -,,"".~ -..... ,,,, ~·· ... ~ ----~-0--. --::--. · _., \I , . · \ \\ ' . . . "'I", ~ "'--,,,.:._~-::::.--""· · . -...,..: 'G.·· t~. ~ <~, , ·-~ · _ -, ---=----------/ ·I. . 1~· , · · 1 1 , · C,, "'·'>>-•o. ', · •,, . ·v ..... ----<. ~"-< ' --.. -~ ~--,, •,, \ .. I I -.;,,, · ,_ ~· ·· .. " " ---:::::,;_,,. :.--r 'I·' -~ . '· ... //•. ,-.._ ,;;>,·· · ... · ... •• ·--:::_=~ °' ~ " " "' "- I ~ "-I 0 0 "' ,-. 0 OJ 0 / 0 "" u / 81."-.., / \1 ·, ', ', .. ·· .. · . , .. /--:-!--_I-,-....,_ C.0 "'./~; .. :._ .-~""~::. :: : ·-,:~~ \0 , . ,, ____ ! ! / , I . ''-"~~.,;:,.-.._.::< ...... _ . . . "1090 ::::. .:: •\, . ..--,),,' ' ' . I#.-,--~ --. \\ ' .·· \ ~·:· -~----.:: ,, . ., I' }. . V -,,~·~=--: \\,, BRIDGE 5/521 N-W (4). •. . -------. .,_ ~-,f-' I .. . . p.c.. ·· .. -~-------.: ... :_ "--.::.:~ ·-.· .. \\ \ \ \ \ \ . '' -----Vi· l{p,J//;~:., ~ . .-,,._ = _J.... . ":·:""' r-~ ~~ ' : 1 1---1/.J)!J;; .....___ -----y' ..__ __ --~ R-S , ;:..; "Cc. . ,1r!i' I=' (,\ . ~ "-. J/i I I ' <::.-r... ·· ·~~ ' 1 • . - I\ I \ ", \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ ', ' ' '. \ \ " ' HOV '' '\ I.' · .. \ 1 \ \\ \ \ \ I\ I (2) '\ '.,\\ i l11if't11/f/' ·. ,' .·. : ~J . '\: ~' I I I I 1 1/ 1 ' ,., ~ ·,, I I , , 11 ',, I , / _ , , , \.rr'i)ir' i ) / / // f I , ; . , ' I 1 \ 1 111'\ 1 1\ ~\ 1 1 I 1\. I I 111/ /i ' I I I ~-~·-~'-.. · 1·. I I I ' I 1' I\ I 111; ' ' , I I ~ 11 \ ,} , , ·, 1 ii 1/ // ', / s? \ ' I I I I I I I I f I I I I I EXPLANATION: I f I I I I e------.. RETAIN!Ne= ,- . WAL+}OOJ~ ,-,. ; .• ,/__;_,·,_ • i-· i'-~o r r I I ~ \"-- _ .... _ .-----.. ,, I "' ,-. Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. SRX-1 s 0 a'.) 0 R-2 S CURRENT BORING HISTORICAL BORING m .., w a::: ::::l 0 ~ w w (/) w z :J I u ~ ::;;: /. Q_ / 2 0 w (l'. 2. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The master hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. References: CAD files "Dex000a306d_a_mp." "4ex00Da040d_AR_revised." "4ex000a040d_lapa_2d," "4px00Da040d_ F ootprinLn ickel_newlaw _ wideoption, n "4px000a040d_ Wa lls_nickel_newlaw _wideoption, n "4pxOD0a040z_dr," GEOENGINEERS U 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SITE PLAN N.RentanS-1" and "S.RentanS-1" provided 05/11/05 and 08/19/05 by WSOOT Geatechnical Research, 1-405 Design Team. FIGURE 3A ZI ;;-1 o" w ii QJ n L w E 0 z -" 0 f-- ~ ~ 0 >, 0 _J 0, ' " " n u_ I <t n u_ I 0 0 n " 0 ro 0 / 0 <t 0 / 0 0 / n " 0 ro 0 ~ (L / ::, 0 w °' <( I') w 0:: ::) (!) ~ w w (/] w z -' I u ~ :::;; [ __J Cl .{J I \ ..J ~, L")----<' \ \\ ----=----.: I, \ \I . .D :..:_ [J . I r--i c--i ·_:,,,\ , L_J L~_J I •.. <.\~\ . ' '· , .. "i< 0'0 CJ ~o [] [J ~ ............... ·--,~ r" ' _ _J l. .~_] )'--;J -if L~ ,...,--\ c_! \J -1 ! ~w:': /, k ""'.~:' 405/108 /\4!.) >, ' . . \cc</ '.\\ 1i.~'-'.·· ... · ~.~ ·., .. . .·"'~--cc.-.·• .. ·;:'~ .. ·/ .--==.7 .... ·.·· -·· \\ \ .· .. -· ,~~ ·'"' ,.·.··;v ·. ' ~\ ,_, ~~ · ' / ·::-= =:-------'• <', <~ BRIDGE (13) !_1~•"" "~ ~~. . . ~<, .. ,)2',~ ,.. >-/ BRIDGE(11) ~~ -,;'\~~~---__ ~:~~ ( ~ BRID~95/1 OS-S (12~ -. • _:.---: .. /~~ - I ~ '\,. _ --~ ~ / •• _,;.__% -;.---/~ /'.4 I.£\ l,---...\ ,• . ,j.,/ ) BRIDGE 405/10S-N (10) "':' -:::,::::--_:::::-_.----.----:s,-,,z'v'\ t~'" s 2 ·" 0 -'1YL''_'.~--"-•·'· p--"';;,;;'_,, r· ' ---··· ,/'· / / 0-, ... ... I r-~-' --.._.,.._" __ - ,r_;~···· ·.··.··· .'\, ( _____ < ',\ \\ ·-~-_,,.-- .----, \ ' 1--.\,, -, ' 0·· '-.r. \ ,,_ ·. . .LJ .. C,/• ~ .. ,. \..----:;,,. -~\ • c:-----~ _ -s'·" ''"'s W . ~-~ \\,\ ~-~~~~ "'" ~ \ ,,...,__......--:~~/ -h AL-l&4 BL 162 SL -1 ------:~~ / S""' S~~------S '\\ \'-' ' y_;y 0 ,_, S,~ :j -~--_;.~ \ \\ --:;,~~,r:,0&.--_ Scs,88 I /1 ~~,. (l.~ -- 1 \ ~,,_::'~q.""ii;{~ sl-31 ___-- --\ -· 9-2 L ~~/~~ \ L:,, ,, "-~:;./.... • .. "'" _.--/•.·::···0'\. .· '~ S,0755 AH63 ~~~...,1\-25 ',# -/ X y " O"""' -//_, L6166 ~fl-.'! ~.--' "-~L6,166,1 V\ '< \ ::,.,-j-~'f' h~:,,•·0 ·"° P;;~ \\,r~\\',, BRIDGE 405/11 (15) \ "' '<//:, , ,,-' ,,/:,/ // ,\\' /?24,,.~? /' Y, / 'c., , , ·':/ / .c •• / . L61.6~~ ~ BRIDGE 405/9 (8) ,~;~ ---/ ~~{~i;~'P //~l;,-636° S·.:;{6~-94 ',\ I , , ;r, ... -·, -:· __ _..--,~? \ I::·. , , -' I ' ' ' WALL,41111~ / ~ AS-,J• / . r-"· ... ,., . -~-r .. ,;:. ··· ' \ '1 '' .. \ .L----' ',-/ ;:;:;--;_,:.,/· ,o --'; :__,-~ L6l66 j\ \\'~ :;;,~·94 r 1) '1 11 \ , \ L_j·~._:/,'·,} '"_>' /: \ .,-,.---~---.....----:::.--:~ --~~· •. O•. ~ , .... -·· ', \\\~BR-29 I Jf-+1.l-1, -·~1 , _;. _A·' ,.· JJ.j ____ .. -----_ • ~ •,.·· ·L-1.-21S, ·. '\,"-... ~1.6166 IAR;js/ \'i_ __ .---\'~ , • · 1::..----------1 "t: -::.-----~ ec-"' 6_:, ~ --~· L6166 ~--___ S, .. 1..Wfoe 1 1 1 1c__:_:___~-_-_·_ -~ _ -:@1~ N r~ ---/. ~-, -----27 _ 11. ----~~ --=--=.L___\:-0, RETA™.J!'Aq_ -~--~~~~-~~~-=_-:--~~;_:~----c: =· ~\: \. BRIDGE :..c~~:--r-r1J: Ll·--,,,,,,--\ B 4t1 ~ --_.....,,.......~-~ --=l\/i~~6a ~ l \ \. \_\ •, '.;'\ 1' 11 ·1 1· -,, ; ' :__ -__ ___.. _ .... ~___;--..l ~.....----,;;;. ~, Rl<;4~\ \ '\ \ 1\ l'I .,- --..... _,.,,_ L-1 ------~---: .. _; >-6: 7'. , , \ -· 1 · \ I t q_.-------'-"l --~-----, .,-~-~~ s LN toO----.,-'l"-.s; , -<-J \ ·.\. POND. '1, '. , 1 ---'C\ , ~-,,,~,cu ~-Lor,~ :C---' -~--,s I \ r ' : \ . #MPO II \ I L1)11 ' 11 11 1..:::::.::__ -µ-----, -----~ -----~ -, L6f66 : 11 I ~: \ • l I I 1 _ -.. ...... __ -___ · .. ----· -~_:-~----J.iP.,ij __ :. -L / J..-~ t . \: ::::tJ11 I \' --. -l. M'.,~. ·. --. --:: .. -. ____ :.--e"w, ~. -. ---~---1---:-9 . .. . , 1 , I .1 . , _LN~,o-... __ ~~~:=--~~-_:~-----.,. · // ,,1:S st2a O _____ . ~' .. -;.ii ~---·~' \--~-T'/ . .L619,D •· -· .... --------~ / .t L6166 -:,J '-· -· · 1 ' I - :-----:;:~-------;--:-;-:--;::;:-·-:--.-~ ·---,---, ' --' --' -_:L~-__.-// ' t'1"' j , CXl 11 ' ~ :· i!?r~'"''-_: Sc-,,-.:·:::~---~.;.:;~-wtt:A-PKWY:-;;=_cc_~-"'::' ~ -~. \\1i111 ,.J~ I~ ~ ~ -11 ----L6T6o-----=-~---=-=------= -IC?'_"!~ --~ .. ,.. --L ,, __ .,-; -· ' .&-l \ ·\ ' \ II ,---,--1---' - --L6166 L-8 --......._LN ' --RET'.&UlttJl.l ····---·-"' ,,---------c=r': " / I I ! ··1. I I I ___s' ··················--L6,"6········ -.·······. . .A ........... ,~ ' I I I: , lfC',, . ). '' , I ~ -·--.. '"£'.. . . . . ·. \YAII4~08··· .. -_ \ -,l:J' SRX-5, ~ \)~ \' ,,, ,'','1. -N " !~~-~-~I 1\1 ·· I~ 1 iJ " CJ ) ~ 1 ••• ··' \,:c ~.1-· I --- EXPLANATION: I L6156 ,·.:1~ I 1 u I') w 0:: ::) C) ;:;:: w w (/] w· z ::J I u ~ :::;; Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. ~ 0 200 400 2. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data ore accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The master hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. References: CAD files "Oex000a306d_a_mp." "4ex000a040d_AR_revised." "4ex000o040d_topo_2d," "4px000a040d_ F ootprinLnickel_newlaw _ wideoption," "4px000a040d_ Walls_nickel_newlaw _ wideoption," "4px000a040z_d r," N,RentanS-1" and "S.RentanS-1" provided 05/11/05 and 8/19/05 by WSDOT Geatechnical Research, 1-405 Design Team. SRX-3 L-1 S CURRENT BORING HISTORICAL BORING SCALE IN FEET GEoENGINEERS CJ 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SITE PLAN FIGURE 3B "' 0 "- "-0 0 w z (/] 0 (/] ii 0 ii "' ~ "O "' n LL I <( n LL I 0 0 n " 0 a) 0 / 0 3 / 0 0 / n " 0 a) 0 (Il t') w 0:: ::) (.') LL w w U) w z ::J I u !;,: :::;: ·,~, ,, '. C,._c· ,._ --· i ·~r l ffrj _J r::-c.---1 .· \\ ·> -.:-- '\._·\o •' '0 ... ~·~·- _,----- 'Q _ .• --· If · .. t ~.-::..~-1ci-----: . m, •.· ' ~·· j ____J ·--::-~~~:J'~\\\,\~ ,,_/ ~' .. \ \ .• I -1 ! 'I "-1 '--"\\\\ <!, __..,----_:, V '1 -~1~--· ,,,-· / .. ~. ll'.,~ •· . \ \ BRIDG~-- /"'.- ,,.--' __ ,.,. ~.,.,.? (13) //' ~·-~~~~ ,\Of.)~ -~d-SRX .. -._;:/;;:;. : ..•. ·?:;:,, ~--· ~-~--•·•· ' ') ·' \ ~..-..-cc,· . ;... "" _,_.J .. . ' \ ·/ • ..::• i <C .~ Lf:66 .~2,:::~-~ -~\\ \'.;c~ " ,.-' =-·, <C"' "' ... . -.,,/ _.,./- ' _/_.) ·, ----\ <.....-,--. \.. . \),. 9.,,/-\ \ \ H-> " l6166 SRX-7o D ··1 I 11 ' ' I j ----· \ ..... -: ' :\~ ·-~~-· \ \;.c, \ • ..__ \\_'-"~---I 4-05/12 (16) 1· ··~·· ··, $ SRL-! . ~"\ gRIDGE =-= c= = ., ... \ I I i, r ~ 1, I I </' •' / : '/ . /., ~,/ Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the ';J "::J '--~ -,..:,/ ~Jl \ \ \ . •' ~ ::;;;·~ ,• ~ "' -----~---, ----•" \\ . ~ \\ r,.---~ \ ./ -~:---- ' ' l,___)' /' ;;.-;::.----,• "·( \\ /~ - -~ \:;::::::::~ • .• • C i \ /\}\ /~ 1 BRIDGE. 405/13.5 ~;.------\'I) ~'\·s ~,',\ I c 19) i il2'." r, \, ,., I I • --~,,\ § s\3 ~ '-~;1~{-- PS-e t21at '.~-L.21e, ''\ .\\ .;..,!;,-~ ___ _,_ _____ ---j ECOL,Y_/ BANKM NT IMP.5 BRIDGE 405/13 ,L-f51' \ \\ L616i5 L-·.,.,-,__ -=\L21B~- -:=:::: -8 1 1--.6 __ ~~.GiW -~· •-~----'-fw B \3, S', I ;• ;~11(~-- s~aS \ \ w~, . $•-s \ ~ PB-4s ~ ·~ U1B1 ' c,,a, ~,~, .\ RETA-INII G. ~ \\ '~" WtLL ::;jof o I I ·, pg.:5 \S L21B1 --._ PB-7' ~t,,;2J8L B\:7S"-¥!S . LZ\'\_\\ 1 / _J ,,,\~ -~ .1 -=5w · =1_6m=5~ BRIDGE 405/13-C (18)-P-1 CHANNEL, -co ,-~-------~[] 11 C: ~-------~J ce- c::::: :-:::i C: _ _J ~ . N ' I 1 i ;_. -.~ I · . 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET EXPLANATION: SRX-7a ~ H-3 ~ CURRENT BORING HISTORICAL BORING t:J ........ C [1--=;=, =::--::i c~ c.::J ·---, ~'F' =-~ .... ,'-------,---, = =i =..=:>· L • { r l;i:.. 'I ' ' !·&J·· ·, : ;-" j '/ I /I,,·-.. ! ' ''/' ;_·.· . .' \ / lr1,._'·.· I ~I_'/':,,. I I_J /. / /' ,_,, / . / / / / 1 '11: I, I / I /' ,/ ; I /' /. ,I I 1 /,} i; ii' i, 11 ' /I' [/ 0 t') w 0:: ::) (.') G: w w U) w z _J I ~ :::;: ~ data since the publication. of this figure. Th_is figure is a copy_ of a master document. The master hard 11-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT o... copy is stored by GeoEngmeers, Inc. and will serve as the off1c1al document of record. ,t SITE PLAN ; References: CAD files ·oex000a306d_a_mp,: ·~~x_oooa040d_AR_revised,'. "4ex000a040d_topa_2~.: "4px000a040d_" GEO ENG IN ff RS u,) o Footprint_n1ckel_newlaw_w1deopt1on, 4px00Do040d_Walls_nickel_newlow_w1deopt1on, 4px000o040z_dr, ~ FIGURE 3C ~ N.RentonS-1" and "S.RentanS-1" provided 05/11/05 and 8/19/05 by WSDOT Geotechnical Research, 1-405 Design Team. "' 0 " " 0 0 w z VJ 0 VJ 0 "l ~ ill E 0 z .0 0 f- ~ ~ 0 " 0 _J "' ~ 'D "' n u.. I ~ n u.. I 0 0 n c- o OJ 0 / 0 ~ u / 0 0 / n c- o "' 0 u ""' w Cle: ::i (.) u... w w V) w z :::; I u ~ :::. , '\t ?;_;:";;,==~':''.' · l::5).... .. . ...... >{ . "i "" ;·--;=·~·. \ \ ,___ -------------w·AY-:--: .. . . ~., ·~-,, . \, .-------, y , -··'.: ~----I •} _____. (,~ ') 7 "\ ___-'(_ ' ,-;·, ' 'l , ·\· ' --------Mn . . .. ;. ', ' ---i ·.,·.•~ 1--::& -\;i ' _.,, I I· ' \·. ' ·. ill---( ..c-----rt -----' .,.~'""".:~:·, \ ' --:yv---L-"-:"" ., , _....-------I ... ·c-:::::::--:::=.---------,,-··-·' , . _, .. ,. \ ·. . . ... , __ .:-_:::.--'5 . 0, --' >---' ::::::[ '~' . ' r' ·.·. '>0; . .. --~'~ ---.. ,, D ....... < '\ ( (.. 1 1·-~ .. --·"""· <~ ~, -:..--::=:--:c _ ---, 0 · . ------r, · I r1 .~ . ·,,,,,. __ ,,__, \f-::--· ··;_:,_ -----I I ' --~~ t ' : ,', l. I 'J ' 'L r-_'1 ,___::---::::--:: \\ ·.--~······.. 1·. -·. --rr-. l D . ' _o.. r \, ,, . ' ,itli,I , .· i L ' ·. /~ .( -~· ~(CJ LJ~_ c ,-=·1 ~, -.. L Tl I c_{:J - I "--r~ /.·---_.-) ~-. ·------I :..--I '1 .!'/ ·.· I . . .. . ·:, \ __ .~,·-·' L1_ J. " ..:. ·-· ·o ,.....--r-::1. • .11 .. :. . ........... . \ · --,.____. . r . ,-1 1 · 1" I 'i ,J·· r f 1---11 '-. ·L; ,.,[']·····,.~ Cl.JI].~.-n ' \_)/ ~,.! ; I I II . ' · I I u [r:::·.0 ·1 fl; I i I I --I I '• .. ECOLOGY-1 . · I , j i I , BRIDGE 405/14 (20) \Qd··· .... -= n ,>-~ EMBANKMEN+~-,' I I '' ' I '--JMP2.0 . ' 1 11 I I I ~ ~ / w~\"~. _\ . .\ i '~ /_: ... · •.. · .. ·.·. . . ;. _ _:__, ____ :~cg~,,/;=~~~=~;_~~-;;;;=-~--~~ : '·-·~ ~ -\ " ,. ' -~~·-· -~------=---1-']----,~ --~--=--=----------.:;&~--- . ,s·~;,1 :: .• ---" ·-:·===~;~is .. ~~--~=-.-. -::~wo=cS-~.,a:-c-~ --' f'=~:tf~.~--:---:----~=.=-~--- _ .... -,, ... 1..:.?o 11 G.5 ..___.i.--------~~1'. ,f,;F _:_ __ ~ ~-2.05 ~-=-~~-=--===-~=-=3€~;(6"-;,-~~:----~~~-=--· --· --· .. -~--ti.1 l !15li!IH4, ...::=...t---6-1-66--- --_J l:5.S-------M._f',. \_.S-CJ" .- ~ ~ ~-~ -~· ~.,.P_, 1.:2 5----~--~~ --sR[-:.g·· ~ - !,(,_f'._,__t,10.. -·----·· , _-39 ----.,...--.--,---- s-6t£tr .,..._......-------~ 1-,0~--t.- -""":"_::: ~ L-::;.t2- ~--::. -~""'-' -:...,J-9 ::::C-- 'i' •,:. 7""\: .7 ~-... ·.·. \ j' \......r~· 'I .. ···. I 1'. I ~ 6l I REfMNING J_ WALL 4020 .L1°1 ~---. ~-,, .\P '.~:~[~ ·-.. .. ""I.Ji g~-r----=--~-------~-----_, fq -~~!_ .--~~1!_L6~ tf.l: .Lfi.166 ____ ------·'-=----'-_1.-6+66----L6_1ss-= ~ ricsw;s ~-=."~ L-43 ..-...h.,,"fts-·-: ·~ --_--1,:..--:-._ .. ·.:.-.: IN"""'T=i5. ~-!)~-=··,sr···="" ~ ~6::6 -------. ~.~ -. ~ H~) :r, --·-,a.->1'.Y ' ~'""'' . ..... =.,,,.... , _ . . ~ "'""· ' ' .. Qf' .:...,; · t9 1.::;-:t!. t 16 ..,,~ -" ,---1-·3 -~ F 4: L6166 ', ...,..., -L 1 Ll ---·-POND IMP1.9 r--·~,.-. I • I ~-· J ' ' 1--I L1 Tl J . I L, LJ r~ r~· I L _____ \ .. =~] .. -~: -----~fl ~----sv{¥1=a(tJ. =-$T. . .. J ,_ n 1J I: --. t !1 . ; · 11 · , I , , I : \I:. I I, Ir---u \ 11 i :,-· I 1 · , I , . ' ' i I I fl L " -j• -~~-'· I~ " '-~J [L .I ~ ., ·' ··--·-·o .... -~ ,--. ' .. I 11' f D ~· t .N ;~ -r EXPLANATION: 11· 1·r~~ I -C -__ lo i1 i I I i 1 • ! , I -~ Notes: 1. The locotions of oll feotures shown ore opproximate. SRX-10 .-..., CURRENT BORING 2. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features r.::, 0 200 400 discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data 1-8 S HISTORICAL BORING SCALE IN FEET sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the w ""' w Cle: ::i (.) u... w w V) w z :::; I ~ :::. / dota since the publicotion of this figure. This figure is o copy of a master document. The moster hard 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (L copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. r'; SI TE PLAN -; References: CAD files "Oex000a306d_a __ mp,'. "4.e~?000040d_AR_revised," "4ex0D0a040d_topo_2~.: "4px00Da040d_" GEO ENGINEERS u_) o Footprint_nickel_newlow_w1deopt1on, 4px000a040d_Walls_n1ckel_newlaw_w1deopt1on, 4px000a040z_dr, ~ Fl GURE 30 ~ N.RentonS-1" and "S.RentonS-1" provided 05/11 /05 and B/19/05 by WSDOT Geotechnicol Reseorch, 1-405 Design Team. "' 0 ' ' 0 0 w z <fl 0 <fl w "' LL V E 0 z .D 0 f- -s 0 >-0 _J "' 3 "' "' "' LL I ;:\ LL I 0 0 "' " 0 ro 0 / 0 <( u / 0 0 / "' " 0 ro 0 / 11_ / " 0 w Cl: 0 t') w ll:'. :::) Cl LL w w U') w z -' I () ~ ::;; : _ _. __ ,.. __ ,_ · .•. ·~. ·~ ~ ·•·· ,s . . -, d;;;;;., ,- ' . I . / •;__...\ 0 •.·v'/ i ,--. I · 1 · · • ····-,1 ,<, I ···\ \ ,,, \ •. :::=-'1 -, . • . ,_/'-• ,c~~-~ C wl ,, , :· ~--"\---_ -~-_/t _., ~ \ -d2V\'', '-----~ _. ,_ ,,_ \ \ _~, \ -,==-__-;--'\-":--_----'--'-'--; .1 -. • i , J . . . ., ~ rn-,--- / __ _ -------==:~-\.J ~ L ,\ -,,<' ' L --f-' , -_.... I': --"-~ -. ;·-.~. --...... · .· .. · .. ·-.--,· . L ~ // I ·--r\ ···~·,< ··L . ;;; / ..,.. , ~--- -_ "c_, -----=-" J C J .. ('_. WAU. '°'°' L . ;-,, 1 ··---- ---~------_.c"_•--',,cc' -----~~/~ =--cc ·'" -----/ --- -=-sg-~ ~-------~___,._.-----=~ ~"'' ----=------c, ----="' ------c ' ---~-~----~-. ::=~--~ :-~' :=---------~---_,,,,. -~-------~ ===---==-=--:il9L -'~" -~ _c:-_______ -~S---*s3"=-~--=,y,, ____ -:;:_ -S >• c" ~---~ • b-•-C, o • -CC -a -= = = = _,_;:-_ ---_ -_ -_ c C =cc c • • • "''"' c CC CC' cCC ,ccC•==''" ,=•--~--==-------~~--''"--=,~"CC< -• 0•' I . ·c:::;~'::" ___ uo· -~---__ _--,--, cc•~ ••-•-• --5=~~~,,:.---~~ ~-c=so~'-s"S s-4,m, ~~ $ '" g I L6166 &..._ -----= ~-T ------. -•• -~----~-·-~---••• I 61 I ' ' .. , --., -----__ , __ ,--------------------,--_• ----< ~. " ·' .1 ' 11. ' Ii-·• "'' ~.:· • 'l----• >-c-··,---• .,--._:_::: __ --------~-...,_:c=-~~"~'~""'.'~1, -~ ---'--,_ RETAiilN -I I: . I I -,-. • ;•. / --""'"------------~ ---~~---------WALL 41lo I • " • ' • -_,.-" -' o,,u ---__ , -B - 405/15 (21) · .. s.,~,R2.;," ~':.:.,_ 1 .. · /~#..,•"'"--~~:~r-----_-:·:~-\ -1 RIDGE .. 40_5/16 (22 . /:' · .. s .. ""-" , ,,.,:-' , _.:.,.---_ ~·-· --o o . I ·1· ·.·. ; , I 1 \c ·.·-~.'". . ' ,,·.··.! . / . I I, __ J . I _i;;:;-i··.. -.r-1 · ... -.· .~ .J--. '...,1 .; I ' -, ','i-tc / ./ -· --· ~----D---L;--• ~-. ' ' 0 •· ' / 11· ~, •--" ,, ' I , ' ------/ · ~~'"''" , ,;.· /' / . ,,-.... •,.! .. ' '· . I J Lr I I -l = ::::::...., I I -' ~ /if/ _.' • -,.·-h _:e ' ......... ___ --" ' --~ ----~- ~ I -. / "~/ ; ···~ I;~ ,. I~ " ' 1, '" ... -" ---_ ---, ~ ~ ~ + L6166 . RX-. . . c) . [\ ,-. / , ' ,r, , ' ---' ' I --,_.. D r-' J , __:: LC -"' :li I ' I I $ · \._ -[':-c r.::: .. · 'L. J r,-, .. ·1 [J d.. 0 ___ L.: '. r .. ·.'?--'-. -J--. .··.' 0 . r /// i : ~ . • . ,~-, ~-· U L I , o< . . .hf / ·. o_ . :-. ·:-·. . '---' I i ~ ';rr··-.. -r:::i' . C1' .. r ; .. -..... ;.L.-.£:j 1 .. ·.·· . o r , J , ,-, , ,· _ ., I ---,--, • -o , .. ~ . , ,_a , , -, I ----• 'l -,• '(.... Uc. C,'\ -~ _9 __ 1_:1__; If C(.1 o:nl D Ii .. r -.. ' ----' "U \ r .. 1· -u~o \ . t -~----::-: ,~ h: ~ o·, I _1 I cl : r"'._iD:ir1~ o. _ ~ L/ -··_· •.. :..1 -D -, j .:'J io ! l 0 C:J 0 11 lJ i Ls LJ CJ o:~v '["--', r··1 o .;..l~-.~ 1 J ,::.....---.;;,, --' EXPLANATION: 1 ,-[, l·· j I !!f ,; '-r -~; . SRX-10 ~ CURRENT BORING --------·="-'¥" -:j' 0 121/ . 111 /i . , Ii Ii ~I v1 I/ 1+ ~'t· \ J 1111' · VI 1 1 / ; I //II '-;.S Ir-'~-·- \,---'. '1--'l LJ 1') ·a ,--"11 ' ' L, I '.;-1, r1 ," J \ \ ··-r -·Lw' ~.D ··"'-' ' i N CR2-65 !'ii HISTORICAL BORING Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data ore accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The master hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. References: CAD files "Oe,000a306d_a_mp," "4e,000a040d_AR_revised," "4e,000a040d_topo_2d." "4px000a040d_ F ootprint_nickel_newla w _wideoption," "4px000a040d_ Wa lls_nickel_newlaw _ wideoption," "4px000o040z_dr," LL t') w ll:'. ::::i c., G:: w w U') w z -' I ~ ::;; '.~J111, . I /1 I I I; , __ \, I ' ' 'l L I N.RentonS-1" and "S.RentonS-1'. provided 05/11 /05 and 8/19/05 by WSDOT Geotechnical Research, 1-405 Defign Tea MATCHLINE, SEE FIGURE 31 0 200 400 GEoENGINEERs CJ 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SITE PLAN SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 3E "' 0 " " 0 0 w z <fl 0 (/) "-n "- ru E 0 z -D 0 f- => 0 >, 0 ~ "' ~ "': "' ::' I <! n "- I 0 0 n " 0 ro 0 / 0 <! u / 0 0 / n " 0 ro 0 J 0 .,~--. - ¥, J< • I \ I......'--_ ·. __ ·• '-~ ; ·-' [/ "r·-._ ., :.;, --v--'11' -----=J L----" 1 I '1' ,,ne1u, , _J ~-_J w l-' L-.........--! -, --' --I \ q ~\, __ _.... _ ___.\ \~1........------< \; .. -- ',,_ MATCHLINE, SEE FIGURE 3E -~ ~" . / '/ /,>· II ';:.\' -· ----....;~:t;;:~ ~ I I ""'-'. ---· -,;r ·_ I , c. .. .. ------. . · .. -> \ ' / / / > ~'rkt-f'}-rt--t::~-s--~Vf~--~-. . I I II I / \ <' % -l·MLGV, ' ' . ·--, . ~ I • , • ---' ? -~-\ ., '··· .. ·. < . . ~ / ~ '-'~, J J ._;. ....... RETAINING WALL 4110 ,..__ j/+J / /LJ r--·1 .r.; L..JU .. --.,-,-l-' f ' ..r-·. I J L~"l -.-~SRW-1 . "(\(\ .. \ .. J I_ <""\ ~~ ~ I -. -~J ' ~ . -i'/\ ·>\ (· \; \ ··--·~·•·_ \-. .. , _./_/-. ,. __ . ,·.__ \\~\ -/:E:TAINING \ .. · v. ,\ , _-., /-~--· All 4150 /y:; ··., ,\ \v . \ /• \\.·--~---···.·c:a······. /'--<~~ u' J:'/' .~./ u ,J,;};&· .. ·· ·. t. /..;:P>-'_ ... -~ .,: ,. \ . ·<: •.•• ~//', a< . n 11 1;>~?) , n :xvi I ( LJ -o . . )_J. _·· ... I • _ -~-, ~ -1 1-~, /' / ' ' ' < < \ \' ' ' ' -~ ' ( ·" / -. / / ;' / \.~ "'' " " • • K,"--, ·,-,._,i:: •'- \ " ----\ \ --, A I --' ' ; \ ' - ,; '. • ,, G \ -,;/..._..,~ ?c+~? ';t ~ I I j ': ' / \ . 'fa"~-,;;=.::----=;:--,--::c_. - \ -,,,c ~ I ~.,{, I ,.. -..----~=---~-----¥ -, ------__ , --, " _ .. , ~ -"< s ------I " I -"'-- IMP2.t•::,\ EC~~i~~EtiT-~--····/,/ ~ ---~~ ... ~-·--.._ /~--:% ,:' \, ,'~, °' .'; ~=....J-. -'i, I ----.,-( -" --'-·v · ------------t: EE1orL~~~ENT 1 __ ,; ~ --_' ~: ~~ -- / .. 0 ; --'' IM · I C "\ . RETAINING I _, _ \:\_ / _ ~WALL 412~0 _i b,·-.. L .... \• \':--~ . '0<c. ~';:;:, "'-<--::::::_-.__ . . . . ECOLANK~T ~- '"'-"•~-,, ',, ----cc',._ P3.2 "·, ·• '" ··,, · . ·•--:-. MB I£', ''-'·,:, ·· .... f-1 SRP-2 ~ :"-~-> ''s~ ., 'f "'·'• '">, ------, ___ -~S0"'-1c;, ~-~ --~~.: :-:-"'"'· _";'~_:__ " . . llll'\""""1 --=~= ·-. °';-a.. SRS-3~ ·-,. · -. ·· ·· --'?:~:---:~~~---. '~~ "'-:--..,"'-c-i,,9--:-·-'" -. ------ -~~-~-.. ·---,--·-.1,.·~-· -100 .cS.~~.. .. :....:· RETAINING WALL 4080,. c~ --, • ------·=------, ~B-l..g_1_~-~ 05 D· -~ · • ..;: __ -·------------.. _______ _ '"~-,, ::::-::.~~::==::=:~ ----~: --~ -·/ ----~ ---=-:.. ----. "':=---.... ~~"--""' ------------ L ~Bf..._ __ -~--t-------------------. '--·" ----~ · · .. ··-... -<.dQ~::-__ ..fi, L6166 ~-~---·@n•eo ; 6' CCN-629 ~ L616S.C..;,c · -'l'j L7974 "" L0560 L7974 -~-~'~'-'"';' ~. SRX-20 EXPLANATION: RETAINING..,/ / WALL_4~8lt._, '.:J V-t • .. •••. )r-. ~, 1 t-,. ./I _ I "'~--*'-, ..... :..._ ,. ;;. __ ;:.;;:,..,:;,, :::::::!.,,--., .••.. 0 , •11 .· DIJ lj011 i ___ _J ---.::.,". <::."" .•.• -_--,; ·.;;::~-,_,.;:;::-:, =.::::. '/ . L: - '~-., SRL-6 ..._ CURRENT BORING Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. " 0 ----z -'l'-- 200 400 2. This figure _is for informational purposes only. It is_ intended to assist in _the id_entifi.cati_on of features L-87 S HISTORICAL BORING discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data SCALE IN FEET sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may hove been updates to the ('.) ...., w Cl:'.: ::::> ('.) LL w w fJ) w z _J I u ~ ::,: / doto since the pubkation of this figure. This figure is a copy of a moster document. The master hord 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT a_ copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. CJ SITE PLAN -; References: CAD files "Oex000a306d_o_mp," "4ex000o040d_AR_revised," "4ex000a040d_topa_2d," "4px000o040d_ GEO ENG I NEE RS r,, j o Footprint_nickei_newlaw_wideoption," "4-px000a040d_Walls_nickel_newlaw_wideoption," "4px00Da040z_dr," ~ FIGURE 3F i,' N.RentonS-1" ond "S.RentonS-1" provided 05/11 /05 ond 8/19/05 by WSDOT Geotechnical Reseorch, 1-405 Design Teom. en 0 ti ii Cl n LI. rn c 0 z _Q 0 f- :i 0 >, 0 _J "' ~ " "' n LL I ;;'i LL I 0 0 n c- o OJ 0 ./ 0 c) ./ 0 0 ./ n c- o OJ 0 ,:": (L ./ ,. 0 w Q' I LL r<) w a::: ::, (!> lL w w l/J w z --' I u ~ :::;;; -- llETAINING -WALL 4080 / ···~;~~~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::~:::~::::::-~:-.... _..__,~,..ui.-" ,~ .. · . :,.,~ "'~< ,.,.,: .... ,.,.,,.::. ... _..:: .. :-Ji li- t...,' u ·-'Q!.t""~--'-~. =: ~--~~--~ __ ~--;,,,..-=-~-"---:-~ J--·: "·---~---====----=::::::::-=-s~:--_..,___ ___,_ ..... -,-~~ ..... ~-3. ~ ' --.0 . • -----.., --.r..-.,-.-,,, --·-, ,t n-r-.. ~""-_____ _,_ r \ r - u o, c-,,- ,~1 .,...CJ /'\ ' (\ 1·1 BRIDGE 405/17.3 (24) i!w EC-f'"'69.I l~74 L· 1:..,--.-.-r-·:- -~--L-, ---...J I L~ ! I ' ;---' I -.!, --~ ,-.. ,f~I! '-, r-·,, ' .1 '---; ;__ -' ,_j ,,..._,' ~ L.......J ,--.J ~- RENJ" O N---A V f :.:~;~s, -·~• ~0 = -~ c.____J • ': i_r-'; .:~_H1: '!\._ •:::·1_n_hc1,1,_·· _ ~r '"ID_• u. 1 ., ,.,I -,Lru, --~ , -, al •. ,··u. '''r -· ;-' : . -L,_ .,, I . h . --. ~-.r Jll.J . L BRIDGE-405/17.7 :, !"h, ' - 'L.J 'I La BRIDGE 405/1 BP IJ'>,-'/ EXPLANATION: Notes: 1. The locations of oil features shown are approximate. SRL-6 ~ L-87 ~ J ' ·:.· """' ·---L.___J = I· I c~ -~, ·. --. '/ I(' '"" ·v··-:c ,·· :.c... . · __ --.: l 1·,_ ~,~ tlr· ·,' ::,~ ,; I , ./. './ ~'-._____J '· I -,; ··~---~-----~.· -~;~::;~-.-·,'" ' ', ;-..:_-,.e\ ; ,I • ----''/ i)' ii . :}.->// 1'\ . / J /: ,-i~-i:,.., / ~ ·z·.(._ / ·)·. ;·,.,.,,,·.~-. -._,I ' •. / • / / "'-' ,~ / ., /J .:;;/>~-. '• ... (;'> / / ,• ~ . ' ' -.., -/ ·. .. ,.•.,_ .. \' / "-• '/.;~ f :".\. /:, .·// ~ ··:) ~~ <y<v '> - 405/18W (27) ........... 0~-~,J D >· !v' ·7,:)~ cf ~ ~ \~. CURRENT BORING HISTORICAL BORING 0 z 200 SCALE IN FEET [ :y 'y;~ . / C2,(_I -~ i cF'\ ~ ,--1 '---- c-=i [J 0 400 2. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The master hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. References: CAD files "Oex000o306d_a_mp," "4ex000a040d_AR_revised," "4ex000a040d_topo_2d," "4px000a040d_ F ootprinLnickel_newlaw _ wideoption," "4px00Da040d_ Walls_nickel_newlaw _ wideoption," "4px000a040z_dr," N.RentonS-1" and "S.RentonS-1" provided 05/11 /05 and 8/19/05 by WSDOT Geotechnicol Research, 1-405 Design Team. GEOENGINEERS U 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SITE PLAN FIGURE 3G "Jc, ~ ,J <,_.!;? 1Y : 11 ', I ' " ' '< .. u t, r--O:O;!JO' ' "' . r' I n r J-'Jr'l ,'1.L· J11 -~l'-L...~L-1~ __ --- I~~ __ 1-\10 DpOQC-_J .: ~:JC,'[i[J~DClo,~-1,u '° 0 ------ CJ ~ ~ 0 ; 1 jj D Cl[J . . . . . . I I . D [l O D ib --.. · . ~. D .. \_" 1 . . .. .· c:r·<;:::c ~ . ·. .. !:__~ · . ; -.· c. c~· . . " . '1 . .. \ c/: D [] '. r ino::::; f]1 ~n.rxtt1 Ll'j L: CJ Df iUrfJlL[ l_fj L -- -,=-----·· . ,~--,, -:-··:_-'--I=1E __ :-:-~ -~ :~ ---0 -;1 b ------ 0 0 w z (/) 0 (/) I n C. w E 0 z .D ~ ~ 0 >, 0 -" "' ~ "' "' "' C. I <( "' C. I 0 0 "' ~ 0 ro 0 / 0 <( u / 0 0 / "' ~ 0 ro 0 EXPLANATION: SRX-21 ~ D-4-88 IS '"'(' /------··· ·- r-.J /'" 0 ;, " ,' ;;/i/ .? -· / -;./ ,·/,7 7 ,' .fr.f C:URRENT BORING HISTORICAL BORING Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. / / // /n/ ,' .· . </4"\ \._ //, //'.> _ ~ // '\,. ",-: //,' __ .----~ --"'./ //.;/ ·. • •. :'-,, '\~ BRIDGE \ //>/ / . . ''\\, ' . ' / <" ";. ·/, . / \:, ·.:'-.;, \:. ·.:.·JF-. ·, '~_;/;)/ <,j?;P/ . "{J~ ~. ' ' . '-. ,~ ······. : , 11Q[J o ·~ :Y. C} ""_c:tD. (~ lj ~= 1. I I ' ' ~ ' -r, n \ \ I . ----1DO '__i n~-....--:, I ,...J 1. ·. :---'. -.. D . --' " ==;-' .. -. • ... --CJ _J .. 0 I ~ -., oon(_) rt_,. ·n ,c:,---, .. ' ·~· 'l _ _J, '"-,---'-' _:' 11 "''" .J 'C ' , ·:r-ri O • = . --.,,. . =Y-1 . ~: --Le 1L . .. ,__J~ · L e.u ~liw~ CJ~ ... --'~ · .-::i ' "' 00n ~:::r[J ~ .. ,_ Gn . ~ [1 ~1 -,c_) .·. j .o· , . _ .. c·4,.J -.. 1 1 . . . I_J I ' . ~ ~· -~ I . . .. ··-. : / , . ; \ 1 · . r --, L·] 1 .. -----, ·-·-I··· ' ~ • I / .·; ' i----- ",,;' t==/ --'-~ h/ ,, • -J ~ -] .i/(:""'Y7 '" L!......._J-._/ . -----z--'11-- 0 200 400 2. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in o related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data ore accurate or complete. There may hove been updates to the ~ data since the publication of this figure. Th.is figure is a copy_ of a master document. The master hard 11-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT o.. copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the off1cral document of record. CJ SITE PLAN ;; References: CAD files "Dex0D0a306d_a_mp," "4.ex_oooa040d_AR_revised,'. "4ex0DDa040d_topa_2~:: "4px00DaD40d_. GEO ENGINEERS r., j o Footprint_nickel_newlaw_wideoption, 4px000a040d_Wolls_nickel_newlaw_w1deopt1on, 4px000a040z_dr, ~ FIGURE 3H SCALE IN FEET I,! N.RentonS-1" and "S.RentanS-1" provided 05/11/05 ond 8/19/05 by WSDOT Geotechnical Research, 1-405 Design Team. "' 0 "-- "-0 - 0 w z (/) 0 (/) ;;j LL © E 0 z .0 0 e--=> 0 >, 0 -" ry ~ "O " "' LL I <( "' LL I 0 0 "' r-- 0 ro 0 / 0 <( 0 / 0 0 / "' r-- 0 <XJ 0 -w n w 0::: :=, 0 [;:: w w (/) w z ::::; I u ~ :::e (~ r1 C1Ci' . I C=J i( ... LJ\I~ .. --IC .J'. . . ---,--: '1 "-i--,i' r1 D 'l ~5__-.I [-,_______, \ ________ _J"::--_1,l j --~ \ !---'j - -'_J \.._.,-------' -~ '-J. D ,~ c} ,c l d j [) ' r, I I L_J r·n ..... ··~.. A 1·1 9ouDCJ C07·)· .. 'l:}.,'. \ s' '. ~:_ :::~: ;..;·c;,;:;..·-,,- :, Vi :, .. p i 'P"·"f /"""·~-~ • ~--' ..... ~-==-~~~:.~-~:_--~==~~-,--1 · ~-----:::-;:}d•'d. -~--=---'----"""______ _-\.---:-:---~----:;::: -__::1::::.--~c ·' .:.::-~___.-=:::=:::::...-:--· ~--:::C--. ~-·-~~~· \·_.-C-_:__~-~~~ .- 1 6 7 ---~-----------~-d~------------o_& £:==~~:----SR~-.=.:---:--· __ --_ · s,,_, -_,--,--·· ~L_,--'__sl ____..--:.:':--. ·· . ~-----=== . ·,,,--.. ::._..:::---. .... ---· .. ,~ . ECOLOGY ~ . --c:::::c=--"....==---'=~-:--=== .. ·.•-.'.'.'::".:.._.::.--:::~: __ , . .:::2 -~he::::;::;::;::=::;; . , ·.·.··· :-. ,~ .. -.......... ··. .E .. MBAN.KMetlT > > -_____ =----:=-.:..______ ---.. .. --~ \_ ,. .. , L , ~· ..... ·-.. ·· L_ ~__1 -> ~= ~~ -----· . , . ., ., .. ·~ -·----==-__ .:.--~""~_:::.~:,. . .:=.,, .. -:~::· . RETAINING --__ WlL~NJ~io ~R~=.L2 __ BB· 1S ---:-:-Wf)~- ··r1'~' .l ' 1= . I ~ [ Lr~.· ' ___ ~.,~---.,' a' I 1] ~: ) \ _fl 1CJ 1 x~~J I ··--,---L ·r--, 7 J ' ;• ~ L::... __ ,., \ J'·\._,- ' r ---· ,,,,---" . .-----WALL-.,,..,. --------"-~"!!•·-:·-::::)1~ .,,s_--_ -_----:_ -"t\lUV---__ --- ----~ :~ -~ --~ ~ -=-~--~-~--=---=----=---------<'----- ~ .. / ,co -~-> ~ ~ ,-----s·· ···--·- EXPLANATION: ·r·· I ! I I _J .JW 1r .~J r~l ! . I 'c I I I I --it:-z---- Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. SRX-13 ~ CURRENT BORING 0 200 400 2. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features B8-3 ~ HISTORICAL BORING discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data SCALE I N FEET sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the --:, n w 0::: => 0 u.. w w (/) w z ::::; I ~ :::e / data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The master hard 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT O..: copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. ,t SI TE PLAN ,; References: CAD files "Oex000a306d_a_mp," "4ex000a040d_AR_revised," "4ex000a040d_topo_2d," "4px000a040d_" GEO ENGINEERS u.J o Footprint_nickel_newlow_wideoption," "4px000a040d_Walls_nickel_newlaw_wideoption," "4px0D0a040z_dr, ~ Fl GURE 31 ~ N.RentanS-1" and "S.RenlanS 1" provided 05/11/05 and 8/19/05 by WSDOT Geolechnical Research, 1-405 Design Team. U) 0 "- "-0 0 w z (/) 0 (/) ~ "1 Cc ~ E 0 z _Q a 1-- ~ 0 "' 0 __, "' ~ -0 "' "' u_ I ;;\ u_ I 0 0 "' l'- 0 ro 0 / 0 "' u / 0 0 / "' l'- 0 ro 0 / (L / ::, 0 w Cl'. ./ i! " d~ I' --------==~5@=~~----·---_____ __:;;;;·, -t--=-~=~=-=--=------ . --,-. ,_ "1 w 0:: :::J (.') u.. w w [/] w z ::::; I u ~ ::::;; ,.. . ~ --. --~-rrrrr-----\_-·_ -. ·--. -----']"'1 ---_C------=--,---CC--.--_ --• ---710 -cc. --~=~=c-, ------IIJ'MN:.O _· 11rl~-i:-~~J --_,, "' ;~-c;;;-, ' , \ -~v POND /1~\U, ----~ -----• _ _ ,., 26 .c I ' ECOL--. EMBANKMENT r·"~~-__ ,-_r l I I ---~-----_ _J ----L,---- rT L _1-1 ~ I , ---· Ii :I I I j · 1MP25:4 LJ L __ ,~, --'~~ I I ·---~1 ~ -~·,-.:....:....,._ . . J ,- i -1'1·' L~ l £. VALl:..E-'r'~--RD~ I I I Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 11,~ -- ! I .,..L L_ r I·' J I 'I y ·71 EXPLANATION: SRX-15 S CURRENT BORING 2. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is o copy of o master document. The master hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. References: CAD files "Oex000o306d_o_mp," "4ex000o040d_AR_re,ised," "4ex000o040d_lopo_2d," "4px000o040d_ F ootprint_n ickel_newlaw _wideoption," "4px000a040d_ Wa lls_nickel_ newlow_ wideoption," "4px000o040z_dr," N.RenlonS-1" and "S.RenlonS-1" provided 05/11/05 and 8/19/05 by WSOOT Geolechnicol Research, 1-405 Design Team. GEOENGINEERS CJ w)' ~----· 'TD Ii I~ . ·--· ECOLOGY EMBANKMENT IMP24.9 TI --+ ------==-------==--==----==-~~=:i 0 ""'>--._ ,.,,.,-------- .f-r-' .1 I --it:--z -----· 200 SCALE IN FEET 400 :.:: "1 w 0:: :::J (.') u.. w w [/] w z ::::; I ~ ::::;; 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SITE PLAN FIGURE 3J "' 0 "- "-0 0 w z (f) 0 VJ "' "1 ~ ~ E 0 z _o 0 f-- ~ " 0 >, 0 _J "' ~ -0 "' "' C. I <( "' C. I 0 0 "' r-- 0 O'.l 0 / 0 c5 / 0 0 / "' r-- 0 O'.l 0 -:, "1 w lY :::, Cc) C.:: w w (/) w z :J I u ~ :::;; / --.._,JCT7 .~/ J &Q···~ J1r/ ~ 1:J /7 '-"f l;:.,J ' ' ~ I ,~,-; ·- -i.' / II _l,1 r / .~-; .~· -___,/ " fi " r :--:-:---':._ ~ -.."'"' _' }j : / i --• 'e,,,-, , i /~ -~ / • • ' ::::-:=::•--I , . ·_'"'_____ ---.-. ---j I ~ i -i -----"-----~ ::,,-ii 'I,'-=':? ,._,HS].-;~ ; t~j --'-----:; tj : -I ~, '---------i '.- -•-JJB-1 • .,~, --,-----HBH f ---J-~ --, ,-~ r:'-U,''1"· ~'-~~s c------.:: ---------!·''"' ---< -tz.?::!f~---;: J-"-, o d' I I 1 -.-.:::::--===;::::::--=:...--=--:::---2 s · ,_ ~.,_ -""' ~~-J-:; 1 -__ ,,. / , · I :--~----------....__ ---4._~"li_-·-_·-,--,--. _ H87-4 0' '-/ / . -_, ~· Jj • ' ,-~c;:=:;:_~~-C:::--~--"-=-==~~~---"''_,:;.:' iL} h-J~ ------= _-;: # ' ' '<:::~ _J . -~:-?~t;;tcc i_ ··. -'.~f ,io:t? 'c(~f .. (~"c~c ·.~.. • • .c . • . ,,'.: ~-. :·:<: ;::::..·, ,.r .;~l~ p---',~OO'r------~;----------c_: ___ ..:-;_;;=~C,c___ ___ ==--___ -:-__ -_ ==:---__ -_-__ · __ =-_=_-__ : ~--_~"----'_""'---_· ~--=:_~_ ---~. =:_=-_ -'-'::..""'=--__ -__ ---~ -<--------_ ····---~-C ~~=C:--cC<-i I ) 1 a1aANKMENL_~----:J :--~ _ ----<:.-c,,==,~-s.::.'-=--,-...--, ---..::i h --r~.:::z~ --::-= _ -=----1 , I. ~ I-I ''MM 9 _1 n --n liETAlN_I_N ___ o __ :.: __ --_-----~~-~1::,,~;_ ___ ~_•_---_---_-_--__ -_==---::===-~_=--___ -_=-__ --_==_-_;~----~~-------I I I I n y/ALL 4()9u -----------c:--~::-------:. __ -:--, _ ----~---.:: -----:----_ . 1 . I · 1 111· i' { i~' :~~~~~~ENT-"'--/ ~~ -~-< -=~-t-~~~.~=~~~-=~ < --~ .c_=-i I I I I I I I I I . I I . I l IMI'~> < --·---~ ~~ ~ --.C--~ ..::::.:-----e,_c_-=:::-:----======---==~ , • ., .,.;=====-~ -- 1 ' I I ; ! . ; • . j : ' -'\ #2 . ; ;. C •• , • ~=.:":: ;.;CC''•• !/ -- 1_ I i i I I I_~ J =-i· L --I ~=::--=:a.~..,_c_ ~w~~ / -. -. ····-----I I ------~=r _--'---'_t77i!CJ=t£--: -. ---__ ~-'yrr -·~--M-Lt-£.¥. RD F ---- ----~ -----... ____ _ 11 \"' -j·----~~1 I J 1r·~-~ r__r ~ i [r------'---i-7 l~ ~---f,--------__ J '"·---·e6-1 S- w~91 i ! ~ ' . I-. r 11 • ' --;~-::, -Pl 1 1 I ,___j ::::,-1 ;~'~r··:········--···-····----' --• ~: i i.i (~Z:.,~. . ( ( ··-----. ------------·;5 ' '' $ (/) L__j ~-----, I I I I EXPLANATION: ,(/")! C D~ ~--/ ' I ·-~-:::--~-~.:_ '._;' / L!a..J ',:. -\\,~ '<,< _ ··ri~-•--, -I~ -,, ~-' ,, ' ' .. . , ) 17'\. • 111 --, ic:., •• _11-~, ,, I~'\~ ,, . I ITJ ;, ', ------:,-, ' .:11:1~·-··., .. -.... - ·.(~--I', i [ .. I I --it--z--- SRX-26 .-.,, CURRENT BORING Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. '\JI 0 200 400 2. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features HB7-1 S HISTORICAL BORING discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data SCALE IN FEET sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the / data since the publication of this figure_ This figure is a copy of a master document. The master hard 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (L copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. r; SITE PLAN ;; References: CAD files "Oex00Da306d_a_mp/ "4_ex.D00a040d_AR_revised,'. "4ex000a040d_topo_29,':_ "4px0D0o040d_. GEO ENG IN ff RS u.J o FootprinLnickel_newlaw_wideopt1on, 4px000a040d_Walls_n1ckel_newlaw_w1deopt1on, 4px00Da040z_dr, ~ FIGURE 3K i,' N.RentonS-1" and "S.RenlonS-1" provided 05/11/05 and 8/19/05 by WSDOT Geotechnical Research, 1-405 Design Team. l() 0 0 ~I .._ >, "' 2 "O (l) <Jl > (l) 0:: a. "' :::;: ]f .. /t E 3 I' il? 11e :i . 3 ~ cF \.. 0:: if} i3 N r-- 0 co 0 '5 C 0 E "O (!) 0:: ;§ I (!) > 0 ~ I Data Sou rc es: Ba se data fr om King County G IS. Hill shad e from Department of Ecology. (.) .c .., 0. Renton ' T his map is for informa tion purposes. Data were co m pile d from mul tiple sou rces as list ed on this m ap. The data sou rces do not gua rantee these data are 0 I accurate or comp lete . T here may have been updates to the data since the publi ca tion of this map. Th e master fil e is stored by Geo Engineers, Inc. and will ~ serve as t he official record of t his communicatio n . Th e locatio ns of all feat ures shown are app roximate. Lake Washington ---,..,... ' ~+z tn Legend Stre ets Inte rstat es/ H ighways D Ind ex To F igures R ive r Wa te rbo dy 0 3.000 --6 ,000 -Fee t --- Index To Alignment Geology And Critical Areas Maps Geo techn ica l Baseline R eport 1-405 R enton Nickel Improveme nt P ro j ect GeoENGINEERS Q Figure 4 r t-co <D r t-co <D ~ Ovt r;:1 Qvr 53RDw --- SOUTHCENTER ___ _ ----r---------------"----.-- Qvi Qvr Qvrl m ~1 I 6 1 ~ ID O'l 56TH "<I' ..... I 57TH r Ti O ' ~I \ Qvrl Qyal Qvrl Qvrl 59 TH I .. or ..... Til / ~ Ti -~ ~ ,<Y\/ "' 0 0 N "' >-"' ::e al </> > <l) O'. a. ro ~ 2 ' i 1 --~ :) " er UJ ~ 0:: 0 Cl. 0:: ~I u 2 UJ i i Cl. 0:: u -~ C ~-,:a: -a: •c - At\JDOVER 1,\JDUSTR Y ' '~ ~--~--4t_ I " ~ ),:'. u LL' Q'. f- ~ .. ,. 4'' 111 V~LEY 0:: UJ 0 2 f- (/J =-=--:a: -~ -.m _ =-= ~: -=---=--=----m -=-=-=---=m ANDOVER m c::: UJ '<'. <!: al CHRIS T€_NSEN ----=-=:.-=-=- ~ E ~ :ac· ·-=~ =-.-:'.'". 1IIC -= m ---~-WC-~~ -m -= --.: ~ QJ :, Cl u:: O'. u5 g N ,._ 0 i rl 78TH .§ t- <l) 'SI" O'. C') ;§ <l>I Qyal m z j ~ =--m "(T \~ I (/) -= --= m 62ND C') ..-ID ~1 . to* ..... ID ID ..-..-..... -evrl 68TH m I soi\-\ Ti o er fri I 67TH I f- <D ~ ~ 0 .i:: Base data from ESRI web se rv ice . Geology from Washington State Department of Natura l Resources . Rivers from Washington State Departmen t of Ecology. <O 0.. This map is for information purposes. Data were compil ed from multiple sources as listed on this map. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. T here may have been updates to the data since the publ ication of thi s map . The master file is stored by GeoEnginee rs, Inc. and will ~ _/~--~ /,:; - Qyal Qvr 1; (") I 6 "<I' 55TH Qyal r T i oo.z Legend River Waterbody --- === Railroads Surface Geology Unit, Description m , Mod ified La nd (Holocene) In te rs tates Highways Major Streets Streets -~. Qmw, Mass-Wasti ng Deposits. other than landslides Qyal, Younger Alluvium (Holocene) c::::::J Qw, Wetland Deposits (Holocene) Qvrl , Recessional Outwash , Lowland La cus lrian (Ple istocene) Ovr. Recessiona l Outwash , Fraser-age (Plei stocene) Ovi, Recessional Outwash, Fraser-age (Pleistocene) -Qvu , Glacial Drift, Fraser-age (Ple istocene) Qvt , Gl acia l Till , Fraser-age (P leistocene) Qpf, Sedimentary Deposits , Pre-Fraser (Ple istocene ) Ou , Glac ial Drift, Pre-Fraser (Pl eistocene ) Ti , In trus ive Rocks , undi vid ed (Tert iary) Ts , Sedimentary Rocks (Eocene) T pr, Ren ton Formatio n (Eocene ) T pt , Tukw ila Fo rm a ti on (Eocene) 0 1,000 ---- ) " \ ) I ) -, I \ \ \... ( "C. -, (/ ' ' --.// \ i_ //\J....~I ~.J Alignment Geology 2 ,000 -Feet / "\ Geotechnical Baseline Report 1-4 05 Renton Nickel Improvement Project 1.. GEOENGINEERS C) Figure 5A tTl 8 serve as the offi ci al record of t his communication . The locations of a ll features shown are approxi mate . O'.'----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ OAKESDALE OAK ESDALE ~ C'? Legend R iver c:::::::::::::::::, In te rstates Waterbody --- Railroads Surface Geology Unit, Description m, Modified Land (H ol ocene) Highways Major Streets Streets · Q mw, Mass-Wasting De posi ts , o ther t han lands l ides Qyal. Yo unger Alluvium (Holocene) I I :0{ ro , IU.1 \i \:s \~ \ Ci Qw, Wetland Deposits (Holocene) ~ 11 ~1 -. I !_ _ -Ow g LINO , Qyal I _ ' I \ 1-1 I r I .. -1-:; »r . ~ ~1 ·----------~------~ "' 0 0 N "' >, (<) :::; "2 ,,, > ., CY a. (<) ::2' ' N M I II N ~ I- -st ('") VAlLE'---~~~~~~~~~~~~ --- ...;.;----,::: Qya I V Qw _,,-________ .__....., _______ _ i I Q yal -\.:At'-.t. -- ._ ------------------ ~--· MORRIS I . 1:-1 ~ I I I-. <0 I ' " Qyal Qvrl , Recessional Outwash . Lowland La custrian (Pleistocene) Ovr, Recessi ona l Outwash . Fraser-age (Pleistocene) Qv i, Recessional Outwash, Fra se r-age (Pl ei stocen e) -Qvu , Glaci al Drift, Fraser-age (Ple istocene) Qvt , Gl acial Ti ll , Fraser-age (Pl eistocene) Qpf, Sed imen tary Deposits . Pre -Fraser (Pl e istocene) Qu Glacia l Drift, P re -Frase r (P l eis to cene) Ti , Intru sive Ro cks , und ivided (Tertiary) Ts . Sed imen tary Ro c ks (Eocene) Tp r, Renton Formation (Eocene) T pt, Tukw ila Fo rm ation (Eocene) 0 1,0 00 --2 .000 -Feel --- ~ \ '-< ;I ...... m r \ ~ E ai o.() ., '.5 a, Li: a:: i.r, 9 N ..... 0 a:, ~ C: 0 E "O ., a:: ;§ I ., > Qu I\ \ C) ~l ~I I MAI 106TH (') C) z N , 105TH <O I I-r- N ~'r::~sO~ ~ Base data from ESRI we b serv ice. Geology from Washington State Departm ent of Natura l Resou rces . Rivers from Was hin gto n Sta te Departme nt of Ecology. .~ "' 0.. r.r, z Th is map is for information purposes. Data were compi led from multiple sources as listed on this map. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate o r co mplete . T here may have been updates to the data since th e public ation of this map. The master fil e is stored by GeoEng ineers, Inc . a nd w ill ....._ ;> ( '\ ( \ ( y~, ~ Alignment Geology Geotechnical Baseline Report 1-405 Renton Ni ckel Improvement Project GEOENGINEERS Q Figure SB 5l serve as the offici al record o f t his commu ni catio n . Th e locations of all features sh own are approxi mate. tr] o::L_ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ~ VAL LEY I '~=·-... ~~- "' 0 0 N C') >, "' 2 -0 <l> "' ·s: OJ Cl'. Q_ "' 2 "C X E u "' OJ ~<;) ~ I b/0 ~ ~ 111TH N ovi ~ j 114TH J Cl'. iii 6 1'i ,__ 0 a, ~ N WILLIAMS ~'i:.~sO~ ~ J ~, .1 , "t;J "· C: ' 0 E -0 OJ Cl'. ;§ OJI > 0 J: ,.._ l.t') - SHATTUCK MORRIS J: J I-. ~' J:I I ~ ' ~ <" ~ ~ " .;,:: p " .'-./ Q vt ...,. ~ :I: ...,. ~ -:r: Qya l J: i H ARDIE LAK E RENTON I l-o ~ NT I I- MOSES Tp r I-i-------,· c....._· -·-· --+--?-,~ Qvi JONES ~ [s Qu 1• Q pf <v-4. ~'?''v'v . ~'v<v ~"'"' 0 2 Q ya l ~ ::, <( 2U1JS::? -_J CI) -0 f- l- PELLY <>'--?0 PARK '\~..s: '\.01,, "; GARflEN MEAID OW MONTEREY CAPRI ; l 7 ~ BLAINE ----avt,~ \ Q v r 0 c:: (') m _j ~ 'St Qv i J: I-v ~ J: ~ WELLS I I- o.. This map is for in forma tion purposes. Data were co m pi led from mu ltiple sources as listed o n t his m ap. Th e data sou rc es do not guarantee t hese data are r.r.i I Z accurate or co mplete. There may have been upd ates to th e data si nce the publ ication of thi s ma p . Th e master fil e is stored by GeoEngineers , Inc. and wi ll Legend Ri ve r c:::::::::::::::, Interstates Wa terbody High ways ====>· Rai lroads Surface Geology Unit, Description m. Modified Land (Holocene) M ajor Streets St ree ts Omw. Mass-Wasting Deposits . other than landslides Oyal , Younger Alluvium (Holocene) [_ J Ow, Wetland Deposit s (Holocene) Ovrl , Recession al Outwash , Lo wland Lac ustrian (P leistocene ) Ovr, Recess ional Outwash, Fraser-age (Ple is tocene) Qvi, Recession al Outwash , Fraser-age (Pleistocene) Qvu, G laci al Drift . Frase r-age (Pleistocene) Ovt, Glacial Till, Fraser-age (Pleistocene) Opf, Sedi mentary Deposits. Pre-Fraser (Plei sto c ene ) Ou. G lacial Drift . Pre-Fraser (Plei stocene) T1 , Intrusive Rocks , und iv ided (Terti ary) Ts , Sedime nta ry Rocks (Eocene) Tpr, Renton Formation (Eocene) C"'I T pt , Tukwi la Form ation (Eocene) 0 1,000 ----2.000 -Feet \ ~ \ r--t ~ !1 -':, Alignment Geology Geotechnical Baseline Re po rt 1-4 0 5 Ren to n Nicke l Im prove ment Project "'> Figure SC ~ Ba se data from ESRI web se rv ice . Geology from Wa shington State Department of Natural Re sou rces . Rivers f rom Wash ington State Department of Eco logy. .~ 5l serve as t he official record of t his communicat ion. Th e loca tions of all fea t ures shown are ap proximate . t'rJ o:,__ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ...J GEOENGINEERS Q .c: & 0 LU Q'. Data Sources: Base data from ESRI web service. Rivers from Washington Department of Natu ral Resources. Flood data from FE MA. Wetland data from the National Wetland Inventory. Erosion data from NRCS soils database. Anadromous fish from Washington Department of E cology. Thi s map is for inform atio n pu rposes. Dat a were compi led from mul ti ple sources as lis ted on this map. The data sources do not guarantee these da ta are accurate or co mplete . Th ere may have be en update s to th e data since th e publication of this map. Th e mas ter file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of thi s co mmunication. Th e loca ti ons of all fea tures shown are approximate . ~-z tTl Legend River Interstates Waterbody ---Highways ===ox · Ra ilroads Major Streets Streets ,":~ ~~ :.: .. :·..:: ...._ ............... . Wetlands Anadromous Fish (Streamnet) Severe Erosion Potential (NRCS) Floodway 100 Year ~ 50 0 Yea r 0 1,0 0 0 --2,000 -Feet --- <.. Sensitive Areas Wetla nds, Erosion, Flood, and Anadromous Fish Geotechn ical Basel ine Report 1-405 Renton Ni ckel Improvement Proj ect GEOENGINEERS C) Figure 6A ~~~ ~ )_ ~ • ~c~ . ' - .., 'O "' "' > <l> (( ~ C 0 E -0 <l> (( ;§ (1)1 ~·- i, ~ I Data Sou rce s : Base data from ESRI web service . Ri ve rs from Washington Department of Natural Resources. Flood data from FEMA. ~ Wetland data from the Nation al Wetland Inventory. Erosio n data from NRCS soi ls database. Anad romous fish from Washington Department o f Ecology. .;; c.. a w (( Thi s map is for information purposes. Data were com pi led from m ultiple sources as listed on this map. Th e data sources do not guarantee th ese data are accura te or com plete . Th ere may have bee n updates to the data sin ce the pub li cation of this map . The master fi le is stored by GeoEngineers , Inc. and will serve as the official record of this co mmunication . T he locations of all fea tures shown a re approxi mate . ~•z tTl Legend River c:::::::::::::::::> Interstates Waterbody --- • • • • • • • • Railroad s Hig hways Major Streets ====> Streets ;~~/·~; ......... Wetlands Anadromous Fish (S treamn et ) Se ve re Ero sion Potential (NRCS ) Potential Flood Areas (FEMA) ~ Fl oodway rr, 100 Year ~ 500Year 0 1,000 ---- Sensitive Areas 2,000 -Feet r) Wetlands, Erosion , Fl ood, and Anadromous Fis h Geotechnica l Baseline Report 1-405 Renton N ickel Improve ment Project ,. GeoENGINEERS C) Figure 6B .,, 0 ~ N I• "O Ol "' ·;; ~ ~ E u~la\.~ '@ ::, 0) u:: er U) 13 N ..... ;; CX) 0 '6 C 0 E 'O Q) er ;§ a,I > 0 5 0 .c iii CL 0 w er 1-- (j) I l-o ~ m EDMONDS DR SE 11 6TH AVE SE 1-- (j) 117TH AVE SE I i::- "' w (j) Data Sources: Base da ta from ESRI web service. Rivers from Washi ngton Department of Natural Resources. Flood data from FE MA. Wetland data from the National Wetland Inventory. Eros ion data from NRCS soi ls database. Anadromous fish from Washington Department of E co logy. This map is for inform at io n purposes . Data were compi led from multiple sou rc es as listed o n thi s map. Th e data sources do not guarantee these data ar e accurate or co mplete. There may have been updates to the data si nce the publ ication of this ma p. T he master fi le is stored by Geo Engineers , Inc. and wi ll serve as th e official record of this co mmunication . Th e locations of a ll features shown are a pprox imate. ~-z tTl Legend River Wate rbody --- Railroads f::L~~:: Wet lands Inters tates Highways Major St reet s St ree t s Anad romous Fi sh (St rea mnet ) Seve re Eros ion Pote nt ial (NRCS ) Potential Flood Areas (FEMA) ~ Floodway ~~ 100Year // / , ~ 50 0 Year 0 1,0 00 ---- Sensitive Areas 2.000 -Fe et Wet lands. Eros ion, Flood, a nd An adromous Fish Geotechn ica l Base li ne Report 1-405 Renton N icke l Improvement P roject ,· GEoENGINEERS C} Fig ure 6C I.{) 8 V 4fa/A/.-_... N 00 N "O .~ r2"zS;.a~rz:7nnnnnn~~~ > Ql 0:: .c iii Cl. 0 w 0:: Data Sources: Base data from ESRI we b se rvice. Rive rs from Washi ngton Department of Natu ral Resources. Landslide, Slopes, Coal mines , and Seismic from City of Renton and King County GIS . Th is map is fo r info rm ation pur poses. Data w ere compil ed from mul ti ple so urces as listed on thi s ma p . Th e dat a sources do not guarante e th ese dat a a re accurate or co mplet e . Th ere may have bee n upd at es to th e data s ince t he publ ication of this m ap . The master file is sto red by GeoEngineers, In c . an d w ill serve as th e official reco rd of t his commu ni cat io n. The loc ations of all featu res shown are a pproximate. ~•z tTl Legend Rive r Inte rs tates J Wat e rb ody --- , 1 1 1 1 , 1 , Railroads Highways Maj or Stre et s Street s Geologic Hazards -Coal Mine ->40 Percent Slopes -Seismic Hazard Area -Landslide 0 1.000 --2,000 -Feet --- / ./ ) \ < < \ ) d-,, \ ~ ~ ,, . ''\ ~ ~/' J Geologic Hazard Areas ' Slopes , Seismic, Coal Mine , and Lan d slide G eotechni c al Ba seline Rep ort 1-4 0 5 Renton Ni cke l Improve ment Proj ect ' GEoENGINEERS C) Figure 7A en . 'f" '"'n·\;;, ~ f • l -· e ''"''~ ·w ----~-"Ir ? .,_ LINDAVESW f. ~·".:;'~-~i"~,~~. ~·~~ r1 ·' "' 0 ~1 1, ~ --.l \ '':] J_ . ~ -~\f-~.11 ~~~~ 0 N N >, ro 2 ////777./7.77 /,. 77/ /.:///.:_ .,. .,,. "O <1) U) ·;; (l) Cl'.'. a. ro :::;, ~ 4@!{4///'' '1~ "" ~ .... ~ 't,"' '' l .,ct>.\Jt~~1f.:' ,\t ~ ,:, g a:i ..... [ll ::, .Ql LL Cl'.'. VJ (3 ~ I,. 0 OJ 0 '6 C 0 E ,:, (l) Cl'.'. ;§ <1)1 > 0 ,,~ '....,_, J05THPLS r.7-· r.:............. ,..,,.,,11nv g .:.c . GI Data Sources: Base da ta from ES RI web servi ce . Rivers from Washington Department o f Natural Resou rces. Landslide, Slopes, Coal m ines , and Seism ic from City of Rento n and King Coun ty GIS. .r::. ;;; 0.. Th is map is for information purposes . Data were compiled from multiple sources as listed on this map. Th e data so urces do not gua ra ntee the se data are 0 I accurate or complete . There may have been updates to the data sin ce the publication of this map . The master file is stored by GeoEnginee rs, Inc . and w ill ~ serve as the officia l record of th is communication. Th e locations of a ll features shown a re approxim ate . ~•z tI"l Legend River c:::==::, Interstates Waterbody ---Hi g hwa ys Major Streets Streets ===01 · Railroads Geologic Hazards -Coal Mine ->40 Percent Slopes V .ll .1'7 /7' .1'7.1 Seismic Hazard Area C,-4'./...,.,.,«, -Landslide \ ( ' I 0 1,000 ----2,000 Feet 6 s\ \ j -......, ,1 :-\ 0 ~? "'{ ) Geologic Hazard Areas Slopes , Seismic, Coal Mine , and Landsl ide Geotechnical Basel in e Report 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project ,· GeoENGINEERS C} Figure 7B <I) 0 0 N N "O Q) "' ·;; Q) 0:: 0 co 0 '6 C: 0 E "O &!I ~ ;§ I Q) > 0 ~ I Data Sources: Base data from ESR I web service. Rive rs fr om Washington Department of Natural Resources . Landsl ide, Slopes, Coal mines , and Seismic fro m Ci ty of Renton and Ki ng Cou nty G IS. .c '" (l_ Thi s map is for inform ati on purposes . Data were compiled from multiple sources as listed on thi s map. Th e data sources do not guarantee th ese data are 0 I accurate or complete. Th ere may ha ve been updates to the data si nce the publ ica tion of thi s map. T he master file is stored by GeoEng ineers , Inc. and will ~ serve as the officia l re cord of th is co mmunication. The locations of a ll features shown are approxim ate. Legend --River c:==:::, Interstates Wa terbody --- === Railroads Hi ghways Major Street s Str eets Geologic Hazards -Coal Mine ->40 Percent Slopes D Seismic Hazard Area -Landslide '; ( \ 0 1,000 --2 .00 0 -Feet --- ) ~ . r f, 1 JJL/il \\ a '\ ,.. t h~ ~t~ I / "> \I \I J I I I °i/ ~/; •'/ Geologic Hazard Areas Slopes, S e ismic, Coal Mine, and L andslide ~-z tTl Geotechnical Baseline Report 1-405 Ren to n Ni ckel Improvement Project GEOENGINEERS Q Figure 7C ,0 0 ....... N ....... 0 0 w z Cf) 0 Cf) " "' 0 ;;i I 0 0 er, " 0 "' 0 / 0 « u SRL-07-05 . ~ .. ~SRX-08-06 SH-3 405 LINE ! l lJ} EXISTING .t!OE/11 SRI OGE \ SH-1 \. SRL-04-06 ~ ~ SRL-08-06 IC) IC) 0 0 ' PLAN ' st IC) IC) cs:, 0 0 0 SCALE: 1~==80' 0 ' ' ' ' ...J ,.._ CD X a: 0 0 a: (/) ' ' (/) ...J ...J a: a: r-'405 LlNE (/) (/) ' PROF [ LE GRADE I ----~--~ -~ m 00 w r:r ::::) Q w w [/) w z ::J I u ~ :::; m 00 J ~&l=m__jfil-~f ?----,\\~··EXISTING GROUND LINE m m . . Q al · · o· RT a, ,os u NE I w ? ?PL ? ? ? y EXISTING GROUND LINE w ! 7m--29.B' RT OF "105 LINE (f) w r:r ::::) (!) i.:: REFERENCE ,1•E 1, I Qyal ELtv•TION o.o . -PL Qyal -PL Qyal-PL PROFILE SCALE: 1 ti:c80' Qyal-PL w z ::J I u ~ :::; I 3" 2. Refer to Figure 3B for location of bridge. ~ 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features N ~ ~ ~ <D 0 ~ IC) 0 ' st ' ...J a: (/) ;=rSand '° ~~ -t m " " 21 y_ 2J 25 ?--" 50/2'" ?-- B m -Ii Potentially ;o " Uquifioble ;s 26 22 Sand " ;~ Qyal- " ~ Potentially • 0 Liquifiable 6 " ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ <D 0 ~ r-- <') ~ ' ' J: J: ,er m ::i::_ m Silt?-- _____ ? __ ' C ~ =' 0 OJ ~ IC) 0 ' ,.._ ' ...J a: (/) ~ ~ ~ 0 0 -~ IC) 0 ' CD ' ...J a: '° m ?-- '6 28 ~ =' <D 00 ~ IC) 0 I Cl) 0 ' X a: (/) ~ Qyal-;J Qyol- Potentially , , Potentially Sand Liquifiable 15 Liquifiable ?--17 Sond 203----m 28 JJ ?-- '0 Sand Qyal Silt? iit ,,~ Qyal-' "-+--3 ,, Potentially " Liquifiable /6 "j /J ,0 " " Qyal-" Sand Zones }~ - Potentially 32-I Uquifiable Zones 74 ---I Sand • 2-J " s 2' ,,. 28 EXPLANATION: SRX-7a ~ HQ-2 s Sand 7-t Qyal " ?--'6 " ,,~.-- ·g 22 Silt J " ,, 20 " " Qyal-" Potentially /7 Uquifiable " ;·t; . ' 2. /9~ Jo Qyal- .. Potentially :,r:no ,, 1 Liquifiable /_, -Zones ,, '° 20 ;, 25 2~ 4[ - "· 58 SCALE: 1 "=40' KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: CURRENT BORING m FILL, MODIFIED LAND HISTORICAL BORING Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM SOIL DESCRIPTION Ow WETLAND DEPOSITS BLOWCOUNT Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT CONTACT Qvt GLACIAL TILL RENTON FORMATION 61 Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 0 discussed in a related document. Dato were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data cr) 00,.,,00 rlo eel n"nmnloo lhooo nn!n MO ncc,,rn!o M cnmnlolo Tho,o mn" h,,,,, hoon ,,,Onion In"" -I IJ-405 RENTON NJCKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Tpr I / "'-'"' ,.,,,, .... .., "'" t-'UUll'-UUVII VI ,111.c, Jl~u,c:. """ "~u,,;:: ,;:, U "'Vl-'Y VI U IIIU-'LC:.I uv1.,u111,:;11L. IIIC: IIIU,>LCI IIUIU • • ~ • .... .............. ~--.... , ..... , ......... ,. .. ~ copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. 0 8( ::, 4. Datum: NAVD 88 . I 160 8 Reference: PDF file "4pp012a013k_br001-000" prov;ded 08/16/05 by WSDOT 1-405 Des;gn Team. SCALE IN ''-'-' • ·--.. --·· '.::,CALt. • ' ,.....,.....,.....~ Ct: U) 0 ' N ' 0 0 w z (/) 0 (/) <.'.) ,: 0 00 ro I 0 0 n r--- 0 ro 0 / 0 SRX-7a ~ as I'- ' X a: (/) m . ,·. tx!SitNC \ 405/12 BRlDG( .J "' "' V ' I ! I I ... I. ~ i I m CX) w • • · I 0::: ::, '-' [;: "' "' .. 0 l it HQ-1 S lw . . . SH-1 ~ I \_405 LI NE U.P.R.R. TRACK SHQ-2 SRL-1•06 ~ 0 lfl " I I 1/ I 8.~.S.F.R.R.' WB TRACK -·- 0 ~: PLAN SCALE: 1 ~=80' l FUTURE TRACK IC) 0 ' ... ' ...J a: (/) C\I ' 0 J: i ··-1 ,-B.N.SJ .R.R. EB TRACK I l FUTURE TRACK ? r .. .1105 LINE ' PROFlLE GRADE ~m w z :::; I (.) !;;: :::;; m CX) w QC ';" I~ 0 u.. J: w w (/) I ! -. L.J' ,,.,,,, ... ......._ ;_....,!... L.... I I -LL ! ~ i [ I ---I ...._ _ _ _ L..-~al ,....-; , Oya -' ? i TRACk ( FU UREl'L ~afuruRE' i ~u ( =,----i5 • TRAC rn•c• TRAC< al-PL f-c ? ? <( ~I · · ~I :::;; Qyal ~ EXISTING GROUND LJN G6.5' RT OF ~05 L PROFILE SCALE: 1 ··=so· g Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. / 2. Refer to Figure 3C for location of bridge. I At ~ 3. Th(s figure !s for informational purposes only. It is _intended to assist in the identification of features as I'- ' X a: (/) 1 / l 100/4" 30 19 -I 44 -I 38 -I J? -I 29-+---Y- 52 ? R Sord ? R c I Si!'" /.C j 39 -I L3 I Sand 41 -I 31 l 23~_ IC) 0 ' ... 0 ' C\I ... ...J ' ' 0 ... 0 a: ' (/) J: J: J: ? 12 ?m ' m g 1 Sand " ?-5 ? p Silt Silt p 18 2 I Silt 3 m 1 2 Silt 4 4 3 ' ' 0 C 15 22 5 23 14 22 31 n 43 -I Sand 20 40 Sand 21 Sand 31 s1 I Qyal 33 19 56 Qyal 42 31 Qyal-25 15 Qyal-22 47 18 Potentially 19 Qyal-8 Potentially Liquifi~ Potentially 33 -Liquifiable 22 13 / 12 -Liquifiable L4 Sand Zones 27 Zones ?-, s " L.C; /" b -? -,, "°' ?-- _\) '.)_) L·1 C 1 ' l L'4 Sand Qyal 16 47 )0 Qyal ? ?-78 LJ 50 31 Sand 59 I 63 78 ,)4 Qyal L2 .36 SCALE: 1 "=20' EXPLANATION: KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: SRX-7a ~ CURRENT BORING m FILL, MODIFIED LAND HQ-2 s HISTORICAL BORING Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM - Sand SOIL DESCRIPTION Ow WETLAND DEPOSITS 7 j BLOWCOUNT Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH GROUNDWATER LEVEL Ovu GLACIAL DRIFT CONTACT Qvt GLACIAL TILL Tpr RENTON FORMATION §' . ~ discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data ;:-data since the publication. at this tigure. lhis tigure is o copy at o master document. lhe master hard .-I 11-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ~ copy 1s stored by Ge0Eng1neers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. O 80 1 hn I r-__ r-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ rf I BRIDGE 405/1.2 (16} = SN SF {1 OF 2) J • n RO 160 ::, 4. Datum: NAVO 88 o . .. .. 1 ---------------er i,! Reference: PDF f,le 4pp012a013k_br001-0D0 provided 08/16/05 by WSDOT 1-405 Design Team. SCALE IN FEET I F!GURE !!2 (~ c! 2) SCALE "' 0 ' N ' 0 ;;§ w 0:: ::, 0 G: w w (/} w z ::J I ~ :::. <( co 405 LI NE ~!,.;: H-1A S 1130 EXl STING <05/12 BRIDGE -\ ' ~ SRX-7b PLAN SCALE: 1~=80' .0 < ";- -X ' a: 0 w z (/) 0 (/) w 0:: ::, 0 G: :c: "' , ... 405 L ]Nt I PROFILE GRADE. EXISTING GROUND LINE 66' RT OF 405 LINE '-' ~ 0 N [Il CX) I 0 0 "' " 0 co 0 / 0 <lC u / 0 0 / "' " 0 co w w (/} w z ::J I u !;j: :::. REFERENCE L !NE/ Qyal ELEVATION o.o_j Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown ore approximate. 2. Refer to Figure 3C for location of bridge. Qyal PROFILE SCALE: 1 • =80' 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. Doto were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the ~ data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The master hard § copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. 2 4. Datum: NAVD 88 8 Reference: PDF file "4pp012a013k_br002-D00" prav;ded 08/16/05 by WSDOT 1-405 Des;gn Team. "''----------------------------- 0 11_35 I "' I 80 160 SCALE IN FEET .0 ..... < -' ' X a: :c: "' :oJ s;,t . 5 39 I .\ Qyol- 6 Potentially 221 Sand 2 Liquifiable m Send 35 ? . 3) ?-16 .)8 Qyal 27 ? 2.g ?- 13--, Qyal- 18--I y Potentially ,~:··" : E -Sand . 48 36 39 j Gravel JL I Oyal 34 33 -Sand SCALE: 1" -20· '18 EXPLANATION: KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: SRX-7b ~ CURRENT BORING m FILL, MODIFIED LAND H-1A s HISTORICAL BORING Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM Sand SOIL DESCRIPTION Ow WETLAND DEPOSITS 7-1 BLOWCOUNT Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT CONTACT Qvt GLACIAL TILL Tpr RENTON FORMATION GEOENGINEERS CJ 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BRIDGE 405/12 (16) -BNSF (2 OF 2) FIGURE SB (2 of 2) 405 LINE H-1:>S 1146 ; ····· 1147 . H-2 i--,..(L-6166) 1 I I ~(L-6166)---- Ll) 0 '--. N '--. 0 H-3 -~ (L-6166) ~ SRL-2-06 If.I 0 ' C\I , "405 LINE PLAN / EXlSTJNC BRIDGE / NO <105/J 3 I t ---------PB-2 S (L2181) PLAN sCAc..E: 1''=40' 0, ~ .. 0 w z U) 0 U) ... ' J: ' ...I a: (/) / PROF 1 LE GRADE , (') I ± ~ ----------,-dL ____ i_lL C\I ' C\I m, a..J: EXISTING GROUND LINE A 66' RT OF 405 LINE I ' -o ~EXIST.METRO SEW~R . '-fl .:.l--() Qyal so"oCONC. PIPE,,,,, ... ./) I ''' OHIQyal-"i' al--\. / ~ --p( 0 REFERENCE LI E PL / ? ? -,,,..,,- 'O'yal-PL g E:LEVATION Q •. ./ ., ?-t--? " 0 (XJ 0 / 0 <( 0 / 0 0 / "' " 0 (XJ 0 ~ (L / :,c 0 w °" ? ? Qyal --'-- Qyal --'-- PROFILE SCALE: 1 ",,,,4Q' I?+-? Qyal I I Qyal 1--'-- --'-- 0 i N I 40 SCALE 1"1 J:"J:"J:"T .J\.,r\L..L ll~ I LL.. I 80 ? ... ' J: --.- 3 -l s;11 31;;·-I-Y ,, J Sand 1 o Qyal- -.5 Potentially -. 1 --1 Liquifiable 3 _1 Zones 4C - 17 --1 4 If.I 0 ' C\I ' ...I a: (/) --.- Sord 2 --i-Y- 3 5 - [; 9 1 C) 13 - 7:,: - j/ - 5 - Qyal- Potentially Liquifiable Zones 71 ~ ?-? j4 Sand · 42 - -~O - .51 - 19 ?--j1 h Qyal 7J 29 Grovel =·/ Grovel n- "1 6L -:~ \4 --'-- Qyal Lr', - •1....::i._ (') ' C\I C)I , m J: J: a.. r~, l rSond 8 Sand Qyal- 1 3 Qyal-9 Potentially 1~ Potentially -? 1 o Liquifiabl:_ Liquifiable · ? 41 -l Sand , 1 SC:/ 3'' 14 -+-- ? ~ ?-SCJ/6" 3·2 Gravel ,, SCJ/3 Grovel 35 -+-- 61 -l Sand & 3C Gravel 0 ,0/s" - S2 -Qyal :-:io/s" -Qyal 1 DC/5" 50 SQ/j" - 47 _!_ 50/.5" - SJ/7.5'' - --'-- SCALE: 1 " = 20' EXPLANATION: SRL-2-0li ~ CURRENT BORING H-1 s HISTORICAL BORING -r- Sand SOIL DESCRIPTION 3~ BLOWCOUNT GROUNDWATER LEVEL CONTACT --'-- Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. Refer to Figure 3C for location of bridge. KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: m FILL, MODIFIED LAND Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM Qw WETLAND DEPOSITS Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT Qvt GLACIAL Tl LL Tpr RENTON FORMATION .3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may hove been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The master hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. 4. Datum: NAVD 88 Reference: PDF file "4pp012a013k_br001-000" provided 08/16/05 by WSDOT 1-405 Design Team. GEOENGINEERS t:) 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BRIDGE 405/13 (17) -SPRINGBROOK FIGURE SC 405 Ll NE ""-~~~~~~~~....!.1,~7 H-2 (L-6166) 114B £)(]STING BR. NO. -tC>S/JJ SEE S'-El BR3 ·\_ \ PB-4 6l (L-2181) .,. ' Ill EXISTING . 8-4 .6) BR. NO. •05/13C \ (L-2181) PLAN SCALE: 1"=40' ____ \ __ ,~ \<'o. \"'- "/ r B-9 6l (L-2181) <[) 0 " N / a. , "'" / BRIDGE NO. 405 13 «CS LI~E ! • SEE FIGURE BC\ ~ PROFJtE GRADEE ..... ······ ........ I = Ill .4-1 ' .._ I ' -:::I:" m~ • c~ ~ ::c:c _ -mEJt'.t:E I l9ii!1 ; " 0 EXISTING GROUWO LJNE 66'RT OF 405 LINE 0 w z <ii 0 (/) 1talt EXISTING GROUND LI~./ ~ ~ REFERENCE LINE ? +-? 7 0 • RT 0' 405 tlNE ~ ELEVATION 0.0 C) " 0 ci co I 0 0 n "' 0 co 0 / 0 c3 Qyal '6 Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. Qyal PROFILE SCALE: 1 "=40' _9-2. Refer to Figure 3C for location of bridge. ;:2 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features 0 discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources os listed in this figure. The data ~ sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the ? data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The master hard o.. copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. / ::,c 4. Datum: NAVO 88 Qyal 0 l 149 -----"·--· EX I ST l BR. NO SEE SM 'ft_ p ,, <r r .. BRIDGE NO. 405/13.5 SEE FIGURE BE Qyal i N I 40 80 El Reference: PDF file "4pp012aD13k br001-D00" provided 08/16/05 by WSDOT 1-405 Design Team. QC SCALE IN FEET a) N I _, .,. C\I ' ' Ill J: a. 3 T Sand - · 3 j Qyal- 1 ~ Potentially Liquifiable _2j L-' - 49 37 11 55 14 ? j2 ~ ? Grovel -~5 :JC:/6" 5C/4"-Qyal j() ~-0/5" 82 ~ Qyal ~;0/6" r.::.r, I')'' i'. 7 :,c/s" SCALE: 1" "'" ' Ill 59 m 62 ? ?- 7 Sand Qyal- 7 Potentially 2 p Liquifiable Zones 79 43 ? " ~~t----?- 70 ,,o;,,· 96 80 20· Grovel Qyal :J 24 :JC I 3" 50/~/' 4' c» ' Ill Sand y Qyal EXPLANATION: KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: H-2 6l HISTORICAL BORING m FILL, MODIFIED LAND Sand SOIL DESCRIPTION Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM 3 I BLOWCOUNT Qw WETLAND DEPOSITS GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH CONTACT Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT Qvt GLACIAL Tl LL Tpr RENTON FORMATION GeoENGINEERS Q 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BRIDGE 405/13C -P-1 CHANNEL FIGURE SD '° 0 ' N ' 0 \ lr~a RT ... ~·~ 'P\ ··-"'""" ·,r, ........ ,, B-4S (L2181) ------ PLAN SCALE: 1~=40' .. ,,. ,, B-9 S (L2181) ~05 LI NE 1·-------------------. ·11 • 9 ./~ EXISTING BRIDGE B-S ~. NO. <05/IJ,5 (L2181) 0 + ,;;, " f~, ~)' ~ ; ;: r-~ ,,,/ ~ •" " "' '>!-" B-10 S (L2181) ~' EDDI<., .. LI NE EXISTING GROUND 66' RT OF 405 LINE 0 w z <ii .. <05 LINE st / PROF l LE GRAflj c» ' ID PLAN 0 I() I ~ ' ' ID ID 0 V) (.'.) 3: 0 w O'.J I 0 0 n r-- PJ£RS SMOWN 66.0 ~r RT or <11105 LINE. - SKEW NOT SHOWM ~ ·••··· -----.... ? KESDALE -m--;--I Oyal Oyal-.I AVE. s.w. -Pr~ --? ? Oya I-PL ? '- 0 O'.J 0 / 0 i'i / 0 0 / n r-- 0 O'.J ? PROFI SCALE: 1K= Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. Refer to Figure 3C for location of bridge. ya / I Oyal ? Oyal E 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. Doto were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The dato sources do not guarantee these data ore accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the 5-, data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of o master document. The master hard §. copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. ,-4. Datum: NAVD 88 8 Reference: PDF file "4pp012a013k_br001-000" prov;ded 08/16/05 by WSDOT 1-405 Design Team. Q' i N I 0 40 SCALE IN FEET st c» ' ' ID ID m 5 T Sand i 59 62 )4 Sand ?~ Oya!- 50/3" Potentially so/s" I Oya! ? 7 7 Liquifiable 41 Zones 2 p 29 43 p I() ' ID /9 m 'JD/'" ?~ ? F 22 27 L' 48 co/c" gg s;11 Sand Oyal 'l 2'l ~)0/~" ~;8 0 ~ ' ID Sand Oya! ? ± ?-i's Oyal- Potentially Liquifiable ? ~~t----?-Gravel /C C:1 b" 50/5" 96 80 80 Grovel ;:..10/"-:," Oyal SCALE: 1" 20· EXP LANA Tl ON: KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: B-4 s HISTORICAL BORING m FILL, MODIFIED LAND Sand SOIL DESCRIPTIO's Oyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM 7---1 BLOWCOUNT Ow WETLAND DEPOSITS GROUNDWATER LEVEL Ovrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH CONTACT Ovu GLACIAL DRIFT Ovt GLACIAL TILL Tpr RENTON FORMATION GEOENGINEERS CJ 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BRIDGE 405/13.5 (19) -OAKESDALE AVE. FIGURE BE S SRL-6-06 -/v ',~~ . f' ·.!t ") '\..., ::.-~ .... -~-- ~-SRL-8-06 6 6 26 1 E3 (') ' J: Qvrl 6Z~?- 2_ 4/0 ,. ·Tpr-Decomposed 100/1 . ?- Tpr ' s~ 1 0 _§_ 42'. C 2' _]_ 201~ 4 _Q_ C\I ' J: Qvrl SC/6" --2:::J ?- ' CU/2 :J" • 1 co/1" Tpr 15 3 ?Ll . 2 1 2 8 ·s 25 22 1 c s LC IO 0 ' IO ' ...I IX Cl) m ?- Qvrl- Potentially Liquifiable SC/3'' ?- Tpr 12 JO H-3~ H-2 S '~lo----...i.C~~: 05~L~l~N~E=-....!:~-~H:-=4~S:..------11 / 56' 1212 1711 t H-z I H-1~ 'OD/.\'' I 00/J°' en 0 ' N ' 0 EX]ST]NG 2R. NO. 11105/16 \ ..:}, IO PLAN 0 ' SCALE: 1":=40' IO ' ...I ~ IO 0 """ ' ' CDr4D5 L!ME. J: 5 39 _1_4_ ~ ' J: .... Qvrl 20 ?---4 -+--- ' 28/8" 210/8" ?- IO 0 ' a) ' ...I IX Cl) ~ij Tm ?- • 0 • 7 '.O Qvrl- 11 Potentially """ ' J: IO ' J: Qvrl ,T..- ? Tpr'.... Decomposed 7-31 ! Qvrl 30 ?-Tpr 118/n Tpr 0 w z 1/1 0 1/1 (') ' J: C\I ' IX ' J: .Ill J: ";) it PROFILE GRACE. J: l' :;___ .. ..,,.-: ==~~===~~~=====~~~==.~~IT-=~:::::-...-:::~----REFERENCE LINE ~ _ .,...... El.E\IATION 0.0 '--------{ TALBOT AV£. S. / . C0/2" 100/2" Tpr 14 Liquifiable 38 56 1 4"? ?-50/2" . 70/2'" Tpr 60/15" ......._ ..,.,.,,,.. ElBS LIN( ('.) ,: 0 ~ QJ I 0 0 n __ __,, ..... --.......... ----------~~ ? m? Qvrl ? ?+? ? ? Tpr ?t? i;r1-? Tpr '-REFERENCE LINE Tpr ELEI/ATION 0.0 " 0 QJ 0 / 0 <! u / 0 0 / n " 0 QJ 0 / ? ? Tpr . pr" PROFILE Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. SCALE: 1"=40' 2. Refer to Figure 3E and 3F for location of bridge. 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in o related document. Dato were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of o master document. The master hard 0..: copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. / ::, 4. Datum: NAVD 88 8 Reference: PDF file "4pp012a013k_br001-D0D" provided 08/16/05 by WSDOT 1-405 Design Team. Cl'. 0 ? m ? Tpr I IN 40 SCALE IN FEET ? Qvrl ? Tpr Tpr 80 SCALE: 1" = 20' EXPLANATION: KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: SRL-6-06 S CURRENT BORING m FILL, MODIFIED LAND H-3 s HISTORICAL BORING Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM Sand SOIL DESCRIPTION Qw WETLAND DEPOSITS 7-j BLOWCOUNT Ovrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT Qvt GLACIAL TILL Tpr RENTON FORMATION GEOENGINEERS LJ 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BRIDGE 405/16 (22) -TALBOT AVE. FIGURE SF • en 0 "-" ;-I I 0 w z ~ I 0 ,0 0 0 CX] I 0 0 "' " 0 CX] 0 / 0 ""' u / 0 0 / "' " 0 CX] 0 /. [l_ / ::, 0 w °' EXPLANATION: SRL•1•05 ~ CURRENT BORING H-1 S HISTORICAL BORING -.- Sand SOIL DESCRIPTION 7 j BLOWCOUNT j_y_ GROUNDWATER LEVEL ~ SH-3 SH-5 SH-4 PLAN SCALE: 1~=80' .... (') IO ' ' ' J: J: J: I Tpr TTpr Tpr I 7Tpr Tpr PROFILE SCALE: 1"=80' KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: m FILL, MODIFIED LAND Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM Ow WETLAND DEPOSITS Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT Qvt GLACIAL TILL Tpr RENTON FORMATION H-2S C\I ' J: SRL-1-05 ~ SH-1 It) 0 I Cl> ~ ' X a: u, ~ I I ?I? ;T?Tpr Tpr Tpr J_ Tpr ----z ,, 0 80 ' SCALE IN FEET 160 IO ' J: . 00/3 5" 100/4" 100/4" -.- 15C/4" 19C/4" 134/3"_;_,_ C\I ' J: 146~ 100/:J" - I 00/4" - 1 OOj:\."" - 100/35" - 1 :J0/3" - 1 00/3" - 100/3" 100/3" ·, 00/3"_;_,_ Tpr Tpr .... ' J: (') ' J: ? _! pr-Decomposed 1 03 ?1-+ i:!=-Decomposed -.- ? 31....:: __j__y -'- It) 0 ' Cl> ~ ' X a: u, -.- Tpr Tpr- so/2" -I Weathered ?--I--?- -LY. Tpr -'- 100/ 4" - , 00/3.5" ', 00/3.5" 50/2 - 100/4"-'- ~ ' Tpr J: 9/6"?:=F--? Tpr-Decomposed 292/5"µ. '60/5" _ 458/5" _ '00/4"- 100/3.5"' - Tpr I 00/3" - -'- SCALE: 1" = 20' Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown ore approximate. 2. Refer to Figure 3F for location of bridge. 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. Doto were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may hove been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The master hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. 4. Datum; NAVO 88 Reference; PDF file "4pp012a013k_br001-000" pro,ided 08/16/05 by WSDOT 1-405 Design T earn. GEoENGINEERS a 1·405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BRIDGE 405/17 (23) -BENSON RD. FIGURE BG "' 0 ' <Xl ' 0 0 w z Cf) 0 Cf) ~, E ~· _o 0 f- ::, I 0 >. 0 ..J O' ~ " ::, Ql I <( Ql LL I 0 0 "' " 0 <Xl 0 / 0 c'.S / 0 0 / "' I 70 60 50 40 z 0 ~ JO > j ., 20 f-- I I I ! ' ' I I I ' I I t-----1 I I ' ~ ,----t'. I 0 ' ~ I I <D I I I ' I w "' C) N "' I ---~-------+-----------+----~-----I ---·-----' ;,; I ' i i .:::0, I 0 I ~ ..J c Ill t--·--I ! ,-l:'_'I ~-~---._. I : I ' I -~-_J ..'.i I ~· ... • ·.tx1sT1NG GROUND suRFAC II ~ ' I ! ' I~ I : 1 ~ :;:;:---: . -··-------··----!!;_ \ ::I:Tpr I I -1 m I 30 - 't ~111.11c:1-1~n r.:RADE ·--· ····--·· --+-+--?--15 • i I l .... ,,., I 70 60 50 40 M JO ~ ~ 2~~ u z 10 0 e-i "5~t: ~ i?~ __ ! i i •o 50]6 - 0 -~-1 -10 1088+00 I i I ! 1090+00 1092+00 RETAINING WALL 4100 ' ifpr I -10 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 1 oo· VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 20' VERTICAL EXAGGERATION: SX r--•Notes: 1. The subsurface conditions shown are based an interpolation between widely spaced explorations and 0 <Xl should be considered approximate; actual subsurface conditions may vary from those shown. 2. Refer to Figures 3A and 38 for p!an location of Wall Profiles. 70 60 50 z '2 ~ 40 > w ~ w 30 2C ·----· . T-·-------- ' ' -: "' . I "' I , C) r----1--+---~, ---+-j --i ~-+-----1 I ' . ~ I IO I ---I , 9-+-----l ' I ! < <D EXISTl~G GROU~O SURF.I.CE 'i;> , __ "·-t-· ~ , I a:x------l I I I , ' · z I I en j ...J ' . !35 ~-- -----~--1 C:,,(: 'r" : .. 40 70 60 50 40 30 ' 1DC 2,.., -·-" --·?--·-· u I I I 10 1102+00 FINISHED GRAOE50(5" Qvj· . I 10 1104+00 1106+00 RETAINING WALL 4115 --'-- EXPLANATION: KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: .... m FILL, MODIFIED LAND <") ' BORING Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM ...J 1~ BLOWCOUNT Qw WETLAND DEPOSITS GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH CONTACT Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT --'---Qvt GLACIAL Tl LL ~ M < ~ ~ 0 z 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document .. 1 ---------------------... ----------------------------1 ,:,I Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. . . __ --·. __ ..•.. _. ·-· 0 Tpr RENTON FORMATION a... There may hove been updates ta the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The ~ hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. o 4. Datum: NAVO 1988 ~ Reference: CAO file "80405_FF _wall_profiles" provided 08/04/05, and "yc_nickel_xsectians" provided 05/10/05, by WSOOT 1-405 Design Team. GEOENGINEERS CJ l-4UO Ht:N I UN Nll,;Kt:L IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WALLS 4100 & 4115 FIGURE 9A 60 r -··-·· --------·--·-· ,--:-'2 ,--... .--' ......, ~a -a a !I o a I""') ,Cl I"") I"'") 0 3 .__ ~ ..__, -........,,, N ..--.. -.--~ ,--... -1 ..___,, t0 ~ ~ ~ 50 ---~-----+--------·~----·t0 p ~;------;----------~"'~--~-------~- :~ ~ ~ ! ~ :! EXISTING GROUND SURFACE L.J _J _JI I ..._.., .'io' ~ ;;;. ~ :~------,~ ..J ...J l Cl') :...J . ,oi:,~r,._---1-----+----+-------\---('f-- st~ --' "' 0 ~ c'.'.. :0-~ "' II) "' (0 "' ----' "' z1 Z' ...I c;, ,;_J 2- t i I TOP OF WALL ...I c;, i -~---+---C---I =--=6 ~.,;~-+-=< ====i "' 0 ' 'l'"'lli ' . ·w n?rn,1 1-3~ 'ff i !Im, /i ! ,_ i z i l~H _ L_I 1 , r, n 19] , ,. , Ti bi-Qyal--·· i::.: 1 ~B. I Qxal-6 15 'llJ . Potentially __J___ ---o-= . otenbally - 14 ! 17 ' , I o 2 Qya1L I o , o 4 PoteAtialiy---l W I i :;j I 3, Liquifi9ble [ 0 ' ' ----A~' ~1 Liquiliable I , , Potentially L' T bl I yo I ya T . i • 1 ' I t Li u/fiable iqui !O e ~ Pot¢ntially 4 i Potenbolly L1qu1f1able ! . . i _ ___ i 11 , q __ :_ __ liqyifiable 6 1 Li uifidble 7 1 i ---------· ---; ------, i j I , • I (/) 0 -~o 'I' I I ' ! ! I I 4; i I ! II I ! I __________ ! _______ ~-~ I ;-----1 ! I i ! i ; _, __ I CD a, u_ ill E a z .D a f- :, a " 0 _J "' ~ t) ::, rn I <( a, u_ I 0 0 n r--. 0 00 0 / 0 <( u / 0 0 / n '.::: INates: 0 00 L___ 1090+00 1092+00 ----------tt> 60 0 '1" i ,= ____ __;x~ "- a: ~1 <n 2, 50 1094+00 _ I 40 OyoVm;;-":::~~,--+--+---1 IC:: i-?-! w•--~ i · ---f---.:_10. i .. , "" , :i avu_Vavt -T----r· --- u, I i 1;;;:. -, -~_?20' I :::E I I ------' ' . I t---+~- n ~ -:,,io __ I ~ ! ~ I " ~· n r ',: ----j ----~' ----1 -----!·- 1104+00 1106+00 1. The subsurface conditions shown are based on interpolation between widely spaced explorations and should be considered approximate; actual subsurface conditions may vary from those shown. 2. Refer to Figures 3A and 3B for plan location of Wall Profiles. 1096+00 1098+00 EXPLANATION: st "' I ...I 10T 1100+00 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 1 oo· VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 20' VERTICAL EXAGGERATION: 5X 1102+00 KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: m FILL, MODIFIED LAND BORING Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM BLOWCOUNT Qw WETLAND DEPOSITS GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH CONTACT Qvu GLACIAL ORI FT Qvt GLACIAL TILL RENTON FORMATION 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended lo assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document.·.----------------------.----------------------------,1 /.I Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. 0 Tpr a.. There may have been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The -;; hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. o 4. Datum: NAVD 1988 ~ Reference: CAD file "80405_FF _wo!l_profiles provided 08/04/05, and "yc_nickel_xsectians" provided 05/10/05, by WSDOT 1-405 Design Team. GEOENGINEERS CJ 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WALL 4008 FIGURE 98 10 1---:-----~------1 ___ --1--------1----1-·-r---~------;------i----i------r--· -r -·---i------1----~---~--1-----r ------r· ·--- 1 ,-------i ---i-----1.,------,-., ---r--1 1 X <t.)<D I : I i : : I ' I I ' ! I I I ' I , I ' a: 0, ~ i ,1 / 1 '· . ·. I I :. '., I I I , I ·, I , , I ! I ! I 70 , c.0 1 i , : ..--..i . · · · 1 1 1 I , . "' --------~""--7-~---~--t-----t---t-: r---1--:21---t--~----:----i----i-i------1--------t-----+----r---1--;-, ----;-----i---+----1 50 60 15 ' I I i TOP OF WALL i =-: i ~ I ' EXISTING GROUND SURFACE . I -;;-I 11· I ' i ;. I i. I I I i I U) I ~ ! ' I I I I I : I I I ,----i--_! ___ i_ ________ ~ __ J_ _i __ 9_L_ ______ 11---IB~----_____ f ______ _j ___ [ ____ !I,_ ---j------+--~+---t-----~-----1 --1---+----\----1'-----:;:::;-50 --------i l I I l I ..-I -1 ,I I I I -' I ' ' 1 - I sol ____ ~--:J.9- 4J "' z OJ , .30 0 I I . : I <?: I "'• ""1 I ' I ' I GI I i ·1 ! i ' I ·1 1 , 1 , I I I -, , r..c, 1 , O m I · I j I I · I I I ~j_ I c i 3, l I I I J I ;;; I I i _L I I / ! !::. 40 -~ 36 , m-----i---1 , I ------1--cnT~-~ • , \oi-1 I T---i-~-r-, I I -----+---i-----, ----t--:gJ I i I : I ! I I • ~ ! I :;; i i I I i ;::-I i i i I I : I <Ni I 1C ---__ l______l I ' i !___:i_ prov~32TI~ _J_11____; __ _I__ I_ ___ I _! : i l ' ! __ _l __ i ___ / __ ~j 30 ~ , , 1. , , I : 50::rf'~ , st 1 : 1, 1 I I I I I cnf I , . I . I m , : I "' I . I ' . 22 Sand 16 -? 1 28 ? 37 1 I i I I I . : ; I , • '1 I / I I 1· I · 1 I , ' f I 36 ' ·. f ' .J I . / 8 20 L----i J QQ~ ...l_?--=::-i __ _J ___ L_ . __ __;__ ? 1 an~__J_ . _ I ' --1, __ ~---i , --t-------+---~i _____ J 20 z 71v::,, ,. i 1 I ' ' I ' ' I ' I I . . "'Ja1-1 i i i i i 25 I I 1_ o m1 , I l i i I i I - ~\llil 'fi ti' . I I I ' ' I I 6 I I . +4 1 i . I I I <C "-w a le.--1-~ ~-6-__ · -· __ __1 __ ,,~-' · ~----Oya,-.,---,---____j-~ -'----1 > ~ ' --Y---, ' f • I ' I 113 f · ' I I !Sand 3 ':l s;it 1 1 4 _y , I I ! 28 Potentidlly I / ! ; I Qyal- 1 w ~-l._--=-1byal-J i ~ i _ ! \ I ! _J42_ 1 uquifia~ I ! __j 1 ;P?tll,"tiapJy! 0 3 tand Potentially: I 18 I ~yol. I ! =+ Zones . I I . ,liqu1fia~le 1 10 ' Li~.' uifiable i I 17 / Potentially! / I I I f f f r I. _ ? 13 t--· 7 I --Zones i 20 Sand Li 1uifiable I ! i ! I I I I I ~-i_,0 : _ ~i 2 1. 1 11 o ! Zones . , : , : , . ::, :) 1 ! I . ;, • i z' I --, I ' j ! : i "1: I i -:,;,.., I ' ' ' : -1-4 V . _ , , , . , .. ~ L · I : I I : '. , : : 1 2C ; 4,.., § 2C f------L----34---___________ , _______ ___:_ ___ __ .... ___ ---;----:-------;--______ , ____ -:-----:---_1 ___ ---~ --------;------:---~ ---~---__J. _____ __.!._ ____ -----------------:----~"!-----------:-~---------.SG+id---j .-~ z I Qyal i \ .' • • ! i i , 41 , , , '.1 I I i i • JV .0 : 34-' ' I I I : I I \ ,i !J 1 >" ,01 __ i 33 S0~ ___ 1 ' ~ I I 1 ! I I I I I i I _L_ I I 1_ ____j-,o Oy,al i1 :, I ' -r I I I I I I ! I i I i I I I I I I /52 g_ I 40 1 . : · I I I I I . I ·· .3 I I l · I t I f I t I I ! I I I I / I f I I qravel / 72 "' 3' " ::, "' I < a, "-I 0 0 1') ,... 0 OJ 0 / 0 <( 0 / a 0 / ,,, 1 1,32+00 1134+00 1136+00 1138--i-OO HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 100' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 20' VERTICAL EXAGGERATION: 5X ~ Notes: 1. The subsurface conditlons shown are based on interpolation between wide!y spaced explorations and ~ should be considered approximate; actual subsurface conditions may vary from those shown. EXPLANATION: st "' ' .J 11. 40+00 BORING 8LOWCOUNT GROUNDWATER LEVEL CONTACT 1142+CO 1144+00 KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: m FILL, MODIFIED LAND Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM Qw WETLAND DEPOSITS Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT Qvt GLACIAL TILL RENTON FORMATION 64 34 Tpr 0 2. Refer to Figure JC for plan location of Wall Profiles. 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. lt is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document.r---------------------... ----------------------------• ~ Dato were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. a.. There may have been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy af a master document. The ~ hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the officio\ document of record. o 4. Datum: NAVO 1988 ~ Reference: CAD file "80405_FF _wall_profiles" provided 08/04/05, and "yc_nickel_xsectians provided 05/10/05, by WSDOT 1-405 Design Team. GEoENGINEERS a 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WALL 4010 FIGURE 9C I "' 0 '-. <Xl -• '-. 0 -~, 0 m LL V E 0 z .0 ,':' ~ " 0 >, 0 _J "' ~ "" :::, a, I <{ a, LL I 0 0 "' r-- 0 <Xl 0 / 0 <) / 0 0 / "' 60 50 40 30 z O 20 c= < > w ~ w 10 0 -10 2C C, ~ <D < <D , ---,....W---- , I J:c, ~ 'I --. . I , I ! ! ---+-' -----·-···-<----- ,--__ 2 =t,~~~""'---"--1 6 -oyaFt g l i 8 Sand ~otenti_a_ llY· __ 32--_1iq~lfigQle __ ' Zones I I 38 i I _L I • I ! I I +---f---1- 1 ' t----J ' I --,' -----!---I 1 I --1--- i ---------,---------,----, -;;, i I ~~-' I j , I, 1<01 1-1.:::-L 1, ! I ;:;; t I ~ 'Z2 I I TOP OF WALL I I -I,_ I ----:o~II __ '.': ______ JEXISTING r---, ~ I i ~ ; ~ i ! r , . . I . . IO _ __,_ __ It)_ 1 -----~+-------+-·-----·------T I -------...J---------"';° i "';° i . ...I I ...J [ ----i - ' I I ' GROUND SURFACE -· I ri1 !-------···-·· 1 ~--------: ' -. 44 ' 34 11 m 12 m , -T- i I I ,----··1--I I -----. f--I I ! ____ J -1-----~ I 0 ' c'.;, ···----: --,--., C') <X) .;:; ID I D. C, ,, -_I : , I ,, --->·-' i i I -~-r--j__ I i-__ i I i ----r-- w -+-i -[~~1 I J 27 I I -c--7 L ------, , -~]~Q-0 ~~ --1? =---~7 I -, 1119 ! ~ Silt ?---:-Q~~I: --~ • 8=.. , -13 -f Po{epfially ' 24 fyal 15 Srd Liquifiable I -'--+. + . I Silt 15 ! L -~~-+1 Y-i : ! i . --! I --i ---j-- --t------;4o J __ Zo,nes ,---- 1 1 -I _l ___ J_-i__~-• ---- -, ---I ' -+~-~.5 i--·-·· l _J ------1--------····-~-- I -r----30t--;_ i ; I 38 t 1 I i __ -L~0/5_"_l__9ya I ,,o;,;· S-:Jr:d ar:d 50/6_" ---1 Gravel 60 50/6" 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 1132+00 1134~00 1136+00 1138+00 1140+00 1142+00 1144+00 -30 1146+00 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 1 oo' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 20' VERTICAL EXAGGERATION: 5X EXPLANATION: <I' C') • ...I 10T BORING BLOWCOUNT 50/5" 50/5" 50/4" 50/5" 50/4" KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: m FILL, MODIFIED LAND Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM Qw WETLAND DEPOSITS Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT r---•Notes: 1. The subsurface conditions shown are based on interpolation between widely spaced explorations and 0 <Xl GROUNDWATER LEVEL CONTACT Qvt GLACIAL TILL should be considered approximate; actual subsurface conditions may vary from those shown. 2. Refer to Figure 3C for plan location of Wall Profiles. ~ ~ < ,, ~ 0 z 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document .. 1 ___ ;;; ________________ _,~-----......... ______ ...,. _____ ..,. ............. _ ............... ~ ~I Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 0 Tpr RENTON FORMATION o... There may hove been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The .r'j WALL 4111 -; hard copy is stored by Geo Engineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. GEO ENGINEERS u,J o 4. Datum: NAVO 1988 ~ I FIGURE 90 ~ Reference: CAD file "80405_FF _wall_profiles" provided 08/04/05, and "yc_nickel_,sections" provided 05/10/05, by WSDOT 1-405 Design Team. '° I 0 ?1 '-0 0 w z Ul 0 Ul w m LL ~ E 0 z _D 0 r- ~ " 0 >, -'3 0, ~ " ::a m I <( ~ I 0 0 n " 0 <X) 0 ./ 0 2'i ./ 0 0 ./ n z 0 " " > a u u 4C JO 20 10 ,- 0 ~ i I I ~ •• 22 , , TOP OF WALL w i 1 It) ' ' 1' ' I I I ---t---,---, 0 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE i 2 1 I I cc~ ! a,~ i J ' !.-... · ro ---,--~--------I~ I 79 m 1' ..JI 1q ' '11 i ---~---r(D==~=~~==-'-x ' I I ' ..__,. I I ~ lso;1 -_1_; --1 2 t ! 2 I L-----1 -----1-----·-------1-----.------------------l -·-1 m. ; I · . ...-.-:!!:::.-,---~ ! , I , ~"-=--1 1 I ~2 ' I I' ' ~ -----\__----, __________ 1 ..,--,-----,\ 4S I -----___ [ I ! "'d'-__j_ I ' I I Silt ' : . ! 2:9 ..,_ ....,f""-l ...J N < \ I ! ' I O I -~-"'f_..,._-,-_= ---·f----·27--, I I I i---r 1 -' ----'--m , ...J.::--I I 41 j_' I T----i --1,;c ' II y~ -I ~ -Silt 4~ ------~---------,-----1-----{--;::d Qyal-~ ... ·~· ~ . i i I m , -'1'''' . I , '"' ! I s,1<' I ~', P,to,u,11,..... -,c::--·-1 ! -1 0 f----------- I 5015 .. ' Sand 1 , j 112 I ' · ! ···· · · ---·· ·_ '. _ Qyal 30 , 1 , ....J • , Qyal. i I I 6'6 Gr9vel 42 , I 16: Sand ---, -···-·-------------' ____ , i I I I , 1 I • , , ' i . I --' --~--: 4!3 ! , ! Gravel . Grovel i 1 ~ -----lli·-·-· 1' i ---I _619 --+----------,-:3 i I I I ~ I : I + I I ~ ! : I -~' ------,--· ····--111 __ -20 --~---~ I 341 ' I -30 1148+00 1150+00 j 1----T 1 ---, __ J I 1 : i I I ' ] ---i-~-,-----~I --i--------'-. --- ' i I I ! I 1154+00 1156+00 1158+00 1160+00 1162+00 ~ ~ I ' 1 40 i I 1- , co co-! i ~ ..'_, 1 ---, .;co TOP Of-WALL ~~--T--- -~ ---'CO l -I ' t') -I ;----,;_;; ------! ~, w I , ' : i , I I'; -:i 1· ..'_, ~ ;:;, '.---~ -'-," __ ---~-, EXIS,ING GROUND SURFACE j ~ i I " ' ·---" >' ' ' _, ·-~ ~ w I ...J I l ' ,--I --1· ' -: -..--------: 1 w ' ' ' ' -,--·--------• ' ' • --'" z 1 _ __44r' t:S:i"_I\J----+--'; 2 -4~S~-l~t----~;--' 1--.J --1 -----------st ' .J , . ---..'_, ----.JO , ' ' / " I i --r---i 1---------/1 · ~----~ -, ' -,b,' ' " ' ' ' " ------" ---' • --' I . ' ' W '' -. , Sand i I 8 I -1 and Peat ' 5 /6" m I 4 --29 6" ; o Qyal i 4 Q I ------4-f'-? -. I 3 p t t I ya 55 . I ? e.n. 1011 2 Potentioll I 48 Q' -I I 1' --, r - r-10 Silt. , 1164+00 1166+00 L1qu1f1 ble ,-ocr-= . . . Y ! , yal 2( 1t _J l- I I ! I I I 1168+00 1170-1-00 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 1 oo' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 20' VERTICAL EXAGGERATION: 5X EXPLANATION: .... t') ' ...J BORING ! I ! i 1172+00 i I I I I I I I I I .s·--------t I I I I I r I 1 '. 74+00 4 Sand ;Qyal- ~l==~,tential~ 55 Liquifiable GO Grave\ &4 I ! I I I 1176+00 ~ ' ~ 0 ;; =' 0 z -10 -20 -.30 KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: m FILL, MODIFIED LAND Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM Qvt GLACIAL TILL ~ I Notes: 1. The subsurface conditions shown ore based on interpolation between widely spaced explorations and 4= BLOWCOUNT GROUNDWATER LEVEL CONTACT Qw WETLAND DEPOSITS Tpr RENTON FORMATION should be considered approximate; actual subsurface conditions may vary from those shown. 0 <X) 0 2. Refer to Figures 3C and .3D for plan location of Wall Profiles. Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document .. 1 --------------------iP""'--------------------------t ""I Data were compiled from sources as listed in \his figure._The data sources do not g_uaron\ee these do\o ore accurate or complete. 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT a.. There may _have been updates to the data since.the publ1calion of .t~1s figure. This frgure 1s a copy of a master document. The ~ WALL 4 020 -; hard copy IS stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and w,11 serve OS \he off,c,al document of record. GEoENGINEERS u.J o 4. Datum: NAVO 1988 ~ I FIGURE 9E ~ Reference: CAD file "80405_FF _wall_profiles" provided 08/04/05, and "yc_nickel_xsec\ions" provided 05/10/05, by WSOOT 1-405 Design Team. z 2 < > :g lJ ;;,. '-a 0 w z vi 0 (/) LL en Cc '" E 0 z _Q 0 f-- ~ => 0 "' .3 "' 3' " ::;; a, I <( en LL I 0 0 "' " 0 CX) 0 / 0 <( u / 0 0 / c'l 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -JC co OC>t --,-"';"' N_ ----·-·-------:---------- i m2,~ 1 ------------------1---·--·,---I ~ I , 1 '~' T~[ j I I I~ .... 1 1 --i--··1 , -Oya+ j l~ _ _J_ __I __ 1 7 I Potent/ally ! I . T ,_____ I '_L" ·1·' ' I -, --+ 1qu1 ,able , 711 i [ -----------_ 1 , , Zones 1 ---, 57 - o~-::- --~ U) -'--,-· -·-·-··-·-, -- 1 Io I ...J_JtQ I ~~' r -1----1 L I - 1 , r I I ! Qyal : _ -- 1- ___ts;1t Sand -__ : __ ---. 1-- , I -----~I ------t- i i ---+---'.-' -~-' i i 50/Sf' : j I ' ·---·--··--··---1-.. ---· ! i ' ! 50/ 4/' · , ___ __J so;sl· i Ii i i i . . +---l---i I ! ~-____:-' -----1- l ! ' i i I , ' ' I j ~ --- ""Ta.,~ t'. i :~ ~-I : ,-I C) I !~~ ' ' ------------------' r-,--- 1 ±?:]~~~~~ ! ' _i --~-- ! I EXPLANATION: KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: st m FILL, MODIFIED LAND C') Qyal w ' BORING YOUNGER ALLUVIUM ~~ BLOWCOUNT Qw WETLAND DEPOSITS GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH ~ :::;; CONTACT Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT -'-Qvt GLACIAL TILL Tpr RENTON FORMATION I I ~ I ' L_L __ i I I I ! I I I I 1148+00 1150+00 1152+00 1154+00 1156+00 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 100' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 20' VERTICAL EXAGGERATION: 5X - ~ --------- cc'[,-.. ~ -t:' --------"T I a - ...J ~"' ~~ t-~ -:::-st -~ ~ "'--------, I O ----- ...J 2~ EXISTING GROL~ID sJR 0 ici~A~L~- r--1 I I I ' w I Qyal I II ~ m, z' I I I _J I I I I ' I I I I u I I I ~1 . j -----j I ::E I , , I , I i I • ' I I I ! ---i ! ' I j , I' ,1 , 1 I , I ' ' I . Oya I ! l r I ' j H , I ! ' i ! I ' , I I I I I I J \ i ' ~ ' ,--- I J I ! ! j I ' I I I I ' ---1 I I I I I I I I I ! ! I ' 1156+00 1158+00 1160+00 1162+CO 1: 64+00 40 30 -L-I 20 I 10 0 -10 I D -20 -JO 1166+00 ~ INotes: 1. The subsurface conditions shown ore based on interpolation between widely spaced explorations and should be considered approximate; actual subsurface conditions may vary from those shown. 0 CX) n r n < >- cj 0 z 0 2. Refer to Figures 3C and 30 for plan location of Woll Profiles. 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. ... -------------------... ---------------------------1 ,/.I Data were compiled from sources as listed io this figure._The data sources do not g.uarootee these data are accurate or complete. 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT a.. There may hove been updates .to the data since. the publication of .t~1s figure. This figure 1s a copy of a master document. The r; WALL 41 30 ; hard copy is stored by GeoEng,neers, Inc. and WIii serve as the aff1c1ol document of record. GEO ENG IN ff RS u.J 8 4. Datum: N~VD 1988 . ,, . ,, . . ,, , _ ~ I FIGURE 9F er Reference: CAD file 80405 FF wall profiles provided 08/04/05, and yc_nickel_xsect,ons provided 05/10/05, by WSDOT 1-405 Design Team. ~, "' ' 0 ~1 0 w z (/) 0 (/) CJ m LL ID E 0 z .0 "' ~ :, 0 >, .3 "' ~ " ::, 0, I < E I 0 0 n ,.... 0 "' 0 / 0 < u / 0 0 / n ~ INotes: 0 "' ~ t t 60 ~~-0 0 60 so t'1 N ~ ~ ' c.o U)' I I ' '-~ ' I ' '° '9 I I j i ·1 ~ I TOP OF WALL 1 40 z 0 cc " > w ci 30 2 ll) .... ;t;'" . 4 Qyal- v .... .... j I I EXISTING GROUND SURFACE ~ 2 Potbntially ' 1 g b' l'f"bl I o.J ' 6 20 >-I ----i-2a1-t11q1:;11 10 -e I tJ 1 1 ,r111if1n~l,s 36 I 22 I ' 1200+{)0 1202+00 1204+00 60 51J 40 z 0 " " 3U > w ~ w 20 10 RETAINING WALL 4040A --------?-5 20 18 s5/W s '° '° I d .... .... I ..J QvrL./; ~r I ~·- 11) • ..J a: U) i ~ I --1---, ' I . m-! EXISTING GROUND SURFACE I 1 s ' Potentially ' j I I 3 I __ uq~ifiable_~ ····-" -----1 i : ? 2 r?- 1 I 1 . 1.2. ' Potenti.a 1.ly -+---t--+ ,i • Li uifi~~l_e ~,-- ' ·-··1· 25 · ;~ ! ___ ::,:____j g ) 50/J" ?- Qvrl 1 I 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1208+00 ! 1210+00 +·1 1 0 1212+00 RETAINING WALL 40408 1. The subsurface conditions shown are based on interpolation between widely spaced explorations and should be considered approximate; actual subsurface conditions may vary from those shown. 2. Refer to Figure 3E for plan location of Wall Profiles. ~ Fi ;; ~ 0 z .... .... ' ..J 50 40 p ~ < > ~ 0 30 z 20 1206+00 z 0 cc ;; w ~ w 80 7,:J 60 50 40 30 20 EXPLANATION: KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: v <') ' ..J m BORING Qyal BLOWCOUNT Qw GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qvrl CONTACT Qvu Qvt Tpr HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 1 oo' VERTICAL SCALE: 1 " = 20' VERTICAL EXAGGERATION: 5X t !--------,----T-----------en -N "' ~ ~ --~'° ~' ~----- '° I d TOP OF WALL~: 'f EXISTING GRO.UND SURFACEJ·. • ~-. --~ --··· :g1 I i : I "P ..J , I · I I ..J CX) ' I 11 11 9 13 8 21 .... ' X a: U)_l_ ____ _L __ ~+-----+---t-~ 42~ Qyrl 36 I 28 38 Qyrl 32 ~and O.l'irl i L ·-·ii i ___ ~ ·-1 .... , 1 1 FILL, MODIFIED LAND YOUNGER ALLUVIUM WETLAND DEPOSITS RECESSIONAL OUTWASH GLACIAL DRIFT GLACIAL TILL RENTON FORMATION 30 70 60 50 p ~ 40 i; =' 0 z 30 20 S.,Jt r I L-r· 1 ,__ · I I . -I -?-I ! I · '1 I I ' I l 1010),'3~ 10 TRr 1208+00 RETAINING WALL 4140 0 1210+00 3. This figure is for informational purposes on!y. lt is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document .. 1 --------------------.---------------------------1 /I Data were compiled from sources as J;sted in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data ore accurate or complete. 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT O.: There may have been updates to the data since the publica\;on of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The r; WALLS 4040A 40408 & 4140 0 ,;; hard copy is stored by GeaEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. GEOENGINEERS u.J . 8 4. Datum: NtVD 1988 . " . .. . _ ,, . . ~ FIGURE 9G a:: Reference: CAD file 80405 FF wall profdes provided 08/04/05, and yc_n1ckel xsect1ons provided 05/10/05, by WSDOT 1-405 Design Team. "' 0 '-00 '-0 0 L.J z <ii 0 (/) I 0, u._ ~ E 0 z .0 .:> " 0 "' 0 _, m ~ "! ::,c m I "' m u._ I 0 0 "' " 0 00 0 / 0 "' () / 0 0 / n '.:: I Notes: 0 00 0 90 80 z 70 0 " :; w ~ lLI 60 1212+00 -·-·---TOP OF WALL--,.---... I I ,;.J.::::, Im? 90 80 70 ~ ~ < ,. ~ 6 50 z z 0 150 140 130 120 1- L~---+--------t~ i 50 140 L----+--__, ! I ! 1.lO '" r ~ < 50 i ;~ ..I cc f -EXISTING GROUND SURFACE --- 1 ' 50 120 ,. =' 0 z 110 ~ "o w ___ !_~!---/~ ~=-!---:-~----'--110 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 4 9 i 214+00 1216+00 100 I : I ·----'------'---'---'--- ! ?3 ? • 3 . 7 90 10 _ m/Qvrl- 11 Potentially 15+00 16+00 18+00 14 Liquifiable RETAINING WALL 4050 RETAINING WALL 4110 z 0 56/4:l~ ?-50;2". . 70/2" 60/1" · Tpr IO 0 I 0 go ~ t" e -µ'Ii .. r-TrP OF~;~-----ffi· .. :g • 1 ill; 9 a 80 -~I ! ! I I ! J T ! ,o, 2 •--........:r.c 1 , I Le · r, 01 ... 1 ' j I I I 7 · Completely d, r-1 ;:!---'----1 so I 0: i 6 m r m ~7a L-------: > w LEXISTING GROUND ~URFACE 1 1 2 5° Weathered? ii.I ~ en i 8 m 70 j; d Tp1 49 m 60 f-----+~"--+">,c 50/6" 50 ! I ! I 30+00 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 1 00' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 20' VERTICAL EXAGGERATION: 5X 32+00 34+00 RETAINING WALL 4120 1. The subsurface conditions shown are based on interpolation between widely spaced explorations and should be considered approximate; actual subsurface conditions may vary from those shown. 2. Refer to Figure 3F for plan location of Wall Profiles. 36+00 +00 Tpr 42 60 50 4C+OO =' 0 z 20+00 EXPLANATION: v C') ' ..I 100 90 21+00 BORING BLOWCOUNT GROUNDWATER LEVEL CONTACT KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: m FILL, MODIFIED LAND Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM Qw WETLAND DEPOSITS Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT Qvt GLACIAL TILL Tpr RENTON FORMATION 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document .. 1 --------------------.1""'--------------------------t ""I Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources da not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT o._ There may have been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The r; WALLS 4050 4110 & 4120 ;; hard copy is stored by Geo Engineers, Inc. and will serve OS the official document of record. GEO ENGINEERS uJ ' 8 4. Datum: NtVD 1988 . " . ,, . . ,, . . ~ FIGURE 9 H °' Reference: CAD file 80405_FF _woll_prafiles provided 08/04/05, and yc_nickel_xsect1ons provided 05/10/05, by WSDOT 1-405 Design Team. "' 0 " ro " 0 0 w z {/] 0 {/] 0 "" ll) 0 ' ~ • ;= a: rn ~ 37 - 18 50/3" - 50/3" - ~ ~ 0 0 -;,;- "' 0 ~ 110 r ---·----' I I -! EXISTING GROUND Tpr ,-----'i:, ---I-'--"' --·a ~ <D <D ~ l -------! ;; ----·-r-----! -----1-! -r I l --------r--1 r I -! --i----- ~ _ _ _ --\ ~ 28 i ~ ~------------;~----------:---~-----:-~-:~~ ; CJ> L " E 0 z . cc z 0 < 90 > w 0 -"" '° w _:, TOP OF WALL <Xl ' ' r U) ' ·__-:::--=-::...2-~ ...J ' . ---. .. . . .. .. ... I I ...J _, I -~ ~ T ------"'-,-..__... _J-----------:--a, ' _J_ '(» 0 I Tpr i i _o 0 r- ~ ~ a >, 0 _, ~ w , \ 1 / __ ,~! ~ . 50/3-:;r,-f _ I i ~ _ ,5c I Tpr : i i ! ! ----: -~ a:, ' ! ; ...J~ ' I i : I : ' --------i-·· -------1-------+-·---··------l,,---~- 1 , I I I ! I ' ' i ' BO ---~---! ! 70 I r---, l I ------ I I 1212+00 1214+00 1216+00 1218+00 1220+00 1222+00 1224+00 "' ~ cl -'- 2 CJ> I e I i5 EXPLANATION: KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: ;:2 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 1 oo· ~ VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 20' ~ m FILL, MODIFIED LAND o VERTICAL EXAGGERATION: SX j BORING Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM i BLOWCOUNT Qw WETLAND DEPOSITS / GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH 0 _;;-CONTACT Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT "' r-... Notes: 1. The subsurface conditions shown are based on interpolation between widely spaced explorations and Qvt GLACIAL TILL should be considered approximate; actual subsurface conditions may vary from those shown. 0 ro 110 00 ~ so < ,, ~ 6 z J 80 70 1226+00 2. Refer to Figure 3F for pion location of Wall Prafiles. Tpr RENTON FORMATION 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. . .-------------------,,--------------------------1 Data were campiled from sources os listed in this figure., Th': data s~urces do not g_uarontee these data are accurate or camplete. 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 0 ./ n_ I There may have been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure 1s a copy of a master document. The CJ WALL 4150 ;; hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc_ ond will serve OS the official document of record. GEO ENGINE E RSI: r~ J o 4. Datum: NAVO 1988 ~ ~ Reference: CAO file "80405_FF _wall_profiles" provided 08/04/05, and "yc_nickel_xsectians" provided 05/10/05, by WSOOT 1-405 Design Team. I FIGURE 91 I "' 0 ' ~. ' 0 -. ~I 0 (J) , i:' w E 0 z _o 0 r- :, 0 >, .5 c,, 3 "! "' "' I -< "' lL I 0 0 n " 0 <Xl 0 ./ 0 -< u ./ 0 0 ./ n t 90 80 z 0 ~ 70 > w ~ w 60 C> ~ ~ Q~ 0 1---118'-1 TOPo· 1 FWALL 1 1 -;~-r I , 1 --1 , 1---i-~-~.,---c:,:j>!·--·······--1 1 ------5i ' ,-' ' ' O-' I I N - i "' t ' ' -, st . -m i _J ; I I i , 1, a: ! ...:t- C---~------------' -----: ' ! _J I i'--co ~ i I -, --.. -·--·----; ----J_ 0 .._, (/'J 01 I I , ' m I -----· "' r-' 0 , ! I I ,----,--· ··-·--: .,.. I ! i ' ?-I ' I I _J I w C----+~ + ~·~~-----1--~-----; _____ ' _:6_ ---. --+ I --Ti: i __ 1J~1~~ I I I -0 ; 1 , , Tr 1 1 m I i -o i1'jT ~ -----Ej,~~~1~~.'.'• ~~~u~ __ s_u~~A=EJ -P I _I ! I --+I ~pr i ?! I I ' i 3 rn. . .. ~ 194!12F\pr r i I • '1 i ! I I . 1----1-Tpr' -,-I ' ;;~!~ I-?- -' I I I ' I ' . ' I -------r---------------i -1----i ---l -+-r-----: --. -+--··· __ J__ ! . I i I i I I ! ! i 100 -t 4 0 . • i 1 --! -~ ---' -L ! ! I I • i I I I i -;;;- <D 123C+OO TOP OF WALLl t 0 ~ ~~ ! I O'l ;~~ QC:, _,_ 123/+00 I I \-. :_ .'..~ m? • ?- ,_ w z ~, =----t-r,--------,--~ ~ 11 Tpr? :::; l.J_ I I Li-EXISTING GROUND ! I I • SURFACE i I I 100 90 80 ~ ' ~ 70 j; 60 50 40 =' 0 z 1244..;-QQ 1246+00 1 73~ 1-00 12-26+00 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 1 oo· VERTICAL SCALE: 1 " = 20' VERTICAL EXAGGERATION: 5X 1238-:JO EXPLANATION: st <") ' BORING ...J 1°1 BLOWCOUNT GROUNDWATER LEVEL CONTACT 12~0 + -JC 1247 -::::::: KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: m FILL, MODIFIED LAND Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM Ow WETLAND DEPOSITS Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT '.':: INotes: 1. The subsurface conditions shown are based on interpolation between widely spaced explorations and _L Qvt GLACIAL Tl LL should be considered approximate; actual subsurface conditions may vary from those shown. 2. Refer to Figures 3F and 3G for pion location of Wall Profiles. 0 <Xl 0 Tpr RENTON FORMATION 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. ... -------------------... --------------------------1 /.I Data were campiled !ram saurces as listed in this figure. _The data saurces da nat g_uarantee these data are accurate or complete. 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT a.. There may have been updates to the data since the publ1cat1on of this figure. This figure 1s a copy of a master document. The CJ WALL 4060 ;; hard copy is stared by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve OS the afficial document of record. GEOENGINEERS rJJ o 4. Datum: NAVO 1988 ~ :;:! Reference: CAD file "80405_FF _wall_profiles" provided 08/04/05, and "yc_nickel_xsections" provided 05/10/05, by WSDOT 1-405 Design Team. I FIGURE 9J "' 0 '--00 '--0 0 w z U1 0 U1 "' m L '" E 0 z _Q >-" ~ " 0 >. _:J "' ~ ~ ::, "' I "" "' LL I 0 a n " 0 00 0 / 0 "" u / 0 0 / n ~ INotes: 0 00 a 110 I I .., -r--~ m ~ r---Io _, ro ~~~ a-=r Tpr- Weathered ---------, 2a 7 __ , . I ,on__/ .. ~ , I c» I -------,------~--i--~--r---~ ·oVT--1 , I ! ,Tpr-I I I ' _cc- 1ob;s· I ~I I . -r ----,;-S; ! ---'---+-----+---' -·--· ' -------+---------1---~- i ' GROUND EXISTING 120 110 z 100 '" sPSe<cc+ --,cp;,· C2 --·,+ .. ; --j j "-----1 ! I I ' TpF-'-'- I --r-0 ,= <( > w ~ w z 0 F <( > w ~ w 90 I 80 LJ 70 1228+00 100 I ,i,::; 80 I I ' I ! 70 60 50 40 - -' 0 -=!, ll') Q ' CII CII ' X IE U) ~~~! 50/±" 50/4'' ! ' I , z ' I ' ~ --- ---1Cp/ 4 " i _ I .. Weathered . ----. -I , 50/ 4 l--1 80 I I I T~ --I : I ' _L -' I I . ' ' . ---1 I FINISHED GRADEi I . I ' I I • i -~ I I I ____L__ Tpr 70 12~0-oci 1232+00 1234+00 '236+00 ~ 12.38+00 RETAINING WALL 4160 100 '! - -0 .., ~ j _______:::_ __ I 90 I .., TOP OF WALL r--m r-- I 2- c» ' J: !I-~- 1 ~i I i 0vr1' EXl'.'jTING I I~ GROt:Jm;-, SURFACE ! Tpr I ' I ! ' Tpr 80 70 "' :;; 60 ~ =< 0 z 50 EXPLANATION: KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: "St m FILL, MODIFIED LAND "' ' BORING Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM -' ljy BLOWCOUNT Qw WETLAND DEPOSITS GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH CONTACT Qvu GLACIAL ORIFT ~ Qvt GLACIAL Tl LL Tpr RENTON FORMATION I -t , ! I 40 30 I---' I I ,-~--------i 30 20 1246+00 ~ 1248+00 I 20 1250+00 1. The subsurface conditions shown ore based on interpolation between widely spaced explorations and HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 100' should be .considered approximate; actual ~ubsurface conditions may vary from those shown. VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 20' RETAINING WALL 4070 2. Refer lo Figures 3F and 3G for plan location of Wall Profiles. 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. VERTICAL EXAGGERATION: 5X ~I Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. ;;-There may _have been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is o copy of o master document The CJ 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ::, hard copy" stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve OS the official document of record. GeoENGINEERSI:.'. r~J WALLS 4160 & 4070 o 4. Datum: NAVO 1988 ~ i,' Reference: CAO file "80405_FF _woll_profiles" provided 08/04/05, and "yc_nickel_xsections" provided 05/10/05, by WSOOT 1-405 Design Team_ I FIGURE 9K "' ~ co ' 0 0 w z (/) 0 (/) _J m Ll. V E 0 z .0 0 f- " 0 >, .3 0, ~ .,, ::, m I « m Ll. I 0 0 "' r-- 0 co 0 / 0 « u / 0 0 / "' 50 ----,------,---,---1,------Y i -~----,---,-----I C') ' '°! I 1 : ---1 l I rJ_ __ J_ _J_ ___ ( -~ ______ 1 ----t-------i~ 1 40 II) ;1_~ ]' i I ~------1 ··--h OF WAI LL~: ; : : : , t-~ I I I •t l I ' I I "' I ' I I' ~-0 1 1 i i I i : : : • • i I 46-I en -· I , , 1 1 1 ~ i I I ! i I ' _, L----1-14 : i '1 I ! I ! i I ! : J_ . ' . ~ · I ITT I · + ' i ,....,.., I --l-I I ----l. 8 ? r I --1· ; i EXIST!NG GRbUND JURFACEJ , ? _...9w ____ 3 30 20 m z 0 ~10 > u ·" u 0 -·,o -20 11120+00 · ----I So"d. S,lt I :r: I ' I ' I' ' Qyalt I i I i I 16 I ·oyal~----~ Potentiplly I [ I ' . i j 2 I Potentiplly :a, 2 I Liquifi9ble ,---. 1 i i --+J..iquifia.ble____ Zones , 1 I I I io G I 1Zones ! I I rove · I I ! -< i I ' I : ----·· 2-c ----'-I __ ' 11 I I I I I i --- 1 14 I I I I i 4l:L.. I I I I I I ---'-11i22+00 KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: m Qyal Qw Qvrl Qvu Qvt Tpr FILL, MODIFIED LAND YOUNGER ALLUVIUM WETLAND DEPOSITS RECESSIONAL OUTWASH GLACIAL ORI FT GLACIAL TILL RENTON FORMATION EXPLANATION: ,I" C') ' _, -r- 10- _j_y_ ---'- BORING BLOWCOUNT GROUNDWATER LEVEL CONTACT 11124+00 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 1 oo· 11126+00 11128+00 11130+00 11132+00 VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 20' VERTICAL EXAGGERATION: 5X !,=; ~ ~ en "' "' "" <') ,, cc lII ! TOP I 0 t so -a . _§, ~ I • I I ~ II) I ..--I ! i I ;;; ·O ' ' :,i, I i I 2 ' I ~! ' -I . I " 1N . , I ~ .r I ! I NI I , ; r X 40 .30 OF WALL!" I ~! I I --+·-! i ~ !~ I I I ""-; I I I I I I San, , Gravel I , I I I · 14,-_ m 1 20 I I · w I I I ' I I i . I ? ' 5 "5 _y z, I 1 · , I -:-· s-~ '? P :J: , . I .v 'm , , 2. i· M I ' ' ' i ' I " , ' o,o,-• ' ·--,, '"-'" l U S , ' ' ,0 • ' ' , C f-~ m I EXISTING GROUND SURFACE i 5 . nw . .J.I Po!ent.en 1aliy 2 -2 Qyal-z ~ I cT ?I-__ I ___ ' ---~I: ! 3 'I' ? -j : I Liquifiable f 1 . -7 Potenti lly o ~-~ ;-o-w -r--j I ' Qyal-I ! Zones ' ' I iqu1fia le I ,_ >-, • rn " , I ' '°' ' . : 0,,,1--_j_ ! ; "'"""' '" I I ' " : '""f ''"" so/ 6 ~ , PoteJ.t iatty------I - 1 I . L,qu1fiable I I j ! _ 112-,--'I ' I ! . ' ' 6-+-Liqui~iable I i ! ~ -. --,----+-zTones . i . 4 71' i ! Zo~es i I I i I I I ! , 52 .,::.,._ ' I ' I -' I I I I I . -10 I -20 111.34+00 111.36+00 111.38+00 111.:!.Q+OO 11142+00 r---1 Notes: 1. The subsurface conditions shown ore based on interpolation between widely spaced explorations and 0 co 0 should be considered approximate; actual subsurface conditions may vary from those shown. 2. Refer to Figure 31 for plan location of Wall Profiles. 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. -/.I Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data ore accurate or complete. r---------------------.. ·.-.•-•--•-•--.·-----.•.•.•.•.•-•.•_•_-_---------------,1 o.... There may have been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The ; hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. o 4. Datum: NAVO 1988 w O' Reference: CAO file "S0405_FF _woll_profiles" provided 08/04/05, and "yc_nickel_xsections" provided 05/10/05, by WSOOT 1-405 Design Team. GEoENGINEERS a l-4U:> Hl:N I UN NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WALL 4080 FIGURE 9L ~ -== == 0 0 0 "' "' "' -~ -- 9 13 ti :;c 33 2i 70 d 39 soA~ 72 It) 0 m m I ~ n ~o ~ ~ 6,fJ ,--------,-------------~ x,ol ____ :_ 1 1 • TOP ~;~L 1 -r--r -,T'?T T-1 I~-,-i----, -':1 , ... -······-·· ffi [ , ]~ :-·-1 -1 -1 --r-1------,--f:ii--, .J_._. --'-+--i ""· 1 __ 1 _ , I .:.. , 1 ·,1---,--• ~ -. -, -----T-, -..o__ I ~ 1 __ ' ___ L ___ ~---1 1 i I !J: i I ml j J 1 [ -al ----t-··-) .... __ : 1 I i ! 1=r 1 w ;~nd, 1 Silt 1 ~.' ; . , -+--+ ;---•-! .• , --_J_ --. :i:: ---· ,· I . -+-.. =9. : , I . .I -, ·=--[-'__]__[ --1 S 10 LJ_j_+-' -L-._-r--H-1·--•-· 1 • l~-t + -h-{-~ 1 1 -· I 1· ---J ;-~ -;-~ · ; 1 -i -'. ~ 0 Qyal I ' E~ISTiNG GROI UN_D SURFACE I T -+-_l_+"'. ri 1 ···· --11 '..1..Qyal' J--1---l ' I --1 I I I I ,--l--r I I I -1: ~ ' I ' ' I I I I I I -.. I -i-' I ' I ' 11 070+00 11072+00 11074+00 ' 11076+00 . I II I i I ,-' -ti ____ I ---1 ,,o7s+oo 11oaa+co 11082 +00 I 1109C+OO 11092+00 "--~-'--' "' n "' ~ ·1 ~068+UU 1109~+00 8 I 50/5" z Liquifiable Zones (f) 0 (f) ::, a, u_ ~ E 0 ~I ii "' ~ " ::, a, I < "' u_ I 0 0 "' " 0 "' 0 / 0 < u / 0 0 / "' i;:: I Notes: 0 "' 0 w z I C ~ ::. 0 n It) -0 It) ' 0 ~ ' N IO ,-------r-, -_ -----------~------~---_.,... --------, I ~ ; I i ~ ' -------· -·-··' . -----;~ ----, -- i I (J) . , TOP OF WALL -----.--------·,-,- It) 0 ' ~ SC '0 , ----• • ---~. -j-.J.---L------l 30 rr, -1· I , 1 1• 1 Slit m , , I I I I I m :;; ' . ?=---...;._..:: --·-r < . • -,-1 -i ! ---1-i I 12 i · , · I I --I , 1 1 • I · 20 ~ I i i : i I i ! , -a~ , ' 1 ~ --• . . ·--1·--1··-, ,-, -----+·-·~-, , , • ·, EXISTING GROUND SURFACEl2(___ 10 11096+0 11098+00 2 5 2 10 Qyal+ : , ,1· [ I [ I , 3 , 1 Potentiglly 1 1 , 1 I I I j g , ,I , I . , I 1 . , . ! •• , , 1 I o 1olly 11102+00 1104+00 11106+00 111os-a 1111 +oo 3 11114+00 11110+00 111,a+oo 11120+0 yo- Silt Liquifiable 1 4 Zones z7 Potentially 18 S d 11 Zones an 14 L" ·t· bl HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 200' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 40' VERTICAL EXAGGERATION: 5X 31 1qu1 1a e Zones EXPLANATION: KEY TO GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION: ~ m FILL. MODIFIED LANO (") ' BORING Qyal YOUNGER ALLUVIUM ...I 10T BLOWCOUNT Qw WETLAND DEPOSITS GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qvrl RECESSIONAL OUTWASH CONTACT Qvu GLACIAL DRIFT 1. The subsurface conditions shown are based on interpolation between widely spaced explorations and Qvt GLACIAL TILL should be considered approximate; actual subsurface conditions may vary from those shown. 2. Refer to Figures 31, 3J and 3K for plan location of Wall Profiles. Tpr RENTON FORMATION 3. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document.r---------------------.. -----------------------------1 ,:.I Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. a.. There may have been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The ,; hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. o 4. Datum: NAVD 1988 ~ Reference: CAD file "80405_FF_wall_prafiles" provided 08/04/05, and "yc_nickel_xsections" provided 05/10/05. by WSDOT 1-405 Design Team. GEOENGINEERS CJ 1-405 RENTON NICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WALL 4090 FIGURE QM IUOfflt·iiW -Co,qe;t,oo '""I , Bos Rap,ct Tcaostf Ocojecf s Corridor Program 1 2 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project 3 FLOODPLAINS DISCIPLINE REPORT Renton Nickel Improvements Project Mrtr"1ol 1:1:0(Jd --Trail -F~u.way Lolo;e 4 Washington State Department of Transportation ..... __ _ SW 7th St _;r----- -r;-sw~ ~. ~ "' L . < ~ ::; I ! SW ~3rd St ~Wl~SI I I S V\I 4hl S t r- Detail U.S.Department ofTransportation Federal Highway Administration T"-----+ 1--. ..,........ - \ -,_1 -- ;1' +·- r>•1t•,,, t:,,, •• r I -4~ Northern Project Limit at SR 169 RENTON t "GlfM October 2005 5 FLOODPLAINS DISCIPLINE REPORT 6 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project 7 8 9 10 11 12 Prepared for 13 Washington State Department of Transportation 14 Urban Corridors Office 15 And 16 Federal Highway Administration 17 18 19 20 21 Prepared by 22 Bruce Jensen and Karen Comings, DMJM Harris 23 24 25 October 27, 2005 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Title VI WSDOT ensures full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by prohibiting discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the provision of benefits and services resulting from its federally assisted programs and activities. For questions regarding WSDOT's Title VI Program, you may contact the Department's Title VI Coordinator at 360. 705.7098. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information If you would like copies of this document in an alternate format-large print, Braille, cassette tape, or on computer disk, please call 360.705.7097. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, please call the Washington State Telecommunications Relay Service, or Tele-Braille at 7-1-1, Voice 1.800.833.6384, and ask to be connected to 360.705.7097. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 TABLE OF CONTENTS Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... iii Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in this Report ........................................................................ v Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 What is the Renton Nickel Improvement Project? ........................................................................... 1 What is the No Build Alternative? ................................................................................................ 2 What is the Build Alternative? ..................................................................................................... 2 How will stormwater from the project be managed? ................................................................. 12 What environmental and utilities issues infiuenced the project design? .................................... 13 What design features help to avoid and minimize project effects? ........................................... 13 What benefits will the project provide? ...................................................................................... 16 How will the project incorporate community design preferences? ............................................. 16 How will the project be constructed? ......................................................................................... 17 Why do we consider floodplains as we plan for this project?........................... . ................. 18 What are the key points of this report? ......................................................................................... 19 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 21 What information was collected to identify floodplains?.................................. . .................. 21 What floodplains are present in the study area? ........................................................................... 21 What floodplain regulations apply to this project? ......................................................................... 24 Potential Effects .............................................................................................................................. 26 What methods were used to evaluate effects on floodplains? ...................................................... 26 Which floodplains could be affected by the project? ..................................................................... 26 How will project construction temporarily affect the Springbrook Creek floodplain? ..................... 27 Will the project permanently affect floodplains?...................................................... . ......... 27 What indirect effects result from the direct effects on floodplains? ............................................... 28 Measures to Avoid or Minimize Project Effects ........................................................................... 29 What has been done to avoid or minimize negative effects to floodplains? .................................. 29 How will the project compensate for unavoidable negative effects to fioodplains? ....................... 29 References ...................................................................................................................................... 30 Published Documents .......................................................................... 30 Websites ... ........................................................................................................................... 30 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R \04156\33-06 RC'nton l\ickcl\T ask 4 -OR QA-QC\ 08 FH\V A ~ubmittal dr.1ils\ J{,•\'l~,·d du,, from authors\ Docs for fmal approvab\Rl'nton N"ickl'l floodplains_final.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS 67 EXHIBITS 68 Exhibit 1. Project Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................ 1 69 Exhibit 2. Project Overview Section 1 ............................................................................................ 3 70 Exhibit 3. Project Overview Section 2 ............................................................................................ 4 71 Exhibit 4. Project Overview Section 3 ............................................................................................ 5 72 Exhibit 5. Project Overview Section 4 ............................................................................................ 6 73 Exhibit 6. Project Overview Section 5 ............................................................................................ 7 7 4 Exhibit 7. Project Overview Section 6 ............................................................................................ 8 75 Exhibit 8. Project Overview Section 7 ............................................................................................ 9 76 Exhibit 9. Project Overview Section 8 .......................................................................................... 10 77 Exhibit 10. Floodplains within Renton Nickel Improvement Project Study Area .......................... 22 78 79 ii Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33--06 Renton Nickel\ Task 4-DRQA-QC\08 FHWA submittal drafts\Rcviscd docs from authors\Docs for final approvals\Rcnton Nickel floodplains_final.doc 80 100-year flood event Base flood Basin planning programs Box culvert Compensatory floodplain storage Critical areas Falsework Fill Flood Insurance Rate Maps Floodplain Floodway Flow rate Indirect effects lnterlocal agreements Levee system Ordinary High Water Mark iii GLOSSARY A flood having a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given year. A flood having a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given year; also called the 1 OD-year flood. Basin planning programs contain land use recommendations, regulations, capital projects, and programs to reduce and prevent flooding, erosion, and preserve salmonid habitat in a particular basin. A concrete box structure that drains open channels, swales, or ditches under a roadway or embankment. The removal of material from a site in the same floodplain and at the same elevation to compensate for the placement of any fill within the limits of the regulatory floodplain. Critical areas include both hazard areas (such as floodplains and steep slopes) and environmentally sensitive areas (like wetlands and streams). Critical areas also include areas that are important for protecting groundwater. The state Growth Management Act requires counties to protect the "functions and values" of critical areas. Examples of wetland functions are filtering out pollutants. providing wildlife habitat, controlling floods, and recharging groundwater. The temporary frame that supports the weight of a bridge or other structures during construction. Fill refers to materials placed to construct structures within waters of the United States, including streams and wetlands. Fill materials can be rock, sand, or dirt. The insurance and floodplain management map produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These maps identify the areas subject to flooding during a 1-percent- annual-chance (100-year) flood event in a community. Flood insurance risk zones, which are used to compute actuarial flood insurance rates, also are shown. The total area sub1ect to inundation by a flood, including the floodway. The channel of the river or stream, and those portions of the adjoining floodplains that are reasonably required to carry and discharge the base flood flow. The "reasonably required" portion of the adjoining floodplains is defined by flood hazard regulations. The volume of water that moves by a particular point in one second. The flow rate is measured in cubic feet per second. Indirect effects are defined in the WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual as the "effect caused by the proposed action that is later in time or farther removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems." An agreement between local agencies such as cities and counties. A manmade structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control, or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding. The line on the shore established by the change in water levels and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank or the presence of litter and debris. The presence and action of water generally leaves an impression on the stream bed and banks that makes a distinct separation between the stream and the adjacent areas and indicates the location of the ordinary high water mark. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\ 33-06 Renton NiLh,I\Task 4 -DR QA-QC\ 08 Fl [\'\'A s11b1mtt.1I dr,1fl, \ Rev bed d<J<.·~ fwn, duthors\ Docs for final arrmvah\ Rm ton Nickel floodplains_final.doc· 81 GLOSSARY Peak flows Piers Pump station Side channel Stormwater detention Tributaries Wetland and Habitat Mitigation bank Zero-rise requirement iv The maximum instantaneous rate of flow during any given storm. For this report, peak flow refers to the 100-year storm event. A vertical support or substructure unit that supports the spans of an elevated structure such as a bridge. A pump station controls flows to one body of water from another. For this project, the Black River pump station controls flows to the Green River from Springbrook Creek. During flooding, the pump station reduces pumping rates from Springbrook Creek and may suspend pumping entirely if flows in the Green River exceed 12,000 cubic feet per second. This is a secondary stream that splits off the main channel. Storing stormwater in manmade facilities such as ponds and releasing the stormwater at a controlled rate. This process helps control how much and how fast stormwater enters streams and rivers. Controlling the flow of stormwater helps maintain existing base flood levels and minimizes erosion of stream banks. A stream or other body of water that contributes its water to another stream or body of water. A mitigation bank is a project constructed to enhance wetlands and their associated habitat. The concept is that these are completed in advance of planned transportation projects to mitigate for unavoidable effects on wetlands and habitat within the project area. Because these banks are generally sized to provide sufficient mitigation for several projects in one location, the mitigation bank creates more useable habitat and higher functioning wetlands than may be possible on an individual project scale. The zero-rise requirement prohibits projects in Flood Hazard Areas that cause any rise in the base floodplain elevation. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33-06 Renton l\'ickcl\ Task 4 -OR QA-QC\ 08 FJ-f\N A submittill draft~\R~vis~d docs from authors\ Docs forfinal approvals\Rcnton Nickel tloodpldins_final.doc 82 83 84 BMP els css EA EEi EIS FEMA FIRM GP HOV HPA OHWM WSDOT V ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT Best Management Practice cubic feet per second Context Sensitive Solution Environmental Assessment Early Environmental Investments Environmental Impact Statement Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map General-purpose lane High-Occupancy Vehicle Hydraulic Project Approval Ordinary High Water Mark Washington State Department of Transportation Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33-06 Renton \:ickel\ Task 4 -DR QA-QC\ 08 FHWA oubmill,11 d1"c1fts\ l\c-,·iscd docs from authorb \Docs forfinal .ippruv~l,\Rcntun Ni~kd flou<lpl<1irn,_fin..1Ldoc 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 vi This page intentionally blank. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33---06 Renton :-.lickd\ Task 4 DR QA--QC\08 FHWA submittal drafts\Rcvised docs from authors\Docs for final approvals\Renton :'Jichl floodplains_final.doc 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 •126 127 128 129 .130 131 132 133 '134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 INTRODUCTION What is the Renton Nickel Improvement Project? 1-405 Project Arterial Road -Freeway Q Munic ipa lity Lake Park Th e R enton Nickel Improvement Project is a highway expansion project that will improve mobility and safety th rough Tukwila and Renton by adding lanes to 1-405 a nd SR 167 . On 1-405 , this project begins just east of the 1-5/1-405 interchange in Tu kwi la and extends north past the Cedar River to the SR 169 (Maple Valley H ighway) interchange. The project will build an additiona l lane both northbound and southbound between 1-5 and SR 169. On SR 167 , the project wi ll extend t he southbound high-occupancy veh icle (HOV) lane no rth to 1-405 and add a southbound auxiliary lan e from 1-405 to the SW 41 st Street off-ramp . These limits co mprise the study area for the project. Prior to planning this specific project, WSDOT created th e 1-40 5 Corridor Program . This program provides a comprehensive strategy to reduce congestion and improve mobility throughout the 1-405 corridor. The corridor begins at the 1-5 interchange in the city of Tukw ila and extends northward 30 miles to the 1-5 intercha nge in Lynnwood . The program's purpose is to p rov ide an efficient, integrated, and multimodal system of transportat ion solutions. Using the 1-405 Corridor Program 's Selected Alternative as the Master Plan to improve 1-405 , WSDOT developed relatively low cost, co ngestion re lief roadway improvements as an interim step in achieving the Master Plan . As part of th is interim step WSDOT began to define the Renton Nickel Improvement Proje ct. The Renton Nickel Improvement Project was developed as a first step to provide a focused strategy to improve 1-405 between 1-5 in Tukwila and SR 169 in Renton and SR 167 southbound from 1-405 to SW 41 st Street. See Exhibit 1 for the location of this project relative to the 1-405 co rridor. T his d iscipline report analyzes two project alternatives: the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative. 144 Exhibit 1. Project Vicinity Map Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\0-1156\33--06 Rcnton '.\J id,cl \T.i !>k 4 -OK (JA-(JC\US fl-1\o\a'A ~ubmitt..'11 dr.iJt, RL·\ 1-.;.:'-l ... 1-.~ ... fro tn cwtho rs\Docs fo r fmal a pprovals\Rcnlon \Jte kd floodplams hnal doc 1 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 I N TRODUCTION Existing On-ramp On-ramp with proposed auxiliary lane What is the No Build Alternative? The No Build Alternative assumes that only routine activities such as road maintenance, repair, and safety improvements would take place over the next 20 years . This alternative does not include improvements that would increase roadway capacity or reduce congestion. For these reasons , it does not satisfy the project's purpose-improve 1-405 between 1-5 in Tukwila and SR 169 in Renton and SR 167 southbound from 1-405 to SW 41 st Street. The No Build Alternative has been evaluated in this discipline report to establish a baseline for comparing the effects associated with the Build Alternative . What is the Build Alternative? The new lanes that will be built under this project are : • An 1-405 northbound general-purpose (GP) lane from 1-5 to the SR 167 off-ramp . • An 1-405 northbound auxiliary lane from the SR 167 to 1-405 on-ramp to the SR 169 off-ramp . • An 1-405 southbound auxiliary lane from the SR 169 to 1-405 on-ramp to the SR 167 off-ramp . • An 1-405 southbound GP lane from the SR 167 to 1-405 on-ramp to the 1-5 off-ramp. • A SR 167 southbound auxiliary lane from 1-405 to the SW 41 st Street off-ramp. In addition , the existing inside HOV lane will be extended north to 1-405 from its present starting point in the vicinity of SW 21st Street. See Exhibits 2 through 9 for detailed maps of the project features. In addition to adding auxiliary and GP lanes to 1-405 and SR 167, this project will provide the following improvements. Impro ving Int erchange s: Minor modifications will be made to the ramps at the SR 167 interchange: • The one-lane ramp from northbound 1-405 to SR 167 will be widened to a 2-lane off connection , which provides a dedicated lane to southbound SR 167 and one to northbound Rainer Avenue. See Exhibit 5 . • The two consecutive single-lane off-ramps from southbound 1-405 to SR 167 will be revised . See Exhibit 5 . Renton Nickel Improvement Project 2 Floodplains Discipline Rep ort R:\04 156\33-06 Renton Nickel\ Task 4 · DR QA-QC\08 FHWA s u bmittal drafts\Re v iscd doc·s fro m authors\Docs fo r fina l approvals \Rcnton N ickel fl ood plai ns _final.doc D D • D 187 [Zl Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Detent ,on Pond New Paveme nt Areas of Construction Easement Acqu,sit ion Parcel Acquis iT1on Ex isting ROW Proposed ROW I-405 Northboundbound Improvements: A general -purpose lane will be added by restripirg the existing pavemen t and adding pav ement up to 15 feet to t he outside at some locations. I-405 Southbound Improvements : A general-purpose lane will be added by restripirg the existing pavement and adding pav ement up t o 15 feet to the outsi de at some locations. 188 Exhibit 2. Project Overview Section 1 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report I NTROD UCTION l-405 NORTHBOUND 8:e Existing e ea Ex isting ~ ~ ~~ 250 500 t MOlfH Feet 3 R:\041 56\33-06 R~ntun Nkkcl\ f'Jsk 4 -OK (JA-(...)C\OS Fl-1\'\''A ~u b m i tt ,11 d r<11l"' \{\.'\ :,1..:d d l1'"" trom ,rn thvr:,\l)uc:, for fin,11 d pprovJb\Ri.:nlun Ni1..kd fl oodp ldm~ fi rMl.doc 189 INTRODUCTION ae ~ Existing ae B e Proposed -Proposed Ecology Embankment --Proposed Retaining Wall D Proposed Detention Pond Ne.w Pavement D Areas of Cons truction Ease.me.111 Acquisition • Parcel Acquisition D Existing ROW ~ Proposed ROW I-405 Northboi,id Improvements : A general-purpose lane will be added by res tripir"9 the exis t ing pavement and adding pavement up to 15 feet t o the outside at some locations . I-405 SoLithbound Improvements: A general -purpose lane will be added by restripir"9 t he existing pavement and adding pavement up t o 15 feet t o the outside at some locations. 190 Exhibit 3. Project Overview Section 2 4 I-405 SOUTHBOUND "ee Existing 250 t '°"' 0 Feet Renton N ickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33-06 Renton Nickel\ Task 4. D R QA-QC\08 FHWA submitta l drafts\Reviscd d ocs from authors\Docs for final a pprova ls\Renton Nickel floodplains_fina l.doc 191 192 ·S e a Existing i!! ~ 6 Proposed Retaining Woll D Proposed De t ention Pond New Pavement D Areas of Construction Easement Acqu •SAt1on • Parcel Acquis it ion D Existing ROW ~ Proposed ROW ~~ Existing s§~ I-405 Northbol.fld Improvements : A general-purpose lane will be added by restripirg t he existing pavement and adding pavement up t o 15 feet to t he outside at some locations. The existing Springbrook Creek and Oakesdale Avenue bridges will be replaced with a single wider structure. I-405 Southbound Improvement s: A general-purpose lane will be added by res tripirg t he existing pavement an d add ing pavement up t o 15 feet t o the outsi de at some lo ca t ions. The exist ing Springbrook Creek and Oakesdale Avenue bridges will be replaced w it h a single wider structure. Exhibit 4. Project Overview Section 3 R enton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report l N TR OD U C f'IO N 250 500 t MOlnt Feet 5 R:\0-HS0\33-06 Renton Nickcl\'I ci~I,. 4 -O R QA-OC\08 Fl IW A !,t1bmitt.:1I d r<lft, I~\.\ '"L'd d ~k.." trom ,;1uthur~\ Docs for find ! .1pprova b,\Rcnton 1'\'ickel fl ood plains final.doc 193 194 lNTRODUC fION ~@ Existing I -4a5 Northbo<.nd l"l"'O"""""''': -Proposed Ecology Embankment A gueral-p,rpose lone will be odded up to t he SR 16 7 interchcr\g< and er\ auxil io')' lane will be odded from the SR 167 to I-405 on-ramp north. T hese lanes will be odded by re.s1riping t he existing pa vement ond adding pavement up to 15 feet to the outside a t some locations ---Proposed Retaining Wall D Proposed Detent ion Pond New Pavement D Areas of Const ruct ion Easement Acquisition • Par cel Acquisition D Exist ing ROW ~ Proposed ROW I -405 Soutl-bould l "'!'row,rnents: An ooxiliQ')' l<>'le will be added up lo the I-405 lo SR 16 7 or>-rall'I' Cl'ld a general-?Jrpose lme will be added south o f the inte.r ch«ige. These kines will be added by restrip ing the existing pavement and adding pavement up t o 15 feet to the oots,de at some locations. SR 167 Southbou,d Impr-<>Yem<nts : An ou xililY)' lane will be added~ r~tripi ng existing pavement and adding 1.4) t o 19 feet of pavement at the outside at some locot1ons. The vc:isting HOV ICJ'\e will be extended north f rOO'\ SW 21st St reet t o the interchMge with 1 -405 Exhibit 5. Project Overview Section 4 See Existing 250 1 Fee t 6 R enton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33-{)6 Renton N ickcl\Task 4 · DR QA-QC\08 FH WA sub m1lla l drafts\Rcv iscd d ocs fro m au th o rs\Docs forfina l approvals\Rc nton N ickel floodplains_fi na ldoc Proposed Reto,n,ng Woll D Proposed Det e11tion Pond New Pavement D Areas of Construction Easemen t Acq uisition • Parcel Acquisition D Ex,st,n g RO W 195 [Zl Proposed ROW a a ~· Exist ing 8 a a ~ SR 167 Improvements : In additi on t o ex t ending t he HOV lane no r th from SW 2 1st Street, an auxiliary la ne w,11 be added by restripi ng the exist ing pa ve ment and add ing paveme nt up to 19 f eet t o the outside at some l oca t io ns. 196 Exhibit 6. Project Overview Section 5 R e nton N ickel Improvem ent Project Floodplains Discipline Re port 1N TR 0 DllC T1 0N 250 t ..... reel 7 R:\04156\33-06 Rcnlon i'!ickcl\ Task -4-DR QA-QC\08 Fl-fWA subrnitt<11 dr,if t ... \l~1 ·\·1 ... 1·d do, ... fr()n"I .iuthor~\Oocs for final appro\'als\Rcnton :\ickcl floodplains final.doc 197 TNTRODUCTlON D D • D ~ eee Existing :! @@@.a. Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Detention Pond New Pavement Areas of Construction Easement Acquisition Parcel Acquisition Existing ROW Proposed ROW SR 167 Improvements : An a uxi liary lane will be added by restriping the existing pavement and add ing pavement up t o 19 feet to the outside at some locations. The new lane will tie into the exi st ing ramp co nnection to SW 41st St reet . 198 Exhibit 7. Project Overview Section 6 8 250 1 Feet Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33-06 Renton l\:ickcl\Task 4 -DR QA-QC\OS FHWA s ubmittal d rafts\Rc v iscd docs fru m authurs\Docs for fina l appruvals\Rcntun Nickel floodplains_fina l.doc 199 200 -Proposed Ecology Embankm ent Proposed Reta,n ,ng Woll D Proposed Detention Pond New Pavement D Areas of Construction Easement Acq uisition • Parcel Acquisition D Ex ist ing ROW ~ Propose d ROW /Easement I-405 Northbound Improvements : An aux iliar y lane wi ll be add ed by restr1p1ng the exist ing pavement and adding pav eme nt up to 15 feet t o t he outside at some locations. I -405 Southbound Improv e me nt s : An auxiliary lane will be added by r estriping the existing pavement and adding pavement up to 24 feet to the outside at some locations. Benson Rd S Improv ements : The Ben son Rd S overpass wi II be reconsrruct ed and r ealigned to the west of its current lo cation. T he new overpass will have 2 lanes with 5-foot bike lanes on both sides and a 6-foot s idewalk on the west side. Exhibit 8. Project Overview Section 7 Renton N ickel Tmpro vem ent Project Floodplains Discipline Report 1NTR0 Dl1CTION l-405 NORTHBOUND Sa Existing e e~ 0 Existing ~ ~ 0 250 t reet 9 R·\04"156 \33-06 Rc nt(,n i'\'ickel \T ask 4 -D R QA-QC\08 Fl f\i\'A submitta l d.-,Ht'-\Rc ,·bt•d dn1.._~ from a uthur!,\D°'-!':> fo r Hnd.l ,;1p~ .. m.>\'db \K..:nto11 \ltcJ..cl n otH.l p l,;1 in::i._fin,:1l c.ioc 201 I N TRODUCTIO N 1-405 NORTHBOUND S e Existing e ee Existing ~ a a e· Proposed I-405 Northboll'ld Improvements : -Proposed Ecology Embankment An auxiliary lane will be added by restrip ing the existing pavemen t and adding pa vement up t o 15 feet to the outside at some locations. --Proposed Retaining Wall D Propo sed Detentio n Pond New Pavement D Areas of Construc tion Easement Acquisi tion • Par cel Acq uisit ion D Existing ROW E23 Proposed ROW I-405 Southbound Improvements : An a uxil iary lane will be added by restriping the existing pa veme nt and adding pavement up to 15 feet to the outside at some locations. 202 Exhibit 9. Project Overview Section 8 10 250 500 1 Feet Renton Nickel Improvemen t Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\13-06 Renton Nickel\ T ask 4 · D R Q/\-QC\08 FHW/\ s ubmitta l drnfts\Rcv1 scd docs from authors\Oocs for fin al a pprova ls\Rcnton Nickel floodpla ins_fmal d oc 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 '211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 '222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 A cross culvert under 1-405. These culverts go under roads, providing a means to move stormwater from one side of the road to the other. Renton Nicke l Tmp rovement Project Floodplains Discipline Report I NTRO DUCTION Jn 1pruv ing Ben son Road: The Benson Road overpass wi ll be replaced and realigned to accommodate the so uthbo und auxiliary lane on 1-405 as well as future improve ments to 1-405 as shown on Exh ibit 8 . Improvements on Benson Road include a 6-foot si dewal k on the west side and 5-foot bike lanes on both sid es. The proposed section will match into the impro ve ments that the City of Renton plans to co nst ruct on both ends. Wid c11 i11g or Replacin g Bridge s: Several bridges w ithin th e study area wi ll be widened or replaced based o n present geometry , cost, life expectancy , and existi ng soil conditions . To cons truct the new lanes, the project w ill : • Widen Talbot Road Bridge on both the northbound and the southbound s ides . See Exhibit 8 . • Replace Springbrook Creek Side Channel Br idge and Oakesdale Avenue Bridge with a s ingle structure . See Exhibit 4 . The project will not affect the 1-405 bridges over the Green River, SR 181 , Union Pacific and Burlington Northe rn Santa Fe railroads, Lind Avenue , or the Cedar Ri ve r . The project will also not affect the Cedar Avenue or Re nton Avenue overpasses. The roadway will be res tripe d in these areas to accommodate the new lanes. The Springbrook Culvert under 1-405 is not planned to be modified. l~ct11 i11 i11 g Wall s: Widening 1-405 and SR 167 will req u ire retaining walls to minimize the construction footprint and minimize right-of-way acquisition . R etai nin g walls will also help avoid and minimize effects to utilities , properties, wetlands, and other sensi ti ve areas. Culver t s: WSDOT anticipates that construction w ill affect some existing cross culverts. Associated culvert im prove ments include extending the existing structures due to widening the roadway and stabilizing culvert ends with rock or retaining walls. The 1-405 Team w ill conduct a hydra ulic analysis of the cul ve rts to e n s ure that the modifications will have no effect on the base flood ele v ations. See the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report for detailed discuss ion on fish passage and culvert improvements. N oise Wa ll s: One noise wall will be built on the northbound side of the freeway as shown on Exh ibits 11 R:\04 156\33.06 Renton Nickel\ Task 4 . DR QA-OC\08 fl l\-\1A submittal d r,ifh R.:·\ 1,n.l dPc'-:rom authors\ O()(s for fin a l appTO\'als\ Rtnlon t\"1ckcl fl oodplains fina l.d oc 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 I NTR O DUC TION 12 Wrap Fil t er Fabric atc h t o Erosion Blanket ROADWAY SHOULDER Gravel Borrow 5 and 8 . The wall will begin at Talbot Road and end west of the intersection of South 14th Street and South 15th Street. This wall will be approximately 2, 150 feet long and 18 feet tall. How will stormwater from the project be managed? Stormwater from the project will be managed for both quality and peak flows using currently accepted best management practices (BMPs). The 1-405 Team has designed the stormwater management facilities to comply with the following guidelines and procedures : • WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16, March 2004 • WSDOT Hydraulics Manual M 23-03 , March 2004 Stormwater Treatment Facilities The project will add new impervious surface within the study area , most of which will be within the Springbrook Creek basin . This project will treat runoff for an area equivalent to 100 percent of these new surfaces. Treatment will be accomplished by a combination of facilities. In most of the study area, ecology embankments will be added to capture runoff from the edge of the pavement and provide water quality treatment. The ecology embankments also serve to then convey runoff to the receiving waters or to the flow control facilities as required. The project also includes a combined stormwater quality wetland and detention pond that addresses water quality and flow control in one facility. Exhibits 2 through 9 show the location of stormwater facilities that will be built for this project. /Match to Existing Slope Filter Fa bric De pth Depends on S torage Requirements Ecology Embankment Cross-Section Rento n N ickel Improv ement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\0.1156\33-06 Ren tun Nickel\ Task 4 -DR QA-QC\08 FHWA s u bmittal drafts\ Revised docs from authors\Docs for final approvals\ Renton i'/ickcl fl oodplains fin.ii.doc 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 '297 298 299 300 301 302 803 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 ~12 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 Existing spill control pond at the 1-405/SR 169 interchange. A pond liner is included to protect the City of Renton aquifer. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report l NTHODUCTION Drainage Collection and Conveyance Ex isting drainage structures and systems will be retained in places where they will not be disturbed by new co nstruction . Where areas are modified to in clude water quality treatment , existing collection and conveya nce will be modified to include or direct flows to ecolo gy embankment BMPs for enhanced treatment of t he ru noff. What environmental and utilities issues influenced the project design? T hrough out the development of the Renton Nickel Improvement Project design , numerous design refinements were proposed that helped to avoid or minimize negative effects to the environment. In fluenc e on the project design came from : • Soil Conditions: the decision to widen or re place many of the project bridges was largely dependent on local soil conditions . • Noise: one noise wall was added to the project because of projected noise levels. • Wetland Locations: retaining walls reduced effects on wetlands. • Utilities: retaining walls were chosen over fill and pond sites were adjusted to minimize impacts to existing utilities . • Historical Sites : a proposed stormwater pond was shifted to avoid a historical site-the Renton Coal Mine Hoist Foundation . What design features help to avoid and minimize project effects? Several design features have the benefit of avoiding or minimizing potential effects due to the project. The design features are described from south to north below. 1-405, 1-5 to SR 167 Between the northbound 1-405 on-ramp from the Westfield Shoppingtown Mall (Southcenter) and the Green River Bridge , the 1-405 Team proposes building a retaining wall as shown on Exhibit 2. Building this wall avoids effects on the City of Seattle's 60-inch 13 R:\04156\33--06 Renton !\.'1ckd \ T ;i ... k-' -DR Q A -QC\08 FH \N ,\ submilla l d r<,rt,\l~t.·\ t"l'd d\..._.., t101n .authors\UO(.~ for fm"t <1 ppruv.ib\Kcnton t\ickd fl ood p lains final.doc 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 l NTIWDUCTION 14 water line and also reduces the encroachment on the City of Seattle's 30-foot right-of-way. In addition , the 1-405 Team proposes reducing the width of the northbound right shoulder in this location. Reducing the shoulder width provides more distance between the water line and the retaining wall. The 1-405 Team proposes to construct a retaining wall from the on-ramp at Tukwila Parkway to the Green River. This wall avoids the need to construct a fill slope that would extend into Gilliam Creek . See Exhibit 2. The 1-405 Team proposes providing a narrower outside shoulder on northbound 1-405 at the Green River Bridge. The shoulder will vary from 10 to just over 3 feet at the west abutment of the existing bridge . Narrowing the shoulder avoids modifications to the existing bridge . As a result, the design also avoids effects to the river , the 100-year floodplain , the ordinary high water level , and adjacent riparian zones . At the SR 181 interchange , the bridge and ramp will be restriped to provide the new general-purpose lane and ramp improvements . This approach avoids the need to widen the existing SR 181 Bridge, reconstruct the SR 181 interchange , or modify the Southcenter Boulevard crossing of the Green River. This in turn avoids relocating or diverting the Interurban Trail, which goes under the bridge. See Exhibit 3. The 1-405 Team proposes to construct a narrower exit gore from 1-405 to the northbound ramp at the SR 167 interchange as shown in Exhibit 5. By building a narrower exit gore , the project can be constructed within the existing right-of-way. This has the benefit of avoiding right-of-way acquisition, avoiding effects to the wetland outside the right-of-way, and avoiding effects to the existing Lind Avenue Bridge. SR 167, southbound from 1-405 to SW 41st Street The 1-405 Team proposes to build a retaining wall along a large portion of the west edge of SR 167 southbound instead of an earth fill slope. See Exhibits 6 and 7. The retaining wall minimizes effects on three wetlands . The retaining wall has the added benefit of minimizing right-of-way needs and reduces the effect on existing utility crossings, in particular, the City of Seattle's 60-inch water line and Olympic Petroleum 's two high pressure pipelines, which all cross under SR 167. R enton N ickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\M l 56 \33-06 Rento n N icke l\ Task 4 . DR QA-QC\08 FH WA ,ubmi ttal drafls\Rcv iscd docs fr o m alllhors\Docs for final approvals\Rcn ton t,,/ickc l flo odplains fina l.doc 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 38 1 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 39 1 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 4 04 40 5 406 407 4 08 409 410 411 412 413 414 Renton Coal Mine Hoist Foundation site looking w est Renton Nick e l Improvement Projec t Floodplains Discipline Report INTRODUCTION I-405, SR 167 to SR 169 T he 1-405 Team proposes to add a lane by restriping 1-405 no rthb ound next to the Talbot Hill re ta ining wall immediatel y east of the SR 167 interchange. Restri ping instead of w idening avoids the need to reconstruct the existing T a lbot Hill retaining wa ll and avoids effects o n prop erties south of 1-405 in this area . Between Talbot R oad and th e "S -C urves", northbound 1-405 w ill be w iden ed to achi eve sta nd ard la ne and shoulder widths . Most of thi s length w ill be supported by retai ning wa ll s to minimize imp act s t o Thund er Creek , adjacen t properties , a nd th e existing cut slope sou th of 1-405 . Where northbound and southbound 1-405 passes under the Renton Avenue a nd Cedar Ave nu e overpasses, the 1-405 Team propos es adding lanes by restriping. Thi s design avoids replacing the two overpasses; howeve r, the avai lable a rea does not allow the standard shou ld er a nd lane widt hs. The 1-405 Team proposes using re ta ining wa lls to support w id en ing southb ou nd 1-405 south of the Cedar Avenue overp ass. Using retaining walls vers us a fill s lope, avo id s e ncroa ch ing on Cedar Avenu e and Main Avenue in Renton. Th e 1-405 Team shifted a proposed stormwater detenti o n pond 300 feet west of milepost 2.9. Thi s location avoid s th e existi ng Renton Coa l Mine Hoi st Fou ndation site south of Benson Road, whic h is o n the National Register of Historic Places . To suppo rt the fill required to w id en the roadway on the nort h sid e of 1-405 next to th e outfall for the origi nal Rolling Hill s Creek cul vert, the design uses a retaining wal l. By using th e retaining wa ll , the project improvements at thi s location can be co nstru cted w ith o ut affecting the exis ting cul vert. The 1-405 T ea m proposes a non-sta nd ard design fo r the 1-405 to SR 167 exit ramp. T he changes from the design standard s in clu de not providing a recovery lane , na rrowing th e distance between the through lane and ra mp, and providing na rrowe r sho uld ers. Th ese features wi ll avoid effect s to the exis tin g Rolling Hill s Cree k/Thunder Hill s Creek chan ne l located betwee n 1-405 a nd the Renton Cinema co mpl ex as shown in Exh ib it 5. U si ng retaining walls a long th e west sid e of Benso n Road avo id s effect s t o Rolling Hill s Cre ek a nd the wetl a nd s east of T albot Road . 15 K:\04156\33-Ut> Rc ntun ~id .cl\ T i1s J... -I . D R Qi\-QC \O~ FJ I\VA ,11bmitlt1,I d t·,11l·,\ R (•\'t -..l.'"-1 d ~1, 'i from J u tho r~\D0<~ for find I dppn>\'11b \}{<..·11 tun Nich ·l n ood plai ns _fi na l.d oc 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 4 36 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 1NTR0DUCT10N This rendering shows the new Benson Road overpass with the 1-405 Urban Design Guidelines applied. 16 What benefits will the project provide? The Build Alternative will benefit the area by reducing congestion at chokepoints, reducing the duration of congestion during peak commuter travel hours , and improving freight movement. This section of 1-405 , from the 1-5 interchange to SR 169, is congested due to large traffic volumes and merging and diverging traffic . The new lanes will he lp relieve congestion and improve safety by providing motorists with more time and extra room to accelerate or decelerate and move into and out of the stream of traffic when getting on and off the freeway. This provides a smoother transition for motorists getting on and off 1-405 in Tukwila and Renton and helps decrease rear-end and sideswipe collisions. Because the proj ect reduces congestion approaching the SR 167 interchange , it complements the completed southbound 1-405 to southbound SR 167 flyover ramp . This project will construct one noise wall along northbound 1-405 from Talbot Road to th e intersection of South 14th Street and South 15th Street. This wall will benefit residents in that area by lowering the overa ll noise levels . Another benefit of this project is that it begins the application of the Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) design choices made by the communities within the 1-405 corridor . The Benson Road realignment will reflect the most comprehensive application of these design choices as explained further in the next section . How will the project incorporate community design preferences? The Renton Nickel Improvement Project is being planned, developed , and designed following guidelines ca lled Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS). These guidelines establish the community design preferences used to design the project features . The 1-405 Urban Design Guidelines Manual, incorporating the communities ' CSS design preferences , developed for use in preparing th e Renton Nickel Improvement Project contract documents . The selected 1-40 5 th eme of "Culture, Nature , and Progres s," with nature being the dominant theme , will be carried into corridor-wide and local 1-405 designs. The new Benson Road overpass is th e main project feature that will recei ve CSS tre atment. The Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\0415 6\33-06 Rent on :'11ckcl\T ask 4 -DK <.)A-Q C\U8 FH WA su bmittal d r afts\Rc\'ls cd d ocs from authors\ Docs for fin al a ppro va ls\ Kenton Nic kel fl ood plain s final.doc mo 461 i62 i63 464 ms m6 467 ms 469 170 171 472 173 174 475 476 177 478 179 480 t81 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 At-grade construction for this project will likely be staged similar what is shown above. Here, the southbound lanes of 1-5 were shifted toward the median and a concrete barrier closed off the shoulder to provide crews a safe work area . Renton Nickel Tmprovement Project Floodplains DiscipJine Report INTRODUCTION replacement bridge over Springbrook Creek and Oakesdale Avenue wi ll also receive CSS treatments . The remaining sections wi ll be designed to match in color and vegetation type only, as many sections will be affected by construction of future Master Plan projects. During future Master Plan phases for the overal l 1-405 corridor, the 1-405 Urban Design Guidelines will be applied throughout. How will the project be constructed? Co nstruction of the entire Renton Nickel Improvement Project is expected to take two years , beginning in November 2007 and being completed at the end of 2009 . However, construction activity will not be constant for the entire study area throughout this time , and in so me locations , the work will take substantially less time than two years. Construction will pose some minor inconveniences because of localized travel delays due to temporary lane closures and narrowed lanes an d shoulders. At-Grade Construction At-grade construction, which occurs on the same elevation as the ex isting lanes, will be staged to minimize traffic delays and detours. T y pically, lanes are shifte d toward the median. WSDOT then p la ces a concrete barrier to close off the shoulder. This staging allows construction to occur safely without closing lanes for the duration of construction. Access to construction areas will occur from the roadway side to minim ize property effects. Bridge Construction Construction of the 1-405 bridges w ill occur in multiple sta ges to minimize traffic delays and detours. During the first stage , traffic will be shifted toward the 1-405 med ian and the existing lanes and shoulders will be narrowed slightly to allow widening of the existing structure or construction of the new bridge depending on the design. In the next stage, traffic wil l be shifted onto the new bridge area. If the bridge is being replaced rather than simply widened , the old structure w i ll be demolished after traffic is shifted to the new bridge. The new Benson Road overpass will also be staged. The new structure will be built to the west, while the existing overpass rema ins in service. After traffic has 17 R:\041 36\11-06 Renton Nickc·I\ T,1 sk 4 -OR QA-QC'\08 Fl l"\'\'1\ s ubm tltal d r .itt,.,, Rl", t"t.·d d l'l"' Jn>m .-\uthors\Docs for fin.i i a pproval~\R('nton '.\J1 ckd flood pL1111~ final doc l NTIWD UCTTON 504 been shifted onto the new overpass, the existing 505 structure will be demolished . 506 Staging Areas 507 Construction staging areas along 1-405 and SR 167 508 will be within the WSDOT right-of-way. Potential 509 staging areas have been identified as shown on 510 Exhibits 2 through 9 . 511 T raffic Control 512 Detour agreements with the local agencies will be 513 obtained after WSDOT awards the contract. A traffic 514 control plan will be approved by WSDOT prior to 515 starting construction. The plan 's primary objectives 516 will be to provide a safe facility, to streamline the 517 construction schedule, and to m inimize reduction s to 518 existing traffi c capacity. To minimize effects on traffic, 519 the duration of activities will be minimized and 520 reductions in capacity will be targeted to a period 521 when they will have the least effect. 522 Why do we consider floodplains as we plan for this s23 project? 524 Floodplains are important because they convey and 525 store flood water and minimize flood risks during large 526 storm events. These functions reduce flood losses, 527 maintain clean and plentiful water supplies, and 528 generally enhance quality of life in communities. 529 Recognizing the importance and the sensitive nature 530 of these areas is an important first step in planning for 531 this project. By adapting to the natural phenomenon 532 of flooding rather than trying to control floodwaters , we 533 can reduce the loss of life and property , protect criti c al 534 natural and cultural resources , reduce maintenance 535 and repair costs , and contribute to the sustainable 536 development of our communities . This philosophy is 537 reflected in the Executive Order 11988 that requires 538 agencies to avoid adverse effects and incompatible 539 development in floodplains thereby reserving 540 floodplains as natural floodwater storage areas. 18 Rent on Nickel Im provem ent Project Flo o dplains Discipline Re port R:\04156\33--06 Renton N ickel\ Task 4 -DR QA-QC\08 Ft-f\<\' A subrmttJ l d ra fts\ Revised d ocs fro m a uthors\ Docs for final approvdbs\Rcnton !\.'ickcl flood pla ms_fina l.doc ]N TR0DUCT10N 541 Floodp lain management is influenced by federal , 542 state, and local regulations or guidance. However, 543 c ounties and cities bear the primary responsibility for 544 regulating the activities allowed in floodplains . For 545 example, the cities of Tukwila and Renton have 546 developed specific programs to manage floodplains . 547 Both cities have floodplain restrictions in their zoning 548 and bui lding codes as well as in their sensitive area 549 o rdi nances . These codes prohibit projects that cause 550 any r ise in the base flood elevation for the 100-year 551 flood event within the 100-year floodplains as 552 identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). 553 As th e study area has several 100-year floodplains , 554 th ese regulat ions will apply to the project. 555 What are the key points of this report? 556 Th is rep ort presents two key points : 557 • This project will not raise the existing 100-year 558 floodplain level because any filling w ith in the 559 floodplain will be mitigated for by excavation 560 within the same floodplain , and at the same 561 elevation , at the Springbrook Early 562 Environmental Investments (EEi) site. 563 • Some temporary piles and falsework may need 564 to be placed in the floodplain during 565 construction. However, any change in 566 e levation due to these structures will also be 567 mitigated for by the excavation at the 568 Springbrook EEi site. 569 The Fed eral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 570 iden ti fied several 100-year floodplains in the study 671 area a long the Green River, Springbrook Creek, 572 Panther Creek, Rolling Hills , and the Cedar River. 573 The project's main construction activity that will affect '574 floodplains is the replacement of the Springbrook 575 Creek and Oakesdale Avenue bridges. The exact 576 co nstru ction methods and amounts of fill needed for 577 th is project element will be determined pri or to 578 co nstr uction . Regardless of the selected construction 579 method , excavation at the Springbrook Creek Wetland 580 and Habitat Mitigation Bank will provide sufficient flood 581 storage to compensate for the fill needed for bridge 582 co n struction. WSDOT will perform a hydraulic 583 analysis prior to beginning construction to confirm that 584 th e Springbrook site provides adequate mitigation. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\041 56\33--06 Rc>nt on '.\!ickcl\ Task -t ~ DR Q A-QC\08 rt !"\'\'A s ubmitta l draft,\_ Rl'\ l'"'"-i "-io,.., fro m a uthors\Docs fo r final a pprn\',11~\ Re n ton N 1ckc:I flood p la ms fmal d oc 19 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 [NTR0DUCT10N 20 In addition to the effects on the Springbrook floodplain, some minor fill could also occur on the west side of SR 167 at SW 23rd Street, where the Panther Creek tributary to Springbrook Creek crosses the highway. At this location, the project design will use conventional engineering techniques to achieve the goal of a zero rise in the 100-year flood elevation. Where encroachment into the floodplain or floodway is unavoidable due to technical or physical constraints , localized loss of flood storage will be alleviated by designing additional flood storage within the affected floodplain . Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R·\04156\33-06 Renton Nicke l\ Task 4 -DR Q/\-QC\OS Fl IW /\ s ubmittal drafts\ Revised docs fro m authors\Docs for fi nal approvals\Rcnton Nickel floo<l plains_final.doc 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 I 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 EXISTING CONDITIONS What information was collected to identify floodplains? To identify floodplains , the team used the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). We used these maps to evaluate the extent and elevation of th e floodplain . The team also reviewed other related reports and documents. These included a report on the performance of the Black Ri ve r Pump Station (which regu lates the flow out of lower Springbrook Creek during flood events) prepared for the City of Renton , and an on-going study to remap the Springbrook Creek floodplain. The floodplain remapping study uses updated information. One key change is the Black Ri ver pump station is assumed to operate at higher flow rates than was used for the existing FIRM panel. Since the pumping rate controls the floodplain elevation on Springbrook Creek , this remapping study is expected to show a somewhat lower base flood elevation. Therefore the analysis we present in this report is conservative as it is based on the existing mapping . What floodplains are present in the study area? Renton Nickel Impro vement Project Floodplains Discipline Report The floodplains id entified in the FIRM maps are associated with the Green River, Springbrook Creek, Panther Creek , and Rolling Hills Creek. At the north end of the study area , 1-405 also crosses the Cedar River floodplain. Exhibit 10 shows that the primary floodplain within the study area is associated with the Green River and Springbrook Creek and its tributaries. 21 R \~156\33-06 R('n hm :\11 ckcl\T ask 4 . D I~ Q A -QC\08 FH\VA ~ubmittd l dr,tft.,\l<n ,,t•d d~1o.." fr o m author~\Docs fo r fmal a pprov<1 ls\Rt·nton N1(k1,.'I floodpla ins fin;1l.do,c EXISTING CONDITIONS 629 630 I I / Open R iver /Creek Channel Pip ed R iver/C r eek Chann el D Study A re a Limits 100 Year Floodplain • 5 00 Year Floodplain r7A Springbrook Creek Wetland t:.L.1 & Habitat M 1t1gat1 o n Bank Par1< D Renton D Tukwi l a 631 Exhibit 10. Floodplains within Renton Nickel Improvement Project Study Area 632 Source: FEMA maps published March 15, 1996 633 Multiple efforts have been made over the years to 634 control flooding in the Green River Valley, especially 635 as development has occurred . In late 1961 , the U.S. 636 Army Corps of Engineers completed the Howard 637 Hanson Dam, near the headwaters of the Green River 638 in King County, to control flooding . This dam was 639 designed to limit peak flows to about 12,000 cubic feet 640 per second (cfs), which is about a 25-year storm 641 event. 642 A levee system was also constructed on the river. 643 Although the levee reduces the frequency of floods, it 644 eliminates the natural floodwater storage that 645 floodplains typically provide. 22 R enton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report K\04156\33.06 Renton Nickel\ Task 4 -DR (.)A-QC\08 FHWA submitta l d rafts\Rcv iscd d ocs from auth ors\Docs for final ,1pprovals\Rc nlon Nickel tlood pl,uns_fina l.doc 346 647 348 349 650 351 652 653 t654 55 56 657 358 359 660 361 The Black River pump station 362 controls flows to the Green River 663 from Springbrook Creek. 364 365 666 367 368 669 370 371 672 373 374 675 676 Springbrook Creek side channel has four 677 rows of piers in the floodway. 678 379 380 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 Renton N icke l Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report EX I STI NG CON DTTIONS Springbrook Creek drains into the Green River; howeve r, its flow is controlled by the Black River pump stati o n located north of the project. Operation of the p ump st ation is determined by interlocal agreements a nd basin planning programs . The pump station can pum p as much as 1,700 cfs during high flow events . This pu mping rate exceeds the estimated peak flows on Spr ingb rook Creek during a 100-year flood event, w hich is 1,30 7 cfs for current land use conditions. Howeve r , during fl ooding , flows on the Green River rise , reducing its capa city to receive additional flows. This decrease in capaci ty during floods requ ires that the pumping ra tes from Springbrook Creek be reduced . The pump station starts reducing pumping rates when the Green Ri ver re aches flows of 9 ,500 cfs. If flows in the Green Ri ver ex ceed 12,000 cfs , then the pump station may stop ope rating completely until flows in th e Green River go down . The mai n channel of Springbrook Creek c rosses under 1-405 through a 61-foot-wide box cu lvert. This cu lve rt i s divided into 5 cells, each approximately 11 feet w ide . Adjacent to the box culvert, Springbrook C reek has a side channel (Springb rook Creek Side Chan nel ) that flows under 1-405 . 1-405 crosses this c hannel w ith a bridge . This bridge has four parallel rows of 13-inch piers within the floodway. Floodi ng along Springbrook Creek affects its t ri buta ries. This is because the tributaries are not able to flow freely into Springbrook Creek during a flood and water backs up in the tributaries . In particular, fl ood ing affects Panther Creek, which ponds on both sides of SR 167. Businesses west of East Valley Ro ad experience parking lot flooding in this area. Another tributary to Springbrook Creek is Rolling Hills Cree k. This creek has a FEMA-mapped floodplain on the nort h side of 1-405 east of SR 167. In this area , flooding is ca used by undersized pipes not because t he a rea is in a natural floodplain . When flooding occurs , it is limited to a large parking lot. The Cedar River flows beneath two 1-405 bridges at milepost 3.51. The east bridge has two columns within the 100-year floodplain and two columns within the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The west bri dge has three columns within the 100-year fl oodpla in and one column within the OHWM. A pedestrian bridge spans the Cedar River beneath th e east highway bridge , connecting the Renton Commu nity Center on the right bank with the Cedar 23 R:\04156\ 33~06 Kenton :\1it.:kd\ ·1.-~k -l • DR QA-(JC\08 FHWA ~ubmitldl d r,\tt, \ !{1...·n ,cd d v,:-. l rum d uthors\ Dues for fi n~,! <1pp ruvals\Rcnton Kickel floodplains final.doc EXISTING CONDITIONS 694 River Trail on the left bank. Two co lumn s are located 695 within the 100-year floodplain, with one column within 696 the riverbed and floodway. 697 What floodplain regulations apply to this project? 698 Floodplain management within the Renton Nickel 699 Improvement Project area is influenced by federal, 700 state , and local regulations or guidance. However, 701 count ie s and cit ie s bear the primary responsibility for 702 regu lating activities allowed in floodplains . 703 The City of Tukwila addresses floodplain reg ulation s in 704 Municipal Code 16.52 Floodplain Management. The 705 City of Renton addresses floodplain regulations in 706 Municipal Code [4-3-050] Critical Areas Regulations . 707 These municipal codes help the Cities of Tukwila and 708 Renton manage their floodplains. These codes 709 prohibit projects within the 100-year floodplain that 71 O cause any rise in the base floodplain elevation . This is 711 known as the zero-rise requirement. As several 100- 712 year floodplains occur within the study area , these 713 regulations apply to the project. 714 These codes also dictate that projects must not 715 reduce the amount of flood storage volume on a 716 floodplain. For any fill placed in the floodplain , the 717 project must compensate by removing equal volumes 718 of fill at equivalent elevations . The cities of Tukwila 719 and Renton will review the project to ensure that these 720 provisions are met. 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 24 The Floodpla in Management guidance, Presidential Executive Order 11988 signed May 24 , 1977, directs federal agencies to avoid development that will affect floodplains. If development will have significant encroachment on the floodplain, then the guidance requires a specific finding that the proposed development is the only practicable alternative . If the project encroaches on a regulatory floodway, then the document should also discuss the consistency of the action with the regulatory floodway . If a floodway revision is necessary, then the document shou ld include evidence from FEMA and local or state agencies indicating that such revision is acceptable. WSDOT's Hydrauli c Manual provides guidance on how to conduct engi neering , hydrologic, and hydraulic stud ies to determine 100-year flood elevations , velocities , and backwater conditions that are expected to occur under existing conditions and with the conceptual designs proposed for the Build Alternative . Renton Nick e l Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04 156\3..1-06 Renton Nic ko l\T ask 4 -D R Q A-QC\08 Fl !WA s ubmittal drafts\Rcviscd d ocs from authors\Docs for fim,1 •ppruvals\ Kenton Nickel noodplain,_final.d oc I 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 Renton Nickel Impr ovement Project Floodplains Discipline Report EXISTIN G CON DITIONS A lthough these studies ha ve not yet been completed , th e analyses will help determine the effects of encroachment on floodplains , including what co mp e nsatory storage will need to be created within the floodplai n to meet the cities of Tukwila and Renton regulatory requirements and ensure no adverse ef fect s to flood levels or floodplains. T he project will also req uire a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit , as well as Shoreline Permits . T he HPA is i ss ued by the Washington State Depart ment of Fish and Wildlife. The permit will place timing limitations on any construction work that will affect s treams . The cities of Tukwila and Renton will is sue shore line permits once they determine that the project is cons istent with the goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program (see the Land Use Plans and Pol icie s Dis c ip line Report for more information). 25 R:\04156\33-06 Renton Nickd\ T,1s k 4 -OR QA-QC'\0..~ Fl I\V/\ submitt;i_l d r,lft ... \ R(·\'l'-l'd lh,,:s from authors\Docs for final a pprova ls\ Renton Nic kel flood plains_findl.doc 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 POTENTIAL EFFECTS What methods were used to evaluate effects on floodplains? The team compared existing conditions with the proposed widening to determine where temporary or permanent construction will require fill to be placed or where bridge piers will be built in the floodplain. To determine how much fill the project will place within the floodplain , the team used the floodplain elevation on the map prepared by FEMA. To maintain the 100- year floodplain elevation, the project design will allow for an equal or greater amount of excavation from within the floodplain at the same elevations . Hydraulic principles were used to evaluate whether the floodplain will be affected by the project. To evaluate the effect on floodplain storage , the team compared how much material is being placed in the floodplain to how much material is being removed. If there is no net gain in floodplain fill, then the project will not affect floodplain storage capacity. 119 Which floodplains could be affected by the project? 780 The Springbrook Creek and Oakesdale Avenue Bridge 781 will be replaced to accommodate the new lanes on 782 1-405. The existing bridge will be replaced with a new 783 bridge that spans not only the side channel but also 784 spans the main channel and Oakesdale Avenue. This 785 bridge crosses a 100-year floodplain and construction 786 of the bridge will require placing new piers and fill in 787 the floodplain . 788 In addition to the fill at the Springbrook Creek and 789 Oakesdale Avenue Bridge, some minor fill could also 790 occur on the west side of SR 167 at SW 23rd Street 791 where Panther Creek, a tributary to Springbrook 792 Creek, crosses the highway. The other floodplain 793 crossings at the Green River, Rolling Hills Creek, and 794 the Cedar River will not be affected by this project. 26 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33-06 Renton Ni<-kcl \Ta,k 4 -DR Q A-QC\08 FHWA submittal drafts\Rcviscd docs from authors\Docs fo r f,n a l ,,pprovals\Rcnton Nickel Ooodplams_fmal.doc POTENTIAL EFFECTS 795 How will project construction temporarily affect the 796 Springbrook Creek floodplain? 797 During construction , temporary piles and falsework 798 could be placed in the Springbrook floodplain. These 799 stru ctures provide work platforms and support the new 800 structures as they are built. The replacement of the 801 Springbrook Creek and Oakesdale Avenue Bridge 802 may use these techniques . The exact construction 803 methods will be determined by the contractor that 804 W SDOT selects for this project. 805 Depending upon how long it takes to construct the 806 br idge , some of the temporary piles and falsework 807 may need to remain in place through the winter. The 808 Sp ringbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation 809 Ban k is an Early Environmental In v estments (EEi) 810 Project. This project will compensate for this 811 te mporary construction , because greater volumes of 812 material will be remo v ed from within the Springbrook 813 f lo o dplain at the same elevation in advance of any 814 co nstruction activities. The excavation , which is 815 requ ired to construct the wetlands, will provide 816 s ufficient floodplain storage to compensate for placing 817 te mporary piles and falsework in the area of the 818 Springbrook C reek Side Channel and Springbrook 819 Cr eek culvert. Because of the compensatory storage 820 provided by the mitigation bank, the temporary piles 821 an d falsework are neither anticipated to affect the 822 hy draulics of winter flows under the bridge , nor raise 823 the floodplain elevation. 824 Will the project permanently affect floodplains? 825 Re placing the bridge over Springbrook Creek will add 826 ap proximately 11 ,200 cubic yards of fill to the 827 fl oo dplain. In addition , some piers will need to be 828 pl aced in the floodplain to support the bridge. 829 Co mpensation for these additions will come from the 830 Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation 831 Bank. Excavation of material from this site will be 832 more than 11 ,200 cubic yards and will therefore 833 co mpensate for the bridge fill by removing more 834 mat erial from the floodplain at the same elevation in 835 a dv ance of any construction activities . Prior to final 836 d es ign and construction , WSDOT will analyze the 837 pre dicted backwater conditions to verify that replacing 838 th e Springbrook Creek and Oakesdale Avenue Bridge 839 w ill not affect the 100-year floodplain elevation. Rento n Ni ckel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04 156\33-06 Renton N ickel\ Tas k -1-DR QA-QC\08 F H \VA sul)111itUI drc1tt,\ RL'\ 1..,._,J doc~ fr o m c1uthor::,\Docs for fina l opprov<ils\Rcnt on Nickd floodpl,11ns fma ldoc 27 POTEN TIAL EFFECTS 840 The box culvert that currently exists in the Springbrook 841 main channel will no longer be necessary once the 842 new bridge is in place. If this culvert is removed from 843 the channel, then it could be counted as additional 844 compensatory storage for the fill and new piers . 845 What indirect effects result from the direct effects on 846 floodplains? 847 There are no indirect effects to floodplains anticipated 848 as a result of this project. 28 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\M 156\33-06 Renton ~ickcl\ Task 4 -DR QA-Q C\0$ Fl 1W A s ubmitta l d ra fts\Rc,·iscd d ocs from aulhors\ Docs fo r fin al a pprova ls\ Renton ~,eke! floodpla ins_fina l.doc 849 g50 851 B52 853 S54 g55 856 857 %8 859 860 861 862 863 364 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 ,872 873 ·874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 MEASURES TO A VOID OR MINIMIZE PROJECT EFFECTS What has been done to avoid or minimize negative effects to floodplains? In addi tion to providing compensato ry floodplain st orage , stormwater detention will also be provided for dra in ag e from new impervious surfaces. Detaining stormwater will he lp minimize changes to flow patterns of inlet so urces to the floodplain . See the Surface Water a nd Water Quality Discipline Report for mo re informatio n on stormwater facilities . Br idge piers p la ce d within the floodplain wi ll be desig ne d to minim ize hy draul ic disturbance to flow. T his ca n be achieved by designing pie rs that are al l the s ame size and placed in lines paralle l to th e flow path . How will the project compensate for unavoidable negative effects to floodplains? Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report Adding fill to the floodplain of Springbrook Creek is an unavo idable negative effect. Compensation for this fill comes from the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Hab ita t Mitigation Bank, an Earl y En v ironmental Investments (EEi) Project whe re large volumes of material will be removed in order to construct that proj ect. The excavation at the EEi site, which is required to construct the wetlands, wi ll provide sufficient floodp la in storage to compensate for the fill placed within the floodplain during construction of the Springbrook Cree k and O a kesdale Ave nue Bridge . WS DOT wil l hydraulically analyze the effecti ve ness of the fi l l m itigation in order to confirm that no ri se wi ll resu lt in the 100-year floodplain. If the Springbrook EEi is demonstrated to be inadequate for mitigation , th en another site will be found for compensato ry storage. In addition, WSDOT will e valuate headloss at stream crossings prior to construction. 29 R:\o..t156\3J-06 Renton N ickd\T .isk 4 . (JI{ <..?A-QC\08 t-H 'NA ~ubmitt,11 dr,1ft.,.\I<~, 1 .. L·d dv, ..... fru111 d uthur~\Uoc~ for fuM I dppnJvab\Rt:nlon r-..·ickt.'I fl vo<lp lrl in:, fi n,1!.doc 885 REFERENCES 886 Published Documents 887 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants , Inc. 888 2003 Hydrology Analysis for Floodplain Mapping Study of Springbrook Creek , 889 King County Washington 890 891 892 RW Beck 2004 East Side Green River Watershed Plan Technical Memorandum Supplement 893 894 WSDOT 2004 Environmental Procedures Manual. September 2004. 895 896 2001 1-405 Corridor Program NEPA/SEPA Final En vi ronmental Impact Statement 897 Websites 898 http://www.ci.renton.wa .us 899 http://www.c i.tukwila .wa.us 900 http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes 901 http://www.fema.gov 902 http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil 30 R e nton Nickel Improvement Project Aoodplains Dis cipline Report R:\04156\33-06 Renton Nickel\ Task 4 • UR Q A-QC\08 FHWA submitta l d rafts\Rcv1scd docs from authors\ Docs for final a pprovals\ Renton Nickel flood plains_final.doc