HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1ZONING MAP BOOK
74W,-- -
92
93
455'
456
459 � ��-
461
B1
�R4E
B3-w
B6
87-
26 T24N R4E
25 T24
30.T24N R5E
9T24N RS
28 T24N R5E.
27T24N R5E,
26 T24N RSE
81
94W
455W
457.
458
460
464
1
C2
C3,Z,,��.55
'C
71
._C
35 T24N R4E
36 T24N R4E
31 T24N RSE
32 T24N R5E
33 4f _5EM --
TP4"61Z
35 T�41%1 R5E
306
307
'309
36`8:
D 1
D3
'�.D4
D�'
2 T23NR4E
11 T2$N.R4E
6 T23N R5E .
T23N R5E
4 T23N R5E
3 T23N R5E I- `l
2 T23N R5E
31.6
317,
31 �--, - .:
319
369
80
806.,
F
El
E2.
E4_
� ��
E&
7
J3
,
T��
J
1 T73N R4E
12 T23N R4E
7 T23N R5E
g T23N R5E-
9.T23N 1`15E'
10 T23N 145E:`—
11 T2 N R5E
325`
326
327 ...
328
370
810
811
F1
2-F;-i-
F4
F5
F&
F7
4 T23N R4E
13 T23N R4E -
18 T23N R5E >
17 T23N R5E
i 16 T23N R5E
15 T23N R5E
14 T23N R5E.
1
334
`.335
336
337
37 1
815: _
816
t
G1
02
G:
G 4
G95
G =_
_-
y3 T23 N R4E
.24 T23N R4E
_.
19 T23N R5E
600
20 T23N R5E
601
21 T23N R5E '
602
22 T23N R5E
820 .:.
.._
23 T23N k�
821
2,
44
34
H3
. H4
H5
C`HH2 H5
H7
Ji2"
5 T23N R4E
25 T2A R4E
30 T23N R5E
29 T23N'RSE
28 T23N R5E , Y
.27 T23N R5E
26 T23N RSE
'50
351 603
604 :
605
825
826
8
l
�
I2 1,3'14
1 ,
f5
17
f23M11FY�E
36 T23N R4E- 31 T23N R5E -
32 T23N R5E
33 T23N R! '.-
34 T23N R5E
35 T23N R5E - �I
36
46
607 608 - -
609 . -_
610
632
833
8
1
J2.. J3.
J7,,z,,-,
T22N R4E
1 T22N R4E 6 T22N R5E .
5 T22N R5E
4 T22N R5E
3 T22N R5E
2 T22N R5E
1 T2
RESIDENTIAL
MIXED USE CENTERS
INDUSTRIAL
c (RC) Resource Conservation
cv (CV) Center Village
H {IL} industrial - Light
(R-1) Residential 1 dulac
uc-n_ (UC-N1) Urban Center- North 1
n (IM) Industrial - Medium
e-a (R-4) Residential 4 dulac
a (UC-N2) Urban Center- North 2
zr (IH) Industrial - Heavy
a -a (R-8) Residential 8 du/ac
0 (CD) Center Downtown
i H I (RMH) Residential Manufactured Homes
(R-10) Residential 10 dulac
COMMERCIAL
k-tn (R-14) Residentiai 14 dulac
coR (COR) Commercial O(fice7Residential
----- Renton City Limits
Limits
a -r (RM-F) Residential Multi -Family
- - Adjacent City
'zv-T (RM-T) Residential Mutti-Family Traditional
ca (CA) Commercial Arterial
rcRott
RH-u {RM-U}Residentiai Mufti -Family Urban Censer
F co (CO) Commercial Office
PAGE
(CN) Commercial Neighborhood
PAGE# INDEX
sETnrowne—rl:
on a °
spa
,iu ewio
ERMC4, �AREA
POWER EASEMENT TO F.S.P.& L C..
r UNDER REC. MCI 2607781 j
THE ODEE 146 ELSIL111 4, f
A WON FC)R THIS CASEMENT.
PC
HOmVER 714E RECOI SumvEy
IN BOOK 103.
R0*6ak AEC.
9
505039001.
MENTIONS MAPS
PWTDN DENXIB L ASSOCIATE& INC,
BB
A"' S"' K kieonq WA 98033-6687
(206) 822-252E
King County
File No. S90POO68
-YVP
—V
THAT SNOW A ioo' -51
4",
TRACT a
30.
--AKE TRACT SEE NOTE 12
,7.95B
2sk
'E. i
AI
(01
'a ,w
: : :?
w
"O.ae,C1l
z
LLJ
..q
1 2' DRAINAGE
Y�
% EASEMENT
0-7
3
EASEMENT
:E
IRACT'Fi w
4
PI ��
S.
SEE NGTE 11% 'n4
2 L
SEE SHEET 4
SHEET 3 of
TerraServer Image Courtesy of the USGS
Page 1 of I
Send To Printer
? Ir
Back To TerraServer r17 Print Size Show Grid Lines Change to Landscape
IMUSGS Seattle, Washingtc::i United States 01 ]ui 1983
5 � y
0. — 1200M ON . . ' 200yd
Image coui I.S. Geological Survey
OCR 2- 4 �4�8
C<< 2004 Microsoft Corporr Terms of Use Privacy Statement �W%
http-//terraser-ver-usa.com/Printl mage. aspx'?"I'=2 & S= t l &Z=10&.X-1411 &Y=13156& W=3 ... 9/29/2008
Proposed May Creek Reed Canary Grass Mowing
Valley
Parcel I.D. 803540TR-A
CO
a
W
m
May Creek Reed Canary Grass Mowing
parcel lines
May Creek
5ft Reed Canary Grass mowing
h 0 37.5 75 150
y nnmm===nmmr======z= Feet
Produced by: Mid Sound Fisheries
& Enhancement Group
September, 28 2008
Proposed South Bank Planting of May Greek
Parcel I.D. 803540TR-A
is
May Creek Reed Canary Grass Mowing
parcel lines
May Creek
5ft Reed Canary Grass mowing
Q 1 2 4
N Feet
Produced by: Mid Sound Fisheries
& Enhancement Group
September, 28 2008
Ma
co
c�
M
Entire South Bank Planting List
Stika Spruce (Picea sitchensis)
Western Red Ceder (Thuja Plicata)
Salmon Berry (Rubus spectiabilis) DEV M
Nine Bark (Physocarpus capitatus)
Snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus) OC�
Red Alder (Aluns rubra)
Cotton Wood (Populus balsamifera) e�t1
Oregon Ash (Fraxinus latifolia)
Note! Plants will be installed at approxmately 4-ft on center and species will be alternated.
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
M 9MAI�� riJUT
Date: April 16, 2009
To: City Clerk's Office
From: Stacy Tucker
Subject: Land Use File Closeout
Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City
Clerk's Office.
Project Name:
May Creek Canary Grass Mowing & Planting Project
LUA (file) Number:
LUA-08-130, CAR
Cross -References:
i AKA's:
May Creek Canary Grass Project, Stonegate HOA Critical Areas
Exemption, Stonegate HOA Grass Removal & Planting Project
Project Manager:
Vanessa Dolbee
s
t Acceptance Date:
November 17, 2008
Applicant:
Mattia Boscolo, Mid Puget Sound RFEG
Owner:
Stonegate Homeowners Association
Contact:
Same as applicant
PID Number:
803540TR-A
i ERC Decision Date:
ERC Appeal Date:
Administrative Approval:
November 17, 2008
Appeal Period Ends:
December 1, 2008
Public Hearing Date:
Date Appealed to HEX:
By Whom:
HEX Decision:
Date:
Date Appealed to Council:
By Whom:
t Council Decision:
Date:
Mylar Recording Number:
Project Description: The applicant is requesting a Critical Areas Exemption for the removal of invasive
reed canary grass along the bank of May Creek at the corner of 148th Ave SE and may Valley Road. The work
area is approximately 7,500 square feet in size. May Creek is a class 2 stream with associated wetlands. As
such, the applicants have submitted
stream and wetland studies. The proposed hand cutting of the invasive
reed canary grass along the creek banks on the Stonegate community property is intended to temporarily
alleviate the hydraulic barrier and reduce flooding, increase conveyance, reduce erosion, and improve fish
passage.
Location:
Corner of 148th Ave SE & May Valley Road
Comments:
DATE r iI ' LLB.
NAME i.siTlauDATE
Oki�� ��— CITY OFRENTON
��� -0 EXEMPT10N
�l l� e�' FROM CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
DATE: November 17, 2008
LAND USE FILE NO.: LUA08-130, CAR
PROJECT NAME: May Creek Canary Grass Mowing and Planting Project
OWNERS: Stonegate Homeowners Association
APPLICANT: Mattia Boscolo, Mid Puget Sound RFEG
PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner
PROJECT LOCATION: Corner of 148`h Ave. SE and May Valley Road, located in a
King County Tract, parcel No. 803840TR-A.
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a Critical Areas Exemption for the
removal of invasive reed canary grass along the bank of May Creek at the corner of 148th Ave. SE and
May Valley Road. This project is a small portion of a larger habitat restoration plan for May Creek. The
larger project is intended to reduce the duration of the flooding in May Valley, increase conveyance of
surface water out of May Valley, reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts in the Valley, reduce the
effects of hydraulic barriers created by culverts, bridges and other obstructions, avoid impacts to
downstream landowners, particularly those in the canyon section of May Creek, improve fish passage
and habitat along May Creek and priority tributaries, and enhance the riparian and wetland factions along
May Creek.
The proposed hand cutting of the invasive reed canary grass along the creek banks on the Stonegate
community property is intended to temporarily alleviate the hydraulic barrier and reduce flooding for high
water during winter months. The applicants have indicated the removal of the invasive spices would be
conducted by hand in a 7,500 square foot area. Prior to any work, sediment control methods would be
installed to control sediment plume which may occur within the channel. The cutting will take place 5 feet
horizontally from the ordinary high water mark by using hand tools. Grass cutting will be raked outside
the flood zone and left to decompose. Along the south bank, a 5 foot wide area would be planed with
native riparian and wetland plants. Only the south bank would be planted to permit for future
enhancement planed by the May Valley Restoration Plan.
May Creek is a class 2 stream with associated wetlands; as such, the applicants have submitted stream
and wetland studies and a Technical Information Memorandum, prepared by GeoEngineers, dated
September 11, 2008. This Memorandum evaluates potential downstream effects of the proposed reed
canarygrass abatement project. GeoEngineers concluded that the removal of reed canary grass in the
subject location would have no change in post -treatment hydraulic conditions downstream of the project
area, and therefore represents no appreciable increase in downstream erosion potential.
CRITICAL AREA: Wetlands, Class 2 Stream and Flood Hazard Area
Critical Area Exemption 08-130 Page 1 of 2
CITY OF RENTON
EXEMPTION
FROM CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
DATE: November 17, 2008
LAND USE FILE NO.: LUA08-130, CAR
PROJECT NAME: May Creek Canary Grass Mowing and Planting Project
OWNERS: Stonegate Homeowners Association
APPLICANT: Mattia Boscolo, Mid Puget Sound RFEG
PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner
PROJECT LOCATION: Corner of 1481h Ave. SE and May Valley Road, located in a
King County Tract, parcel No. 803540TR-A.
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a Critical Areas Exemption for the
removal of invasive reed canary grass along the bank of May Creek at the corner of 148`h Ave. SE and
May Valley Road. This project is a small portion of a larger habitat restoration plan for May Creek. The
larger project is intended to reduce the duration of the flooding in May Valley, increase conveyance of
surface water out of May Valley, reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts in the Valley, reduce the
effects of hydraulic barriers created by culverts, bridges and other obstructions, avoid impacts to
downstream landowners, particularly those in the canyon section of May Creek, improve fish passage
and habitat along May Creek and priority tributaries, and enhance the riparian and wetland factions along
May Creek.
The proposed hand cutting of the invasive reed canary grass along the creek banks on the Stonegate
community property is intended to temporarily alleviate the hydraulic barrier and reduce flooding for high
water during winter months. The applicants have indicated the removal of the invasive spices would be
conducted by hand in a 7,500 square foot area. Prior to any work, sediment control methods would be
installed to control sediment plume which may occur within the channel. The cutting will take place 5 feet
horizontally from the ordinary high water mark by using hand tools. Grass cutting will be raked outside
the flood zone and left to decompose. Along the south bank, a 5 foot wide area would be planed with
native riparian and wetland plants. Only the south bank would be planted to permit for future
enhancement planed by the May Valley Restoration Plan.
May Creek is a class 2 stream with associated wetlands; as such, the applicants have submitted stream
and wetland studies and a Technical Information Memorandum, prepared by GeoEngineers, dated
September 11, 2008. This Memorandum evaluates potential downstream effects of the proposed reed
canarygrass abatement project. GeoEngineers concluded that the removal of reed canary grass in the
subject location would have no change in post -treatment hydraulic conditions downstream of the project
area, and therefore represents no appreciable increase in downstream erosion potential.
CRITICAL AREA: Wetlands, Class 2 Stream and Flood Hazard Area
Critical Area Exemption 08-130 Page 1 of 2
EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050.C.5.a.ii Enhancement
activities as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC. An exemption from the Critical Areas Regulations is
hereby granted for the following reason(s):
X Conservation, Enhancement: Enhancement activities as defined in chapter 4-11
RMC. ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES: Removal of noxious or intrusive species,
plantings of appropriate native species and/or removal of diseased or decaying
trees which pose a clear and imminent threat to life or property. Enhancement
activities shall not involve the use of mechanical equipment. Enhancement activities
may include the removal of pests which pose a clear danger to public health
provided that such danger is certified by the King County Department of Public
Health.
DECISION: The proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to
RMC section 4-3-050.C.4:
The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or state or federal
law or regulation;
2. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry
standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles; and
3. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored,
unless the exemption is a wetland below the size thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-3-
050.C.5.f.(i) of this Section.
SIGNATURE:
C.-E. Vincont, Planning Director "
Department of Community & Economic Development
EXPIRATION: Five (5) years from the date of approval (signature date).
Critical Area Exemption 08-130 Page 2 of 2
date
City of Renton
Me
LAND USE PERM IT0`%`1,pT~°°
MASTER APPLICATION "�D
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
NAME: Stonegate Homeo ners Association
ADDRESS: Corner of May Valley Road & 148tn
Ave NE NC- ( 4
CITY: Renton ZIP: 98059
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-417-8659
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
NAME: Mattis Boscolo
COMPANY (if applicable): Mid Puget Sound RFEG
ADDRESS: 7400 Sand Point Way NE Suite 202N
CITY: Seattle ZIP: 98115
TELEPHONE NUMBER (206) 529-9467
CONTACT PERSON $
NAME: Same as Above
COMPANY (if applicable):
ADDRESS:
CITY: ZIP:
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS:
I
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: May Creek Canary
grass Mowing and Planting Project
PROJECTIADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
Corner of 148t' Ave SE and May Valley Road, 98059
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
803540TR-A
EXISTING LAND LISE(S): Open space
PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Stream enhancement
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
(if applicable): NA
EXISTING ZONING: R-1
PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NA
SITE AREA (in square feet): 7,500 square feet
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE
DEDICATED: NA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS:
NA
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
ACRE (if applicable): NA
NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NA
NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NA
P JECT INFORMATION (conl led
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA
NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if
applicable) -,NA
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE
NEW PROJECT (if applicable):NA
PROJECT VALUE:
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable):
❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE
❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO
❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA 7500
sq_ ft.
❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD
sq. ft.
❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION
sq. ft.
❑ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 7500
sq. ft.
❑ WETLANDS 7500
sq. ft.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
(Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included
SITUATE IN THE _SE NE QUARTER OF SECTION _3_, TOWNSHIP 23N_, RANGE 5E_, IN THE
CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES
List all land use applications being applied for:
1. 3.
2. 4.
i Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
I, {Print Namels) ria n n + t L-�L +1C t �! U r i_ declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property
involved in this appl� i�ar�oC/ the representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing
statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the
,, uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
eS 147G
(Signs ure of r/Representative) J t
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
... f°
(Signature of Owner/Representative) K ►, A 0,
Notary (Print}T.kcrc I
My appointment expires: L'5V'C',C"
Site Legal Description of Site
Portion Government Lot 1 and the SE %, NE 1/4, Section 3 Township 23N, Range 5E, W.M City of Renton,
County of King, State of Washington - Tract A, Stonegate Subdivision, Vol 177, pp 62-68 of Plats,
Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#: 803540TR-A
kfi King County
King County Districts and Development Conditions for parcel 803540TR-A
Parcel number 803540TR-A Drainage Basin May Creek
Address Not Available ihinciton
Jurisdiction Renton INR A Ced,
Zipcocle 90059 PLSS Errc
H
Kroll Map page Sao Latitude 47.51557 An I
Thomas Guide page 626 Longitude -122.14468
- Electoral Districts
IL'
RNT 41-2816
C-c. rid -.- std
District 9, Rpnqnr Di in ri
(206) 296-1009
Congressional district
8
Legislative district
.4
School district
lssaqi;ajh #4 11
Seattle school board district
does not apply (not in Seattle)
District Court electoral district
Southeast
Fire district
does not apply
Waterdislnet
King County Water District 90
Sewer district
does not apply
Water & Sewer district
does not apply
Parks & Recreation district does not apply
Hospital district
does not apply
Rural library district
does not apply
Tribal Lands?
No
- King County planning and critical -areas designations
K if i (; (7. :)1111 :V I'; ;T I i :ILI
NA, check with jurisdiction
does not apply
F -SL,--iv v, rc tons
None
431
C --r r %.' I
ul
716
Urban
Forest Production district?
No
does not apply
Agricultural Production district?
No
Newcastle
t ar-,ply?
No
Coal mine hazards?
None mapped
None mapped!
Erosion hazards?
None mapped
1 00-year flood plain?
Yes
Landslide hazards?
Hone mapped
Wetlands at this parcel?
10 = 3705 Rating = I (A)
Seismic hazards?
None mapped
This report was generated on 9124/2008 9759:33 AM
Gortart u s at a i ii:,� ,j � �u
0 2008 King County
jell
s,
REQUEST FOR CRITICAL-,--
AREAS EXEMPTION
(FOR SEPA EXEMPT ACTIVITIES)
City of Renton Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
Applicant Name Mattia Boscolo/ Project Name May Creek Reed Canarygrass Mowing and Phone Number
Mid Puget Sound RFEG Planting 206-529-9467
Brief Description of Project
The hand cutting of invasive reed canary grass on the banks of May Creek, All work will be done by hand within the stream buffer. A 5-ft planting strip along the
south bank will be planted with native riparian and wetiand species after the mowing is completed.
Type of Critical Area Class 2 Stream
❑ Work Occurs in Critical Area ® Work Occurs in Buffer
PURPOSE: Exempt activities provided with a letter of exemption from the Development Services
Administrator may intrude into a critical area or required buffer (Subject to any conditions or requirements
provided by the Administrator)_
APPLICABILITY OF EXEMPTIONS: The following is a general list of activities that may be exempt from
the critical areas regulations. More specific descriptions of the activities are contained in the Critical
Areas Regulations. Some of the listed activities may not be exempt in certain critical areas. The Planning
Division will evaluate you request according to the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations in RMC 4-3-
050C, J, L, and N.
I AM REQUESTING A CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING
ACTIVITIES:
® Conservation, Enhancement, and Related Activities:
• Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, and other wildlife
• Enhancement activities as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC
• Any critical area, buffer restoration, or other mitigation activities that have been approved
by the City
❑ Research and Site Investigation:
• Nondestructive education and research
+ Site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals such as surveys, soil
logs, etc.
❑ Agricultural, Harvesting, and Vegetation Management:
• Harvesting wild foods
• Existing/Ongoing agricultural activities'
Removal of dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or dangerous ground cover or hazardous
trees which have been certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or
certified arborist
❑ Surface Water Alteration:
• New surface water discharges provided the discharge meets the requirements of the Storm
and Surface Water Drainage Regulations' 2 3
• New or modified regional stormwater facilities' 2 3
Flood hazard reduction 1 3 4 6
❑ Roads, Parks, Public and Private Utilities:
• Relocation of Existing Utilities out of Critical Area and Buffer
Maintenance, operation, and repair of existing parks, trails, roads, facilities, and utilities' 2
Installation, construction, replacement, or operation of utilities, traffic control, and walkways
within existing improved right -if -way or easement' 2
• Modification of existing utilities and streets by 10% or less' 2 s
• Management and essential tree removal for public or private utilities, roads and public
parks
❑ Wetland Disturbance, Modification, and Removal:
Any activity in small Category 3 wetlands' 2 3 4 5
Temporary disturbances of a wetland due to construction activities that do not include
permanent filling 1 2 3 5
❑ Maintenance and Construction for Existing Uses and Facilities:
• Remodeling, replacing, or removing existing structures' 2
• Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or private uses and
facilities where no alteration of the critical area and required buffer or additional fill
materials will be placed 1 2
• Construction activity connected with an existing single family residence or garage, provided
that no portion of the new work occurs closer to the critical area or required buffers than
the existing structure 1 2
• Existing activities which have not been changed, expanded or altered provided they
comply with the applicable requirements of chapter 4-10 RMC 1
❑ Emergency Activities:
• Removal of trees or ground cover by a City department, agency, public, or private utility in
an emergency situation
• Public interest emergency use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials by
governmental organizations in an Aquifer Protection Area
ADDITIONAL PERMITS: Additional permits from other agencies may be required. It is the applicant's
responsibility to obtain these other approvals. Information regarding these other requirements may be
found at httpJiapps.ecy.wa.gov/opas/
For City Use Only
❑ Exemption Granted ❑ Exemption Denied
Neil Watts, Director
Planning Division
Signature: Date:
Conditions of Approval:
'Exemption does not apply in Aquifer Protection Areas
3Exemption does not apply in Flood Hazard Areas
4Exemption does not apply in Geologic Hazard Areas
Exemption does not apply in Habitat Conservation Areas
5Exemption does not apply in Streams and Lakes: Class 2 to 4
6Exemption does not apply in Wetlands
APPLICATION TYPE: FEE AMOUNT:
Rezones:
Less than 10 acres
$2,000.00
10 to 20 acres
$3,000.00
More than 20 acres
$4,000.00
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
$75.00
Shopping Cart Plan Review:
$100.00
Shoreline Permits:
Shoreline Permit Exemption
No charge
Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit (Under $100,000 Value)
$500.00
Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit ($100,000 or greater)
$1,000.00
Site Plan Approval:
Hearing Examiner Review
$2,000.00
Administrative Review
$1,000.00
Special Permit
$2,000.00
Tempos Permit
$100.00
Temporary Permit Sign Deposit (refundable)
$25.00
Variance
Administrative
$100.00
Board of Adjustment or Hearing Examiner
'$500.00
Waiver
$100.00
JOINT LAND USE APPLICATIONS: For joint land use applications, applicant shall pay
full price for the most expensive major application and half-price for related applications.
EXTRA FEES: Whenever any application is to be handled under the terms of any
portion of the City's land use codes, adopted codes, or the Uniform Building Code, and
that application is so large, complicated or technically complex that it cannot be handled
with existing city staff, then an additional fee can be charged which is equivalent to the
extra costs incurred by the City of Renton- Such fees shall be charged only to the extent
incurred beyond that normally incurred for processing an application. When the
application or development plans are modified so as to require additional review by the
City beyond the review normally required for like projects, at the discretion of the City, an
additional fee may be charged at $75.00 per hour.
Any questions regarding land use fees should be directed to the Planning Division, 61h
floor customer service counter, at (425) 430-7294.
H_1Forms%PlanningVanduse(ee.doc - 2 - 03/08
PLANNING DIVISION
WAIVE OF SUBMITTAL REQUIF RENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
I QI�REpI OQMI4IJIENTS :
M* 4t EA9tlr� Site i Condition . `
Master Application Form 4
ilonumob 0rd� (One p� r Umer €) f
Neighborhood Detail Map k
This requirement may be waived by:
1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME:. "ram ,,1'Ce'SS
2. Public Works Plan Review Section i?,ec, V-J2, P,.-o,��.�
3. Building Section DATE: Z z—per
4. Planning Section
0:IWEBIPMDEVSERV1Forms\Planninglwaiverofsubmittalregs.xls 02/08
PLANNING DIVISION
WAIV OF SUBMITTAL REQUI W ENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
This requirement may be waived by: f /
1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME;
2. Public Works Plan Review Section_ 5 5.
3. Building Section DATE: �c _ =
4. Planning Section
Q:\WEB%PVV\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\waiverofsubmittalregs.xls 02/08
DEV -j� OF NNNING
gj
Project Narrative RECEIVED
This portion of May Valley is inundated by flood waters for long durations during the winter months.
The proposed hand cutting of the invasive reed canary grass along the creek banks on the Stonegate
community property is intended to temporarily alleviate the hydraulic barrier. This temporary seasonal
fix is to allow for dissipation of high water during winter months. A larger habitat restoration is planned
for May Creek by Mid Puget Sound Fisheries & Enhancement Group (Mid Sound) and King County (CD
provide with Conceptual Plan) will provide a permanent solution to the problem. Below is an overview
of the primary objective of the entire May Valley Restoration Plan:
• Reduce the duration of the flooding in May Valley
• Increase conveyance of surface water out of May Valley
• Reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts in the Valley
• Reduce the effects of hydraulic barriers Created by culvers, bridges and other obstruction,
• Avoid impacts to downstream landowners, Particularly those in the canyon section May Creek,
• Improve fish passage and habitat along May Creek and priority tributaries, and
• Enhance the riparian and wetland functions along May Creek.
We are proposing to hand cut reed canary grass from banks of May Creek (Class 2 stream). Prior to any
work, sediment control methods will be installed to control sediment plume which may occur within the
channel. The cutting will take place 5-ft horizontally from ordinary high water mark by using hand tools
(weed eaters). Grass cuttings will be raked outside the flood zone and left to decompose. On the south
bank, 5-ft will be planted with native riparian and wetland plants at approximately 4-ft on center (see
attached planting plan). Only the south bank of the creek will be planted to permit for the future
enhancement mentioned above in the May Valley Restoration Plan. This project will not modify the
existing channel, but will aid with water dissipation during 2008/2009 flooding.
Applicable Renton Municipal Code and SEPA
Under Renton Municipal Code section 4-3-050.C.5, EXEMPT ACTIVITIES, PERMITTED WITHIN CRITICAL
AREAS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS, the proposed work within the stream buffer meets the definition of
enhancement in section 4-11 Definitions_
The proposed reed canary grass mowing to improve the overall flow of the stream is considered a
Categorical Exemption pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(3) Repair and Maintenance.
CI1' OF Ri<NT� iNG
Monitoring of Proposed Project R'ECEWEV)
Reed Canary Grass -Since the hand cutting of the reed canary grass will provide temporary flood relief,
no monitoring will occur.
Planted vegetation - Mid Sound FEG will monitor the status of vegetation planted in association with this
project to ensure a minimum of 80% survival. A monitoring report will be provided to the city upon
request.
QEVELOPMA NT PLANNING
CITY OF RENTOPl
O C T 2 � 2008
GEOENGINEERS� TECHNICAL INFORMATIO 929POUM
8410154T" AVENUE NE, REDMOND, WA 98052 TELEPHONE (425) 861-6000, FAx (425) 861-6050 www.geoengineers.com
TO: Troy Fields, Executive Director of Mid -Puget Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group
FROM: Mary Ann Reinhart ", ,r for
DATE: September 11, 2008
FILE: 10791-005-00
SUBJECT: May Valley Habitat Enhancement Project -- Contract Addendum #2
INTRODUCTION
The Mid -Puget Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group (MPSFEG) has been working with King County to
address Recommendation Number 5 in the Action Plan (King County 2001), as part of MPSFEG efforts to
enhance fish habitat in the May Valley segment of May Creek. Recommendation 5 in the Action Plan
indicates that King County, valley residents, and permitting agencies enable the removal of flow obstructions
from the channel of May Creek in May Valley, Washington. With funding support provided by King County,
and technical support provided by a consultant tears, the MPSFEG recently released for public review a Draft
Conceptual Restoration Plan (CRP). The CRP identifies causes of flow obstructions and associated
degradation of aquatic habitat, and offers conceptual projects to address these issues and mitigate their effects
(e.g. flooding). Response of the May Valley community to the Draft CRP has generally been favorable, and
citizens have encouraged King County and the MPSFEG to work with citizens to proceed with implementing
solutions.
This Technical Information Memorandum (TIM) addresses concerns expressed by King County regarding the
potential downstream effects, including increased erosion potential, of a proposed reed canarygrass (Phalaris
arundinacea) abatement project located near the 148`1' Ave SE bridge across May Creek. This project is
described in detail in the Draft CRP.
GeoEngincers was asked to conduct additional analyses at this site to assess changes in hydraulic conditions
downstream of the proposed project site, based on HEC-RAS (Hydrologic Engineering Center — River
Analysis System) modeling. The analysis summarized in this TIM compares changes in ineffective flow
characteristics at the site, and changes in velocity, channel conveyance, and flood width for the 2-, 10-, and
100-year flood events between existing (pre-treatment) and proposed (post -treatment) conditions at the
downstream of the project site. It is our understanding that the reed canarygrass (P. arundinacea) abatement
project planned for this section of May Creek is the only section planned for treatment at this time. Therefore,
results of the ineffective flow analysis in this TIM are only reported for the section of May Creek between
RM 4.45 and 4.3. Other hydraulic characteristics (e.g. flow, velocity, shear stress) are reported for a slightly
larger reach of May Creek, to illustrate potential changes in hydraulics upstream and downstream of the
project site, were the project implemented (see attached 14EC-RAS output table).
Analytical objectives, methods, results and conclusions are summarized in the following paragraphs.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the additional analyses is to evaluate whether or not the reed canarygrass abatement
Project could induce negative effects, such as increased erosion, downstream of the site. A hydraulic model
was used to estimate anticipated future May Creek flow conditions following implementation of the proposed
Memorandum to Troy Fields
September 11, 2008
Page 2
reed canarygrass (P. arundinacea) abatement project. Comparison of pre-treatment and post -treatment
hydraulic model outputs is used to ascertain potential changes to hydraulic performance of the May Creek
channel at the project site, and to evaluate the potential effects on hydraulics downstream from the proposed
project site. Results are reported both in text and in HEC-RAS output data tables, attached to this TiM.
METHODS
The analysis utilizes a HEC-RAS model developed by OTAK to represent the existing (pre-treatment)
condition of the May Valley portion of May Creek. The existing conditions model was developed as part of
the MFSFEG-led Draft Conceptual Restoration Plan (CRP) project (GeoEngineers 2008). Implementation of
a reed canarygrass removal project was modeled using the OTAK NEC-RAS model with a reduced roughness
coefficient to depict anticipated post -treatment channel conditions within the project site. Projected changes
in ineffective flow at the proposed project site were ranked in a manner consistent with the approach
presented in the Draft CRP (GeoEngineers 2008)_
MODEL RESULTS FOR PROJECT SITE
GeoEngineers used the May Valley HEC-RAS model to characterize pre-treatment conditions in the May
Creek channel from 1481h Ave_ SE bridge (RM 4.45) to a point approximately 800 feet downstream (RM 4.3),
near the confluence of May Creek and Tributary 287 DIE, and the 146`h Ave SE bridge crossing. The existing
hydraulic characteristics were evaluated for ineffective flow during the 2-, 10-, and 100-year flows. An
overall ineffective flow ranking was established based on channel velocity, overall top flood width, and in -
channel conveyance. This overall ranking ranges from 0.0 to 5.0. The overall ranking is described in Table 1
below. For a more in-depth review of the determination of the overall ineffective flow ranking please refer to
the Draft Conceptual Restoration Plan (GeoEngineers 2008).
Table 9. Overall Ineffective Flow Rank and Definition.
Rank
Rank Definition
0.0-1.0
No Ineffective Flow
1.1-2.0
Minor Ineffective Flow
2.1-3.0
Average Ineffective Flow
3.1-4.0
Moderate Ineffective Flow
4.1-5.0
Extreme Ineffective Flow
To simulate the effects of a post -treatment condition, wherein reed canarygrass (P. ar-undinacea) has been
removed from the channel, without removing channel floor sediment, GeoEngineers modified the existing
condition HEC-RAS model. The modification was accomplished by altering the channel roughness
characteristics in the HEC-RAS model between River Mile 4.45 and 4.3 from 0,07 down to 0.038. This
change in roughness is consistent with a channel perimeter composed of fine sediment_ After altering the
roughness coefficients, the model was re -run for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year recurrence interval storms. The
results from these model runs were analyzed for ineffective flow ranking using the same standardized
protocols provided in the Draft CRP (GcoEngineers 2008). Table 2 shows the average overall ineffective
flow ranking between River Mile 4.45 downstream to River Mile 4.3 for the pre and post -treatment
conditions.
Memorandum to Troy Fields
September 11, 2008
Page 3
Table 2. Overall Ineffective Flow Rankings for May Creek, reflecting both
Pre- and Post -Treatment Conditions.
Overall
Rank
Flow
Pre-
Post -
Return
treatment
treatment
Period
Conditions
Conditions
2-Year
3.2
2.9
10-Year
3 3 _
3.2
100-Year A
3.6
3.1
Comparison of Table 2 results shows that the ineffective flow ranks decrease for each recurrence interval
storm events. However, the decrease is slight, and NOT sufficient to significantly reduce the overall effect of
the ineffective flow.
HEC RAS results for the 2-, 10- and 100 year recurrence intervals are provided in the attached data tables_
Comparison of HF,C-RAS output for pre- and post treatment conditions within the proposed project area
yields only small changes in flow velocity, discharge, channel shear stress and flood width. At most HEC-
RAS cross sections, flow velocity and discharge increase slightly through the project area, indicating an
improvement in flow conveyance through the site. However, the increased conveyance (in terms of flow
velocity) is generally less than 0.8 feet per second for the 100-year storm event, and is relatively small given
the increase in discharge.
Pre- and post treatment shear stresses calculated for each recurrence interval appear to decrease slightly across
the site. Shear stress is a measure of the How's ability to mobilize and/or transport sediment. The observed
decreases in shear stress at the site, typically less than 0.04 lb/sq ft, is negligible and represent virtually no
change in estimated sediment transport capacity.
POTENTIAL DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS
Potential downstream effects resulting from post -treatment changes in hydraulic conditions may be evaluated
from a review of EEC RAS model results downstream of the 146`" Avenue Bridge (River station 4.280,
attached table). Comparison of pre- (existing) and post -treatment (proposed) output for the 2-, 10-, and 100-
year storm events reveal no change in any of the hydraulic parameters referenced above. These results
suggest that changes realized from removing the reed canarygrass would NOT be propagated downstream.
CONCLUSION
HEC-RAS analyses conducted to simulate the proposed reed canarygrass abatement project indicate no
change in post -treatment hydraulic conditions downstream of the project area, and therefore represent no
appreciable increase in downstream erosion potential.
Memorandum to Troy Fields
September'11, 2008
Page 4
HEC-RAS OUTPUT TABLE
EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FROM RIVER MILE 4.735
DOWNSTREAM TO THE DOWNSTREAM PROJECT BOUNDARY
River Sta
Profile
Plan
Q Total
(cfs)
Q Channel
(cfs)
Vel Chni
(fvs)
Top Width
(ft)
Q Perc Chan
Shear Chan
(lblsq ft)
4,735
2- r cur.
Existin
165
55.16
1.05
402.94
33.43
0.03
4.735
2- r cur.
Proposed
165
55.48
1.06
401.79
33.62
0.03
4.735
10- r cur.
Existing
285
73.91
1.19
485.7
25.93
0.03
4.735
10-yr cur.
Proposed
285
74.55
1.2
483.03
26.16
0.03
4.735
1 00-r cur.
Existing
468
90.93
1.21
542.48
19.43
0.03
4.735
1 00-r cur.
Pro osed
468
90.97
1.21
542.39
19,44
0.03
4.616
2- r cur.
ExistinR
165
126.44
2.07
96.65
76.63
0.5
4,616
2- r cur.
Proposed
165
127.13
2.1
96.16
77.05
0.52
4.616
10- r cur.
Existing
285
178.13
2.03
133.97
62.5
0.43
4.616
10- r cur.
Proposed
285
179.43
2.07
132.36
62.96
0.44
4.616
1 00-r cur.
Existing
468
238.73
1.98
183.41
51.01
0.36
4.616
1 00-r cur.
Proposed
468
238.83
1.98
183.29
51.03
0.36
4.607
2- r cur.
Existing
165
163.29
2.54
50.89
98,97
0.68
4.607
2- r cur.
Proposed
165
163.59
2.57
47.88
99.15
0.7
4.607
10- r cur.
Existing
285
236.43
2.7
139.8
82.96
0.73
4.607
10- r cur.
Proposed
285
240.23
2.79
134.57
84.29
0.78
4.607
1 00-r cur.
Existing
468
265.31
2.23
204.77
56.69
0-45
4.607
1100- r cur.1
Proposed
1 468
1 265.53
2.24
204.63
56.74
0.45
4.606 Cotton Stables Bridge
4.605
2- r cur.
Existing
165
131.4
1.59
102.7
79.64
026
4.605
2- r cur.
Proposed
165
132.19
1.61
101.28
80.11
0.27
4.605
10- r cur.
Existin
285
191.56
1.79
146,34
67.22
0.3
4.605
10- r cur.
____Proposed
285
194.79
1.87
141.13
68.35
0.33
4.605
1 00-r cur.
Existing
468
237.83
1.64
216.87
50.82
0.23
4.605
10 0-r cu r.1
Proposed
468
238
1.64
216.78
50.85
0.23
4.575
2- r cur.
Existing
165
132.29
1.75
124.8
80.17
0.31
4.575
2- r cur.
Proposed
165
134.21
1.81
119.08
81.34
0.34
4.575
10- r cur.
Existing
285
172.05
1.72
218.07
60.37
0.28
4.575
10- r cur.
Proposed
285
179.34
1.86
205.12
62.93
0.32
4.575
100- r cur.
Existing
468
180.62
1.3
275.46
38.59
0.14
4.575 1100-
r cur.
Proposed
468
180.77
1.3
275.34
38.63 1
0.14
4.514
2- r cur.
Existing
165
60.91
0.87
359.55
36.92
0.08
4.514
2- r cur.
proposed
165
67.66
1.02
347.33
41.01
0.11
4.514
10- r cur.
Existing
285
60.9
0.65
375.12
21.37
0.04
4.514
10- r cur.
Proposed
285
64.41
0.72
373.46
22.6
0.05
4.514
100- r cur.
Existing
468
69.97
0.55
391.47
14.95
0.03
4.514
100- r cur.
Proposed
468
70.02 1
0.55 1
391.43 1
14.96 1
0.03
Memorandum to Troy Fields
September 11, 2008
Page 5
HEC-RAS OUTPUT TABLE
EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FROM RIVER MILE 4.735
DOWNSTREAM TO THE DOWNSTREAM PROJECT BOUNDARY
River Sta
Profile
Plan
Q Total
(cfs)
Q Channel
(cfs)
Vel Chni
(ftls)
Top Width
A
Q Perc Chan
Shear than
(lb/sq ft)
4.485
2- r our.
Existing
165
38.93
0.68
345.7
23.6
0.05
4.485
2- r cur,
Proposed
165
42.9
0,8
335.64
26
0.07
4.485 1
10- r cur.
Existing
285
44.35
0.57
373.02
15.56
0.03
4.485
10- r cur.
Proposed
285
46.34
0.62
369.36
16.26
0.03
4.485
100- r cur.
Existing
468
54.8
0.51
400.74
11.71
0.02
4.485
100- r cur.
Proposed
468
54.83
0.51
400.68
11.72
0.02
4.477
2- r cur.
Existing
165
70.59
1.17
341.91
42.78
0.13
4.477
2- r cur.
Proposed
165
76.49
1.33
331.43
46.36
0.17
4.477
10- r cur.
Existing
285
86.14
1.09
380.42
30.22
0.1
4.477
10- r cur.
Proposed
285
90
1.18
376.88
31.58
0.12
4.477
1 00-r cur.
Existing
468
53.28
0.51
410.82
11.38
0.02
4.477
1100-yrcur.1
Proposed
1 468
1 53.31
1 0.51
410.76
1 11.39
1 0.02
4.464
2- r cur.
Existing
165
165
1.86
272.96
100
0.35
4.464
2- r cur.
Proposed
165
165
2.02
262.04
100
0.43
4.464
10- r cur.
Existing
285
284.31
2.3
286.34
99.76
0.48
4.464
10- r cur.
Proposed
285
284.44
2.41
284.77
99.8
0.54
4.464
100- r cur.
Existing
468
465.32
2.69
389.84
99.43
0.6
4.464
10 0-yr c:u r.
Proposed
468
465.33
2.7
389.76
99.43
0.6
4.455 148th Avenue Bridge
4.453
2- r cur.
Existing
165
162.48
4.44
19.79
98.48
2.14
4.453
2- r cur.
Proposed
165
164.16
4.94
18.59
99.49
0.8
4.453
10- r cur.
Existing
285
270.37
5.49
77.6
94.87
2.97
4.453
10- r cur.
Proposed
285
278.42
5.94
61.1
97.69
1.04
4.453
100- r cur.
Existing
468
418.49
6.48
156.17
89.42
3.78
4.453
1 00-r cur.1
Proposed
468
441.67
7.08
143.84
94.37
1.35
4.444
2- r cur.
Existing
165
83.66
0.86
256.61
50.7
0.07
4.444
2- r cur.
Proposed
165
114.86
1.25
255.6
69.61
0.05
4.444
10- r cur.
Existing
285
102
0.81
262.26
35.79
0.06
4.444
10- r cur.
Proposed
285
147.44
1.2
261.67
51.73
0.04
4.444
1 00-r cur.
Existing
468
133.6
0.84
310
28.55
0.06
4.444
1100- r cur.1
Proposed
1 468
1 200.23
1.27
304.85
42.78
0.04
4.434
2- r cur.
Existing
165
52.3
0.74
316.67
31.7
0.06
4.434
2- r cur.
Proposed
165
81.75
1.23
308.87
49.55
0.05
4.434
10- r cur.
Existing
285
62.72
0.65
353.55
22.01
0.04
4.434
10- r cur.
Proposed
285
99.6
1.06
349.98
34.95
0.03
4,434
1 00-r cur.
Existing
468
81.74
0.65
391.08
17.47
0.04
4.434
1 1 00-r cur.
I Proposed
468
1 132.42
1.07
1 389.45
1 28.3
0.03
Memorandum to Troy Fields
September 11, 2008
Page 6
HEC-RAS OUTPUT TABLE
EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FROM RIVER MILE 4.735
DOWNSTREAM TO THE DOWNSTREAM PROJECT BOUNDARY
River Sta
Profile
Plan
Q Total
(cfs)
Q Channel
(efs)
Vel Chnl
(ft/s)
Top Width
(ft)
Q Perc Chan
Shear Chan
(lblsq ft)
4.366
2- r cur.
Existing
208
70.65
1.23
270.33
33.97
0.14
4.366
2- r cur.
Proposed
208
106AS
1.93
254.36
51.19
0.1
4.366
10- r cur.
Existing
357
78.59
1.09
434.65
22.01
0.1
4.366
10- r cur.
Proposed
357
126.81
1.78
433.35
35.52
0.08
4.366
1 00-r cur.
Existin
582
81.63
0.92
452.8
14.02
0.07
4.366
1 00-r cur.
Proposed
582
136.41
1.55
451.94
23.44
0.06
4.285
2- r cur.
Existing
208
208
3.61
20.88
100
0.44
4.285
2- r cur.
Proposed
208
208
3.62
20.88
100
0.4
4.285
10- r cur.
Existing
357
357
4.54
39.25
100
0.64
4.285
10- r cur.
Proposed
357
357
4.55
39.19
100
0.58
4.285
1 00-r cur.
Existing
582
582
5.85
46,11
100
0.99
4285
100- r cur.
Pro osed
582
582
5.87
45.99
100
0.9
4.281
2- r cur.
Existing
208
208
3.23
17.5
100
0.34
4.281
2- r cur.
Proposed
208
208
323
17.5
100
0.31
4.281
10- r cur_
Existing
357
357
4.41
17.5
100
0.6
4.281
10- r cur_
Proposed
357
357
4.41
17.5
100
0.54
4,281
100- r cur.
Existing
582
582
6.04
17.5
100
1.08
4,281
1 00-r cur.1
Proposed
582
582
6.05
17.5
100
0.98
4,280 146th Avenue Bridge
4.280
2- r cur.
Existing
208
208
3.25
17.5
100
0.34
4,280
2- r cur.
Proposed
208
208
3.25
17.5
100
0.34
4.280
10- r cur.
Existing
357
357
4.45
17.5
100
0.61
4.280
10- r cur.
Proposed
357
357
4.45
17.5
100
0.61
4.280
100- r cur.
Existing
582
582
6.12
17.5
100
1.12
4.280
1100- r cur.1
Proposed
582
582
6.i2
17.5
100
1.12
4.276
2- r cur.
Existin
208
208
3.22
19.84
100
0.33
4.276
2- r cur.
Proposed
208
208
3.22
19.84
100
0.33
4.276
10- r cur.
Existing
357
357
4.26
21.89
100
0.56
4.276
10- r cur.
Proposed
357
357
4.26
21.89
100
0.56
4.276
100- r cur.
Existing
582
582
5.73
30.6
100
0.95
4,276
100- r cur.1
Proposed
582
582
5.73
30.6
100
0.95
4,180
2- r cur.
Existing
208
208
5.95
32.46
100
1.58
4.180
2- r cur.
Proposed
208
208
5.95
32.46
100
1.58
4.180
10- r cur.
Existing
357
357
5.68
47.7
100
1.34
4.180
10- r cur_
Proposed
357
357
5.68
47.7
100
1.34
4.180
100- r cur.
Existing
582
582
5.29
65.89
100
1.07
4.180
1100- r cur.1
Proposed 1
582
682
1 5.29
1 65.89
1 100
1 1.07
Memorandum to Troy Fields
September 11, 2008
Page 7
HEC-RAS OUTPUT TABLE
EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FROM RIVER MILE 4.735
DOWNSTREAM TO THE DOWNSTREAM PROJECT BOUNDARY
River Sta
Profile
Plan
Q Total
(cfs)
Q Channel
(cfs)
Vel Chnl
MIS)
Top Width
(ft)
Q Perc Chan
Shear Chan
(lblsq ft)
4.121
2- r cur.
Existing
208
208
3.8
20.61
100
0.49
4A21
2- r cur.
Proposed
208
208
3.8
20.61
100
0.49
4,121
10- r cur.
Existing
357 1
357
4.69
24.96
100
0.71
4.121
10- r cur.
Proposed
357
357
4.69
24.96
100
0.71
4.121
1 00-r cur.
Existing
582
567.64
5.1
62.7
97.53
0.76
4.121
100- r cur.
Proposed
582
567.64
5.1
62.7
97.53
0.76
4.119
2- r cur.
Existing
208
207.99
4.54
17.23
99.99
0.71
4.119
2-yr cur_
Proposed
208
207.99
4.54
17.23
99.99
0.71
4.119
10- r cur.
Existing
357
354.32
6.22
17.99
99.25
1.27
4.119
10- r cur.
Proposed
357
354.32
6.22
17.99
99.25
1.27
4.119
1 00-r cur.
Existing
582
571.31
7.93
18
98.16
1.96
4.119
1100- r cur.1
Proposed
582
571.31
7.93
18
98.16
1.96
4.118 1 143rd Avenue Bridge
4.118
2- r cur.
Existing
208
208
4.67
15
100
0.75
4.118
2- r cur.
Proposed
208
208
4.67
15
100
0.75
4.118
10- r cur_
Existing
357
355.34
6.59
17.99
99.53
1.44
4.118
10- r cur.
Proposed
357
355,34
6.59
17.99
99.53
1.44
4.118
1 00-r cur.
Existing582
577.13
9.69
17.99
99.16
3.04
4.118
100- r cur.
Proposed
582
577.13
9.69
17.99
99.16
3.04
4,116
4.116
2- r cur.
Proposed
208
208
6.95
20
100
1.94
4.116
10- r cur.
Existing
357
357
8.13
23.1
100
2.4
4.116
10- r cur.
Proposed
357
357
8.13
23.1
100
2.4
4.116
10 0-r our.
Existing_582
582
9.45
28.16
100
2.95
4.116
1 00-r cur.
Proposed
582
582
9.45
28.16
100
2.95
4.062
2- r cur.
Existing
208
208
4.74
30.05
100
0.91
4.062
2- r cur.
Proposed
208
208
4.74
30.05
100
0.91
4.062
10-yr cur.
Existin
357
357
525
36.04
100
1.03
4.062
10- r cur.
Proposed
357
357
5.25
36.04
100
1.03
4,062
1 00-r cur.
Existing
582
582
6.12
37.9
100
1.28
4.062
1100- r cur-1
Proposed
1 582
582
1 6,12L
37.9
1 100
1 1.28
3.873
2- r cur.
Existing
208
208
5.22
21.2
100
1.03
3,873
2- r cur.
Proposed
208
208
5.22
21.2
100
1.03
3.873
10- r cur.
Existing
357
357
5.81
30.19
100
1.23
3.873
10- r cur.
Proposed
357
357
5.81
30.19
100
1.23
3.873
100- r cur.
Existing
582
582
6.64
36.62
100
1.53
3.873
1100- rcur.
Proposed
582
582
6.64
1 36.62
100
1,53
Project Boundary
DRAFT
2"d Draft Conceptual Restoration Plan
May Creek Habitat Restoration Project P,'N013
04
Renton, Washington o
File No. 10791- 005-00 130 14 lr'`%
July 17, 2008 lascew `
Prepared for:
Mid -Puget Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group
7400 Sand Point Way NE
BLDG 30, RM 202
Seattle, Washington 98115
Attention: Troy Fields, Executive Director
Prepared by:
GeoEngineers, Inc.
8410 154`h Avenue NE
Redmond, Washington 98052
(425) 861-6000
John T. Monahan
Project Fisheries Scientist
Mary Ann Reinhart
Associate Fluvial Geomorphologist
JTM:MAR:ia
RED P:110110791005\WFinalsV U LY 2008 DR A FT R E: IO RT-USE TIIESE FILESA 079100500 May Creek.doC
Copyright(O 2008 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights res4rved_
Proprietary Notice: The contents of this documem arc proprietary to GeoEngineers, Inc. and are intended solely for use by our clients and their design
teams to evaluate GeoEngineers' capabilities and understanding of project requirements as they relate to performing the services proposed for a specific
project. Copies of this document or its contents may not be disclosed to any other parties without the written consent of GeoEngineers.
DRAFT
PROJECT 5: WETLAND ENHANCEMENWREED CANARYGRAss ABATEMENT
Project 5 would help improve water conveyance through a very low -gradient, reed canarygrass choked
reach of May Creek located below the 1481h Avenue SE bridge (Figure B-5). Project 5 would work
together with Project 4 in Reach 1. This project was identified as a Category F project during the
prioritization process.
Site Location
The proposed project site is located between May Creek RM 4.43 and 4.45 in SE`/4 of Section 34, T. 24
N, R. 5 1-., W_M., King County, Washington. The site is located near the confluence of May Creek and
Greene's Creek, on the right bank; just downstream from 1481h Avenue SE (Figure 13, Appendix A).
Site Description
The project proposes to enhance a degraded wetland located on the right bank of May Creek. It is
reported in the Conditions Report (King County 1995) that historic landuse in the area eliminated a
conifer and deciduous -based forested wetland previously existing at the site. The wetland remaining at
the site is predominantly reed canarygrass and willow with limited other shrubs and forbss (GeoEngincers
2007a). The section of May Creek flowing past the wetland is an undersized channel with ongoing loss
of conveyance capacity as the result of sediment deposition and encroachment of reed canarygrass in the
channel. This area no longer functions as a forested wetland, but does have some flood attenuation,
nutrient assimilation, and habitat value as a degraded wetland (Figure 6, Appendix A).
Project Description
This project would include removing reed canarygrass from the stream channel and surrounding area and
planting native wetland and riparian species to help restore a forested wetland along the right bank of
k May Creek (Figure B-5). The existing channel would not be modified at the site as part of this project.
This project would be designed to help assimilate flood water, assimilate nutrients, and provide
significantly improved riparian and wetland habitat. Fish passage will be improved by reducing the
amount of reed canarygrass encroaching on the stream channel_
Project Efficacy
A hydraulic model was used to evaluate the efficacy of Project 5, assuming a 1-foot deep swale
approximately 200 feet wide and 500 feet long along the longitudinal direction of the channel_ Such a
swale would result in an approximate 2.5 acre area. Flow through this area would be considered
ineffective until the overbank stage was exceeded. At the overbank flow point, there would be skimming
flow into the swale above the wetland stage.
The Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph method was utilized to account for storm runoff changes due to the
land use change. The runoff curve number was changed from 85 to 80 to account for the land use change_
This curve number adjustment was made assuming a hydrologic type C soil and converting the land use
from meadow/pasture to young second growth or brush forest land (King County 1992). It was
anticipated that such a land use change would reduce flood runoff from this 2.52-acre site by
approximately 54 percent for a 2-year, 24-hour precipitation event of 2 inches. The peak runoff rate
would be decreased from 0.26 cfs to 0.12 cfs. This would help attenuate downstream flood flows.
According to the HEC-RAS analysis, this project would also help to lower local flooding levels by
0.23 feet for the 150 cfs flow. Reach average channel velocity would decrease from 1.67 ft/s to 1.51 ft/s
for the 150 cfs flow rate within the reach due to the forest wetland detention of flood flows,
SE M4y ey Rd
Directioncfli Yo tr
Degraded wetland habitat
diueIWK indemize ch
• ; '•
SE May Atiep, M
Nk-
-:a Enhanced wet land hclter
148e SE
t
La,
Enhar"f d
Dlredia►,aflbw
rf.
DRAFT
Model results indicated that the project would have no effect on upstream flood levels. The project,
however, would have other benefits including the enhancement of 20,789 square feet of riparian habitat,
as well as enhancement of 25,123 square feet of wetland and 85,080 square feet of wetland buffer habitat.
Potential Challenges and Limitations
GeoEngineers was provided guidance that the reported hydraulic control near RM 4.3 (Action Plan 2001)
should not be disturbed_ Work in this area will need to be done in coordination with land managers and
owners_ Landowners must grant permission for these projects to be implemented. Over 1 acre of area
would be disturbed, requiring additional permitting and regulatory agency coordination steps.
Additional regulatory constraints may also he imposed on the proposed project due to the fact that much
of May Creek in the May Valley was historically forested wetland (Conditions Report, King County
1995) or contains other critical areas. A wetland delineation and critical areas assessment would need to
be completed to determine the extent and function of wetland and other habitat features at the site. Any
impacts to stream buffers, wetlands and wetland buffers would need to be mitigated if the project were
permitted and implemented.
Planning -Level Cost Estimates
Estimated Construction Costs: $69,000 (See Appendix C for details). Design, construction observation
and permitting costs are not included as these costs can vary significantly.
Permitting
A portion of the work will be completed below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), and will require
placing fill in a critical area. As a result, the following permits and approvals likely will be required:
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Section 404
• Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Hydraulic Project Approval
• Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) 401 Water Quality Certification
• King County Clearing and Grading Permit
• SEPA Checklist, with King County lead
• King County Critical Areas Review
• Compliance with the King County Shoreline Regulations
• Tribal and WDFW area biologist consultation
This project would likely disturb over 1 acre of ground. This would, therefore, create additional
permitting steps including ACOE Section 404 project -specific permitting and requirements under
Ecology's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), securing a Construction
Stormwater General Permit.
M )-PUGET SOUND
Board of Directors
P1-1 A„r Te
V"' PreS d l'
FiSHERIEs ENHANCEMENT GROUP
Venessa Dolbee
City of Renton
Department of Community &
Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
October 23, 2008
RE: Critical Area Exemption for Stonegate Reed Canary Grass Removal
Dear Venessa,
Mid Sound is submitting a request for Critical Areas Exemption to hand cut Reed Canary
grass from the banks of May Creel: on Stonegate Community property. Included within the
application is a narrative of the project, a report by GeoEngineers dated September 11,
2008, a planting plan and the entire May Creek Habitat Restoration Project Conceptual
Plan (on CD) for your review. If you have any question please feel free to give me a call.
Thank you,
Mattia Boscolo
Cell: 206.290.3706
Office: 206.529.9467
Poiut AV.1e, .-Suite 2022
�1:1u1(-' W.L
1'hoiw:(2(Y,1Laic ��—xHi),i'2f}-1)�(il{(ulx�aircq�usO
ImIv.nTi(kotIIJ(Ih'I, 11( e-mail: ndo("II 1l oundliSkiL°iirs.oi;