The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA02-080 CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL REPLACEMENT/LUA02-080 PARTIES OF RECORD Lf Dave & Karlene Johnson David Kwolek J. J. Jankauskas 1001 Shelton Ave. SE 1113 Shelton SE 5912—92nd Ave. SE Renton,WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Mercer Island, WA 98040 425-255-9518 425-430-1892 206-191-9399 7/23/02 Pat Tangora Bruce Bachen Kenneth F. Eaves RW Beck City of Seattle 1109 Shelton Ave. SE 1002 Fourth Avenue#2500 Water Quality Mgmt Renton, WA 98058 Seattle,WA 4700 710 Second Avenue, 10th flr 425-235-0744 Seattle,WA 98104 Marilyn Whitley Scott Dugan Estelle M. Law 969 Shelton Ave., SE 3316 SE 6th Street P.O. Box 44 Renton, WA 98058-2830 Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98057 425-226-0792 425-255-9469 Frank Urabeck 2409 SW 317th Street Federal Way,WA 98020-2202 MICROFILMED Last printed 10/22/02 4:58 PM i I 1 ,, SEE- . I DRAWING(S) ., _., .• . , 1. . ,, iY f Y . p t Y .. Y l Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® 113400001005 113400002003 113400003001 PHILLIPS DOROTHY G SPENCER BRUCE C+DIANA M SMITH MARILYN I 1101 SHELTON AVE SE 1013 SHELTON AVE SE 1009 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 113400004009 113400005006 113400006004 FLUTER JANICE JOHNSON DAVID L NIGRO BERT A 1005 SHELTON AV SE 1001 SHELTON AVE SE 995 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 113400007002 113400008000 113400010006 LARSON STEVE E WHITLEY LEE DELANEY HOWARD R JR+SHARON PO BOX 68267 969 SHELTON AVE SE 1018 SHELTON AVE SE SEATTLE WA 98168 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 it 113400011004 147140009605 212305900608 STANKER J J C/O JANKANSKAS TABOR LESLIE D CITY OF RENTON 5912 92ND AVE SE 11226 26TH PL SE 1055 S GRADY WAY MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 EVERETT WA 98205 RENTON WA 98055 212305904006 212305906902 212305907009 CITY OF SEATTLE CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON SPU/REAL PROP-WTR 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY 710 2ND AVE 10TH FLOOR RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98104 f 512690050004 668940003506 668940010501 PRELLWITZ DERREK LAW DONALD W+ESTELLE M EAVES KENNETH F 3705 SE 6TH ST P O BOX 44 1109 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98058 668940011004 KWOLEK DAVID W 1113 SHELTON AVE SE F RENTON WA 98058 E3AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® 0 © CITY OF RENTON am r .Ni. . , �`. _ '_ .P ..a Planning/Building/Public Works a� �s 6v r 1055 South Grady W Renton Washin ton 98055 H fC115'01 ��pp ! ; dLL PDMETEA (--;:)DRESS SERVICE REQUESTED \ 4 LC 1123a39 U.S. POSTAGE nA \J ( .\t , \ viv. - -----------___ _, iv, -0\6 Bruce Bachen \\(\\� City of Seattle VELOP(ylE�PLANNING 6° Water Quality Mgmt to ,Q•�+ OF RENTON 710 Second Avenue, 10 fir NOV 0 2002 Seattle, WA 98104 NOT DELIVERABLE ti 2OU? i RECEIVED AS ADDRESSED i o UNABLE TO FORWARD c' RETURN TO SENDER as Wd � rs s:�MV2. IliliilEiliilt„dil,+lelllIllltlltlnllll,l,lilfllil,liiill,l /� 11 NE 12TH ST !��` r NE P K '44 2�" i rQ 900 4slEorNE § o `�_ 900 NE 1OT1. Fe S22 Z Z Z. .%51 �0 z N 8TH ST z J toNf < < PA z V. NE ^, z �� SS _ z WL tt 6 o`' T � z w z NBTH ST w u6S< a c, // N {TH ST Z //��`^^..��' \. 5/ NE {TH ST N 3RD ST 1 V \77 _saD ST `/` O/�// NE Xi TSUNNYDAIf ti _ 1 O NOBD_E Hab ST ST �/� 9� - PARK s OE `FNcT y''1- SE 5TH ST E N I <as6TH SToG -lTH 3T < '�nQ� ST '�1) x is 0 Project Site m Z W < 4 O Z p � O' PUGET n T =e000 2000 LEGEND: VICINITY MAP 1111C111 ____ City Lim' ( IN FEET Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: 11-25-02 TO: City Clerk's Office FROM: Holly SUBJECT: Land Use File Close-Out Please complete the following information to facilitate project close-out and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project i LUA(File) Number: LUA-02-080, SME, ECF Cross References: N/A AKA's: N/A i Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira Acceptance Date: 6/28/02 Applicant: City of Renton Owner: City of Renton Surface Water Utility Contact: Gary M. Schimek PID#: 212305-9006 i 212305-9069 i 212305-9070 ERC Approval/Denial (circle one) & Date: N/A ERC Appeal Date: N/A 0 i i 0. Public Hearing Date: N/A Appeal Period Ends: N/A Date Appealed to HE & By Whom: N/A 0 HE Decision & Date: N/A i Date Appealed to Council & By Whom: N/A i Council Decision & Date: N/A Mylar Recording #: Project Description: The City of Renton's P/B/PW Department; Surface Water Utilities System section is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Shoreline Exemption Permit for the construction of a new side-channel on the Cedar River. The channel would provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. The project is intended to replace the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the US Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. 0 Location: NE '/a of Section T23N R3E S Sid, DS CP'tar RI rrx' N e (20 ER!vs 14 i 1 c Dr; Comments: •! 0 0 0 . e/,,,,,/, ///,,,,/,//////,/////„///////„/,///„/,//,/,//„//,//////./.././,/,../s/./..// /i/O/I///r7////7 Setup 4 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT November 22, 2002 EXEMPTION FILE NO.: LUA-02-080, ECF, SME PROJECT NAME: Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement APPLICANT: City of Renton; Surface Water Utility Division OWNER: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Gary Schimek, (425) 430-7205 Lesley Nishihira, (425) 430-7270 PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project. The project would construct a new side-channel on the Cedar River near the Royal Hills neighborhood. The channel would provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. The project is intended to replace the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the US Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. The project consists of the following construction elements: • The construction of an intake structure (consisting of concrete box culvert, trash rack, control valve, geogrids, and approximately 140 feet of pipe) at the upstream end of the channel to convey flow from the Cedar River. • The construction of an open-channel outlet approximately 1,200 feet downstream from the intake structure in order to allow flow to re-enter the Cedar River and adult/juvenile fish to migrate to or from the channel. • The excavation of approximately 6,000 cubic yards of floodplain sediments (i.e., gravel, sand and silts) and shaping for a distance of 1,000 feet within the existing drainage course in order to create the replacement channel. • The addition of large woody debris — approximately 5 to 10 clusters of three pieces of wood — to create rearing pools and to stabilize banks within the constructed channel. • The addition 600-900 cubic yards of gravel to create spawning habitat. • The construction of a 12-foot wide gravel-surfaced maintenance path adjacent to the west side of the channel for the length of the project. • The installation of native trees, shrubs and plants at two locations — along the new channel and between the Cedar River and the new channel within an existing disturbed area — in order to mitigate for vegetation disturbance and tree removal (approximately 50 to 100 cottonwood and alder trees) resulting from the construction of the channel and maintenance road. • The installation of a gate across the access road to deter illegal vehicular access. • The installation of educational signs to inform the public of salmon within the Cedar River basin as well as the impacts of illegal activities on the habitat area. • Project construction is anticipated to be completed between March through November of 2003 for work outside of the river and between June 15th through August 15'h of 2003 for in-river construction. Future maintenance work may be necessary for cleaning and/or repair of the channel, including the intake structure and outlet. sme.doc PROJECT LOCATION: East of the Royal Hills Neighborhood; west of the Maple Garden Neighborhood within City owned property/Within the floodplain of the Cedar River along the left bank at river mile 3.1 to 3.3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N/A SEC-TW N-R: 22-23N-5E WATER BODY/WETLAND: Cedar River An exemption from a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit is hereby granted on the proposed project described on the attached form for the following reason(s): X A public or private project, the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply: 1. The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as necessary for the improvement of the habitat or passage and { appropriately designed and sited to accomplish the intended purpose. 2. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of fish and Wildlife pursuant to chapter 75.20 RCW. P 3. The Development Services Division has determined that the project is consistent with this Master Program. The proposed development is consistent or inconsistent with (check one): CONSISTENT INCONSISTENT X Policies of the Shoreline Management Act. The guidelines of the Department of Ecology where no Master Program has been finally approved or adapted by the Department. X The Master Program. f42 Jennifer H n ng, Zoning Administrator Development Services Division cc: Applicant File Department of Ecology Attorney General sme.doc yI CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: November 20, 2002 To: Gary Schimek k From: Lesley Nishihira k- Environmental Review Committee Subject: Cedar River Spawning Channel LUA-02-080, ECF We just wanted to inform you that the appeal period has ended for the Cedar River Spawning Channel/LUA02-080, ECF Determination of Non-Significance— Mitigated (DNS-M). No appeals were filed. This decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7270. FNLMEMO�A NOME ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL REPLACEMENT LUA-02-080,SME,ECF The City of Renton is requesting Environmental(SEPA)Review for the Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project.The project would construct a new side-channel on the Cedar River near the Royal Hills neighborhood.The channel would provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat.The project is Intended to replace the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the US Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project,which was destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nlsqually earthquake.Location:East of the Royal Hills Neighborhood;west of the Maple Garden Neighborhood within City owned property/Within the Iloodplain of the Cedar River along the left bank at river mile 3.1 to 3.3. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM November 12,2002. Appeals must be flied in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,and 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 96055.Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.11B.Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained front the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. ., pr preigmiwill t ',, '.. /I i:i -RE Alm il 1111• RENTON itta T y Project Site VICINITY MAPJ','Gran.r t m,• Cedar Myer Spawning Channel Replacement Project TION PLEASE CON TACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT FURT HER . FOR FUR SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE TH IS NOTICE WITHOUT PROP ER AUTHOR IZATION I • Please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file Identification. I CERTIFICATION I, Kg1-- )yid 0wil J✓\ _, hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in .3 conspicuous places on or nearby the es ' ed pro erty on ()ma? rvi,c Val 'lI Ylh (%( (Le l • Signed: ATTEST: Subscribed a. worn ��before me,a Notary Public, in and for the Stat f Washington,resid,ing Y -, ,on the <=30 ti- day of o d �ra - - k 'w IiJ iMi'('l{ i.-U I_C MARILYN KAMCHEFF STATE OF WASHINGTGNJ MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 29, 2003 1 - CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 2 S day of Of • , 2002, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing 4filzrGlti /e� �IS T 45Lics (Signature of Sender) STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING &dye I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that p ,D°&-c C,J signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Ql4: ,32 I MARILYN KAMCHEFF ► Notary Pu c in and for the State ef Washington NOTARY PUBLIC Notary(Print) MARILYN KAMCHEFF STATE OF WASHINGTON My appointmentMXIAIIINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 COMMISSIONION EXPIRES ` JUNE 29,2003 Project Name: / Ql Project Number: 02 -600 , r L F, s01 NOTARY.DOC .1 - AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology Washington Dept. of Fish &Wildlife Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section Habitat Program Attn. SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard 39015— 172nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Mill Creek, WA 98012 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Mr. David Dietzman Attn: Ramin Pazooki 14235 Ambaum Blvd. SW— Front A Dept. of Natural Resources King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Burien, WA 98166 PO Box 47015 PO Box 330310 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers Ms. Shirley Marroquin Eric Swennson Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Real Estate Services PO Box C-3755 KC Wastewater Treatment Division Seattle Public Utilities Seattle, WA 98124 201 South Jackson St, MS KSC-NR-050 Suite 4900, Key Tower Attn: SEPA Reviewer Seattle, WA 98104-3855 700 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton,WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liason Manager City of Tukwila Metro Transit PO Box 90868 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 KSC-TR-0431 Bellevue,WA 98009-0868 Seattle,WA 98104-3856 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the following agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. Also note, do not mail David Dietzman any of the notices he gets his from the web. Only send him the ERC Determination paperwork. Last printed 10/22/02 3:57 PM A AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Barbara Alther,first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 600 S.Washington Avenue,Kent,Washington 98032 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE a daily newspaper published seven(7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal newspaper of RENTON,WASHINGTON Th general publication and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of e Envirssmen Reviewmittee has issued a Come a alDetermination publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a daily of Non-Significance for the following newspaper in Kent, King County,Washington. The South County Journal has been approved as a project under the authority of the legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. Renton Municipal Code. The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the South County Journal(and CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers during the below CHANNEL stated period. The annexed notice,a EUAronmentSME,ECF Environmental review to construct a new side channel on the Cedar Cedar River Spawning Channel River near the Rolling Hills neighborhood. Location: East of as published on: 10/28/02 Rolling Hills, west of Maple Garden neighborhood within City The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$66.75, charged to owned property. Acct. No. 8051067. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM November 12, The cost above includes a$6.00 fee for the printing of the affidavits. 2002.Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 Legal Number 10932 application fee with:Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,and 1055 South Grady 17.//d&i•Oi- Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to Legal Clerk, South CountyJournal the Examiner are governed by City of gRenton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained Subscribed and sworn before me on this7Vday of ,2002 from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-"v_ 6510. Published in in the South County `\��i �� Notary Public of the State of Washington i - _ NN\‘@,p L. Cq` �i �' residing in Renton Journal October 28,2002 10932 •��N, ..........tO •Y,o/9.0 -10 King County,Washington • • OTAgy �. _0— � pUBL � 1*9q o o : EofIIVAS- * '`‘ i..„,,..\ I tliCE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL REPLACEMENT LUA-02-080,SME,ECF The City of Renton is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project. The project would construct a new side-channel on the Cedar River near the Royal Hills neighborhood. The channel would provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. The • project is intended to replace the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the US Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project,which was destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. Location:East of the Royal Hills Neighborhood;west of the Maple Garden Neighborhood within City owned property/Within the floodplain of the Cedar River along the left bank at river mile 3.1 to 3.3. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM November 12, 2002. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,and 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. ., vigimwsementeffmnr r. ....: ;1 ,. :.g..., t M'1Y Jill d t 111 MOM V ilIMMIliipiPW i 1IIØfr \RENTONI I,;M op oti s— \-, ----- -414,,, , .1,74.,s•Cl '----'.`"-,-1, v,,,. i11111 i* Project Site ,_ 200°• LEGEND: VICINITY MAP MI ____city Limits (IN FEET) Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL LUA-02-080,SME,ECF Environmental review to construct a new side channel on the Cedar River near the Rolling Hills neighborhood. Location: East of Rolling Hills, west of Maple Garden neighborhood within City owned property. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM November 12, 2002. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, and 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Publication Date: October 28, 2002 Account No. 51067 dnspub Lesley Nishihira-Cedar River Spawning Ch,- Replacement Project Page 1 From: Ronald Straka To: Lesley Nishihira Date: 10/24/02 12:01PM oa• 00 Subject: Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project I have spoken with Leslie Betlach, Parks Director, regarding the Parks Department Advisory Comments on the SEPA ERC report. The resolution to those comments are listed below. Please include in the SEPA file this information regarding the four Advisory Notes to Applicant from the Parks Department that are listed in the ERC report. Parks Comment#1 -The Surface Water Utility has been and will continue to coordinate with the Parks Department to insure that the project and restoration work will be reasonably acceptable to the Parks Department. Parks Comment#2 -The Surface Water Utility will be responsible for the maintenance and operation of the Spawning Channel Replacement Project and will formalize this through a memorandum of understanding with the Parks Department. Parks Comment#3- Since this is a City project being constructed on City property and will be maintained by an entity in the City(Surface Water Utility), there is no need for an temporary or permanent easement from the Parks Department for the project. Parks Comment#4 -This comment is not applicable to the project. If you have any questions, please contact me. Ronald J. Straka, P.E. City of Renton Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor 1055 S. Grady Way-5th Floor Renton WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7248 Fax: 425-430-7241 rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us CC: Gary Schimek; Leslie Betlach ;II II' III CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM • Date: October 24, 2002 To: Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility Dept. From: Lesley Nishihira, Development Planning Subject: Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project No. LUA-02-080, SME, ECF This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on October 22, 2002, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS). The City of Renton ERC has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM November 12, 2002. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, and 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7270. dnsmemo ` CITY cJF RENTON Plannin g/Butldmg/PubllcWorks Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator October 24, 2002 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on October 22, 2002: DETERM INATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL REPLACEMENT LUA-02-080,SME,ECF The City of Renton is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project. The project would construct a new side-channel on the Cedar River near the Royal Hills neighborhood. The channel would provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. The project is intended to replace the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the US Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. Location: East of the Royal Hills Neighborhood; west of the Maple Garden Neighborhood within City owned property/Within the floodplain of the Cedar River along the left bank at river mile 3.1 to 3.3. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM November 12, 2002. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, and 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425)430-7270. For the Environmental Review Committee, /9-ZO Lesley Nishihir Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) US Army Corp. of Engineers Enclosure agencyletter\ 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 RENTON A H F A n /1 F T v c n r,n v n CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-02-080, SME, ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton; Surface Water Utility Division PROJECT NAME: CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project. The project would construct a new side-channel on the Cedar River near the Rolling Hills neighborhood. The channel would provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. The project is intended to replace the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the US Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: East of the Rolling Hills Neighborhood; west of the Maple Garden Neighborhood within City owned property/Within the floodplain of the Cedar River along the left bank at river mile 3.1 to 3.3. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved,the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM November 11, 2002. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, and 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: October 28, 2002 DATE OF DECISION: October 22, 2002 SIGNATURES: z-Vo-z Greg immer n, Ad nistr'ator DATE Department o P nni /Building/Public Works (6/1-00Q 'D__-- Jim epherd, minis ator DATE Com unity Services Department d '`.-2 '. ,---- ,. - , 0, Lee ee , ire Chief DATE r/ " Rent F' e Department dnssignature CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-02-080, SME, ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton; Surface Water Utility Division PROJECT NAME: CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project. The project would construct a new side-channel on the Cedar River near the Rolling Hills neighborhood. The channel would provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. The project is intended to replace the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the US Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: East of the Rolling Hills Neighborhood; west of the Maple Garden Neighborhood within City owned property/Within the floodplain of the Cedar River along the left bank at river mile 3.1 to 3.3. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM November 11, 2002. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, and 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: October 28, 2002 DATE OF DECISION: October 22, 2002 SIGNATURES: (:))\ t.° Gre Zimmer , Ad nis"trator DATE Department o P nni /Building/Public Works (6/)--VG Jim S epherd, minis ator DATE Community Services Department Lee e ‘, Fire Chief �a � — DATE Rent Fife Department dnssignature ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE OCTOBER 22, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA To: Gregc Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Jim Siepherd, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 Time: 9:00 AM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. PLEASE NOTE: THERE WILL BE NO ERC MEETING, THIS IS A CONSENT AGENDA Cedar River Spawning Channel (Nishihira) LUA-02-080,SME,ECF The City of Renton is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project. The project would construct a new side-channel on the Cedar River near the Rolling Hills neighborhood. The channel would provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. The project is intended to replace the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the US Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. Location: East of the Rolling Hills Neighborhood; west of the Maple Garden Neighborhood within City owned property. Springbrook Associates Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Cerise) LUA-01-162,R,CPA,ECF Springbrook Associates has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) from Center Institution (CI) to Residential Options (RO) for the 5.61-acre property located south of South 37th Street and west of the dead-end South 38th Street west of Talbot Road. Concurrent with this request is a Rezone (R) from Commercial Office (CO) to Residential-10 (R-10) for this same parcel of land. CO zoning allows for office and retirement residence type uses. R-10 zoning allows detached residential dwellings, combinations of attached and detached residential dwellings, or retirement residences. Location: South of South 37 Street, west of South 38t Street dead-end/Talbot Road, north of Valley Medical Center, and east of Panther Creek wetland. cc: J.Tanner,Mayor J.Covington,Chief Administrative Officer S.Carlson,EDNSP Administrator A Pietsch, EDNSP Director J.Gray, Fire Prevention N.Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director ® F.Kaufman,Hearing Examiner L. Rude, Fire Prevention ® J.Medzegian,Council S.Meyer,P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L.Warren,City Attorney STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE: October 22, 2002 Project Name: Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project Applicant: City of Renton; Surface Water Utility Division Contact: Gary Schimek File Number: LUA-02-080, ECF, SME Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira Project Description: The City of Renton is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project. The project would construct a new side- channel on the Cedar River near the Royal Hills neighborhood. The channel would provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. The project is intended to replace the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the US Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. (continued on page 2) Project Location: East of the Royal Hills Neighborhood; west of the Maple Garden Neighborhood within City owned property / Within the floodplain of the Cedar River along the left bank at river mile 3.1 to 3.3. Exist. Bldg. Area gsf N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf N/A Site Area Approx. 55,000 sf Total Building Area gsf N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). 0 = N 6M ST zA Y 1 If 'M sT 'AL _ _ "" s� OW T < Y _ i € Y N6TN ST v. 8 4 g �� N sM ST • / V NE 6M ST inq414]Ro ST 4 / ST �o INif //efr NE 900��j + /� ��y�°� RENTON No SN�� `� f r. �11 H i 4). SE SM ST 3 j N ' ¢ S6M ST o'' i .Ott �cS��T?AM s sc") 1 < On 191 Project N'A • i Site 1 i. w 1 a w PUGET ` erupt City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environm I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL ktt'LACEMENT PROJECT LUA-02-080,ECF, SME REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 22,2002 Page 2 of 4 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION(CONT.) The project consists of the following construction elements: • The construction of an intake structure (consisting of concrete box culvert, trash rack, control valve, geogrids, and approximately 140 feet of pipe) at the upstream end of the channel to convey flow from the Cedar River. • The construction of an open-channel outlet approximately 1,200 feet downstream from the intake structure in order to allow flow to re-enter the Cedar River and adult/juvenile fish to migrate to or from the channel. • The excavation of approximately 6,000 cubic yards of floodplain sediments (i.e., gravel, sand and silts) and shaping for a distance of 1,000 feet within the existing drainage course in order to create the replacement channel. • The addition of large woody debris — approximately 5 to 10 clusters of three pieces of wood — to create rearing pools and to stabilize banks within the constructed channel. • The addition 600-900 cubic yards of gravel to create spawning habitat. • The construction of a 12-foot wide gravel-surfaced maintenance path adjacent to the west side of the channel for the length of the project. • The installation of native trees, shrubs and plants at two locations—along the new channel and between the Cedar River and the new channel within an existing disturbed area — in order to mitigate for vegetation disturbance and tree removal (approximately 50 to 100 cottonwood and alder trees) resulting from the construction of the channel and maintenance road. • The installation of a gate across the access road to deter illegal vehicular access. • The installation of educational signs to inform the public of salmon within the Cedar River basin as well as the impacts of illegal activities on the habitat area. Project construction is anticipated to be completed between March through November of 2003 for work outside of the river and between June 15th through August 15`h of 2003 for in-river construction. Future maintenance work may be necessary for cleaning and/or repair of the channel, including the intake structure and outlet. Additional approvals from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Finding of No Significant Impacts and USACE 404(b)/Section 10 Equivalency Evaluation), U.S. Fish/Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (Section 7 Concurrence), Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Hydraulic Project Approval), Washington State Department of Ecology (401 Water Quality Certification), and the City of Seattle (Easement and/or Right-of-Way Use Permit). In addition to the Environmental (SEPA) Review conducted by the City of Renton, a Shoreline Exemption Certificate from the City's Shoreline Master Program will also be necessary. The exemption permit will likely be issued upon the completion of the required 2-week SEPA appeal period. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: XX DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. XX Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are recommended. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: The area of the subject site consists primarily of floodplain soils, including a mix of gravels, sands and silts from successive flooding events. The creation and shaping of the rearing/spawning channel will require the removal of ercrpt City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT LUA-02-080, ECF, SME REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 22,2002 Page 3 of 4 approximately 6,000 cubic yards of floodplain deposits, which will be transported off-site. In addition, approximately 60 cubic yards of river bank material and 150 cubic yards of wetland materials (see further discussion under Water) will be excavated and removed from the site in order to construct the inlet and outlet of the channel. Approximately 600 to 900 cubic yards of spawning gravel will be placed within the channel to create suitable spawning habitat. The project will also require the removal of 50 to 100 cottonwood and alder trees with diameters of 6-inches or greater that are located within the channel footprint. All felled trees are anticipated to be incorporated into the project as habitat features. In order to mitigate for the loss of these trees, the project will also plant native trees, plants and shrubs within disturbed areas along the channel as well as within an existing disturbed corridor between the Cedar River and the new channel. There are no adverse environmental impacts to earth anticipated from the proposed mitigation replacement project. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 2. Water Impacts: A wetland delineation and description prepared by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Environmental Resources Section dated June 5, 2002 was included with the submitted materials. Based on this assessment, there is a wetland situated along the south side of the riverbank in the vicinity of the proposed channel location. The wetland occupies a long, narrow spot and is approximately 300 square feet in size. The proposal includes the excavation of approximately 150 cubic yards of wetland material in order to construct the channel. Pursuant to the wetland criteria under the City's Critical Areas Regulations, the identified wetland area is exempt from regulations requiring mitigation (i.e., replacement and/or restoration). The wetland assessment concludes that outside of this wetland area, the remainder of the site appears to be well drained and the steep riverbank precludes any sort of wetland fringe associated with the shoreline. The project will utilize best management practices, such as silt fencing and other erosion control measures, to ensure no sediments enters the river during construction, and all cleared areas will be mulched, seeded and planted to prevent storm water runoff after construction. The project is limited to in-river construction between the dates of July 15 and August 15 in order to reduce impacts to salmonids. There are no adverse impacts to water quality anticipated from the proposed mitigation project. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 3. Fish and Wildlife Impacts: According to the Final Environmental Impact Study for the Cedar River 205 Flood Control Project prepared in August of 1997, there are at least 22 species of fish present in the Cedar River. In the vicinity of the project site there are sockeye salmon, chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead trout, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish, northern squawfish, peamouth chub, three-spine stickleback, largescale sucher, longnose dace, bork lamprey, Pacific lamprey, and several species of sculpin. Bull trout have not been observed in the vicinity of the proposed project, but may occur. The Cedar River adjacent to the proposed project is heavily utilized for spawning by adult sockeye, chinook and coho salmon. The existing natural side channels downstream of the Elliot levee are utilized for rearing by sockeye fry, chinook fry and juveniles, coho and steelhead smolts. Three species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act are likely to occur in the project area, including Bald Eagle, Puget Sound ESU chinook salmon, and Puget Sound/Western Washington ESU bull trout. In addition, coho salmon, a candidate species, are also located in the vicinity of the site. As a result of the US Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River 205 Flood Control Project, the lower Cedar River was dredged deeper than designed for and the resulting oversteepened channel grade caused destabilization and scour of gravel upstream of the project. This scour resulted the loss of an estimated 1,800 sockeye salmon redds which had been placed there during spawning in October of 1998. In order to compensate for adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem in the lower Cedar River, a groundwater channel was constructed in 2000. Subsequently, the channel was destroyed in the aftermath of the Nisqually earthquake in 2001. The current proposal is intended to replace the original mitigation project. A Technical Evaluation dated April of 2002 was prepared jointly by the City of Renton and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and submitted with the project application. The evaluation recommends one of two potential locations for the channel, with which the proposal is consistent. ercrpt City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report • CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL kcrLACEMENT PROJECT LUA-02-080, ECF, SME REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 22,2002 Page 4 of 4 Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental / Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Plan Review—Water 1. Project is located in the 590-pressure zone. 2. The site is located in Aquifer Protection Zone 2 and may be subject to additional requirements per City code. Constructed secondary containment may be required if more than 20 gallons of regulated hazardous materials will be present at the new facility (RMC 4-3-050H2d(i)). A fill source statement (RMC 4-4-060L4) is required if more than 100 cubic yards of fill material will be imported to the project site. Construction Activity Standards (RMC 4-4-03007) shall be followed if during construction, more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials will be stored on site or vehicles will be fueled on site. Surface Water Management Standards (RMC 4-6-030E2 and 3)--Biofilters, stormwater conveyance, and water quality ponds may require a groundwater protection liner. Impervious surfaces shall be provided for areas subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. This is not intended to be a complete list of the APA requirements nor does this information substitute for the full ordinance, it is only intended to guide the applicant to the City of Renton code book. Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer 1. A 24"sewer line crosses near the Northwest corner of the site. Plan Review—Storm Drainage 1. Standard BMP Erosion control and as specified by the HPA issued for the project. Plan Review—Transportation 1. On and offsite material haul routes will be required to be shown. A traffic control plan may be required to be submitted for review and approved prior to construction activity on the site. Plan Review—General 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. A construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 4. If any rockeries/retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height are to be constructed as part of this site, a separate building permit will be required. The following note shall be included on the civil: "A licensed engineer with geo technical expertise must be retained for proposed rockeries greater than four feet in height. The engineer must monitor rockery construction and verify in writing that the rockery was constructed in general accordance with ARC standards and with his/her supplemental recommendations, in a professional manner and of competent and suitable material. Written verification by the engineer must be provided to the City of Renton public works inspector prior to approval of an occupancy permit or plat approval for the project.A separate building permit will be required." Parks 1. Any restoration work required as part of construction impacts must be coordinated with and approved by the Parks Department. 2. Channel maintenance and operations are the responsibility of the Public Works Department and should be formalized between Parks and Public Works. 3. Access to the site across park property requires a temporary construction easement approved by the Parking Department. Any permanent easements will also require Parks Department approval. 4. Trees to be removed should be removed with a tree spade and relocated. In addition, any tree grate that is removed but not used at another location should be returned to the Parks Department. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM November 12,2002. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, and 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. ercrpt 2 A I I 'III II • US Army Corps A of Engineers Seattle District CEDAR RIVER MITIGATION ,. ........ i — PRO.E Atonal g RENTON, WASHINGTON ___ ' VITY MAP PERMIT DRAWINGS N.IME�. s ...... ... 0 - -... .. __9, DRAWING INDEX t• PILE NO. TITLE PLATE TITLE • i NO. NO. N0. �� 1 G-I COVER SNEET •4' � ��- O ' �/n 2 C-I SPAWNING CHANNEL r ; A% J C-2 SPAWNING CHANNEL �, y 4 C-3 TYPICAL CNAINEL SECTIONS D'-- �• � �� \0ti�'�\_A 0�, & 5 C-A ISLET ANT OUTLET DETAILS rs•.• I t Wp" R C-5 INLET HEADWALL AND wINGEALL DETAILS q I T , a �� / T C-6 LARGE MOODY DEBRIS PLACEMENT DETAILS �,,,(�,�} S 0 C-7 CHANNEL CROSSDETAILS l'.: 9 C-0 CHANNEL CROSS SECTIONS ��•�•: ID C-9 LANDSCAPING CROSS SECTIONS C T II L-1 LANDSCAPING PLAN y 12 L-7 LANDSCAPING APING PLAN l r�`� A A N�1{JQ 1 13 L-3 PLANT SCHEDULE PROJECT s _%�. .�I 41, ) . . .,i„,....6„ ,.,,,r? ..s ,.. • +L.r" c REO.CO)TO SOT OF FIA.L SITE LES.AIIMY ENGINEER DISTIIICT,SEATTIE F Y 0 2 `DEAF TIOP ENCANNEL fRATTIE. PIONEERS CEDAR MITIGATION CHANNEL COVER SFEET SHEET LIBRARY AND SITE LOCATION (�^� RENTOI WASHINGTON "',,•r, 0' �yy.�r• M=`.,'Z DATE AW TIME PLOTTED. 19-AN-2RR2 10.34 L �•6=.:_) D ..wn�.� ,u_ ~24MAY02 FI DESIGN PILE. J.\CflI AT, TOSCEOM WIVER\NSCI[GM.OGN �::. ..r.,...r...`J' 2 .'•••casAR ^. .ar I Of If -""......"1""n f.- �'\\\•\3`,,s0 BURIED�U�1(R\ k � • STAGING AREA REVETMENT \\ \S AS SEE DETAILS. .........•:,....,... CHANNEL \ ACCESS \ �A MOUTH NOTES: ROAD I4F TAkVO \\OFT WIDE •i F. i-- /1\\ I. CHANNEL SLOPES ARE VARIABLE AT 1.5N 1 \�f\lfS TO I I THROUGH OUT CHANNEL. THIS 1IIMMICS \ \ • ;.•• \\\\\ A MORE NATURAL CHANNEL SYSTEM AND \ \_ ,'�, ;i i \ \ W PROVIDES A MORE DYNAMIC SYSTEM'AND „ _L. ENVIRONMENT. \ ) �- `��_J 2. LARGE WOODY DEBRIS IS PLACED ON THE ` S./..**, '.'.a '` \ \ OUTSIDE OF ALL./MOST CHANNEL BENDS.AND • '� T le W \\.! e? v t // ♦\ SEE DETAILS. //// \\ I I 1 \\\\\ .1,.• i.,",, /// 3. WOODY DEBRIS TO DE PART OF A NATURALY `, •...... `\ / / FORMED POOL SYSTEM. SOME POOL // / \ \\I --.----2` 4 t;.?,`\;~,` \- p/ /, \ CONSTRUCTION WILL BE DONE DURING / / \�\,\ \\",:.:T' D�BRIs // \ CONSTRUCTION TO GET PROCESS STARTED. ///� \ / 1�.�jti �,� < \\ •. CNANNL LAYOUT SHOWN MAY CHANGE IN FIELD / 4.../ / Li //''-` , b* • \ \ \ - TO PROTECT MORE TREES. CONSTRUCTION RILL BE \ \ DONE 70 CAUSE AS LITTLE IMPACT AS POSSIBLE TO / / �/ /�`' :��`ir \• ....• \ EXISTING TREES. ///� // \\-- / / - r'`5.41\ \\ \ '/ \\ S. ROAD SHALL.BE BUILT ON EDGE OF EXCAVATION OF CHANNEL / / /:, : /// / / A\ TC25HERS/,'/ / `/ \ ,,,AV 'T +,• 1\ W�TL,W ARER OF THE EXCAVATION LIMITS LIMITS. //////r 1\ lj\ \,I / AVAbuN LUNTS \ "�"��1 4.1.1 v ` BEEN 02.B0 // / )/ z \ICE / / �,'•\�\�`' �► T \ ///// J,//I FROM RI 1 ! ( \ •\\.�',��. \ / // I\ k,,., ) , \ ) \ \ \ • ICF'. E1{CAYAT1011 1/IMIiS •a / / \ �\ -c- ice) I .;: lit / \..// alk \\ �L� --�/ \\ l'•� `\: \ 1�\ NTS1 s/ \. \\ 1a. 1\ \ \ �� \\ \ \ \ I "Nt"'stile \ \� `\\ \_ ,c\ � \ li �, \\ \�~�\ �� \•v\\ /�I� \\ t III 14DUIC(D TO Sai OF ML SIZE ` t \ \ J \ / U ,` \II u.c ARMY ENGTEER DESTRUCT,SEATTIE � � t.\� �,`\ `�/ /'./' ' _e....:i \II coos of I3+c HEERs \ t \\\ \N-s\\\\\ ^ i 0 \''....."... `...--• ---N\ k '3'.: •V:. ‘ 0.1\ ` CEDAR RIVER ��\\�.\-\ \\J\�!`\ \ \.' . \y\ It NAWNNG CHANNEL '(��.��..q...... RENT ON RASHINGTON +��•�••5••••>72yw.....r27., �� DATE NO TINE PLOTTED. 14AM•2M2 14N { -�- •..w..- 'Ci'3ni.•F•�•.w.Z� .C... RSION Pitt. aKWamormos W TIVERAMOLTA.OIw D •••,•,s.. rum ~21YAY02 C-1 I •^CAESAA R ..'2 OF IO 1 I I . A I 3 T 2 1 - - - ` '� ' \\\` Ill I \\ \' \\ 1 \ I \\I'1 \\ \ \ 1 - MATCH LINE TO CSOA \�\\\\\\\;1\11II11 II I \ \\0\\`\\\\\ 11 lli�llsT NOTES. ��N.\\\ \\ j111 it 1,_ )‘‘‘ \I\ N. \ \\l�111IIII ccEss�Wo•o \ \\ I 111\ I. CHANNEL SLOPES ARE VARIABLE AT I.s1I \ TO NI THROUGH WT CHANEL. THIS HINNIES \ \ \` \\1111111111f1,1 �E\T•IDE ` \ 11 111I A MORE NATURAL CHANNEL SYSTEM AND PROVIDES A MORE DYNAMIC SYSTEM AND \�\\\\'\\\1 11,1111I '•' XCAVATION \\ I 0'0% q .I9 ENVIRON4Fl/T. \ \ I I I I IIIIII \ \ IIII 2. LARGE WOODY DEBRIS IS PLACED ON THE \ \\I111 II III I OMITS \ / OUTSIDE OF ALL/MOST CHANNEL BENDS.AND A \\I IIII IIIIIIIIIIIII 1 \I \ �I WILL BE LOCATED AND VERIFIED IN FIELD. \\II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/ \ \ \I \ ��.. \ /1I LARGE WOODY DEBRIS TO BE PLACED AND I [USE AS MINIMAL DISTURBANCE AS POSSIBLE. IIIIIIIIIIIII \ �1�a LARGE WOODY\ SEE DETAILS. \ \ HORED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO \I IIIII I II II\ \ \\ I •��.4..'11„ � DEBRIS WJvoW \ I IIII linufII �'�':� \ sEE DEuas1 4 -I• \II Iq IIIIIIIIIIII1IIW 1 \ _, \� `, \ \ I I 3. WOODY DEBRIS TO BE PART OF A NATU ALT II\1\111 1\1\1111 \ \ �\ FORMED POOL SYSTEM. SOME POOL \\\\ 1 '`—`/\ \ R \`+\\. I THICK LAYER OF GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE DONE DURING \i \ _ \ .h `l _ I FOR DEPOSITION THROUGH CONSTRUCTION TO GET PROCESS STARTED. \\�\\\\\�L. ;' (1-h\\\\\ -`\ �\\I .', )^�/1 fNAwFI .- CH N EL LAYOUT SHOWN MAY CHANGE IN FIELD a •T' , 70 PROTECT MORE TREES. CONSTRUCTION WILL BE \ \\\\ \ !',,. \\\\ \ \\T \V\I)' ' OVERFLOW - DOME TO CAUSE AS LITTLE IMPACT AS POSSIBLE TO — \\\\\\\ \`'' \(\\\\ ,,\ A\\I ,R 1 \\ 51�1.I. SEE DETAIL EXISTING TREES. —— id r 5. ROAD SHALL'BE BUILT ON EDGE OF EXCAVATION OF CHANNEL \ \ \\\\ . l i _3_— '11►,'� I AND IN AS SNONN O1 DMWINGS. THIS IS DESIGNED TO MAKE \ \ \\\ 1 / \. 11� P THE FOOTPRINT AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE t \\ \ 11I1�11441 I I I I 1 / o\ {� 1� /'/ .. I " ?J B. SILT FENCE LOCATION nu BE DESIGNATED BY \\\ \ I��//]'��//III I I 11/ 4�I I7•I, PERSONNEL IN FIELD. 7. PROJECT LIMITS WILL BE 25'ON EITHER SIDE \ \ I /1/I I/jgfj I I I I I OF THE EXCAVATION LIMITS. \\\II1lllljlllu�Il14I 11 1 �'^ 4 / III 3 \ \/1 I441111j1f1 jllll 1 I I I \-� /� /''j 1 dill \\11.1111111/j1111111111/ / 1 \i :,:.7'°G•/ i\11 I Ife1 \/'',4111I/1�I111111111// \ A•,` \ i \1 11 B %II1111j11II)1 III Ii\ ~ 111\ 1\\\I Ill s IIiII ill 1111I111ir\ ; :„t z% •.€. 1 \ \\ 1 1 g f ll iII,II.I\\1111111II I �11 — '•s,: . -...." \\ ST1 EdASP CONTROL `\\"V\\ \AIIIlJ \� OoOo \ li\ \II \\4\\\\\\\ I / I \ II G \\\\\\� \\,* I I I✓ I I\ OVER INSTALLED \\\\\\\\ \ I INLET STRUCTURE i `\`\p\\\\\ \ I - \,\111I1 — SHORELINE '`�1� \1I\\\�\\ \\ l) \ \IEEE .I� E. ZONE 200FT .\\\\\\\\\\\ \ . / I \I I FROM RIVER \\\\\\\\`\\\\\ I O \ EXCAVATION EDGE \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ "`S \ 1 LIMITS \\\\\\\\�1 \ II-I\\,1 \\\\\\\ \ , \ 11I . I \\\\\\\\ 1\ \ / \\1\\\ \\ I \ I V�I �s `\ ACESS \ l\: C ROD I 11111.1011 LOCATION FOR REDIXID TO SOX CR ROLL SIZE I IIIIIIIIIII IN.ET STRUCTURE U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT.SEATTLE \— / IIIII AT HEADWATERS CORPS OF ENGINEERS �PI 4AT1IE.WAWNDTON Ill 1\I\ CEDAR RIVER I1i111111\ SPAWRWO CHANNEL Il 0 1111 IIIIIWV 9T . RE NTON WASHINGTON le—$5=:- Dvm ...um'. .._ N. 02MAY02 C-2:G,L ,."^:9.'i."a'T.'4`°�"7 .w..'":'" OSTE AND TIE PLOTTED. Iv-uN-zeaz 10,42 DESIGN FILE. J.\C��MS\MpIO\CEOM RIVER\NSCNCSWC.DON naC.ES.R 6 'w`3 OF 13 4 1 3 I 2 I 6 0 CCFOLLOT CC ApNDp EXCAVATED SLOPE E o Ip E C $ C 8 7E EEN EXPI A E TIFON (FOR EXC. DEPTH g WITRHTREOLCIAgTLOEE T SICAL IQN CSE T IoOON AND TYC CFpAISNGECTIONE(( OR TOTAL ESHORT PTH EACH TT BANK STABILITY IN CRITICAL AREAS> REACH E.AND IN OM MAINTENA RUCT NCE ROAD. i i . 2 0 1 1 1 / i ___ ....--—.. -\14171'• . ks $ WITHTLLOGDTgO �TYPIICApLASECTION Ig •� BANK STABfLI Y RNSCRINTI OALTRAREAS)D RIM OR RIFLE SECTION ED M N SAME .EDUCED TO Sot OF FULL SIZE US.ARMY FNGdER DISTRICT,BATTLE CMS OF ENGINEERS SLATI L,WASKTON TYPICAL CHANNEL SECTIONS iYa :..:J.'.�'4 Y....74= DATE ATO T1NE PLOTTED. 1.-JUN-?Bn 11•16 •• ••'•••__ ... •• 19 JUKE 02 C-3 ..w.+....rwi.•Si,ri2Z.. '`., LESION PILE. .1.SC..NSWTU ',MCP`,I COPY 121 OF NSCNCSOO.CON 4 j. 3 2 ...00r 2P •N'4 of 13 I j T 2 �.. // \ 1 I /. I 3 1 li / \ 48 IN DIAM.CUP CULVERT I I. /' / I/ I I II I I I / I , / 1 I I 11 1 1 1 1/ / I I 1 1, 1 \ 1 I I I I I I 11 I\ •\ I I I I 1 1 I I it 36 IN%76 IN PRECAST I 1 1 1 1 I I I II CLASS IV RIPRAP BLANKET o� BOX CULVERT 1 1 I 1 1 I I. I II EXISTING GROUND LWD TO PROVIDE H4B1T1T,DISSIPATE ENERGY OF 2.5 FT THICK.FOR 20 FT DOWNSTREAM • \ I I 1 I 1 1 I II CULVERT OUTLET JET AND OVERTOPPING FLOWS OF CULVERT OUTLET.BOTH SIDES 1 - \\ SLUICE GATE 1 1 1 1 1 I !1 _ \ \ CONTROL ISHOWII 1 , 1 1 I CAST-IN-PLACE _ �1 • • WITH MANHOLE 1 I 1 1 1 I 11r al AND APRON 1 •��,'A•`.I,,•�• 'prow- ',� ll•i S COVER REMOVEDI I 1 1 I I I , • 5 •ILA/i\'Ir�` II I IYI y1-_ 1 11 -I 1,•��/` ;,/��0 �4T� �;•I_.' • \ \ ♦ I I 11 1 I 1 �� W� ;, �'TR4SH RACK. \\ I I I , , , I `• •):�,�.� SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET I I II I I I 1 , \ 0 •. , . , B MI-MO -. 1 I I I 'i.y'c^...�. c..IS�� • I I ' 1 1 1 I //�it //Al\� I I CONSTRUCTED 2 FT DEEP,15 FT • 1 1 1 1 l 1 INVERT EL.55.50 48 IN DIAM,CMP CULVERT PRECAST 96 IN DIAM.CONCRETE. 10 T I I I 1 CD LONG SCOUR HOLE. BACKFILL WITH GRAVEL \\ WITH SUMP,REDUCING SECTION,IASJD I 1 1 NINOROW PILE AND LARGE WOODY DEBRIS \ LOCKING MANHOLE COVER I \ I I \\ I ' 11 I I \ I I I, CULVERT OUTLET WORKS \ 1 I I \ \ I I \ I I I \ \ , I , YQ NO SCALE Q INLET CONTROL STRUCTURE-PLAN F NO SCALE -48 IN DIAM.CMP CULVERT 2. -; 4,,,' 9 __ -- _ -�E%ISTING GROUND \ TR%ZSN D14T STEEL ROD - 4 FT 17.2 FT WHEN r\ WELDED TO FRAME - _ PIPE CUT TO IOU-YR CEI (111111) 'b' AB IN DIAM.REDUCING �\ SLUICE GATE HAND WHEEL SECTION WITH LOCKING -MOUNTING BRACKET BOLTED MANHOLE \ BAR SPACING VENT. MO CULVERT 96 IN DIpM.REDUCING \ EE '=�:=:_ TOP SLAB.12 IN THICK F \ ------.--.-v 7 W �...8 r N v r.�- R 96 IN DIAN.X 7 FT HIGH \ PRECAST HEADWALL ` HORIZ.BAR SPACING B IN. WATERMAN i MANHOLE INC.EL 56.00 SLUICE GATEEOR S 3000 \_- '- CAST-IN-PLACE EQUIVALENT \ IvINDYIALL APRON CULVERT OUTLET TRASH RACK DETAIL HI IN01Au.x I Fr /AVO OW/ FRONT VIEW-NO SCALE ii HIGH SUMP 36 IN%76 IN PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT, at \....Z 25.5 FT TOTAL SECTIONAL LENGTH I \ I l `_ _ CONSTRUCTION NOTES: \\,... 96w` 0.6X GRADE LI I.ALL SHARP PROTRUSIONS EXPOSED TO 12 IN DIAM.845E SLAB, FLOWING WATER SHALL BE BEHOVED - 2 IN TIRO, -�_ THRUST BLOCK 2.BED ALL STRUCTURES WITH GRAVEL PER USAGE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS C 3.ALL EDGES HAVE yIN CHAMFER OR TOOLED EDGES. 4.EXPOSED EARTH WILL BE REVEGETATED WITH CONSERVED NATIVE MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN RETIRED TO 50i OF FIA1 SIZE 5.PRECAST SECTIONS SHORN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES.USE U.R ARMY ENGINEER DITTRICT,SEATTLE INLET CONTROL STRUCTURE-PROFILE MANUFACTURER'S SHOP DRAWINGS FOR INSTALLATION CORES OF ENGINEERS NAME,WAWOVOTON NO SCALE VAULT,CULVERT,AND OUTLET DETAILS I REENTON WASHINGTON vs irPl.".....,..EFX...1.,T4r.r.:.t..."C'.4=7:47..4.°r...",,Tw,.Yi'"w.��"`wyr . DARE AM TILE PLOTTED, 19-.R1,I-2002 IW.5U l $75�....) w...tis ,u�1 ~� �.. 7 ~ DE51 GN FILE, J,\CWSWSWrpp\,4Cw000D.0W 0 COAM a 21YAT02 C-4 2 �,Aofu ,. ' 1 J z — OUTSIDE EDGE Of PRE-CAST BOx CULVERT Al CAST-IN-PLACE WINGNALL HEADNALL SEAT / r— -1 PRECAST CONCRETE BOX A CULVERT AND HEADWALL CAST-IN-PLACE w INGNALL R FT 10 IN FOOTING Fit NGwAL ND LSLA APRON 1141LI. L I I. /�� 111A��► EL.SA.O FT 8 IN �•••-••••.` ILO FT I A I -- HEADWALL WINGWALL, HEADWALL ELEVATION U AND TRASH RACK PLAN 3 NO SCALE NO SCALE EGL —+ 2 IN ANGLE IRON 6 IN B TRASH RACK — /— PAIIIIIIIIIik CAR 55-DIAAETER STEEL ��i.—, CONSTRUCTION NOTES: I.ALL SHARP PROTRUSIONS EXPOSED TO •,......,• FLOWING HATER SHALL BE REMOVED vERTICAL BAR 36- 2.BED ALL STRUCTURES WITH GRAVEL ^ SPACING 1.61•C{ PER USACE STANDAgp SPECIFIUTIONS ,■■��.■■■, __— 3.ALL EDGES HAVE SIN CHAMFER OR TOOLED EDGES. A.EXPOSED EARTH WILL BE REVEGETATED wall CONSERVED NATIVE MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE SHONN , 30 rwilaii 9 S.PRECAST SECTIONS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES.USE w MANUFACTURER'S SHOP DRAWINGS FOR NOgIZ0NTIAL BAR SPICING IY C-C INSTALLATION 054.0 El. APRON INLET TRASH RACK DETAIL NO SCALE a SECTION A-A NO SCALE c MIXED TO 50t DF PILL SITE U.S.ARMY ENGINEER OBURICT•SEATTU CARPS OF ENGINEERS $ATTIE.WANHOTCN INLET IEADWAR AND WRIGWALL DUALS •":'T.- .� ...: 'w ....�x•.O rw I( 1 R`N70N..�..r�� ,..� ..u.WASHINGTON^ G. ."=" wMti w DNTE MD T11E PLOTTED, 19-J1M-2002 IB•53 l g3�:_J p 2AMAT02 C•S 0E51 OG FILE, JrLCOSXS,AYCNOSN5CKC0D.0CN 2 ...cAESAR >a.6 a IJ I 3 I BANK TREATMENT VARIES,SEE TYP. DETAILS A 1.5,1 DESIGN TOP STREAMBE H9 ELEV. -- DESIGN INVERT ELEV. SPAWNING GRAVEL.O-3'DEPTH -4 I5 BAMIFULL F- I IfI_15'-20' 1 LENGTH OF LOG EQUALS POOL LENGTH POOL SECTION TYP. x YTPDOL LENGTH /..../- iL- _1 ONM e 1•-I.5'OLL TYP. SECTION A-A : � -J 3 UC.TITLE III B C eitillit 1 l _I /14 POOL FORMING LWD CLUSTER 611 7.2 LWD TYP. RUN, RIFFLE & POOL UC.TITLE REMOVE CROWN, OTHER BRANCHES REMOVE CROWN, TO REMAIN OTHER BRANCHES amyr I.5'-3'DIA TO REMAIN C ROOTBA 4 DIA.MIN. VAT UPSTREAM ENO AEWCED To SOW OF FLLL SRE U.E.ARMY ENGIEER INSULT,SEAM!CTION A-A SECTION B-B SECTION C-C CORPS OF ENGINEERS UC.TITLE UC.TITLE UTITLE CEDAR MITIGATION CHANNEL LARGE WOODY DEBRIS PLACEIENT DETAILS I RENTON `WASHINGTON u~�`� DATE A ~ 110 TIME PLOTlEO• IS-AN-3D0E D.S� 1SB�-C_1 J D I� ~34WYGQ C-I o iG• � EIIO\CEDol1 RIVER GCKOK.WI 4 �'�r r 3 lµ��_•�~� �• OESIGM FILE. J.\CFLPISVIv 11 •�caw 'r'7 Oi 13 4 i 3 I 2 I FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL 2X2XI4GA WIRE FABRIC USE STAPLES OR WIRE OR EOUIVALENT RINGS TO ATTACH FABRIC _ - ,:a' _ TO WIRE 0 _. III .wel ' , • ,:�,: HYDROSEED AREAS ' .:::. ...i.T I!I LARGE WOODY DEBRIS I' .0• %�1� WILLOW N �I I� WILLOW r N : L ,, STAKES STAKES )1" 6'MAX 44 TYP. CHANNEL 2X4 WOOD POSTS,STANDARD OR .1/41 Y NOT TO SCALE EOUAL ALTERNATE. STEEL FENCE - POSTS jig A SILT FENCE !- AVGERAGE NO SCALE WATER .:.. .: j.: 3.1 LAVEL .�•' FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL WILLOW `�E/ F i A STAKES -_ iio 4 2X2XI/GA WIRE FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT LA E WOODY CHANNEL BOTTOM LARGE WOODY DEBRIS LAY FABRIC ON THE SURFACE DEBRIS ON UPHILL AND USE STREAM GRAVEL ON BOTH rocs OF FENCE. p, �HA[(yEORINi CLASS III RIP RAP IY MIN BAZK ARMG 3' THICK PERP TO ---r NOT TO SCALE SLOPE AT 2:1 SLOPE B 2X4 WOOD POST 1 ALT. STEEL FENCE POST I . 3 y DETAIL nq —�{ 3' CHANNEL NO SCALE \ ��"""""" CHANNEL EDGE I ��B TOM B I R I z I I 12' WIDE/2' DEEP QUARRY i _ �✓/� SPALL ROAD WITH OF EDGE OF BANK/ STREAM BED GRAVELS / BANK ARMORING TYP. NOT TO SCALE t / EDGE OF BANK S ' ' NOTE: E '' SEE PLAN FOR SCALED DRAWING R OF STREAM CROSSING REGXED TO SOX a FULL SIZE U.S.ARMY ENGNEER DISTINCT,SEATTLE CORPS Of ENGNEERS WASNNOTOIE DETAIL RIVER CROSSING (IF REQUIRED) "mG MITIGATION CEDAR RIVER CHANNEL NOT TO SCALE CHANNEL DETAILS _ RENTON WASHINGTON iitFLIT.7::"....1.-:..."":-ri,:wir:- ...=. t.'9:.w DATE ANU TINE PLOTTEO• ��...._i w..a'f:',�,.� ."�..."..r19-.AM 2002 11.0) 8'- D 2AYAT02 C-7 A7 DESIGN FILE. J.\C.\NS\N�Pp\CCWR RIVERVgCN[CBA.DG.. 64..4ESN1 .' "S OF 13 ♦ ♦ Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Lesley Nlshihire,Senior Planner.Development Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on duly 30.2002.II you have questions about ♦�FN�Q Otis or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact the Project Manager. proposal,Ayone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on NOTICE OF APPLICATION this protect. AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- CONTACT PERSON: LESLEY NISHIHIRA(425)430-7270 SIGNIFICANCE(DNS) PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE: July 19,2002 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-02.O8e,ECF,SME i Im © °P „ APPLICATION NAME: CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL REPLACEMENT I lt• 1, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton's P/B/PW Department;Surface Water Utilities System section ......is requesting Environmental(SEPA)Review and a Shoreline Exemption Permit for the construction of a new side-channel priAilvir onthe Cedar River. The channel would provide ott-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. The project is intended to replace the 5 Flood loss of A du tion groundwater channel constructed as pan hf tatt US Army Corp 0 Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction ProlnL which was destroyed In the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqualy OSA earthquake. PROJECT LOCATION: South Side of Ceder River,North of Rolling Hills i ��• OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON•SIGNIFICANCE(DNS):As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined ••eee�ji �� that RCW 43.21C.110,significant11 a City of Renton isrus using the yOptional DNS process to result from the r to g'ivesed rno ice that afDNS is likelyore,as loabeuissued e j � + Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are Integrated Into a single comment period.There will be no .� Cr�]I� comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance(DNS).A 14-day appeal �1;�'��/"® period will follow the Issuance of the DNS. �%' RE NTO Ne June 29,2002 I�1�� Yh �' PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: 0.1010 41 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: 01 16,20Sh If s�� Permils/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Shoreline Exemption Permit from the City il1v', of Renton Shoreline Master Program v\ Ill e, \� Other Permits which may be required: Approvals loom US Army Corp a Engineers,US Fish and Wildlife S j ��.tl Service,Washington State Department of Ecology,Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife,City of Seattle for right-of-way Use Project Location where application may .Site Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Developmnt Services Department, be reviewed. 1055 South Grady Way.Renton,W A 9a055 It � . . PUBLIC HEARING: N/A CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: VICINITY MAP �'LEGENO: Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Rural(RR)on the Citys --C+ty Limit. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Resource Conservation(RC)on the a IN rtF r, City's Zoning Map.The proposed mitigation project is consistent with both of Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project these land use designations. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: N/A DeveUsed Forpmanl Project Mitigation: sIf you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete Used project Mltigetion: The ks Slat will s,esnd other to the Ciy SEPAe end regulations do s as appropriate.Works Standards,and applicable codes and repo a this form and return to:City of Renton,Development Planning,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. cts Proposed Mitigation Measures: additiproposed al m tigationation abo a andlt Is not beyond ex st ng code provy to result in es ons.equlring File No./Name:LUA-02-080,SME,ECF/CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL REPLACEMENT eNAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: d NOTICE OF APPLICATION NOTICE OF APPLICATION MARILYN I .AMCHEFF NOTARY PUBLIC :� STATE OF WASHINGTON CERTIFICATION COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 29, 2003 I, E , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me ip j onspicuo s places on or nearby the described property on �Y I • Signed: AC,1120- (40---y. ATTEST: Subscribe _swor�n before_ me,a Notary Public, in and for the S e of Washington residing in s4t-v� ,on the 22- day of Q e--7-Gc-ate ZDUZ MARILYN KAMCHEFF MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 Lesley Nishihira - Re: ERC Meeting Date 111 Page 11 LV P\ O - O 'O From: Lesley Nishihira To: Gary Schimek Subject: Re: ERC Meeting Date Gary, That would be fine...1'II take the item off of the ERC agenda for now. At this point I will assume that a hard copy of this email correspondence will be adequate for documentation in the land use file. I will let you know if I need something more formal to put the project "on hold." Please be advised that if the project changes substantially, we may have to re-notice the project and initiate another 2-week comment period. However, this would only be necessary if there were major alterations to the project that would drastically change the scope of work and/or impacts from the project- which is probably not likely to happen based on DOE's suggested revisions. In either case, we will need at least a week to review the revised plans, if any, and prepare a staff report before taking it to the ERC. Keep me posted and let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Thanks! >>> Gary Schimek 08/01/02 11:14AM >>> Lesley- Here is what I would like to do. 1. Place the project"on hold"for about 1 month or so. 2. During this time, we will meet with all resource agencies that have involved in this project to address and resolve issues related to the recent DOE comment letter. 3. Upon reaching a "group" resolution with DOE, we can move forward with the ERC meeting. Let me know if this works. I am hoping to resolve the DOE issues by the end of August. >>> Lesley Nishihira 07/31/02 04:14PM >>> As long as we have documentation in the file with your request to put the project "on hold", we can hold it as long as you need to. The state mandated 120-day clock for land use review stops once a project is placed "on hold." So the only deadline we would be up against would be any that you may have for a construction window. >>>Gary Schimek 07/31/02 03:21 PM >>> Lesley- Not that I want to do this, but how long can we postpone the ERC meeting if we have trouble working issues out with DOE? >>> Lesley Nishihira 07/31/02 03:13PM >>> Gary, Not a problem. I went ahead and moved it to the 8/13 ERC meeting date. If more time is necessary, let me know as soon as possible. Good luck and be sure to provide me with revised plans, etc. if things change. Thanks! Lesley >>> Gary Schimek 07/31/02 02:21 PM >>> Hi Lesley- In light of the comments submitted by DOE on the spawning channel project, I would like to postpone the Lesley IGishihira- Re: ERC Meeting Date ID Page 2 ERC meeting by at least one week if possible. Let me know if this is something we can do and if you approve. I would like to meet with DOE and attempt to resolve the differences, per the letter, before we move forward with the SEPA process. CC: Jennifer Henning; Neil Watts 'III DEVELOPMENT PLANNING STATE CITY OF RENTON JUL 302002 MilV kb� Ib89 ,"y RECEIVED STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Avenue SE • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (425) 649-7000 July 30, 2002 Lesley Nishihira Senior Planner Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ms. Nishihira: RE: Notice of Application and Proposed DNS #LUA-02-080, ECR, SME Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed determination of nonsignificance for the construction of a new side-channel on the Cedar River. We have reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments: Ecology would like to commend the Corps and the City of Renton for working with Ecology on elements of the proposed design such as changing the cross sections and plan form to better reflect naturally occurring channel conditions. This includes changing the channel cross section from a trapezoidal shape to one that incorporates pool/riffle sequences and a more efficient use of Large Woody Debris(LWD). However, I have serious concerns about the currently proposed intake structure. More specifically: 1) The Corps does not explain the need for a system of screens, culverts, and gates to regulate the flow entering the side channel when it overtops during the 10-year flood. According to the report,the entire side channel is overtopped during the 10- A year flood event. 2) If I remember correctly, someone mentioned that the upstream end may overtop during the 100-year flood,but even so, if there are no concerns related to flooding, and only concerns for erosion,why not provide localized erosion control instead of burying a hard structure? 3) Why use a screen when a log jam would provide the same benefit and superior habitat? An Engineered Log Jam(ELJ) (if well designed) appears to be a feasible option both for intake stabilization and for catching debris. Local sources of woody debris exist that would make fine key pieces, thereby dramatically cutting costs. In advocating the use of an ELJ, I would like to clarify that it requires substantial analysis to correctly design one. LWD placement and log jam design requires: 1) an understanding of how wood accumulates in the natural environment and the stability of different kinds of structures (geomorphology), 2)how wood accumulations affect channel processes (geomorphology), 3)hydraulic engineering for evaluating the effects of angle, orientation, and depth of burial on channel processes, and 3)mechanical engineering for building STABLE structures. Few 18 i~� practitioners recognize the substantial amount of analysis and field experience needed for building log jams. 4) What is the operating plan for the gates? Who will open them when they have rusted shut during a flood in the middle of Thanksgiving night? 5) If the gate is intended as a safety precaution,why not provide localized erosion control instead? 6) Inserting a hard structure into the river is not restoration. The Corps states that it will maintain the structure,but for how long? The time it takes to meet escapement goals? 20 years? Indefinitely? If the Corps adopts this design for other mitigation sites,how feasible is it to maintain multiple sites for as long as the structure remains in the river? 7) What happens to the structure when the Corps is no longer committed to maintaining it? I fear the structure will be abandoned and become river trash. 8) The proposed intake structure may function as planned over the short-term timescale,but I doubt that it will function over longer-term timescales, especially when a major flood potentially relocates the Cedar River. If that occurs, how will the Corp respond? Abandon the intake structure? Riprap the channel into its current location? The long-term implications of the intake structure appear to promote degradation of habitat. Other comments and concerns: 1) The report draws from aerial photos that date 1936 and 1991. The large gap (55 years) in the aerial photo record does not allow the assessment of whether or not the channel migrated into and subsequently away from the side channel site between 1936 and 1991. This brings into question the claim that the Cedar River is laterally stable at this site. 2) In the future, the Corps may want to combine sections that discuss channel migration risks and vertical bed change, given that channel migration is a 3-D phenomena(lateral+horizontal+time),not a 2-D phenomena(lateral +time). Vertical bed movement directly influences lateral migration(incision tends to limit migration, aggradation tends to encourage migration/avulsion) and therefore should be considered together. 3) The report should spell out the maintenance required for the preferred alternative, not just state that it is less than the Ron Regis Site. 4) I would like to request a copy of the Perkins Geoscience 2002 report. 5) For the placement of LWD,be certain to do the adequate hydraulic analysis to understand the hydraulic effects of angle (vertical), depth of rootwad/rootwad and stem burial, and orientation(lateral)in order to prevent unintended consequences (i.e., erosion where you don't want it). 6) The cross sections in Sheet 8 (trapezoidal) are not consistent with those provided in Sheets 4 and 7. Is that standard? My greatest concern is the lack of serious consideration for using an ELJ for stabilizing the side channel inlet. If correctly designed, it is self-maintaining,provides superior habitat, and does not leave a legacy for someone else to later remove. I recognize that substantial time and money has already been invested in this project. I hope the Corps and the City of Renton will • continue to work with Ecology on this issue. Once again, thank you for giving Department of Ecology the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, l Cygnia Freeland Fluvial Geomorphologist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program SEPA#200204351 IJ II a — Roil Stidka l' - Les's Nish;h1 , City of Seattle Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor Seattle Public Utilities Chuck Clarke,Director RECEIVED JUL 3 0 2002 July 25, 2002 CITY OF RENTON UTILITY SYSTEMS 1,11 Gary Schimek— Project Manager City of Renton +' 1055 South Grady Way - 1 Renton, WA 98055 Subject: SEPA Environmental Checklist Review Comments Cedar River Side-Channel Replacement Project Dear Mr. Schimek: After reviewing the SEPA environmental checklist for the proposed Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project, Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has the following comments for your action: • For access and/or use of SPU's Eastside Supply Line (ESSL) Easement (which abuts the project area), the City of Renton will need to obtain an SPU Right of Way use permit. This can be obtained through SPU's Real Property Section. The Right of Way Permit is identified in Section A.,10. • In Section A.11., will the intake structure occupy part of SPU's ESSL's right of way. If this is the case, it will need to be included in the Right of Way Use permit request. • In Section A.11., is the project's access through the road in SPU's ESSL's right of way. If this is the case, the gate, use of the roadway, construction methods in the SPU right of way, and restoration will need to be in accordance to SPU standards for use of SPU's right of ways. Please contact Charles Madden (206)- 684-5977 or Sandy Gray (425) 255-2242 before entering SPU's right of way. • No structures or trees inconsistent with SPU's guidelines will be allowed in the ESSL right of way. • SPU has a water transmission line, several vaults and structures in or near the proposed project area and these will need to be avoided and left undamaged during the construction of this project. In addition, access to these facilities will need to be maintained during the construction phase and upon project completion. 1,1 • In Section B,12, a., will the proposed walking trails be within SPU's ESSL's right of way? Please confirm. Dextor Horton Building, 10th Floor,710 Second Avenue,Seattle,WA 98104 Tel:(206)684-5851,TTY/TDD:(206)233-7241,Fax:(206)684-4631 An equal employment opportunity,affirmative action employer.Accommodations for people with disabilities provided upon request. • •!? 2 • If construction activities will occur in SPU's ESSL right of way, no adverse impacts from dust, silt, or erosion shall occur. In addition, construction work shall not cause erosion or generate dust and silt that will adversely impact SPU's ESSL right of way or the Cedar River riparian zone within this right of way. Please contact SPU to coordinate and address the issues described in this letter. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (206) 684-5977. Sincerely, CHARLES MADDEN Supervising Civil Engineer cc: Betty Meyer Ron Perkerewizc Jay Laughlin Sandy Gray Judith Cross Cyndy Holtz Bruce Bachen Dave Hilmoe Eugene Mantchev Roger Smuck CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: July 29,2002 TO: Lesley Nishihira FROM: Rebecca Lind v STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson SUBJECT: Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement;LUA-02-080, SME- ECF li The City's Water Utilities System Division is proposing construction of a new side channel on the Cedar River to provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat and replace the former groundwater channel destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. The approximately 1,200 foot long channel will require the lowering and widening of the existing drainage course to create new rearing and spawning channel. The applicants estimate that 60 to 90 cottonwood trees will be felled to construct the new channel system. The proposal includes the replacement of all cleared areas with native trees,plants or shrubs. The site is designated Residential Rural on Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is zoned Resource Conservation(RC). Relevant Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Policies: Policy LU-32. Residential Rural areas may be incorporated into community separators. Policy LU-33. Undeveloped portions of Residential Rural areas may be considered as part of the private open space network. Relevant Comprehensive Plan Environmental Element Policies: i Objective EN-C: Protect and enhance the City's rivers, major and minor creeks and intermittent stream courses. Policy EN-5. Degraded channels and banks should be rehabilitated by public programs and new development. Analysis: The site is part of the City's community separator along the Cedar River running east from I-405 east to the city limits. This area is characterized by steep slopes and forested hillside along this side of the river and further east on the north side by the Maplewood Golf Course and Cedar River Park(east). The proposed replacement channel is also consistent with Objective EN-C since these improvements will protect and enhance the Cedar River. It also is consistent with Policy EN-5 in that the damaged spawning channel will be replaced by public programs, in this case the US Army Corps of Engineers and the City. Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 2 07/29/02 Recommendation: Support the proposed Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project as being consistent with the above identified land use and environmental policies. No unmitigated adverse environmental impacts were identified. cc: Don Erickson I 11 �II 11 II I ' III it 11 II Cedar River Spawning Channel 2.doc I I CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: July 29, 2002 TO: Lesley Nishihira FROM: Mike Dotson SUBJECT: Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement; LUA-02-080 I have reviewed the application for the subject project and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER 1. Project is located in the 590 pressure zone. 2. Water system development charges do not apply. 3. The site is located in Aquifer Protection Zone 2 and may be subject to additional requirements per City code. Constructed secondary containment may be required if more than 20 gallons of regulated hazardous materials will be present at the new facility (RMC 4- 3-050H2d(i)). A fill source statement (RMC 4-4-060L4) is required if more than 100 cubic yards of fill material will be imported to the project site. Construction Activity Standards (RMC 4-4-03007) shall be followed if during construction, more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials will be stored on site or vehicles will be fueled on site. Surface Water Management Standards (RMC 4-6-030E2 and 3)--Biofilters, stormwater conveyance, and water quality ponds may require a groundwater protection liner. Impervious surfaces shall be provided for areas subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. This is not intended to be a complete list of the APA requirements nor does this information substitute for the full ordinance, it is only intended to guide the applicant to the City of Renton code book. SANITARY SEWER 1. Sewer System Development Charges do not apply. 2. A 24" sewer line crosses near the Northwest corner of the site. SURFACE WATER 1. Standard BMP Erosion control and as specified by the HPA issued for the project. 2. Surface Water System Development Charges do not apply. TRANSPORTATION 1. On and offsite material haul routes will be required to be shown. A traffic control plan may be required to be submitted for review and approved prior to construction activity on the site. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. A construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 3. If any rockeries/retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height are to be constructed as part of this site, a separate building permit will be required. The following note shall be included on the civil: "A licensed engineer with geo technical expertise must be retained for proposed rockeries greater than four feet in height. The engineer must monitor rockery construction and verify in writing that the rockery was constructed in general accordance with ARC standards and with his/her supplemental recommendations, in a professional manner and of competent and suitable material. Written verification by the engineer must be provided to the City of Renton public works inspector prior to approval of an occupancy permit or plat approval for the project. A separate building permit will be required." RECOMMENDED SPECIAL CONDITIONS There were no special conditions identified. cc: Kayren Kittrick H:\FILE.SYS\PLR-Plan Review Section\PLR-27-Plan Review Projects\CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 PROJECT Spawning Channel-PLR- 27-2817-Mike Dotson\Green Folder Comments to Planner.doc • 6 . City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT AP/PLICATION REVIEW S EET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:PO COMM NTS DUE: JULY 30, 2 APPLICATION NO: LUA-02-080,SME,ECF DATE CI • APPLICANT: City of Renton, Surface Water Utilities Dept. PROJECT MAN GER: LESLEY NISHIHIRA PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement WORK ORDER : 77009 LOCATION: South Side of Cedar River; North of Rolling Hills SITE AREA: 55,000 SF I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:The City of Renton's P/B/PW Department; Surface Water Utilities System section is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Shoreline Exemption Permit for the construction of a new side-channel on the Cedar River. The channel would provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. The project is intended to replace the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the US Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet n \ cu B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. CPO. 25 oZ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ?c.r k S COMMENTS DUE: JULY 30, 2002 APPLICATION NO: LUA-02-080,SME,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 16,2002 APPLICANT: City of Renton, Surface Water Utilities Dept. PROJECT MANAGER: LESLEY NISHIHIRA ` j ��- 'ice PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement WORK ORDER NO: 77009 C� � �} LOCATION: South Side of Cedar River; North of Rolling Hills ��4, kf.1 � e�ee SITE AREA: 55,000 SF 1 BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A T y�F9i�w SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:The City of Renton's P/B/PW Department; Surface Water Utilities System section is �1C requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Shoreline Exemption Permit for the construction of a new side-channel on the Cedar River. The channel would provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. The project is intended to replace the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the US Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet /;r,�aai-,fie-, 0�V 'cv2io _v P 4o m G ,4-s/)czy-v 60-201 "c i �, A,6-- a.),_J /�7 7'`ez4/, Zc z,�„ 'v / 4e ,i / �vi'l-4-�J G(JC21 fG1 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS „r?04,...1.,t /ffie..11 -/ i2-w.el--t.411i/zr-6 "166----' C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS `"I " -64 ifs VZOCe We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas w re additional infor tion is needed to properly assess this proposal. -4 1/oZ0/(i Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: r_a_ 9,_v sz-ti fio,,\ COMMENTS DUE: JULY 30, 2002 APPLICATION NO: LUA-02-080,SME,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 16, 2002 APPLICANT: City of Renton, Surface Water Utilities Dept. PROJECT MANAGER: LESLE , AA L. PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement WORK ORDER NO: 77009 L ' ---- -- LOCATION: South Side of Cedar River; North of Rolling Hills SITE AREA: 55,000 SF BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A l,i �U� 1 6 2002i SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:The City of Renton's P/B/PW Department; Surface Water Utilitie1 System section is - requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Shoreline Exemption Permit for the construction of anew side-chat�Tnel on the Cedar River. The channel would provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearin habitat. The project is intended to replace the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the S Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary • Earth Housing • Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 11)//14f. . B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS /0_/ C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS xy•A c•-%. ... e.... -.11...4_,, c01.4.4.0...t c n A We have eviewed this app' •tion with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wh re additional info 1 tion is needed to properly assess this proposal. id N.., ermAio '41 , . 7/9-2-' Sigt atu of Director or Au orizes -epresentative Date 7/// Routing ( Rev.10/93 City of" ..,,n Department of Planning/Building/Public ..__.'cs ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ( ,S''jY o r iv LS COMMENTS DUE: JULY 30, 2002 APPLICATION NO: LUA-02-080,SME,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 16, 2002 APPLICANT: City of Renton, Surface Water Utilities Dept. PROJECT MANAGER: LESLEY NISHIHIRF0e r-0F C "iroti PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement WORK ORDER NO: 77009 J�L �/vF� LOCATION: South Side of Cedar River; North of Rolling Hills /6 7, SITE AREA: 55,000 SF I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A �UI�O/A/C `uU? /V. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:The City of Renton's P/B/PW Department; Surface Water Utilities System section rsS/O requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Shoreline Exemption Permit for the construction of a new side-channel on the Cedar River. The channel would provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. The project isil intended to replace the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the US Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS MeA/C C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Ai .. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. a 7// ?/i� Sig re of Director uthorized epresentative Date Routing Rev.10/93 (SYn6's NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: July 16,2002 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-02-080,ECF,SME APPLICATION NAME: CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton's P/B/PW Department;Surface Water Utilities System section is requesting Environmental(SEPA)Review and a Shoreline Exemption Permit for the construction of a new side-channel on the Cedar River. The channel would provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. The project is intended to replace the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the US Army Corp of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. PROJECT LOCATION: South Side of Cedar River;North of Rolling Hills OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE(DNS): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance(DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: June 28,2002 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 16,2002 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Shoreline Exemption Permit from the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Other Permits which may be required: Approvals from US Army Corp of Engineers,US Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington State Department of Ecology,Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife,City of Seattle for right-of-way Use Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: N/A CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Rural(RR)on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Resource Conservation(RC)on the City's Zoning Map. The proposed mitigation project is consistent with both of these land use designations. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: N/A Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Zoning Code,Public Works Standards,and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The proposed mitigation project is not likely to result in impacts requiring additional mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. NOTICE OF APPLICATION Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Lesley Nishihira, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on July 30,2002. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: LESLEY NISHIHIRA (425)430-7270 IPLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I NE IZTN ST Ilk- NE JNSEiEj i W � NE IOM S � z � am2 NE < NE ,,,,NE � ST `] z # 'M ST 5Z 61N ST re NTH 7, c ,M ST 5 ' I ®i i. NE 0 + ��IY' ENTON�/`�°�e IfLpito-ss:,,cT e-9_ ` 4..:, i,. 1.,,,, zi Project Site g n PUGET ° =20 z°°° LEGEND: VICINITY MAP l-.—_` V00J ---- City Limits ( IN FEET Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So.Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. File No./Name: LUA-02-080,SME, ECF/CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL REPLACEMENT NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: NOTICE OF APPLICATION CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: July 16, 2002 To: Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility Dept. From: Lesley Nishihira, Development Planning Subject: Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project No. LUA-02-080, SME, ECF The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on August 6, 2002. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at 430-7270, if you have any questions. ACCEPTMEMO CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of the subject site PROJECT NAME: (/ fi r/ / s /f-e-oe, APPLICATION NO: L,1At 4 bZ - 080, 1,LP ( Shvl6-- The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER JCL Clif2t716" DEV CLry OF RE pN/TONNIN G JUN 282001 RECEIVED (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Applicant Certification I, 6a-ry4- 1 die k , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: i_l Title Company Records King County Assessors Records ..e"�,' Ik•—• Signed � Date O '� 411111 �;•, °, (Applicant) i : NOT4, #�. -41 NOTARY i,y': i0liet ' c3 ATTESTED: Subscr• ed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for tftp ..92b ''Vashingtow, residing at 1 7r1 i-0"Yl on the ,26- day of ••------ , 20.02. Signed c.!/hl,(.c -� ��‘‘"`'..'�.= (Notary Public) ****For City of Renton Use**** CERTIFICATION OF M I „YN'�C11�` ri. NOTARY PI I,f" i,,, _ .t_ hereby certify that notices of the sited to (City Employee) CO ss..toN ,?lR each listed property owner on I ;; ' '2 . JUI .29 2003 .. ;:: Signed r .may ,•� / Date: 1 ' ,> NOTARY ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing af" 7-3e n l-ey on the „a. day of ( ,_< ry.1, ,20 0 z_ Signed `1)1 / ,Lc - .. 6d listprop.doc FF REV 03/00 MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES: 6-29-03 2 e 113400001005 113400002003 113400003001 PHILLIPS DOROTHY G SPENCER BRUCE C+DIANA M SMITH MARILYN I 1101 SHELTON AVE SE 1013 SHELTON AVE SE 1009 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 113400004009 113400005006 113400006004 ' I FLUTER JANICE JOHNSON DAVID L NIGRO BERT A 1005 SHELTON AV SE 1001 SHELTON AVE SE 995 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 113400007002 113400008000 113400010006 LARSON STEVE E WHITLEY LEE DELANEY HOWARD R JR+SHARON PO BOX 68267 969 SHELTON AVE SE 1018 SHELTON AVE SE SEATTLE WA 98168 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 113400011004 147140009605 212305900608 STANKER J J C/O JANKANSKAS TABOR LESLIE D CITY OF RENTON 5912 92ND AVE SE 11226 26TH PL SE 1055 S GRADY WAY MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 EVERETT WA 98205 RENTON WA 98055 212305904006 212305906902 212305907009 CITY OF SEATTLE SPU/REAL PROP- CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON WTR 1055 S GRADY WAY 1055 S GRADY WAY 710 2ND AVE 10TH FLOOR RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98104 512690050004 668940003506 668940010501 PRELLWITZ DERREK LAW DONALD W+ESTELLE M EAVES KENNETH F 3705 SE 6TH ST P 0 BOX 44 1109 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98058 668940011004 KWOLEK DAVID W 1113 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 113400001005 PHILLIPS DOROTHY G 1101 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA 113400002003 SPENCER BRUCE C+DIANA M 1013 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA 113400003001 SMITH MARILYN I 1009 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA 113400004009 FLUTER JANICE 1005 SHELTON AV SE RENTON WA 113400005006 JOHNSON DAVID L 1001 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA 113400006004 NIGRO BERT A 995 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA 113400007002 LARSON STEVE E PO BOX 68267 SEATTLE WA 113400008000 WHITLEY LEE 969 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA 113400010006 DELANEY HOWARD R JR+SHARON 1018 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA 113400011004 STANKER J J C/O JANKANSKAS 5912 92ND AVE SE MERCER ISLAND WA 147140009605 TABOR LESLIE D 11226 26TH PL SE EVERETT WA 212305900608 CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 212305904006 CITY OF SEATTLE SPU/REAL PROP-WTR 710 2ND AVE 10TH FLOOR SEATTLE WA 212305906902 CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 212305907009 CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 512690050004 PRELLWITZ DERREK 3705 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 668940003506 LAW DONALD W+ESTELLE M P 0 BOX 44 RENTON WA 668940010501 EAVES KENNETH F 1109 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA 668940011004 KWOLEK DAVID W 1113 SHELTON AVE SE RENTON WA spawingchannelnotify2.xls July 1,2002 Renton City Council Minutes Page 262 MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL CALL FOR THE QUESTION ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE ADDING THE POSITIONS OF CRIME ANALYST, EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN AND A COMMISSIONED OFFICER TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT,AND A SECRETARY 1 TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. CARRIED. Roll call vote requested: four ayes: Clawson,Keolker-Wheeler,Briere, Persson;three nays: Nelson,Parker,Corman. Mayor Tanner stated that his veto submitted at the June 24th Council meeting was sustained. Moved by Parker, seconded by Corman,Council suspend the rules and proceed to the reading of the Public Safety Committee minority report regarding the addition of the crime analyst and evidence technician positions. Motion failed. CORRESPONDENCE The following correspondence was entered into the record in support of the Citizen Comment: Various— Whitworth Ave. S. street vacation request by St. Anthony Parish(VAC-00- Whitworth Ave S Vacation,St. 003): Diane A. Timmons, 14404 157th Pl. SE,Renton,98059;Pat&Valeria Anthony Church(VAC-00- Hurlocker, 1622 Davis Ave. S.,Renton,98055; Grace Magbaleta,4603 NE 003) 22nd Pl.,Renton,98059;Mary Ann Smith, 107 Main Ave. S.,#405,Renton, 98055;Nick&Marsha Frisch, 15749 142nd Pl. SE,Renton,98058;Rich&Pat Buyce,274 Thomas Ave. SW,Renton,98055;Connie M. Thilmony,4440 NE 23rd Ct.,Renton,98059;Harry Duex,4627 NE 7th Pl.,Renton,98059;Linda DeCample, 111 Capri Ave. NE,Renton,98056;Patty Merrill Struck, 2312 SE 21st St.,Renton,98055;two letters from Fred Struck, 2312 SE 21st St.,Renton, 98055; Kevin Masterson, 18800 SE 134th St.,Renton, 98059;Eva M.Poland, 3306 NE 7th Pl.,Renton,98056;Louis Borges and Family,4123 NE 19th St., Renton,98059;Jerry&Barbara Heaton,2223 Benson Rd. S.,#11203,Renton, 98055; Steve&Lydia Delmore, 823 S. 28th Ct.,Renton,98055;Pat Dickinson, 4522 NE 24th St.,Renton,98059;Mary Jo&Paul Foseid,4319 NE 9th Pl., Renton,98059; Karen Kranz, 10367 SE 187th Pl.,Renton,98055; Arland "Buzz" Johnson, 334 Wells Ave. S.,#221,Renton,98055;and 13 form letters received from parents of students at St. Anthony School and parishioners at St. Anthony Parish. Added At the request of Councilman Corman,a letter was read from Janice E.Fluter, Citizen Comment: 1005 Shelton Ave. SE,Renton,98058,and Marilyn Whitley,969 Shelton Ave. Fluter/Whitley-Cedar River SE,Renton,98058,regarding construction of the Cedar River spawning Spawning Channel channel at the Rolling Hills A site. The correspondents listed the additions to Replacement Site the proposal as agreed upon by the City and the neighboring community,and requested that the following considerations pertaining to construction also be dZ -CUB included in the proposal: • Construction will not begin before 7:00 a.m. and will end by 5:00 p.m. each day. • Construction equipment will be parked 200 feet away from the river, providing safety for the river and protecting neighbors from unsightly equipment. • If construction requires security personnel, any trailers would also be placed away from the river,and fires and parties would be prohibited. `X2- 05! U1A02-O 0 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) 425-430-7205 gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us Note: If there is more than one legal owner, please attach an additional notarized Master Application for each owner. PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: City of Renton Surface Water Utility PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Primary-Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project ADDRESS: 1 055 Grady Way South Secondary-Royal Hills Rearing and Spawning Channel CITY: Renton ZIP:98055 PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION and Zip Code: NE 1/4 of Section 21 T23N R3E TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-430-7205 City of Renton,Washington 98055 APPLICANT (if other than owner) KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 2123059006 NAME: 2123059069 2123059070 COMPANY(if applicable): EXISTING LAND USE(S): Passive outdoor recreation DEVELQPMFNT PLANNING cal,OF RENTON PROPOSED LAND USE(S): ADDRESS: JUN 8 2002 Passive outdoor recreation and salmonid habitat CITY: ZIP' EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RECEIVED Residential Rural TELEPHONE NUMBER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): CONTACT PERSON EXISTING ZONING: Resource Conservation NAME: Gary M. Schimek PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): COMPANY(if applicable): City of Renton Suface Water Utility SITE AREA (in square feet): 55,000 square feet(appox.) SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED ADDRESS: 1055 Grady Way South FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): N/A CITY: Renton ZIP:98055 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): N/A TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): N/A H:\FILE.SYS\SWP..Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project\1405 Permits and Plan Review- Spawning Channel Replacement\Permit-Master Application.doc 'ROJECT INFORMATION (cot ued) NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT(if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: $250,000 to$400,000 N/A IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. applicable): N/A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach separate sheet if needed) See attached legal descriptions for the following City of Renton parcels: 2123059006 2123059069 2123059070 TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES Check all application types that apply -- City staff will determine fees. _ANNEXATION(A) $ SHORELINE REVIEWS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT(CPA) $ CONDITIONAL USE(SM-C) $ _ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CU-A, CU-H) $ 1,000.00 X EXEMPTION(SME) $ NO CHARGE X ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW(ECF) $ _SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT(SM) $ GRADE&FILL PERMIT(GF) $ _VARIANCE(SM-V) $ (No.Cu.Yds: ) $ REZONE(R) $ SUBDIVISION _ROUTINE VEGETATION $ _BINDING SITE PLAN(BSP) $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT(RVMP) _FINAL PLAT(FP) $ SITE PLAN APPROVAL(SA-A,SA-H) $ _LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT(LLA) $ SPECIAL PERMIT(SP) $ _PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP) $ TEMPORARY PERMIT(TP) $ _SHORT PLAT(SHPL-A, SHPL-H) $ VARIANCE(V-A,V-H,V-B) $ (from Section: ) $ Postage: $ 5.92 WAIVER(W) $ TOTAL FEE $ 1,005.92 OTHER: $ H:\FILE.SYS\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project\1405 Permits and Plan Review- Spawning Channel Replacement\Permit-Master Application.doc P.,,JECT INFORMATION (continued) AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name) c1T/ S‘ h.''l e/( ,declare that I am(please check one) _the current owner of the property involved in this application or X the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that G/1-J2\/ 1:- I 3C H 1 m G signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/hey/their fre/e and voluntary act for the uses and purposes entioned in the instrument. 61(1.cy S h,'ram r_k G „I- c F RK;�i%`�� (IA- Nam of Owner/Repres tative) Notary Public in and for the State o hington ..re. .. ''''••,css.C/� �yy1y�F— Notary(Print) h l 00A ( • �,E/2)C ( / �'�'/l'TAR y m: a ( ignature Owner/Representative) My appointment expires: 5/ ! /0200 /� Pt11:3i.IC: • ff 6, ..,,,,-; I, - •$ . C` 9-0 %%k\\ WAS14r H:\FILE.SYS\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project\1405 Permits and Plan Review- Spawning Channel Replacement\Permit-Master Application.doc , 4,,.„ TCITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done)and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or"does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. DEV CITY OF NT RENTONING JUN 2 8 2002 HAF/LE.SYSISWP-Surface Water ProjectslSWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)127-2817 Cedar RREGSVEDoject11301 Sepa-Spawning Channel ReplacementlPermit-SEPA.doc A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Cedar River Side-Channel Replacement Project 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton, Surface Water Utility 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Gary Schimek Project Manager 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 (425)-430-7205 4. Date checklist prepared: May 3, 2002 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): ALTERNATIVE#1 Phase 1 - Construction not requiring in-river work will be accomplished, as conditions and weather permit, during September and October, 2002. Construction work for 2002 will cease on October 31, 2002 which is the beginning of bald eagle wintering season. Phase 2a - Construction not requiring in-river work, but not accomplished during 2002, will be completed, as conditions and weather permit, during 2003. Phase 2b - Construction requiring in-river work will be conducted from June 15 through August 15, 2003. ALTERNATIVE#2 Phase 1a - Construction not requiring in-river work will be completed, as conditions and weather permit, between approximately March and November 2003. Phase lb - Construction requiring in-river work will be conducted from June 15 through August 15, 2003. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The City of Renton Surface Water Utility will be required to monitor and maintain the channel to provide spawning and rearing habitat. Monitoring may include: adult and redd counts, fry production surveys, and riparian habitat monitoring. Maintenance may include: cleaning and/or repair of entire channel including intake structure and outlet. H:IFILE.S YSIS WP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)127-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project11301 Sepa-Spawning Channel ReplacementlPermit-SEPA.doc 2 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Completed • Perkins Geoscience. January, 2002. Results of field investigation, Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement. (See Attachments). • Renton, City of and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). April, 2002. Evaluation of Two Sites for Replacement of the USACE 205 Groundwater Channel(See Attachments). • USACE. March, 2002. Wetland Delineation for Cedar River Spawning Channel Site. (See Attachments). To be completed • USACE. Biological Assessment. • USACE. Environmental Assessment 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. N/A 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. • Finding of No Significant Impact(U.S.Army Corps of Engineers) • USACE 404(b)1/Section 10 Equivalency Evaluation (U.S.Army Corp of Engineers) • Section 7 Concurrence(U.S. Fish/Wildlife Service and Nation Marine Fisheries Service) • Hydraulic Project Approval (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) • 401 Water Quality Certification (Washington Department of Ecology) • Right of Way Use Permit(City of Seattle) • Shoreline Exemption(City of Renton) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The goal of the project is to create off-channel spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids (primarily sockeye and Chinook) within the Cedar River basin. The new spawning and rearing habitat(about 10,000 square feet) will serve as a direct replacement for the groundwater channel that was destroyed as a result of the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake. The groundwater channel was originally constructed as mitigation for the United States Army Corps of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. This project will include the following construction elements: H:IFILE.SYS1S WP-Surface Water ProjectslSWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)127-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project11301 Sepa-Spawning Channel Replacement\Permit-SEPA.doc 3 • Intake structure-An intake structure will be installed at the upstream end of the project to convey flow from the Cedar River into the channel. The intake structure will consist of concrete headwall and wingwall, trash rack, concrete box culvert, control valve, and about 140 ft of pipe. • Outlet-An outlet will be constructed to allow flow to re-enter Cedar River and adult and juvenile fish to migrate to or from the channel. The distance between the inlet and outlet is approximately 1,200 ft; • Excavation and Shaping of Channel-Approximately 1,000 feet of an existing drainage course (i.e. swale/relic channel) will be lowered and widened to create new rearing and spawning channel; • Large woody debris-Approximately 5 to 10 large woody debris clusters (i.e. about 3 pieces for each cluster) will be added within the new channel to create rearing pools and stabilize banks; • Spawning Gravel- Gravel will be added to create spawning habitat; • Maintenance path-Maintenance path will be constructed adjacent to the west side of the channel. The path will be about 12 ft wide and extend along the entire channel system to the inlet structure; • Habitat Plantings - Native trees, shrubs and plants will be planted at two locations (along the new channel and between Cedar River and new channel in an existing disturbed area) to mitigate for vegetation disturbance as part of the channel and maintenance road construction • Access Road Gate Improvement- The gate across the access road will be improved to deter illegal vehicular access;and • Education Signs- Signs will be installed on-site to educate the public about salmon within the Cedar River basin and to educate the pubic about the impacts of illegal activities (i.e. poaching, campfires, vehicular traffic) on the habitat area. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposed project is located: • Within the City of Renton, King County, Washington and would be constructed, entirely, on property owned by City of Renton; • East of the City of Renton Rolling Hills Neighborhood and directly west (across the river) of the Maple Garden Neighborhood;and • Within the NE 1/4 Section of Section 21, Township 23 North, and Range 5 East. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS HAFILE.S YSIS WP-Surface Water Projects\S WP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)127-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Projectl1301 Sepa-Spawning Channel ReplacementlPermit-SEPA.doc 4 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Floodplain b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) The steepest existing slope, within the project footprint, is the bank along the Cedar River. This slope is 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) or about 33%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Floodplain deposits d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. In 1987, a landslide occurred about 1-mile upstream of the project at River Mile 4.1. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. About 6,000 cubic yards of floodplain deposits will be excavated to construct a new spawning and rearing channel within the existing floodplain. The channel will be aligned along the course of a former side channel. The excavated material will be removed from the site. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. • With the exception of the inlet and outlet structures, the project will be constructed without any in-water work. This means that Cedar River water quality will not be impacted during the clearing/grading and excavation work elements related to channel construction. • The construction of the inlet structure and outlet between July 15 and August 15, when there are few if any salmonids present. • Silt fencing and other erosion control measures will be used to ensure that sediment does not enter the Cedar River. • Clearing and grading for construction of the channel and maintenance path will remove about cottonwoods greater than 6-inch diameter. All felled trees will be used on-site. In addition, the channel and maintenance road have been designed to minimize the impact on the existing vegetation. • All cleared areas outside of the channel bottom will be hydroseeded and/or planted with native trees and shrubs. H:IFILE.SYSISWP-Surface Water ProjectslSWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)127-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project11301 Sepa-Spawning Channel ReplacementlPermit-SEPA.doc 5 • An existing disturbed land area between the Cedar River and the new channel will also be planted. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? A concrete vault and headwall/wingwall will be installed as part of the inlet structure. However, these construction features will cover less than 1% of the project area. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Silt fencing and other erosion control measures will be used to ensure that sediment does not get into the Cedar River. The channel and maintenance road have been designed to minimize the impacts to the existing vegetation. An existing disturbed areas, located between the Cedar River and new channel but outside of the construction zone, will be planted with native trees and shrubs. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Exhaust from the equipment will emit a minor amount of exhaust. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Equipment will have mufflers and exhaust systems in accordance with State and Federal standards. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. • Cedar River - The new channel is connected to the Cedar River at both the upstream and downstream ends. • Wetland - A small wetland is located on-site that is approximately 300 square feet and consists of snowberry, salmon berry, and sword fern. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. H:IFILE.SYSIS WP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)127-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project11301 Sepa-Spawning Channel ReplacementlPermit-SEPA.doc 6 The project will require work within 200 ft of the Cedar River as shown in the attached plans. Work within 200 feet of the Cedar River will include the following: • Intake structure-An intake structure will be installed at the upstream end of the project to convey flow from the Cedar River into the channel. The intake structure will consist of concrete headwall and wingwall, trash rack, concrete box culvert, control valve, and about 140 ft of pipe. • Outlet-An outlet will be constructed to allow flow to re-enter Cedar River and adult and juvenile fish to migrate to or from the channel. The distance between the inlet and outlet is about 1,200 ft; • Excavation and Shaping of Channel-Approximately 1,000 feet of an existing drainage course(i.e. swale/relic channel) will be lowered and widened to create new rearing and spawning channel; • Large woody debris-Approximately 5 to 10 large woody debris clusters(i.e. about 3 pieces for each cluster) will be added within the new channel to create rearing pools and stabilize banks; • Spawning Gravel- Gravel will be added to create spawning habitat; • Maintenance path-Maintenance path will be constructed adjacent to the west side of the channel. The path will be about 12 ft wide and extend along the entire channel system to the inlet structure; • Habitat Plantings - Native trees, shrubs and plants will be planted at two locations (along the new channel and between Cedar River and new channel in an existing disturbed area) to mitigate for vegetation disturbance as part of the channel and maintenance road construction • Education Sins- Signs will be installed on-site to educate the public about salmon within the Cedar River basin and to educate the pubic about the impacts of illegal activities (i.e. poaching, campfires, vehicular traffic) on the habitat area. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Surface Water-About 60 CY of river bank material will be excavated and removed from the site to construct the inlet and outlet. Wetlands-About 150 CY of wetland soils will be excavated and removed to construct the new channel. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The minimum critical Cedar River flow is 97 cfs per the City of Seattle Habitat Conservation Plan. At this flow rate, about 5 to 10 cfs will be conveyed into the new channel. The maximum design flow in the new channel is about 50 cfs. This flow would occur when Cedar River flows are at about 5,500 cfs just prior to levee overtopping. H:IFILE.SYSIS WP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)127-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project11301 Sepa-Spawning Channel ReplacementlPermit-SEPA.doc 7 Flow from the Cedar River will enter the channel at the inlet of the new channel and return to the Cedar River after flowing within the new channel system for a distance of about 1,200 ft. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes, a portion of the proposal lies within the 100-yr flood plain. See attachments. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Storm water runoff from the surrounding natural area will enter the new channel and subsequently flow directly into the Cedar River. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. N/A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Native trees and shrubs will be planted to reduce and control surface water runoff. The trees and shrubs will be planted in two locations. First, planting will occur in areas that are disturbed to construct the new channel with the exception of the channel bottom. Second, an existing disturbed area between the Cedar River and new channel will be planted to control runoff and deter access along a beaten path to the river. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: H:IFILE.SYSISWP-Surface Water ProjectslSWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)127-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project11301 Sepa-Spawning Channel ReplacementlPermit-SEPA.doc 8 x deciduous tree:alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs grass pasture crop or grain x- wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation (willows, conifers) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The most prevalent community that occurs throughout the site is a cottonwood/alder forest with an understory of snowberry, salmonberry, and sword fern. In places, vine maple, blackberry, Indian plum, Japanese knotweed, bleeding heart, giant horsetail, and Pacific waterleaf occur. New growth of buttercup and nettle was just becoming evident at the time of field investigations. There is a 300 square foot wetland on site consisting of snowberry, salmonberry, and sword fern. The wetland occupies a relatively long, narrow low spot in the central swale. Approximately 60 to 100 cottonwoods (great than 6-inch diameter) will be felled to construct the channel and maintenance path. The disturbed areas (with the exception of channel bottom and maintenance path) will be planted with native trees and shrubs. See drawings for landscape plans. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Three listed species are likely to occur in the project area, and one candidate species; bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Puget Sound ESU chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha;) and Puget Sound/Western Washington ESU bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are all listed as threatened and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is a candidate species. Chinook salmon utilize the mainstem Cedar for spawning, rearing, and migratory transport. Chinook fry and juveniles utilize the upstream natural and constructed side-channel(near Ron Regis Park in Renton, Washington) for rearing. Coho salmon utilize the mainstem Cedar for spawning, rearing and migratory transport. Coho juveniles and smolts utilize the upstream natural side channel for rearing(USACE, 2000). d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Native trees and shrubs (that have been observed on-site) will be planted in disturbed areas as mitigation for construction of the channel and maintenance path. Additional native planting will occur in an existing disturbed area between the Cedar River and the new channel. The channel and maintenance road were designed to minimize the impact on the existing vegetation. Specifically, all trees (with greater than 6-inch diameter) within H;IFILE.SYSISWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)127-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project11301 Sepa-Spawning Channel ReplacementlPermit-SEPA.doc 9 25 feet (in both directions) of the centerline were tagged, surveyed, and located on the construction drawings. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon,trout, herring,shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Three listed species are likely to occur in the project area, and one candidate species; bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Puget Sound ESU chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha;) and Puget Sound/Western Washington ESU bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are all listed as threatened and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)is a candidate species. Chinook salmon utilize the mainstem Cedar for spawning, rearing, and migratory transport. Chinook fry and juveniles utilize the upstream natural and constructed side-channel(near Ron Regis Park in Renton, Washington) for rearing. Coho salmon utilize the mainstem Cedar for spawning, rearing and migratory transport. Coho juveniles and smolts utilize the upstream natural side channel for rearing(USACE, 2000). c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain See response above. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The channel will provide suitable habitat for sockeye spawning and chinook, coho and steelhead rearing. In addition, the introduction of salmonid eggs, fry, juveniles, and adults is likely to benefit a variety of mammals and birds. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. N/A c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N/A H IFILE.S YS1S WP-Surface Water Projects\S WP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)127-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project11301 Sepa-Spawning Channel Replacement\Permit-SEPA.doc 10 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Refueling of machinery will occur near the site, but will be restricted to an area 100- ft from the Cedar River. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Typical emergency services by the Fire Department in case of a fire, injury, or fuels spills. The Department of Ecology spill response hot line and WDFW would be notified immediately in case of a fuel spill. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NA b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise from State Route 169. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term noise from equipment used to construct the new channel and from trucks removing excavated material off-site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction equipment will have mufflers and exhaust systems in accordance with Federal and State standards, and that are in good operating condition. Typical hours of construction will be 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The project site and adjacent property to the south and east is owned by the City of Renton. All City of Renton property (i.e. site and adjacent parcels) is considered a natural zone area. City of Seattle right of way for the East Side Supply Line is located to the west of the project site. The Cedar River is located to the north of the project site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Unknown H:IFILE.SYSISWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)127-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project11301 Sepa-Spawning Channel Replacement\Permit-SEPA.doc 11 c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? None e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Resource Conservation f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Residential Rural g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Conservancy h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The site is classified as conservancy by the shoreline master program. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N/A j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: N/A 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: H:IFILE.SYSIS WP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)127-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project11301 Sepa-Spawning Channel ReplacementlPermit-SEPA.doc 12 N/A 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. N/A b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Native plants and trees will be planted in disturbed area, with the exception of the channel bottom. In addition, an existing disturbed area along the river will be planted with native trees and shrubs. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? N/A b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? N/A c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? N/A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Walking trails are located within the surrounding natural area. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Interpretive signs will be placed on-site to provide information the following issues. • Wildlife Poaching • Trail use impact H:IFILE.SYSIS WP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(ClP)127-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project11301 Sepa-Spawning Channel ReplacementlPermit-SEPA.doc 13 f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. N/A g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: N/A 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. N/A b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. N/A b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. N/A C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon t ' checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full dt 'sure on my p . Proponent: Name Printed: La y ��—� I in Date: /z// zoo-z H:IFILE.SYSISWP-Surface Water ProjectslSWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)127-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project11301 Sepa-Spawning Channel ReplacementlPermit-SEPA.doc 15 • Salmonid spawning • Benefits of project 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. N/A b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access to the site will most likely be from one of the following two routes: Alternative 1 - Maple Valley Road (Highway 169) to 140th WY SE to Petrovisky RD to 116th Avenue SE to Rolling Hills Drive SE; Alternative 2 - Valley FWY (Highway 167) to SW 43rd Street to 116th Ave SE to Rolling Hills Avenue SE b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Metro Bus #148 serves Rolling Hills Avenue. However, no transit stop is in the vicinity of the project. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N/A d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? An existing gate across the City of Seattle Right of Way, which provides access to the site, will be improved to deter illegal vehicular traffic. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. N/A H:IFILE.SYSISWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)127-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project11301 Sepa-Spawning Channel ReplacementlPermit-SEPA.doc 14 USACE PL 84-99 CEDAR RIVER SIDE CHANNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT EVALUATION OF TWO REPLACEMENT SITES FOR THE USACE CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 GROUNDWATER CHANNEL Prepared by: City of Renton Surface Water Utility and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- Seattle District April 2002 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project ] Technical Evaluation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACE),with the City of Renton as the local project sponsor, constructed the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project between 1998 and 2000. This project consisted of dredging within, and constructing concrete floodwalls and earthen levees along,the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River. Additionally,a groundwater-spawning channel was constructed near River Mile 5.0 of the Cedar River(within Ron Regis Park)to serve as mitigation for the assumed loss of salmonid spawning habitat resulting from initial construction and future maintenance dredging. In 2001,the primary function of the constructed groundwater channel (i.e.to provide off-channel habitat) was destroyed as a result of a landslide triggered by the Nisqually Earthquake. In response,the City of Renton requested and obtained assistance from the USACE under Public Law 84-99 to replace the channel and subsequently provide the long-term mitigation required for the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. Soon after the PL84-99 assistance was authorized,more than ten(10) potential replacement sites were preliminary investigated by the City of Renton,USACE, and resource agencies. Two final candidate sites-within the City of Renton-were eventually selected for further detailed analysis. This report presents the results of an evaluation of the two final candidate sites to serve as the long-term (i.e. 100 yrs)replacement for the aforementioned groundwater channel. The primary goal of the evaluation was to determine, based on field investigations and available technical information, which site has the highest likelihood to succeed as a productive and reliable off-channel habitat for Sockeye and Chinook salmon in the long-term. Success of the replacement channel is critical for the City of Renton to meet the mitigation requirements as set forth in the Hydraulic Project Approval for the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. Failure of the channel will result in increased costs to the City of Renton and, in turn,all Renton taxpayers,to construct additional off-channel habitat. The first site considered as part of the evaluation is located adjacent to the Maplewood Golf Course,just downstream from the 2001 Nisqually landslide deposits, and is called the Elliot Side-Channel Site. The proposed project at this site would consist of adding in-channel features(such as an engineered log jam, large woody debris clusters, and new habitat plantings along the bank)to an existing spawning and rearing side-channel in an attempt to minimize inevitable flooding impacts on the off-channel habitat. The existing channel was originally designed for a short-term (i.e.ten yrs) sockeye production goal of 1,943 adult returns. In addition to the in-channel features as described above, new spawning habitat would be created, as part of the project,by extending another channel located just downstream. Specifically,the King County groundwater channel, constructed in 1995,would be extended by about 200 feet at the upstream end. It should be noted that using the existing Elliot side-channel as the replacement channel,without any improvements or creation of new habitat,was deemed unacceptable by resource agencies due to the high susceptibility to flooding(i.e. 1.1-yr return frequency),unstable characteristics of the reach(i.e. historic channel migration boundary), and the proximity to historic landslides(i.e. occurring in 1936 and 2001). The second site considered as part of this evaluation is located east of the Rolling Hills neighborhood and directly west(across the river)of the Maple Gardens neighborhood. This site is called the Rolling Hills Site "A". The proposed project at this site would consist of constructing a new rearing and spawning channel in the existing floodplain area. Primary project features would include a water intake structure, outlet, large woody debris clusters, and new habitat plantings. Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 2 Technical Evaluation Renton citizens from, primarily,the Maple Gardens neighborhood have expressed concerns about the proposed project at Rolling Hills Site "A". The concerns are related to the potential impacts of the project to the existing vegetation,wildlife community, and quality of the view from across the river. Addressing these concerns was a significant part of the evaluation. The evaluation is based upon field investigations,computer modeling, and review of available environmental,hydraulic,biological, and geologic data. Based on this information,the Rolling Hills Site "A" is recommended over the Elliot Side-Channel Site for the following reasons: • Construction of a new spawning and rearing side-channel at Rolling Hills Site "A" is more likely to benefit Cedar River Chinook and sockeye salmon populations over the long-term than the proposed project at the Elliot Side-Channel Site. • The proposed spawning and rearing channel at the Rolling Hills Site "A" is more likely to succeed in the long-term (in terms of greater spawning activity, higher egg-to-fry survival, and protection afforded to rearing fish)due to the lower susceptibility to flood flows as compared to the proposed project at the Elliot Side-Channel Site. In other words,flooding events at the Rolling Hills Site "A" will occur less frequently, have shorter durations, and impart less damage on the spawning and rearing habitat,which will result in high salmonid survival rates and productivity. • As a direct result of the increased likelihood of the proposed project at Rolling Hills Site "A"to benefit the Cedar River salmonid populations,the City of Renton will, in turn,be more likely to meet the mitigation requirements for the USACE Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. If the mitigation goals are not met,the City of Renton will be responsible for creating additional off-channel habitat and may not be able to conduct future maintenance dredging operations until the requirements are met. Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 3 Technical Evaluation TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION 5 REPORT OVERVIEW 5 OVERALL REPLACEMENT SITE SELECTION PROCESS 5 DESCRIPTION OF FINAL CANDIDATE SITES AND PROJECTS 6 Alternative 1 -Elliot Side-Channel Site. 6 Alternative 2 -Rolling Hills Site "A" 6 TECHNICAL EVALUATION 7 Methodology 7 Results 8 Biological 8 Physical 9 Social 13 Economics and Management 14 CONCLUSIONS 16 REFERENCES 18 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 4 Technical Evaluation INTRODUCTION The United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACE),with the City of Renton as the local project sponsor,constructed the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project between 1998 and 2000. This project consisted of dredging within,and constructing concrete floodwalls and earthen levees along,the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River. A groundwater-spawning channel was constructed near River Mile 5.0 of the Cedar River(within Ron Regis Park)to serve as mitigation for the assumed loss of salmonid spawning habitat in the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River following the initial construction and future maintenance river dredging operations. During the February 28, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake, a landslide occurred adjacent to the groundwater spawning channel. This resulted in the loss of its function as off-channel habitat. In response, the City of Renton requested and obtained assistance from the USACE under Public Law 84-99 to replace the channel and subsequently provide the long-term mitigation required for the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. REPORT OVERVIEW This report presents the results of an evaluation of the two final candidate sites to serve as the long-term replacement for the aforementioned groundwater channel. The primary goal of the evaluation was to determine,based on field investigations and the review of available technical information, which site has the highest likelihood to succeed as a productive and reliable off-channel habitat for sockeye and Chinook salmon in the long-term. Success of the replacement channel is critical for the City of Renton to meet the mitigation requirements as set forth in the Hydraulic Project Approval for the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Reduction Project. Failure will result in increased costs to the City of Renton and, in turn,all Renton taxpayers,to construct additional off-channel habitat. OVERALL REPLACMENT SITE SELECTION PROCESS The following tasks have been completed by the City of Renton Surface Water Utility and USACE- Seattle District after Federal funding was authorized for the planning,design and construction of the Cedar River Side-Channel Replacement project: • Developed general design criteria in concert with resource agencies responsible for issuing concurrence or permit approval(i.e.,National Marine Fisheries Service,United States Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Fish,and Wildlife,Muckleshoot Indian Tribe,and Washington Department of Ecology); • Conducted preliminary site investigations of more than ten possible replacement sites; • Coordinated and convened a series of office and field meetings with resource agencies to present findings of preliminary site investigations,obtain feedback on sites,and select two final candidate sites for further evaluation; • Coordinated and led field meetings with Renton citizens to visit the two final site alternatives; Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 5 Technical Evaluation • Prepared 10% and 35%design plans for one of the two final candidate sites; • Prepared detailed list of construction related improvements for one of the two final candidate sites based on existing construction plans; and • Conducted field investigations of two final candidate sites with team composed of biologist, hydraulic engineer, geologist, geomorphologist, surveyors, and civil and environmental engineers. DESCRIPTION OF FINAL CANDIDATE SITES AND PROJECTS Alternative 1 -Elliot Side Channel Site A rearing and spawning side-channel (i.e. Elliot side-channel)was constructed within the City of Renton's Ron Regis Park by the City and USACE in 1999 to mitigate for the overdredging of the Cedar River. The channel was designed and constructed to achieve a very specific, short-term(i.e. less than 10-yr)fish production goal. In addition,the channel is located in a very unstable reach of the river system in terms of historic flooding, channel migration and landslides. As such,Federal and State resource agencies(NMFS,USFWS, WDFW,MIT and DOE)did not consider simply using the existing Elliot side-channel as the replacement for the groundwater channel a viable option. However,the resource agencies did agree that the existing sight could potentially serve as the replacement channel if it was shown that improvements would allow the channel to properly function for a long-term period(i.e. 100-yrs)and, in turn,that the improved Elliot side-channel would, at minimum, perform as well(ecologically)as the proposed project for Rolling Hills Site "A". Proposed work at the Elliot Side-Channel site would be aimed at improving the flood protection of the spawning channel. The improvements would include: • Engineered log jam at upper end of the channel to dissipate flood energy when flows overtop the levee spillway; • Large woody debris clusters throughout the length of the channel to dissipate energy and stabilize banks; • Plantings along the length of the channel,on both banks,to increase bank stability and reduce channel velocities during flood events; • Gravel at the upper end of the channel to increase quality of spawning habitat; and • Extending the upper portion of the existing King County Elliot Groundwater Channel to create new spawning habitat(200 ft by 10 ft). Alternative 2 - Rolling Hills Site "A" Rolling Hills Site "A" is located on property owned by City of Renton. Field investigations have shown that there is a natural side-channel (i.e. relic channel) within the floodplain area, but there is not a hydraulic connection between the Cedar River and the natural side-channel. The lack of a hydraulic connection is, most likely, due to the modification of the flow regime via a combination of factors including the construction of the City of Seattle Masonry dam (and related water supply facilities) and Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 6 Technical Evaluation construction of flood control levees along the river. The proposed work at the Rolling Hills Site "A" would include: • Water intake structure at the upstream end of the project to convey flow from the Cedar River into the channel. The intake structure would consist of two large-diameter culverts (with screens at the river) and a vault (located between the river and the side-channel) with a gate valve to regulate flow into the channel; • Outlet to allow flow to re-enter Cedar River and adult and juvenile fish to migrate to or from the channel; • The natural side-channel would also be lowered and widened to create the proper channel gradient; • Large woody debris clusters would be added within the channel to create rearing pools and stabilize banks; • Gravel would be added to create spawning habitat; and • Native trees, shrubs and plants would be planted along the channel to mitigate for any tree or shrub losses as part of the channel construction. TECHNICAL EVALUATION Methodology Information was obtained from a variety of sources, as listed below,to conduct the evaluation of the two final candidate sites, • Field investigations of the two candidate sites; • Field tour of successful side-channel projects within the Chilliwack River Basin in British Columbia,Canada; • Field tour of natural side-channels located within the Cedar River Basin; • Synthesis and review of citizen concerns expressed via written letters and during meetings; • Computer simulated river modeling results; • Review of historic and current aerial photographs and maps; • Consultation with staff from Federal, State and local resource agencies; and • Review of previously published studies and reports pertaining to the Cedar River. II Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 7 Technical Evaluation Results The results of the technical evaluation are listed below under four categories: biological, physical, social, and economic/management. The results are based on review and synthesis information obtained from field investigations and available technical material and documents. Biological Spawning and Rearing Habitat Rolling Hills Site "A" - • New spawning/rearing habitat would be added to the Cedar River basin, as the existing Rolling Hills Site "A" is not hydraulically connected to the Cedar River until flows reach about 5,000 cfs. The new spawning area would be about 8,000 ft2(=800 ft x 10 ft)and the new rearing habitat would be about 3,000 ft2 (=200 ft x 15 ft). The spawning area would primarily benefit sockeye salmon while the rearing habitat would primarily benefit Chinook salmon. • Salmonid egg-to-fry survival has been shown to significantly decrease with flow rate. Since the flood protection of the proposed channel at Rolling Hills Site "A" is greater than the proposed modified channel at the Elliot Side-Channel Site,the egg-to-fry survival at the Rolling Hills Site "A"channel is likely to be greater in the long-term (i.e. 100 yrs). The higher salmonid egg-to-fry survival rate will translate into higher productivity than can be expected in the Elliot side-channel site or within the river. • Off-channel rearing/spawning habitat area is significantly limited in the lower Cedar River. The proposed project at the Rolling Hills Site "A" includes the creation of more new spawning and rearing habitat as compared to the Elliot Side-Channel Site. Therefore,the project at Rolling Hills Site "A" is more likely to benefit the Cedar River salmonid populations in regards to available habitat. Elliot Side Channel - • The goal of the proposed modification to the existing Elliot Side-Channel site is to increase the flood protection of the existing rearing and spawning habitat through the addition of large woody debris and habitat plantings. These modifications would serve to reduce channel velocities and stabilize banks during flooding events,which would, in turn,result in improved fry survival and spawning/rearing habitat quality in the long-term (i.e. 100 yrs)as compared to the existing conditions at the Elliot-Side Channel. • New spawning habitat area will be added by extending the existing King County Elliot Groundwater Channel. The addition of new spawning habitat,however, is limited to about 200 ft in the upstream direction. Wildlife(non-salmonid)Benefits Rolling Hills Site "A" - • The creation of off-channel rearing/spawning habitat at Rolling Hills Site "A" will increase the biological diversity of the site. Specifically, fish(i.e. sockeye salmon,Chinook salmon,chum Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 8 Technical Evaluation salmon,steelhead/rainbow trout)and aquatic invertebrates(i.e. stoneflies,mayflies,caddis flies, true flies,beetles,etc.)will be re-introduced to the site while the existing bird and mammal species will continue to utilize the site. • Over 60 bird species have been observed in the lower Cedar River during previous biological surveys. In addition,previous studies have indicated that numerous mammal species(raccoons, striped skunks,cottontail rabbits,opossum, eastern gray squirrel,deer,and river otter)are supported by the lower Cedar River habitat. Of these bird and mammal species,at least 20 birds and 3 mammals are documented consumers of salmonid eggs,juveniles and carcasses. The new spawning channel,therefore,would increase the available food supply for these birds and mammals. Elliot Side Channel- • New spawning habitat at the upstream end of the King County Elliot groundwater channel would provide an additional food source to certain birds and mammal species that utilize salmon eggs, juveniles,and carcasses as indicated above. However,the overall benefit of the new food source to the bird and mammal species would not be as dramatic-compared to the Rolling Hills Site project- since salmonids use the existing site in high numbers. • Additional plantings along the existing side-channel-to provide increased bank stability-would provide new breeding,perching,nesting and foraging habitat for bird species. Wildlife(non-salmonid)Impacts Rolling Hills Site "A"- • To construct the channel,a number of 4-inch or greater cottonwood trees will be felled and, in turn,used to provide in-stream rearing habitat and bank stabilization. The tree felling will result in the loss of a certain amount of breeding,perching,nesting,and foraging habitat to certain bird and mammal species. However, it is not likely to contribute to the complete loss of any particular bird or mammal species from using the site. Elliot Side Channel- • To increase the upstream length of the Elliot Groundwater channel,a small number of trees and shrubs will be removed. As with the Rolling Hills site,this will result in the loss of a certain about of breeding,perching,nesting and foraging habitat to certain bird and mammal species. Again,it is not likely to contribute to the complete loss of any particular bird of mammal species from using the site. Physical Water Quality Rolling Hills Site "A"- Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 9 Technical Evaluation • Water for the spawning channel will be conveyed from the Cedar River via two pipes with screens. The intake is located about 2 miles downstream of the sediment deposits from the 2001 landslide. • Given the close proximity of the two channels,there is not expected to be a significant difference in turbidity levels. Elliot Side Channel- • Water for the existing channel is conveyed from the Cedar River through a permeable rock levee section. The intake is located about 2,000 ft from the sediment deposits from the 2001 landslide. • As mentioned above, given the close proximity of the two channels,there is not expected to be a significant difference in turbidity levels. Flooding Susceptibility Rolling Hills Site "A" - • The intake structure is protected for Cedar River flows up to the 100-year event. (Note that the upstream end of the culvert, located at the face of the bank, is designed to be submerged during flood events.) • Overbank flow into the side-channel will occur for flood flows greater than the 5-year event. • The entire channel would be subjected to flooding for flows greater than the 10-year event. Elliot Side Channel - • A setback levee,originally constructed by King County,was modified to serve as the intake structure for the existing Elliot side channel. Specifically,the overflow notch of the impermeable set-back levee was removed and replaced with material that would allow water to freely flow through the set-back levee(and into the upstream end of the side channel)prior to overflow. • The elevation of the overflow notch was not changed during construction of the Elliot Side- Channel project since the overflow notch was a critically feature of the setback levee. The overflow notch was designed to serve as a "hydraulic relief valve"to lessen the impacts of flooding in the reach. • The flood frequency of the existing side channel is controlled by the elevation of the overflow notch. Raising the elevation of the overflow notch would, in theory, increase the flood protection to, at least,the upper portion of the existing side channel. However,raising the elevation of the overflow notch is not recommended, as this may result in increased damage to the side-channel or the opposite bank. Specifically, if the elevation of the overflow notch is raised the notch will no longer provide "hydraulic relief' for this reach of the river system. • Overtopping into the side-channel,via the overflow notch in the setback levee,was designed to occur for flood flows greater than the 1.6 year-event(i.e.2,500 cfs)after construction of the channel in August 2000. However, a gravel bar is now forming along the overflow notch due to the lateral expansion of the Cedar River just downstream of the 2001 landslide deposits. The Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 10 Technical Evaluation setback levee now overtops into the spawning channel for flood flows greater than about 1,600 cfs(i.e.about the 1.1-yr event). • The flooding of the side-channel adjacent to the setback levee is controlled by the flow across the overflow notch. Currently, as mentioned above,the notch is overtopped for flood flows above the 1.1-year event. Landslide Risk Rolling Hills Site "A"- • A steep hillside is adjacent to the south side of the site. The base of the slope is located between 50 to 200 feet from the proposed channel. • A landslide occurred upstream of the site at River Mile 4.1 (just downstream of the Maple Valley Highway Crossing) in 1987 on a slope that was actively being undercut by the river. Elliot Side Channel- • A steep hillside is located across the river from the side channel. The base of the slope is located about 500 feet from the upper section of the channel,while the base of the slope is located about 200 feet from the lower portion of the channel. • Landslides have occurred just upstream of this site in 2001 and circa 1936. In 2001 a landslide occurred just upstream at River Mile 5.3 as a result of the Nisqually Earthquake. In 1936, a similar landslide occurred that, in this case,was not as the result of an Earthquake. Channel Migration Risk Rolling Hills Site "A" - • The Cedar River channel appears to have been located across the proposed site in 1865. The 1865 channel survey occurred prior to the construction of the Masonry dam (and associated water supply facilities)and levees throughout the basin. • Relic channels(i.e. natural channels within the floodplain that are not currently connected,via a surface water connection,to the main river)observed at the existing Rolling Hills Site "A" may be a remnant of this pre-dam and pre-levee period. • In contrast to the 1865 channel alignment,the Cedar River channel was not located across the proposed site in 1936 or 1991. The 1936 channel survey occurred after construction of the Masonry Dam but prior to the construction of levees. The 1991 channel survey occurred both after the construction of the Masonry Dam and after levee construction. • It is very unlikely that the Cedar River would shift course(i.e. avulse)across the site and destroy the spawning and rearing function of the proposed channel given the steep banks and the current dam-influenced flow regime. Elliot Side Channel - Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 1 1 Technical Evaluation • The Cedar River channel was located across the proposed site in both 1865 and 1936. As mentioned above,the 1865 survey occurred prior to the construction of the Masonry dam (and associated water supply facilities)and levees whereas the 1936 survey occurred after the construction of Masonry dam but before the construction of levees through out the basin. • In contrast,the Cedar River channel was not located across the site during surveys in 1991. The channel survey occurred after the construction of the Masonry Dam and after levee construction. • The upper 700-ft of the spawning channel(between the road crossing and water intake) is protected from channel migration,to a limited extent, by an existing setback levee. The upper section of the setback levee is situated between the Cedar River and the side-channel. • The upper 700-ft section of the setback levee is gradually sloped and overtops at about 8,000 cfs (per observations by King County staff during the 1995 flood events). When flows exceed this level,the risk of levee failure and a concomitant shift in course of the Cedar River into the side channel increases. • The lower 1,000-ft of the spawning channel(between the road crossing and confluence with the King County groundwater channel) is between the Cedar River and the aforementioned setback levee. In other words,the setback levee does not afford protection to the lower 1,000 ft of the spawning channel. As such,the risk of channel migration into this section of the spawning channel is relatively high. Vertical Bed Movement Risk Rolling Hills Site "A" - • The risk for scour is probably greater than the risk for aggradations at this site based on recent history. Geomorphic reports indicate that the channel has incised, limiting interaction with the floodplain. • Site visits showed that the channel banks were well vegetated with small trees and shrubs. This indicates that the channel is stable, and any incision occurs slowly, if at all. • The channel is very well armored by large cobbles, and further incision is unlikely baring an extreme flood. Aggradations in response to upstream landslides are expected to be minor as the material will be sorted and transported at a gradual rate. • The steep riffle adjacent to the site will transport all but the coarsest bed material. Sediments deposited following flood recession will soon be sorted and transported out of the reach. Elliot Side Channel- • The River is currently aggrading at the Elliot channel in response to the nearby landslide. The spawning channel levee overtopping frequency is increasing. • The river is eroding the right bank in response to the deposition and the protective levee. Continued aggradations could cause the river to eventually or suddenly change course. As a result the available flow to the spawning channel could decrease. Alternately,the river could Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 12 Technical Evaluation erode a portion of the protective levee and take over the spawning channel. Either of these abrupt changes,of course,could cause scour of the bed, as well as aggradations. Social Poaching and Illicit Activity Risk Rolling Hills Site "A" - • Poaching has been observed at both the Rolling Hills and Elliot Side Channel Site. • At the Rolling Hills Site,the primary access to the site for poachers is, most likely,the paved maintenance road along the City of Seattle pipeline right-of-way. This project will not improve access for vehicular traffic along the right-of-way. In fact,one proposal is to construct a new gate across the right-of-way in an attempt to decrease illegal vehicular traffic. • The current pedestrian access within the riparian area is a soft-trail as the result of use by the public. • Poaching at this site has been observed in the main channel of the Cedar River, as there is no existing hydraulic connection from the river to floodplain area during non-flood events. After construction of the project, poachers may use the spawning channel as well as the main channel. • Based on the results of the spawning surveys and fry survival monitoring at the Elliot Side Channel,poaching that may occur in the proposed new channel at Rolling Hills Site "A"will not have a significant impact on redd construction and fry production. Specifically, even though poachers were frequently observed,the entire bottom area of the Elliot Side-Channel was utilized for redd construction during brood years 2000 and 2001 and, in addition,fry survival at the Elliot Side Channel was estimated at 65%for brood year 2000. Elliot Side Channel- • Poaching has been observed by City staff and citizens at the site during brood years 2000 and 2001. However, salmonid redds(i.e. nests)were observed throughout the length of the channel and, in addition, fry production was estimated at about 65%,which is very high. Therefore, it appears that the poaching did not have a noticeable impact on fish production. Neighborhood Impact Rolling Hills Site "A" - • Potential for increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic - The project is not likely to increase illegal vehicular traffic to the site as the primary access(i.e. City of Seattle right-of-way) and secondary access (i.e. Natural Zone trail system) will not be improved as part of this project. In contrast, it is proposed that the existing gate be improved to deter unauthorized vehicular traffic. - The project may increase pedestrian traffic to the site, as citizens may be interested in viewing the new channel. This has been the apparent case at the Elliot Side-Channel were citizens are Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 13 Technical Evaluation frequently observed walking along the channel. However, it is the intent of the project that the pedestrian traffic is limited, as much as possible, to the soft trail that will serve as the maintenance path. Informational signs will be installed as part of the project to inform citizens in this manner. - The project is not anticipated to increase the poaching activity in the general vicinity, as poachers already have access to the main channel and other spawning channels. The Surface Water Utility will continue to contact WDFW to provide enforcement to this site, and others, when poaching is observed. • Impact on site access The City of Seattle right-of-way will not be improved as part of the project. In contrast, it is proposed that the existing gate be improved to deter unauthorized vehicular traffic. • Fish and game poaching enforcement within the conservation zone The Department of Fish and Wildlife is the lead agency for enforcement of the State's poaching laws. As such,the City of Renton has contacted the Department of Fish and Wildlife about the poaching activities observed by citizens and City staff along the lower Cedar River. • Potential aesthetic impact, specifically the view from the residences across the river The channel will be constructed as to minimize the impact to the existing tree cover and setback about 100-ft from the river. In addition,new native habitat plantings will be included in the project to mitigate for all impacts. Therefore,the long-term visual impact to the citizens across the river will be minimal. Elliot Side Channel- • Fish and game poaching enforcement within the conservation zone WDFW has been contacted by Renton citizens and City staff to report poaching activity. • Nature viewing Construction of the Elliot Side-Channel has afforded citizens with an opportunity for nature viewing, most notably during the salmonid spawning season. Based on the results of the spawning and fry production surveys,the impacts on the pedestrian traffic is negligible as the entire channel has been utilized for redd construction and egg-to-fry survival has been estimated at 65%. Economics and Management Long Term Operation and Maintenance Costs Rolling Hills Site "A" - • Long term operation and maintenance costs are assumed to be directly related to the level of flood protection. In other words,the better the facility is protected from floods,the lower the operation Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 14 Technical Evaluation and maintenance costs. As such,the long-term operation and maintenance costs for the Rolling Hills Site "A"are expected to be lower than the Elliot Side Channel Site. Elliot Side Channel - • As mentioned above,the long-term operation and maintenance cost are assumed to be directly related to the level of flood protection. Therefore,the long-term operation and maintenance costs for the Elliot Side Channel are assumed to be higher as compared to the Rolling Hills Site "A". Further,the long-term maintenance costs are assumed to exceed the difference in the construction costs for the two projects. • The plugging of the permeable levee due to silt,over time,will require replacement and higher operation and maintenance costs in the long-term. Construction Costs Rolling Hills Site "A" - • Construction costs are estimated at$200,000 to$250,000 based on the two previous channels constructed by the USACE and City of Renton related to the USACE Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. The construction would consist of the following features: - River intake structure including culverts, screens,vault,valve,and large woody debris; -Channel excavation and hauling of material; -Large woody debris clusters spaced about 100 ft apart; - Spawning gravel; -Habitat plantings;and -Bio-engineered bank stabilization at key locations. Elliot Side Channel- • Construction costs are estimated at$100,000 and$125,000 based on the two previous channels constructed by the USACE and City of Renton related to the USACE Cedar River Section 205 Flood Reduction Project. The construction would consist of the following features: -Engineered log jam; -Large woody debris clusters spaced about 100 ft apart; - Spawning gravel; -Habitat plantings; and -Extension of King County Elliot Groundwater Channel. Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 15 Technical Evaluation Construction and Maintenance Feasibility Rolling Hills Site "A" • The construction and maintenance access to this site is via the City of Seattle right-of-way for the East Side Supply Line. The City of Seattle right-of-way is accessed via private property at the end of Royal Hill Drive SE. • Construction and maintenance access will be more difficult- in a physical sense- at this site due to the steep incline of the City of Seattle right-of-way. However, no flaggers will be needed for construction at Rolling Hills Site "A". This is in contrast to the Elliot Side Channel site,where flaggers are required during construction,due to the location of the well-used pedestrian and bicycle trail between the Maple Valley Highway and Ron Regis Park. • In the long-term,the total number of maintenance trips to this site is anticipated to be smaller due to the higher flood protection. As a result,the more difficult physical access is counterbalanced by the smaller number of potential maintenance trips. Elliot Side Channel - • The construction and maintenance access to this site is via Ron Regis Park. Ron Regis Park is accessed through an entrance off Maple Valley Highway. Construction and maintenance vehicles would need to cross a well-used bike trail. Therefore,flaggers are needed to restrict the flow of pedestrians and bicycles. • In the long-term,the total number of maintenance trips to this site is anticipated to be greater due to the lower flood protection. As a result,the advantage of the less difficult physical access is counterbalanced by the greater number of potential maintenance trips. • The existing permeable rock levee section will plug with silt and need to be replaced. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results presented above,the Rolling Hills Site "A" is strongly recommended over the Elliot Side-Channel Site for the location of the Cedar River Side-Channel Replacement Project. The primary reasons for this recommendation are listed below: • Construction of a new spawning and rearing side-channel at Rolling Hills Site "A" is more likely to benefit Cedar River Chinook and sockeye salmon populations over the long-term than the proposed project at the Elliot Side-Channel Site. • The proposed spawning and rearing channel at the Rolling Hills Site "A" is more likely to succeed in the long-term (in terms of greater spawning activity, higher egg-to-fry survival, and protection afforded to rearing fish)due to the lower susceptibility to flood flows as compared to the proposed project at the Elliot Side-Channel Site. In other words, flooding events at the Rolling Hills Site "A"will occur less frequently, have shorter durations, and impart less damage on the spawning and rearing habitat. Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 16 Technical Evaluation • CONCLUSIONS,continued • As a direct result of the increased likelihood of the proposed project at Rolling Hills Site "A"to benefit the Cedar River salmonid populations,the City of Renton will, in turn,be more likely to meet the mitigation requirements for the USACE Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. If the mitigation goals are not met,the City of Renton will be responsible for creating additional off-channel habitat and may not be able to conduct future maintenance dredging operations until the requirements are met. Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 17 Technical Evaluation References Jones and Stokes. 2002. Cedar River Gravel Study: Draft Phase 1 Methods and Data Report. Submitted to United States Army Corps of Engineers. King County. 1993. Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report King County. 1998. Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan King County. 2001. Flood Frequency Curve for Year 2000 Floodplain Mapping on the Cedar River. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. 2000. Floodplain Mapping Study of the Cedar River,Lake Washington to Renton City Limits,Renton,Washington(Draft) Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. 2001. Cedar River Landslide Flood Impact Assessment. Perkins Geoscience. 2002. Results of Field Investigation,Cedar River Spawning Channel. Submitted to United States Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. 1997. Final Detailed Project Report and Environmental Impact Statement: Cedar River Section 205,Renton,Washington. USACE. 2001. Cedar River Mitigation Channel: Construction Drawings. USACE. 2002. Cedar River Mitigation: 35%Construction Drawings USFWS. 1997. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report:USACE Cedar River Flood Damage Reduction Study. Submitted to United States Army Corps of Engineers. Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project 18 Technical Evaluation . 'ERKINS GEOSCIENCES Consulting Geology and Geomorphology 7731 14`h Avenue NW, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 783-3991 FAX (206) 789-0913 January 23, 2002 M To: Noel Gilbrough, Project Manager FNT�NNi Seattle District US Army Corps of Engineers R 2g?0 ) 4735 E. Marginal Way S '�CE/ v Seattle, WA 98134-2385 v�� From: Sue Perkins, Geomorphologist Re: Results of field investigation, Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement This memo report documents my field observations and geomorphological review of the proposed spawning channel replacement project, which is currently at the 10 % design stage. My scope of work, as per my proposal dated 1/16/02, consisted of data review, a half-day field visit to the site with yourself and Gary Schimek (City of Renton), and preparation of this report. Project and Site Description The project is located on the left bank (facing downstream) of the Cedar River at River Mile 3.5. The outlet for the proposed spawning channel is a short distance upstream of Seattle's water supply pipeline where it crosses the river. On the 10 % design plans, the proposed channel extends approximately 750 feet upstream to a headwater control structure at the inlet. The proposed channel is set about 20 feet back from the river at the inlet, and about 80 feet from the river in the middle portion. It is located at the transition from a confined, straight channel upstream to a gradual bend with a narrow floodplain downstream. The site lies on the inside of the bend. The proposed channel is at least 80 feet away from the potentially unstable valley wall, which is mapped as pre-Fraser glacial deposits (Booth, 1995). This is the same geologic unit that produced the February 2001 earthquake landslide, which diverted the river into the previous mitigation spawning channel. Avoiding any action that could destabilize the hillside is certainly prudent. Just a short distance downstream, the Seattle pipeline crosses an old landslide deposit that extends from the valley wall to the river. In 1987 a large landslide occurred upstream at RM 4.1 on a slope was actively being undercut by the river. Although this slope is not being undercut by the river, it is very steep and there is a low but definite risk that a similar landslide could someday wipe out the mitigation channel at this site as well. The proposed channel crosses a formerly-active floodplain that is now rarely inundated due to flow regulation and bed degradation. At the upstream end, the 2001 flood study predicts that the floodplain is inundated about 3 feet in a 100-year flood but lies about 0.6 feet above the 10-year flood. In the downstream half of the project site, the 6,3/2002 1 / floodplain is inundated about 5.0 to 5.4 feet by the 100-year flood and about 0.6 feet in the 10-year flood. (These elevations are approximate because the site survey and flood study maps are not cross-referenced in the maps I received). Water-surface gradient (and presumably channel gradient as well, though I did not have a profile to confirm this) decreases rapidly in the downstream direction within the site, from about 0.3% to 0.1% in a 100-year flood and from about 0.5% to 0.2% in a 10-year flood. The surveyed cross-sections show 1 to 3 small, relict floodplain channels, including a wall- base channel next to the valley wall. These channels are probably rarely flooded, and they showed no evidence of erosive flows. Channel Stability Vertical stability: In 1992 I resurveyed two 1968 cross-sections near the project site (Cedar River Current and Future Conditions, King County SWM, 1993). The river bed at RM 3.65 (only about 1000 feet upstream, but with a more confined channel) went down an average of 2.5 feet in the 24-year period. The cross-section at RM 2.75 showed no elevation change. These results were consistent with the lack of depositional features such as gravel bars. The past bed degradation may have been related to construction of revetments along the river. If so, degradation may have slowed or stopped. Based on the 1992 results and the stable channel pattern since then, I would expect the future trend to be either continued degradation or no change at the upstream end, and probably no vertical change at the downstream end. Due to its steeper gradient and confinement, the upstream half of the site would tend to degrade more than the downstream half. I am not familiar with the results of channel surveys or other studies of channel response following overdredging of the channel downstream a few years ago. If a significant amount of headcutting were to eventually progress this far upstream, the river bed at the downstream part of the project area could potentially degrade as well. Lateral stability: Maps prepared from tracings of aerial photographs show that the meander bends have persisted in this reach since at least 1936, changing shape only slightly (King County, 1993). Three factors contribute to the lack of significant channel migration: 1. The outsides of the major bends are stabilized by revetments or the valley wall 2. The upstream reservoir reduces flood magnitudes and hence the energy available for bank erosion 3. Bedload sediment moves through this reach instead of being deposited. Active channel migration nearly always occurs in depositional zones. In the vicinity of the proposed inlet, the stream bank is oversteepened and sparsely vegetated, although some young alder trees are growing at the toe of the bank. This suggests that minor bank erosion occurs during larger floods such as the 1990 and 1996 events. Based on the physical appearance, long-term erosion rates are probably less than a few feet per decade. This could be confirmed by careful scaling of river 6/3/2002 2 ' widths from successive low-altitude aerial photographs. Conclusions and Recommendations • The risk of the main river channel moving into a constructed spawning channel at this site appears to be very low. Channel migration rates are very low, the floodplain at the inlet is very seldom inundated, and the frequency of inundation may decrease in the future if the river bed degrades further. Design of the inlet should assume that the bank could eventually recede about 20 feet. • The spawning channel should be kept far from the valley wall to minimize the risk of burial in the event of a landslide, and to reduce the very low risk of river migration to a position next to the valley wall where it could destabilize it. • Drainage from roads, storm drains, and houses should be routed away from the potentially unstable slope above the project site. • The inlet design should account for potential future degradation, perhaps with a permeable inlet such as a log jam that would allow flow to enter over a range of depths. More information could be gained about recent rates of bed degradation by comparing survey data from the new King County flood study with the 1980s FEMA flood study, if any of the cross-section pairs are located close enough for comparison. • If the only water source is at the upstream end, sand is likely to drop out in the lower half of the channel due to the lower gradients and backwater flooding conditions. Unless permeability is such that groundwater would add a significant amount of flow, a second inlet halfway down the channel may be needed to provide additional flow to keep fine sediments moving through. There is a good example of this upstream at the Maplewood spawning channel, where a natural side channel enters partway downstream. During our site visit this month, the constructed spawning channel's bed was covered with sand upstream from the side channel, but was clean gravel downstream of the added water source. • As with any channel with a controlled inlet, there may not be enough flow to scour the gravels and keep them clean over the years. If there were enough flow to scour the gravels, then there would be no way for new gravel to move into the channel to replace the gravel moved downstream. In addition, future downcutting of the river could potentially reduce flow in the channel. The need for repeated maintenance, design modifications and repairs should be anticipated throughout the life of the project. • Were it not for the increased risk of landslides that would occur if the river were to undercut the valley wall, I would advocate an uncontrolled channel opening and allowing the river to shape the new channel as it wished. Over time, this would provide more numerous maintenance-free side channels that provide a variety of 6/3/2002 3 habitat functions in addition to spawning gravels. This still may be the best option given the potential long-term maintenance and sediment problems alluded to above. With this approach, the money spent on inlet construction would instead be spent to reinforce the outer boundary of the desired channel migration zone. Other than excavating a proto-channel and seeding it with LWD, minimal engineering of the side channel would be needed since the river would do the engineering for you. • Given the low risk of channel migration at this site, the use of hard bank armoring can probably be limited to the approaches to the inlet, a controlled overflow area partway down the channel, and the downstream outlet (where it is essential to end the spawning channel before it encounters Seattle's water pipeline). I concur with many of Cygnia Freeland's suggestions (1/18/02 memo, Dept of Ecology) to construct a channel with as many natural characteristics as possible. These could include an engineered log jam at the inlet through which water flows, steeper bank angles similar to those occurring along the river, an excavated floodplain along one bank, and clusters of logs with rootwads that are large enough to stay in the channel without anchoring. I appreciate the opportunity to visit the site and provide recommendations. Please bear in mind that the observations and recommendations in this memo are based on a very brief site visit and my professional judgment. There are undoubtedly other design considerations and complexities that I have overlooked in my brief geomorphologic review of the project. 6/3/2002 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SUBMITTAL CEDAR RIVER SPAWNING CHANNEL REPLACEMENT Tree Plan Attached to this plan is a map showing all the 6-inch diameter,or greater,trees located 25 feet on either side of the centerline for the new spawning channel. In other words, all trees located within a 50 foot wide zone along the entire length of the new channel system. All the tree locations shown on the attached drawing were field surveyed. All trees are cottonwood with the exception of one 18" Cedar. Approximately 60 to 90 cottonwood trees, with a diameter equal to or greater than 6- inches, will be felled to construct the new channel system. All felled trees will be used on site for construction of the new channel system. The number of trees required to be felled was minimized, as much as possible, during the design process through the channel and maintenance path layout process. To mitigate for the loss of trees, all cleared areas will be planted with native trees, plants, or shrubs. In addition, an existing disturbed area located between the Cedar River and new channel will be planted with native trees, plants, and shrubs. DEV C O OF RENTON LANNING juN 2 8 2001 RECEIVE° ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project PROJECT NARRATIVE Project Name Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project Project Size The overall channel length is approximately 1,100 ft. The design bottom width and side slope for the channel are 10 ft and 1:1,respectively. The channel will have a series of pools and riffles in the upper end suitable for spawning(sockeye)and for rearing(Chinook,Coho and steelhead). Site Location The project is located in the floodplain along the left bank at RM 3.1 to 3.3 on the Cedar River in the City of Renton,King County,Washington. Zoning Designation Resource Conservancy Current Use of Site Open space with public hiking/walking trails. Special Site Features Cedar River Floodplain. Soil Type and Drainage Conditions The northwest/southeast trending valleys that contain the Cedar River, and Lakes Sammamish and Washington were formed by the most recent retreat of glaciation approximately 10,000 years ago. The soils are generally glacially deposited, such as till, outwash or glaciolacustrine deposits. The Cedar River valley is composed primarily of alluvium deposited with the meanderings of the Cedar River across its floodplain. Gravels are deposited in many areas of the floodplain,and flow from the river through these gravel deposits manifests itself in the form of groundwater flow where floodplain soils have been excavated. The floodplain soils are a mix of gravels, sands and silts from successive flooding events that overtopped the levee. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUN 282002 RECEIVED 1 H:\FILE.SYS\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project\1405 Permits and Plan Review-Spawning Channel Replacement\Permit-Environmental Review Narrative.doc Proposed off-site improvements Improvement of gate across City of Seattle right-of-way to deter illegal vehicular traffic. Estimated Construction Cost $200,000 to$400,000 Estimated quantities and type of materials involved if any fill or excavation is proposed Approximately 6,000 CY of floodplain sediments(gravel,sand and silts)will be excavated and removed from the site to construct the new channel. About 600 to 900 CY of spawning gravels(0.5-4",<5%fines) will be placed within the new channel to create suitable spawning habitat. Approximately 60 CY of river bank material will be excavated and removed from the site to construct the inlet and outlet of the channel. Number,type and size of trees to be removed Approximately 50 to 100 cottonwood(primary)and alder(secondary)trees,with diameter greater than 6, will be felled to construct the new channel and maintenance path. All felled trees will be incorporated into the project as habitat features. To mitigate for the loss of the cottonwood and alder trees,native trees and shrubs will be planted in two distinct locations. The first area will be in the disturbed areas along the new channel. The second area will be in an existing disturbed corridor between the Cedar River and new channel. Any proposed job shacks, sales,trailers,and/or model homes The contractor will have a job shack located in the staging area. 2 H:\FILE.SYS\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project\1405 Permits and Plan Review-Spawning Channel Replacement\Permit-Environmental Review Narrative.doc SHORELINE EXEMPTION ©EVCITTY nF RGrP.rr�nN ING !C Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project JUN 2 8 2002 RECEIVED Project Narrative The Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project consists of creating a new side-channel on the Cedar River to provide off-channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. This project is in direct response to the functional loss of a groundwater channel constructed as part of the USACE Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project. The function of the groundwater channel (i.e. to provide off-channel spawning and rearing habitat)was destroyed in the aftermath of the February 28, 2001 Nisqually earthquake. The former groundwater channel now serves as the main conveyance channel for the Cedar River. The original groundwater channel was constructed to serve as mitigation for the USACE Cedar River Flood Damage Reduction Project which consisted of river dredging, construction of concrete floodwalls and earthen levees, and on-going maintenance including future river dredging. The construction of the new channel will serve to replace the groundwater channel. The Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project will include the following construction elements: • Intake structure-An intake structure will be installed at the upstream end of the project to convey flow from the Cedar River into the channel. The intake structure will consist of concrete headwall and wingwall,trash rack, concrete box culvert, control valve, and about 140 ft of pipe. • Outlet-An outlet will be constructed to allow flow to re-enter Cedar River and adult and juvenile fish to migrate to or from the channel. The distance between the inlet and outlet is about 1,200 ft; • Excavation and Shaping of Channel -Approximately 1,100 feet of an existing drainage course (i.e. swale/relic channel)will be lowered and widened to create new rearing and spawning channel; • Large woody debris-Approximately 5 to 10 large woody debris clusters(i.e. about 3 pieces for each cluster)will be added within the new channel to create rearing pools and stabilize banks; • Spawning Gravel -Approximately 600 to 900 CY of spawning gravel will be added to create spawning habitat; 1 H:\PILE.SYS\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project\1405 Permits and Plan Review-Spawning Channel ReplacemenlPermit-Shoreline Exemption Narrative.doc • Maintenance path-Maintenance path will be constructed adjacent to the west-side of the new channel. The path will extend along the entire channel system to the inlet structure; • Habitat Plantings -Native trees, shrubs and plants will be planted at two locations (along the new channel and between Cedar River and new channel in an existing disturbed area)to mitigate for vegetation disturbance as part of the channel and maintenance road construction • Access Road Gate Improvement - The gate across the access road will be improved to deter illegal vehicular access; and • Educational Signs - Signs will be installed on-site to educate the public about salmon within the Cedar River basin and to educate the pubic about the impacts of illegal 1 activities (i.e.poaching, campfires, vehicular traffic)on the habitat area. Again,the project is designed to benefit species such as chinook, sockeye, coho, and steelhead that may utilize both the spawning gravels and the rearing and winter refuge areas to be created within the new channel. 2 H:\FILE.SYS\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project\1405 Permits and Plan Review-Spawning Channel Replacement,Permit-Shoreline Exemption Narrative.doc Environmental Review Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project Construction Mitigation Description DEVELOPMENT PLANNING C :OF RENTON Proposed Construction Dates JUN 2 8 2002 Alternative #1 RECEIVED Phase 1 - Construction not requiring in-river work (i.e. all work other than construction of the inlet and outlet) will be accomplished, as conditions and weather permit, during September and October, 2002. Construction work for 2002 will cease on October 31, 2002 which is the beginning of bald eagle wintering season. Phase 2 - Construction not requiring in-river work, but not accomplished during 2002, will be completed,as conditions and weather permit, during 2003. Phase 3 - Construction requiring in-river work will be conducted from June 15 through August 15, 2003. Alternative#2 Phase 1 - Construction not requiring in-river work (i.e. all work other than construction of the inlet and outlet) will be completed, as conditions and weather permit, between approximately March and November 2003. Phase 2 - Construction requiring in-river work will be conducted from June 15 through August 15,2003. Hours of Operation Mondays through Fridays 7:00 A.M to 7:00 P.M Measures to be implemented to minimize dust, traffic and transportation impacts, erosion, mud, noise,and other noxious characteristics Construction equipment will have mufflers and exhaust systems in accordance with Federal and State standards, and that are in good working condition. Impact to the existing vegetation will be minimized to construct new channel and maintenance path. All disturbed areas, with the exception of the channel bottom, will be hyroseeded and/or planted with native trees, shrubs or plants as specified the design plans. An existing disturbed area along the Cedar River, located between the new channel and the river, will be planted with native trees, plants and shrubs. It should be noted that this area is outside of the project construction boundary for the new channel. Turbidity levels in the Cedar River will be monitored as connection is made between the new channel and Cedar River. Any specialty hours for construction or hauling None Preliminary traffic control plan Access to the site will most likely be from one of the following two routes: Alternative I - Maple Valley Road (Highway 169)to 140th WY SE to Petrovisky RD to 116th Avenue SE to Rolling Hills Drive SE; Alternative 2-Valley FWY (Highway 167)to SW 43rd Street to 116th Ave SE to Rolling Hills Avenue SE v J • NE 12TH ST fr aR`r P PRK D,Q �� c Z NE z Li q 900 SJBL ETNE m a 3 w Z 900 NE 10TH ST Z 1. � z z 0 m Q - NQJ_,y y A S m Z N 6TH ST IZ < a i NE NE '1�^ST PAL Z z z - 5, ZW T Z oZ W> Z o Z =a in N 6TH ST w Q 2 Z Z VI y La CC < / 1 o J 6 N 4TH ST _ NE 4TH ST / qir N � St /_____..........„,_ 3RD ST 3Rp /A NE 900 / + o In ii,"1,,i, ST �,` A�F SUNNYDALE N J; I� T 0 V MOBILE HOME 4 PARK ST �a / cc) ki J wSE 5TH ST> ca .TH< w o•T Cr S 6TH ST I= a O > B� Sf 6T i 1 TH ST a 9Cii S 7TH CT �� Si i a a a $ 0 ---10 9� 6Z U 2 S' s / Q O Project Site o 2 C2 La P W iii 2 o �� a 1 —PUGET /30 N 0 1'=2000' 2000 LEGEND: VICINITY MAP ---- City Limits ( IN FEET ) Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project w v I 1 I7 t S�Pc,. z O so,, AP 15 P,-I'CV CITY OF RENTON SOUTHEAST '�� StPE0 530088 ;:' eta 5� ON • CITY OF RENTON PRIVATE DRIVE e KING COUNTY RM282 x VgLLEy 5TH STREETE SOUTHER KING COUNTY X� VE SOUTHEEAST UNINCORPORATED AREAS ,...4 ZONE X ZO E X 4s SF 530071 .i,„ \s„." 3 '.+'� ZONE Xe5FFT 84, :9° UR(/ryGTON SMAPLEWOOD PLACE 46 DNE �a`► ZONE X 4rr s eW�Tr SF srH PROF ��N PEE 0 ' - .Nki 4Nk 'e S�FFr 1 CORPORATE LIMITS LIMITS B \IR W© ZONE A 58• 4tk• alRMx 86 sr ZONE X ZONE X © SHELTON AVE SOUTHEAST 1I11• SE 10TH 2O �IIII PACE ;�� 21 lir �`i x lk: a * ct'T ' ''M+ 3'F y,eN" Y• V %�/��"J 1/, � f E h0 �t , �i L" ZON \ p /, r ti'' ';:�' ;�w4� it r , , DXLA'1��•y V. ;� i 1 .,J, ir THeAST sr ', G-0 PP" Prow Arca V L / z,`' ` m w Arai: <A. i � 1 IN! s r�";:.ZONE X X JOINS PANEL 0983 - �- -- - - -- ' 47°2B'07•• 22°09'22" JUN-17-02 MON 09:05 AM USACE SEATTLE DISTRICT FAX NO, 206 764 4470 P. 02 DEVELOPM . CITY OF E,a ;;NSNG •C7 N WS-PM-PL-ER JUN 2 8 20025 June 2002 M1.MORANI)i.1M FOR : File RECEIVED SUBJECT: Wetland Delineation for Cedar River spawning channel site 1. Site Visit: Zach Cor'llril, Rustin Director, Noel Gilbrough, and 1 visited the site on the morning of March 28, 2002, accompanied by Gary Schimek from the City of Renton. I focused my effort on delineating wetlands in the project area. 1 walked the site and took data points at suspecI depressional areas. I used methods and criteria defined the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation manual to determine if an area was wetland or upland. The eight attached data sheets document observations of the vegetation, hydrology, and soils across the site. 2. Site.Description: The site lies along the southern shore of the Cedar River and occupies a low bench below a steep valley slope. The riverbank is abrupt and appears stable. One swale runs immediately of the base of the valley slope. Another occupies a linear depression at the base of a minor terrace escarpment midway between the valley slope and the river. The proposed spawning channel would he occupy the second swale, which becomes more defined toward the downstream end of the site, At its highest, the terrace rises about 10 feet above the left side (looking downstream) of the swale. .3. Vegetation: The most prevalent community that occurs throughout the site is a corrinrwood/alder forest with an understory of snowberry, salmonherry, and sword fern. In places, vine maple, blackberry, Indian plum, knotwced, bleeding heart, giant horsetail, and Pacific waterleaf occur. New growth of buttercup and nettle was just becoming evident. 4. I lydrokw,y: Except within Wetland A, water or soil saturation was not observed within 12 inches of the ground surface. '1'hc data points were purposely located in low areas of a narrow wall-based swale where water would have been observed if wetland hydrology was present (particularly considering the early spring date of the site visit). 5. Soils: Soils in Wetland A had prominent hydric features, including low chroma and gleying, abundant mottles, and oxidized pores and root channels. All other soils had chromas ranging from 2 to 3 with no evidence of rcdoximorphic features. Dominant soil texture in the upper I:tye.cs wa.s sandy loam or fine sand. A layer of gravel (2 to 6 inch minus) was encountered in roust holes at depths ranging from 12 to 23 inches. Except in Wetland A, soils appeared to be well-drained, 6. Wetland_Description: Wetland A occupies a long, narrow low spot in the central swale and encompasses 300 square feet. The remainder of the site appears well drained, likely resulting from the prevalence of sands and gravels close to the ground surface. The steep riverbank precludes any sort of wetland fringe associated with the shoreline. Evan Lewis, Environmental Resources Section JUN-04-02 TUE 01 :05 PM USACE SEATTLE DISTRICT FAX NO. 206 764 4470 P. 01 / J / / 1 / / / / / // / / / �// / l / // /// // I I ) /r\ I t / f \ l ' l- \ \ \ // , \; / i \ / I \ t / /� , j i / /I / � / //I I / \ ` / f \// / i II/ I /I/1i ^ ~ \ 1/ i`i I i ~- /ii/ � _ l l I / r 1 / I I �II /l l � i / / �/� z .. � ) Ii ,'�— ( / i/ //l /l l I l I /'T /af �\� / //' , i / // / II / //� \l ', /j� �/ �\\ ✓// / / r.-� \ //4/ f.. J /, , /// \ /// 02, `I I / / 1 Il 1 I' j,��' �i//ice / i 2� / // �'� II .ilG Yam'' // )// i / / 1 I /'4i.,w4'�- rl-�• - _.��.�iJS' • • J / / // / / / --.-,✓may^ /r / ��I�C/ I � / / 1 I/ I / / 1.1/- 'fi�r�1 r./ // 'J `. J//, /, I / ,fig_ / j/ O a� /i ' /��// �, N./ // � Z j .G N //i . // ;yr. • • ' r%• ./..?;•.•;:%. i . /,:,....- 4, \ / //*, c• 1V ,...:..._.... 34 / // ..;1.i /4 \ \v/ / //�/'/ �i ire/C/ t / �' \\ /// / ="'ram \ / / / / 'i J // / i jai fr // / -- r ' U /i i e- „,n -i / .,- — r ':.- 11 1 I 1 I 1 I `11 v J NE 12TH ST A o� `rNE ,PRK0,P �.." o zQ 900 ci?40TNE 0 > 0 Z w 7 wz 900 NE 10TH ST w rn Z = z w w > a a J�� z I tit N y m z N 8TH ST )z laJ > to NE a a I'AL z z D r NE �j�ST z y 5� N zw T > < < Z o oZ < < Z O z w> N 6TH ST o 0 ,z a z a 0Y w w 0 - O i' a 'A k a a // N 4TH ST i r. ZWir — NE 4TH ST j -.3 ' / N 3R0 ST ` JP � SS I 3R0 y` i * NE 900 10 9 , } Sjwr,/J T0 I MOBILE DHOMEPARK )SE STH ST0 a Nw S 6TH ST -,,,-; < AF 46,A TH ST N 9�O17THCT '�` BT ST i O GAP a 0 O Z S re 9� _ 9 s , 1 �' K. Q W Project o Site i �< '~Q TY OF EN NT ON ING O N Lu O: SUN 2 8 2002 PUGET a vl RECEIVED 2000 LEGEND: VICINITY MAPIMEiltAd 0 i•=2000 ---- City Limits I ( IN FEET ) Cedar River Spawning Channel Replacement Project King County: Assessor Property Charart' "stics Report Page 1 of 2 0 King County Home News Comments By law this information may not be used for commercial purposes. Assessor Real Property Records: Taxpayer CITY OF RENTON Parcel Number 2123059006 Account Number 212305900608 Tax Year 2002 Levy Code 2100 Tax Status EXEMPT Taxable Value Reason EXEMPT Appraised Land Value $374000 Taxable Land Value $0 Appraised Improvement $0 Taxable Improvement Value $0 Value Assessor Parcel Records: District Name RENTON Property Name TyPeerty RESIDENTIAL Plat Name Present Vacant Use (Single-family) Plat Block Water WATER System DISTRICT Sewer NONE OR Plat Lot System UNKNOWN DEVELOPMENT p Lot SqFt 2277316 Access RESTRICTED CITY OF RENTONNING Section/Township/Range SE 21 23 5 Street PAVED JUN 2 8 Surface2002 Assessor Legal Description Records: RECEIVED Account Number 212305900608 Record 01 Number 212305 6GL 3& POR OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4LY SWLY Legal Description OF CEDAR RIVERLESS E 20 FT OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 Account Number 212305900608 Record 02 Number Legal Description SUBJ TRANS LN ESMT Assessor Residential Building Records: No Residential Building records were found for this Parcel Number Assessor Apartment Complex Records: No Apartment Complex records were found for this Parcel Number Assessor Commercial Building Records: No Commercial Building records were found for this Parcel Number This report was generated:6/25/02 9:12:13 AM http://www5.metrokc.gov/webmaps/property_report.asp?PIN=2123059006 06/25/2002 King County: Assessor Property Charact-,;tics Report Page 1 of 2 j King County Home 11.1=111110:2222 Comments By law this information may not be used for commercial purposes. Assessor Real Property Records: Taxpayer CITY OF RENTON Parcel Number 2123059069 Account Number 212305906902 Tax Year 2002 Levy Code 2100 .._....... Tax Status EXEMPT Taxable Value Reason EXEMPT Appraised Land Value $60000 Taxable Land Value $0 Appraised Improvement $0 Taxable Improvement Value $0 Value Assessor Parcel Records: District Name RENTON Property Name Property RESIDENTIAL Plat Name Present Vacant Use (Single-family) Plat Block Water WATER System DISTRICT Plat Lot Sewer NONE OR System UNKNOWN DEVELOPIMENTP Lot SqFt 1089000 Access RESTRICTED CITY op REOnNING Section/Township/Range NE 21 23 5 Street PAVED Surface 1 JUN 2 8 2002 Assessor Legal Description Records: RECEIVED Account Number 212305906902 Record 01 Number 212305 69POR OF SEC 21 BEG NXN OF WLY Legal Description MGNOF CEDAR RIVER WITH N LN OF SDSEC & TPOB TH WLY ALG SD N LN Account Number 212305906902 Record 02 Number 270 FT TO PT 380 FT W OF W LN OFGL 4 OF SD Legal Description SEC 21 TH SLY PLT SDW LN OF GL 4 940 FT TH ELY PLT SDN LN 1130 FT M/L TO PT 750 FT E Account Number 212305906902 Record 03 Number OF W LN OF SD GL 4 TH NLY PRPDICOF SD N LN Legal Description 420 FT M/L TO PT 175FT SLY OF SWLY MGN OF SD CEDARRIVER TH SELY PLT SD SWLY MGN Account Number 212305906902 Record 04 Number TO S LN OF SD GL 4 TH ELY ALG SDS LN 175 FT Legal Description TO SD SWLY MGN OFCEDAR RIVER TH NWLY ALG SD SWLYMGN OF CEDAR RIVER TO TPOB Assessor Residential Building Records: No Residential Building records were found for this Parcel Number — I http://www5.metrokc.gov/webmaps/property_report.asp?PIN=2123059069 06/25/2002 King County: Assessor Property Charac*--i-tics Report Page 1 of 3 11 King County Home By law this information may not be used for commercial purposes. Assessor Real Property Records: Taxpayer CITY OF RENTON Parcel Number 2123059070 Account Number 212305907009 Tax Year 2002 Levy Code 2100 Tax Status EXEMPT Taxable Value Reason EXEMPT Appraised Land Value $122000 Taxable Land Value $0 Appraised Improvement $0 Taxable Improvement Value $0 Value Assessor Parcel Records: District Name RENTON Property Name Property RESIDENTIAL Plat Name Present Vacant Use (Single-family) Plat Block Water WATER System DISTRICT Plat Lot Sewer PUBLIC DEVELOPME Lot SqFt 2195424 Access PUBLIC CITyOFREM.oNNING Section/Township/Range SE 21 23 5 Surrface PAVED JUN 2 ,t 8 ?G(j2 Assessor Legal Description Records: RECEIVED Account Number 212305907009 Record 01 Number 212305 70POR OF SEC 21 BEG ON W LN GL 4940 Legal Description FT S OF N LN OF SD SEC MEASPRPDIC FR SD N LN &TPOB TH ELY Account Number 212305907009 Record 02 Number PLT SD N LN 750 FT TH NLY PRPDICOF SD N LN Legal Description 420 FT M/L TO PT 175FT SLY OF SLY MGN OF CEDAR RIVERTH SELY PLT SD SLY MGN OF CEDAR Account Number 212305907009 Record 03 Number RIVER TO N LN OF GL 3 OF SD SECTH WLY ALG Legal Description SD N LN 200 FT M/L TONW COR OF SD GL 3 TH SLY ALG WLN OF SD GL 3& E LN OF W 1/2 OF Account Number 212305907009 Record 04 Number SE 1/4 OF SD SEC TO PT OF NXNWITH SWLY MGN Legal Description OF BONNEVILLE POWERADMIN ROCKY REACH- MAPLE VALLEYNO 1 TR/LN TH N 32-04-00 W ALG Account Number 212305907009 Record 05 Number SD MGN 1415 FT M/L TO WLY MGNOF CITY OF Legal Description SEA-MERCER ISLAND P/LR/W TH NLY ALG SD g p MGN TO NXNWITH LN 187.5 FT SWLY OF NLY http://www5.metrokc.gov/webmaps/property_report.asp?PIN=2123059070 06/25/2002 King County: Assessor Property Charact"-i-tics Report Page 2 of 3 MGN • Record Account Number 212305907009 06 Number OF BONNEVILLE POWER ADMIN MAPLEVALLEY Legal Description LOOP N LN MEAS PRPDIC FRSD NLY MGN TH N 32-04-00 WPLT SD NLY MGN 185 FT M/L TH Account Number 212305907009 Record 07 Number N 80-10-30 W PLT SD MGN 645 FTM/L TOW LN OF Legal Description SD GL 4 TH NWLY485 FT M/L TO PT 940 FT S OF NLN OF SD SEC &380 FT W OF W LN Account Number 212305907009 Record 08 Number OF SD GL 4 TH ELY PLT SD N LN380 FT M/L TO Legal Description TPOB TGW POR BEGPT ON N LN OF SD SEC 380 FT W OFW LN OF GL 4 OF SD SEC&TPOB TH Account Number 212305907009 Record 09 Number SLY PLT SD W LN 940 FT TH NWLY1126 FT M/L TO Legal Description PT ON N LN OF SDSEC 620 FT W OF TPOB TH ELYALG SD N LN 620 FT TO TPOB Record Account Number 212305907009 NumberLESS 10 DEVELOPMENT Legal Description ISLAND PR FOL CITRYNOF SEATTLE-MERCER CITY OF ENTNNNING Assessor Residential Building Records: No Residential Building records were found for this Parcel Number RECEIVED Assessor Apartment Complex Records: No Apartment Complex records were found for this Parcel Number Assessor Commercial Building Records: No Commercial Building records were found for this Parcel Number This report was generated:6/25/02 9:16:13 AM Additional reports are available: DDESParcel Permitting Information Kind County Districts and Development Conditions Report Property Tax Information Scanned images of plats, surveys, and other map documents Enter a 10 digit Parcel Number: or Enter an address: I • Search 'I http://www5.metrokc.gov/webmaps/property_report.asp?PIN=2123059070 06/25/2002 INTERFUND TRANSFER Transfer Number: Date: 6/ 24/2-avZ General Description: CC Oa-r Ri re,- Stoawn i n9 Chid n rl e/ &AL,rri P h f f 1-O e ± Department To Be Charged (Transfer Out- From) Sv,-fa4-c V V 7 gii/Y y • Description Account Number WO/Function Amount ('cdar Xi'✓Gc Scc ;nie.) f 12/•0o06 0. 0/8. 5 9u'. &61(01534 /0615,q?- /496. Prvcdr-, 00.3 E3. 6 5 . D6Sa95S ciry nF.1eN ONNINU JUN 7 ,„ RECEIVED r Department Authorization: 4 Of/, . , 4 i Department To Be Credited (Transfer In - To) .0✓G�0 f Serl//LC f P i w Description Account Number WO/Function Amount Pos t"a9 42}• 0,Pi,65o.=.f • I ASS 22 F A/2 /Q ✓ 00. 3115. fit, 00,0007 50/0 4 GYO.ad 1 I Distribution: White: Finance Department Yellow: Department to be Charged Pink: Department to be Credited I CY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Printed: 06-28-2002 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA02-080 Payment Made: 06/28/2002 09:40 AM Receipt Number: R0203752 Total Payment: 1,005.92 Payee: INTERFUND TRANSFER Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 1,000.00 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5.92 Payments made for this receipt DEVELOPMENT P CITY OF RENT�NNING Trans Method Description Amount n�ON Payment Other 1, 005.92 JUN 2 8 2002 RECEIVED Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee .00 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat .00 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD .00 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks .00 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone .00 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Special Permit Fees .00 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees .00 5023 0 .00 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.341. 60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) .00 5954 604 .237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits .00 5955 000.05.519. 90.42.1 Postage .00 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax .00