Redmond Central Connector Infrastructure Alignment Plan by Carolyn Hope

Redmond Central Connector Infrastructure Alignment Plan October 13, 2010

Table of Contents 1.0

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Overview. .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Infrastructure Alignment Plan.................................................................................................... 6 2.0 Design Criteria.................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Regional Trail. .............................................................................................................................. 13 2.2 Park Features............................................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Stormwater Trunk Line.............................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Downtown East West Corridor Study (DEWCS) and City Street Right-of-Way............ 15 2.5 Light Rail Envelope and Facilities. .......................................................................................... 15 2.6 King County Wastewater Utilities Envelope......................................................................... 16 2.7 Other Rail Service....................................................................................................................... 17 3.0 Environmental Analysis.................................................................................................................. 18 3.1 Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment: Downtown Study Area........................... 18 3.2 Critical Area Evaluation Study: Downtown Study Area. .................................................... 18 3.3 Critical Area Evaluation: Sammamish Valley Study Area. ................................................. 19 4.0 Downtown Study Area.................................................................................................................... 21 4.1 Development of Project Envelopes....................................................................................... 21 4.1.1 City Envelope (Park Trail/ Stormwater Trunk Line). ............................................................ 21 4.1.2 Light Rail Envelope.................................................................................................................. 21 4.1.3 King County Wastewater Utility Envelope........................................................................... 22 4.1.4 Other Rail Envelope................................................................................................................. 22 5.0 Sammamish Valley Study Area..................................................................................................... 36 5.1 Evaluation of Alternatives. ....................................................................................................... 36 5.1.1 Trail Corridor without Rail:. .................................................................................................... 36 5.1.2 Trail Corridor with Existing Tracks. ........................................................................................ 37 5.1.3 Trail Corridor with Relocated Tracks...................................................................................... 37 6.0 Future Steps..................................................................................................................................... 42 Appendix A Goals and Policies B MOU –Port, ST, City, County, CWA, PSE C Memos – Process Memos 1 & 2 D Environmental Assessment: Downtown Study Area E Critical Area Evaluation: Downtown Study Area F Critical Area Evaluation: Sammamish Valley Study Area G Sound Transit Letter of Support.

Prepared for: The City of Redmond

Prepared by:

The Berger Partnership, PS KPG GeoEngineers Parsons Brinkerhoff Weinstein A|U

1.0

Introduction

1.1

Project Overview

The City of Redmond (City) acquired the Redmond section of the former Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) corridor on June 30, 2010. The corridor extends approximately 3.9 miles from the east end of the Bear Creek Trail, just south of Redmond Way and west of SR-520, to the intersection of Willows Road and NE 124th Street (see Figure 1.01). A master plan is being prepared for the corridor, which will now be referred to as the Redmond Central Connector. The master plan will coordinate City and regional infrastructure projects and design the Redmond Central Connector to achieve the City’s policies and goals for the area, which include connecting downtown, creating a destination, enhancing economic vitality, gathering community, integrating iconic and interactive art, developing a regional trail and linear park space, encouraging and enabling light rail transit, and coordinating with local and regional utilities. The purpose of the forthcoming master plan is to develop a long-range vision for the corridor that can both evolve with and be a catalyst for an evolving downtown Redmond. While realizing the full vision will be decades away, the master plan will make recommendations for the phasing and implementation of elements within the Redmond Central Connector to make sure each improvement works toward, and does not preclude, the realization of the vision. There are three significant milestones identified for the master planning process, this document being the first. The milestones for the master plan include: •

Infrastructure Alignment Plan (IAP) (for approval by City Council)

•

Draft Master Plan

•

Final Master Plan (for adoption by City Council)

(See Figure 1.02 for Project Schedule) The Redmond Central Connector is broken into two distinct geographic study areas. The Downtown Study Area (see Figure 1.03) is approximately 1.1 miles long and runs east to west along the former BNSF railroad tracks from the east end of the Bear Creek Trail to the Sammamish River Trail. The Sammamish Valley Study Area (see Figure 1.04) runs from the Sammamish River Trail north to the intersection of Willows Road and NE 124th Street.

Legend NE 124th St.

Project Area Parks Trails

Sammamish Valley Park

Proposed Light Rail

NE 116th St.

oad NE

Willows R Willows Run Golf Club Jonathan Hartman Park

Sammamish River Trail

Redmond City Hall

Redmond Way

Redmond Downtown Park

ay yW

Red

Redmond Town Center SR 520 Marymoor Park

Figure 1.01 Vicinity Map & Project Area 2

Wa y

Aug

sep

Master Plannig

* *

oct nov

dec jan

Master Plannig

Site Analysis: Gather technical project data Public Outreach: Begin with stakeholder interviews.

Community Kick-Off Event September 15, 2010 Conceptual Alternatives Design: Develope draft corridor concept plans for overall corridor

Community Meeting: Present draft design concepts and get community feedback, with a preferred alternative identified. November, 2010 Preferred Alternative Design: Incoprorate feedback and further develop concept plan

FEB

Community Meeting: Present preferred plan and get community feedback. January, 2011 Master Plan Development: Incoprorate feedback and further hone concept plan into draft master plan document

Mar apr

Master Plannig

Submit SEPA Checklist: Environmental checklist and permit report to identify regulatory issues

Master Plan Adopted by City Council. April, 2011

Figure 1.02 Project Schedule 3

Legend Project Area

Redmond Downtown Park

Trails

6th

Redmond Town Center

Proposed Light Rail

St.

NE 7

Anderson Park

166th Ave NE

ay W

Wa y

Av e

Future Downtown Light Rail Station

170

Red

y Wa d n

Parks

Bear Creek Pkwy. SR 520 Marymoor Park

Figure 1.03 Downtown Study Area 4

e Cr

Future SE Redmond Light Rail Station

Legend Project Area

NE 124th St.

Parks Trails

Sammamish Valley Park NE 116th St.

oad NE

Willows R Sammamish River Trail

Willows Run Golf Course

NE 90th St. 154th Ave NE

Redmond Way

Figure 1.04 Sammamish Valley Study Area 5

1.2

Infrastructure Alignment Plan

As the first milestone in the master planning process, the focus of this document is to present the recommended plan for locating significant infrastructure projects through the project area. These projects include surface and subsurface improvements. All of the projects will impact how the Redmond Central Connector is developed and how the City’s vision can be realized. The IAP evaluates the alignment of projects outlined in the November 2009 Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix B) between the Eastside BNSF Corridor partners, the City’s Comprehensive Plan policies, and other ongoing City projects. The purpose of this plan is to ensure that future conflicts are minimized as multiple elements are constructed over time. This plan achieves this by identifying a set of envelopes for the planned improvements. These envelopes are: •

Park Trail Envelope(s)

•

Stormwater Trunk Line Envelope

•

NE 76th Street, Light Rail, & King County (County) Wastewater Utilities Envelope

•

Possible Other Rail Envelope

The various projects listed above all place demands on the Redmond Central Connector, with a particular emphasis on the Downtown Study Area. Each project will impact how the corridor will be used now and in the future. Primary drivers for completing the Infrastructure Alignment Plan by September 2010 are: •

To be able to move forward with the design of the stormwater trunk line project, which reached 60% design before all work was postponed for a year in order to coordinate design with Sound Transit and King County projects.

•

To have sufficient data for the City to provide technical comments on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for East Link.

•

To have enough detail to complete easement agreements with Sound Transit and King County prior to their real estate closing with the Port of Seattle.

The IAP defines how and where multiple envelopes are to be located, both in narrative and graphic form. The majority of this document emphasizes the Downtown Study Area, which is most affected by the proposed projects. Section 5 focuses on the Sammamish Valley Study Area. Based on the project overview and goals presented above, a preferred Infrastructure Alignment Plan (see Figure 1.05) has been identified and will inform the next phase of developing the Redmond Central Connector Master Plan. The following sections present this plan, as well as the process of decision making through which it was developed.

Figure 1.05 Infrastructure Alignment Plan 7

2.0

Design Criteria

In November 2009, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by the Port of Seattle, Sound Transit (ST), the City of Redmond, King County, Cascade Water Alliance (CWA), and Puget Sound Energy (PSE) to share in the cost of acquiring the BNSF right-of-way for public ownership and projects. That memorandum (included as Appendix B of this document) identifies a number of easements that the City must provide to the project partners. In addition, there are a number of ongoing and proposed projects that the City and its partners are planning. It is imperative to coordinate the planning of all these projects as part of the master planning process; this document is the first effort to do so. Easements and projects placing demands on the Redmond Central Connector include: •

The City will construct a regional trail to fulfill King County’s regional trail easement in Redmond. Construction of the regional trail and associated park spaces will have opportunities for art and community gathering, per the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Park, Arts, Recreation, Culture & Conservation Plan.

•

The City will construct a new stormwater trunk line to meet Washington Department of Ecology regulatory requirements for water treatment. (See Figure 2.01)

•

The City will implement the Downtown East West Corridor study projects, which include four new north-south street extensions and four new pedestrian connections to the Redmond Central Connector. (See Figure 2.02)

•

ST is seeking a transit easement throughout the nearly 4-mile Redmond Central Connector and plans to construct the East Link light rail transit line through Downtown Redmond, with a terminus station located just west of Leary Way. (See Figure 2.03)

•

The City will provide easements to accommodate existing and potential new utilities for PSE, CWA, and King County, as well as City utilities.

•

The City will abide by the terms of rail banking within the Redmond Central Connector for potential reactivation of freight rail.

•

Although not a commitment, the City evaluated the potential for passenger rail uses within the Redmond Central Connector, separate from Sound Transit’s East Link project.

Through the Downtown Study Area adjacent to NE 76th Street, the former BNSF right-of-way varies in width at multiple locations, ranging from 50 feet to 100 feet wide. Upon review of each of the proposed projects and goals, several conflicts were identified in the locations where the right-of-way narrowed to 50 feet. The City studied alternative alignments for the projects within the Redmond Central Connector right-of-way, as listed above. Analysis of these alternatives revealed that the available right-of-way within the Redmond Central Connector could not accommodate the requirements of key projects. As a result, the City widened the available right-of-way to include the NE 76th Street right-of-way and the former BNSF rail right-of-way as a single corridor within the Downtown Study Area, providing between 110 feet and 160 feet of right-of-way for infrastructure projects and NE 76th Street operations. Utilizing the available right-of-way, the City then analyzed 14 alternative alignments focused on the critical pinch point of Leary Way and NE 76th Street, as shown in Figure 2.04.

Legend Project Area Redmond Downtown Park

ay W d

Parks Trails

n mo

Future Downtown Light Rail Station

Stormwater Trunk Line

NE 7

6th

St.

166th Ave NE

r ea

ay W

Anderson mo Park nd Wa y

Red

Redmond Town Center

Bear Creek Pkwy. SR 520 Marymoor Park

Figure 2.01 City Stormwater Trunk Line 9

e Cr

Future SE Redmond Light Rail Station

Figure 2.02 DEWCS Plan 10

Figure 2.03 Sound Transit DSEIS East Link E2 Alignment 11

Section

Plan

Figure 2.04 Leary Way & NE 76th St. critical pinch point showing conflicts between Sound Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s E2 alignment, the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposed stormwater trunk line location at 60% construction documents, and needed space for required regional trail 12

From June through August 2010 an extensive coordination effort took place amongst the various project partners to develop this IAP. As part of this process, ST and King County were engaged to assess alternate alignments and the impacts on their proposed projects. With the objective of maximizing efficiency to ensure that all other project goals may be met with limited conflict, an emphasis was placed on identifying a specific preferred light rail alignment within the Downtown Study Area. Through this effort, design criteria for each of the projects were identified and used to develop alternative alignments. The process by which the alternatives were developed and evaluated for the Downtown Study Area is outlined in Appendix C and summarized below. The following projects and design criteria have been identified within the Downtown Study Area. The criteria that have served as the basis for developing this plan are as follows:

2.1

Regional Trail

The City has agreed to lead trail development for the King County regional trail easement through the Redmond Central Connector. The trail is to meet King County and American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standards (as the trail is a candidate to receive federal funding for construction). The trail will eventually connect the East Lake Sammamish Trail to the Sammamish River Regional Trail, and north to NE 124th Street. The trail is expected to have more than 2,000 users per day, based on trail count data from nearby regional trails, thereby triggering use of King County’s Regional Trail Standard 2A, which will serve as a basis for this trail design. (See Figure 2.05) These standards offer typical trail profiles and typical details for all other trail elements, as well as recognize unique locations/situations where standards depart from the typical. Some of these unique situations exist within portions of the Redmond Central Connector. The key criteria guiding trail development in the Downtown Study Area are: •

Minimum trail width of 25 feet to 29 feet per King County Trail Standard RTS Section 2A (King County Regional Trails System Development Guidelines, Draft Feb 2009)

•

Minimum near-term trail width of 16 feet (12’ asphalt, 2’ shoulders) proposed for construction in 2011/2012.

•

City of Redmond Bicycle Facilities Design Manual http://www.redmond.gov/connectingredmond/resources/bikemanual.asp

•

City of Redmond Trail Design Standards http://www.redmond.gov/insidecityhall/parksrec/parksplanning/PARCCPlan/PDFs/CH%208%20Trails%20Draft.pdf

2.2

Park Features

The City intends for the trail corridor to become a linear City park with opportunities for cultural programming, public art, and historic interpretation. Unlike many of the utility and transportation focused uses for the Redmond Central Connector, which lend themselves to specific numeric standards, the requirements of a park envelope are more subjective, and more related to performance criteria. The standards for the Downtown Study Area as a linear park are defined in: •

Redmond Downtown Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan Principles and Opportunities, May 2008 http://www.redmond. gov/insidecityhall/parksrec/parksplanning/DTParksFac/DTParksFac.asp

•

The 2010 Parks, Arts, Recreation, Culture and Conservation Plan (PARCC Plan) http://www.redmond.gov/insidecityhall/parksrec/parksplanning/PARCCPlan/ProPlanDocs.asp

Figure 2.05 King County Regional Strail Standard 2A 14

2.3

Stormwater Trunk Line

Development of a proposed stormwater trunk line that will run from just east of NE 170th Street to just east of Redmond Way along the Redmond Central Connector to serve downtown is currently in the planning process at approximately 60% construction documents. The trunk line (4-foot diameter) generally runs east/west through the Redmond Central Connector. The design and eventual construction of this trunk line is the most time sensitive of all the projects. Sufficient room must be maintained for future maintenance activities when multistory buildings will front the corridor to the north in the future. Any reduction in the minimum distances would require structural protection, but in no event be located under the light rail track way. The key criteria guiding the stormwater trunk line development in the Downtown Study Area are: •

4-foot diameter stormwater pipe of varying depth ranging from 8 to 20 feet

•

Pipe to connect to inlet and outlet locations as proposed in the current 60% construction documents

•

10-foot separation from the edge of utility structures (manholes and underlying pipe) to the edge of the nearest future Sound Transit track

•

Trunk line cannot be under light rail tracks and should allow enough room for shoring if future maintenance is needed

•

A “no tree” zone above the stormwater trunk line running 8 feet on either side of the pipe centerline (16 feet total) is the Public Works standard requirement. (Public Works has acknowledged departures or modifications from this standard may be allowed based on further review of the tree species and depth of pipe.)

2.4

Downtown East West Corridor Study (DEWCS) and City Street Right-of-Way

The City’s DEWCS project includes a series of projects that will connect the Downtown street grid system. This includes four new streets that will be extended across the Redmond Central Connector and four other pedestrian connections. The master plan will show how these projects will be implemented and will coordinate intersection improvements that include the trail and transit crossings. The DEWCS plan is shown in Figure 2.02 and the following is a link to the study: http://www.redmond.gov/connectingredmond/studies/DEWCS.asp.

2.5

Light Rail Envelope and Facilities

Per the November 2009 MOU, Sound Transit will receive an easement from the City for light rail transit. In May of 2009, the Sound Transit Board identified its preferred alternative for the segment of the East Link Project in downtown Redmond. This alternative, referred to as E2, was recommended by the City. The E2 alternative runs along the south and east side of SR 520 as it makes its way from NE 40th Street to approximately NE 70th Street then turns west and enters the former BNSF right-of-way terminating at a station between Leary Way and 161st Ave NE. The East Link is designed with a double track that is approximately 28 feet to 30 feet wide outside of the station area. Sound Transit has a policy requiring terminal stations to have a center platform. In Redmond, Sound Transit proposes a 24-foot-wide center platform, plus one track on either side comprising approximately 30 feet, and a sidewalk on the south side of the station of 14 feet (RMC Appendix 20D-3) for a total of 68 feet. ST plans to publish the East Link SDEIS in October 2010 for public comment and will follow with its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in spring of 2011. The current ST alignment generally runs along the middle of the BNSF corridor. For more information about Sound Transit’s East Link project, please see: http://www.soundtransit.org/x3245.xml. The key criteria guiding light rail development in the Downtown Study Area are: •

A minimum 28’-2” wide right-of-way for the transit way outside of station areas

•

Approximately 68 feet of right-of-way for the downtown Redmond station o

24-foot-wide center platform

(2) 15-foot transit ways, one track on either side of platform

14-foot sidewalk on south side of station

•

Tracks with slopes no greater than 5%

The NE 76th Street right-of-way will be part of the Sound Transit envelope and will need to be reconstructed when East Link is developed. Currently NE 76th Street includes two vehicular travel lanes (one in each direction) with a center turn lane, parking, and a sidewalk on the south side of the right-of-way. The following design criteria, or updated versions of these code references, shall be followed during reconstruction: •

At least two lanes of traffic that meet emergency access requirements of 10-foot-wide lanes for a two-lane road without a median and 14-foot-wide lanes for a two-lane road with a median (RMC Appendix 20D-3)

•

On-street parking on the south side of the street (RMC Appendix 20D-3)

•

A 13-foot sidewalk on the south side of the street (RMC 20C.40.105)

Currently, Sound Transit is proposing three tail tracks extending west of 161st Ave NE, which include a maintenance and operations support building, surface parking lot for staff (20 stalls), and a power transformer. The proposal also includes approximately 660 feet of tail tracks that extend beyond the station platform. The utilitarian nature of these operations and maintenance facilities do not contribute to the vision of urban revitalization that Redmond has envisioned for Downtown. Therefore, the City is interested in evaluating alternatives to the ST proposal, since the station location is in the center of Downtown, where the City would like to maximize the development potential, improve connectivity, and enhance the pedestrian experience within Downtown. Therefore, it is preferred, from an urban design standpoint, that tail tracks and all operations and maintenance facilities are located outside of the core Downtown area. ST has a proposal to create a SE Redmond Station Maintenance Facility (MF5). If this is approved, the proposed end-of-the-line facilities in Downtown may not be necessary. As a result, the master plan may show alternatives for the end-of-the-line facilities such as: •

Moving most of the facilities to SE Redmond Station

•

Co-locating the facilities with a future City facility adjacent to the station

•

Rearranging some of the facilities to have less impact on the property surrounding the station

Final decisions on these maintenance and operations facilities are not a critical path issue for the IAP as they do not impact the immediate plans of project partners and the ultimate development of their projects. Therefore, these issues will be evaluated further during the master planning process.

2.6

King County Wastewater Utilities Envelope

King County is seeking the right to preserve existing wastewater utility infrastructure easements and a subsurface easement for long-term wastewater utility needs. The key criteria guiding light rail development in the Downtown Study Area are: •

24-inch diameter wastewater pipe

•

The depth of the pipe can be as shallow as 8 feet below ground surface

2.7

Other Rail Service

This document evaluates alternatives for another rail use within the corridor, in addition to East Link. The other rail uses could include reinstatement of freight service, passenger service that supplements East Link, or excursion service. The analysis includes ensuring that the City’s policy, goals, and regional commitments can be fulfilled along with the potential for another type of rail use. The design criteria for other rail uses include: •

A single track 17-feet-wide (8’-6” either side of center line of tracks). This track exists separate from Sound Transit tracks, per Sound Transit’s policy, which precludes sharing tracks with other rail uses

•

2% maximum slope

•

The study recognizes the need for sidings for potential future rail operations, but locations of such existing sidings are assumed to be outside of the Downtown Study Area. This study does recognize that any such sidings would further reduce corridor width for park and trail use in the Downtown Study Area.

While the City of Redmond supports the establishment and preservation of a rail banked corridor through the city, the City also believes that Redmond’s adopted land use plans, zoning code and development patterns in the downtown limit rail use of the corridor south of NE 90th Street to commuter and excursion trips.

3.0

Environmental Analysis

Beyond design criteria, infrastructure projects must consider impacts of previous environmental contamination to the projects (health impacts and cost of cleanup) and impacts of the projects to critical areas (avoidance or mitigation requirements). Identification of areas of concern could affect the alignment of projects within the Redmond Central Connector. An environmental assessment was conducted for the Downtown Study Area, since the first projects for implementation are located in this area. A critical areas study was conducted in the Downtown Study Area for the same reason and a more general critical areas evaluation was conducted in the Sammamish Valley Study Area to understand whether there are any major concerns.

3.1

Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment: Downtown Study Area

A Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the length of the Downtown Study Area to identify known or potential sources of soil or groundwater contamination. Several issues of potential environmental concern for soil and groundwater along the corridor were identified, including issues common to the length of the corridor, as well as related to specific sites along the corridor.   Petroleum hydrocarbon soil contamination exists within the railroad corridor between Leary Way and 164th Ave NE, at the former T & D Feeds facility, which is listed by the Washington State Department of Ecology as a site requiring further action during site development (a permit is pending on this site). There is widespread, but intermittent, chlorinated solvent contamination in groundwater in the Downtown area from drycleaner operations. The primary issues of potential environmental concern for soil and groundwater that are common to the length of the corridor through the Downtown area are as follows: •

Treated railroad ties (creosote or other chemical preservatives) of various ages are present throughout most of the alignment.

•

Fill of unknown origin is present throughout most of the corridor.

•

The many years of railroad operations on the corridor pose a risk for prior leaks, spills or releases of chemicals used in railroad equipment.

•

Detections of tetrachloroethylene and related chlorinated solvents in groundwater at concentrations near to and greater than the Model Toxics Cleanup Act (MTCA) Method A cleanup levels beneath portions of downtown Redmond.

The complete Draft Preliminary Environmental Assessment report can be found in Appendix D. The first project to be implemented will be the stormwater trunk line installation. This project is expected to excavate most of the surface soil and much subsurface soil throughout the downtown section of the Redmond Central Connector.

3.2

Critical Area Evaluation Study: Downtown Study Area

A critical area evaluation was conducted for the Redmond Central Connector Downtown Study Area (see Figure 3.01). The following critical areas were identified: •

Three Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas were identified near this segment of the study area.

•

Bear Creek and the Sammamish River, identified as Class I stream and Waters of the State, are respectively located at the east and west ends of the study area and their 150-foot buffers extend into the study area.

•

Two seasonally flooded palustrine wetlands were identified in the low-lying areas adjacent and parallel to the BNSF rail prism located at the eastern end of the Downtown Study Area (just north of Bartells). City of Redmond Code requires an 80-foot protective buffer for these Category III wetlands. One additional wetland is located west of the corridor, and one other potential wetland was observed adjacent to the western end of the corridor. This potential wetland is located at the toe of a Landslide Hazard Area associated with the BNSF fill prism near the Sammamish River. For the purpose of redeveloping the BNSF right-of-way, the City of Redmond may allow wetland buffers to be reduced on a case-by-case basis in accordance with RMC 20D.140.30-020(5). Where a legally established, non-conforming use of the buffer exists, proposed

actions in the buffers may be permitted so long as the proposed action does not increase impacts to the wetland. •

Frequently Flooded Areas, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and Seismic Hazard Areas are mapped within the Downtown Study Area (City of Redmond, 2010). It is likely that the City of Redmond will evaluate potential impacts to these areas on a case-by-case basis. The City of Redmond may condition the approval of redevelopment of the Downtown Study Area of the corridor within these areas based upon the findings of additional engineering evaluations and analysis.

The complete Draft Critical Area Evaluation report for the Downtown Study Area can be found in Appendix E.

3.3

Critical Area Evaluation: Sammamish Valley Study Area

A field reconnaissance of regulated critical areas was conducted for the Redmond Central Connector Sammamish Valley Study Area. The following critical areas are projected to exist in this area, but would require further analysis in the future when projects are ready for implementation: •

Ten streams were observed within the railroad right-of-way, and several wetlands were observed in the vicinity of the right-of-way, primarily outside of the study area to the west of Willows Road.

•

Two potential wetlands were observed within the study area in the northern portion of this study area, and two wetlands were observed south of the study area near the Sammamish River. It is not known if the regulated buffers of these wetlands project into the study area. Wetlands were not delineated during the reconnaissance. Trail design will need to consider these features and minimize functional impacts and buffer disturbance. Mitigation for impacts will likely be required.

•

According to the City of Redmond (2010), the FEMA 100-year floodplain abuts the eastern side of the rail prism in the northern portion of the corridor for approximately 1.5 miles.

•

The portion of the Sammamish Valley Study Area between the Sammamish River and NE 91st Street is designated as a Wellhead Protection Zone 2 and the remainder of the Sammamish Valley Study Area is designated as a Wellhead Protection Zone 4. Development restrictions associated with Wellhead Protection Zones 1 and 2 are not likely to impact trail development.

•

The majority of the Sammamish Valley Study Area is mapped as a Seismic Hazard Area and may be subject to the regulations of RMC 20D.140.60-040(4).

•

Landslide Hazard Areas were observed along the rail fill prism in the southern portion of the right-of-way, and may require a 50-foot buffer, which shall be measured from the top, toe and sides of the Landslide Hazard Area. Per RMC 20D.140.60040(2), development applicants are required to evaluate alternative locations that avoid impacts to Landslide Hazard Areas. If impacts cannot be avoided, then the applicant must demonstrate there is no reasonable alternative to developing in Landslide Hazard Areas.

The complete Draft Critical Area Evaluation report for the Sammamish Valley Study Area can be found in Appendix F.

SECTIONS

a- Downtown Infrastructure Alignment Plan Envelopes (Plan)

b- Existing Downtown Envelopes (Typical Section)

Figure 4.01 Infrastructure Alignment Plan

c- Downtown Infrastructure Alignment Plan Envelopoes (Typical Section) 20

4.0

Downtown Study Area

The Downtown Study Area is approximately 1.1 miles long and runs east to west along the former BNSF railroad tracks from the east end of the Bear Creek Trail, just south of Redmond Way and west of SR-520, to the Sammamish River Trail. The final location of the projects proposed in the Downtown Study Area will be based on the envelopes identified in this plan (see Figures 4.01 and 4.02 at the end of this section). At this time, the Downtown Study Area alignment alternatives have been completed to a level adequate to develop infrastructure envelopes that were designed with the intention of avoiding future infrastructure conflicts. The City is not stating a preference for a specific rail alignment in this IAP, as the City plans further analysis in conjunction with the regional partners.

4.1

Development of Project Envelopes

Based on the project goals, inventory and analysis, and design criteria identified in the previous sections, the City worked with ST, King County, and staff to develop 14 alternatives, as described in Appendix C. The partners require more time to finalize the light rail alignment. However, there was sufficient consensus to develop envelopes for the City and for Sound Transit and King County projects. The City will proceed with its more immediate projects within the City Envelope. In the meantime, the partners will continue to develop a preferred alignment for the remaining projects. The following infrastructure alignment envelopes and planning criteria have been established for the Downtown Study Area.

4.1.1 City Envelope (Park Trail/ Stormwater Trunk Line) The City Envelope is located on the north side of the corridor and assumes a minimum width of 29.5 feet, leaving 20.5 feet to the south edge of the former BNSF right-of-way through the length of the Downtown Study Area. The City Envelope alignment criteria are as follows: •

A minimum width of 29.5 feet, increasing in places to as wide as 78 feet where the right-of-way limits expand to the north (possibly wider dependent upon future light rail/NE 76th alignment). These criteria are based on meeting King County regional trail standards and having sufficient room to construct the stormwater trunk line.

•

Locate stormwater pipe 20 feet south of north property line at NE 76th & Leary Way pinch point

•

10-foot separation from the edge of utility structures (manholes and underlying pipe) to the edge of nearest future Sound Transit track

•

Trunk line cannot be under light rail tracks and should allow enough room for shoring if future maintenance is needed

•

4-foot diameter stormwater pipe of varying depth ranging from 8 to 20 feet

•

Pipe to connect to inlet and outlet locations as proposed in the current 60% construction documents

•

4.1.2 Light Rail Envelope The Light Rail Envelope is located on the south of the City Envelope to the south edge of NE 76th Street providing 80.5 feet of right-of-way for future development. Construction within this envelope will likely require some reconstruction of NE 76th Street per the City standards outlined in the previous sections. A Letter of Support to the City of Redmond from Sound Transit is included as Appendix G. The NE 76th Street & Light Rail Envelope alignment criteria are as follows: •

Use a combination of BNSF right-of-way and NE 76th Street right-of-way

•

Approximately 28-foot minimum ST transit double track width, plus track flare as needed to approach station

•

Provide 12-foot minimum width vehicle lanes at the intersection of Leary Way and NE 76th Street, then can narrow lanes to 10-

foot travel lanes heading eastward •

Preserve 13-foot-wide sidewalks on south edge of NE 76th Street, per 20C.40.105-020

•

Maintain 8-foot-wide parking lane along south edge of NE 76th Street

4.1.3

King County Wastewater Utility Envelope

The City has coordinated with King County and determined the following alignment criteria for a Wastewater Utility Envelope: •

24-inch diameter wastewater pipe ranging in depth to as little as 8 feet below ground

•

Location options include: o

Develop within former BNSF right-of-way, ten feet apart from the City stormwater trunk line

Coordinate with City to develop utilidor in conjunction with East Link light rail construction

Construct within the NE 76th Street right-of-way

4.1.4 Other Rail Envelope Another rail use, besides East Link, would reduce the amount of room for some of the project goals and possibly require deviations from design criteria in some locations. The trail would still be feasible, but the associated park spaces would be more limited and the pedestrian experience within the park trail space would be negatively impacted by the use of the multiple tracks for Sound Transit and a passenger rail service. The City plans to remove the existing tracks in Downtown as part of the stormwater trunk line construction project, as the project proposes to trench the excavation to install the 4-foot-wide pipe at depths of up to 20 feet. Figures 4.03 a, b, c show alternatives for using the existing tracks and moving the tracks within the pinch point areas. However, if the existing tracks are proposed to be used in the near-term, the following changes would likely need to occur to the proposed envelopes in this IAP: •

In areas where the former BNSF right-of-way is 50 feet wide, there is currently insufficient space for all of the projects to be constructed to their design standards. As a result, either more right-of-way would be necessary for all of the projects to fit, or deviations from the design standards may be necessary, or both.

•

The stormwater trunk line would be constructed on the far north edge of the former BNSF right-of-way. This could escalate construction costs for this project due to one or more of the following alternatives: the need to shore up most of the excavation; the need to temporarily remove or permanently shift the rails; the need to temporarily or permanently access private property for construction or a perpetual subsurface easement; or if these solutions are not successful, the project may need to move to an entirely different location.

•

There could be more conflicts with the Sound Transit design within the former BNSF right-of-way, making the NE 76th Street options more viable for the transit way.

•

Additional space may be required at intersections for pedestrian and vehicular traffic control, such as gates for the trains.

•

Additional trestle width will be required to accommodate both other rail and trail connections across the rivers and streets.

•

City code requires that all rail stations be located within the downtown limits.  No passenger rail station has been studied at this time outside of the East Link project.

REDM:TAB : SCY W:\Redmond\Projects\0\0500172\CAD\050017200_FX.dwg\TAB:F2 modified on Sep 10, 2010 - 4:13pm

N W

Figure 3.01 Critical Area Evaluation Study: Downtown Study Area 23

E S

Site Area BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan Redmond, Washington Figure

Figure 4.02 Infrastructure Alignment Plan-Plan Enlargements (1-10) 24

a- Downtown other rail study: near term/ prior to light rail with existing other rail tracks

b- Downtown other rail study: long term/ with light rail and existing other rail tracks

c- Downtown other rail study: long term/ with light rail and relocated other rail tracks Figure 4.03 Other Rail Envelope Studies 35

5.0

Sammamish Valley Study Area

The Sammamish Valley Study Area runs from the Sammamish River north to the intersection of Willows Road and NE 124th Street in the Sammamish Valley (see Figure 1.04). This section focuses on considerations for the future Park Trail Envelope and potential Passenger Rail Envelope. There are no immediate projects planned for this segment of the corridor; therefore, the level of analysis included in this document for the Sammamish Valley Study Area is less detailed. A preferred alignment has not been made yet as the City is looking for more public input on the alignment. The Sammamish Valley Study Area has varying widths ranging from 50 feet at pinch points to 100 feet in places. Much of the study area parallels the adjacent Willows Road NE right-of-way. In this preliminary analysis, alternative alignment studies look at one segment of the study area that presents the greatest challenges for future development. This segment, located at the intersection of Willows Road NE and NE 116th Street, is a critical pinch point where the corridor narrows to 50 feet. Three preliminary scenarios for this pinch point are presented below. They are as follows: •

Trail corridor with no rail

•

Trail corridor with existing tracks remaining and trail

•

Trail corridor with relocated tracks and trail

In studying these scenarios, the following assumptions were applied: •

The minimum trail width per King County standards is 25 to 29 feet.

•

The operations envelope for rail is 8.5 feet offset from the centerline of tracks for a total rail operations width of 17 feet.1

•

Requirements for physical separations between trail users, rail, and additional train signaling are undetermined but could require expansion of the rail operations envelope beyond 17 feet.

•

The study recognizes the need for sidings for potential future rail operations, but locations of such existing sidings and the future need for relocated or redesigned sidings has not been considered in this study. However, this study does recognize that any such sidings would further reduce corridor width for park and trail use.

5.1

Evaluation of Alternatives

Alignment alternatives were evaluated at the most critical pinch point within the Sammamish Valley Study Area, which is at the Intersection of Willows Road NE and NE 116th Street. At this location, the Redmond Central Connector right-of-way is only 50-feet wide.

5.1.1

Trail Corridor without Rail:

This alternative proposes a trail corridor without rail, meaning the existing rail would be removed in the future. The trail would be constructed on the existing track bed (see Figure 5.01). The construction of the trail at this point: •

Roughly centers the trail on the track bed, and therefore the corridor, and allows ample room to meet trail standards even at the pinch point.

•

Would require minimal grading, as the track bed area and grades would largely work for the planned trail with relatively minor grading, widening, and mitigation of critical areas.

•

Allows additional width for parallel hard surface and soft surface trails as well as space for buffers/planting and park/trail amenities like seating, art, etc.

These are standards used by ST in the Bel-Red corridor for rail design adjacent to other rail.

5.1.2 Trail Corridor with Existing Tracks This alternative preserves the existing rails for potential operation while integrating the trail adjacent to the tracks. It assumes that the trail would be on the west side of the tracks, where it would run adjacent to Willows Road. With the trail on the west side, trail users would not have to regularly cross the tracks to return to the intersections along Willows Road (see Figure 5.02). However, the trail location will be evaluated further with the public during the master planning process. The construction of the trail at this location: •

Does not allow adequate room at the pinch point.

•

May require trail encroachment into Willows Road NE right-of-way, including realignment of curb and elimination of existing bike lane, to meet the minimal standard width.

•

Could require significantly more grading and possibly retaining walls that separate the rail from the trail, as compared to the corridor with no rail.

•

Regrading of the grade transition zone between the track and Willows Road NE could require fill of possible ditch/wetlands and associated regulatory and permit issues.

•

Reduced or inadequate width for multiple trails and surfaces, as well as reduced or inadequate space for buffers and plantings, and park trail amenities like seating, art, etc.

5.1.3

Trail Corridor with Relocated Tracks

Relocating the tracks to one side of the corridor for rail operation allows increased space and flexibility for the trail. This alternative assumes that the trail would be on the west side of the tracks where it would run adjacent to Willows Road, and the tracks would be relocated to the east side of the study area. With the trail west of the tracks, trail users would not have to regularly cross the tracks to return to the intersections along Willows Road (see Figure 5.03). The construction of the trail at this location: •

Allows ample room to meet trail standards even at the pinch point.

•

Could require retaining walls and significantly more grading than the other two alternatives, as the trail construction would take place in the existing grade transition zone between the existing tracks and existing Willows Road NE.

•

Requires reconstruction of rail/street crossings.

•

Regrading the grade transition zones between the tracks and Willows Road NE and between the tracks and the east corridor boundaries could require fill of possible ditch/wetlands and associated regulatory and permit issues.

•

Allows additional width for multiple trails and surfaces as well as space for buffers and plantings, and park/trail amenities like seating, art, etc.

Figure 5.01a Sammamish Valley Study Area: Trail Corridor with No Rail (Typical Plan) Figure 5.01b Sammamish Valley Study Area: Trail Corridor with No Rail (Typical Section) 38

Figure 5.02a Figure 5.02b

Sammamish Valley Study Area: Trail Corridor with Existing Tracks (Typical Plan) Sammamish Valley Study Area: Trail Corridor with Existing Tracks (Typical Section)

Figure 4.03a Figure 4.03b

Sammamish Valley Study Area: Trail Corridor with Relocated Tracks (Typical Plan) Sammamish Valley Study Area: Trail Corridor with Relocated Tracks (Typical Section)

6.0

Future Steps

The definitions and locations of infrastructure envelopes included in this document will serve as the basis to: •

Proceed with final design of the stormwater trunk line.

•

Continue with the master planning process to define conceptual design of the Redmond Central Connector.

•

Finalize required agreements with the City’s partners for the Redmond Central Connector.

The master plan will be presented in a draft form in early 2011, and the final master plan is anticipated to be presented for City Council adoption in spring of 2011. Through the forthcoming Redmond Central Connector master planning process, the envelopes defined in this Infrastructure Alignment Plan will be viewed as minimal conditions. The master plan will add additional detail such as infrastructure improvements and identification of elements that people would like included in the development of the corridor. The master plan will be a road map to bring the Redmond Central Connector to reality, with each near-term step moving the project closer to the City’s long-term vision for developing the corridor as a great amenity that serves the community.

Appendix A Project Goals and Policies

The goals of the project and this Infrastructure alignment Plan are based on Existing City of Redmond Downtown Goals and Policies including: DT-2 - Support the Downtown as one of Redmond’s primary locations for residential development to help create an economically healthy and vibrant Downtown in the morning, daytime, and evening. DT-8 - Purchase, plan for, and improve the BNSF railroad right-of-way within the Downtown in order to: •

Preserve sufficient area for a trail, open space, and high-capacity transit/light rail;

•

Link the north and south parts of the Downtown through additional right-of-way crossings for vehicles, as well as improvements to encourage easy and safe pedestrian access along and across the railroad corridor;

•

Improve its aesthetic appeal through enhancements, such as trees, landscaping, and gathering places for enjoyment of visual or performing art;

•

Include elements of the historic railroad as part of improvements within the right-of-way; and

•

Ensure through development of specific design guidelines that improvements within the railroad right-of-way and on adjacent properties relate to and support the character of adjoining districts, particularly Old Town.

DT-9 - Develop a phasing plan for those capital improvement projects within the BNSF railroad right-of-way that cannot be fully built or funded, such as potential trails or transit features, with the goal of ensuring that constructed phases are logical components of the larger capital project. DT-10 - Ensure when new development, redevelopment, or exterior remodeling takes place on properties adjoining the BNSF railroad right-of-way that facade treatments facing the right-of-way are attractively designed to create an engaging environment for users of future trail, high-capacity transit/light rail, park, or open spaces. Downtown, together with Overlake and SE Redmond, are the portions of Redmond long identified in the Comprehensive Plan as preferred locations for high-capacity transit/light rail stations. As Sound Transit plans for high-capacity transit/light rail, the City must ensure that its station and alignment interests are reflected in the development and construction of the East King County high-capacity transit/light rail. The character and function of Redmond’s future high-capacity transit/light rail stations will vary to reflect land use and transportation goals specific to the Downtown, Overlake and SE Redmond Neighborhoods. The following Comprehensive Plan policies articulate the City’s preferences concerning the general character of the stations and surrounding areas. DT-12 - Prepare detailed Downtown high-capacity transit/light rail station area plans in cooperation with Sound Transit and other stakeholders. Do this to create a dynamic and high-quality urban place that emphasizes pedestrian activity and minimizes parking facilities through consideration of design, land use density and mix, community facilities, and public and private investments. Evaluate Downtown districts adjoining stations for revisions in preferred land uses and densities. Provide for a park and ride to address commuter parking needs at the SE Redmond high-capacity transit/light rail station. DT-14 - Enhance the beauty of the Downtown built environment through superior design and use of high-quality and durable building materials. Soften the appearance of buildings, service areas, and parking facilities through landscaping, use of architectural screens, and retention of desirable trees. DT-15 - Identify and create excellent public places in the Downtown that: •

Offer activities and uses that attract people;

•

Include details, such as good seating and bike racks, that are welcoming and helpful;

•

Are easy to see and to access, and are safe; and

•

Foster interactions among visitors.

DT-17 - Encourage pedestrian activity within the Downtown, including informal gatherings, through public and private investment in improvements along the streetscape, such as: •

Street furniture, such as benches and kiosks, that provides a unifying element;

•

Parks, plazas, and other “people places”;

•

Visual features, such as fountains, squares, and sculptures;

•

Signage and markers to assist with way finding; and

•

An intensified planting program, including special median plantings, flower baskets and/or other seasonal plant displays.

DT-18 - Identify historic resources that are defining features of Redmond’s Downtown and use the following techniques to preserve the historic character: •

Encourage landmark nomination.

•

Encourage restoration and maintenance.

•

Incorporate historic building facades or elements of the existing historic buildings into new development.

•

Ensure that design of new developments adjacent to Historic Landmarks respect the historic character of those buildings, and encourage design sympathetic to historic character where adjacent historic buildings are likely to qualify for landmarks.

•

Ensure that objects of historic significance, such as the rail throw switch, the parking meter, or the school bell, and structures such as the trestle, are saved and integrated into parks, developments, or public places.

DT-19 - Promote the vision of the parks, trails and open spaces in Downtown as being part of a cohesive system of public spaces that is integral to distinguishing Downtown as an urban “people place” within a vibrant natural setting. DT-20 - Develop and maintain a variety of linkages, such as paths and wayfinding elements, among parks and open spaces to create and identify an interconnected system of public spaces in the Downtown that are within walking distance of each other. DT-21 - Retain and enhance existing parks in the Downtown and add new parks in locations, such as the former King County shops site, along the Sammamish River, and in the mixed-use residential/office districts. DT-24 - Foster the growth and addition of visual and performing arts experiences and opportunities Downtown by: •

Encouraging development of an arts center that supports performing and visual arts and educational programs;

•

Encouraging inclusion of public art features with all private and public development;

•

Supporting programs that locate public art features in key locations; and

•

Activating public spaces with special events and performances.

DT-25 - Identify and create Downtown gateways that are integrated with the transportation system, including bicycle and pedestrian connections, using artwork, signage, landscape features and structures. Work with private property owners to help create gateway design features.

DT-29 - Increase mobility within the Downtown, promote environmental quality, and provide for convenient transit, pedestrian, and bicycle routes to and from the Downtown by: •

Encouraging commuter traffic to use bypass routes, which will reduce traffic on Downtown streets and allow better access to businesses;

•

Encouraging use of transit, car pools, bicycles, walking, and other forms of transportation that limit congestion and parking demand;

•

Establishing a Downtown transit center that is the focus for local and regional transit service between the Downtown, Redmond neighborhoods, the Eastside, and the region;

•

Supporting an extension of the regional high-capacity transit/light rail system into Downtown to provide frequent all-day transit service;

•

Providing bicycle facilities, such as connections to the Sammamish River Trail and other regional corridors, bicycle racks in new developments, bike lanes on key streets, and signage at key points;

•

Completing Downtown sidewalk systems, mid-block pedestrian walkways, and bicycle lanes to provide strong linkages among destinations throughout the Downtown; and

•

Encouraging City of Redmond employees who work in the Downtown to lead by example in walking, bicycling, carpooling, or using transit alternatives.

DT-30 - Ensure that improvements in the Downtown, including streets, sidewalks, transit facilities, lighting, landscaping, and parking lots/structures, support a comfortable pedestrian environment and contribute to the area’s aesthetic appeal.

Appendix B Memorandum of Understanding

Port of Seattle, Sound Transit, City of Redmond, King County, Cascade Water Alignment,Puget Sound Energy November, 2009

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Regarding Acquisition of the Woodinville Subdivision

This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is made by and among the Port of Seattle, a Washington municipal corporation ("Port"), Sound Transit, a regional transit authority ("Sound Transit"), King County, a political subdivision of Washington ("King County"), the City of Redmond, a Washington municipal corporation ("Redmond"), the Cascade Water Alliance, a Washington non-profit corporation ("Cascade"), and Puget Sound Energy, Inc., a Washington day of November, 2009. corporation ("PSE") (collectively, the "Parties") as of the WHEREAS: BNSF desires to sell in part and donate in part the Woodinville Subdivision, which (A) is a railroad corridor extending from the City of Renton northerly to the City of Snohomish, and including a spur corridor extending from the City of Woodinville to the City of Redmond; and The Port, King County and BNSF previously executed a purchase and sale (B) agreement and donation agreement for the acquisition and partial railbanking of the Woodinville Subdivision; and Additional regional partners have been identified to share in the cost of acquiring (C) the Woodinville Subdivision for public ownership; and The alignments under consideration for Sound Transit's Eastlink light rail project (D) require property rights within the Woodinville Subdivision; and Sound Transit, Redmond, Cascade and PSE have each expressed an interest in (E) participating in the acquisition and preservation of the Woodinville Subdivision in public ownership for recreational trail use, as well as for use as a public transportation and utility corridor. It is the express purpose of Sound Transit, King County, and Redmond, that the (F) Woodinville Subdivision be developed and operated to ensure that it is available for the dual purposes of recreational trail and public transportation use; and Consistent with federal railbanking requirements, King County and Redmond have (G) interests in developing a recreational trail within the Woodinville Subdivision; and The financial contributions to be made by the Port, King County, Sound Transit and (H) Redmond towards this collective acquisition may not be in proportion to the fair market value of the rights in the Woodinville Subdivision that are expected to be received by these entities and, in all instances, the fair market value of the rights to be received by each governmental entity in the Woodinville Subdivision may materially exceed the amount of such entity's respective financial contribution.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties have reached the following understanding:

SECTION 1. Purpose. The Port intends to close its acquisition of the Woodinville Subdivision in 2009. The Parties have envisioned and are working to complete a future transaction for their mutual benefit and for the benefit of the public. The Parties wish to set forth their understandings in this Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with respect to their respective interests in the transaction. This MOU is a non-binding document that creates no rights and imposes no obligations on any Party. While the Parties are committed to working cooperatively, expeditiously and efficiently to document the components of the transaction through binding agreements ("Agreements") using this MOU as a guide, the allocation of interests described in this MOU are tentative and subject to review and modification as the Parties move forward with their discussions.

SECTION 2. Key Acquisition Elements. The key elements of the proposed transaction are as follows: This transaction concerns the portion of the Woodinville Subdivision main line 2.1 corridor between Renton and Snohomish (approximately mile posts 5.0 and 38.4), and a spur corridor between Woodinville and Redmond (between approximately mile posts 0.0 and 7.3) ("Redmond Spur"). Collectively, the main line corridor and the Redmond Spur constitute the "Woodinville Subdivision." The portion of the Woodinville Subdivision north of mile post 23.8 in Woodinville to milepost 38.4 in Snohomish County is referred to as the "Freight Portion." The portion of the Redmond Spur between approximately mileposts 0.0 and 3.1 is referred to as the "County Portion of the Redmond Spur." The portion of the Redmond Spur between approximately mileposts 3.1 and 7.3 is referred to as the "City Portion of the Redmond Spur." Together, the Freight Portion and the Redmond Spur are referred to as the "Northern Portion." The portion of the Woodinville Subdivision south of Woodinville, excluding the Redmond Spur, is referred to as the "Southern Portion." The specific line segments and designated portions will be further defined in the Agreements. The Parties have expressed a desire for the future allocation of interests in the 2.2 Woodinville Subdivision as follows: 2.2.1 The Port will retain, subject to a freight rail easement granted by BNSF to a freight rail operator, all of the title, interest and obligations in the real and personal property of the Freight Portion. 2.2.2 Sound Transit is interested in acquiring a real property interest in the Southern Portion and the Redmond Spur. 2.2.3 King County is interested in acquiring a real property interest in the Southern Portion and the County Portion of the Redmond Spur. 2.2.4 Redmond is interested in acquiring a real property interest in the City Portion of the Redmond Spur.

2.2.5 Cascade is interested in acquiring a utility easement over the Southern Portion and will have the right to negotiate with the County and Redmond for utility easements over the Redmond Spur. 2.2.6 PSE is interested in acquiring utility easements throughout the entirety of the Woodinville Subdivision, except for the City Portion of the Redmond Spur, for PSE's existing and future facilities and infrastructure. For the City Portion of the Redmond Spur, PSE and Redmond anticipate a value for value exchange of perpetual easements for existing PSE facilities and infrastructure within the Redmond right-of-way and Redmond trail facilities on PSE properties, based on the appraised value of the properties in question. Provided, that PSE's new facilities and infrastructure shall be subject to otherwise applicable public approval, construction and permitting processes. The identification of which entities will grant and which entities will receive these 2.3 interests and the order in which these interests will be acquired will be further defined in the Agreements.

SECTION 3. Proposed Key Future Use Elements. Freight rail service subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board 3.1 ("STB") will continue on the Freight Portion. 3.2

Utility corridor uses by PSE and Cascade.

Interim trail use ("railbanking") will be established on the Southern Portion and the 3.3 Redmond Spur under the National Trails Systems Act, 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) as of the closing of the Port's transaction with BNSF. The Parties recognize that for any portion subject to railbanking, future local, regional or national transportation needs may require reconstruction and reactivation of the right-of-way for freight rail service. King County will be the trail sponsor for the Southern Portion and the County Portion of the Redmond Spur. The Agreements will provide that in the event Redmond acquires an interest in the City Portion of the Redmond Spur, King County and Redmond will cooperate in seeking Surface Transportation Board authorization for Redmond to assume the role of trail sponsor for the City Portion of the Redmond Spur. 3.4 The Parties intend that the Agreements will provide that, consistent with railbanking, the Southern Portion and the Redmond Spur will, in addition to public trail use, be available for public transportation uses such as high capacity transit or bus transportation. The Freight Portion may be made available for public transportation purposes and recreational trail purposes to the extent consistent with ongoing freight rail operations. Should the Freight Portion ever be proposed for abandonment, the Parties with an interest in the Freight Portion shall cooperate to allow the Freight Portion to be railbanked. Upon consummation of the Agreements, a process will be established for the 3.5 entities with interests in the Southern Portion and the Redmond Spur to periodically meet in order to consult and coordinate activities related to the development, maintenance and use of those portions of the Woodinville Subdivision. Said entities agree to coordinate planning and development activities to the extent possible to ensure effective use of the Southern Portion and the Redmond Spur for the uses outlined in this MOU, based on the ownership interests acquired by

CASCADE WATER ALLIANCE

By: President and Chief Executive Officer

Chuck Clarke Chief Executive Officer

Appendix C Infrastructure Alignment Plan Process Momoranda The Berger Partnership PS

Memo To:

Carolyn Hope

Date:

7.26.10

From:

Guy Michaelsen

Page:

1 of 28

Subject:

BNSF Light Rail Alignment and Envelope Progress Report

Preface: This memo documents the process for evaluating conceptual infrastructure alignment alternatives for the Redmond Central Connector. Any observations and conclusions are preliminary and subject to verification and change as we move forward with this process. Introduction: The City of Redmond acquired the Redmond section of the former Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Corridor in June 2010. In an effort to achieve the City’s goals for improving local and regional transportation connections and create a lively, walkable downtown, a master plan is being prepared to create a vibrant regional trail and downtown promenade within this corridor. The master planning process includes the following milestones: • Infrastructure Alignment Plan (IAP) • Draft Master Plan • Final Master Plan This memo will be included in the September 2010 IAP, which will serve as the foundation for development in the downtown section of the corridor. A key component of the IAP is locating a feasible alignment for the city’s new stormwater trunk line and associated structures. A primary challenge of identifying a feasible alignment for both the trunk line and park trail is the passenger light rail also planned for the downtown portion of the corridor. Each of these elements place demands on the corridor. The purpose of the IAP is to ensure that future conflicts are minimized as multiple infrastructure elements are constructed over time. The IAP will achieve this by identifying the following: • Identify the City’s preferred light rail alignment (to be the basis for commenting on Sound Transit DSEIS) • Identify feasible envelope for stormwater trunk line and other anticipated utilities. • Identify feasible envelope for park trail elements

BNSF Light Rail Alignment: Envelope Alternatives A critical issue in developing the September 2010 IAP is the location and alignment of the future light rail corridor. On June 8, 2010, Sound Transit (ST) shared its preferred alternative for the DSEIS with Redmond, referred to as E2. As currently proposed, light rail corridor improvements have significant impacts on the alignments of all infrastructure projects proposed within the corridor, as well as impacts on “pinch points” along the corridor, which may be mitigated with alternate alignments. As part of this process, we will be studying differing alignment options and will assist the city in generating comments to submit to ST in the DSEIS process. In an effort to provide more real estate to resolve conflicts at pinch points, the City has agreed to include the NE 76th St. ROW as part of the alternate corridor alignment studies.

Summary of light rail analysis process to date: June 8, 2010: Redmond/Sound Transit (ST) Meeting. Conceptual engineering review of ST’s preferred (E2) alignment and discussion presented by Sound Transit. Discussion of potential alternative alignments including: North BNSF corridor, NE 76th side running, and NE 76th St. center-running. At the end of this meeting it was mutually decided to look at alternative alignments. June 14, 2010: Staff Steering Committee Kick-Off Meeting. Review of BNSF Corridor Master Plan goals, opportunities, and constraints including initial pinch point considerations and potential impacts on parks and trails. Partner projects presented including ST conceptual engineering plan, City stormwater trunk line plan, King County sewer line, City DEWCS project, and City Regional Trail project. June 16, 2010: Memo Submitted. The Berger Partnership (TBP) described initial alignment alternatives in a draft memo. TBP and City further discussed potential of alternative alignments and determined that concerns over impacts of current ST proposal warrant further studies and should include the entire combined ROW of NE 76th and BNSF. (See Attachment ‘A’) June 18, 2010: Redmond/ST Managers Meeting. City proposed to ST that further alignment studies be developed to include the combined ROW of NE 76th and BNSF. The alternative alignments were identified as the “NE 76th St. Side Running” and “NE 76th St. Center Running Alignment.” ST expressed willingness to provide resources to further study alternative alignments proposed through the process of this project. June 30, 2010: Redmond Team Meeting. TBP presented draft alternative alignment studies to internal team. Intersection of Leary Way and NE 76th identified as critical pinch point due to narrow ROW width and wide ST transit way as a result of flaring tracks for center platform and gates for street crossing. Critical factors in this alignment, which were selected to be carried forward, include options that protect the historic Justice White House (a City Landmark) and minimize impacts on private lots north of the corridor. (See Attachment ‘B’) July 8, 2010: Redmond/ST Meeting. Follow-up meeting with ST to review alternative alignments and coordinate additional alternatives. July 13, 2010: Staff Steering Committee #2. TBP presented alternative alignment studies. Discussion identified side station platforms as a potential option for resolving many of the conflicts that many of the alternative alignments pose at the corner of Leary Way and NE 76th because side platforms do not require tracks to flare. TBP agreed to study this option further with “NE 76th St. Side Running” and “NE 76th St. Center Running” alignments. July 20, 2010: Preliminary Indication of Preferred Alignment. City staff reviewed alignment studies to date and identified the “NE 76th St. Center-Running Alignment w/ Side Platforms” as the preliminary preferred alignment. The project team was given direction to proceed studying this option further across the length of the downtown area to confirm the feasibility of the alignment.

Corridor Pinch Point Considerations A key consideration in developing and analyzing alignment alternatives for the corridor is identifying how well all of the planned projects will fit. In the Downtown Study area, the Redmond Central Connector property width varies throughout, from 100 feet to less than 50 feet in some areas. As spatial requirements for light rail, auto traffic, and pedestrians are not consistent (primarily variable at intersections), further inventory and analysis along the entire length of the corridor is needed to identify the impacts of each alternative. Through preliminary pinch point analysis, the intersection at NE 76th and Leary Way was identified as the most critical and challenging for several reasons (see Exhibit 1.01), which include:

• Private development (existing and planned) to north and south. Two properties to the north were sold by BNSF to others, leaving 50 feet of former BNSF ROW at the intersection.

• Existing historic “Justice White House” on southeast corner. • Adjacent roadways/traffic and transportation needs along Leary Way and NE 76th St. • Trail and utility demands within this section of the corridor include: o 25 to 29 foot trail corridor per King County requirements o 4-foot diameter stormwater trunk line located outside of light rail envelope o Easements for a King County wastewater utility line

• Typical 30-foot light rail transit way crossing of Leary Way. Potential additional light rail transit way width (approximately 18 feet) required for flaring of tracks to accommodate center platform on west side of Leary Way.

• Additional pedestrian crossings of Leary Way and NE 76th, which require varying additional widths for crossing arms, crosswalks and pedestrian refuges. With the intersection at Leary Way and NE 76th identified as a critical pinch point, the initial analysis of alternative alignments focused on how light rail, the park, trail, stormwater trunk line, and streets may (or may not) function at this location. The analysis for this intersection is shown in graphic figures for each alternative in the following sections. Analysis of all other pinch points along the corridor will need to be studied and coordinated further to identify other potential critical impacts.

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

• Historic Justice White House at southeast corner of intersection

• Gates & signaling for vehicular and pedestrian crossings at street corners

• S.T. light rail track flare for center platform (widened transit way)

• Must accommodate: City park trail, City stormwater trunk line, S.T. light rail, K.C. sewer line

• BNSF ROW narrows to approx. 50’ (private development to north)

Sound Transit Platform

Justice White House

Private Ownership

Critical Pinch Point: Leary Way & NE 76th St

Pinch Points

Exhibit 1.01 Sound Transit Preferred Alternative, SDSEIS Alignment (E2)

Center BNSF Corridor Alignment (ST Preferred Alternative. DSEIS Alignment E2) The current ST DSEIS alignment was developed to run entirely in the BNSF ROW. The typical transit way profile is 30 feet, but due to required clearances for gates at intersections, the profile widens at intersections to 42 feet plus additional distances along streets required for sidewalks. In addition, the tracks flare approximately 500 feet from the station to prepare for the center platform station. The result is that the location of the transit way is toward the middle of the corridor, leaving little room for other uses. In areas where the former BNSF ROW is 100 feet wide, this fragmentation provides approximately a 30-foot width on the south side (between the rail and 76th Street) and approximately a 38-foot width on the north side. At the Leary Way and NE 76th St. pinch point, the northern edge of the 30-foot transit way falls on the northern private property line, which places additional infrastructure and site elements such as crossing gates, pedestrian crossings and trail on adjacent private property. Graphic examples include:

• (Exhibit 2.01) Plan: Sound Transit DSEIS Alignment (E2) • (Exhibit 2.02) Section: Sound Transit typical transit way • (Exhibit 2.03) Plan: Leary Way & NE 76th St. Pinch Point Opportunities:

• Preferred by Sound Transit • Limit impacts on NE 76th St. Challenges:

• Impacts on adjacent properties at pinch points due to intersection setbacks for crossing needs. This includes encroachment that would require purchase of land.

• Significant amount of fragmented, underutilized land between the transit way and the properties to the north. • Limited to no space for park trail at pinch points due to intersection setbacks for crossing needs. • Conflicts with stormwater trunk line alignment at pinch points, due to property line encroachments and required 10foot setbacks, result in multiple north/south pipe crossings under tracks.

170 th Ave NE

Exhibit 2.02 Sound Transit Proposed LRT Section along BNSF ROW at 166th AVE NE

NE 76 th St. Cleveland St.

Station Platform Area

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

Station Platform Area

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

Cleveland St.

Begin Track Flare

Sound Transit SDSEIS Alignment

NE 76 th St.

Begin Track Flare

Sound Transit SDSEIS Alignment

Exhibit 2.01 Sound Transit Preferred Alternative, SDSEIS Alignment (E2)

170 th Ave NE

Sound Transit DSEIS Alignment

Maintains existing curb at Justice White House

Minimal width

(ST SDSEIS Study Alignment (E2))

BNSF Corridor Center Running

Exhibit 2.03 Sound Transit Preferred Alternative, SDSEIS Alignment (E2)

Encroachment on private development/ no room for park trail or trunk line

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

Alternate Alignment Studies As the center-corridor alignment leaves little room for other uses at pinch points, which does not support the vision that inspired the City to acquire and develop the corridor, the master plan team is studying alternatives for consideration.1 In considering the alternatives, the City agreed to combine the NE 76th St. ROW running adjacent to the former BNSF corridor and the former BNSF ROW to plan future infrastructure projects. Furthermore, the first set of alternative studies maintains the current ST DSEIS design standard to include a center platform station west of Leary Way. These alternatives include various iterations of:

• North Corridor Alignment • NE 76th St. North Side Alignment • NE 76th Center-Running Alignment Additional alternatives that deviate from current ST DSEIS standards to include side station platforms. These alternatives include:

• NE 76th St. North Side Alignment w/ Side Platforms • NE 76th Center-Running Alignment w/ Side Platforms North Corridor Alignment Shifting the rail to the north of the trail and utility corridor at the typical 100-foot-wide ROW sections would provide 58 feet to 64 feet of space between the rail and NE 76th St. Opportunities:

• This could reduce (but not eliminate) the fragmentation of the corridor by providing a wider trail and utility corridor to the south.

• Allows construction of stormwater trunk line per current design. Challenges:

• Significant impacts on adjacent properties (including encroachment that would require purchase of land) wherever ROW is not typical 100 foot width.

• This would assume the rail abuts the historic north corridor limits and would require acquisition from private landowners. This area is redeveloping as mixed use urban development with apartments and condominiums facing the Redmond Central Connector.

• The placement of the park/trail between a fenced transit way and 76th St. would make it an “island” between downtown and Redmond Town Center (RTC), which may reduce the opportunity to forge connections between the two.

• The placement of the transit way along the north edge would preclude development from fronting (spilling out) on the corridor, a key element for infusing the corridor with life and activity.

• Intersection setbacks for crossing needs would still pose problems. The train would cross mid block between Cleveland St. and NE 76th St., which may have impacts on traffic queuing on north-south streets.

• There would continue to be some fragmented, underutilized land between the transit way and the properties to the north. Would divide mixed use development from activities and uses planned for Redmond Central Connector. 1

These are considered studies, not fully developed designs for the light rail. 8

• This alignment would potentially interfere with the existing KC sewer line running along the north edge of the corridor east of 17th. Conclusions: This option does not meet the city’s desire to maximize use of the former BNSF corridor and new connections between downtown and Redmond Town Center. Nor does it leverage the opportunity of adjacent property/development to energize the park/trail, and it reduces the opportunity of the park/trail to be a catalyst for development along the corridor. For these reasons, the option is not being studied further.

NE 76th St. Side Running Alignment with Center Platform A side-running transit way could be shifted to the north edge of NE 76th St. This alignment would allow required clearance to signals with minimal “wasted” space between the prototypical transit way and NE 76th St. This alternative allows the park/trail to be located between the transit way and north property lines with varying widths dependent on pinch points. It also allows the trail to cross at the same intersection as vehicles and light rail without crossing the tracks. Graphic examples include:

• (Exhibit 3.01) Sections: BNSF/ NE 76th St. ROW with typical transit way at (A) intersection, (B) mid-block

• (Exhibit 3.02-3.04) Plans: Leary Way & NE 76th St. Pinch Point Alignment Studies Opportunities:

• Combines the majority of the non-transit-way land to the north, providing a park/trail width of approximately 20 feet minimum at pinch point intersections to approximately 75 feet at wider mid-block sections.

• Allows properties/developments along the north property line to front on the park/trail and energize the area. • Simplifies intersection design, as the transit way becomes part of the intersections along 76th St. • Grades can match either NE 76th St. or railroad grades with wall to provide grade transition to the insulated grades. • Shifting the transit way to the south provides maximum clearance at pinch points and maximum space adjacent to the future station (assuming the north line stays straight and tracks bow to the south at station).

• Station shifts to the south potentially using adjacent City property. • Light rail abutting the park/trail could be an energizing and exciting element in the corridor that helps it become a unique park/trail experience (if designed in an atypical manner, yet recognizing ST performance requirements). Challenges:

• Modifications to NE 76th St. would include reducing the ROW to two lanes at intersections (eliminating left turn lanes), which could have traffic impacts, although signal modification may mitigate some of these impacts.

• The westernmost portion of NE 76th St. has the most constraints. • Contiguous to the park/trail. Eventual design of the transit way must embrace the vision of the corridor, likely requiring atypical approaches to the transit way design, even as ST performance standards continue to be met.

• Eventual construction of the transit way will require most or all of the corridor, requiring significant salvage or restoration of all park/trail features constructed prior to the construction of light rail.

Exhibit 3.01 BNSF/ NE 76th St. ROW with typical transit way at (A) intersection, (B) mid-block

Further Analysis: Leary Way and NE 76th St. Pinch Point Alternatives

• Option: Flare Tracks to North Additional Opportunities and Challenges: o Opportunities  Maintains existing southeast curb at intersection to preserve Justice White House o Challenges  Does not allow minimal 25 foot width for park trail at critical pinch point intersection  Encroaches on adjacent properties to north at intersection and would require purchase of adjacent property

• Option: Flare Tracks to North (B) Additional Opportunities and Challenges: o Opportunities  No additional opportunities o Challenges  Does not provide minimal 25 foot width for park trail at critical pinch point intersection  Would require purchase of property to north to provide suitable width for park trail  Impacts Justice White House  May require elimination of street lane(s)

Alternative Alignment Studies

Maintains existing curb at Justice White House

Minimal Width

St. Side Running Alignment

Option: Flare Tracks to North

NE 76

Exhibit 3.02 NE 76th St. Side Running Alignment th Option: Flare Tracks to North

Encroachment on Private Development

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

• Option: Flare Tracks to North & South Additional Opportunities and Challenges: o Opportunities  No additional opportunities o Challenges  Does not provide minimal 25 foot width for park trail at critical pinch point intersection (provides approx.11 feet.)  May require purchase of property to north to provide suitable width for park trail  Impacts Justice White House  Would require elimination of street lane(s)

Alternative Alignment Studies

Encroachment on Justice White House

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

Minimal width (approx. 11â&#x20AC;&#x2122;)

St. Side Running Alignment

Option: Flare Tracks to North & South

NE 76

Exhibit 3.03 NE 76th St. Side Running Alignment th Option: Flare Tracks to North & South

• Option: Flare Tracks to South Additional Opportunities and Challenges: o Opportunities  No additional opportunities o Challenges  Does not provide minimal 25 foot width for park trail at critical pinch point intersection (provides approx. 20 feet.)  Heavily impacts Justice White House  Would require elimination of street lane(s) Conclusions: From a design perspective of creating a great public space and meeting utility needs, a side-running alignment, such as flare tracks to south, works well by reducing the fragmentation of remaining space. With much planning and design coordination, light rail running adjacent to the park/trail could be a great element of the space. To be successful, there needs to be a high level of coordination between the development of the trail and light rail to ensure that the utilities and barriers traditionally required along transit way edges are well thought out and do not compromise the human experience. Although current planning efforts will set a vision for how edges should be treated, a contiguous alignment such as this is more prone to conflicts that may emerge through future design efforts.

Alternative Alignment Studies

St. Side Running Alignment

Encroachment on Justice White House

Option: Flare Tracks to South

NE 76

Exhibit 3.04 NE 76th St. Side Running Alignment th Option: Flare Tracks to South

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

NE 76th St. Center-Running Alignment A center-running transit way on NE 76th St. groups cars and transit together and removes the transit way from the park/trail completely, putting the park/trail between westbound NE 76th St. and the north property line, which could be varying width at pinch points. Graphic examples include:

• (Exhibit 4.01) Sections: BNSF/ NE 76th St. ROW with typical transit way at (A) intersection, (B) mid-block

•

(Exhibits 4.02-4.04) Plans: Leary Way & NE 76th St. Pinch Point Alignment Studies

Opportunities:

• Combines the NE 76th St. vehicular traffic and the transit way, placing the park/trail corridor with width of approximately 32’ maximum at the Leary Way pinch point intersection to approximately 85’ at wider midblock sections. Approximately 84’ width (varies dependent on pinch points) between westbound NE 76th St. and the north property line.

• Allows development along the north property line to front the park/trail and energize the area. • Simplifies intersection design as the transit way becomes part of the intersections along NE 76th St. • Shifting the transit way to center-running provides maximum clearance at pinch points and maximum space adjacent to the future station (assuming the north track stays straight and tracks bow to the south at station).

• Eventual design of the transit way is insulated from the design and construction of the majority of the park/trail. While the vision will still be of a transit way that adds to the whole of the corridor, the burden will be shifted off light rail being the key to realizing that vision.

• Eventual construction of the transit way is largely insulated from the park/trail, which allows improvements to remain intact during and after light rail construction, though trail construction will largely close NE 76th St.

• Minimal impacts to current stormwater trunk line design. Challenges:

• Light rail becomes less integral to the park/trail experience, potentially taking away a unique element. • Modifications to NE 76th St. would include reducing the ROW to two lanes throughout by eliminating left turn lanes. This could have traffic impacts, although signal modification may mitigate some of these impacts.

• The left turn into the Redmond Town Center (RTC) garage from NE 76th St. would likely need to be eliminated, which may be of concern to RTC, although there are still two other garage entries visitors can use before or after this entry when driving westbound.

• Grades will match either NE 76th St. with minor modifications during rail construction. Initial studies indicate that the grades of NE 76th St. are acceptable grades for light rail standards.

• Modifications to NE 76th St. would require coordination with the Fire Department to ensure emergency access is maintained. Current design standards require that each side of the divided street shall not be narrower than 14 feet.

• East Link must travel at speed of traffic, which is currently 25 mph. The City would consider raising the limit to 30 mph, but not higher. Sound Transit does not want to operate at speeds less than 35 mph.

Exhibit 4.01 BNSF/ NE 76th St. ROW with typical transit way at (A) intersection, (B) mid-block

Alternative Alignment Studies

Encroachment on Justice White House

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

Minimal width (approx. 15â&#x20AC;&#x2122;)

St. Center Running Alignment

Option: Flare Tracks to South

NE 76

Exhibit 4.02 NE 76th St. Center Running Alignment th Option: Flare Tracks to South

Further Analysis: Leary Way and NE 76th St. Pinch Point Alternatives

• Option: Flare Tracks to North Additional Opportunities and Challenges: o Opportunities  Maintains existing southeast curb at intersection to preserve Justice White House  Maintains significant sidewalk/park trail opportunities on south edge of NE 76th St. o Challenges  Does not provide minimal 25 foot width for park trail at intersection (allows 14’-8”)

Alternative Alignment Studies

Maintains existing curb at Justice White House

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

Minimal width (approx. 6â&#x20AC;&#x2122;)

St. Center Running Alignment

Option: Flare Tracks to North

NE 76

Exhibit 4.03 NE 76th St. Center Running Alignment th Option: Flare Tracks to North

• Option: Flare Tracks to North & South (60/40) Additional Opportunities and Challenges: o Opportunities  Maintains much of sidewalk opportunities on south edge of NE 76th St. o Challenges  Does not provide minimal 25 foot width for park trail at critical pinch point intersection (provides approx. 20 feet.)  Removal of portion of southeast curb at intersection impacts Justice White House (would pinch sidewalk)  North/south sidewalk along Leary Way pinched to approximately 9 feet

Alternative Alignment Studies

St. Center Running Alignment

Encroachment on Justice White House

Minimal Width

Option: Flare Tracks to North & South (60/40)

NE 76

Exhibit 4.03 NE 76th St. Center Running Alignment th Option: Flare Tracks to North & South (60/40)

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

• Option: Flare Tracks to North & South (50/50) Additional Opportunities and Challenges: o Opportunities  No additional opportunities o Challenges  Does not provide minimal 25 foot width for park trail at critical pinch point intersection (provides approx. 23 feet.)  Removal of significant portion of southeast curb at intersection impacts Justice White House (would require elimination of street lane(s))  North/south sidewalk pinched to approximately 11 feet Conclusions: The center-running rail alignment separates the transit way from the trail and utility corridor and maximizes the available space for park and trail use. Insulating the development of the trail and utility corridor from light rail construction makes for much more predictable development envelopes in the near and long term. Additionally, street edges typically integrate better with active pedestrian ways as there aren’t as many requirements for buffers or barriers and they are more flexible for grading and surfacing treatments. Space not used for buffers can instead be utilized for the benefit of the trail corridor to provide more active park areas. Moreover, this is a more predictable condition for both the City and Sound Transit as there are current precedents for the center-running alignment that work well. For these reasons, this alignment allows the vision of the corridor to be fully realized in the short term with less dependence on distant decisions. However, this alignment alternative does not allow ST to operate at preferred speeds, which could affect ridership. Also, this alternative would affect access to the Redmond Town Center parking garage.

Alternative Alignment Studies

Encroachment on Justice White House

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

Minimal width (approx. 11â&#x20AC;&#x2122;)

St. Center Running Alignment

Option: Flare Tracks to North & South

NE 76

Exhibit 4.04 NE 76th St. Center Running Alignment th Option: Flare Tracks to North & South (50/50)

Side Station Platform Studies In addition to the alternative alignment studies presented in the previous sections, two more alternatives for side station platforms were studied. Each of the alternatives presented thus far include the center platform, per current Sound Transit policy, which is based on operations and cost considerations. The track flare required by the center platform, however, adds approximately 18 feet to the overall light rail envelope at the critical pinch point at Leary Way and NE 76th St. As presented, none of the previous alternatives provide sufficient space for all of the proposed infrastructure projects. Therefore, the City evaluated the side platform station alternatives for both the NE 76th side-running and NE 76th center-running alignments to determine how this may help resolve conflicts at the Leary Way pinch point. Graphic examples include:

â&#x20AC;˘ (Exhibit 5.01) Section: Typical Side Platform

Alternative Alignment Studies

Side Platform (No Track Flare)

Exhibit 5.01 Light Rail Side Platform

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

NE 76th St. Side-Running Alignment w/ Side Platforms Side platforms on the NE 76th St. side-running alignment further maximize useable space at the Leary Way pinch point. This alternative provides approximately 17’-6” between the light rail envelope and northern property line at the narrowest section, meeting the required minimal width for accommodating the trail and utility corridor. Graphic examples include:

• (Exhibit 5.02) Plans: Leary Way & NE 76th St. Pinch Point Alignment Studies Additional Opportunities and Challenges: o Opportunities  Maintains existing southeast curb at intersection to preserve Justice White House o Challenges  Does not provide minimum 25 foot width for trail and utility corridor along north edge of BNSF ROW at critical pinch point intersection (provides approx. 11’-6”)  Side station platform not typically preferred by Sound Transit due to operations and cost considerations. Conclusions: The side rail alignment with side platform separates the transit way from the trail and utility corridor and helps maximize the available space for park and trail use. However, not all the elements fit to meet minimal design standards within the current limits of the combined ROW at the critical pinch point at Leary Way and NE 76th St. Therefore, while there are notable benefits that the side platform option presents for the NE 76th side-alignment, this option does not resolve all of the spatial burdens placed on the corridor, and further options for resolving these conflicts would need additional consideration.

NE 76

St. Side Running Alignment

Alternative Alignment Studies

Maintains existing curb at Justice White House

Exhibit 5.02 th NE 76th St. Side Running Alignment Option: Side Platforms Option: Side Platforms

Limited width (approx. 17’-6”)

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

NE 76th St. Center-Running Alignment w/ Side Platforms The NE 76th St. center-running alignment with side station platforms provides the most available space for a contiguous trail and utility corridor, all of the benefits previously identified with a center platform light rail alignment, separates the transit way from the trail and utility corridor, and maximizes the available space for park and trail use. Graphic examples include:

• (Exhibit 5.03) Plans: Leary Way & NE 76th St. Pinch Point Alignment Studies Additional Opportunities and Challenges: o Opportunities  Maintains existing southeast curb at intersection to preserve Justice White House  Provides minimum 25 foot width for trail and utility corridor along north edge of BNSF ROW at critical pinch point intersection (provides approx. 32 feet) o Challenges  Limits ST speed to less than 35 mph, their minimum desired speed limit.  Side station platform not typically preferred by Sound Transit due to operations and cost considerations.  Limits access to Redmond Town Center garage. Conclusions: The side rail alignment provides the most space for the City envelope and can provide alignment options that allow ST to operate efficiently. Further analysis may be necessary on the side platform alternatives after evaluating these alternatives with ST.

Tail Tracks An issue independent of the alignment of the transit way is the end-of-line amenities, both those required and desired. To maximize the development potential, improve connectivity, and enhance the pedestrian experience within downtown, it is preferred from an urban design standpoint that tail tracks and all operations and maintenance be located outside of the core downtown area, such as at the Southeast Redmond Station. Another alternative is for ST to co-locate station buildings and facilities with a future City development at the property south of the station. The downtown station area is, and will even more so become, the heart of Redmond. As currently proposed, the tail tracks include approximately an additional 660 feet of tracks beyond the station platform. The utilitarian, fenced-off nature of light rail operations and maintenance does not contribute to the vision of urban revitalization that Redmond has envisioned for the land that these additional tracks will occupy. The master plan will be developed to show a vision of the corridor without the Operations & Maintenance Center and support facilities, and subsequently modified in the future as tail tracks and other support needs are further developed.

NE 76

Maintains existing curb at Justice White House

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

Width= 14’-6” (approx.)

St. Center Running Alignment

Alternative Alignment Studies

Exhibit 5.03 th NE 76th St.Center Running Alignment Option: Side Platforms Option: Side Platforms

Passenger Rail Service on Existing Rails Through the process of acquiring the rail corridor, there has been support for maintaining existing rail tracks for a passenger rail service either for commuting or excursions. The current trestles at 154th St., the Sammamish River and Redmond Way would need to be widened and improved to accommodate the minimum required design standards to bring both a trail (25 to 29 foot width) and train (17 foot width off centerline of tracks) into the downtown area. Redmond zoning codes require that any rail station be located within the downtown area. Beyond the constraints at the trestles, the ROW width at the critical pinch point east of Leary Way and NE 76th St. is not wide enough to accommodate a regional trail, ST, and another passenger train utilizing the existing tracks. In addition to the downtown area, there are many concerns over how the train could impact the Sammamish Valley portion of the Redmond Central Connector by bisecting the ROW and thereby complicating trail crossings at street intersections and minimizing opportunities for park and trail open space.

Schedule and Additional Studies There are many variables in developing Septemberâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fast approaching Infrastructure Alignment Plan. ST will continue to be engaged at regularly scheduled meetings about our alternate studies to gauge receptiveness and concerns. ST will provide resources beyond the master plan team to vet different alignment options and impacts. The target outcome is for the City to select a preferred alignment or envelope to allow the Infrastructure Alignment Plan to move forward in August, with support from ST, in order to complete the Infrastructure Alignment Plan and the field design of the stormwater trunk line. End of Memo

Memo To:

Carolyn Hope

Date:

8.5.10

From:

Guy Michaelsen

Page:

1 of 10

Subject:

Preferred Utility and Light Rail Alignment Analysis

Redmond Central Connectorfour morewere developed Ideally, the City and Sound Transit will agree on a preferred alternative that w.After review of the previous ten alternatives, Sound Transit provided new design information to the City that might lead to improved designs for the side-running and center-running alternatives. ST recommended: • Removing gates at intersections if speeds are presumed to be 35 mph or less. • Reviewing geometric design of the alignment from the hairpin turn at SR 520 to the former BNSF corridor to NE 76th St. • Revising the transit way width to 28’-2”. The City also verified the emergency access requirements for lane widths on NE 76th St. as 14 feet. The four new alternatives are summarized below. Sound Transit: Alternative Plan Analysis Building on coordination to date, Sound Transit drafted two alternate alignment studies, side-running along NE 76th St. and center-running in NE 76th St. Both studies include center platforms and the required flare in the tracks that widens the transit way profile from 28’-2” to approximately 50’ at the pinch point. This iteration of the ST plans eliminated the crossing gates, using the assumption that the train would travel at 35 mph or less. Our analysis of the ST alternatives is as follows: Side-Running Center Platform: (Exhibit 1.01) This alignment can work through much of the corridor, but does not provide sufficient right-of-way at the pinch point because of the track flare in preparationrequired for entering the center platform station. Therefore, the key City infrastructure projects will not fit in the corridor. The existing clearance between the property pinch point and transit way is 11’-5”. This is not adequate for the 25’ to 29’ trail easement required by the County design standards. In addition, there is insufficient room for the 20 ‘foot stormwater trunk line setback. This setback is planned to be maintained from adjacent private properties to the center line of pipe , which requires a20to allow trenching and reduce costs during installation, and to allow sufficient room for future maintenance activities when multi-story buildings will line with corridor to the north. To maintain a 20 ‘ foot setback in this schemealternative, the pipe is directly under the transit way and eastbound tracks, which is in conflict with Sound Transit’s requirements for a 10’-foot setback for utility structures from the nearest light rail track.

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

Width= 11’-5”

Width=10’-0” Minimal impact on curb at Justice White House

Sound Transit: NE 76th St. Side Alignment - Center Platform

Alternative Alignment Studies

Exhibit 1.01 Sound Transit: NE 76th St. Side Alignment Center Platform Station

Center-Running Center Platform: (Exhibit 1.02) This alignment can work through much of the corridor, but does not provide sufficient right-of-way at the pinch point. Again, the track flare does not allow all required infrastructure to fit in the corridor. Sound Transit calculated that the clearance between the property pinch point and transit way is 18’-6”; however, when applying the City code for emergency access of 14’ travel lanes, the clearance is reduced to 14’-6”. This is not adequate for the required 25’ to 29 ‘foot trail easement(22’. ) Furthermore, the ST alignment is located too far to the south (impacting the sidewalk at Justice White House) and requiring a shift to the north, further reducing the 14’-6” to approximately 12’-3”??. The existing clearance does allow room for the stormwater trunk line, which requires a 20’ offset from adjacent properties to the center line of the pipe, which would be located under the NE 76th St. westbound travel lane..

Alternative Alignment Studies BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

Width= 18â&#x20AC;&#x2122;-6â&#x20AC;?

Minimal impact on curb at Justice White House

Sound Transit: NE 76th St. Center Alignment - Center Platform

Exhibit 1.02 Sound Transit: NE 76th St.Center Alignment Center Platform

Preferred Utility/Sound Transit Alignment Analysis: With Sound Transit’s studies having the challenges noted above, both ST alternatives were modified to replace the center platform with a side platform layout, thus eliminating the track flare and conflicts at the pinch point. Both alternatives appear to be satisfactory for future utility/trail corridor. However, the side platform terminal alternatives are not currently allowedpreferable under Sound Transit policy. These two alternatives are compared and contrasted below.

Issue

Center Running, Side Platform (Exhibits 2.01(A) & 2.02)

Pinch point clearances for

Side Running, Side Platform (Exhibits 2.01(B) & 2.03)

29’-10”

33’-10”

(26’ envelope is adequate)

Pinch point clearances for

43’-10” allowing the pipe to be

33-10” requiring pipe to

trunk line

built where currently designed

be moved north of current

(and allowing maximum

design, but still outside of

envelope outside of required

required 15’ clearance from

15’ clearance from adjacent

adjacent private land.

park/trail

private land.

Trail Crossings

Trail crossings (bikes and

peds) can be incorporated

at the corners/intersections

of NE 76 St., controlled by

of NE 76th St., controlled by

same signaling as all other

intersection rail/vehicle/ped,

but remain isolated/buffered

from light rail.

Future rail construction

Transit way envelope overlays

impact - NE 76 St.

16 feet of existing NE 76 St.

6 feet of existing NE 76th St.

plus an additional clearance

required for construction

(assumes 15 feet each

(assumes 15 feet each side),

side), requiring significant

requiring some reconstruction

reconstruction of NE 76 St.

of NE 76th St.

Future rail utility impact -

Likely relocation of utilities on

NE 76 St.

the northern side of NE 76

the northern side of NE 76th

St. including: gas, power, and

water.

water. 5

Issue

Center Running, Side Platform (Exhibits 2.01(A) & 2.02)

Side Running, Side Platform (Exhibits 2.01(B) & 2.03)

Future rail construction

Transit way envelope plus an

impact on constructed

additional clearance required

park/trail elements.

for construction (assumes

for construction (assumes 15

15 feet each side) would

feet each side) would impact

impact 1’ into 29’-10” park/trail

15’ into 33’-10” park/trail

envelope requiring removal/

restoration of elements

developed in this area prior to

light rail construction.

With ST’s desire for a minimum

With ST’s desire for a

of 35 mph along NE 76th

minimum of 35 mph, side

St., and speed limited to

running is not limited by the

traffic speed. City is willing to

adjacent street speed limit.

Operating speeds

increase speed on NE 76th to 30 mph. Grades

Traffic

Grades appear to be able

to accommodate light rail,

stormwater trunk line, and

park trail—subject to further

analysis upon selection by

the City of the preferred

alternative.

Reconfigured 76th St. from

Reconfigured 76th St.

3- to 2-lane profile eliminates

from 3- to 2-lane profile

left turn lane, requiring

eliminates left turn lane,

reconfiguration of intersection/

requiring reconfiguration

signals and potential traffic

of intersection/signals and

impacts

potential traffic impacts

Mid-block left turns are eliminated

Pinch Point

Alternative Alignment Studies

Exhibit 2.01 NE 76th St. Alignment Typical Sections Typical Sections at A)Center Running (B) Side Running

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

Redmond: NE 76

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

Width= 33’-10”

Maintains existing curb at Justice White House

St. Side Alignment – Side Platform Station

Alternative Alignment Studies

Exhibit 2.02 th th Redmond: NE 76 St. Side Alignment Side Platform Station

Redmond: NE 76

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan

Width= 29’-10”

Maintains existing curb at Justice White House

St. Center Running – Side Platform Station

Alternative Alignment Studies

Exhibit 2.03 th Redmond: NE 76th St. Center Running Side Platform Station

City Recommendation In an effort to reach an agreed upon alignment with Sound Transit prior to beginning the trail master plan process in earnest, the City has determined a recommended alignment. Weighing the many variables between the options for trail/utility and Sound Transit envelopes, the City has identified the NE 76th St. side-running transit way with side station platforms as the preferred alignment at this time. This option is preferred by the City for the following reasons: •

Meets requirements for trail/utility corridor

•

AllowsMaintains all access points to Redmond townTown Center garage

•

More room for emergency access

•

Potentially fewer utilities to relocate and less disruption to 76th St. during ST construction

•

Faster train speeds (per current Sound Transit design guidelines)

End of Memo

While planning efforts aim to avoid conflicts of constructed park/trail elements to the greatest extent possible, there will inevitably be impacts

when light rail is constructed, primarily at pinch points and intersections.

Appendix D Draft Environmental Assessment Memorandum: Downtown Study Area

GeoEngineers

8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000

September 9, 2010 City of Redmond c/o The Berger Partnership 1721 8th Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98109 Attention: Dave Knight, Project Manager Subject: Draft Preliminary Environmental Assessment BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan, Downtown Study Area Redmond, Washington GeoEngineers File No. 0500-172-00

PURPOSE AND SCOPE GeoEngineers completed a preliminary environmental assessment study of the Downtown Study Area section of the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) Rail Corridor located in Redmond, Washington. The purpose of the study was to identify known or potential sources of soil or groundwater contamination in connection with the corridor. Our scope of services included review of available and relevant prior reports, a search of agency databases of known or suspected contaminated sites, a review of agency files for sites of potential concern and a visual reconnaissance of the corridor. The key findings are summarized below. A more detailed summary of the findings, correlated to an aerial photograph of the corridor, are presented in the attached table and map. The deliverable also includes two attachments: A. List of Reference Documents, and B. July 11, 2006 Ecology Opinion Letter requiring further investigation/remediation for carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs) in soil on â&#x20AC;&#x153;Site 2â&#x20AC;? defined as the railroad area near the northwest corner of the intersection of 164th Avenue Northeast and the railroad (site #42 on the attached figure and table).

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS We have identified five issues of potential environmental concern for soil and groundwater that are common to the length of the corridor through the downtown area: 1. Treated railroad ties (creosote or other chemical preservatives) of various ages are present throughout most of the alignment. The level of deterioration of the ties varies.

City of Redmond, c/o The Berger Partnership | September 9, 2010

Page 2

Metals, carcinogenic PAHs and/or petroleum hydrocarbons from wood treatment may have impacted surrounding ballast and/or surface soil. 2. Fill of unknown origin is present throughout most of the corridor. The fill may include soil with contaminants such as metals, PAHs and/or petroleum hydrocarbons, or slag (metals, pH) which is common as railroad ballast in some locations. 3. Historic vegetation management practices are likely to have included application of potentially persistent herbicides, pesticides or other chemicals including metals and/or petroleum-related constituents that could have impacted surrounding ballast and/or surface soil. 4. The many years of railroad operations on the corridor pose a risk for prior leaks, spills or releases of chemicals used in railroad equipment (fuels, etc) or other hazardous substances in railroad cargo that could have spilled in a railroad incident such as derailment. The risk of impacts from spills or leaks is increased, relative to the rest of the corridor, at the location of the former railroad depot previously located near the intersection of Leary Way and the railroad corridor (site #40 on attached map). 5. Detections of PCE and related chlorinated solvents in groundwater at concentrations near to and greater than the MTCA Method A cleanup levels are intermittent but widespread beneath portions of the Downtown Redmond in the vicinity of the alignment suspected to originate from dry cleaner operations in the area. Limited Phase II ESA soil sampling data along the BNSF railroad corridor obtained in 2008 by Pinnacle for King County was available for review during this study. The soil sample location from this study that was nearest to the Redmond Downtown corridor was analyzed for arsenic, lead, and cPAHs, and field screened (sheen testing only) for petroleum. The petroleum sheen test revealed a slight sheen. Metals were not detected at concentrations greater than MTCA Method A cleanup levels; however, PAHs were detected at a concentration of 0.442 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), greater than the MTCA Method A cleanup level of 0.1 mg/kg. Ecology files document an area of known cPAH-soil contamination on the railroad corridor, near the intersection of 164th Avenue Northeast, where Ecology has indicated further characterization/remediation may be necessary. Carcinogenic PAHs were detected in soil (1.698 mg/kg) at this location in 2005 (see page 2 of attached figure) in connection with a soil cleanup action at the former T&D Feeds site, situated at the southwest corner of Cleveland Street and 164th Avenue Northeast (sites 40 and 42 on the attached figure and table). The July 11, 2006 Ecology Opinion Letter included in Attachment B identifies the cPAH contamination in soil at this location as “Site 2.” We are not aware of any further characterization or remedial action undertaken by the railroad or by King County in connection with “Site 2.” In addition to the above issues of potential concern, past or current land use activities or documented soil or groundwater contamination at the following parcels located adjacent, or in close proximity, to the corridor pose a moderate risk for potential contaminant migration to the railroad corridor, in our opinion.

File No. 0500-172-00

Table 1 Environmental Assessment Summary City of Redmond BNSF Corridor - Downtown Segment GeoEngineers File 0500-172-00 Potential for Soil or Groundwater Contamination from Prior Railroad Maintenance and Operation Practices and Area-Wide Contaminants

Treated railroad ties

Treated railroad ties (creosote or other chemical preservatives) of various ages are present throughout most of the alignment. Level of deterioration of the ties varies. Metals, carcinogenic polcyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and/or petroleum hydrocarbons from wood treatment may have impacted surrounding ballast and/or surface soil. 2008 Phase II ESA soil sampling by Pinnacle of a railroad location near to but not within the subject property area did not identify metals or petroluem concentrations greater than cleanup levels; however, PAHs were detected at a concentration of 0.442 mg/kg, greater than the MTCA Method A cleanup level of 0.1.

Contaminants in imported fill and railroad ballast

Fill of unknown origin is present throughout most of the corridor. The fill may include soil with contaminants such asmetals, PAHs and/or petroleum hydrocarbons, or slag (metals, pH) which is common in some locations as railroad ballast. 2008 Phase II ESA soil sampling by Pinnacle of a railroad location near to but not within the subject property area did not identify metals or petroluem concentrations greater than cleanup levels; however, PAHs were detected at a concentration of 0.442 mg/kg, greater than the MTCA Method A cleanup level of 0.1.

Pase use of Herbicides, Pesticides or other chemicals for vegetation management

Historic vegetation management practices are likely to have included application of potentially persistent herbicides, pesticides or other chemicals including metals and/or petroleum-related constituents that could have impacted surrounding ballast and/or surface soil. 2008 Phase II ESA soil sampling by Pinnacle in areas near the subject property did not include analysis for pesticides or herbicides other than arsenic and lead. Arsenic and lead were not detected at concentrations above applicable cleanup levels in a sample from a railroad location near to but not within the subject property area.

Leaks, spills or releases associated with railroad equipment

The many years of railroad operations on the corridor pose a risk for prior leaks, spills or releases of chemicals used in railroad equipment (fuels, etc) or other hazardous substances in railroad cargo that could have spilled in a railroad incident such as derailment.

Chlorinated solvents (PCE) in groundwater from various dry cleaner sources in Downtown Area

Detections of PCE and related chlorinated solvents at concentrations near to and greater than the MTCA Method A cleanup levels are intermittent but widespread in groundwater beneath portions of the Downtown Redmond are in the vicinity of the alignment.

File No. 0500-172-00 Table 1 | September 9, 2010

Page 1 of 8

Potential for Soil or Groundwater Contamination via migration from sources on adjacent parcels or nearby properties

MAP ID

Property Name Based on Current Use

Tax Parcel Number

Address

Historical Information and/or Potential for Contamination on Parcel in Vicinity of BNSF ROW

Relative Ranking of Potential Concern for Contaminant Migration to the Corridor

Alignment (Subject Property) Parcels 16

BNSF ROW

225059035

None

See items A through E

BNSF ROW

1125059021

None

See items A through E

BNSF lease area

1125059116

None

See items A through E

BNSF ROW

1225059052

None

See items A through E

BNSF ROW

1225059266

None

See items A through E

BNSF ROW

1225059265

None

See items A through E

Comprehensive List of Adjacent Properties and Selected Nearby Properties with Contamination Potential 1

225059189 8345 154TH AVE NE

Parcels 1 and 2 are both office building. Site was farmland prior to construction of existing office building in 1989.

Low

225059161

None

Greenbelt area

Low

225059157

7950 WILLOWS RD

Office Buildings 2 3

225059027 West Sammammish Trail ROW

4 5

Cascade Plaza Retirement Center

1125059084

7900 WILLOWS RD

1125059135

None

Low Parcels 4 through 6 are portions of the existing retirement center. Site was undeveloped prior to construction of existing buildings in 1966 and 1973. 1973 Some site buildings may previously have been heated by oil buring heating system.

Low Low

West Sammammish Trail ROW

1125059060

8099 WILLOWS RD NE

Greenbelt area

Low

West Sammammish Trail ROW

1125059142

None

Greenbelt area

Low

Westgate Office Building

1125059054

15600 NE REDMOND WAY

Site was undeveloped prior to construction of existing building in 1978.

Low

West Sammammish Trail ROW

225059163

158TH AVE NE

Greenbelt area

Low

Redmond Riverwalk Office Building

7198900050

8383 158TH AVE NE

Site was undeveloped prior to construciton of existing office building in 1982.

Low

Vacant

7198900060

158TH AVE NE

Site appears undeveloped in all available resources.

Low

File No. 0500-172-00 Table 1 | September 9, 2010

Page 2 of 8

MAP ID

Property Name Based on Current Use

Tax Parcel Number

Address

Historical Information and/or Potential for Contamination on Parcel in Vicinity of BNSF ROW

Relative Ranking of Potential Concern for Contaminant Migration to the Corridor

Ben Franklin Crafts retail store

7198900063

15754 NE REDMOND WAY

Existing retail building constructed in 1975. Building may have previously used oil heat.

Low

Organic Coffee store

7198900062

15748 REDMOND WAY

Existing retail building constructed in 1975. Building may have previously used oil heat.

Low

Yoga Studio

7198900061

15742 NE REDMOND WAY

Existing retail building constructed in 1974. Building may have previously used oil heat.

Low

Canyons Restaurant

7198900070

15740 NE REDMOND WAY

Existing restaurant building constructed in 2003. A different restaurant building was previously located on this property from the 1970s.

Low

Existing shopping center constructed in 1966. Portions of the building may have used oil heat. City directories identify "Redmond One Hour Cleaners" as a shopping center tenant in the 1980s. This dry cleaner is a listed contaminated site and identified on city's database of dry cleaners in the downtown area. Existing building was constructed in 1978, previously a chiropractic center and health clinic. Based on review of aerial photographs, site may have been a trailer park prior to construction of the existing building. Existing building has been fast food restaurant since construction in 1977. Based on review of aerial photographs, site may have been a trailer park prior to construction of the existing building.

Moderate

Redmond Center Shopping Center

7198900080

15800 NE REDMOND WAY

Pacific Music retail store

1125059111

15935 NE REDMOND WAY

Wendy's Restaurant

1125059106

15945 REDMOND WAY

Red160 Apartments

1125059040

16015 CLEVELAND ST

Existing apartment building underconstruction. underconstruction Previous building at this location was a restaurant.

Low

Red160 Apartments

7792400065

None

Existing apartment building under construction. Previous building at this location was a plumbing supply sales warehouse.

Low

ROW

7792400035

None

Existing roadway here established in 2000s with construction of adjacent condominium building. Property was formerly storage and parking area associated with adjacent lumberyard.

Low to Moderate

Condominiums

1624000000

16141 CLEVELAND ST

Existing condominium building constructed in 2006. Lumber yard previously located at this property from at least 1928.

Low

Vacant property

7792400005

16241 CLEVELAND ST

Former lumber yard, flooring warehouses and auto glass, recently demolished. Relative risk raised because details of industrial property use at this site are unknown.

Moderate

Redmond Western Wear retail store

7198800035

7829 LEARY WAY NE

Site has been primarily retail use since development in 1910.

Low

Half Price Books retail store

7198800045

7805 LEARY WAY NE

Building was used by Redmond Trading for several decades following construction in 1910. Redmond Trading used the property as a general store and grain and feed warehouse. Kustom Kraft boats also used the property.

Moderate

File No. 0500-172-00 Table 1 | September 9, 2010

Page 3 of 8

Low

MAP ID

Property Name Based on Current Use

Tax Parcel Number

Address

Historical Information and/or Potential for Contamination on Parcel in Vicinity of BNSF ROW

Relative Ranking of Potential Concern for Contaminant Migration to the Corridor

KFC restaurant

9270700005

7870 159TH PL NE

Existing building has been used for fast food restaurant since construction in 1971.

Low

Redmond Signs

9270700010

7848 159TH PL NE

Existing building is currently used by sign painting company. Past tenants include farm machinery sales. Building was constructed in 1958 and may have used an oil-burning heating system.

Moderate

Floor Craft retail store

9270700020

7842 159TH PL NE

Existing building has been used for retail flooring sales and installation since construction in 1960.

Low

Frey Reed office building

9270700025

7840 159TH PL NE

Existing building has been used as an office building by a variety of tenants including building contractor, real estate agents, and lawyers since construction in 1978.

Low

Former Budget Rental parking lot

9270700030

159TH PL NE

City of Redmond currently owns this vacant parcel, which has been parking lot since 1970s. GeoEngineers completed a Phase I and II ESA of this parcel in 2007. Auto parts were formerly stored in the northeast corner of the site. PCE was detected at concentration below MTCA cleanup level in a groundwater sample from a monitoring well in the southeast corner of the property.

Redmond Auto Center service garage

9270700035

7760 159TH PL NE

Redmond Auto Center site has contained an auto repair garage since construction in 1973. Site buildings likely use(d) an oil burning heating system. Details regarding the operation and site features is unknown.

Moderate

Low

Bear Creek Parkway Extension - formerly Budget Rental property

9270700040

7740 159th Place NE

City of Redmond currently owns this vacant parcel, which is now part of Bear Creek Parkway. A building was constructed on this parcel inthe 1960s, used first by a plumbing and heating company and later Budget Rental and AAA Radiators. GeoEngineers completed a Phase I and II ESA of this parcel in 2007. PCE was detected at concentration below MTCA cleanup level in a groundwater sample from a monitoring well in the southeast corner of the property, however, no contaminants of concern were encountered during recent roadway construction. Site is now an extension of Bear Creek Parkway.

Bear Creek Parkway Extension - City of Redmond Former Shops site

1125059026

None

Site was formerly county road department maintenance facility. Site structures were demolished and cleanup action was recently completed at the site. Ecology granted NFA for the site in 2009. Site is now an extension of Bear Creek Parkway.

Low

Bill Brown Saloon Building

7198800025

7824 LEARY WAY NE

Site use has primarily been restaurants and retail since construction in 1913.

Low

Parking lot

7198800026

None

Site previously contained a retail building but has been a parking lot since the 1960s.

Low

File No. 0500-172-00 Table 1 | September 9, 2010

Page 4 of 8

MAP ID

Property Name Based on Current Use

Tax Parcel Number

Address

Historical Information and/or Potential for Contamination on Parcel in Vicinity of BNSF ROW

Relative Ranking of Potential Concern for Contaminant Migration to the Corridor Moderate

Vacant property (Former railroad depot)

1125059146

None

Former passenger railroad depot constructed before 1908. Depot building was demolished in 1972. Considered Moderate potential for contaminants based on many years of railroad equipment loading/unloading, and because site was also part of T&D feeds (site 42) cleanup area, see more detail below.

IPM Auto Service and pawn shop

7198800016

7800 GILMAN ST

Site has contained an auto repair garage for several decades. Site buildings likely use(d) an oil burning heating system. Details regarding the operation and site features is unknown and the site is not listed on agency lists of known or suspect contaminated sites.

Moderate

High

Vacant property (Former T&D Feeds)

7198800005

None

Feed mill and warehouse structures (T&D Feeds) operated from this property between 1930s and 2000; structures were demolished in 2001. A remedial action was conducted on the property and resulted in a No Further Action determination from Ecology in 2006. NFA documentation includes the designation of the adjacent railroad as a listed Site with cPAHs in soil that has not been cleaned up ("Site 2" in the July 11, 2006 Ecology letter included in this submittal). Ecology's 2006 letter indicates that further remedial action is necessary to characterize and address soil contamination on the railroad property. Carcinogenic PAHs in Sample EX-S-25-3 obtained October 20, 2005 near the northwest corner where 164th Ave NE intersects the railroad corridor were 1.698 mg/kg (see attached figure).

Hobby Town retail store

1225059057

164TH AVE NE

Retail and restaurant strip mall constructed in 1984. 1984

Low

Cleveland Square shopping center

1225059055

16425 CLEVELAND ST

Retail and restaurant strip mall constructed in 1984.

Low

Parking lot

1225059264

None

Based on review of aerial photographs and Kroll maps, this parking lot was formerly a roadway that connected 164th Ave NE with NE 77th Street, prior to the construction of the existing NE 77th Street connection to Cleveland Street in the 1980s.

Low

1225059077

None Parcels 47 and 48 were formerly a Unocal bulk fuel facility and currently represent a portion of 166th Avenue NE and a medical/dental office building constructed in 1978. Parcel 47 formerly contained the bulk plant petroleum aboveground storage tanks (ASTs); Parcel 48 formerly contained the bulk plant warehouses and loading dock. Petroleumcontamianted soil associated with the former bulk plant was excavated and removed in 1990. Petroleum-related constituents have not been detected in site monitoring wells since at least 2004. A No Further Action letter for the former bulk plant site was issued by Ecology in 2005.

Low

Former Unocal Bulk Plant 48

File No. 0500-172-00 Table 1 | September 9, 2010

1225059082

16701 CLEVELAND ST

Page 5 of 8

MAP ID

Property Name Based on Current Use

Tax Parcel Number

Address

Historical Information and/or Potential for Contamination on Parcel in Vicinity of BNSF ROW

Relative Ranking of Potential Concern for Contaminant Migration to the Corridor

Parking lot

1225059031

16450 NE 77TH ST

Site currently undeveloped. A small structure identified as "Redmond Oil Co. oil tanks" is identified on Kroll maps from the 1960s, prior to construction of NE 77th Street through the center of the parcel. Location of oil tanks unknown.

Moderate

16505 NE REDMOND WAY

Parcels 50 through 54 are collectively a retail and restaurant strip mall constructed in 1984. Shopping center tenants have included a wide variety of retail shops and restaurants, as well as at least one dry cleaner, according to City database information. Previous buildings on these properties included a real estate office, auto sales and repair, and houses.

Moderate

1225059157

1225059156

Cleveland Square Shopping Center

1225059090

1225059221

1225059075

Office Building

1225059119

16615 NE REDMOND WAY

Building has been used for office and commercial purposes since construction in 1979.

Low

Court Building

1225059024

16625 NE REDMOND WAY

Building has been used for office purposes by a variety of tenants since construction in 1968.

Low

Bear Creek Parkway extension - formerly Workshop Tavern

1225059073

None

Previous tavern/restaurant building on this property was constructed in 1982. The property is currently owned by City of Redmond. Previous building was recently d demolished li h d and d the h property iis now a portion i off B Bear C Creek kP Parkway. k

Low

Hotel Redmond historic property

7202410210

None

Existing building is a historic structure built in 1900 that has been used primarily as a social club and hotel.

Low

Residence Inn Hotel

7202410060

7575 164TH AVE NE

Site was undeveloped former golf course prior to construction of existing hotel building in mid-1990s.

Low

Redmond Town Center shopping center

7202410010

None

Site was undeveloped former golf course prior to construction of existing shopping center in mid-1990s.

Low

REI retail store

7202410110

16635 NE 76TH ST

Site was undeveloped former golf course prior to construction of existing building in 1998.

Low

Furniture store

1225059179

16715 CLEVELAND ST

A house was located on this property in the 1960s and 1970s, prior to construction of the existing building in 1989.

Low

Norsk Design Build

1225059019

16725 CLEVELAND ST

Site was undeveloped prior to construction of existing building in 1978. Site was previously used as a veterinary clinic.

Low

File No. 0500-172-00 Table 1 | September 9, 2010

Page 6 of 8

MAP ID

Property Name Based on Current Use

Tax Parcel Number

Address

Historical Information and/or Potential for Contamination on Parcel in Vicinity of BNSF ROW

Relative Ranking of Potential Concern for Contaminant Migration to the Corridor

Moderate

Value Village retail store

1225059094

16771 REDMOND WAY

Site was undeveloped prior to construction of existing retail building in 1961, however, may have used an oil burning heating system based on King County iMAP information. According to city directories, a potential dry cleaner "Cleanbee Cleaners & Laundrymat" was formerly a tenant in this building at street number 16759.

Shopping Center

1225059201

16851 NE REDMOND WAY

Site was undeveloped prior to construction of existing retail building in 1984.

Low

McDonald's Restaurant

1225059206

16975 REDMOND WAY

Site was undeveloped prior to construction of existing restaurant building in 1978.

Low

Starbucks Coffee retail

1225059222

7625 170TH AVE NE

Site was previously a courthouse prior to construction of existing retail building in 2002

Low

Bank of America

1225059240

7450 170TH AVE NE

Site was undeveloped prior to construciton of existing bank building in 1980.

Low

Parking lot

7202410132

None

Site use has been limited to parking associated with adjacent shopping areas since development.

Low

Bed Bath & Beyond retail store

7202410163

7215 170TH AVE SE

Site was undeveloped prior to construction of existing retail building in 1998.

Low

Parking lot

7202410160

None

Site use has been limited to parking associated with adjacent shopping areas since S development.

Low

Red Robin restaurant

7202410161

7597 170TH AVE NE

Site was undeveloped prior to construction of existing restaurant in 1999.

Low

Bartell's Drug store

1225059231

7370 170TH AVE NE

Site was undeveloped prior to construction of existing retail building in 1976.

Low

Strip mall shopping center

1225059253

17181 NE REDMOND WAY

Current tenants include Creekside Crossing Cleaners dry cleaner. Shopping center was constructed in 1996 and was previously undeveloped.

Moderate

Vacant undeveloped

7202410180

None

Undeveloped and forested green space

Low

File No. 0500-172-00 Table 1 | September 9, 2010

Page 7 of 8

MAP ID

Property Name Based on Current Use

Tax Parcel Number

Address

Historical Information and/or Potential for Contamination on Parcel in Vicinity of BNSF ROW

Relative Ranking of Potential Concern for Contaminant Migration to the Corridor

Moderate

76 Service Station (aka Spears Automotive)

1225059205

16909 NE REDMOND WAY

Gasoline service stations have been located on this property since 1962. The existing facility was constructed in 1993. Site was formerly a Unocal station and is included on Ecology's leaking underground storage tank (LUST) and independant cleanup report (ICR) lists. Environmental cleanup activities were completed at the site in the early 1990s following removal of previous generations of USTs and service station features. At that time, all petroleum-contaminated soil was excavated and removed from the site. Petroleum-related constituents include BETX were not detected in groundwater samples from site monitoring wells in 1994 and 1995. This site is listed as "cleaned up" in Ecology's database; however, based on continued use of the site as a service station, potential for migratory contamination to the BNSF ROW area remains a possibility.

AGM shopping center

1225059155

16651 NE REDMOND WAY

This strip mall was constructed in 1965. According to city directories, a dry cleaner was a tenant in the early 1980s (street number 16671) "Tip Top Cleaners".

File No. 0500-172-00 Table 1 | September 9, 2010

Page 8 of 8

iMAP A

iMAP, page 1 of 3

11 2

3 13

10 12

19 7

17 20

8 n/a

22 23

6 30

24 31 32

33 34 35 36

The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Date: 6/29/2010

Source: King County iMAP - Property Information (http://www.metrokc.gov/GIS/iMAP)

note: approximate footprint of Bear Creek Parkway extension shown on Page 2

iMAP C

IMAP, Page Page 22 of iMAP, of3 3

22 23

24 32

35 36

27 28

38 39

Approximate footprint, Bear Creek Parkway Extension

40 37

42 43

50 44

58 49

59 47 48

46 General area of cPAH remaining in soil identified as an Ecology-listed site

Source: King County iMAP - Property Information (http://www.metrokc.gov/GIS/iMAP)

iMAP D

iMAP, of 33 IMAP,page Page 3 1 of

79 45

47 48 62

78 64

60 65

61 66 67 68 69

70 71

76 72

73 75 77

Source: King County iMAP - Property Information (http://www.metrokc.gov/GIS/iMAP)

ATTACHMENT A

List of Reference Documents

City of Redmond, c/o The Berger Partnership | September 9, 2010

Page A-1

REFERENCES City of Redmond BNSF Corridor – Downtown Segment List of Environmental Site Assessment Reference Documents

Aerial photographs in GeoEngineers files dated 1965, 1977, 1985, and 1990. CDM, 2002. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Rails to Trails Project, NE 90th Street to Bear Creek, Redmond, Washington dated September 13, 2002. CDM, 2007. Draft Screening Level Environmental Review, Eastside Rail Corridor Preservation Project, King and Snohomish Counties, Washington, dated December 4, 2007. City of Redmond, 2010. Promotional video regarding BNSF corridor through downtown Redmond. http://rctv.redmond.gov/ondemand/BNSFygovday.wmv. City of Redmond, 2009a. Figure of Tetrachloroethylene Concentrations, prepared by Natural Resources Division of Public Works Department, City of Redmond, dated June 16, 2009. City of Redmond, 2009b. Figure of Dry Cleaners, Past and Present, prepared by Natural Resources Division of Public Works Department, City of Redmond, dated July 10, 2009. Ecology, 2006a. VCP Opinion Letter to Mr. Lowell DeYoung regarding T&D Feeds at 16355 Cleveland Street “Under WAC 173-340-515(5) Opinion on Proposed Cleanup Action for Site 1/Opinion on Completed Remedial Action for Site 2/Opinion on Proposed Cleanup Action for Site 3 for the Hazardous Waste Sites associated with” the T&D Feeds site. Ecology. 2006b. VCP Opinion Letter to GeoEngineers regarding T&D Feeds at 16355 Cleveland Street “No Further Action Determination Under WAC 173-340-515(5) for Site 3” associated with the T&D Feeds site. Ecology 2009a. VCP Opinion Letter to City of Redmond “No Further Action Determination, Leary Way Shops Site Buildings 1 through 9, 7733 Leary Way NE,” May 22, 2009. Ecology 2009. VCP Opinion Letter to City of Redmond “No Further Action Determination, Leary Way Shops Site Building 10, 7733 Leary Way NE” July 16, 2009. EMCON, 1994. Remedial Action Report, Former Unocal Service Station 4870, 16909 NE Redmond Way, Redmond, Washington dated August 26, 1994. EMCON, 1996. Independent Remedial Action Report, Former Unocal Service Station 4870, 16909 NE Redmond Way, Redmond, Washington dated June 22, 1996. EMCON, 1997. Evaluation of Risk Using Ecology’s Interim TPH Policy, Former Unocal Service Station 4870, dated September 30, 1997.

GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0500-172-00

City of Redmond, c/o The Berger Partnership | September 9, 2010

Page A-2

Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR). 2010. EDR Radius Map report dated June 14, 2010 (comprehensive environmental database report, including Ecology and EPA databases). GeoEngineers, 2006a. Supplemental Site Characterization and Remedial Action Summary, Former T&D Feeds, 16355 Cleveland Street, VCP No. NW1107, Redmond, Washington for Lowell De Young dated April 27, 2006. GeoEngineers, 2006b. Groundwater Monitoring Report, Quarterly Monitoring, 2006, Former T & D Feeds Site, 16355 Cleveland Street, Redmond Washington for Lowell De Young dated November 20, 2006. GeoEngineers, 2007a. Phase I and II Environmental Assessment, Arend Properties, Budget Rental 7740 159th Place NE and Parking lot on 159th Place NE, Redmond, Washington for City of Redmond dated August 17, 2007. GeoEngineers, 2007b. September 2007 Supplemental Phase II ESA, Budget Rental Site, Shop Area, 7740 159th Place NE, Redmond, Washington, for City of Redmond dated November 9, 2007. GeoEngineers, 2007c. Phase I and II ESA, Redmond Shopping Square, 16119 NE Redmond Way, Redmond, Washington, for City of Redmond dated October 26, 2007. GeoEngineers, 2008a. Remedial Action Summary, Leary Way Shop Site, Building 1 through 9, 7733 Leary Way NE, For City Of Redmond, February 4, 2008. GeoEngineers, 2008b. Final Cleanup Report, Leary Way Shop Site, Building 10, 7733 Leary Way NE, For City Of Redmond, December 16, 2008. GeoEngineers, 2009. Supplemental Site Assessment, Redmond Shopping Square, Future 161 st Avenue Extension between Cleveland Street and Redmond Way, for City of Redmond dated August 17, 2009. GeoEngineers, 2010a. Draft Geotechnical Services, 161st Ave NE extension, Bear Creek Parkway to Redmond Way, for City of Redmond dated February 22, 2010. GeoEngineers, 2010b. Winter 2010 Groundwater Monitoring Event, City of Redmond Wellhead Protection Program, for City of Redmond dated March 29, 2010. LSI Adapt, 2005a. August 2005 Groundwater Quality Monitoring Report, Former Unocal Bulk Plant, 16631 Cleveland Street, Redmond, Washington dated September 13, 2005. LSI Adapt, 2005b. Request for Determination of No Further Action, Former Unocal Bulk Plant, 16631 Cleveland Street, Redmond Washington dated October 5, 2005. King County iMAP aerial photographs dated 1936, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005, and 2007. Kroll King County Atlas Sammamish Supplement at Puget Sound Regional Archives, dated circa 1950, 1960, and 1980.

GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0500-172-00

City of Redmond, c/o The Berger Partnership | September 9, 2010

Page A-3

Pinnacle Geosciences, 2008. Selected tables and figures from Eastside BNSF Rail Corridor Phase II ESA dated October 2008. Polk City Directory listings provided by EDR in GeoEngineers files, dated 1978, 1983, and 1996. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps provided by EDR in GeoEngineers files, dated 1908, 1926, and 1930. Site Analysts, 1990. Phase II â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Soil Remediation, Union Oil Site, 16631 Cleveland Street, Redmond, Washington, dated September 14, 1990. Site Analysts, 1991. Independent Remedial Action Report, Union Oil Site, 16631 Cleveland Street, Redmond, Washington dated September 14, 1990. Sound Transit, 2008. Appendix G, Hazardous Materials Sites, East Link Project, Draft EIS dated December 2008, http://projects.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/projects/eastlink/deis/Append_G_Dec2008_G 3.pdf. United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps for Redmond, Washington quadrangle provided by EDR in GeoEngineers files, dated 1944, 1947, 1953, 1973, and 1981.

GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0500-172-00

ATTACHMENT B

Ecology Opinion Letter dated July 11, 2006

Appendix E Draft Critical Area Evaluation: Downtown Study Area

GeoEngineers

Draft Critical Area Evaluation Downtown Study Area BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan Redmond, Washington For The Berger Partnership September 9, 2010

8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000

CRITICAL AREA EVALUATION ď Ž Redmond, Washington

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................1

Critical Area Evaluation.......................................................................................................................... 1 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas ............................................................................................ 1 Wetlands .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Frequently Flooded Areas ............................................................................................................... 5 Critical Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas.................................................................................... 6 Geologically Hazard Areas .............................................................................................................. 6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................7 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................8 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Aerial Image Figure 3. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Figure 4. Map of Wetland A and B Figure 5. Map of Steep Slopes and the Sammamish River Figure 6. Frequently Flooded Areas Figure 7. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Figure 8. Seismic Hazard Areas APPENDICES

Appendix A. City of Redmond Habitat Assessment Forms Appendix B. Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix C. Wetland Rating Forms

September 9, 2010 | Page i File No. 0500-172-00

CRITICAL AREA EVALUATION  Redmond, Washington

INTRODUCTION GeoEngineers has prepared this report to document our findings during the Critical Area Evaluation performed along the Downtown Study Area corridor, located in downtown Redmond, Washington (Figure 1). We understand that the City of Redmond has acquired the Redmond section of the former Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) corridor, and is beginning a planning process to convert the 3.89-mile long BNSF right-of-way (ROW) to a regional trail. At this point, it is assumed that the existing BNSF rail prism will be paved and that this re-development will result in no direct impacts to the areas outside of the existing prism. The Redmond section of the BNSF ROW extends from the end of King County’s East Lake Sammamish Trail, just west of SR 520/SR 202 Interchange and Bear Creek, to Northeast 124th Street. The Downtown Study Area corridor is defined as the approximately 5,700-foot long section of the BNSF ROW between the Sammamish River to the west and King County’s East Lake Sammamish pedestrian trail to the east (Figure 2). The ROW ranges from 50 to 100 feet in width. The Downtown Study Area corridor consists primarily of the abandoned railroad corridor through the urban core of downtown Redmond. Generally, commercial development abuts the BNSF ROW for the length of the Downtown Study Area corridor. The purpose of our work is to identify regulated Critical Areas, as defined by Redmond Municipal Code (RMC) 20D.140 (Critical Areas), within the Downtown Study Area corridor. Because of the preliminary nature of the project, many of the site-specific regulatory limitations potentially associated with these Critical Areas are not known at this time. GeoEngineers biologists walked the length of the Downtown Study Area corridor on June 21, 2010, to determine the nature and extent of Critical Areas and their associated protective buffers observed along the corridor. We made visual observations of potential Critical Areas on adjacent parcels; however, we were not authorized to enter these parcels. As a result, regulated Critical Area buffers that are not identified in this report may project on to the Downtown Study Area corridor.

Critical Area Evaluation Prior to the field work, we reviewed the City of Redmond Critical Area Maps (City of Redmond, 2010), the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) FPARS mapping system (WDNR, 2010), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) SalmonScape system (WDFW, 2010a), Priority Habitat and Species data from WDFW (WDFW, 2010b), the King County iMap GIS system (King County, 2010) and the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). These data sources indicate that regulated Critical Areas are not present within the highly developed area of downtown Redmond. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas

The City of Redmond (2010) identifies a designated Open Space Easement located immediately south of the eastern terminus of the Downtown Study Area corridor (Figure 3). This area corresponds to wetlands associated with Bear Creek identified by WDFW (2010b). We observed an approximately 1-acre forested area in this location. This area is undeveloped and is dominated by mature native tree species including black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) and September 9, 2010 | Page 1 File No. 0500-172-00

CRITICAL AREA EVALUATION  Redmond, Washington

Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia). Commercial development abuts this roughly square Open Space Easement on the west and south perimeter of the forested area. The BNSF ROW borders the northern edge of the area. It appears that this area is associated with the riparian habitat corridor of Bear Creek; however, it is disconnected from the habitat corridor by the paved East Lake Sammamish pedestrian trail that defines the eastern edge of the Downtown Study Area corridor. We observed no direct or indirect indication that federal, state and/or locally designated species of importance maintain a primary association with this area. This Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area scored 15 of a possible 27 points on the City of Redmond Habitat Assessment forms that are included in Appendix A. The Downtown Study Area corridor is bookended by two Class I streams identified by the City of Redmond (2010). The active channel of Bear Creek is located approximately 170 feet east of Downtown Study Area corridor and outside of the study area. Bear Creek is primary habitat for anadromous and resident fish species including: coho salmon (Onchoryhnchus kisutch), Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) kokanee salmon (O. nerka)[resident} sockeye salmon (O. nerka)[anadromous], steelhead (O. mykiss)[anadromous], rainbow trout (O. mykiss)[resident] and cutthroat trout (O. clarki-clarki) [WDFW, 2010a and 2010b] According to RMC 20D.140.20-020(3), this reach of Bear Creek is protected by a 150-foot protective buffer to be measured landward from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). GeoEngineers did not determine the OHWM of Bear Creek because it was outside of the Downtown Study Area. Based upon guidance from Olson and Stockdale (2008) and our observations in the field, it is likely that this 150-foot buffer projects into the eastern end of the Downtown Study Area corridor. The Sammamish River defines the western border of the Downtown Study Area corridor. The Sammamish River is primary habitat for anadromous and resident fish species including: coho salmon, Chinook salmon, kokanee salmon, sockeye salmon, bull trout (Salmo confluentus), rainbow trout and cutthroat trout [WDFW, 2010a and 2010b] WDFW (2010b) identifies an Urban Natural Open Space associated with the Sammamish River north of the BNSF crossing. According to RMC 20D.140.20-020(3), this reach of the Sammamish River is protected by a 150-foot protective buffer to be measured landward from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). This protective buffer projects into the western end of the Downtown Study Area corridor. The City of Redmond Stream Summary Sheet is included in Appendix A. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) [2010] identifies the Sammamish River and Bear Creek as “Waters of the State”. In accordance with the City of Redmond’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP), all lands extending 200 feet landward from the OHWM of Bear Creek and the Sammamish River, including wetlands and those areas within the 100-year floodplain, are subject to additional regulatory requirements of the SMP. The City of Redmond has designated approximately 120 feet of the 200-foot wide Sammamish River Shoreline Management Zone that contains the King County Sammamish River Trail as Urban Conservancy. The balance is designated High Intensity/Multi-use environment. Similarly, a 150-foot wide Urban Conservancy corridor has been designated adjacent to Bear Creek with the remaining 50 feet of the Shoreline Management Zone designated as High Intensity/Multi-use environment. According to the SMP policy SL-5, development in previously disturbed, under-utilized High Intensity/Multi-use shoreline environments, such as the BNSF corridor, should be encouraged. Based upon a review of the SMP, there does not appear to be specific limitations to converting the BNSF railroad to a Page 2 | September 9, 2010 | GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0500-172-00

CRITICAL AREA EVALUATION ď Ž Redmond, Washington

pedestrian trail. The preliminary design objectives associated with the redevelopment consistent with the policies of the SMP. It is likely that proposed redevelopment of Downtown Study Area corridor located within the Shoreline Management Zone adjacent to Sammamish River and Bear Creek will undergo a case-by-case administrative review by City of Redmond.

are the the the

Wetlands

During the field investigation, we identified two seasonally flooded palustrine (Cowardin 1979) wetlands in the low-lying areas adjacent and parallel to the BNSF rail prism located at the eastern end of the Downtown Study Area. The surveyed boundaries of these depressional wetlands are mapped on Figure 4. For the purpose of this report, the emergent wetland that dominates the low lying area north of the BNSF rail prism will be referred as Wetland A. A much smaller forested wetland located south of the BNSF rail prism is identified as Wetland B. The edges of these wetlands were delineated in accordance with RMC Ordinance 2259 (Exhibit 1), following procedures outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987), The Interim Regional Supplement (USACE, 2008) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology, 1997). We recorded our observations on wetland determination data forms that are included in Appendix B. The City of Redmond Wetland Summery Sheet is included in Appendix A. WETLAND A

Wetland A is approximately 0.5 acres and is dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW). Because of the intensive land use surrounding the wetland, the existing vegetated wetland buffer is very narrow (less than 15 feet) and dominated with Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FACU) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FACU) to the north. The BNSF rail prism abuts the southern edge of the wetland, and as such, no functional buffer exists along the rail prism. As illustrated in Photo 1 and Photo 1. Elevated timber span above Wetland A. mapped in Figure 4, the BNSF tracks span Wetland A on an approximately 20-foot long elevated timber bridge. Improvements to this span may result in direct impacts to Wetland A, such as temporary construction impacts and/or impacts from shade. The City of Redmond may require mitigation for these impacts once they are identified. Positive indicators of hydric soils were observed within a 16-inch deep test pit (SP-1), including a depleted matrix, within the wetland boundary (USACE, 2008). The locations of test pits are mapped on Figure 4.

September 9, 2010 | Page 3 File No. 0500-172-00

CRITICAL AREA EVALUATION ď Ž Redmond, Washington

Positive hydrology was observed during the field investigation in the form of saturation and inundation within the wetland boundary. Direct precipitation, shallow ground water and runoff from the large, abutting impervious surfaces are the primary drivers for wetland conditions within Wetland A. We observed no surface water outlet from the closed depressional wetland; however we did observe two stormwater outfalls within the wetland boundary. In accordance with RMC 20D.140.30-010, we rated and classified Wetland A based upon our assessment of its ecological functions and values using the Western Washington Wetland Rating System (Hruby, 2004). The wetland rating form is included in Appendix C. The wetland has potential to perform water quality functions due to its closed depressional configuration. It appears that stormwater runoff from the surrounding development is impounded in the wetland and infiltrates into the ground. For this reason, the wetland also performs substantial flood attenuation and groundwater recharge functions. Without the presence of the wetland, stormwater runoff from the large adjacent impervious surfaces would likely flow directly to Bear Creek. Because of the lack of buffers from the surrounding high intensity land use and the infestation of invasive reed canarygrass, habitat functions are poor. The wetland scores 20 for water quality functions, 20 for hydrologic functions and 10 for habitat functions. The total score of 50 designates Wetland A as a Category III wetland. Because of the low level habitat functions that this wetland performs, the City of Redmond requires an 80-foot protective buffer for this Category III Wetland, in accordance with RMC 20D.140.30-020(2). WETLAND B

Wetland B is located south of the BNSF rail prism, immediately opposite of Wetland A. Because of the close proximity of Wetland B to Wetland A, observed soil and hydrology of the two wetlands are very similar. However, Wetland B is much smaller (approximately 1,800 square feet) and contains forested habitat consisting of native tree species such as Oregon ash and hawthorn (Crataegeous douglasii, FAC). Other areas of the wetland are dominated by reed canarygrass.

Wetland A Wetland B B

Like Wetland A, Wetland B is located in Photo 2. Photo showing the locations of Wetlands A and B relative to a closed depression that likely receives the BNSF Rail prism. runoff from the abutting impervious surfaces. As a result, functional assessment and rating scores of Wetland B are very similar to Wetland A. Wetland B scores 16 for water quality functions, 16 for hydrologic functions and 8 for habitat functions. The total score of 40 designates Wetland B as a Category III wetland. Because of the low level habitat functions that this wetland performs, the City of Redmond requires an 80-foot protective buffer for this Category III Wetland, in accordance with RMC 20D.140.30-020(2).

Page 4 | September 9, 2010 | GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0500-172-00

CRITICAL AREA EVALUATION  Redmond, Washington

WETLAND WR-12

According the CH2M Hill (2008), a riverine scrub-shrub/forested (Cowardin, 1979) wetland associated with Bear Creek is located immediately east of the Downtown Study Area. CH2M Hill (2008) has identified this wetland as WR-12. This wetland is also mapped by the City of Redmond (2010). Because WR-12 is located outside of the Downtown Study Area corridor, GeoEngineers did not investigate this wetland. Using the Western Washington Wetland Rating System (Hruby, 2004), CH2M Hill rated WR-12 as a Category II wetland and scored “…moderate for all three parameters…” (CH2M Hill, 2008). Per RMC 20D.140.30-020(2), Category II wetlands with a moderate level of habitat function and a high intensity adjacent land use are protected by a 150-foot buffer. Similar to the 150-foot Bear Creek stream buffer, it is likely that this 150-foot wetland buffer projects into the eastern end of the Downtown Study Area corridor. POTENTIAL OFF-SITE WETLAND

During our field investigation, we observed a closed depressional area on an undeveloped parcel (Parcel No. 7198900060) immediately north of the BNSF fill prism and approximately 200 feet east of the Sammamish River. This vegetated depressional area appears to collect water from two linear swales likely constructed to convey surface water. While GeoEngineers was not authorized to enter the parcel, we observed indicators of wetland conditions along the northern edge of the BNSF ROW. The area is dominated by grasses that have recently been mowed, and as such, performs little habitat function. This area likely receives stormwater input from the abutting development, and thus, performs water quality and flood attenuation functions. Based upon observations made from the BNSF ROW, we have classified and rated this feature as potentially a Category III depressional wetland (Hruby, 2004). If wetland conditions exist at this location, then the 80-foot wetland buffer, as required by RMC 20D.140.30-020(2), likely projects into the Downtown Study Area corridor as indicated on Figure 5. However, there are indications that this feature may have been intentionally created within a non-wetland site to manage and infiltrate stormwater runoff. Such areas are exempt from the provisions of the Critical Areas ordinance under RMC 20D.140.10-030(1)(b). For the purpose of re-developing the BNSF ROW, the City of Redmond may allow wetland buffers to be reduced on a case-by-case basis in accordance with RMC 20D.140.30-020(5). Where a legally established, non-conforming use of the buffer exists, proposed actions in the buffers may be permitted so long as the proposed action does not increase impacts to the wetland. Frequently Flooded Areas

According to the City of Redmond (2010), the portion of the corridor east of 170 th Avenue Northeast is located within the FEMA floodway (Figure 6). This low lying portion of the corridor near Bear Creek contains Wetlands A, B and WR-12. Based upon our observations of topography and hydrology in this area, it seems reasonable that the Frequently Flooded Area mapped by the City within the Downtown Study Area corridor roughly corresponds to the delineated boundary of Wetland A mapped on Figure 4. The City of Redmond (2010) identifies the Sammamish River as a FEMA floodway. The 100-year floodplain is mapped north and south of the BNSF ROW, east of the Sammamish River (Figure 6). Due to the height of the railroad fill prism, the BNSF ROW, immediately east of the Sammamish River is not in a regulated 100-year floodplain.

September 9, 2010 | Page 5 File No. 0500-172-00

CRITICAL AREA EVALUATION  Redmond, Washington

Under RMC 20D.140.40-030(4)(a), the City of Redmond prohibits development in the FEMA floodway with the exception of shoreline protective structures, bridges, roads, trails and railroads. Proposals within these regulated Frequently Flooded Areas may require additional engineering evaluations, including but not limited to Zero Rise Flood studies. These additional evaluations must demonstrate that the proposal will not have a negative impact upon flood flow, storage capacity within the floodplain or jeopardize public safety and the environment. It is assumed that the top of the existing BNSF rail prism has been constructed to an elevation above which it would frequently flood. We assume that the City of Redmond will condition or approve redevelopment within the mapped Frequently Flooded Areas based upon submittal of any requested evaluations of flood elevations adjacent to the ROW. Critical Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas

Critical Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas are those areas within the City of Redmond that have a critical recharge effect on aquifers used for potable water. The City of Redmond has identified the portion of the Downtown Study Area corridor east of 164th Avenue Northeast as a Wellhead Protection Zone 1 and the portion west of 164th Avenue Northeast as a Wellhead Protection Zone 2. Critical Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas are mapped on Figure 7. Zone 1 areas are lands that overlie the 6-month travel time of any water source well owned by the City of Redmond. Zone 2 areas are lands that overlie the 1-year travel time of any water source well owned by the City of Redmond. Development restrictions associated with Wellhead Protection Zones 1 and 2 are targeted towards activities which involve storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances. GeoEngineers (2010) has identified numerous potential sources of contaminants in the Downtown Study Area corridor, including but not limited to, treated railroad ties and fill of unknown origin. Any proposed re-development within the Downtown Study Area corridor, including remediation of contaminants, may be required to comply with the Wellhead Protection Zone Performance Standards identified in RMC 20D.140.50-040. Geologically Hazard Areas

RMC 20D.140.60-010(1) classifies Geologically Hazardous Areas into three sub-categories: 1. Erosion Hazard Areas are lands or areas underlain by soils identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service as having “severe” or “very severe” rill and inter-rill erosion hazards. 2. Landslide Hazard Areas are areas potentially subject to significant or severe risk of landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrogeologic factors. 3. Seismic Hazard Areas are lands subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake-induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. The City of Redmond (2010) does not indicate the presence of any Erosion Hazard or Landslide Hazard Areas within the Downtown Study Area corridor. The slopes along the BNSF fill prism along

Page 6 | September 9, 2010 | GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0500-172-00

CRITICAL AREA EVALUATION ď Ž Redmond, Washington

the western end of the Downtown Study Area corridor are steeper than 40-percent and have a vertical relief greater than 10 feet. Under RMC 20D.140.60-010(1)(b)(vii), these areas are regulated as Landslide Hazard Areas. According to RMC 20D.140.60-020, a 50-foot buffer shall be measured from the top, toe and sides of the Landslide Hazard Area. Under RMC 20D.140.10-030(1)(d), redevelopment of the trail in the Landslide Hazard Ares may be exempt from provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance provided that there is no increase in the amount impervious surface. Additionally, a geotechnical evaluation may be required to identify the risks of damage from the proposal, both on-site and off-site, to ascertain that the proposal will not increase the risk of occurrence of the potential geologic hazard; and to identify measures to eliminate or reduce risks. Seismic Hazard Areas are ubiquitously mapped in the relatively level areas associated with the valleys that contain Lake Sammamish, the Sammamish River, Bear Creek and Evans Creek (Figure 8). Because the Critical Areas Ordinance contains no specific exemptions for re-development of the Downtown Study Area corridor within Geologically Hazardous Area (i.e. Landslide Hazard Areas and Seismic Hazard Areas) the City of Redmond may approve, condition or deny proposals based upon their effective mitigation of risks to property, health and safety.

CONCLUSION Because of the highly developed urban environment along the approximately 5,700-foot long Downtown Study Area corridor, we did not observe a substantial number of regulated Critical Areas. Three Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas were identified near the Downtown Study Area corridor. Bear Creek and the Sammamish River, identified as Class I stream and Waters of the State, are respectively located at the east and west ends of the Downtown Study Area corridor. Their 150-foot buffers extend into the Downtown Study Area corridor. Two on-site wetlands (Wetlands A and B) were delineated (Figure 4). One additional wetland (WR-12) is located west of the Downtown Study Area corridor (CH2M Hill, 2008) and one potential wetland was observed adjacent to the western end of the corridor (Figure 5). This potential wetland is located at the toe of a Landslide Hazard Area associated with the BNSF fill prism near the Sammamish River. Frequently Flooded Areas, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and Seismic Hazard Areas are mapped within the Downtown Study Area corridor (City of Redmond, 2010). These areas are indicated on Figures 6 through 8. Because of the preliminary nature of the BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan, it is not know how future development may be impacted by the regulatory limitations associated with these areas. It is likely that the City of Redmond will evaluate potential impacts to these areas on a case-by-case basis. The City of Redmond may condition the approval of redevelopment of the Downtown Study Area corridor within these areas based upon the findings of additional engineering evaluations and analysis.

September 9, 2010 | Page 7 File No. 0500-172-00

CRITICAL AREA EVALUATION  Redmond, Washington

LIMITATIONS We have prepared this letter for The Berger Partnership, their authorized agents and regulatory agencies for Critical Area Evaluation along the Downtown Study Area portion of the BNSF rail corridor located in downtown Redmond, Washington. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices for Critical Area Evaluation in this area at the time this letter was prepared. The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this letter are based on our professional knowledge, judgment and experience. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments should be considered a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.

REFERENCES City of Redmond. 2010. Critical Areas Maps. http://www.redmond.gov/cityservices/citymaps3.asp Accessed June 2010. CH2M Hill. 2008. Sound Transit East Link Project: East Link Project DRAFT EIS, Appendix H3, Ecosystem Technical Report. Dated December 2008. Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C. and Laroe, E. T. 1979. Classification of Wetland and Deep Water Habitats of the United States. Performed for Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. GeoEngineers. (2010). BNSF Corridor Environmental Assessment. Dated July 6, 2010. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. King County. 2010. iMap GIS system. http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/gis/Maps/iMAP.aspx

Accessed June 2010.

Olson, P. and E. Stockdale. 2008. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shoreland’s and Environmental Assistance Program, Lacey, Washington. Ecology Publication #08-06-001. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database. http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/index.html. Accessed June 2010. United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). Environmental Laboratory. 1987. “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,” Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg. Page 8 | September 9, 2010 | GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0500-172-00

CRITICAL AREA EVALUATION ď Ž Redmond, Washington

United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to The Corps of Engineers Wetland delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication #96-94. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2010. Coastal Atlas GIS Mapping System. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/viewer.htm Accessed June 2010 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2010a. SalmonScape mapping system. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape (Accessed June 2010). Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2010b. Priority Habitat and Species data in the vicinity of Section 2, Township 25 North, Range 5 East. Production Date: June 16, 2010. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2010. FPARS mapping system. http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/app1/fpars/viewer.htm (Accessed June 2010).

September 9, 2010 | Page 9 File No. 0500-172-00

Downtown Study Area

APPENDIX A

City of Redmond Habitat Assessment Forms

APPENDIX B Wetland Determination Data Forms

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ‐ Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Sound Transit Light Link ‐ Phase I

City/County: Redmond

Applicant/Owner: BNSF

State: WA

Investigator(s): Thomas Bannister

6/21/2010

Sampling Point:

Slope (%):

Section/Township/Range: Section 12, Township 25 North, Range 5 East

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression

Local Relief (concave, convex, none:)

Subregion (LLR): NW Forests and Coast Soil Map Unit Name:

Sampling Date:

Lat:

47.66988

Long:

concave ‐122.111021

Datum:

NWI Classification: None

Indianola loamy fine sand, 0 ‐4 percent slopes Yes

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?

(if no, explain in Remarks.)

Are

Vegetation

Soil

Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are "normal circumstances" present?

Are

Vegetation

Soil

Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Yes

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Weltand Hydrology Present? Remarks:

Yes Yes Yes

No No No

Is the sampled area within a Wetland?

Yes

VEGETATION ‐ Use scientific Names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 2,826 square feet ) 1. Pseudotsuga 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii menziesii 2. Salix sitchensis 3. 4.

Absolute % Cover 10 10

Dominant Species? No No

Indicator Status FACU FACW

= Total Cover

Sapling/Shurb Stratum (Plot Size: 78.5 square feet ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 78.5 square feet ) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

= Total Cover

100

Yes

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

FACW

Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL Species FACW Species 110 FAC Species FACU Species 10 UPL Species Column Totals: 120

100.00

x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A)

(A/B)

Multiply by: 0 220 0 40 0 260

Prevalence Index = B/A =

(B)

2.17

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 100

= Total Cover

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 2,826 square feet) 1. 2.

Remarks:

Percent of dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

11.

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of dominant Species Number of dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Morphological Adaptations1 (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

SOIL

Sampling Point: 1 Depth (inches) 0‐2 inches 2‐4 inches 4‐16 inches

Matrix

Redox Features

Color (moist) 10 YR 3/2

% 100

Color (moist)

Type

Loc2

10 YR 4/1

2.5 YR 3/6

Remarks

Texture silt loam pea gravel silt loam

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM‐Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches):

Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)

2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain Remarks) 3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1) Water‐Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water‐Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry‐Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturated Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction Tilled Soils (C6) FAC‐Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost‐Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Depth (inches): 2 inches Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Water Table Present? Depth (inches): 8 inches Yes No Yes No Saturation Present? Depth (inches): 4 inches Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ‐ Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Sound Transit Light Link ‐ Phase I

City/County: Redmond

Applicant/Owner: BNSF

State: WA

Investigator(s): Thomas Bannister

6/21/2010

Sampling Point:

Slope (%):

Section/Township/Range: Section 12, Township 25 North, Range 5 East

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression

Local Relief (concave, convex, none:)

Subregion (LLR): NW Forests and Coast Soil Map Unit Name:

Sampling Date:

Lat:

47.66988

Long:

concave ‐122.111021

Datum:

NWI Classification: None

Indianola loamy fine sand, 0 ‐4 percent slopes Yes

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?

(if no, explain in Remarks.)

Are

Vegetation

Soil

Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are "normal circumstances" present?

Are

Vegetation

Soil

Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Yes

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Weltand Hydrology Present? Remarks:

Yes Yes Yes

No No No

Is the sampled area within a Wetland?

Yes

VEGETATION ‐ Use scientific Names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 2,826 square feet ) 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 2. Acer platanoides 3. 4.

Absolute % Cover 15 10

25 Sapling/Shurb Stratum (Plot Size: 78.5 square feet ) 1. Rubus armeniacus 2. Mahonia aquifolium 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 78.5 square feet ) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

60 20

Dominant Species? No No

= Total Cover Yes Yes

= Total Cover

Yes

FACW

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL Species FACW Species 40 FAC Species FACU Species 70 UPL Species Column Totals: 110

33.33

x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A)

(A/B)

Multiply by: 0 80 0 280 0 360

(B)

3.27

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 40

= Total Cover

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 2,826 square feet) 1. 2.

Remarks:

FACU NI

Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of dominant Species Number of dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

11.

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Indicator Status FACU NI

Morphological Adaptations1 (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

SOIL

Sampling Point: 2 Depth (inches) 0‐8 inches 8‐16 inches

Matrix Color (moist) 10 YR 3/2 10 YR 3/2

Redox Features % 100 100

Color (moist)

Type

Loc2

7.5 YR 3/4

Remarks

Texture silt loam silt loam

Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)

2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain Remarks) 3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1) Water‐Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water‐Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry‐Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturated Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction Tilled Soils (C6) FAC‐Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost‐Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Depth (inches): Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Water Table Present? Depth (inches): Yes No Yes No Saturation Present? Depth (inches): Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ‐ Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Sound Transit Light Link ‐ Phase I

City/County: Redmond

Applicant/Owner: BNSF

State: WA

Investigator(s): Thomas Bannister

6/21/2010

Sampling Point:

Slope (%):

Section/Township/Range: Section 12, Township 25 North, Range 5 East

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression

Local Relief (concave, convex, none:)

Subregion (LLR): NW Forests and Coast Soil Map Unit Name:

Sampling Date:

Lat:

47.66988

Long:

concave ‐122.111021

Datum:

NWI Classification: None

Earlmont silt loam Yes

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?

(if no, explain in Remarks.)

Are

Vegetation

Soil

Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are "normal circumstances" present?

Are

Vegetation

Soil

Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Yes

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Weltand Hydrology Present? Remarks:

Yes Yes Yes

No No No

Is the sampled area within a Wetland?

Yes

VEGETATION ‐ Use scientific Names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 2,826 square feet ) 1. Fraxinus 1. Fraxinus latifolia latifolia 2. Crataegeous douglasii 3. 4.

Absolute % Cover 50 15

65 Sapling/Shurb Stratum (Plot Size: 78.5 square feet ) 1. Rubus lacinatus 2. Rubus armeniacus 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 78.5 square feet ) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

15 15

Dominant Species? Yes No

= Total Cover No No

= Total Cover

Yes

FACW

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL Species FACW Species 100 FAC Species 15 FACU Species 30 UPL Species Column Totals: 145

100.00

x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A)

(A/B)

Multiply by: 0 200 45 120 0 365

(B)

2.52

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

10. 50

= Total Cover

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 2,826 square feet) 1. 2.

Remarks:

FACU+ FACU

Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of dominant Species Number of dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

11.

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Indicator Status FACW FAC

Morphological Adaptations1 (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

SOIL

Sampling Point: 3 Depth (inches) 0‐6 inches 6‐16 inches

Matrix Color (moist) 10 YR 3/2 10 YR 4/2

Redox Features % 100 60

Color (moist)

Type

Loc2

10 YR 5/6

Remarks

Texture sandy loam sandy loam

Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)

2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain Remarks) 3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1) Water‐Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water‐Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry‐Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturated Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction Tilled Soils (C6) FAC‐Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost‐Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Depth (inches): Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Water Table Present? Depth (inches): 14 inches Yes No Yes No Saturation Present? Depth (inches): 10 inches Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ‐ Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Sound Transit Light Link ‐ Phase I

City/County: Redmond

Applicant/Owner: BNSF

State: WA

Investigator(s): Thomas Bannister

6/21/2010

Sampling Point:

Slope (%):

Section/Township/Range: Section 12, Township 25 North, Range 5 East

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression

Local Relief (concave, convex, none:)

Subregion (LLR): NW Forests and Coast Soil Map Unit Name:

Sampling Date:

Lat:

47.66988

Long:

concave ‐122.111021

Datum:

NWI Classification: None

Earlmont silt loam Yes

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?

(if no, explain in Remarks.)

Are

Vegetation

Soil

Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are "normal circumstances" present?

Are

Vegetation

Soil

Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Yes

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Weltand Hydrology Present? Remarks:

Yes Yes Yes

No No No

Is the sampled area within a Wetland?

Yes

VEGETATION ‐ Use scientific Names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 2,826 square feet ) 1. Fraxinus latifolia 1. Fraxinus latifolia 2. Crataegus spp. 3. 4.

Absolute % Cover 30 15

45 Sapling/Shurb Stratum (Plot Size: 78.5 square feet ) 1. Rubus armeniacus 2. Rubus lacinatus 3. 4. 5.

90 40

130

Dominant Species? Yes No

= Total Cover Yes Yes

= Total Cover

Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 78.5 square feet ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL Species FACW Species 30 FAC Species FACU Species 145 UPL Species Column Totals: 175

33.33

x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A)

(A/B)

Multiply by: 0 60 0 580 0 640

(B)

3.66

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 0

= Total Cover

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 2,826 square feet) 1. 2.

Remarks:

FACU FACU+

Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of dominant Species Number of dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

11.

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Indicator Status FACW FACU+

Morphological Adaptations1 (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

SOIL

Sampling Point: 4 Depth (inches) 0‐16 inches

Matrix Color (moist) 10 YR 3/2

Redox Features % 100

Color (moist)

Type

Loc2

Remarks

Texture silt loam

Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)

2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain Remarks) 3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1) Water‐Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water‐Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry‐Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturated Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction Tilled Soils (C6) FAC‐Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost‐Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Depth (inches): Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Water Table Present? Depth (inches): Yes No Yes No Saturation Present? Depth (inches): Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:

APPENDIX C Wetland Rating Forms

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Potential Wetland

WETLAND RA TING FORM – WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 – Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users

Name of wetland (if known): Potential Wetland Rated by: Thomas Bannister SEC: 12

TWNSHP: 25N

Date of site visit: June 21, 2010 No

Trained by Ecology? Yes RNGE: 5E

Date of training: October 2008

Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes

Map of wetland unit:

Estimated size: 0.1 acres SUMMARY OF RATING

Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I Category I =

Score > 70

III

Score for Water Quality Functions

Category II =

Score 51 - 69

Score for Hydrologic Functions

Category III =

Score 30 – 50

Score for Habitat Functions

Category IV =

Score < 30

TOTAL Score for Functions

Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland

Does not apply

Final Category (choose the “highest” category from above”)

III

Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class Characteristics used for Rating Estuarine Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal Check if unit has multiple None of the above HGM classes present Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland.

Check List for Wetlands that Need Additional Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state?

YES

SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance.

To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Page 1 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Potential Wetland

Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term “Estuarine” wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. _____ ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a “Flats” wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special freshwater wetland characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Page 2 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Potential Wetland D

Depressional and Flat Wetlands

Points

WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality.

(only 1 score per box)

(see p.38) Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland:  Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ........................................... points = 3 Figure __  Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet ........ points = 2  Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points = 1  Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface 3 outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ........................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) Provide photo or drawing The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) 0 YES points = 4 NO points = 0 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class):  Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area ............................................... points = 5 Figure ___  Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area ................................................. points = 3  Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area ............................................... points = 1  Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area .................................................. points = 0 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at Figure ___ least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years.  Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 4  Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 2 4  Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods

D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1

D 1.2 D 1.3

D 1.4

Total for D 1

Add the points in the boxes above

D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 

TOTAL – Water Quality Functions

Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. 1

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

7 (see p. 44)

Multiplier

2 14

Page 3 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Potential Wetland

HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit  Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ........................................... points = 4  Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet ......... points = 2  Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ........................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”)  Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry).  Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet ....................... points = 7  The wetland is a “headwater” wetland .................................................................................. points = 5  Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ........................... points = 5  Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ...................................... points = 3  Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1  Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft ......................................................................................... points = 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.  The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit.................................................... points = 5  The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit ................................................. points = 3  The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit .......................................... points = 0  Entire unit is in the FLATS class ......................................................................................... points = 5 Total for D 3



Add the points in the boxes above

(see p.46)

3 7

(see p. 49) Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or Multiplier stream that has flooding problems 1 Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions

Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1

Comments:

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Page 4 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Potential Wetland These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.

Points

HABITAT FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat.

(only 1 score per box)

H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1

H 1.2

H 1.3

H 1.4

Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Figure ___ Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) – Size threshold for each class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 0 If the unit has a forested class check if: The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/groundcover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 4 structures or more ....... points = 4 3 structures ................... points = 2 2 structures .................... points = 1 1 structure .................... points = 0 Hydroperiods (see p.73): Figure ___ Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present ...... points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present ................... points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present .................... points = 0 1 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake-fringe wetland .................... = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland ............ = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points = 2 5 – 19 species .................... points = 1 1 List species below if you want to: < 5 species ........................ points = 0

Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation (described in H1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes Figure ___ or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always “high”.

H 1.5

Use map of Cowardin classes.

Special Habitat Features (see p. 77): Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft. (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error.

H 1 TOTAL Score – potential for providing habitat

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Add the points in the column above

Page 5 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Potential Wetland (only 1 score per box)

H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1

Buffers (see P. 80): Figure ___ Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of “undisturbed”. 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use)............. points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference ....................................................................................................... points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 1 25% circumference ....................................................................................................... points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK .................................. points = 2 No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ............................................................................ points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer ................................................................................................... points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above ................................................................. points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers

H 2.2

Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lakefringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland:  Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR  Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point  Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO = 0 points

Total for page

Comments:

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Page 6 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Potential Wetland H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multilayered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84)  There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development .......... points = 5  The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile ..................................................................................................... points = 5  There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. ............................................................................................................................ points = 3  The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................................................... points = 3  There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile ........................................................................... points = 2  There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................. points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score – opportunity for providing habitat

Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8



Total Score for Habitat Functions

Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1

8 2 10

Comments:

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Page 7 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Potential Wetland

CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type – Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 332-30-151? SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) SC2 Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO not a Heritage Wetland Bogs (see p. 87) SC3 Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 identify organic soils)? 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the “bog” species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16” deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the “bog” plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann’s spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES = Category I NO = Is not a bog for purpose of rating

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Cat. 1

Cat. I Cat. II

Dual Rating

I/II

Cat I

Cat. I

Page 8 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Potential Wetland

SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90)

Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multilayered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and “OR” so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 – 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO = not a forested wetland with special characteristics Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) SC5 Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES = Category I NO = Category II Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) SC6 Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:  Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103  Grayland-Westport -- lands west of SR 105  Ocean Shores-Copalis – lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category II NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the “highest” rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1.  If you answered NO for all types enter “Not Applicable” on p. 1

Cat. I

Cat. I Cat. II

Cat. II Cat. III

Comments:

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Page 9 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland A

WETLAND RA TING FORM – WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 – Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users

Name of wetland (if known): Wetland A Rated by: Thomas Bannister SEC: 12

TWNSHP: 25N

Date of site visit: June 21, 2010 No

Trained by Ecology? Yes RNGE: 5E

Date of training: October 2008

Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes

Map of wetland unit:

Estimated size: 0.5 acres SUMMARY OF RATING

Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I Category I =

Score > 70

III

Score for Water Quality Functions

Category II =

Score 51 - 69

Score for Hydrologic Functions

Category III =

Score 30 – 50

Score for Habitat Functions

Category IV =

Score < 30

TOTAL Score for Functions

Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland

Does not apply

Final Category (choose the “highest” category from above”)

III

YES

Page 1 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland A

Page 2 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland A D

Depressional and Flat Wetlands

Points

WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality.

(only 1 score per box)

(see p.38) Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland:  Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ........................................... points = 3 Figure __  Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet ........ points = 2  Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points = 1  Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface 3 outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ........................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) Provide photo or drawing The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) 0 YES points = 4 NO points = 0 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class):  Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area ............................................... points = 5 Figure ___  Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area ................................................. points = 3  Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area ............................................... points = 1  Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area .................................................. points = 0 5 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at Figure ___ least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years.  Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 4  Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 2 2  Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods

D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1

D 1.2 D 1.3

D 1.4

Total for D 1

Add the points in the boxes above

TOTAL – Water Quality Functions

Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. 1

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

10 (see p. 44)

Multiplier

2 20

Page 3 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland A



Add the points in the boxes above

(see p.46)

3 10

(see p. 49) Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or Multiplier stream that has flooding problems 2 Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions

Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1

Comments:

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Page 4 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland A These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.

Points

HABITAT FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat.

(only 1 score per box)

H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1

H 1.2

H 1.3

H 1.4

Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Figure ___ Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) – Size threshold for each class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 0 If the unit has a forested class check if: The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/groundcover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 4 structures or more ....... points = 4 3 structures ................... points = 2 2 structures .................... points = 1 1 structure .................... points = 0 Hydroperiods (see p.73): Figure ___ Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present ...... points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present ................... points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present .................... points = 0 2 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake-fringe wetland .................... = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland ............ = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points = 2 5 – 19 species .................... points = 1 1 List species below if you want to: < 5 species ........................ points = 0

H 1.5

Use map of Cowardin classes.

H 1 TOTAL Score – potential for providing habitat

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Add the points in the column above

Page 5 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland A (only 1 score per box)

H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1

Buffers (see P. 80): Figure ___ Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of “undisturbed”. 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use)............. points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference ....................................................................................................... points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 0 25% circumference ....................................................................................................... points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK .................................. points = 2 No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ............................................................................ points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer ................................................................................................... points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above ................................................................. points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers

H 2.2

Total for page

Comments:

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Page 6 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland A H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multilayered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84)  There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development .......... points = 5  The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile ..................................................................................................... points = 5  There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. ............................................................................................................................ points = 3  The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................................................... points = 3  There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile ........................................................................... points = 2  There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................. points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score – opportunity for providing habitat

Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8



Total Score for Habitat Functions

Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1

7 3 10

Comments:

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Page 7 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland A

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Cat. 1

Cat. I Cat. II

Dual Rating

I/II

Cat I

Cat. I

Page 8 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland A

SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90)

Cat. I

Cat. I Cat. II

Cat. II Cat. III

Comments:

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Page 9 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland B

WETLAND RA TING FORM – WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 – Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users

Name of wetland (if known): Wetland B Rated by: Thomas Bannister SEC: 12

TWNSHP: 25N

Date of site visit: June 21, 2010 No

Trained by Ecology? Yes RNGE: 5E

Date of training: October 2008

Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes

Map of wetland unit:

Estimated size: 0.5 acres SUMMARY OF RATING

Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I Category I =

Score > 70

III

Score for Water Quality Functions

Category II =

Score 51 - 69

Score for Hydrologic Functions

Category III =

Score 30 – 50

Score for Habitat Functions

Category IV =

Score < 30

TOTAL Score for Functions

Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland

Does not apply

Final Category (choose the “highest” category from above”)

III

YES

Page 1 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland B

Page 2 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland B D

Depressional and Flat Wetlands

Points

WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality.

(only 1 score per box)

(see p.38) Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland:  Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ........................................... points = 3 Figure __  Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet ........ points = 2  Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points = 1  Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface 3 outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ........................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) Provide photo or drawing The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) 0 YES points = 4 NO points = 0 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class):  Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area ............................................... points = 5 Figure ___  Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area ................................................. points = 3  Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area ............................................... points = 1  Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area .................................................. points = 0 5 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at Figure ___ least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years.  Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 4  Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 2 0  Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods

D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1

D 1.2 D 1.3

D 1.4

Total for D 1

Add the points in the boxes above

TOTAL – Water Quality Functions

Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. 1

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

8 (see p. 44)

Multiplier

2 16

Page 3 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland B



Add the points in the boxes above

(see p.46)

3 8

(see p. 49) Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Multiplier Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems 2 Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions

Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1

Comments:

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Page 4 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland B These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.

Points

HABITAT FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat.

(only 1 score per box)

H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1

H 1.2

H 1.3

H 1.4

Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Figure ___ Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) – Size threshold for each class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 If the unit has a forested class check if: The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/groundcover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 4 structures or more ....... points = 4 3 structures ................... points = 2 2 structures .................... points = 1 1 structure .................... points = 0 Hydroperiods (see p.73): Figure ___ Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present ...... points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present ................... points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present .................... points = 0 1 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake-fringe wetland .................... = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland ............ = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points = 2 5 – 19 species .................... points = 1 1 List species below if you want to: < 5 species ........................ points = 0

H 1.5

Use map of Cowardin classes.

H 1 TOTAL Score – potential for providing habitat

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Add the points in the column above

Page 5 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland B (only 1 score per box)

H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1

Buffers (see P. 80): Figure ___ Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of “undisturbed”. 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use)............. points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference ....................................................................................................... points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 0 25% circumference ....................................................................................................... points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK .................................. points = 2 No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ............................................................................ points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer ................................................................................................... points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above ................................................................. points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers

H 2.2

Total for page

Comments:

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Page 6 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland B H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multilayered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84)  There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development .......... points = 5  The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile ..................................................................................................... points = 5  There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. ............................................................................................................................ points = 3  The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................................................... points = 3  There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile ........................................................................... points = 2  There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................. points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score – opportunity for providing habitat

Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8



Total Score for Habitat Functions

Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1

4 4 8

Comments:

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Page 7 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland B

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Cat. 1

Cat. I Cat. II

Dual Rating

I/II

Cat I

Cat. I

Page 8 of 9

Wetland name or number BNSF Phase I – Wetland B

SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90)

Cat. I

Cat. I Cat. II

Cat. II Cat. III

Comments:

Wetland Rating Form – western Washington, version 2 (7/06)

Page 9 of 9

Appendix F Draft Critical Area Evaluation: Sammamish Valley Study Area GeoEngineers

DRAFT Memorandum 8410 154TH Avenue NE, Redmond, Washington 98052, Telephone: 425.861.6000, Fax: 425.861.6050

www.geoengineers.com

To:

Dave Knight, The Berger Partnership

From:

Marcelle V. Lynde and Thomas Bannister, GeoEngineers

Date:

September 9, 2010

File:

0500-172-00

Subject:

BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan, Sammamish Valley Study Area â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Critical Area Reconnaissance

GeoEngineers has prepared this memorandum to document our observations during the Critical Area Reconnaissance performed along the Redmond- Sammamish Valley Study Area located in Redmond, Washington. We understand that the City of Redmond has acquired the Redmond section of the former Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad corridor. The City is beginning a planning process to convert 3.89 miles of the BNSF right-of-way (ROW) to a regional trail, from just west of SR 520/SR 202 Interchange and Bear Creek, to Northeast 124th Street. The Sammamish Valley Study Area is defined as the approximately 2.8-mile long section of the BNSF ROW between the Sammamish River and Northeast 124th Street (Figure 1). The ROW ranges from fifty feet to one hundred feet in width and parallels the east side of the Willows Road ROW through the majority of the Sammamish Valley Study Area. Generally, commercial development abuts the eastern side BNSF ROW through the southern portion of the Sammamish Valley Study Area. The Willows Run golf course abuts the east side of the ROW south of 116th Street. Pastureland is located east of the ROW between 166th Street and 124th Street. The purpose of our reconnaissance was to visually assess the Sammamish Valley Study Area for the potential presence regulated Critical Areas, as defined by Redmond Municipal Code (RMC) 20D.140 (Critical Areas). This memo identifies the approximate locations of potential existing Critical Areas so that the City of Redmond may develop preliminary plans for the trail conversion. Due to the preliminary nature of the project, many of the site-specific regulatory limitations associated with these Critical Areas are not known at this time. A GeoEngineers biologist walked the length of the Sammamish Valley Study Area on July 14, 2010, to identify Critical Areas observed along the corridor. The approximate locations of Critical Areas observed during this site reconnaissance are mapped on Figures 2 - 8. The biologist made observations of potential Critical Areas on adjacent parcels; however, was not authorized to enter these parcels. Therefore, there may be regulated Critical Area buffers that are not identified in this memo that may project on to the Sammamish Valley Study Area. Prior to the field work, we reviewed the City of Redmond Critical Area Maps (City of Redmond, 2010), the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) FPARS mapping system (WDNR, 2010), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) SalmonScape system (WDFW, 2010a), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) data from WDFW (WDFW, 2010b), the King County iMap GIS system (King County, 2010) and the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas

According to RMC 20D.140, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas include, but are not limited to, Native Growth Protection Easements (NGPE) and Riparian Stream Corridors (streams). The City of Redmond (2010) identifies 3 NGPEs near the western edge of the ROW. All of these NGPEs are located within private

Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.

Memorandum to Dave Knight, The Berger Partnership September 9, 2010 Page 2 commercial developments located west of Willows Road. We observed no direct or indirect indication that federal, state and/or locally designated species of importance maintain a primary association with these NGPEs. According to the City of Redmond (2010), one Transfer Development Rights Easement is located in the 32-acre Sammamish Valley Community Park located immediately east of the ROW and north of 116 th Street (Figure 8). This undeveloped pastureland, owned by the city of Redmond, contains one stream (Stream 7) and wetland (The Watershed Company, 2009). The City of Redmond (2010) has mapped 6 streams that cross the ROW. During the field reconnaissance, GeoEngineers observed 10 streams within or adjacent to the ROW (Figures 2-8). Except for Stream 7 (Figure 8), we observed flow and defined channels in all of the streams during the July 14, 2010 field visit. Our observations of flow at this time of the year indicate that these streams, with the exception of Stream 7, are perennial and are driven by groundwater discharge. The biologist did not observe flow in the defined channel of Stream 7 at the time of the field reconnaissance, therefore, flow within Stream 7 is intermittent.

Photo 1. Typical conditions west of the BNSF ROW.

Because of the adjacent land use, these open stream sections have been channelized and, generally, parallel the BNSF rail prism in maintained ditches. Stream crossings through the rail prism are via concrete box culverts, corrugated metal pipes and/or concrete pipes. As a result, riparian habitat is heavily degraded. WDFW (2010a and 2010b) indicates the presence of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in 2 streams that cross the ROW within the Sammamish Valley Study Area. We have identified these streams as Stream 1 (Figure 4) and Stream 3 (Figure 5). During the field reconnaissance, the biologist observed fish in Stream 3. WDFW (2010b) does not indicate the presence of any other PHS occurrence in the vicinity of the Sammamish Valley Study Area. A list of streams observed in and adjacent to the ROW is presented in Table 1.

Memorandum to Dave Knight, The Berger Partnership September 9, 2010 Page 3

TABLE 1. BNSF ROW PHASE II STREAM INVENTORY Stream

Estimated Channel Width

Mapped by City of Redmond?

Class*

Hydrology/Notes

Sammamish River

80 Feet

Yes

Water of the State.

Stream 1

10 feet

Yes

Crosses ROW in box culvert.

Stream 2

10 feet

Crosses ROW in concrete pipe.

Stream 3

10 feet

Yes

Fish observed.

Stream 4

10 feet

Yes

III

Flow from Wetland west of Willows Road.

Stream 5

12 feet

III

Flow from constructed pond west of Willows Rd.

Stream 6

8 feet

III

Flow from constructed pond west of Willows Rd.

Stream 7

4 feet

Yes

III

Described by the Watershed Company (2009).

Stream 8

4 feet

Yes

Ditched channel west of rail prism.

Stream 9

4 feet

Flows from box culvert under Willows Rd.

*Per the definitions of Redmond Municipal Code 20D.140.20-010(4) and as identified by the City of Redmond (2010).

The Sammamish River flows under the ROW on a steel span bridge supported on creosote piles driven in the river and its banks. The river defines the eastern border of the Sammamish Valley Study Area (Figure 2). The Sammamish River is primary habitat for anadromous and resident fish species including: including: coho salmon, Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) kokanee salmon (O. nerka) [resident} sockeye salmon (O. nerka) [anadromous], steelhead (O. mykiss) [anadromous], rainbow trout (O. mykiss) [resident], cutthroat trout (O. clarki-clarki) and bull trout (Salmo confluentus) [WDFW, 2010a and 2010b]. According to RMC 20D.140.20-020(3), this reach of the Sammamish River is to be protected by a 150-foot protective buffer to be measured landward from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). This protective buffer projects into the eastern end of the Sammamish Valley Study Area. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) [2010] identifies the Sammamish River as “Waters of the State”. In accordance with the City of Redmond’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP), all lands extending 150 feet landward from the OHWM of the Sammamish River, including wetlands and those areas within the 100-year floodplain, are subject to additional regulatory requirements of the SMP. Given the preliminary nature of the BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan, it is not known how limitations associated with the SMP will impact allowed development within the Sammamish Valley Study Area. Wetlands

During the field investigation, we identified a number of potential wetlands within the vicinity of the ROW. Wetlands are present on the forested portions of the hillslope located west of Willows Road and the ROW (Figures 6-8). Many of these wetland areas appear to be constructed stormwater facilities associated with the development west of Willows Road. We observed flow from some of these wetlands across the ROW during our field reconnaissance. The presence of flow at the time of the field reconnaissance indicates that these wetlands are driven by groundwater discharge on the hillslope west of the ROW. Most likely, the constructed wetlands were created from wetland areas that existed prior to commercial development west of Willows Road.

Memorandum to Dave Knight, The Berger Partnership September 9, 2010 Page 4 In the northern portion of the corridor, we observed wetlands in the low-lying areas east of ROW. This area includes the pastureland between Northeast 124th Street and Northeast 116th Street; and the Willows Run golf course (Figures 7 and 8). Depressional wetland conditions are primarily driven by shallow groundwater found throughout the Sammamish River Valley. One wetland located immediately east of the ROW and north of 116th Street (Figure 8) was identified and delineated by The Watershed Company (2009). We identified one potential wetland feature that abuts the ROW west of the Willows Run golf course (Figure 7). The regulated buffers of these wetlands will project into the ROW. We observed indicators of wetland hydrology and vegetation (USACE, 2008) in the ditches that abut the rail prism. The locations of these ditches are shown as red lines on Figures 2-6 and 8. Some of these ditches may have been intentionally created within non-wetland sites to convey surface water, such as, stormwater runoff. Such areas are exempt from the provisions of the City of Redmond Critical Areas ordinance under RMC 20D.140.10-030(1)(b); however, additional state and federal regulatory restrictions may apply to these ditches. Frequently Flooded Areas

According to the City of Redmond (2010), the FEMA 100-year floodplain is ubiquitously mapped in the Sammamish River valley north of downtown Redmond. This regulated area abuts the eastern side of the rail prism in the northern portion of the corridor for approximately 1.5 miles. Critical Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas

Critical Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas are those areas within the City of Redmond that have a critical recharge effect on aquifers used for potable water. The City of Redmond (2010) has identified the portion of the Sammamish Valley Study Area between the Sammamish River and Northeast 91st Street as a Wellhead Protection Zone 2. The remainder of the Sammamish Valley Study Area has been identified as a Wellhead Protection Zone 4 (City of Redmond, 2010). Zone 2 areas are lands that overlie the 1-year travel time of any water source well owned by the City of Redmond. Zone 4 areas are defined as all lands within the City of Redmond that are not included in Wellhead Protection Zones 1, 2 or 3. Development restrictions associated with Wellhead Protection Zones 1 and 2 are targeted towards activities which involve storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances. Given the preliminary nature of the BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan, it is not known how limitations associated with Critical Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas will impact development within the Sammamish Valley Study Area. Any proposed development within the Sammamish Valley Study Area will be required to comply with the Wellhead Protection Zone Performance Standards identified in RMC 20D.140.50-040. Geologically Hazard Areas

Memorandum to Dave Knight, The Berger Partnership September 9, 2010 Page 5 2. Landslide Hazard Areas are areas potentially subject to significant or severe risk of landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrogeologic factors. 3. Seismic Hazard Areas are lands subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake-induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. The City of Redmond (2010) does not indicate the presence of any Erosion Hazard or Landslide Hazard Areas within the Sammamish Valley Study Area. However, the slopes along the BNSF fill prism along the eastern end of the Sammamish Valley Study Area, near the Sammamish River are steeper than 40-percent and have a vertical relief greater than 10 feet. Under RMC 20D.140.60-010(1)(b)(vii), these areas are defined as Landslide Hazard Areas. The approximate locations of these Landslide Hazard Areas are mapped on Figures 2 and 3. According to RMC 20D.140.60-020, a 50-foot buffer shall be measured from the top, toe and sides of the Landslide Hazard Area. Per RMC 20D.140.60-040(2) development applicants are required to evaluate alternative locations that avoid impacts to Landslide Hazard Areas. If impacts cannot be avoided, then the applicant must demonstrate there is no reasonable alternative to developing in Landslide Hazard Areas. Additionally, a geotechnical evaluation will be required to identify the risks of damage from the proposal, both on-site and off-site, to ascertain that the proposal will not increase the risk of occurrence of the potential geologic hazard; and to identify measures to eliminate or reduce risks. Seismic Hazard Areas are ubiquitously mapped in the relatively level areas associated with the valley that contain Lake Sammamish, the Sammamish River, Bear Creek and Evans Creek (City of Redmond, 2010). The majority of the Sammamish Valley Study Area is mapped as a Seismic Hazard Area and may be subject to the regulations of RMC 20D.140.60-040(4).

CONCLUSION During the July 14, 2010 field reconnaissance, we observed 10 streams that are located within the ROW. Several wetlands were observed in the vicinity of the ROW, primarily west of Willows Road and the ROW. Two potential wetlands were observed within the ROW in the northern portion of the Sammamish Valley Study Area. The locations of the wetlands observed within the ROW are mapped on Figures 7 and 8. Two additional wetlands were observed south of the ROW near the Sammamish River (Figure 2). It is not known if the regulated buffers of these wetland project into the ROW. According to the City of Redmond (2010), the FEMA 100-year floodplain abuts the eastern side of the rail prism in the northern portion of the corridor for approximately 1.5 miles. The City of Redmond (2010) has identified the portion of the Sammamish Valley Study Area between the Sammamish River and Northeast 91st Street as a Wellhead Protection Zone 2 and the remainder of the Sammamish Valley Study Area as a Wellhead Protection Zone 4. No geologically hazardous areas are mapped within the ROW except for the Seismic Hazard Area that is mapped throughout the Sammamish River Valley (City of Redmond, 2010). Landslide Hazard Areas as defined by RMC 20D.140.60-010(1)(b)(vii), were observed along the rail fill prism in the southern portion of the ROW (Figures 2 and 3).

Memorandum to Dave Knight, The Berger Partnership September 9, 2010 Page 6 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this memorandum for The Berger Partnership, their authorized agents and regulatory agencies for Critical Area Evaluation along the Phase II portion of the BNSF rail corridor located in Redmond, Washington. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices for Critical Area Evaluation in this area at the time this Memorandum was prepared. The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this letter are based on our professional knowledge, judgment and experience. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments should be considered a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.

REFERENCES City of Redmond. 2010. Critical Areas Maps. Accessed June 2010.

http://www.redmond.gov/cityservices/citymaps3.asp

King County. 2010. iMap Online GIS property Information system. http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/gis/Maps/iMAP.aspx United

Accessed June 2010.

States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. National Wetlands http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/index.html. Accessed June 2010.

Inventory

database.

United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to The Corps of Engineers Wetland delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication #96-94. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2010. Coastal Atlas GIS Mapping System. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/viewer.htm Accessed June 2010 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2010a. SalmonScape mapping system. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape (Accessed June 2010). Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2010b. Priority Habitat and Species data in the vicinity of Section 2, Township 25 North, Range 5 East. Production Date: June 16, 2010. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2010. FPARS http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/app1/fpars/viewer.htm (Accessed June 2010).

mapping

system.

The Watershed Company. 2009. Sammamish Valley Park Wetland Delineation Report. Dated June 9, 2009.

NE nd Av e

NE 124th St

132

131st Pl NE

E 128

ter Ave N Sla

132nd Pl NE

E tN th C

oad Willows R

134

NE 120th St

NE 124th St

NE 12

NE 123rd St

Da ve

127th A

NE 116th St

156th Pl NE

138th Ave NE

13 4 th Pl NE

4 th

96th Way NE

NE 95th Ct

162

NE 93rd St

NE 95th St NE 9

167th Pl NE

NE 99th St

NE 98th St

167th Ave NE

NE 100th St

NE 95th St

NE 104th St

136th Ave NE

NE 101st Pl

132nd Ave NE

Sammamish Valley Phase II Corridor Study Area

167th Pl N

NE 102nd Pl

161st Ave NE 161st Pl NE

Pl N E 127th

126th Ave NE

NE 104th St

9th NE 10

134th Ave NE

r ve

157th Ave NE

126th Ave NE

NE 91st St

NE 91st Way

NE 90th St

Pl N

NE 90th St

NE 88th Ln

Island

166th Ave NE

NE 83rd St

NE 81st St

165th Ave NE

NE 85th St

NE 80th St

524

405

2,000

Seattle

2,000

Bellevue King

Feet

90 16

167

Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps, Street Maps 2005 Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983 North arrow oriented to grid north

167th Ave NE

NE 87th St

Snohomish 104

Kitsap

Redmond Way

NE 87th St

161st Ave NE

NE 81st St

160th Ave NE

NE 83rd St

158th Ave NE

NE 85th St

NE 80th St

Jefferson

NE 88th St

e NE Ave 148th Av

134th Ave NE

NE 8

133rd Ave NE

126th Ave NE

128th Ave NE

NE 89th St

t 7th S

140th Ave NE

NE 1 09th

166th Ave NE

NE 108th Pl

NE 111th St NE 110th St

160th Ave

ish am mm Sa

NE 109th Pl

130th Ave NE

Map Revised: July 15, 2010

NE 112th St

165th Ct NE

NE 113th Ct

NE 111th Pl

NE 107th Pl 105 th P l

161st Ct NE

NE 113th St

162nd Ave NE

ve NE

NE 116th St

NE 94th St

Path: W:\Redmond\Projects\0\0500172\GIS\050017200_Phase2_F1.mxd

NE 122nd St

Sammamish Sammamish River River Regional Regional Park Park

NE 112th St

Office: Port Orchard

ay 4th W

Vicinity Map BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan BNSF Rail Corridor Master Plan - Phase II Sammamish Valley Study Area Redmond, Washington Redmond, Washington

Figure 1

Redmond

Path:W:\Redmond\Projects\0\0500172\GIS\050017200_CriticalAreas.mxd

Map Revised: August 24, 2010 EL

NE 85th ST

Sammamish River

h AV 154t E NE

REDM

ON D

W LK M SAM AM I SH P

OL D

RE DM

KWY

BNSF Rail Corridor

24 th NE 1

NE 124th ST

Ditch

WI LLOWS

Stream [per RMC 20D.140.20-010(u)]

RED-WOOD RD

200

400

Feet

Landslide Hazard [per RMC 20D.140.60-010(1)(b)(vii)]

Wetland observed by GeoEngineers

6 5

Native Growth Protection Easement

4 MO

ND 140th AVE NE

R ED

NE 90th ST

BNSF Rail Corridor Critical Areas Reconnaissance

NE 85th ST

Reference: Aerial from Microsoft Bing. Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.

Redmond, Washington Figure 2

Path:W:\Redmond\Projects\0\0500172\GIS\050017200_CriticalAreas.mxd

Map Revised: August 24, 2010 EL

152nd AVE NE

Redmond

W IL L OW S

149

L th P

NE 85th ST

NE 84th ST

9th

149th WY NE

REDMOND WY

BNSF Rail Corridor

24 th NE 1

NE 124th ST

Ditch

WI LLOWS

Stream [per RMC 20D.140.20-010(u)]

RED-WOOD RD

200

400

Feet

Landslide Hazard [per RMC 20D.140.60-010(1)(b)(vii)]

Wetland observed by GeoEngineers

6 5

Native Growth Protection Easement

4 MO

ND 140th AVE NE

R ED

NE 90th ST

BNSF Rail Corridor Critical Areas Reconnaissance

NE 85th ST

Redmond, Washington Figure 3

Redmond

Path:W:\Redmond\Projects\0\0500172\GIS\050017200_CriticalAreas.mxd

Map Revised: August 24, 2010 EL

151st AVE NE

NE 92nd ST

Stream 2

NE 91st ST

Stream 1

NE 90th ST

AVE 148th

W IL L OW S

NE 87th ST

L th P 149

BNSF Rail Corridor

24 th NE 1

NE 124th ST

WI LLOWS

Stream [per RMC 20D.140.20-010(u)]

RED-WOOD RD

Ditch 7

200

400

Feet

Landslide Hazard [per RMC 20D.140.60-010(1)(b)(vii)]

Wetland observed by GeoEngineers

6 5

Native Growth Protection Easement

4 MO

ND 140th AVE NE

R ED

NE 90th ST

BNSF Rail Corridor Critical Areas Reconnaissance

NE 85th ST

Redmond, Washington Figure 4

Redmond

Path:W:\Redmond\Projects\0\0500172\GIS\050017200_CriticalAreas.mxd

St re a

Map Revised: August 24, 2010 EL

W IL L OW S

e am Str

9 NE

5t h

NE 91st ST

BNSF Rail Corridor

24 th NE 1

NE 124th ST

Ditch

WI LLOWS

Stream [per RMC 20D.140.20-010(u)]

RED-WOOD RD

200

400

Feet

Landslide Hazard [per RMC 20D.140.60-010(1)(b)(vii)]

Wetland observed by GeoEngineers

6 5

Native Growth Protection Easement

4 MO

ND 140th AVE NE

R ED

NE 90th ST

BNSF Rail Corridor Critical Areas Reconnaissance

NE 85th ST

Redmond, Washington Figure 5

Redmond

Path:W:\Redmond\Projects\0\0500172\GIS\050017200_CriticalAreas.mxd

Map Revised: August 24, 2010 EL

WS RD WILLO St re a

BNSF Rail Corridor

24 th NE 1

NE 124th ST

RED-WOOD RD

WI LLOWS

Stream [per RMC 20D.140.20-010(u)]

200

400

Feet

Landslide Hazard [per RMC 20D.140.60-010(1)(b)(vii)]

Ditch

Wetland observed by GeoEngineers

6 5

Native Growth Protection Easement

4 MO

ND 140th AVE NE

R ED

NE 90th ST

BNSF Rail Corridor Critical Areas Reconnaissance

NE 85th ST

Redmond, Washington Figure 6

Redmond

Path:W:\Redmond\Projects\0\0500172\GIS\050017200_CriticalAreas.mxd

Map Revised: August 24, 2010 EL

Stream 6

Stream 5

WS RD WILLO

BNSF Rail Corridor

24 th NE 1

NE 124th ST

Ditch

WI LLOWS

Stream [per RMC 20D.140.20-010(u)]

RED-WOOD RD

200

400

Feet

Landslide Hazard [per RMC 20D.140.60-010(1)(b)(vii)]

Wetland observed by GeoEngineers

6 5

Native Growth Protection Easement

4 MO

ND 140th AVE NE

R ED

NE 90th ST

BNSF Rail Corridor Critical Areas Reconnaissance

NE 85th ST

Redmond, Washington Figure 7

Redmond

Path:W:\Redmond\Projects\0\0500172\GIS\050017200_CriticalAreas.mxd

Map Revised: August 24, 2010 EL

Stream 9

8 Stream

WS RD WILLO m Strea 7

h WY

NE 116th ST

BNSF Rail Corridor

24 th NE 1

NE 124th ST

Ditch

WI LLOWS

Stream [per RMC 20D.140.20-010(u)]

RED-WOOD RD

NE 116t

200

400

Feet

Landslide Hazard [per RMC 20D.140.60-010(1)(b)(vii)]

Wetland observed by GeoEngineers

6 5

Native Growth Protection Easement

4 MO

ND 140th AVE NE

R ED

NE 90th ST

BNSF Rail Corridor Critical Areas Reconnaissance

NE 85th ST

Redmond, Washington Figure 8

Appendix G Sound Transit Letter of Support

City of Redmond & Sound Transit