Redmond staff say Evans Creek relocation advancing despite permitting delays; resident urges PFAS testing

Public Works Director Aaron Burt told the Redmond City Council on Feb. 17 that the Evans Creek relocation project remains on a long timeline because of technical permitting questions with King County but that staff continue to make progress toward bids and construction.

The project—intended to improve salmon habitat, restore wetlands, increase recreation access and support regional Chinook recovery—has been in planning since about 2009. Burt said the city has spent about $5,500,000 to date on right‑of‑way acquisition, consulting and design work, and that staff have applied an inflator yielding a worst‑case $3,000,000 cost‑overrun estimate while they pursue agreements and the timing for going to bid. If agreements and permitting come together in the spring, Burt said, the city could go to bid in late summer or early fall and begin construction in 2027.

Burt described two of the project's key regulatory sticking points with King County: how the county will apply bridge‑clearance standards to low‑flow stream crossings and who will take long‑term responsibility for maintenance of the new channel. "The county's original stance was that we needed basically a 3 foot clearance between the high water mark and the bottom of the bridge," Burt said, noting the city argues a one‑foot standard is appropriate for low‑flow stream channels such as Evans Creek. On maintenance, Burt said the county initially requested perpetual responsibility for the city; staff are negotiating a finite time horizon (he said a 50‑year term was one possible outcome) and will bring proposed language to council for review.

Resident David Morton used the public‑comment period to urge additional testing at the DTG site (the former all‑wood recycling property) before any excavation. "Before you dig up that contaminated creek bed ... test the site for PFAS," Morton said, citing past firefighting foam use at a 2013 fire and data showing PFAS detections in other monitoring wells. Morton asked the council to conduct "comprehensive PFAS testing of soil, sediment, and groundwater at the DTG site before creek relocation begins." His comments flagged risks he said could affect Redmond's drinking‑water aquifer.

Burt responded that a monitoring well just south of the Evans Creek location "has not detected any PFAS in that monitoring well" to date and that the city maintains 45 monitoring wells in its program. He said an excavation‑mitigation plan is part of the project and that soil testing is an option the city is continuing to explore. Burt also said one construction option could avoid excavating the DTG site so the city would not disturb soils there.

On costs and funding, Burt told council staff have identified potential regional funding opportunities and noted that tapping the King County Conservation District and a flooding district could produce up to $1,500,000 in reimbursements. He described a recent conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) accepted by FEMA as helpful for flood‑mapping, and estimated King County's internal approval process would likely take three to four months once an operations and maintenance agreement is finalized.

Council members praised staff work and asked for additional detail on sampling plans and flood frequency. Council member Forsyth said she was "definitely very interested in the soil samples in the future," and Council member Pacquiao asked that the city's website be updated to reflect adjusted timeline expectations so the public is not misled by older dates.

No formal council action was taken at the Feb. 17 meeting. Burt said staff will return with additional details on the operations and maintenance agreement, soil‑testing plans if pursued, and the project schedule.