HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272710(9) 44
Parametrix, Inc. Consultants in Engineering and Environmental Sciences
5808 Lake Washington Blvd. N.E. Kirkland,WA 98033-7350
206-822-8880•Fax: 206-889-8808
0
Mr. Lin Wilson, P.E. March 12, 1998
Transportation Systems
PlanningBuilding/Public Works
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton,Washington 98055
RE: Request for Proposal- Oaksdale Avenue Extension-Phase 2
Wetland Permitting and Mitigation
Dear Lin:
It was nice speaking with you last week. I appreciate your request for a proposal from Parametrix
to assist with the evaluation and selection of a preferred wetland mitigation option for the Phase 2
Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Project. Based on our meeting, I understand the critical need to
develop a mitigation plan that will successfully be permitted by the Corps of Engineers.
Parametrix is well-qualified to perform this work as we have coordinated numerous wetland
mitigation and permitting projects for street and other public works projects. Our recent or ongoing
projects involving wetland mitigation,permitting,and agency coordination include the following:
• Natural Resource Permitting and Mitigation Design for Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport Master Plan Update,Port of Seattle(Barbara Hinkle,206-439-6606)
• South 2000' Street/196`t' Street Improvements, City of Kent Engineering Department
(Tim LaPorte,253-859-3593)
• Everett-Seattle Commuter Rail Project, Regional Transit Authority (David Beal, 206-
689-3524)
• 132nd Street SE Extension, Snohomish County Department of Public Works (Lorna
Smith,360-388-6406)
• -Sammamish River Habitat Improvements, City of Redmond (Cathy Beam, 206-556-
2429)
• Third party review of wetland mitigation plans, City of Renton(Peter Rosen, 425-235-
2719)
These projects are successful because of the depth of technical expertise and regulatory experience
Parametrix Staff bring to them. I manage four wetland biologists, with Bachelors and Masters
degrees in Botany, Aquatic Ecology, and Plant Biology. In addition, our wetlands team is
supported by in-house fisheries biologists, hydrologists, geologists, survey teams, or design
engineers who can assist in evaluating wetland mitigation feasibility and design. Parametrix' ability
to efficiently perform interdisciplinary review of engineering and ecological issues assures our
mitigation strategies are complete and meet agency requirements to provide multiple wetland
functions.
® Pnnte�!�)n 2ecvcleO p-iner
A
Key staff available to consult with the City of Renton on these issues include:
• Clay Andean (Botanist)-consults on issues related to native plant species selection, and control
of invasive plants in mitigation sites.
• William Kleindl(Aquatic Ecologist)-is expert in ecological analysis of wetlands and design of
mitigation wetlands to mimic natural systems.
• Bob Sullivan (Fisheries Biologist)-assists with incorporating fisheries habitat into wetland
mitigation designs. He will be consulted on the design of Banking Site 2 to provide fisheries
habitat.
• Paul Fendt(P.E.)-assists biologists with engineering cost estimates and design for wetland and
fisheries mitigation projects.
• Ground and surface water hydrologists-assist with monitoring well installation, data
collection, and hydrologic analyses.
• Parametrix Survey Team-provides elevation and mapping of mitigation sites to create base
maps needed to support mitigation designs.
• Landscape architects-assist wetland biologists in designing wetland mitigation planting plans
and bid specifications.
In addition to having expert staff. Parametrix currently has several ongoing wetland mitigation and
permitting projects that involve one or more of the same agency staff who will review and approve
the wetland mitigation plan for Phase 2. During recent presentations to these individuals, we have
established a strong rapport by outlining logical and ecologically valid project impact analyses,
mitigation strategies, and mitigation design options. Our general approach to agency coordination
(Task 2)will follow this model and take advantage of this favorable rapport.
Since our discussion, I have visited the mitigation sites discussed. I also reviewed the JARPA
application for the project, aerial photographs, topographic mapping, recent hydrologic data for the
project area, and conceptual designs developed as part of the mitigation bank project. In
conjunction with our work on the wetland mitigation bank project, we have measured the bankfull
water level and recent flood elevations on Springbrook Creek adjacent to Mitigation Site 2. Based
on this review, as further explained in our proposal, we believe all options present viable mitigation
opportunities to compensate for filling 1 acre of wetland on the Phase 2 project. Because of this
preliminary conclusion,our proposed work for Task 1(Evaluation of Mitigation Options)focuses on
re-evaluating existinp' data rela�tre to the mitigation needs of this project. Limited additional data
may be needed �estimate potential al construction costs and to further demonstrate the feasibility of
certain wetland mitigation options to the review agencies. 440 "`'� ',I-- �' � ��'f�� 4-`
We WAn/, fb lI/ K><l dqi'� /gVef ^o t tNoNICt kUuW a rl7 ,7s4y
In summary, Parametrix offers qualified staff with divers consulting experience to address the
variety of regulatory, ecological, and engineering issues that are required to successfully complete
the mitigation permitting and planning for the Oaksdale Avenue project. Our approach has proven cAd G O v rl,
successful on a number of similar projects. With 12 years experience in wetland consulting in d ear h t�
Washington, I bring the City the senior level consulting expertise necessary to assure your project I
goals and schedules are met. /1110c !'
Sincerely, r fft
t�V 6r1 to f� k
eenior
es C. Kelley, Ph.D.
Wetland Ecologist/Project Manager'
J
City of Renton-Transportation Systems Oaksdale Avenue Siv Extension Project
Submitted by Parametrix, Inc. Phase 2 Wetland Mitigation
2 :March 13, 1998
PROPOSAL
CITY OF RENTON
OAKSDALE AVENUE SW EXTENSION—PHASE 2
EVALUATE WETLAND NIITIGATION OPTIONS AND NEGOTIATE WITH AGENCIES
Parametrix,Inc.
Kirkland,Washington 98033
UNDERSTANDING
The City of Renton received a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit to fill wetlands associated with
the Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Phase 1 project. A Permit for Phase 2 of the project was
specifically denied, pending development of a suitable wetland mitigation plan. Approval of Phase
2 under Section 404 will require a permit application, public notice, and supporting documents,
including wetland mitigation(2 acres).
Potential mitigation options for Phase 2 wetland impacts are as follows:
• Removal of fill from City of Renton property located south of SW 27`h Street and east of
Oaksdale Avenue. This option would allow restoration of about 2 acres of wetland.
Establishment of wetlands with in this area would mitigate for impacts in proximity to the
project. This restoration project could be designed to avoid removing most trees rooted near the
edge of the fill,which would enhance the net habitat benefits of the project. Since there appears
to be about a 1 foot drop in surface water elevation across the existing fill, it may be desirable to
replace the existing culvert with a weir type structure to avoid hydrologic impacts to wetlands
located west of the fill. A weir control structure would reduce the likelihood that clogging of
the culvert would affect wetlands or adjacent property.
• Use of the wetland mitigation bank Site 2, adjacent to Springbrook Creek offers significant
mitigation potential for impacts associated with the Oaksdale Avenue project. It would allow
in-kind replacement of shrub, ent, and forested wetland habitat, as well as allow out-of-
kind mitigation such as fis f itat enhancement. However, since fisheries enhancement
opportunities in Renton may be limited,the use of the mitigation bank for projects not requiring
fisheries mitigation may be undesirable. This issue will be considered in evaluating this
mitigation option.
• Use of wetland mitigation bank Site 1 as a mitigation option appears feasible. This site was
originally rejected by the regulatory agencies because initial studies suggested a liner would be
needed to establish adequate hydrology. However, hydrologic data, geotechnical analyses, and
observations of adjacent wetlands suggest the "fatal flaw" of a lined wetland is unfounded. If
this option is pursued, a strategy to present persuasive data showing that a liner is not required aar is ^
will be needed. A 4 v Raw
City of Renton—Transportation Systems Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Project
Submitted by Parametrix,Inc. Phase 2 Wetland Mitigation
3 March 13, 1998
}
• A final mitigation option, not discussed with the City could include a combination of the above
mitigation options coupled with wetland enhancement on City owned wetlands. Enhancement
opportunities include conversion of lower quality reed canarygrass wetland habitat to shrub or
forest wetland habitat, or enhancing forested wetland habitat with evergreen tree species such as
red cedar and/or Sitka spruce. Additional enhancements to be incorporated into mitigation
planning include wetland buffer enhancements. Buffer enhancements include planting buffer
areas with evergreen trees and food producing shrubs to provide screening, cover, and forage
for wildlife. If this option is viewed favorably by resource agencies
rents, it may provide a relatively low cost mitigation option because earthwork costs
would be minimized.
APPROACH ` LJorlt
/UCH Gw C7'l4^ GS a Mi1Ci4-lUn
� �l u
Parametrix identifies two tasks to complete the requested scope of work,as further described below.
The overall approach in evaluating mitigation sites will be to review existing data and identify C,,,J
additional datvi1pded�o�ugment and strengthen previous mitigation analy� Upon collection�f
6 S tLa , additional date ease i i analysis would be completed t ma iz pre erred mitigation option.
dThe selection o�a preferred plan would be completed with detailed review by City of Renton staff /�S�ovfh�n
and negotiations with resource agencies (US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington Department of Ecology, and
011'V✓ d�kb� Washington Department of Fish and Wildlifeoal of this approach is successful approval of
�I� the Phase 2 Section 404 Permit application. A add CS-4, 'Ttlj an ��be! VA4 ?
Task 1-Evaluation of Potential Mitigation Options and Data Needs
Purpose: Cr qra,"rs�
This task will identify analysis criteria and data collection needs that will allow the benefits/and
approximate costs of each mitigation option to be compared. Based on this analysis and the results
of agency coordination (Task 2), a recommendation regarding the preferred mitigation option will
be made.
Activities: II
Parame will review existing data for the potential mitigation options and identify additional data
neede to evaluate the feasibility and potential costs of each mitigation project. Since it generally
app s feasible to restore wetlands at each poentGa �i t' n site, much of this effort will focus ,rin'S "!
/n ,�
on identifying information necessary tMestimate projec sts and provide convincing design Q1r y `,
analysis(particularly relating to wetland hydrology)to reviewing agencies. (A'f 0 5
I
}
Data that may be needed to fully evaluate one or more mitigation options are: P
• Soils analysis to determine suitability for use as construction fill on other projects. a�
• Limited spot elevation data on or near mitigation sites to define design elevations
relative to natural wetlands. P(")
• Limited water level monitoring to evaluate wetland design criteria or aysess
construction dewatering issues. assess k 5
b�`
Analysis to be completed with existingprnew data include: S� w
• Developing conceptual grading and habitat designs.
• Estimating excavation requirements.
City of Renton—Transportation Systems Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Project 1• �!
Submitted by Parametrix,Inc. Phase 2 Wetland Mitigation 4.4 �" ✓{
4 March 13, 1998 Cam+
r N
• Evaluating hydrologic conditions and seasonal variations. Y �k� 1�� �l feed �� �� ,It
• Estimating revegetation requirements and costs.
�L
If new data are needed to complete the analysis of the miti tion potential for each option, a
workplan defining data collection methods will be prepared. Upon review and approval by the
City, the plan will be implemented (alternatively, the City may choose to collect the additional
data)
Products:
The above analysis will be described in technical memoranda that summarizes a conceptual
mitigation design and compares the ecological benefits and constraints for each mitigation option.
The designs will incorporate mitigation,features needed to meet agency requirements. �a� �af�•"� �G1y,s
A review of available hydrologic (surface and subsurface), geotechnical, and ecological data
necessary to support the mitigation design will be included in the report. This review will identify
data gaps and their significance to the probability of ultimately developing a successful mitigation
plan. Additional data needed to finalize a mitigation design and develop thn
for each plan will also be listed. A workplan will be prepared to define data collection methods for
obtaining information critical to the selection of a preferred option,,W 4-ed4l �'�`4,"r-P f"
JJ /� ' geG�c$�ai
a aa4,,.44 r eve f � Prr,rtd O Si^3 Al c 5a', (A,), Oe .
Task 2-Agency Coordination
Purpose:
The purpose of this task is to coordinate with City departments and resource agencies to explain
mitigation options and design approaches, solicit feedback, and ultimately select a preferred
mitigation option.
Activities:
Conceptual mitigation plans and feasibility analyses of mitigation options will be presented to
resource agencies with review authority over the Corps of Engineers permit. Based on agewy
review and comments and City of Renton review,a preferred mitigation option will be select Vd, e
intent of this coordination is to demonstrate responsiveness to the concerns and recommendatf
reviewing agencies,and(if necessary),convince them that alternative approaches are valid.
Coordination with agencies is expected to include initial telephone consultation to discuss the
project and mitigation approach. An information packet would be prepared and circulated to
agencies prior to an office and field presentation. Following the field meeting, additional meetings
or telephone coordination would be conducted to inform agencies of new information or relevant
decisions. It is especially important to meet with agencies prior to issuance of ublic notice and
early during the official comment period so that all agency questions arising Qfo their review are
proactively answered.
Products:
Products of this task include records of telephone communications, minutes from agency meetings,
preparation of meeting materials,and attendance at these meetings.
ff / a)�uj
d J
,4 Sn.• t * Covet l iu tY� `Z hd�d 44 i�/C- �-Ae / �� hh1 SZ►-
H:\USERS\KELLEY\RENTON\Renton.scp.doc a�f-� f 64n1ii 4Pk:. , 1 47 5
WL rC CAt7v2 Can 4rl ch 41L— f 4 �6"fS 6�U C e 1&,ViC 'C�C�GGt
ki A eel � 1�4 0A rt e-Wr, Ste„,e 0„2 c,�a, r l.�i ✓4 T a l� ,�
City of Renton-Transportation Systems �/1�1 r / -- Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Project
Submitted by Parametrix,Inc. „a'✓� Phase 2 Wetland Mitigation
5-0 �lf�d q �5 �C / C� r1�' arch 13, 1998
Cl,-E, t, � � /�h 1i r'1 e 4errn
Parametrix, Inc. Consultants in Fngi un nctyiny and Sciences
58os t.akc Wa hinq.on oivd. N.E. Suite 200 Kirkland,WA 98033-7350
425-S22-8880•Fax-425-869-8808
V
Mr. Lill Wilsoll, P.E. March 18, 1998
Transportation Systems
Planning/Building/Public Works
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055
RE: Oaksdale Avenue Extension-Phase 2
Seliedule for Wetland Mitigation Evaluation
Dear Lin:
Per your request i am outlining a schedule for evaluating the mitigation options for Phase 2 of
the Oaksdale Avenue Extension Project. Our letter proposal submitted on March 13, 1998
identified Evaluation of Potential Mitigation Options and Data Needs and Agency Coordination
as project tasks, key activities in these tasks are scheduled below. Dates presented assume a
March 30, 1998 start date.
Summary Schedule of Agency Coordination and Mitigation Planning Activities.
Date Activity Fr*-PA Iu ,e4' t
vr�'
March 30, 1998 Notice to Procecd �S w
March 30-April 10 Review existing feasibilit i
nformation, discuss ' ttes with city
staff/departments,prepare list of data saps for car- w7tM d final
mitigation designs.
April G Contact agencies to discuss the Phase 2 project and schedule a meeting
(in late April-early May) to discuss mitigatioli options.
April 13 Submit letter report identifying data baps and advantages/disadvantages
for each mitigation option.
Identify time critical
,i •^� ���� �rt»� nformation needed to discuss feasibility
ith resource agencies.
April 20 Meet with city to plan agency meeting.
Approximately May 1 Agency site visit to receive input from agencies on mitigation options,
design issues, etc.
1:ollowing meeting, consider agency comments and select preferred
mitigation option.
Parametrix, Inc. Consultvnts in Fnginceriny aridCnvironmcntal Sciences_
5808 1 ake Wa hing-on Hwd-N.E. Suite 200 Kirkland,WA 9BO33-7350
425-822-8880•fax:425-K9 8306
V
Mr. Lin Wilson, P.E. March 19, 1998
Transportation Systems
flapping/Building/Public Works
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055
RE; Oaksdale Avenue Extension-Phase 2
Sel edule for Wetland Mitigation Evaluation
Dear Lin,
Per your request 1 am outlining a schedule for evaluating the mitigation options for Phase 2 of
the Oaksdale Avenue Extension Project. Our letter proposal submitted on March 13, 1998
identified Evaluation of Potential Mitigalion Options and Data Needs and Agency Coordination
as project tasks, key activities in these tasks are scheduled below. Dates presented assume a
March 30, 1998 start date.
Summary Schedule of Agency Coordination and Mitigation Planning Activities.
Date Activity Ay o d �'p A"d t
_ , w�
t .Ylur
March 30, 1998 J�'� Notice to Procecd tS
March 30-April 10 Review existing feasibilit information, discuss ' ues with city
staff/departments, prepare list of data gaps for CAR final
mitigation designs.
April G Contact agencies to discuss the Phase 2 project and schedule a mecting
(in late April-early May) to discuss mitigation options.
April 13 Submit letter report identifying data gaps and advantages/disadvantages
for each mitigation option.
Identify time critical -
,\ nit nth���.7r:
,.�• •^•�� ' 'nlornlation needed to discuss feasibility
ith resource agencies.
April 20 Meet with city to plan agency meeting.
Approximately May 1 Agency site visit to receive input ft'orn agencies on mitigation options,
design issues, etc.
hollowing mecting, consider agency connnents and select preferred
mitigation option-
iaA
x
Mr. Lin Wilson, P.E.
Transportation Systems
March 18, 1998
Pagc 2
Date Activities
May 8 Meet with city and develop a data collection plan to support mitigation
design and permit applications
May 15 Revise technical memorandum per agency continents and cliscuss/justify
selection of the preferred mitigation option_
After reviewing our submittal of March 13 and this schedule, please contact me if you have any
additional questions.
Sincerely,
J me- C. Kelley, Ph.D.
Sciiior Wetland Ecologist/Proj t Manager
h AmcrslkcI Icy\wiloMo&I x-xehd.Ict
f
PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT �Y
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 v ��
D UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2631 � Q�
NT
0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2620
TO: DATE: JOB NO. :
RE:
ATTN:
GENTLEMEN:
WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
❑ SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS ❑ REPRODUCIBLE PLANS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS
❑ COPY OF LETTER ❑
COPIES DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL
o FOR YOUR USE ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION
❑ AS REQUESTED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS
❑ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
COPIES TO:
SIGNED
TITLE
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE
Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Well Data
Along Oakesdale Alignment and on the South Wetland Mitigation Site
15 - -
14.68
14
14.37
.08 -- ---
'89 13.80 33.83
3.83 _
3.5 1 3.57
13.22 13.21 1 61 3.3 3.34
3'211
13 - - -- 13.18--- .13.08 - - - _ ._ 3.09 .g41 3.04
12.68 12.67 1 81 32.65 12.59 12.68 -XGW 4
12.26 12.43 1 312.
12 12.07 - - - - _ _ - - T-1 91 - GW-5
11.58 1 4�1.53 11.53 1.68 11.53 3 211.7 1 1.5
11.38
� 11.17 11' e GW 6
1 1 - - - - -- --- - 10.98
z 10.63 0.53 10.48 -1-GW-7
1 0.23 10.18
10 8 gZZ65-- ------ GW 8
-
y • 9. 68 nz 9.78 9:63 -
9.47 8 9.4 8 9,4.
9.28 9. 7
+; 1 9•08 Ditch
9 - - 8. .88 8.8
8 57 8.48 - -W_12a
8. 8.38 8• ®®
8 8, .23 �:�� 8 7A
7.33 7.33
6.85
6 - ----- - - - --- - - __ . - -
5 - ----+--- ---+- -.
LO LO CO co m n 00 00 w 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m m rn m rn rn rn rn rn T T T T m T rn T T T rn m T
N tc•� in n 00 O O to to CO n O D7 L CO 00 CO O CO O It M 7 O N
M n CO CO O N N N N M M LO CO Cp n
Date Water Levels Were Read
GWG-1 A.XLS
Raw Readings Adjusted to NGVD
Date gw-01 gw-62 gw-03 gw-04 gw-05 gw-06 gw-07 gw-08 ditch w-12b
not plotted
Gage Ref 18 16.52 13.57 13.98 16.98i 16.1 t 19.03, 17.28 16.54 9.05
3-21-95 6.31 7.32 10.17 11.38 11.581
-- -.. _.
91�5 96 6.-[ 570.2: 60 3 12.07 11.42 ___-_-� --
4 5 96 6.0 7.07 9.32 11.53 10.6Y
7 15 96 -4-- -5.87. 7.87 8.46 9.18
10-7-96 6.92 7.43 9.47 8.38
---r- - - ---
-_-- _ 8.8.02 _ 11 82 12.68 13.18',L- _--- - -
4-10 97, 7.02 9.82 11.53 11.97
- --6-30-97 - ...---- 5_487.43-- - 8.18 9.38 9 9.03--- 9.98 13.08
- 38
8-5 97, 7. 22 8.73 9.28, 8.55. 8.69' 8.23
9-5 97 - 7.58 8.43' 8.88 - 7.95 7.82 7.33
- _ _..-�-
L 8.88 9 43 1_ 8.28 8.18 8.18 12.67
- -rt- - _. - - -- -
11-7 97 _--- 8 87' 9.33 10.03t 9.25 9.22 12.26 13.89 9.69
10-6 97
- -- ..- --
9.69 9.48 1 1.58 13.22
_ 12 5 97
-__ 9.88 10.43 _ 9.7 9.63 11.68 13.80 9.65
112-5-97 - 6.02, 9.55 - -- '
_ 9.4 10.48 10.05 10.02 12.43 13.21 9.59
6.53 9.2
9.68 1-0.53 10.49 10.39 14.37 13.59' 9.95
12-31-97 6.51 9.32 9.88 10.65 10.6 10.58 12.83 13.261 9.98
1-21-98 7.17 10.42 j 10.58 1 1.53 13.35 12.63 14.68 14.08_ 9.95
- -�-
2-6 9898 6.52 9.621 10.53 11.17 12.65 12.13 13.83 13.32' 9.73
2-18-98 6.32 8.82 9.78 10.13' 12.2 11.73 13.83' 13.48 9.80
3-6 98 6.12 8.57; _9.68 10.03 12.59 11.73 13.57, 13.34 9.85
3-20-98 5.92 8.571 9.38 9.78 11.7 11.28 13.081 13.21 9.64
4-6-98 5.77 8.47; 9.53 9.78 11.5 10.93 12.68 13.21 9.62
4-20-98 5.32 13.571 9.28 9.58 10.8 10.23 11.911 13.091 9.46
5-4-98 7.87 8.57; 9.13 9.75 9.63 10.98 12.94 9.36
5-15-98 5.42 7.67 8.98 9.18 8.2 9.33 10.48 13.04 9.27
6-1-98 5.32 8.33 9.08 8.85 9.03 10.18 ditch dry 9.27
6-19-98 5.22 6.821 7.33 8.23 8.2 8.33 9.08 ditch dry
7-2-98 5.081 7.13 - --8.13' - _-8.131 8.1 7.98 8.48 ditch dry
Page 1
t-
PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT r��Y O�
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 v E9
0 UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2631
NT
0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2620
TO: J V m ep< K c t'� DATE: JOB NO.
Vd /)6 dJ RE:
G (n) 0
ATTN:
GENTLEMEN:
WE AREISENDING YOU o ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
❑ SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS ❑ REPRODUCIBLE PLANS/ ❑ SPECIFICATIONS
❑ COPY OF LETTER ' Csrr/✓N��/a kf cirri SNiFGr, �Gt�'- �dh 'toft'�� Gj"
COPIES DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
7 2'f 5 •�� Gf t CvH(r,i r,' rv✓ woe/-r- c i (-,),I#a
p lc./et
7 2 S
"4tms 0f mt "ar r' wells
rl
t/.4 L c c
2
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL
❑ FOR YOUR USE ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION
fit( AS REQUESTED o RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS
o FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
COPIES TO:
SIGNED
TITLE
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE
r
, O
NLn
C O C/) v)
O
MEw ♦ ,00 , m
CD,a u) N >
O > Q
O —
0 CL SIN 10h St w Grad W°y ,z, f
w
.�2 S Renton Villoge PI
St �• m
w
•a St
u
f Y
SW 12th t.
w _ - 15
6th tI'M . '°° SW 16th w S 1 t
.of w
1 � . ♦Y 1 1610F1]]t
'tlll
� Y 1
SW 1 th St 167 S 19th
,
`n SW 21 s t St a 674 t
Q> N '`
C 0
SW 23rd t S 23rd St
9
,+ N
Q H10
J ♦17b
w
W 27th St SW 27th St /
o
3
> •YW12B SW 2 th S it .
N ♦t N
j 7 tlao
1 f f
n ,l��,{ SW Oth St '
Y 'ril.GWl
I +f:Am ♦ m
,+oo
Q
167
L) SW 34th St
> .>na SW 4th St
♦
a�
0
V)
CID
o
P ck: �.
♦,w O
3 St SW 39th St L 8th
♦3m f
IN
♦,
VIM
SW 41 st St. 4. SW 41 st S
C
0
0
,w♦
S 43rd St. SW 43rd St. 43r St 167 S 43
1st
P,
S 182nd
45t
un
Q
s J
o
00
S 186th St
St �—--- -- - -
-
") S 188th St v, o -
> o a
cc
¢>
c
CN
S 190th St 00
S 55th St
CI!>J/ 1770 13. 40 luu .— . uu • • .. ••••••••� ---
FEB--03-tgga 10:34 FROM US CGE-REGULATORY BRANCH tU
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
7ffATTLE DIGTR[GT. CORPS OF ENSIWiIL1+L
P.o- pox 3755
SKAYYLR,WASHINOTON W&A-sass
mmn T.
0ATT9—Wft
RegulaLory Branch
FM -3 (998
Mr_ Bryce A. Ecklein
Kato & warren, Inc.
2003 Weatern Avenue
555 Market Place One
Seattle, Washington, 98121
Reference: 97-4-01329
Renton, City of
Dear Mr. Ecklein:
The U.S- ArrW corps of Engineera (Corps) has completed
our review of the compensatory mitigation information and
your subsequent letter , dated January 12, 1998, relating to
wetland imacts associated with the city of Renton•s
proposal to extend Oakesdale Avenue located at the city of
Renton, Washington_
We have several outstanding concerns about the
compensatory mitigation component of this project which
require resolution before we can proceed to a permit
decision. Our concerns and comments are outlined below:
The Compensatory mitigation plan should include clearly
outlined goals and objectives, performance standards
(including % cover at years 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10) ,
monitoring, maintenance, and contingencies.
Contingencies need to be developed up front, not "if- a
Problem occurs down the line. Presented for our review
on the mitigation component of this project is two pages
of narrative, one page of a plant list, and two drawings.
We strongly reccmutend that you prepare a bound
compensatory mitigation plan which includes the function
and value asseasment of the wetlands being impacted,
which functions you are trying to replace and how that
will be achieved at the mitigation site. The plan should
also include information about existing site conditions
(see below) . It is extremely difficult to relate impacts
to compensatory mitigation and the ecological validity of
the mitigation plan when the information for assessing
these components for our permit decision are either not
available or scattered in the DEIS, the EIS, letters,
Public Notice, etc . Given the sensitive nature of this
FEB-03-19M M 35 FROM US COE-REGLILATORY PRANCM TO 972M P.03
project, compilation of all the pertinent information in
one volume (the Final Mitigration Plan) for our review and
future wise is imperative.
• The following information about existing conditions at
the proposed mitigation site is required. How big is the
entire parcel? Is the entire parcel owned by the city of
Renton? What is the acreage, location, and types of
jurisdictional wetlands which exist there now? We
observed jurisdictional wetlands on the mitigation site,
dominated by reed canarygrass (RCG) during our site visit
of June 12, 1997 ; however, we need data pertaining to the
existing hydrology, vegetation, and soils, both in the
upland and in the wetland areas of the proposed
mitigation site. The information provided is not enough
to ascertain the probability of sucoeaa for the proposed
compensatory mitigation plan.
Your estimates for cubic yards (cy) to be excavated for
the mitigation site appear too low. For the northern
area our estimates of excavation needed would be about
10, 000 cy of material (averaging 4 feet of material to be
excavated trom an area approximately 65, 000 square feet) ,
while you indicate that it as approximately 5,500 cy of
excavation. Our estimate (based on the graphics
presented) for the Southern area was also about double
your estimate for excavation volume. Please clarify.
Section C-C ha$ the existing and proposed grades labeled
incorrectly. Where will the excavated material be
disposed of? What are the hydrological parameters at
elevations 10 .5 through 15 feet. What is the existing
hydrology at elevation 14 feet for the existing wetland? .
The drawings are riot clear how the stormwater is retained
and separated from the Wetland at the mitgation site
during times of heavy rainfall and/or flood conditions.
The cross-sections indicate very little separation
between the stornwater facilities and the mitigation
wetlands_ what year flood events are the stormwater
detention basins designed for? is road runoff being
considered as a source of hydrology for the mitigation
site?
The Corps typically requires a 10-year monitoring plan
for corVansatory mitigation projects which have forested
wetlands as part of their component. Since that appears
to be a goal of the mitigation, we will require
monitoring and subsequent xeports in years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7,
and 10 . If after year 5 additional monitoring is not
warranted then we will not require it . To clarify this
we will include a special condition in the Corps permit
which will allow monitoring to be terminated. if
appropriate, after year five.
2
r-
V J FEB-e3-1999 10:36 FROM US COE-REGULATOW BRANCH TO 9720560e F 04
• The mitigation information does not clearly state
anywhere that mitigation monitoring reports will be
submitted to the Seattle District Corps. It only states
that the monitoring reports will be submitted to the city
of Renton.
• A two-year maintenance program is not enough, especially
given the amount of RCG at the mitigation site and the
requirement to keep invasive species to no more than 10%
aerial cover for the site, What strategies do you plan.
on euployi.ng to control RCG at the site?
• As you are aware, the wstland mitigation site must be
recorded with the Registrar of Deeds or other appropriate
official Charged with the responsibility for maintaining
records to or interest in real property. Proof of this
documentation must be provided to the Seattle District
Corps prior to permit issuance. This requirement is to
ensure that the wetlands created, restored, or enhanced
as compensatory mitigation will not be the subject of
future ir_dividual or general Corps permit application for
fill or other development . This iz of utmost importance
for this particular permit action_
• The mitigation information states that tho -litigation
ratio of 2:1 will designate 0-62 acres of the total 2.05
acres of created wetlands as mitigation for Phase 1, and
that the remainder of the 2.05 acres would be applied to
other projects within the city of Rentow s juriediction.
please be aware that if the city of Renton wishes to
utilize the "excess" mitigation for a project which.
requires a Corps permit there are no guarantees that we
could apply the excess mitigation acreage to a particular
project. xowever, many projects require local mitigation
when the corps does not require any and the use of the
site In that vein may serve the City well . We would be
required to review the applicability of the extra
mitigation for a project in the same watershed on a Case-
by-case basis. In addition, we have not determined that
2 :1 mitigation is appropriate in this case (i .e. we
usually require a 3:1 ratio for enhancement, not 2:1) .
• Please .include a breakdown of th• mitigation acreage
components. For example how much wetland (in square
footage or acreage) will be enhanced, created, and
restored at the proposed mitigation site?
• It appears that parts of the mitigation include steep
sides contributing to a `bathtub" affect, which is highly
discouraged in restoration and creation of wetlands_
This "bathtub' affect is not considered an appropriate
mitigation design- Scalloping the edges more (especially
in the southern area) and lessening the slopes to create
more edge is required-
3
FEH-0?-1998 10:36 FROM US COE-REGULP1UMY btd-"-ti iu
• You should also consider phase planting of sun sensitive
tree species such as red cedar and red osier dogwood, as
they have experienced heavy mprtaliky if planted before
some shading is established in other projects .
it is our understanding that you are currently working
with the Washington State Department of Ecology to resolve
their concerns about the CwVensato]ry mitigation plan. Z
apologize for not providing these comments sooner, but we
are short staffed with an extremely heavy workload right
now. if you have any Questions concerning this letter,
please call the undersigned at (206) 764-6903 . Mr. Jim
Green remains the Corps project manager for this project .
Sincerely,
Iv
Gail e i
Environm to Analyst
Applicatio eview Section
Copy furnished:
Greg Zimmerman
City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue S.
Renton, WA 90055
4
TOTAL P.
UL,I--)I-1'-T7 r -.-. 1 1...,. -- __ -_
A
to/LS/97 NED 09:33 FAI 300 T53 9008 U-S. FISH & RIi.DLIFE SVC +�+ COS REG�I&Y ��'united States Department of t c Interior
FIM AND WILDL :V-SERVICE
North Pacific Coast EaoVtgion
western Wx&hingtor:Office
S 10 Deamond Drive S8, Suite 102
Lacey,Wwhirgton 98503
Phone: (360)753-9440 Fax- (360)753-MS
October 28. 1997
Colonel James vi Rigsby
District Engineer
Corps of Engivews,9etttic District
P.O.Sax 3755
seaWa, Washiag 99124-=5
Atte mon: Tma Green,Frojeot Mmuger
Re: 97-4-01329,City of Renton
Demo Colonel Rigsby_
The L'. S.Fish aad Wildlife Service(Service)has reviewed the above reftrsrteed public notice to
construct a road in welland4 ad a=t to Spriagbrook Cmck, King County, Wasbington. Tbe
proposed pro?ect would impact a total of approxizna 4 1.3 2 acres of wetlands,including G.24 ass
ofwetland9 cosasumcted as mitiKdon tbrNatfonwide Permit number 0Y13-4-014493,issued to me
Boeing Company in 1992. :he Sezviee did not respv zd to this prrNious public notice.
The proposed project and mitigy an wosldbe impllns red in two phaeas. Pbwt I oftbc proposed
proj ect vmnld inspect 0.31 acres of wetlands. Phew 2 would impact 1.01 =rev of wetl=d-s. A total
of four arms of mitigation would be provided to comFeasate for the 132 acres of imports. Two
acres of wetleuds would be constr=vd on each of two sepamta zzdtigatiou parceN. Phue 2
mitigation will only be created if Phase 2 of the proposed project is censtrac-ted.
The pmpoaed Phase 2 mitigation site would include installation of a later to erssure that adequate
hydrology is maintained at the site. Use of lizzers or soil mmdm=ts, such w bentonite clay,
indcate that tie axes.is not suitable as a wetland mitigation site. This is due,in part, to the biV= '
risk of mmintafning tic required hydrology in papetuity without human manipula:ion. Liars can
leak or crook with-(u los$&their ability to mafutnin wettland hydrology. Tree end shrub growth
and surwrivA away be nagativoly impacted due to�ie inability of their root systems to penetrate the
liner, The Service rtcom=ands that avarbr mitigation site be proposed.
"I,be narraFtivc wotion of the pubic notice mtw that the wetlands awociatzd with Fbaac I of the
proposed project were rated as hiving low to moderate functional values. As a majority of these
wvt1 ands were aozzmxted In 1993 as mkt pdo ,it is uaU4y tbax they are fully functiotral due to
the short Iength of time lhoy have been in place- To rate them without acknovAed"their recent
A
—IU/2 QED 09:54 FA3 S60 73S 44tl8 U,S. FISB & WILDLIFE SVC ��, C," RECLTR"
creation is iAappropristt. Altboueh laic cur=t r.tin of the aramd wt tlands is inappropriate in
dexrmf rein the necessary co=Vcmation,we note that the low rating does not Appear tv be reflcctcd
in the propoae4 mitigation.
Based jA the information contained in the public notice,the Service would not obi act to issu=ce
of a permit fbr the proposed project if the:ollowmg measures are addressed mnd/or iucvrporated as
part ofttx permit. T' ,e Savice believts that thew rneaav sit necessary m protect fi8h sad wildlife
resources.
Z_ A new mitigation Site for Plisse 2 trail be proposed to aorupansatw for 1.01 acres of
c
wetland impact-
2- A mitlgativn and monitoring play shall be provided to the Service fvc review and
approval prior to project construe`&=-
3. Only aazive indi cuvus gpodes&hail be utilized at the mitigation site. Seed mites ftrr
czosiott co.�tjol may include sterile species of non-n -tivz mosses.
d. C.-vated and avoided wotl=13 within tht proposed project and Mitigtdcn areas shall be
preser ma in perpetuity_ A cowtrvxtion casement or other mechanism shall be utilized
to ensue their long-terra preservation.
Tbess,c=m=t:�have been prepared under the authorit)'of and in ace0 dance with the provisions
of I=Ftgh and Wildlife Cootdjm6on Act(48 STAT.4C 1,as am*ded, 15 U.S.C.et seq.),and other
aml=t[m maadating Depa=e=of the Inter or conmm for mviro=ental Ynluez Thry are also
consist_mt with the National Fmviro=cntai Policy Act.
Thank you fbr the opport=ty to cornrnent an this mttcr. If a permit is evenuially issued for the
abew proposed pro}cct,"would appreciate a copy of the docisivn document. Should you rtquire
additional informat vn,p'.:ase contact Nancy Breru r}-DLbbs,of my staff,at(360)753-5&35 or at
the letterhead address.
g�rety,
tt .d c
Supervisor
nbd/jmc
97-4-01329/City of RAnto;&King
a: EPA,Seattle(Roy)
'-as,LaCCy Ca-uoz)
WDE,Beuevue(Stock3Z=)
WDFW,Region 4
z
TOTAL P.@:
r
it/LYS/iyJJ/ 1J. L/ LCIb-lLtf-:JbCI tJ r�r-1i � cY wr.i i �i. li.�.. ..�
OCT-28-1997 14:59 FROM US COF-REGULATORY BRANCH TO 972e5WO r.B2
CCT-23-97 TR a 5:15 EPA REG 10 WETLANOS ;AX K 2085531775 P.02/C3
v UNITKO STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AQFNCY
REQIM 10
vzR
�..cri• 1200 Sb&l Avenue
Seattle,Washington 98101
FAply to OCT 2 3 W7
ArIN' of: LCO-0$3
Coloral James M. Rigsby
District Evginm
Seattle District. Corps of EngWccrs
P.O. Box C-3755
Seattle, 'Washington 981242255
ATIN: Chief, Regulatory Branch
RE: Public Notice 97-4-01329, City of Renton, September 23, 1997
Dear Colonel Rigsby:
We have cumpicted our review of the above referenced public notice wblch proposal
to gxwma and complete t.'te disjunct portions of dakesdole Avenut S.W. and grovide acceas
to abutt q property. The proposed project would affect a total of 1.32 acres of wetlands by
dirss�ly f�llirbg t110 wccl ds- JWiudtd in this figure :s d.04 acres of wetland impact from
guding activities five bridging Springbrook Creek, r eu the Duwarush R-ver. Renton,
Washington.
After reviewing the above referemmd Public no ice, the EnvimnnnvmW Protection
Agency (EPA) has the followl%a concerns and comments:
- EPA a very conQm wd that wetaiid3 Gonsuww as mitigation for a previous
nationwide pc=it arc proposed far filling under chls public notice. We
r: believe tb3s is iAapproptiatc policy to permit the filling of cleated wotlands that
are considered ag rnitigatign under a previous permit. The applicont and Corps
zrz. demonstrate that the filling of ttie O.24 acres of mitigation wctlnndE is `
consistent with the Cleats Water Act Suction 40*)(1) Guidelines. EPA
believes mat these constructed wctla-ids should be avoided and the agtmdc .
resources bhould not be sacrificed because o` poor planning by tale City of
Rcnior-
�. EPA believes that the mitigation for both phases sliauld be constructed and
c onplcted before the actual road constnrtion yegins and should not be pbascd
as proposed. In addition, we are comxnrd that the utitigation pToposcd for
Phase 11 impacts is located in a site that is questionable and risky. Placing a 4�-
�'� syndmdr lines iu ozdc, tv cusutt '.lydro:ogy is very risky. EPA recommends
r
i
Lo/ 177! 1J. L r zoo-r Lo-JU00 � I—.
OCT-2e-1997 15:00 FROM US COE—REGULATORY BF4tNCH TO 97235608 P.H:�
OCT-23-P THU l b:'_6 PA REG 10 ZRANDS FAX NO, Z085531775 P. 03103
the applicant find as dXr mitigation Site that is naturall, bCUC r suitcd for
wetland const.-uctioa. TEs should mcrease than likelihood of Ituceeas.
We, recommend chat all wetl=d mitigitim thr thin project be placed in a
permanent cowsrvati Dn easement and recorded with the COUM-
- The "Wetlunc! Seed Mix" as idtntified on Sheet 13 coulAins 3 lid by �uo"-
nativc spwivs. EPA lxommends that only native spec Y
applicant. We are especially concerned about "4tostis alba" and 'Lotus r-
cor.'ticulatus" that these species should not be inchidrd in any Seed mix used ttY
thin project.
Based upon our cvu=Ds and W=CMta ss etawd gbove, we cm not conclude that this
Mject complies Witb the Cle=Water Act Section 40d{b)(1) Quidtlints. AccordiatV. EPA
mommcnds the permit not be issued until the above issues are resolved to EPA's
satisfaction.
Should ydu have anY questions or desire additional coordination concerning this
project, please contact Steven Rory of my staff it(206) 353-6221.
Sincerely,
err Yocznisu. Mamger
Aquatic Resources Unkt
cc: Ecology
WDF&W
N-N S
USFWS
Muckieshoot Tn"be
Ap�iicaut
TOTAL r,m
OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W.
Construction Coordination Meeting #20
July 9, 1998
Attendees: Representing Names (sign-up sheet attached)
City of Renton Van Ross,Joe Armstrong,Lin Wilson
Scarsella Bros. Frank Qualls
Boeing Jon Larscheid
Entranco Arlen Schulz
Baugh Construction Bob Moore
A. PROJECT STATUS AND SCHEDULE:
A. 1: Project Status:
• Curbs have been surveyed;curb and gutter work begins July 14
• Diaphragm work is in progress;pier 2 will be poured on July 13
• Woody debris is being placed in the channel
• TransTech's conduit installation continues
• PSE(Gas)work is in progress
A.2. Project Schedule:
• Frank distributed the schedules summarizing the next three weeks of activity(attached)
• The water quality vault slab will be poured the week of July 13
• Construction of pole bases will start next week
• Asphalt work should start by August 1
• Construction substantial completion-September 30, 1998
A. 3. Action Items: See attached chart
B. BOEING/CITY TOPICS:
B.2 RIGHT-OF-WAY: 2/19/98: 3/12/98: Maintenance easements for the. traffic signal detection loops may be
required by the City at the entrances to the BCAG HQ and Family Care Center. Discussion was held
concerning the Boeing/PSE power line easement agreement. The City will support Boeing and PSE as they
resolve the execution of this easement. 3/19/98: The City is researching their records for any special
easement/recording issues pertaining to the traffic signal loop installation in the driveway (see also Item D.9).
4/2/98: The Boeing/PSE easement issue needs to be finalized before Tom Boyns(City) can finalize his end of
the paperwork. Jon Larscheid will provide an original of the easement to Tom Boyns, with a copy of the
transmittal to Lin Wilson. 4/16/98: Joe will nudge Tom Boyns for an answer regarding easements for signal
loops. 5/7/98: We are awaiting clarification from Tom Boyns on the requirements for easements for the signal
loops. 5/14/98: The City completed the research and submitted a modified easement to Boeing for acceptance
and execution. 5/21/98: Jon indicated that Boeing's attorneys did not favor the form of document prepared by
the City and would prefer the lengthy form previously submitted. Lin asked if Boeing would research the form
of agreement used at existing locations, such as Park/N. loth Street, to serve as a model. Alternatively, he
suggested, Boeing could offer to maintain the loops on their property, rather than relying upon City personnel.
Tom Boyns will have further discussions with Boeing personnel towards adopting an appropriate Citywide
approach. 7/9/98: Tom Boyns has received the draft paperwork from Boeing. (Pending)
Done
B.2g Discuss Citywide procedure with Boeing ACTION ITEM City
Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Page 2 1
Construction Coordination Minutes
July 9, 1998
B.4 LANDSCAPING: 2/19/98: Issues relating to modifications of the existing irrigation system are listed under
"POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION CONFLICTS" in Jon Larscheid's memo dated February 17, 1998 and will be
addressed through the mechanism in the construction contract for the subcontractor to submit plans for
approval. These plans must reflect the need to preserve irrigation capability during the construction period.
The City's contractor should establish these needs in consultation with Teufel, Boeing's landscape maintenance
contractor(contact Larry Harger, telephone number available from Jon Larscheid). However, there should be
provisions to allow flexibility in meeting new irrigation needs, including new plantings installed in connection
with the Oakesdale project. The existing 4" line crossing at Station 44+30 should be retained, and additional
sleeves installed as agreed with Boeing. 3/12/98: Jon provided the location for new sleeves. 5/14/98: The
City's consultant is currently working with Osborn Pacific Group (OPG) to bring them on board. Controlled
Rain is concerned with the layout requirements for the new landscaping. Controlled Rain will be responsible
for the current system. The City's right-of-way landscape consultant will take care of the irrigation design for
new features. Steve Goetz will be the contact person for coordination regarding existing facilities. 5/21/98:
An initial meeting was held on 5/20 between Linda Osborn(OPG), Boeing, Peter Hummel, Steve Goetz, K&W
and the City to discuss the scope of OPG's work. (Pending)
B. 5 TRAIL LINKAGES: 2/19/98: Jeff believes that restoration of vehicular access to the stormwater outlet vault
south of the new bridge is a roadway issue. It was agreed that there would be a special meeting to discuss this
and other trail connection issues, to include Scott Woodbury and Leslie Betlach. 5/14/98: Lin asked for the
as-built location of the existing trail at the southeast corner of the CSTC wetland. Larry Harger clarified the
location. 5/21/98: After the meeting, Joe, Jon and Lin met in the field and walked the route of a path that
would stay above elevation 13 and pass between the existing trees with a minimum of disruption. 6/4/98: Lin
noted a change order will be forthcoming for a curb cut and crushed rock trail just north of the fence, between
the trees. 1 or 2 trees may need to be removed and the trail must remain above elevation 13. 6/11/98: Boeing
has requested the trail be paved, using project funds. Lin advised this particular item will be elevated to the
Steering Committee. 6/18/98: If the cost of the irrigation relocation performed by Boeing/Teufel(Item D.7) is
comparable with the extra cost of paving,the paving will be included in the change order. 6/25/98: Jon stated
that, contrary to what is noted under 6/4/98, above, Boeing does not want a curb cut for the trail. 7/9/98: The
west end alignment will carry out to Oakesdale, with no curb cut. The change order will include paving.
(Pending)
B.5 Process Change Order for trail provision ACTION ITEM City
B.6 FIRE TRAINING EXERCISE: 7/9/98: Scarsella will coordinate with PSE and TransTech for the required power
electrical drop and relocation of construction trailers required for the fire training exercise which takes place on
the 22nd through the 25th. There will be a series of 8 burns,with the final(big)burn taking place on the 25th.
Boeing will request that fire equipment not block construction access during the exercise. (Pending)
B.6 Coordinate electrical relocations for fire training exercise I ACTION ITEM SBI
B.7 AS-BUILT DATA: 7/9/98: Jon Larscheid would like copies of the as-built data information on the sleeves and
sanitary sewer tie-ins as soon as possible. (Pending)
B.7 Provide As-Built data for Boeing FACTION ITEM City
C. COORDINATION WITH ADJACENT CONSTRUCTION
C.4. COMMUNICATION LINE INSTALLATION: 6/11/98: Boeing advised their contractor will begin pulling
communication cables through their vaults around the first of July. (Pending)
C. 5 ROADSIDE CLEAN-UP: 7/9/98: In the vicinity of station 31+00 to 36+00 road fill material has spilled over into
an area to be landscaped by Boeing forces. It was requested to have this material removed before the
landscaper is ready to commence planting. Frank will see that it is taken care of. (Information only,retired)
Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Page 3
Construction Coordination Minutes
July 9, 1998
D. SCARSELLA CONTRACT -- GENERAL DISCUSSION:
D. 7 LANDSCAPING: 3/12/98: It was stressed that protection of Teufel's existing landscaping items is considered a
priority item. 3/19/98: The City will provide a change order to Scarsella for new sleeve locations. One sleeve
is an irrigation sleeve.4/16/98: Irrigation submittals should be ready next week. 5/7/98: Baugh inquired as to
the timing for landscaping on the east border. Jon advised it will be pretty close to what's listed on the Master
Schedule in the other room. 5/14/98: Teufel (Larry Harger) stressed the necessity of maintaining moisture to
planting materials in the hot weather. They need to know the status of the added sleeves. The main line across
the right-of-way at Wall H needs to be restored as soon as possible. This should be done by the end of next
week. Boeing requested Teufel take responsibility for any repairs, and offered to accept the charges for same.
This was approved by all concerned. Controlled Rain will repair the lateral lines (mostly on the east side) by
individual zones. The 2" power and communication conduits for the monitoring station have been repaired.
The 6"sleeves at Station 47+65 (plan sheet 98)will be installed as soon as Wall C is completed. Scarsella was
reminded that Change Order #8 needs to be executed in order to procure the sleeves in a timely manner. Jon
clarified the lake vault,the control station and the monitoring station are the only items which require conduits.
5/21/98: Jon and Steve requested the provision of an additional 6-inch sleeve parallel with the 2-inch sleeves
previously requested. This will be added to the C.O.currently in preparation. 6/11/98: A coordination meeting
was set for 7:30 a.m. next Tuesday, 6/16 at the Boeing offices, to discuss the scope of Controlled Rain's and
Teufel's responsibilities. On another note, Teufel would like to start work west of Oakesdale on the south side
of the parking lot. The area is staked. Karl will coordinate with Teufel. 7/9/98: Frank will schedule a meeting
with Controlled Rain for the beginning of next week to go over all outstanding items. (Pending)
D.7 Coordinate irrigation needs with Teufel ACTION ITEM Ongoing
D. 20 CHANGE ORDERS: Joe reviewed the status of Change Orders issued and in preparation,as follows:(ongoing)
No. Description Scope Cost Executed Executed
Defined Agreed (Contractor) (City)
Provide connecting trail(B.5)
Revise irrigation scope to reflect
items performed by Boeing/Teufel
(D.7)
SW 27th electrical changes: add
breaker and change wiring size/qty;
change pole foundation sizes(D.44)
Provide CL fence between trail and
Wall G (D.55)
D.31 POTENTIAL CLAIM: 4/16/98: Scarsella has not received any formal notification from Malcolm Drilling
representing their potential claim for changed conditions. Malcolm has demobilized and is off the project. The
City's impression is that Malcolm resumed satisfactory production, without the need for extraordinary
equipment or methods,and presumes that the impact of any conditions unforeseen by Malcolm were negligible.
If Malcolm believes this is not the case, prompt notification should be made through Scarsella. 4/30/98:
Nothing has been received to date. 5/7/98: The City has received paperwork from SBI concerning Malcolm's
claim. 5/14/98: The City will be transmitting to Scarsella a letter from Shannon & Wilson commenting on
Malcolm's claim of changed conditions. 5/28/98: The City's response has been sent to SBI. 6/11/98:
Malcolm would like to meet to discuss their claim. SBI will schedule a meeting for next Wednesday, 6/17.
6/18/98: An initial meeting was held on 6/17 and will be continued next Tuesday,6/23,at 9 a.m. 7/9/98: The
next meeting with SBI and MDCI is scheduled for Monday 7/13,at 9 AM. (Pending)
D. 33 CONCRETE POUR: 4/30/98: Karl explained that after ARM started their pour it was discovered the approved
submittal was not what was wanted on the project,which caused a shutdown. The contractors are tracking their
costs associated with this shutdown. Jerrod explained that the submittal referred to the footings. He further
i
I
Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Page 4 q
Construction Coordination Minutes
July 9, 1998
explained that, per Standard Specs., any concrete above finished ground must have air in that portion of the
work, and this requirement never varies. As such, there should never have been a problem with the pour.
5/7/98: Allen (ARM) stands firm in his contention of lost production time and advised a letter will be
forthcoming. Arlen (Entranco) noted, for the record, that the concrete was not wasted and it was a very short
hour, at best, which may have been lost. 5/14/98: ARM is willing to accept the added cost of the concrete.
However,they are requesting payment for the additional hour. 6/4/98: ARM will submit details to substantiate
the request for additional compensation by next week's meeting. 6/11/98: ARM has forwarded information to
SBI for processing. 6/18/98: The City has received some information from ARM via SBI, but it is not in the
format required by the WSDOT Specifications. Lin requested it be re-submitted in the appropriate format, with
an explanation of the contract provision establishing that the extra cost is a City responsibility. Upon receipt of
the revised request, Entranco will be asked to review it. Scarsella will ask ARM to resubmit their request for
additional compensation. 7/2/98: Allen(ARM)objected to being asked to re-submit his paperwork, and asked
the City to prepare it for him to sign. Lin Wilson and Ed Berschinski tried to explain that it was necessary to
have it in the proper format and that only his firm would be aware of the actual applicable charges and
processes which were impacted. The discussion carried over to other issues and this item remains at an
impasse: The City can do nothing for ARM unless/until the proper paperwork is received for review. Frank
(SBI)will work with Allen on this item. (Pending)
D. 33. Resubmit request in appropriate format ACTION ITEM Scarsella/ARM
D.37 ALIGNMENT OF MODULAR BLOCK WALLS: 5/7/98: Jerrod advised that it would be wise to establish survey
points along Wall C to allow for checking settlement in the future. It was agreed this will be done. 5/21/98:
As soon as sections of Wall C are completed to full height, settlement markers will be established and
monitored at weekly intervals by Entranco. 5/28/98: Markers have been established. Entranco will monitor
and provide weekly updates. 6/4/98: Ed provide a spreadsheet summarizing settlement markers elevations
observed during the first ten days after the initial. 6/11/98: The weekly log was submitted by Ed Berschinski.
6/18/98: As of 6/17 there has been no movement. It was agreed the next reading will be taken in about a
month(3 to 4 weeks). 7/9/98: New readings are to be taken within the next week whenever the surveyors are
in the area. (Ongoing)
D. 37. Monitor Wall C settlement markers ACTION ITEM Ongoing
D.44 S.W. 27TH STREET INTERSECTION: 6/4/98: The j-box in the intersection is the termination point for the
luminaire runs on S.W.27th Street. The j-box was rendered inoperable by City forces and will be relocated by
TransTech Electric. Killing power to this box also left one luminaire(Station 10+90 left)without power. This
pole might be in conflict with the new radius and may need to be relocated. SBI will have it surveyed. 6/11/98:
This luminaire may be a future conflict(during Phase 2), but for this project, it should be okay. TransTech will
submit a proposal showing how the layout could be modified. 6/18/98: The City believes it may be best to
eliminate this particular luminaire from this contract and salvage the pole for future use. Joe Armstrong will
coordinate and ask City forces to remove the pole. 6/25/98: The pole has been removed and salvaged by the
City. The Contractor will submit a force account billing for their portion of this work. Two changes to Plan
Sheet 73 were discussed: 1)one breaker will be added to the cabinet(Note#2);and, 2)wiring will be changed
from two#4's to three#2's(Note#3). A change order will be processed to cover these changes. 7/2/98: The
PSE transformer is due on July 22"d. 7/9/98: Proposed changes to pole base dimensions (see Item D.56)will
also be covered in the Change Order. (Pending)
D.44c Submit force account billing ACTION ITEM Scarsella
D.44d Process electrical change order ACTION ITEM City
D.48 ILLUMINATION AT BRIDGE STRUCTURE: 6/4/98: The j-box for future trail lighting may be routed from the
luminaire base closest to the bridge abutment(Luminaire Note 1). This would remove it from the bridge deck
location. 6/11/98: Alan(TransTech)commented that they were unable to coordinate with the installation of the
modular block wall. This has resulted in their inability to install these conduits as originally planned. Surface
mounting will now be a necessity, which will require a re-design for these conduit runs. Entranco will review
Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Page 5
Construction Coordination Minutes
July 9, 1998
and advise. 6/18/98: TransTech, earlier in the week, proposed a design to support the luminaire poles at Wall
"C"on a spread footing at sidewalk level instead of drilled foundations at the base of the wall. This proposal is
not approved; the original design on the plans will apply. Entranco will determine the routing of conduit runs
from the bridge deck down to these luminaire poles; the re-design should be completed by Friday, 6/19.
6/25/98: The re-design was presented and needs to be re-worked. Galvanized rigid steel conduit is to be used
on all exposed runs. 7/2/98: The re-design by Entranco has been completed and transmitted to all concerned
parties. (Pending)
D.48a Process change order for bridge conduit revisions ACTION ITEM City
D.49 S.W. 20TH SIGNAL LOOP RUN 6/11/98: The j-box needs to be set back behind the silt fence. Scarsella noted
this should not pose a problem, as long as TransTech can get in and out before any extended rainy period sets
in. Alan(TransTech)thought they might be able to get in and trench using a small ditchwitch type of machine.
This would speed up the installation process. The City agreed to expedite the review and approval of RAMS
for this signal. 6/18/98: This City has not yet received the RAMS submittals from TransTech. (Pending)
D. 52 LANDSCAPING SUBMITTAL: 6/18/98: The City is awaiting the "Irrigation Relocation" lump sum breakdown
submittal from Controlled Rain. 7/2/98: The City reminded SBI of the need to obtain this pricing breakdown.
Frank will pursue it with Controlled Rain. 7/9/98: A meeting will be set for early next week. (Pending)
D.52 Provide lump sum landscaping breakdown ACTION ITEM Scarsella/C.R.
D. 54 STOP WORK ORDER: 6/25/98: Frank noted he had been presented with a Stop Work Order by the Seattle
Water Dept. last Friday afternoon, 6/19. They experienced approximately 2 hours of lost time on rented
equipment,etc.and will submit under Force Account for payment. (Pending)
D.55 WALL TOPOGRAPHY: 6/25/98: Two items: A. The irrigation vault lid (Wall C) is at a different height than
the sidewalk and is susceptible to falling debris. Scarsella would like to extend the wall approximately 10 feet
south, at the same height, or perhaps higher, if the slope is to be decreased from the 3:1 ratio. 7/2/98: The
block wall will be extended south and paid at unit pricing. B. Wall G, Plan Sheet 24, Station 14+00, in the
vicinity of the pole: The top of slope goes into the trees, extremely close to the parking lot. Also, there's no
drop-off protection for peds using the trail. Entranco will do a site inspection after today's meeting and submit
suggestions at the next meeting(7/2/98). 7/2/98: The design intent was to achieve a 5%slope,with a 3:1 back
slope on cuts and protection of the trees. The back-slope from the trail back to the parking lot can be steepened.
If this does not solve the problem, the 5%trail profile could move 40 feet south, and the profile of Wall G be
raised. Shrub plantings were intended to be used for pedestrian protection,but a protective railing or fence may
be needed. Entranco will have a re-design on this portion of Wall G by the middle of next week. (Pending)
D.55 Investigate and provide options ACTION ITEM Entranco
D.56 POLE BASES: 7/9/98: Signal pole bases have been revised from a 15 foot depth down to a 12 foot depth.
Luminaire pole bases will now be 6 feet deep instead of 7 feet deep. A change order will be processed for this
item. (Pending)
D.56 Process pole base change order(see D.44d) ACTION ITEM City
D. 57 WATER QUALITY VAULT: 7/9/98: The inlet connection to the vault as designed will pass through a joint
between precast panels. Scarsella will field adjust to lower the connection. Also, the 8" maintenance drain is
shown placed on an angle with the vault wall, which will make it difficult to mount the shear gate. It was
agreed a 22-1/2 degree ell will be furnished to allow for a flush/square connection. The vault does not have the
access openings flush with the end walls in which ladder rungs are provided. Joe will check with Maintenance
whether a portable ladder can be used,or whether a free-standing ladder must be provided.
D.57 Investigate vault ladder options ACTION ITEM City
i
h
Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Page 6
Construction Coordination Minutes
July 9, 1998
D. 58 DAMAGE TO TRANSTECH CONDUIT BY PSE GAS INSTALLATION: 7/9/98: Portions of the electrical conduit
installed by TransTech were damaged by PSE. TransTech will verify the extent of the damage and PSE will
reimburse TransTech directly for any required replacement or repairs. (Pending)
D. 59 DELAY OF SBI OPERATIONS BY PSE GAS INSTALLATION: 7/9/98: Frank had noted that PSE gas line
installation had delayed the start of his planned curb and gutter installation. Lin commented that the contract
would allow the granting of additional working days if circumstances beyond the contractor's control caused
delay to a critical activity, but that there could be no question of the delay giving rise to a claim for additional
compensation. (Pending)
D.60 GIRDER DAMAGE: 7/9/98: At 0715 hrs on Friday a boom truck operated by ARM tipped and fell over, with
the boom contacting the upper flange of girder M, approximately fifteen feet in from the south end. The
apparent damage is to an area 3' long by approximately 14" wide. Concrete Tech,the manufacturer, has been
contacted,will visit the site Friday,and will propose the method for repairing the damage. The proposal will be
reviewed by Entranco. (Pending)
D.60 Propose repair method of damaged girder M ACTION ITEM SBI/Concrete Tech
D.60a Review repair method of damaged girder M ACTION ITEM City/Entranco
Next Meeting: Thursday,July 16, 1998,at 10 AM, in Boeing's field office(the"Grandstand Room")
Copies: Attendees Karl Schuett Leslie Betlach
Dan Enright(MKCo) Sandra Meyer Gregg Zimmerman
Barry Knight(K&W) Chris Church(SPU/SWD) Tom Boyns
Jeff Schutt(Sverdrup) Greg Hanson(Malcolm) Gunner Anderson,David Rollins(PSE)
Ed Berschinski Greg Heckel(Controlled Rain) Mary Burgy
I
G
l
LL�
I
I
i
I
i co
I i i
� I I
w
i
I
h
MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
Project: Oakesdale Ave. SW Date: 7/9/98
Subject: CONSTRUCTION MEETING NO. 20
Project Manager: Joe Armstrong_ Phone #: 425-430-7303
Name Affiliation/Representing Phone #
4zsl477-oQqz
f
Li
405 4-30 - 7 3,03
Z.
R53 16 7 - =7/ '�_3
(uw-ro
hma/form/cb/ww/S I G NCON
OAKESDALE AVENUE SW - SW 16TH STREET TO SW 27TH STREET
CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION - ACTION ITEMS LOG
Item Action Item Date Date
Responsibility Resolution
No. Description Assigned Due
lam€ no�o t, 4fi9R:, Of.,gFeeffie fit Used else here Beeiffg 5Q498 �98 Done
B. 2g Discuss Citywide procedure with Boeing City 5/21/98 7/9/98 In progress
B. 5 Process Change Order for trail provision City 7/9/98 7/20/98
B. 6 Coordinate electrical relocations for fire training exercise Scarsella 7/9/98 7/16/98 Burn scheduled for 7/22 - 7/25
B. 7 Provide as-built information for sleeves and sanitary sewer Scarsella/City 7/9/98
D. 7 Coordinate irrigation needs with Teufel Scarsella 2/26/98 Ongoing
D. 33 Resubmit request in appropriate format Scarsella/ARM 6/18/98 7/16/98
D. 37 Monitor Wall C settlement markers Entranco 5/21/98 7/16/98 Next time surveyors are on site
D. 44c Submit force account billing for TransTech's work Scarsella 6/25/98 7/16/98
D. 44d Process S.W. 27th Street electrical change order for TransTech Scarsella 6/25/98 7/16/98
D. 48a Process change order for re-designed bridge conduit runs City 7/2/98 7/16/98
D. 52 Provide lump sum breakdown for Irrigation Relocation SBI/C. Rain 6/18/98 7/14/98
P. 55 layestig to and p ide options f *...,;l .,t Wall G Entr-afiee 71/21/98 74,98 Done
D. 56 Process pole base change order City 7/9/98 7/16/98
D. 57 Investigate vault ladder options City 7/9/98 7/16/98
D. 60 Propose repair method of damaged girder M SBI/Conc. Tech 7/9/98 7/16/98
D. 60a Review repair method of damaged girder M City/Entranco 7/9/98 7/20/98
Consultant/Address/Telephone
Standard Consultant Parametrix, Inc.
Agreement 5808 Lake Washington Boulevard
Kirkland, Washington 98033
Agreement Number
425 822-8880 voice 425 889-8808 fax
Federal Aid Number
Jim Kelley, Project Manager
Agreement Type(Choose one) Project Title And Work Description
❑Lump Sum Oasksdale Avenue Phase 2- Wetland
Lump Sum Amount $ Mitigation and Permitting.
Develop wetland mitigation plans and
®Cost Plus Fixed Fee coordinate with federal and state agencies to
Overhead Progress Payment Rate 190 % obtain permit approval to fill wetlands for
Overhead Cost Method construction of Oaksdale Avenue Extension.
❑Actual Cost
DBE Participation
❑Actual Cost Not To Exceed
❑Yes ®No
®Fixed Rate 190 % WBE Participation
Fixed Fee $ 743.61 ❑Yes ®No %
❑Specific Rates Of Pay Federal ID Number or Social Security Number
❑Negotiated Hourly Rate Do you require a 1099 for IRS?
❑Provisional Hourly Rate ❑Yes ❑No
❑Cost Per Unit of Work Completion Date Maximum Amount Payable
October 30, 1998 $ 15,520.07
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 7 day of July , 1998 ,
between the Local Agency of City of Renton Washington, hereinafter called the
"AGENCY" , and the above organization hereinafter called the"CONSULTANT'.
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires to accomplish the above referenced project, and
WHEREAS, the AGENCY does not have sufficient staff to meet the required commitment and therefore
deems it advisable and desirable to engage the assistance of a CONSULTANT to provide the necessary
services for the PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that he/she is in compliance with the Washington State
Statutes relating to professional registration, if applicable, and has signified a willingness to furnish
Consulting services to the AGENCY,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performance contained
herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the parties hereto agree as follows:
DOT Form 140-089 EF Page 1 of 8
Revised 10197
All reports, PS&E materials,and other data,furnished
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK to the CONSULTANT by the AGENCY shall be
returned.All designs,drawings,specifications,
The work under this AGREEMENT shall consist of documents,and other work products prepared by the
the above described work and services as herein CONSULTANT prior to completion or termination of
defined and necessary to accomplish the completed this AGREEMENT are instruments of service for this
work for this PROJECT.The CONSULTANT shall PROJECT and are property of the AGENCY. Reuse
furnish all services, labor and related equipment by the AGENCY or by others acting through or on
necessary to conduct and complete the work as behalf of the AGENCY of any such instruments of
designated elsewhere in this AGREEMENT. service, not occurring as a part of this PROJECT,
shall be without liability or legal exposure to the
II CONSULTANT.
SCOPE OF WORK
IV
The Scope of Work and project level of effort for this TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION
project is detailed in Exhibit"B"attached hereto, and
The CONSULTANT shall not begin any work under
by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT.
the terms of this AGREEMENT until authorized in
III writing by the AGENCY.All work under this
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AGREEMENT shall be completed by the date
shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT under
All aspects of coordination of the work of this completion date.
AGREEMENT,with outside agencies,groups or
individuals shall receive advance approval by the The established completion time shall not be extended
AGENCY. Necessary contacts and meetings with because of any delays attributable to the CONSULT-
agencies,groups or individuals shall be coordinated ANT, but may be extended by the AGENCY,in the
through the AGENCY. event of a delay attributable to the AGENCY,or
because of unavoidable delays caused by an act of
The CONSULTANT shall attend coordination, GOD or governmental actions or other conditions
progress and presentation meetings with the beyond the control of the CONSULTANT.A prior
AGENCY or such Federal,Community,State, City supplemental agreement issued by the AGENCY is
or County officials,groups or individuals as may be required to extend the established completion time.
requested by the AGENCY.The AGENCY will _
provide the CONSULTANT sufficient notice prior V
to meetings requiring CONSULTANT participation. PAYMENT
The minimum number of hours or days notice—
The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY
required shall be agreed to between the AGENCY
for completed work and services rendered under this
and the CONSULTANT and shown in Exhibit"B"
AGREEMENT as provided in Exhibit"C"attached
attached hereto and made part of this AGREEMENT. hereto,and by this reference made part of this
The CONSULTANT shall prepare a monthly
AGREEMENT. Such payment shall be full compen-
progress report, in a form approved by the AGENCY, cation for work performed or services rendered and
that will outline in written and graphical form the
for all labor, materials,supplies,equipment,and
various phases and the order of performance of the incidentals necessary to complete the work
work in sufficient detail so that the progress of the specified in Section II,"Scope of Work". The
work can easily be evaluated. Goals for Disadvan- CONSULTANT shall conform with all applicable
taged Business Enterprises (DBE)and Women portions of 48 CFR 31.
Owned Business Enterprises(WBE)if required shall
be shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT.
1-
Page 2 of 8
VI employees of the CONSULTANT only and not of the
SUBCONTRACTING AGENCY, and any and all claims that may or might
arise under any Workmen's compensation Act on
The AGENCY permits subcontracts for those items behalf of said employees or other persons while so
of work as shown in Exhibit G to this Agreement.
engaged,and any and all claims made by a third party
Compensation for this subconsultant work shall be as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of
based on the cost factors shown on Exhibit G, at- the CONSULTANT's employees or other persons
tached hereto and by this reference made a part of this while so engaged on any of the work or services
AGREEMENT. provided to be rendered herein,shall be the sole
The work of the subconsultant shall not exceed its obligation and responsibility of the CONSULTANT.
maximum amount payable unless a prior written The CONSULTANT shall not engage,on a full or
approval has been issued by the AGENCY. part time basis,or other basis,during the period of the
All reimbursable direct labor,overhead, direct non- contract, any professional or technical personnel who
salary costs and fixed fee costs for the subconsultant are,or have been, at any time during the period of the
shall be substantiated in the same manner as outlined contract, in the employ of the United States Depart-
in Section V.All subcontracts exceeding$10,000 in ment of Transportation,the STATE,or the
cost shall contain all applicable provisions of this AGENCY,except regularly refired employees,
AGREEMENT. without written consent of the public employer of
such person.
The CONSULTANT shall not subcontract for the
performance of any work under this AGREEMENT VIII
without prior written permission of the AGENCY. No NONDISCRIMINATION
permission for subcontracting shall create, between
The CONSULTANT agrees not to discriminate
the AGENCY and subcontractor,any contract or any
against any client, employee or applicant for employ-
other relationship.
ment or for services because of race,creed,color,
VII national origin, marital status,sex, age or handicap
EMPLOYMENT except for a bona fide occupational qualification with
regard to, but not limited to the following:employ-
The CONSULTANT warrants that he/she has not ment upgrading,demotion or transfer,recruitment or
employed or retained any company or person,other any recruitment advertising,a layoff or terminations,
than a bona fide employee working solely for the rates of pay or other forms of compensation,selection
CONSULTANT,to solicit or secure this contract, and fortraining, rendition of services.The CONSULT-
that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or ANT understands and agrees that if it violates this
person,other than a bona fide employee working provision,this AGREEMENT may be terminated by
solely for the CONSULTANT,any fee,commission, the AGENCY and further that the CONSULTANT
percentage, brokerage fee,gift,or any other consider- shall be barred from performing any services for the
ation,contingent upon or resulting from the award or AGENCY now or in the future unless a showing is
making of this contract. For breach or violation of this made satisfactory to the AGENCY that discrimina-
warrant,the AGENCY shall have the right to annul tory practices have terminated and that recurrence of
this AGREEMENT without liability,or in its discre- such action is unlikely.
tion,to deduct from the AGREEMENT price or
consideration or otherwise recover the full amount of During the performance of this AGREEMENT,the
such fee,commission, percentage, brokerage fee,gift, CONSULTANT,for itself, its assignees and
or contingent fee. successors in interest agrees as follows:
Any and all employees of the CONSULTANT or A. COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS:The
other persons while engaged in the performance of CONSULTANT shall comply with the Regula-
any work or services required of the CONSULTANT tions relative to nondiscrimination in the same
under this AGREEMENT,shall be considered manner as in Federal-assisted programs of the
Page 3 of 8
Department of Transportation,Title 49, Code of sive possession of another who fails or refuses to
Federal Regulations, Part 21,as they may be fumish this information the CONSULTANT shall
amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred so certify to the AGENCY,or the United States
to as the Regulations),which are herein incorpo- Department of Transportation as appropriate,and
rated by reference and made a part of this shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain
AGREEMENT.The consultant shall comply the information.
with the American Disabilities Act of 1992, as
E. SANCTIONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE: In the
amended.
event of the CONSULTANT's noncompliance
B. NONDISCRIMINATION:The CONSULTANT, with the nondiscrimination provisions of this
with regard to the work performed by it during the AGREEMENT,the AGENCY shall impose
AGREEMENT, shall not discriminate on the such sanctions as it or the Federal Highway
grounds of race,creed,color, sex, age, marital Administration may determine to be appropriate,
status,national origin or handicap except for a including, but not limited to:
bona fide occupational qualification in the selec-
t. Withholding of payments to the CONSULT-
tion and retention of subconsultants, including
ANT under the AGREEMENT until the
procurements of materials and leases of equip-
CONSULTANT complies,and/or
ment.The CONSULTANT shall not participate
either directly or indirectly in the discrimination 2. Cancellation,termination or suspension of the
prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations, AGREEMENT, in whole or in part.
including employment practices when the contract
F. INCORPORATION OF PROVISIONS:The
covers a program set forth in Appendix II of the
CONSULTANT shall include the provisions of
Regulations.
paragraphs(A)through (G)in every subcontract,
C. SOLICITATIONS FOR SUBCONSULTANTS, including procurements of materials and leases of
INCLUDING PROCUREMENTS OF MATERI- equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations or
ALS AND EQUIPMENT: In all solicitations directives issued pursuant thereto.The CON-
either by competitive bidding or negotiation made SULTANT shall take such action with respect to
by the CONSULTANT for work to be performed any subconsultant or procurement as the
under a subcontract, including procurements of AGENCY or the Federal Highway Administra-
materials or leases of equipment, each potential tion may direct as a means of enforcing such
subconsultant or supplier shall be notified by the provisions including sanctions for noncompli-
CONSULTANT of the CONSULTANT's ance; provided, however,that, in the event a
obligations under this AGREEMENT and the CONSULTANT becomes involved in,or is
Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the threatened with, litigation with a subconsultant or
grounds of race,creed, color, sex,age, marital supplier as a result of such direction,the CON-
status, national origin and handicap. ULTANT may request the AGENCY to enter
into such litigation to protect the interests of the
D. INFORMATION AND REPORTS:The
AGENCY, and in addition,the CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT shall provide all information
may request the United States to enter into such
and reports required by the Regulations,or
litigation to protect the interests of the United
directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall
States.
permit access to its books, records,accounts,
other sources of information,and its facilities as G. UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES:The
may be determined by the AGENCY to be CONSULTANT shall comply with RCW
pertinent to ascertain compliance with such 49.60.180 and Executive Order number E.O.
Regulations or directives.Where any information 77-13 of the Governor of the State of Washington
required of the CONSULTANT is in the exclu- which prohibits unfair employment practices.
Page 4 of 8
IX In the event of the death of any member, partner or
TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT officer of the CONSULTANT or any of its supervi-
sory personnel assigned to the project,or,dissolution
The right is reserved by the AGENCY to terminate
of the partnership,termination of the corporation,or
this AGREEMENT at any time upon ten days written
disaffiliation of the principally involved employee,
notice to the CONSULTANT.
the surviving members of the CONSULTANT hereby
In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated by the agree to complete the work under the terms of this
AGENCY other than for default on the part of the AGREEMENT, if requested to do so by the
CONSULTANT,a final payment shall be made to the AGENCY.The subsection shall not be a bar to
CONSULTANT as shown in Exhibit F for the type of renegotiation of the AGREEMENT between the
AGREEMENT used. surviving members of the CONSULTANT and the
AGENCY, if the AGENCY so chooses.
No payment shall be made for any work completed
after ten days following receipt by the CONSULT- In the event of the death of any of the parties listed in
ANT of the Notice to terminate. If the accumulated the previous paragraph, should the surviving members
payment made to the CONSULTANT prior to Notice of the CONSULTANT,with the AGENCY's concur-
of Termination exceeds the total amount that would rence,desire to terminate this AGREEMENT,
be due computed as set forth herein above,then no payment shall be made as set forth in the second
final payment shall be due and the CONSULTANT paragraph of this section.
shall immediately reimburse the AGENCY for any
Payment for any part of the work by the AGENCY
excess paid.
shall not constitute a waiver by the AGENCY of any
If the services of the CONSULTANT are terminated remedies of any type it may have against the CON-
by the AGENCY for default on the part of the CON- SULTANT for any breach of this AGREEMENT by
SULTANT,the above formula for payment shall not the CONSULTANT,or for failure of the CONSULT-
apply. In such an event,the amount to be paid shall be ANT to perform work required of it by the
determined by the AGENCY with consideration AGENCY. Forbearance of any rights under the
given to the actual costs incurred by the CONSULT- AGREEMENT will not constitute waiver of entitle-
ANT in performing the work to the date of ment to exercise those rights with respect to any
termination,the amount of work originally required future act or omission by the CONSULTANT.
which was satisfactorily completed to date of termina-
X
tion,whether that work is in a form or a type which is _ CHANGES OF WORK
usable to the AGENCY at the time of termination;
the cost to the AGENCY of employing another firm The CONSULTANT shall make such changes and
to complete the work required and the time which revisions in the complete work of this-AGREEMENT
maybe required to do so, and other factors which as necessary to correct errors appearing therein,when
affect the value to the AGENCY of the work per- required to do so by the AGENCY,without additional
formed at the time of termination. Under no compensation thereof. Should the AGENCY find it
circumstances shall payment made under this subsec- desirable for its own purposes to have previously
tion exceed the amount which would have been made satisfactorily completed work or parts thereof
using the formula set forth in the previous paragraph. changed or revised,the CONSULTANT shall make
If it is determined for any reason that the CONSULT-
such revisions as directed by the AGENCY.This
ANT was not in default or that the CONSULTANT's work shall be considered as Extra Work and will be
paid for as herein provided under Section XIV.
failure to perform is without it or it's employee's fault
or negligence,the termination shall be deemed to be a
termination for the convenience of the AGENCY in
accordance with the provision of this AGREEMENT.
1.
Page 5 of 8
XI that nothing herein shall require a CONSULTANT to
DISPUTES indemnify the AGENCY and the STATE against and
hold harmless the AGENCY and the STATE from
Any dispute concerning questions of fact in connec- claims, demands or suits based solely upon the
tion with the work not disposed of by AGREEMENT conduct of the AGENCY and the STATE,their
between the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY shall
agents,officers and employees and provided further
be referred for determination to the Director of Public that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from
Works or AGENCY Engineer,whose decision in the the concurrent negligence of(a)the
matter shall be final and binding on the parties of this CONSULTANT's agents or employees and (b)the
AGREEMENT, provided however,that if an action is AGENCY and the STATE,their agents,officers and
brought challenging the Director of Public Works or employees,this indemnity provision with respect to
AGENCY Engineer's decision,that decision shall be (1)claims or suits based upon such negligence, (2)the
subject to de novo judicial review. costs to the AGENCY and the STATE of defending
XII such claims and suits, etc. shall be valid and enforce-
VENUE, APPLICABLE LAW AND able only to the extent of the CONSULTANT's
PERSONAL JURISDICTION negligence or the negligence of the CONSULTANT's
agents or employees.
In the event that either party deems it necessary to
institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any The CONSULTANT's relation to the AGENCY shall
right or obligation under this AGREEMENT,the be at all times as an independent contractor.
parties hereto agree that any such action shall be The CONSULTANT specifically assumes potential
initiated in the Superior court of the State of Washing- liability for actions brought by the CONSULTANT's
ton,situated in the county the AGENCY is located in. own employees against the AGENCY and,solely for
The parties hereto agree that all questions shall be the purpose of this indemnification and defense,the
resolved by application of Washington law and that CONSULTANT specifically waives any immunity
the parties to such action shall have the right of appeal under the state industrial insurance law,Title 51
from such decisions of the Superior court in accor- RCW.The CONSULTANT recognizes that this
dance with the laws of the State of Washington.The waiver was specifically entered into pursuant to the
CONSULTANT hereby consents to the personal provisions of RCW 4.24.115 and was the subject of
jurisdiction of the Superior court of the State of mutual negotiation.
Washington, situated in the county in which the
AGENCY is located in. Unless otherwise specified in the AGREEMENT,the
AGENCY shall be responsible for administration of
XIII construction contracts, if any,on the project. Subject
LEGAL RELATIONS AND INSURANCE to the processing of an acceptable,supplemental
The CONSULTANT shall comply with all Federal, agreement,the CONSULTANT shall provide on-call
State, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the
assistance to the AGENCY during contract adminis-
work to be done under this AGREEMENT.This
tration. By providing such assistance,the
AGREEMENT shall be interpreted and construed in
CONSULTANT shall assume no responsibility for:
accord with the laws of Washington. proper construction techniques,job site safety,or any
construction contractor's failure to perform its work
The CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold the in accordance with the contract documents.
AGENCY and the STATE,and their officers and
The CONSULTANT shall obtain and keep in force
employees harmless from and shall process and
during the terms of the AGREEMENT,or as other-
defend at its own expense all claims,demands,or
wise required,the following insurance with
suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from
companies or through sources approved by the State
the CONSULTANT'S negligence or breach of any of
Insurance Commissigner pursuant to RCW 48.
its obligations under this AGREEMENT; provided
Page 6 of 8
XIV
EXTRA WORK
Insurance Coverage
A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability A. The AGENCY may at any time, by written order,
insurance as required by the STATE. make changes within the general scope of the
AGREEMENT in the services to be performed.
B. General commercial liability insurance in an
B
amount not less than a single limit of one million B. If any such change causes an increase or decrease
and 00/100 Dollars($1,000,000.00)for bodily in the estimated cost of,or the time required for,
injury, including death and property damage performance of any part of the work under this
AGREEMENT,whether or not changed by the
per occurrence.
order,or otherwise affects any other terms and
Excepting the Worker's Compensation insurance and conditions of the AGREEMENT,the AGENCY
any professional liability insurance secured by the shall make an equitable adjustment in the
CONSULTANT,the AGENCY will be named on all (1)maximum amount payable; (2)delivery or
certificates of insurance as an additional insured.The completion schedule,or both; and (3)other
CONSULTANT shall furnish the AGENCY with affected terms and shall modify the AGREE-
verification of insurance and endorsements required MENT accordingly.
by this AGREEMENT.The AGENCY reserves the
right to require complete, certified copies of all C. The CONSULTANT must submit its"request
required insurance policies at any time. for equitable adjustment"(hereafter referred to
as claim)under this clause within 30 days from
All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance the date of receipt of the written order. However,
company authorized to do business in the State of if the AGENCY decides that the facts justify it,
Washington.The CONSULTANT shall submit a the AGENCY may receive and act upon a claim
verification of insurance as outlined above within submitted before final payment of the
14 days of the execution of this AGREEMENT to AGREEMENT.
the AGENCY.
D. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a
No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be dispute under the Disputes clause. However
effective without thirty(30)days prior notice to nothing in this clause shall excuse the CON-
the AGENCY. SULTANT from proceeding with the
The CONSULTANT's professional liability to the AGREEMENT as changed.
AGENCY shall be limited to the amount payable E. Notwithstanding the terms and condition of
under this AGREEMENT or one million dollars, paragraphs(a)and (b)above,the maximum
whichever is the greater unless modified by amount payable for this AGREEMENT,shall
Exhibit H. In no case shall the CONSULTANT's not be increased or considered to be increased
professional liability to third parties be limited in except by specific written supplement to this
any way. AGREEMENT.
The AGENCY will pay no progress payments XV
under Section V until the CONSULTANT has fully ENDORSEMENT OF PLANS
complied with this section.This remedy is not exclu-
sive; and the AGENCY and the STATE may take The CONSULTANT shall place his endorsement on
such other action as is available to them under other all plans,estimates or any other engineering data
provisions of this AGREEMENT,or otherwise in law. furnished by him.
t.
Page 7 of 8
XVI XVIII
FEDERAL AND STATE REVIEW COMPLETE AGREEMENT
The Federal Highway Administration and the This document and referenced attachments contains
Washington State Department of Transportation all covenants, stipulations and provisions agreed upon
shall have the right to participate in the review or by the parties. No agent,or representative of either
examination of the work in progress. parry has authority to make,and the parties shall not
be bound by or be liable for, any statement, represen-
XVII tation, promise or agreement not set forth herein. No
CERTIFICATION OF THE CONSULTANT changes,amendments,or modifications of the terms
AND THE AGENCY
hereof shall be valid unless reduced to writing and
Attached hereto as Exhibit"A-1",are the signed by the parties as an amendment to this
Certifications of the Consultant and the Agency, AGREEMENT.
Exhibit"A-2"Certification regarding debarment, XIX
suspension and other responsibility matters-primary EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE
covered transactions, Exhibit"A-3"Certification
regarding the restrictions of the use of Federal funds This AGREEMENT may be simultaneously executed
for lobbying,and Exhibit"A-4"Certificate of Current in several counterparts, each of which shall be
Cost or Pricing Data. Exhibits"A-3"and"A-4"are deemed to be an original having identical legal effect.
only required in Agreements over$100,000. The CONSULTANT does hereby ratify and adopt all
statements, representations,warranties,covenants,
and agreements contained in the proposal, and the
supporting materials submitted by the CONSULT-
ANT, and does hereby accept the AGREEMENT and
agrees to all of the terms and conditions thereof.
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year first
above written.
By &Anl �.
� By
Consultant Parametrix, Inc. Agency City of Renton
Page 8 of 8
Exhibit A-2
Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility
Matters-Primary Covered Transactions
1. The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its
principals:
(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended,proposed for debarment,declared ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency;
(b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment
rendered against them for commission or fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining,
attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a
public transaction; violation of federal or state antitrust statues or commission of embezzlement,theft,
forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records,making false statements, or receiving stolen
property;
(c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity
(federal, state, or local)with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph Lb. of this
certification; and
(d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public
transactions (federal, state, or local) terminated for cause or default.
2. Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification,
such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
Consultant(Firm): Parametrix, Inc.
(Date) gnatur President or Authorized Official of Consultant
t-
Exhibit A-3
Certification Regarding The Restrictions
of The use of Federal Funds for Lobbying
The prospective participant certifies,by signing and submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her
knowledge and belief, that:
1. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid,by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member
of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection
with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant,the making of any federal loan,
the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,renewal, amendment, or
modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
2. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection
with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement,the undersigned shall complete and submit
Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction
was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this
transaction imposed by Section 1352,Title 31,U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required
certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than$10,000 and not more than$100,000 for each
such failure.
The prospective participant also agrees by submitting his or her bid or proposal that he or she shall require
that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts which exceed$100,000 and
that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
Consultant(Firm): Parametrix, Inc.
7(�I58 -�--,
(Date) ignat e)President or Authorized Official of Consultant
i-
Exhibit A-4
Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data
This is to verify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief,the cost or pricing data(as defined in
section 15.801 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation(FAR) and required under FAR subsection 15.804-2)
submitted, either actually or by specific identification in writing, to the contracting officer or to the
contracting officer's representative in support of Oaksdale Avenue Extension-Wetland Permitting
* are accurate, complete, and current as of June 30, 1998 **.This certification includes
the cost or pricing data supporting any advance agreements and forward pricing rate agreements between
the offeror and the Government that are part of the proposal.
Firm Parametrix, Inc.
Name Jerry Demuro
Title Office Manager
Date of Execution*** July 7, 1998
* Identify the proposal, quotation,request for price adjustment, or other submission involved,
giving the appropriate identifying number(e.g., RFP No.).
** Insert the day,month, and year when price negotiations were concluded and price agreement
was reached.
*** Insert the day,month, and year of signing,which should be as close as practicable to the date
when the price negotiations were concluded and the contract price was agreed to.
r-
EXHIBIT B-1
SCOPE OF WORK
OAKSDALE AVENUE SW EXTENSION—PHASE 2
EVALUATE WETLAND MITIGATION OPTIONS AND NEGOTIATE WITH AGENCIES
Project No.
UNDERSTANDING b
The City of Renton received a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit to fill wetlands associated with
the Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Phase 1 project. A Permit for Phase 2 of the project was
specifically denied,pending development of a suitable wetland mitigation plan. Approval of Phase
2 under Section 404 will require a permit application, public notice, and supporting documents,
including wetland mitigation(2 acres).
Potential mitigation options for Phase 2 wetland impacts are as follows:
• Removal of fill from City of Renton property located south of SW 27 h Street and east of
Oaksdale Avenue. This option would allow restoration of about 2 acres of wetland.
Establishment of wetlands with in this area would mitigate for impacts in proximity to the
project. This restoration project could be designed to avoid removing most trees rooted near the
edge of the fill,which would enhance the net habitat benefits of the project. Since there appears
to be about a 1 foot drop in surface water elevation across the existing fill,it may be desirable to
replace the existing culvert with a weir type structure to avoid hydrologic impacts to wetlands
located west of the fill. A weir control structure would reduce the likelihood that clogging of
the culvert would affect wetlands or adjacent property.
• Use of the wetland Mitigation Bank Site 2, adjacent to Springbrook Creek, offers significant
mitigation potential for impacts associated with the Oaksdale Avenue project. It would allow
in-kind replacement of shrub, emergent, and forested wetland habitat, as well as allow out-of-
kind mitigation such as fisheries habitat enhancement. However, since fisheries enhancement
opportunities in Renton may be limited, the use of the mitigation bank for projects not requiring
fisheries mitigation may be undesirable. This issue will be considered in evaluating this
mitigation option.
• Use of Wetland Mitigation Bank Site 1 as a mitigation option appears feasible. This site was
originally rejected by the regulatory agencies because initial studies suggested a liner would be
needed to establish adequate hydrology. However, hydrologic data, geotechnical analyses, and
observations of adjacent wetlands suggest the "fatal flaw" of a lined wetland is unfounded. If
this option is pursued, a strategy to present persuasive data showing that a liner is not required
or is not a fatal will be needed.
• A final mitigation option,not discussed with the City could include a combination of the above
mitigation options coupled with wetland enhancement on City owned wetlands. Enhancement
i-
opportunities include conversion of lower quality reed canarygrass wetland habitat to shrub or
forest wetland habitat,or enhancing forested wetland habitat with evergreen tree species such as
red cedar and/or Sitka spruce. Additional enhancements to be incorporated into mitigation
planning include wetland buffer enhancements. Buffer enhancements include planting buffer
areas with evergreen trees and food producing shrubs to provide screening, cover, and forage
for wildlife. If this option is viewed favorably by resource agencies it may provide a relatively
low cost mitigation option because earthwork costs would be minimized.'
APPROACH
Parametrix identifies two tasks to complete the requested scope of work, as further described below.
The overall approach in evaluating mitigation sites will be to review existing data and identify
additional data needed (if needed) to augment and strengthen previous mitigation analyses. Upon
collection of additional data , feasibility analysis would be completed to finalize a preferred
mitigation option. The selection of a preferred plan would be completed with detailed review by r
City of Renton staff and negotiations with resource agencies (US Army Corps of Engineers, US
Fish and Wildlife Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife). The goal of this approach is successful approval of the Phase 2
Section 404 Permit application.
Task 1-Evaluation of Potential Mitigation Options and Data Needs
Purpose:
This task will identify analysis criteria and data collection needs that will allow the benefits and
approximate costs of each mitigation option to be compared. Based on this analysis and the results
of agency coordination (Task 2), a recommendation regarding the preferred mitigation option will
be made.
Activities:
Parametrix will review existing data for the potential mitigation options and identify additional data
needed to evaluate the feasibility and potential costs of each mitigation project. Since it generally
appears feasible to restore wetlands at each potential mitigation site, this effort will focus on
developing conceptual plans, identifying general information needed to more accurately estimate
project costs, organizing information to compare the three options, and to provide convincing
design analysis(particularly relating to wetland hydrology)to reviewing agencies.
' Anticipated revisions to the Renton Wetland Ordinance will permit enhancement as a mitigation option
when used in conjunction with wetland creation or restoration.
2 Additional data is assumed to be existing hydrologic monitoring data not previously incorporated into the
mitigation analysis.
City of Renton—Transportation Systems Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Project
Submitted by Parametrix,Inc. t- Phase 2 Wetland Mitigation
2 June 3, 1998
Data that may be needed to fully evaluate one or more mitigation options are:
• Soils analysis to determine suitability for use as construction fill on other projects.
• Limited spot elevation data on or near mitigation sites to define design elevations
relative to natural wetlands.
• Limited water level monitoring to evaluate wetland design criteria or assess
construction dewatering issues.
Analysis to be completed with existing and new data include:
• Developing conceptual grading and habitat designs.
• Estimating excavation requirements.
• Evaluating hydrologic conditions and seasonal variations.
• Estimating revegetation requirements and costs.
If new data are needed to complete the analysis of the mitigation potential for each option, a
workplan defining data collection methods will be prepared . Upon review and approval by the
City, the plan will be implemented (alternatively, the City may choose to collect the additional
data).
Task 2-Agency Coordination
Purpose:
The purpose of this task is to coordinate with City departments and resource agencies to explain
mitigation options and design approaches, solicit feedback, and ultimately select a preferred
mitigation option.
3 Collection of new data is not included in this scope,since this data will be site specific(i.e.wetland
delineation along the berm)and dependent upon selection of a preferred alternative.
City of Renton—Transportation Systems Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Project
Submitted by Parametrix,Inc. t, Phase 2 Wetland Mitigation
3 June 3, 1998
Activities:
Conceptual mitigation plans and feasibility analyses of mitigation options will be presented to
resource agencies with review authority over the Corps of Engineers permit. Based on agency
review and comments and City of Renton review, a preferred mitigation option will be selected.
The intent of this coordination is to demonstrate responsiveness to the concerns and
recommendations of reviewing agencies, and (if necessary), convince them that alternative
approaches are valid.
Coordination with agencies is expected to include initial telephone consultation to discuss the
project and mitigation approach. An information packet would be prepared and circulated to
agencies prior to an office and field presentation. Following the field meeting, additional meetings
or telephone coordination would be conducted to inform agencies of new information or relevant
decisions. It is especially important to meet with agencies prior to issuance of the public notice and
early during the official comment period so that all agency questions arising from their review are
proactively answered.
DOCUMENTS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CONSULTANT
Technical Memorandum and Conceptual Mitigation Design
The above analysis will be described in technical memoranda that summarizes a conceptual
mitigation design and compares the ecological benefits and constraints for each mitigation option.
The designs will incorporate mitigation features needed to meet agency requirements.
A review of available hydrologic (surface and subsurface), geotechnical, and ecological data
necessary to support the mitigation design will be included in the report. This review will identify
data gaps and their significance to the probability of ultimately developing a successful mitigation
plan. Additional data needed to finalize a mitigation design for each plan will also be listed.
A workplan will be prepared to define data collection methods for obtaining information critical to
the selection of a preferred option, if needed, and for obtaining information necessary for final
mitigation design.
Text documents are to be delivered on disk, in Microsoft Word 6.Oa for Windows format.
Conceptual designs will be prepared on Auto Cad R14 using base map information from the City's
GIS.
Miscellaneous
Additional information to be provided by the consultant includes records of telephone
communications, minutes from agency meetings, and meeting materials (handouts and/or
presentation boards).
City of Renton—Transportation Systems Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Project
Submitted by Parametrix,Inc. t- Phase 2 Wetland Mitigation
q June 3, 1998
MIICFRCUC FT T FV\R FNT(IMRPntnn crn rinr
Exhibit C-2
Payment
(Cost Plus Fixed Fee)
The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed work and services rendered under this
AGREEMENT as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for all work performed or
services rendered and for all labor, materials, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the work
specified in Section II, "Scope of Work." The CONSULTANT shall conform with the applicable portion of 48
CFR 31.
A. Actual Costs
Payment for all consulting services for this project shall be on the basis of the CONSULTANT's actual cost
plus a fixed fee. The actual cost shall include direct salary cost, overhead, and direct nonsalary cost.
1. Direct Salary Costs
The direct salary cost is the direct salary paid to principals,professional,technical,and clerical personnel
for the time they are productively engaged in work necessary to fulfill the terms of this AGREEMENT.
2. Overhead Costs
Overhead costs are those costs other than direct costs which are included as such on the books of the
CONSULTANT in the normal everyday keeping of its books. Progress payments shall be made at the
rate shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT,under"Overhead Progress Payment Rate." Total
overhead payment shall be based on the method shown in the heading of the AGREEMENT. The three
options are explained as follows:
a. Actual Cost Not To Exceed Maximum Percent: If this method is indicated in the heading of this
AGREEMENT,the AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT at the actual overhead rate
verified by audit up to the maximum percentage shown in the space provided. Final overhead
payment when accumulated with all other actual costs shall not exceed the total maximum amount
payable shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT.
b. Fixed Rate: If this method is indicated in the heading of the AGREEMENT,the AGENCY agrees to
reimburse the CONSULTANT for overhead at the percentage rate shown. This rate shall not change
during the life of the AGREEMENT.
A summary of the CONSULTANT's cost estimate and the overhead computation are attached hereto as
Exhibit D-1 and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. When an Actual Cost method,or
the Actual Cost Not To Exceed method is used, the CONSULTANT(prime and all subconsultants)will
submit to the AGENCY within three months after the end of each firm's fiscal year, an overhead
schedule in the format required by the AGENCY(cost category, dollar expenditures, etc.) for the
purpose of adjusting the overhead rate for billing purposes. It shall be used for the computation of
progress payments during the following year and for retroactively adjusting the previous year's
overhead cost to reflect the actual rate.
Failure to supply this information by either the prime consultant or any of the subconsultants shall
cause the agency to withhold payment of the billed overhead costs until such time as the required
information is received and an overhead rate for billing purposes is approved.
t-
The STATE and/or the Federal Government may perform an audit of the CONSULTANT's books and
records at any time during regular business hours to determine the actual overhead rate, if they so desire.
3. Direct Nonsalary Costs
Direct nonsalary costs will be reimbursed at the actual cost to the CONSULTANT. These charges may
include,but are not limited to the following items: travel,printing, long distance telephone, supplies,
computer charges, and fees of subconsultants. Air or train travel will only be reimbursed to economy
class levels unless otherwise approved by the AGENCY. Automobile mileage for travel will be
reimbursed at the current rate approved for AGENCY employees and shall be supported by the date and
time of each trip with origin and destination of such trips. Subsistence and lodging expenses will be
reimbursed at the same rate as for AGENCY employees. The billing for nonsalary cost, directly
identifiable with the Project, shall be an itemized listing of the charges supported by copies of original
bills, invoices, expense accounts, and miscellaneous supporting data retained by the CONSULTANT.
Copies of the original supporting documents shall be provided to the AGENCY upon request. All of the
above charges must be necessary for the services to be provided under this AGREEMENT.
4. Fixed Fee
The fixed fee,which represents the CONSULTANT's profit, is shown in the heading of this
AGREEMENT under Fixed Fee. This amount does not include any additional fixed fee which could be
authorized from the Management Reserve Fund. This fee is based on the scope of work defined in this
AGREEMENT and the estimated man-months required to perform the stated scope of work. In the
event a supplemental agreement is entered into for additional work by the CONSULTANT, the
supplemental agreement may include provisions for the added costs and an appropriate additional fee.
The fixed fee will be prorated and paid monthly in proportion to the percentage of work completed by
the CONSULTANT and reported in the monthly progress reports accompanying the invoices.
Any portion of the fixed fee earned but not previously paid in the progress payments will be covered in the
final payment, subject to the provisions of Section IX,Termination of Agreement.
5. Management Reserve Fund The AGENCY may desire to establish a Management Reserve Fund to provide the Agreement
Administrator the flexibility of authorizing additional funds to the AGREEMENT for allowable
unforeseen costs, or reimbursing the CONSULTANT for additional work beyond that already defined in
this AGREEMENT. Such authorization(s) shall be in writing and shall not exceed the lesser of$50,000
or 10% of the Total Amount Authorized as shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. The amount
included for the Management Reserve Fund is shown in the heading of this agreement. This fund may
be replenished in a subsequent supplemental agreement. Any changes requiring additional costs in
excess of the"Management Reserve Fund" shall be made in accordance with Section XIV, "Extra
Work."
6. Maximum Total Amount Payable
The maximum total amount payable,by the AGENCY to the CONSULTANT under this
AGREEMENT, shall not exceed the amount shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT.
The Maximum Total Amount Payable is comprised of the Total Amount Authorized, which includes the
Fixed Fee and the Management Reserve Fund. The Maximum Total Amount Payable does not include
payment for extra work as stipulated in Section XIV, "Extra Work." ,,
B. Monthly Progress Payments
The CONSULTANT may submit invoices to the AGENCY for reimbursement of actual costs plus the
calculated overhead and fee not more often than once per month during the progress of the work. Such
invoices shall be in a format approved by the AGENCY and accompanied by the monthly progress reports
required under Section III, General Requirements, of this AGREEMENT. The invoices will be supported by
an itemized listing for each item including direct salary, direct nonsalary, and allowable overhead costs to
which will be added the prorated Fixed Fee. To provide a means of verifying the invoiced salary costs for
CONSULTANT employees, the AGENCY may conduct employee interviews. These interviews may
consist of recording the names,titles, and present duties of those employees performing work on the
PROJECT at the time of the interview.
C. Final Payment
Final payment of any balance due the CONSULTANT of the gross amount earned will be made promptly
upon its verification by the AGENCY after the completion of the work under this AGREEMENT,
contingent upon receipt of all PS&E,plans,maps,notes,reports, and other related documents which are
required to be furnished under this AGREEMENT. Acceptance of such final payment by the
CONSULTANT shall constitute a release of all claims for payment which the CONSULTANT may have
against the AGENCY unless such claims are specifically reserved in writing and transmitted to the
AGENCY by the CONSULTANT prior to its acceptance. Said final payment shall not,however,be a bar
to any claims that the AGENCY may have against the CONSULTANT or to any remedies the AGENCY
may pursue with respect to such claims. The payment of any billing will not constitute agreement as to
the appropriateness of any item and that at the time of final audit, all required adjustments will be made
and reflected in a final payment. In the event that such final audit reveals an overpayment to the
CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT will refund such overpayment to the AGENCY within ninety(90)
days of notice of the overpayment. Such refund shall not constitute a waiver by the CONSULTANT for
any claims relating to the validity of a finding by the AGENCY of overpayment.
D. Inspection of Cost Records
The CONSULTANT and the subconsultants shall keep available for inspection by representatives of the
AGENCY and the United States, for a period of three years after final payment, the cost records and
accounts pertaining to this AGREEMENT and all items related to or bearing upon these records with the
following exception: if any litigation, claim, or audit arising out of, in connection with, or related to this
contract is initiated before the expiration of the three-year period, the cost records and accounts shall be
retained until such litigation, claim, or audit involving the records is completed.
Exhibit D-1
Consultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet
(Lump Sum, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Cost Per Unit of Work)
Project: Oasksdale Avenue Phase 2- Wetland Mitigation and Permitting.
Direct Salary Cost (DSC):
Classification Man Hours Rate = = Cost
Project Mgr./Sr. Ecologist 60.0 X 35.86 $ 2,151.60
Wetland Biologist 110.0 X 19.23 2,115.30
Word Processing 15.0 X 15.60 234.00
Graphics 25.0 X 18.26 456.50
X
X
X
X
X
Total DSC = $ 4,957.40
Overhead (OH Cost -- including Salary Additives): -
OH Rate x DSC of 1.90 % x $ 4,957.40 9,419.06
Fixed Fee (FF):
FF Rate x DSC of 0.15 % x $ 4,957.40 743.61
Reimbursables:
Itemized 400.00
Subconsultant Costs (See Exhibit G):
Grand Total 15,520.07
Prepared By: Jim Kelley Date: July 7, 1998
r-
Exhibit E
Breakdown of Overhead Cost
(Sample Only---Actual line item and cost categories and percentages for your firm should be submitted.)
Fringe Benefits
FICA .............................................................................................................................................................................
Unemployment ......................................................................................................................................................
Medical Aid and Industrial Insurance ......................................................................................................
CompanyInsurance and Medical ...............................................................................................................
Vacation, Holiday, and Sick Leave ..........................
Commission, Bonuses/Pension Plan..........................................................................................................
TotalFringe Benefits ...................................................................................
General Overhead
StateB&O Taxes....................................................................................................................................................
Insurance.....................................................................................................................................................................
Administration and Time Not Assignable .............................................................................................
Printing, Stationary, and Supplies ..............................................................................................................
ProffessionalServices.........................................................................................................................................
TravelNot Assignable .......................................................................................................................................
Telephone and Telegraph Not Assignable ...........................................................................................
Fees, Dues, Professional Meetings..........................................................:.................................................
Utilitiesand Maintenance .................................................................................................................................
ProfessionalDevelopment................................................................................................................................
Rent ...............................................................................................................................................................................
EquipmentSupport ..............................................................................................................................................
OfficeMiscellaneous, Postage.........................................................................................................................
Total Generated Overhead .........................................................................
State .........................................................................................................................
r-
PARAMETRIX, INC.OVERHEAD RATE SCHEDULE
YEAR ENDING 12/31/97
DIRECT LABOR $6,742,139
OVERHEAD EXPENSES TOTAL DISALLOWED ALLOWABLE
Administrative Salaries 3,356,204 0 3,356,204
Vacation,Sick Leave, Holidays 1,123,308 0 1,123,308
Marketing Salaries 1,117,534 0 1,117,534
Advertising Expenses 10,752 10,752 0
Marketing Expenses 181,485 0 181,485
ESOP Trust(Retirement Plan) 1,425,007 0 1,425,007
Payroll Taxes 1,026,895 0 1,026,895
Excise Taxes 300,736 0 300,736
Insurance 297,157 0 297,157
Medical Insurance 222,829 0 222,829
Office Rent 1,285,308 0 1,285,308
Office Expenses&Supplies 187,280 0 187,280
Printing,Copier/Printer Supplies 268,633 0 268,633
Billed In-House Printing -91,145 0 -91,145
Telephone 339,174 0 339,174
Billed In-House Telephone -7,710 0 -7,710
Depreciation 476,347 0 476,347
Business Meals 45,114 0 45,114
Auto Expense 104,434 0 104,434
Billed In-House Mileage -66,374 0 -66,374
Office Travel 87,387 0 87,387
Subscriptions, Library Material 26,964 0 26,964
Dues 17,891 0 17,891
Donations 11,277 11,277 0
Professional Licenses 7,789 0 7,789
Postage,Couriers, Freight 63,865 0 63,865
Training/Education 245,491 0 245,491
Health&Safety Training 16,844 0 16,844
Field Equipment/Supplies 7,257 0 7,257
Lab Equipment/Supplies 42,378 0 42,378
Sampling Equipment/Supplies 12,557 0 12,557
Health&Safety Equip/Supplies 2,807 0 2,807
Survey Equipment/Supplies 10,839 0 10,839
Boat Equipment/Supplies 24,199 0 24,199
Billed In-House Equipment -143,338 0 -143,338
Office Furniture 18,989 0 18,989
Office Equipment 46,691 0 46,691
Computer Supplies/Repair 115,858 0 115,858
Billed In-House Computer Charges -94,330 0 -94,330
Recruiting Costs 101,878 0 101,878
Legal&Audit 149,212 14,921 `" 134,291
Temporary Labor 71,422 0 71,422
Consulting Services 226,815 0 226,815
Employee Relocations Costs 29,384 0 29,384
Bad Debts 100,000 100,000 0
Office Moving/Remodeling 3,289 0 3,289
Personal Property Taxes 19,502 0 19,502
Utilities/Building Maintenance 52,869 0 52,869
Benefit Plans Admin. 108,899 0 108,899
Totals $12,987,653 $136,950 $12,850,703
CALCULATED OVERHEAD RATE 190.60%
"Estimate
r-
Exhibit F
Payment Upon Termination of Agreement
By the Agency Other Than for
Fault of the Consultant
(Refer to Agreement, Section IX)
Lump Sum Contracts
A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT which when added to any payments previously made
shall total the same percentage of the Lump Sum Amount as the work completed at the time of termination is to
the total work required for the PROJECT. In addition, the CONSULTANT shall be paid for any authorized extra
work completed.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts
A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT which when added to any payments previously made,
shall total the actual costs plus the same percentage of the fixed fee as the work completed at the time of
termination is to the total work required for the Project. In addition, the CONSULTANT shall be paid for any
authorized extra work completed.
Specific Rates of Pay Contracts
A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT for actual hours charged at the time of termination of this
AGREEMENT plus any direct nonsalary costs incurred at the time of termination of this AGREEMENT.
Cost Per Unit of Work Contracts
A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT for actual units of work completed at the time of
termination of this AGREEMENT.
A(;ORD PARIN-1 03/02/98
� CERTIFICATE CF LIABILITY INSURANCE CSR LB DATEIMM,DD/YY1
PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
Hurley, Atkins & Stewart, Inc. HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
1800 Ninth Ave. , #1500 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
Seattle WA 98101 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
Jude LeGrande COMPANY
PIWWNo. 206-682-5656 Fax No. A Connecticut Specialty Ins Co
INSURED COMPANY
/ B American Economy Insurance Co
Parametrix, Inc. COMPANY
GWRB, Inc C
P 0 BOX 460 COMPANY
Sumner WA 98390 D
:COVERAGES -
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
CO TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LIMITS
LTR DATE(MM/DD,YY) DATE(MM/DD/YY)
GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE S 2,000,000
A X LCOMMERCIAL GENERALUA81UTY GL300043 10/20/97 10/20/98 PRODUCTS-COMP/OPAGG s2,000,000
CLAIMS MADE ®OCCUR PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $ 11000,000
OWNER'S&CONTRACTOR'S PROT EACH OCCURRENCE s 1,000,000
X WA Stop Gap FIRE DAMAGE(Any one fire) $ 50,000
X Per project Agg MED EXP(Any one person) $ 50000
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
B X ANY AUTO 02CC2826924 10/20/97 10/20/9$ COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT s1,000,000
ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY
SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per person) $
HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY
NON-OWNED AUTOS
(Per accident) $
PROPERTY DAMAGE $
GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY-EA ACCIDENT S
ANY AUTO OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY:
EACH ACCIDENT $
AGGREGATE $
EXCESS LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $
UMBRELLA FORM AGGREGATE $
OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM -- $
TH-
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND I - — TORY LIM TS OER
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY t� i EL EACH ACCIDENT $
THE PROPRIETOR/ INCL EL DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $
PARTNERS/EXECUTIVEF1OFFICERS ARE: EXCL EL DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE $
OTHER
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS,LOCATIONSNEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS
Re: Project # 55-1779-07, WETLAND MITIGATION BANKS
The certificate holder is an additional insured on the General Liability,
but only as respects work performed by the named insured.
CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION
RENCI-1 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF,THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL MAIL
4 5 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT,
bffFRF1%AIL9I% till'
City of Renton
Attn: Scott Woodbury
200 Mill Ave. S. AUTHORIZEDRE SEN TIVE /
Renton WA 98055 Jude LeG
ACORD 25-S (1/95) CACORD CORPORATION 1988
Parametrix, Inc. Consultants in Engineering and Environmental Sciences
5808 Lake Washington Blvd. N.E. Kirkland,WA 98033-7350
206-822-8880•Fax:206-889-8808
0
Mr. Lin Wilson, P.E. March 12, 1998
Transportation Systems
Planning/Building/Public Works
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton,Washington 98055
RE: Request for Proposal- Oaksdale Avenue Extension-Phase 2
Wetland Permitting and Mitigation
Dear Lin:
It was nice speaking with you last week. I appreciate your request for a proposal from Parametrix
to assist with the evaluation and selection of a preferred wetland mitigation option for the Phase 2
Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Project. Based on our meeting, I understand the critical need to
develop a mitigation plan that will successfully be permitted by the Corps of Engineers.
Parametrix is well-qualified to perform this work as we have coordinated numerous wetland
mitigation and permitting projects for street and other public works projects. Our recent or ongoing
projects involving wetland mitigation,permitting,and agency coordination include the following:
0 Natural Resource Permitting and Mitigation Design for Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport Master Plan Update,Port of Seattle(Barbara Hinkle,206-439-6606)
• South 200d' Street/196h Street Improvements, City of Kent Engineering Department
(Tim LaPorte,253-859-3593)
• Everett-Seattle Commuter Rail Project, Regional Transit Authority (David Beal, 206-
689-3524)
• 132d Street SE Extension, Snohomish County Department of Public Works (Lorna
Smith,360-388-6406)
• Sammamish River Habitat Improvements, City of Redmond (Cathy Beam, 206-556-
2429)
• Third party review of wetland mitigation plans, City of Renton (Peter Rosen, 425-235-
2719)
These projects are successful because of the depth of technical expertise and regulatory experience
Parametrix Staff bring to them. I manage four wetland biologists, with Bachelors and Masters
degrees in Botany, Aquatic Ecology, and Plant Biology. In addition, our wetlands team is
supported by in-house fisheries biologists, hydrologists, geologists, survey teams, or design
engineers who can assist in evaluating wetland mitigation feasibility and design. Parametrix' ability
to efficiently perform interdisciplinary review of engineering and ecological issues assures our
mitigation strategies are complete and meet agency requirements to provide multiple wetland
functions.
AInL
Printed on Recvcled Paoer
Key staff available to consult with the City of Renton on these issues include:
• Clay Antieau(Botanist)-consults on issues related to native plant species selection, and control
of invasive plants in mitigation sites.
• William Kleindl(Aquatic Ecologist)-is expert in ecological analysis of wetlands and design of
mitigation wetlands to mimic natural systems.
• Bob Sullivan (Fisheries Biologist)-assists with incorporating fisheries habitat into wetland
mitigation designs. He will be consulted on the design of Banking Site 2 to provide fisheries
habitat.
• Paul Fendt(P.E.)-assists biologists with engineering cost estimates and design for wetland and
fisheries mitigation projects.
• Ground and surface water hydrologists-assist with monitoring well installation, data
collection, and hydrologic analyses.
• Parametrix Survey Team-provides elevation and mapping of mitigation sites to create base
maps needed to support mitigation designs.
• Landscape architects-assist wetland biologists in designing wetland mitigation planting plans
and bid specifications.
In addition to having expert staff. Parametrix currently has several ongoing wetland mitigation and
permitting projects that involve one or more of the same agency staff who will review and approve
the wetland mitigation plan for Phase 2. During recent presentations to these individuals, we have
established a strong rapport by outlining logical and ecologically valid project impact analyses,
mitigation strategies, and mitigation design options. Our general approach to agency coordination
(Task 2)will follow this model and take advantage of this favorable rapport.
Since our discussion, I have visited the mitigation sites discussed. I also reviewed the JARPA
application for the project, aerial photographs, topographic mapping, recent hydrologic data for the
project area, and conceptual designs developed as part of the mitigation bank project. In
conjunction with our work on the wetland mitigation bank project, we have measured the bankfull
water level and recent flood elevations on Springbrook Creek adjacent to Mitigation Site 2. Based
on this review, as further explained in our proposal, we believe all options present viable mitigation
opportunities to compensate for filling 1 acre of wetland on the Phase 2 project. Because of this
preliminary conclusion,our proposed work for Task I(Evaluation of Mitigation Options)focuses on
re-evaluating existingdata relare to the mitigation needs of this project. Limited additional data
O/' kC.CMrA ti
may be needed �Aestimate potenral construction costs and to further demonstrate the feasibility of
certain wetland mitigation options to the review agencies. �� ""�"'F f I I
6 ► P`f` 4-c
c_l['�J t4& d4" cv Ja we wa"'f d�if n/ f� ��t� I t 4.,,+ W qld "Mu" A 1,714��,
In summary, Parametrix offers qualified staff with diverse consulting experience to address the
variety of regulatory, ecological, and engineering issues that are required to successfully complete Co e�r�
the mitigation permitting and planning for the Oaksdale Avenue project. Our approach has proven c4md Wtv fi..o
successful on a number of similar projects. With 12 years experience in wetland consulting in t�
Washington, I bring the City the senior level consulting expertise necessary to assure your project d Jh
goals and schedules are met. 191-0ccOj.
c,dwr�-
Sincerely,�C. Kellev,
Jam Ph.D.
enior Wetland Ecologist/Project Manager
City of Renton—Transportation Systems Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Project
Submitted by Parametrix, Inc. Phase Z Wetland Mitigation
2 March 13, 1998
PROPOSAL
CITY OF RENTON
OAKSDALE AVENUE SW EXTENSION—PHASE 2
EVALUATE WETLAND NIITIGATION OPTIONS AND NEGOTIATE WITH AGENCIES
Parametrix,Inc.
Kirkland,Washington 98033
UNDERSTANDING
The City of Renton received a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit to fill wetlands associated with
the Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Phase I project. A Permit for Phase 2 of the project was
specifically denied, pending development of a suitable wetland mitigation plan. Approval of Phase
2 under Section 404 will require a permit application, public notice, and supporting documents,
including wetland mitigation(2 acres).
Potential mitigation options for Phase 2 wetland impacts are as follows:
• Removal of fill from City of Renton property located south of SW 27"' Street and east of
Oaksdale Avenue. This option would allow restoration of about 2 acres of wetland.
Establishment of wetlands with in this area would mitigate for impacts in proximity to the
project. This restoration project could be designed to avoid removing most trees rooted near the
edge of the fill,which would enhance the net habitat benefits of the project. Since there appears
to be about a I foot drop in surface water elevation across the existing fill, it may be desirable to
replace the existing culvert with a weir type structure to avoid hydrologic impacts to wetlands
located west of the fill. A weir control structure would reduce the likelihood that clogging of
the culvert would affect wetlands or adjacent property.
• Use of the wetland mitigation bank Site 2, adjacent to Springbrook Creek offers significant
mitigation potential for impacts associated with the Oaksdale Avenue project. It would allow
in-kind replacement of shrub, ent, and forested wetland habitat, as well as allow out-of-
kind mitigation such as fis f itat enhancement. However, since fisheries enhancement
opportunities in Renton may be limited,the use of the mitigation bank for projects not requiring
fisheries mitigation may be undesirable. This issue will be considered in evaluating this
mitigation option.
• Use of wetland mitigation bank Site 1 as a mitigation option appears feasible. This site was
originally rejected by the regulatory agencies because initial studies suggested a liner would be
needed to establish adequate hydrology. However, hydrologic data, geotechnical analyses, and
observations of adjacent wetlands suggest the "fatal flaw" of a lined wetland is unfounded. If
this option is pursued, a strategy to present persuasive data showing that a liner is not required
will be needed. A % v �/Aw
City of Renton—Transportation Systems Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Project
Submitted by Parametrix,Inc. Phase 2 Wetland Mitigation
3 March 13, 1998
r
• A final mitigation option, not discussed with the City could include a combination of the above
mitigation options coupled with wetland enhancement on City owned wetlands. Enhancement
opportunities include conversion of lower quality reed canarygrass wetland habitat to shrub or
forest wetland habitat,or enhancing forested wetland habitat with evergreen tree species such as
red cedar and/or Sitka spruce. Additional enhancements to be incorporated into mitigation
planning include wetland buffer enhancements. Buffer enhancements include planting buffer
areas with evergreen trees and food producing shrubs to provide screening, cover, and forage
for wildlife. If this option is viewed favorably by resource agencies
rcquirefftents, it may provide a relatively low cost mitigation option because earthwork costs
would be minimized.
APPROACH Ord) ,�tnce . CJo�(t /S
Parametrix identifies two tasks to complete the requested scope of work, as further described below. a�r�dn ti,
The overall approach in evaluating mitigation sites will be to review existing data and identify
"t. additional data dedd o�ugment and strengthen previous mitigation analys Upon collection9f
► "� additional datk asi6ilit}/analysis would be completed t ma iz a pre�d mitigation option.
,�ShX The selection of a preferred plan would be completed with detailed review by City of Renton staff /�S�aritnh
and negotiations with resource agencies (US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, US Environmental Protection Agency'
Department of Ecology, and
U l i��✓ P6k Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife�ie goal of this approach is successful approval of
the Phase 2 Section 404 Permit application. \/�h es ► n�rat, rt be )VA4 7 ?
Task 1-Evaluation of Potential Mitigation Options and Data Needs
Purpose: 5�ra,,,ts�
This task will identify analysis criteria and data collection needs that will allow the benefits/and
approximate costs of each mitigation option to be compared. Based on this analysis and the results
of agency coordination (Task 2), a recommendation regarding the preferred mitigation option will
be made.
drA�r.-y 6onup�nal P��nS 'may 61
Activities: +r I
Parametr' will review existing data for the potential mitigation options and identify additional data
neede to evaluate the feasibility and potential costs of each mitigation project. Since it generally
app s feasible to restore wetlands at each po$ential mti atin site, much of this effort will focus rA
on identifying information necessary to,lestimate projec sts and provide convincing design a i.r
analysis(particularly relating to wetland hydrology)to reviewing agencies. (a'f u�S}
Data that may be needed to fully evaluate one or more mitigation options are: h d
• Soils analysis to determine suitability for use as construction fill on other projects. of Y �1*"
• Limited spot elevation data on or near mitigation sites to define design elevations ,,,)tA)
relative to natural wetlands. Pr4l #
• Limited water level monitoring to evaluate wetland design criteria or ay�sess 1
construction dewatering issues. cisse�s b k s�}
Analysis to be completed with existingpr new data include:
S
• Developing conceptual grading and habitat designs.
• Estimating excavation requirements.
S{o or .�
City of Renton—Transportation Systems Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Project 10rr
Submitted by Parametrix,Inc. Phase 2 Wetland Mitigation � �" J�
4 March 13, 1998
(� / Cyr f. �5}/n+✓�Ct S
h
• Evaluating hydrologic conditions and seasonal variations.
• Estimating revegetation requirements and costs. 0 �c -A
�G
If new data are needed to complete the analysis of the miti tion potential for each option, a
workplan defining data collection methods will be prepared. Upon review and approval by the
City, the plan will be implemented (alternatively, the City may choose to collect the additional
data). W' �1 1r1 inc e a11d.�KCR yi tX ("I
Pdrtiwc.�-Ptx ��
Products:
The above analysis will be described in technical memoranda that summarizes a conceptual
mitigation design and compares the ecological benefits and constraints for each mitigation option.
The designs will incorporate mitigation,features needed to meet agency requirements. 61 ?BHA 4 S�nS
w,vl � �+d pr 44. Ca' Rl'i Usi' 4-15
A review of available hydrologic (surface and subsurface), geotechnical, and ecological da
necessary to support the mitigation design will be included in the report. This review will identify
data gaps and their significance to the probability of ultimately developing a successful mitigation
plan. Additional data needed to finalize a mitigation design
for each plan will also be listed. A workplan will be prepared to define data collection methods for
obtaining information critical to the selection of a preferred options
,^, qe_cc S3o�.y
oo vr`<WaSc�A m/
Task 2-Agency Coordination P701�ff.
Purpose:
The purpose of this task is to coordinate with City departments and resource agencies to explain
mitigation options and design approaches, solicit feedback, and ultimately select a preferred
mitigation option.
Activities:
Conceptual mitigation plans and feasibility analyses of mitigation options will be presented to
resource agencies with review authority over the Corps of Engineers permit. Based on a cy
review and comments and City of Renton review, a preferred mitigation option will be selectIda e
intent of this coordination is to demonstrate responsiveness to the concerns and recommendati6rCs of
reviewing agencies,and(if necessary),convince them that alternative approaches are valid.
Coordination with agencies is expected to include initial telephone consultation to discuss the
project and mitigation approach. An information packet would be prepared and circulated to
agencies prior to an office and field presentation. Following the field meeting, additional meetings
or telephone coordination would be conducted to inform agencies of new information or relevant
decisions. It is especially important to meet with agencies prior to issuance oft ublic notice and
early during the official comment period so that all agency questions arising t their review are
proactively answered.
Products:
Products of this task include records of telephone communications, minutes from agency meetings,
preparation of meeting materials, and attendance at these meetings.
H:\USERS\KELLEY\RENI'OMRenton.scp.doc
W'C /"C fi�')v2 Can F Jr^ t�ah V +uw 4c G�G�ts �Llil,t" �11 C%�GGG�r
1�9 aA 1 geir, Sc,,,e44 �„e w�wr c.r�i 1 co
City of Renton—Transportation Systems Ike •- Oaksdale Avenue SW Extension Project
Submitted by Parametrix,Inc. �~ Phase 2 Wetland Mitigation
5-04ee,.�ceJ q /5 G��/✓G� r2¢e arch 13, 1998
Parametrix, Inc. Consultants rn Fnr7incerir,g and blvironmenM!Sciences_
580B take Washinq'on Hwd. N.E. Suite 200 Kirkland,WA 9BO33-7350
425-922-88 0•Fax:425-K9 8308
V
Mr. Lin Wilson, P.E. March 18, 1998
Transportation Systems
Planning/Building/Public Works
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055
RE,; Oaksdule Avenue Extension-Phase 2
Schedule for Wetland Mitigation Evaluation
Dear Lin:
Per your request f am outlining a schedule for evaluating the mitigation options for Phase 2 of
the Oaksdale Avenue Extension Project. Our letter proposal submitted on March 13, 1998
identified Evaluation of Potential Mitigation Options and Data Needs and Agency Coordination
as project tasks, key activities in these tasks are scheduled below. Dates presented assume a
March 30, 1998 start date.
Summary Schedule of Agency Coordination and Mitigation Planning Activities.
Date Activity /e�
March 30, 1998 Notice to Proceed �Vvl S� a1
March 30-April 10 Review existing feasibilit information, discuss ' ues with city
staff/departments,prepare list of data gaps for c •..ar^_ fi' final
mitigation designs_
April G Contact agencies to discuss the Phase 2 project and schedule a meeting
(in late April-early May) to discuss mitigation options.
April 13 Submit letter report identifying data gaps and advantages/disadvantages
for each mitigation option.
Identify time critical
ii--• �nrl nfh�� ",-,t ►�nfOIri73l1An needed to=lisc=srcasibilAy
ith resource agencies.
April 20 Mcct with city to plan agency meeting.
Approximately May I Agency site visit to receive input from agencies on mitigation options,
design issues, etc.
following meeting, consider agency comments and select preferred
mitigation option_
ilk
Mr. Lin Wilson, P.E.
Transportation Systems
March 18, 1998
Past 2
Da tc Activities
May g Meet with city and develop a data collection plan to support mitigation
design and permit applications
May 15 Revise technical memorandum per agency continents and discuss/justify
setection of the preferred mitigation option.
After reviewing our submittal of March 13 and this schedule, please contact me if you have any
additional questions.
Sincerely,
k'
7 me- C, Kelley, Pli.D.
Senior Wetland Ecologist/Proj t Manager
hlumetslkeI LyWntonloaks-schil.let
M ear J,vr, ICA(g, 3 l�l�
F4-4.e,7ll
V
TArf"
GO P-4 -� vsF�s 1 5
�2113)