HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272171(27) Pa ra metrix, Inc. Consultants in Engineering and Environmental Sciences
5808 Lake Washington Blvd. N.E. Kirkland,WA 98033-7350
206-822-8880•Fax:206-889-8808
Mr. Scott Woodbury JUN 18 1993 June 17, 1993
City of Renton 55-1779-07
200 Mill Avenue South CITY OF REfdTCN
Renton, Washington 98055 Engineering Dept.
Dear Scott:
Enclosed is a draft of Exhibit A - Scope of Work, Exhibit B - Schedule, and Exhibit C -
Budget for the City's review and approval. Any additional comments should be sent or
faxed to me by Tuesday June 22 so I can finalize the scope in time for inclusion into the
packets for the Commission by June 24.
Thanks for your comments and input. Please call me at (206) 822-8880 or on the backline
number (206) 828-4202 (dial extension 3459) if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely,
PARAMETRIX, INC.
Tracey P.McKenzie
Enclosure
��� Printed on Recycled Paper
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
CITY OF RENTON
WETLAND MITIGATION BANK
Background: The City of Renton proposes to develop and implement a wetland mitigation
program and plan that will result in no net loss of wetlands. The project boundary includes land
primarily within the City of Renton limits (especially the valley) as well as land outside City
limits that may be annexed in the future ("sphere of influence").
The City's overall objective is to facilitate development on private lands and allow public projects
that may affect lower quality wetlands by establishing large contiguous wetlands on City property
along or nearby Springbrook Creek in the Black River drainage basin. Other objectives of the
wetland mitigation program are:
• Provide 1:1 replacement for 5.33 acres of impacted Category 3 wetlands according to the
agreement between the City and Glacier Park.
• Reduce severity of flooding by increasing flood water storage capacity.
• Improve the quality of water entering the Green River.
• Increase habitat and habitat value for fish and wildlife.
Provide passive recreational and educational opportunities.
Assumptions: The mitigation sites do not pose significant health risks. Clearance or
verification concerning their status will be available from the City.
The mitigation program will be a City action and will not be affected by
overlying jurisdictions (e.g., drainage districts, METRO). It is understood that
the Springbrook Creek right-of-way is owned by King County Drainage
District #1. This may necessitate obtaining a construction easement to allow
the establishment of a hydraulic connection to Springbrook Creek. This issue
will be further evaluated in Tasks 1 B and 1 D below.
Approach: Five primary tasks and one optional task have been identified to meet the
objectives and are described below.
DRAFT 1 55-1779-07
June 17, 1993 h:lusersltraceylrentonlrenton.scp
TASK 1A - PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Purpose: Project management is necessary to ensure that all aspects of the project are
coordinated and managed to meet the objectives on schedule and within
budget.
Description: This task includes scheduling, budget tracking, invoicing, monthly progress
reports to the City, in-house coordination, and coordination with the rest of the
project team.
Attendance at one meeting to finalize the scope, project coordination, and
schedule (meeting occurred May 21, 1993) is included in this task.
Products: Progress reports will accompany each invoice and will include a description
of activities conducted, progress made, and problems encountered, if any, and
their resolution during the reporting period.
TASK 1B - REGULATORY/RESOURCE AGENCY COORDINATION AND
REQUIREMENTS
Purpose: To determine regulatory requirements associated with implementing the
mitigation program.
To coordinate with resource and regulatory agencies.
To determine the type of Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), if any, that
would be necessary.
Description: Local, state, and federal environmental permitting requirements will be
determined based on the project team's knowledge of the environmental
regulatory framework and by telephone interviews with local, state, and federal
resource agency representatives. Examples of the types of permits that may
be required include a construction easement from the drainage district, a
shoreline permit, and water diversion permit.
Discussions on the City's mitigation program should be coordinated with the
state of Washington Departments of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Ecology, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps). Some of the key regulatory/permitting issues are likely to
be associated with compliance of the mitigation program with Section 404
DRAFT 2 55-1779-07
June 17, 1993 h:I users l traceyl renton I renton.scp
(b)(1) practicable alternatives guidelines, Hydraulic Project Approval
regulations, and consistency with the Shoreline Master Program. Resource
agencies will be contacted to verify the potential permitting requirements of
implementing a mitigation program on the two mitigation sites. At that time
other regulatory and technical issues are likely to be identified.
A MOA would be necessary if the City decides to implement a mitigation
banking program that allows the placement of fill or dredged material into
wetlands larger than 1 acre. The strategy for developing a MOA will need to
be determined once the type of mitigation program to be implemented is
determined in Task ID. It is probably not realistic to expect that a MOA can
be negotiated and agreed to with federal and state agencies during the life of
this project.' However, development of the mitigation plan will reflect the
elements specific to a MOA. These elements include the allowable, required,
and prohibited uses of the mitigation bank and the processes associated with
the formation, implementation, operation, debits and credits, management,
bank life, and functional evaluation of the mitigation sites.
Products: A draft and final list and description of regulatory requirements and permits
necessary to implement a mitigation program that can be included as part of
the mitigation plan to be developed in Task 1 E.
A summary of the issues identified by coordinating with the resource and
regulatory agencies that can be incorporated into the mitigation plan (either as
a section or an Appendix) developed in Task 1 E.
TASK IC - MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND POLICY ISSUES
Purpose: To develop goals and objectives for the overall mitigation program. The
identification of specific goals and objectives of the mitigation sites will be
developed as part of Task 1E.
To define draft eligibility requirements for use of the mitigation sites.
To identify policy issues that require resolution by the City.
To meet with resource and regulatory agency representatives.
' The Washington Department of Transportation has been negotiating a MOA with state and federal regulatory
and resource agencies for well over a year.
DRAFT 3 55-1779-07
June 17, 1993 h:I users Wacey lrenton lrenton.scp
Description: Preliminary goals and objectives have been developed by the City through
their wetland's ordinance and their agreement with Glacier Park. These will
be reviewed and any additional goals and objectives will be developed for
establishing a mitigation program. Based on the City's review of the
preliminary list of goals and objectives, we will prepare a draft final list
suitable for presentation and discussion with the resource and regulatory
agencies. Additional mitigation program objectives will be based, in part, on
the potential future impacts to wetland functions, applicability of replacement
ratios (based on City's ordinance), and the type of program (i.e., mitigation
banking or off-site mitigation) that could be implemented at the mitigation
sites.
Eligibility requirements for use of the site will be based on the wetland type
and size, functions and values, relative quality of the habitat, required
replacement ratios, compliance with sequencing and the City's ordinance, off-
site replacement feasibility, and location within the basin's landscape.
Three policy issues were identified in the May 21, 1993 kick-off meeting with
the City. They are as follows:
• Availability of mitigation for public projects
• Use of the mitigation sites does not necessarily preclude impacts to
Category 2 wetlands (as defined by the City's ordinance)
City oversight of the mitigation program versus joint City, state, and
federal oversight
Other policy issues may be identified during Task ID and will be presented
to the City as they are identified.
Initial coordination with regulatory agencies and review of the overall goals
and objectives for the mitigation program will occur in one meeting. The
purpose of the meeting will be to present the City's goals and objectives for
the mitigation program, outline the process that the City is undertaking to
develop a mitigation program, and to seek input from the agencies on the
overall mitigation program.
Products: Five draft technical memorandums outlining the goals and objectives will be
prepared and submitted to the City for review. Comments from the City will
be incorporated into the final discussion of the goals and objectives and will
DRAFT 4 55-1779-07
June 17, 1993 h:l users I traceyl renton l renton.scp
be included as a section in the mitigation plan developed in Task 1 E. A
separate technical memorandum will be prepared outlining the policy issues.
Meeting minutes from meeting with resource and regulatory agencies will be
transcribed and produced as a document.
Assumptions: The City has the ultimate responsibility for making policy decisions. The
project team will assist the City in making these decisions through discussions
at meetings scheduled under this and other tasks, and through the analysis and
preparation of information under Task 1 D.
The meeting with the resource agencies will be 2 hours with 1 hour for travel
and the meeting will be at the City of Renton office.
Option: The meeting with the resource agencies could be deferred until completion of
Task 1 D in order to present the results of the conditions assessment along with
the goals and objectives.
TASK 1D - CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT AND FIELD
Purpose: To review baseline information on the physical and biological features of the
wetlands and uplands on the mitigation sites.
To determine how much and what type of mitigation (in terms of acreage and
function) is feasible on the mitigation sites.
To determine how much wetland acreage is potentially eligible within the
project area to use the mitigation sites.
To meet with the Corps at the site to determine if the wetlands within the
mitigation areas are above the head waters or adjacent.
To conduct a site visit to the mitigation sites and to representative categories
of wetlands within the watershed project boundary identified by Jones and
Stokes.
To meet with the City to review the results of the conditions assessment and
evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the two types of mitigation
programs (banking versus off-site) and determine the type of mitigation
program that would be the most beneficial to the City.
DRAFT S 55-1779-07
June 17, 1993 h:l users ltraceylrentonlrenton.scp
Description: Existing information on the mitigation sites and on the biological and physical
features of the project area provided by the City will be reviewed and
synthesized. The information on the biological and physical features of the
mitigation and project areas include the wetland delineation reports prepared
by David Evans on the mitigation sites; the wetland inventory information
prepared by both the City and Jones and Stokes; a Level 1 Hazardous
Substance Assessment Report; aerial photographs; the Black River Water
Quality Management Plan; the East Side Green River Watershed Management
Plan; the Trail Master Plan, and Comprehensive Park Recreation and Open
Space Plan; information pertinent to mitigation sites 1 and 2 including the
letter from the Corps of Engineers; pictorial history of valley land uses,
wetlands, and fill areas; agreements and restriction; fill plans for Orilla
Industrial District; Environmental Assessment by Golder Associates;
FEMA/FIRM; title reports; easement information; Level II Environmental
Assessment by Golder; preliminary Environmental Assessment by Hart
Crowser; recorded plat; wetland surveys; Environmental Assessment by
Kennedy Jenks and the Surface Water and Sediment Quality Assessment for
Springbrook Creek by Hart Crowser. We will rely primarily on the
information and existing data to conduct the conditions assessment, and will
conduct a field reconnaissance to supplement the existing data.
Of particular importance is to evaluate whether sufficient hydrology is
available on the mitigation sites. This will be determined in part by evaluating
on-site conditions, topography, aerial photographs, and information in the
literature regarding flooding events. Holes will be dug in wetland and upland
areas during the site visit to try to characterize the depth of ground water
(inundation or saturation) during the dryer months. If holes cannot be dug in
the upland portions of the mitigation areas due to soil compaction and type of
sediment (e.g., fill) the depth of inundation/saturation within the wetlands can
be used along with topographic information to evaluate if sufficient hydrology
exists. Opportunities for diverting water from Springbrook Creek into
Mitigation Site 2 will also be evaluated.
The wetland inventory map completed by Jones and Stokes will be used as a
base map of the entire project area. The existing electronic copies of the
wetlands delineated in the mitigation sites will be integrated onto a base
topographic map produced for the mitigation sites.
The topographic map for Mitigation Site 1 will consist of 2-foot contours;
Mitigation Site 2 will consist of 1-foot contours (available topography per
telephone conversation with Scott Woodbury, June 3, 1993). Both contour
maps will be digitized onto AutoCAD from the maps provided by the City.
DRAFT 6 55-1779-07
June 17, 1993 h:l users I tracey I renton l renton.scp
Other important features will also be incorporated onto the base map of the
mitigation sites. The base maps of the mitigation sites will also be produced
at a scale suitable for use in preparing the site, grading, and planting plans.
The type of mitigation program implemented by the City and the subsequent
fee structure will be based on financial information regarding mitigation costs
(i.e., planning, site development, implementation, monitoring administration,
and maintenance), feasibility of program implementation, financial scenarios
for implementing the various site plans developed under Task 1 E below,
funding that could be pursued/obtained by the City to reduce the City's overall
costs for project implementation, opportunities to obtain up-front financing
from developers potentially eligible to use the sites, the extent of mitigation
that the sites can accommodate, and the extent and type of wetlands that could
potentially be impacted within the project area.
A site visit will be conducted at the mitigation sites to correlate the literature
information on the sites with current field conditions. In addition,
representative wetlands(e.g., one Category 1, one Category 2, and two or three
Category 3 wetlands) within the watershed project area (with emphasis on
wetlands within city limits), that were identified by Jones and Stokes will be
visited to verify the wetland's type and character. The site visit with the
Corps will be to verify the "adjacency" status of the wetlands within the
mitigation areas. On-site hydrology will be evaluated during the site visit.
Product: Task 1D will result in an analysis and five draft reports on opportunities and
constraints of the site to meet the overall goals and objectives of the mitigation
program, requirements for use of the mitigation sites, and recommendations
for the type of mitigation program that could best serve the City's near-term
and future needs.
Five copies of a draft checklist or matrix identifying conditions under which
projects needing mitigation could use the mitigation sites will be prepared as
part of the analysis.
Five copies of any figures, maps, etc showing any additional information
collected during the site visits will be integrated on to the base maps.
Parametrix will incorporate the comments from the City into the final
mitigation plan developed in Task 1E.
Meetings: One meeting is included in this task to review the results of the physical
conditions and financial assessments, to discuss and finalize the goals and
DRAFT 7 55-1779-07
June 17, 1993 h:lusersltraceylrentonlrenton.scp
objectives for the project, and to determine the type of mitigation program to
be developed.
Assumptions: The meeting will last 3 hours with 1 hour for travel and will be held at the
City of Renton office.
The wetlands inventoried by Jones and Stokes as well as the other information
regarding delineated wetlands written by David Evans, and watershed plans,
etc. are basically complete, thorough, and suitable to use to assist in
developing the mitigation program.
The Corps will be able to visit the site concurrent with the project team will
make a determination on the status of the wetlands within the mitigation sites
relatively quickly. Parametrix will contact the Corps to make arrangements
for a site visit on the same day as the project team in early July.
The City will be able to review the draft products and provide comments to
the project team within two weeks from the time the information is submitted.
A draft "gross" capacity analysis for future industrial, commercial, and
residential development will not be available for 2 to 4 weeks (personal
communication Scott Woodbury, June 3, 1993). It is anticipated that the
capacity study will provide information on future use of lands designated for
residential, commercial, and industrial development. Figures and/or text that
are or become available showing where changes in land capacity are predicted
to occur can be compared to the existing wetland inventory. This comparison
can be used to evaluate the types and quantities of wetlands that may be
impacted in the future. The project team will use the draft when it becomes
available to evaluate existing and proposed land use. If the final capacity
analysis is completed by August, 1993, the project team will be able to include
the final and more detailed information into the final mitigation plan.
Option: The meeting identified in Task IC above could be deferred and incorporated
into the meeting identified in Task 1 D. If this option is preferable to the City,
we anticipate that the meeting would be at least 3 hours with 1 hour of travel
time.
TASK 1E: MITIGATION PLAN PREPARATION AND REPORTING
Purpose: To prepare a programmatic and technical mitigation plan.
DRAFT 8 55-1779-07
June 17, 1993 h:l users I traceyl renton l renton.scp
To prepare an overall site plan for the mitigation areas (Alternative 1) and two
alternative scenarios (Alternatives 2 and 3) to show a range of implementation
costs.
To prepare a detailed grading and planting plan for the 5.33 acres of impacted
wetlands of immediate concern.
To prepare conceptual grading and planting plans for the Alternatives 1 and
2.
Description: The mitigation plan will include the following components: the program goals
and objectives, mitigation program requirements; results of Tasks 1B, C, and
D; monitoring requirements of the sites (construction and post-
implementation); maintenance, contingencies, operating costs, and goals and
objectives specific to the mitigation sites that will be based, in part, on the
potential future impacts to wetland functions; applicability of replacement
ratios (based on city's ordinance); and the type of program (i.e., mitigation
banking or off-site mitigation) that will be determined in Task 1 D.
Three alternative site plans will be prepared ranging from a conceptual overall
plan to a detailed plan for the 5.33 acres of immediate concern. An overall
conceptual grading and planting plan will be prepared for both mitigation sites
(Alternative 1) (assumes full mitigation development). The overall site plan
will also include opportunities for access trails and interpretive signs/centers.
Alternative 2 will consist of a site plan showing a detailed conceptual grading
and planting plan for mitigation development between 5.5 acres and 19.35
acres (amount of upland habitat available on the mitigation sites) and how the
phasing of mitigation efforts could occur. Alternative 3 will consist of a
detailed grading and planting plan for the 5.33 acres of impacted wetlands of
immediate concern. The graphic information presented in the third alternative
will be at a detail suitable for use in development in preparing bid
specifications.
Products: Five copies of the draft mitigation plan complete with figures, tables, and text
will be prepared for City review. Parametrix will respond to one round of
review comments and prepare a final document.
One bound (with associated drawings) and one reproducible (electronic) copy
of the final mitigation plan.
Meetings: Four meetings are included in this task. The City's tentative scope indicates
that the purpose of the meetings will be to discuss the mitigation program
DRAFT 9 55-1779-07
June 17, 1993 h:lusersltraceylrentonlrenton.scp
protocol, project level goals, site plans, and phasing of mitigation. We
propose that the status of the overall project be included as a topic of the
meetings. In addition, we propose to hold the first meeting with the City
when the project is about 30 percent complete, the second with the City and
resource agencies when the plan is about 40 to 50 percent complete, the third
with the city when the project is about 80 percent complete, and the fourth
meeting when the project is about 90 percent complete (see Exhibit B). We
will coordinate with the City regarding agency participation in the fourth
meeting.
Assumptions: The City will be able to review the draft products and provide comments to
the project team within two weeks from the time the information is submitted.
The four meetings will be 2 hours with 1 hour of travel time and will be held
at the City of Renton office.
Option: Based on the City's tentative scope and our approach outlined in our proposal
there is no opportunity for agency input during development of the mitigation
plan. We have included one meeting in the schedule (see Exhibit B) and
proposed budget to meet with the agencies and seek their input when the
mitigation plan is about 40 or 50 percent complete.
Limitations: The grading plan for Mitigation Site 1 may not be as specific as the plan for
Mitigation Site 2 because of differences in contours (2-feet versus 1-foot,
respectively).
OPTION
TASK IF: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Purpose: To develop public consensus on the mitigation program.
Description: A public workshop should be held to inform the public about the mitigation
program and to seek their input. Several media are available to inform and
seek input from the public (i.e., public meetings, a public workshop, surveys).
Based on our discussion with City of Renton employees working on this
project, there was general agreement that one public workshop would be
appropriate.
Assumptions: Some form of public participation will occur during the project.
DRAFT 10 55-1779-07
June 17, 1993 h:l users ltraceylrentonlrenton.scp
The City will take the lead in deciding on the type and extent of public
involvement that is necessary.
The City will take the lead in scheduling and planning for public participation.
At least one public participation meeting/workshop will be held.
The City would require that a key member of the Parametrix project team be
present at the meeting.
The public participation meeting/workshop would be 4 to 6 hours, including
travel.
The meeting/workshop results in one more meeting than those that are
included in the scope and budget.
Project team participation and material suitable for presentation would result
in increased expenses.
DRAFT 11 55-1779-07
June 17, 1993 h:lusersltraceylrentonlrenton.scp
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT SCHEDULE OF COMPLETION
CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM
May June July August September October November December
IA Project Management
Kick-off Meeting ❑
Notice to Proceed ❑
1B Regulatory Coordination/Requirements
1C Goals and Objectives
Meet with Agencies* MAN
1D Field and Conditions
Mapping
Office Assessment
Field
Analysis/Report
City Review
Meet with City
Meet with Agencies**
1C Mitigation Plan -- --
Programmatic Plan -- -- --
Technical Plan
Alternative Site Plan 1 (entire site)
Alternative Site Plan 2 "`'"'
Alternative Site Plan 3
Meetings with City 30% 80% 90%
Draft Report Review
Meet with Agencies 50%
Final Report
1D Public Involvement
*This meeting could be deferred to Task ID
**This meeting could be in lieu of meeting identified in Task 1C
Exhibit C
Cost Estimate
City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Program
Task l A Task 1 B Task 1 C Task 1 D Task l E
PMX Hours 36 12 18 135 186
PMX Labor $963 $312 $468 $2,983 $3,899
Overhead(169%) $1,627 $527 $791 $5,041 $6,590
PMX Subtotal $2,590 $839 $1,259 $8,024 $10,489
Fee(12.5%) $324 $105 $157 $1,003 $1,311
Dircet Costs $14 $0 $14 $154 $259
PMX Total $2,928 $944 $1,430 $9,181 $12,059
TAL Hours 23 3 4 34 125
TAL Labor $1,700 $255 $340 $2,800 $6,350
Direct Costs $100 $0 $0 $200 $500
TAL subtotal $1,800 $255 $340 $3,000 $6,850
Handling Fee $180 $26 $35 $300 $685
TAL total $1,980 $281 $375 $3,300 $7,535
Project Total $4,894 $1,225 $1,805 $12,481 $19,594 $39,999
CAG-93-080
ENGINEERING
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on this /9.�1i" , day of Q3t 19-23, by and between
the CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPO ON HEREINAFTER CALLED THE '
"CITY," and the consulting firm PARAMETRIX, INC. whose address is, 5808 Lake Washington Blvd NE,
Kirkland, WA 98033 at which work will be available for inspection, hereinafter called the
"CONSULTANT."
PROJECT NAME: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN
WHEREAS, the City has not sufficient qualified engineering employees to provide the engineering
within a reasonable time and the City deems it advisable and is desirous of engaging the professional
services and assistance of a qualified professional consulting firm to do the necessary engineering work
for the project, and
WHEREAS, the Consultant has represented and by entering into this Agreement now represents, that it
is in full compliance with the statutes of the State of Washington for registration of professional
engineers, has a current valid corporate certificate from the State of Washington or has a valid assumed
name filing with the Secretary of State and that all personnel to be assigned to the work required under
this Agreement are fully qualified to perform the work to which they will be assigned in a competent
and professional manner, and that sufficient qualified personnel are on staff or readily available to
Consultant to staff this Agreement.
WHEREAS, the Consultant has indicated that it desires to do the work set forth in the Agreement upon
the terms and conditions set forth below.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performances contained
herein below, the parties hereto agree as follows:
c:93337/bh
I
I
SCOPE OF WORK
The Consultant shall furnish, and hereby warrants that it has, the necessary equipment, materials, and
professionally trained and experienced personnel to facilitate completion of the work described in
Exhibit A, Scope of Work, which is attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement as though
fully set forth herein.
The Consultant shall perform all work described in this Agreement in accordance with the latest edition
and amendments to local and state regulations, guidelines and policies.
The Consultant shall prepare such information and studies as it may deem pertinent and necessary, in
order to pass judgment in a sound engineering manner on the features of the work. The Consultant
shall make such minor changes, amendments or revisions in the detail of the work as may be required
by the City. This item does not constitute an "Extra Work" item as related in Section VIII of the
Agreement.
The work shall be verified for accuracy by a complete check by the Consultant and shall be so certified
by the Consultant. The Consultant will be held responsible for the accuracy of the work, even though
the work has been accepted by the City.
II
DESIGN CRITERIA
The City will designate the basic premises and criteria for the work needed. Reports and plans, to the
extent feasible, shall be developed in accordance with the latest edition and amendments of local and
State regulations, guidelines, and specifications, including, but not limited to the following:
1. Washington State Department of Transportation/American Public Works Association
(WSDOT/APWA), "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction," as
amended by Renton Standard Specification.
2. WSDOT/APWA, "Standard Plans for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction."
3. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Highway Design Manual."
4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, "Standard Specifications
for Highway Bridges."
5. Washington State Department of Transportation, 'Bridge Design Manual, Volumes 1 and 2."
c:93337/bh
2
6. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Manual of Highways Hydraulics," except
hydrologic analysis as described in item 14.
7. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Materials Laboratory Outline."
8. Transportation Research Board, "Highway Capacity Manual."
9. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways."
10. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Construction Manual."
11. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Local Agency Guidelines."
12. Standard drawings prepared by the Agency and furnished to the consultant shall be used as a
guide in all cases where they fit design conditions. Renton Design Standards, and Renton
Specifications shall be used as they pertain.
13. Metro Transit, design criteria.
14. King County Surface Water Design Manual, Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of Chapter 1, and Chapters
3, 4, and 5.
15. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, "A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets."
III
ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED TO THE CONSULTANT
BY THE AGENCY
The City will furnish the Consultant copies of documents which are available to the City that will
facilitate the preparation of the plans, studies, specifications, and estimates within the limits of the
assigned work.
c:93337/bh
3
All other records needed for the study must be obtained by the Consultant. The Consultant will
coordinate with other available sources to obtain data or records available to those agencies. The
Consultant shall be responsible for this and any other data collection. The
�C
nf
e
Should field studies be needed, the Consultant will perform such
work. The City will not be obligated to perform any such field studies.
IV
OWNERSHIP OF PRODUCTS AND
DOCUMENTS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CONSULTANT
Documents, exhibits or other presentations for the work covered by this Agreement shall be furnished
by the Consultant to the City upon completion of the various phases of the work. All such material,
including working documents, notes, maps, drawings, photo, photographic negatives, etc. used in the
project, shall become and remain the property of the City and may be used by it without restriction.
Any use of such documents by the City not directly related to the project pursuant to which the
documents were prepared by the Consultant shall be without any liability whatsoever to the
Consultant.
All written documents and products shall be printed on recycled paper. Use of the chasing-arrow
symbol identifying the recycled content of the paper shall be used whenever practicable. All
documents will be printed on both sides of the recycled paper, as feasible.
V
TIME OF BEGINNING AND COMPLETION
The work detailed in the Scope of Work will be performed according to Exhibit B, Time Schedule of
Completion, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth. It is agreed that all the
Consultant's services are to be completed and all products shall be delivered by December 31, 1994
notwithstanding delays due to factors that are beyond the control of the Consultant. The Consultant
shall not begin work under the terms of this Agreement until authorized in writing by the City. If, after
receiving Notice to Proceed, the Consultant is delayed in the performance of its services by factors that
are beyond its control, the Consultant shall notify the City of the delay and shall prepare a revised
estimate of the time and cost needed to complete the Project and submit the revision to the City for its
approval. Time schedules are subject to mutual agreement for any revision unless specifically
described as otherwise herein.
c:93337/bh
4
Delays attributable to or caused by one of the parties hereto amounting to 30 days or more affecting the
completion of the work may be considered a cause for renegotiation or termination of this Agreement
by the other parry.
VI
PAYMENT
The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this
Agreement as provided hereinafter as specified in Exhibit C, Cost Estimate. Such payment shall be full
compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies,
equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the work. All billings for compensation for work
performed under this Agreement will list actual time (days and/or hours) and dates during which the
work was performed and the compensation shall be figured using the rates in Exhibit C. Payment for
this work shall not exceed $39,999 without a written amendment to this contract, agreed to and signed
by both parties.
Cost Plus Net Fee
Payment for work accomplished shall be on the basis of the Consultant's actual cost plus a net fee. The
actual cost includes direct salary cost, overhead, and direct non-salary cost.
1. The direct salary cost is the salary expense for professional and technical personnel and
principals for the time they are productively engaged in the work necessary to fulfill the
terms of this Agreement. The direct salary costs are set forth in the attached Exhibit C and by
this reference made a part of this Agreement.
2. The overhead costs as identified on Exhibit C are determined as 162 percent of the direct
salary cost and by this reference made a part of this Agreement. The overhead cost rate is an
estimate based on currently available accounting information and shall be used for all
progress payments over the period of the contract.
3. The direct non-salary costs are those costs directly incurred in fulfilling the terms of this
Agreement, including, but not limited to travel, reproduction, telephone, supplies, and fees
of outside consultants. The direct non-salary costs are specified in Exhibit C, Cost Estimate.
Billings for any direct non-salary costs shall be supported by copies of original bills or
invoices. Reimbursement for outside consultants and services shall be on the basis of 1.10
times the invoiced amount.
4. The net fee, which represents the Consultants profit shall be 10 percent of direct salary plus
overhead costs. This fee is based on the Scope of Work and the estimated labor hours
c:93-337/bh
5
therein. In the event a supplemental agreement is entered into for additional work by the
Consultant, the supplemental agreement will include provision for the added costs and an
appropriate additional fee. The net fee will be prorated and paid monthly in proportion to
the percentage of the project completed as estimated in the Consultant's monthly progress
reports and approved by the City. Any portion of the net fee not previously paid in the
monthly payments shall be included in the final payment, subject to the provisions of Section
XI entitled TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT.
5. Progress payments may be claimed monthly for direct costs actually incurred to date as
supported by detailed statements, for overhead costs and for a proportionate amount of the
net fee payable to the Consultant based on the estimated percentage of the completion of the
services to date. Final payment of any balance due the Consultant of the gross amount
earned will be made promptly upon its verification by the City after completion and
acceptance by the City of the work under this Agreement. Acceptance, by the Consultant of
final payment shall constitute full and final satisfaction of all amounts due or claimed to be
due.
Payment for extra work performed under this Agreement shall be paid as agreed to by the parties
hereto in writing at the time extra work is authorized. (Section VIII "EXTRA WORK').
A short narrative progress report shall accompany each voucher for progress payment. The report shall
include discussion of any problems and potential causes for delay.
To provide a means of verifying the invoiced salary costs for consultant employees, the City may
conduct employee interviews.
Acceptance of such final payment by the Consultant shall constitute a release of all claims of any nature,
related to this Agreement, which the Consultant may have against the City unless such claims are
specifically reserved in writing and transmitted to the City by the Consultant prior to its acceptance.
Said final payment shall not, however, be a bar to any claims that the City may have against the
Consultant or to any remedies the City may pursue with respect to such claims.
The Consultant and its subconsultants shall keep available for inspection, by the City, 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. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the
expiration of the three-year retention period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims or
audit findings involving the records have been resolved. The three-year retention period starts when
the Consultant receives final payment.
c:93337/bh
6
VII
CHANGES IN WORK
The Consultant shall make all such revisions and changes in the completed work of this Agreement as
are necessary to correct errors appearing therein, when required to do so by the City, without
additional compensation.
Should the City find it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed work
or parts thereof revised, the Consultant shall make such revisions, if requested and as directed by the
City in writing. This work shall be considered as Extra Work and will be paid for as provided in Section
Vill.
VM
EXTRA WORK
The City may desire to have the Consultant perform work or render services in connection with the
Project in addition to or other than work provided for by the expressed intent of the Scope of Work.
Such work will be considered as Extra Work and will be specified in a written supplement which will
set forth the nature and scope thereof. Work under a supplement shall not proceed until authorized in
writing by the City. Any dispute as to whether work is Extra Work or work already covered under this
Agreement shall be resolved before the work is undertaken. Performance of the work by the
Consultant prior to resolution of any such dispute shall waive any claim by the Consultant for
compensation as Extra Work.
IX
EMPLOYMENT
The Consultant warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a
bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract and that he has
not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for
the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration,
contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this
warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability, or in its discretion to
deduct from the Agreement price or consideration or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee.
Any and all employees of the Consultant, while engaged in the performance of any work or services
required by the Consultant under this Agreement, shall be considered employees of the Consultant only
and not of the City and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workman's Compensation
c:93337/bh
7
Act on behalf of said employees, while so engaged and any and all claims made by a third party as a
consequence of any negligent act or omission on the part of the Consultant's employees, while so
engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and
responsibility of the Consultant.
The Consultant shall not engage, on a full or part-time basis, or other basis, during the period of the
contract, any professional or technical personnel who are, or have been at any time during the period
of this contract, in the employ of the City except regularly retired employees, without written consent
of the City.
If during the time period of this Agreement, the Consultant finds it necessary to increase its
professional, technical, or clerical staff as a result of this work, the consultant will actively solicit
minorities through their advertisement and interview process.
X
NONDISCRIMINATION
The Consultant agrees not to discriminate against any client, employee or applicant for employment or
for services because of race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, age or handicap except
for a bona fide occupational qualification with regard to, but not limited to the following: employment
upgrading; demotion or transfer; recruitment or any recruitment advertising; layoff or terminations;
rates of pay or other forms of compensation; selection for training; rendition of services. The
Consultant understands and agrees that if it violates this Non-Discrimination provision, this Agreement
may be terminated by the City and further that the Consultant shall be barred from performing any
services for the City now or in the future, unless a showing is made satisfactory to the City that
discriminatory practices have terminated and that recurrence of such action is unlikely.
XI
TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time upon not less than ten
(10) days written notice to the Consultant, subject to the City's obligation to pay Consultant
in accordance with subparagraphs C and D below.
B. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any of its
supervisory personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the consultant
hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do so
by the City. This section shall not be a bar to renegotiations of this Agreement between
surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if the City so chooses.
c:93-337/bh
8
In the event of the death of any of the parties listed in the previous paragraph, should the
surviving members of the Consultant, with the City's concurrence, desire to terminate this
Agreement, payment shall be made as set forth in Subsection C of this section.
C. In the event this Agreement is terminated by the City other than for fault on the part of the
Consultant, a final payment shall be made to the Consultant for actual cost for the work
complete at the time of termination of the Agreement, plus the following described portion
of the net fee. The portion of the net fee for which the Consultant shall be paid shall be the
same ratio to the total net fee as the work complete is to the total work required by the
Agreement. In addition, the Consultant shall bt paid on the same basis as above for any
authorized extra work completed. No payment shall be made for any work completed after
ten (10) days following receipt by the Consultant of the Notice to Terminate. If the
accumulated payment made to the Consultant prior to Notice of Termination exceeds the
total amount that would be due as set forth herein above, then no final payment shall be due
and the Consultant shall immediately reimburse the City for any excess paid.
D. In the event the services of the Consultant are terminated by the City for fault on the part of
the Consultant, the above stated formula for payment shall not apply. In such an event the
amount to be paid shall be determined by the City with consideration given to the actual
costs incurred by the Consultant in performing the work to the date of termination, the
amount of work originally required which was satisfactorily completed to date of
termination, whether that work is in a form or of a type which is usable to the City at the
time of termination, the cost to the City of employing another firm to complete the work
required and the time which may be required to do so, and other factors which affect the
value to the City of the work performed at the time of termination. Under no circumstances
shall payment made under this subsection exceed the amount which would have been made
if the formula set forth in subsection C above had been applied.
E. In the event this Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the work, the original
copies of all Engineering plans, reports and documents prepared by the Consultant prior to
termination shall become the property of the City for its use without restriction. Such
unrestricted use not occurring as a part of this project, shall be without liability or legal
exposure to the Consultant.
F. Payment for any part of the work by the City shall not constitute a waiver by the City of any
remedies of any type it may have against the Consultant for any breach of this Agreement by
the Consultant, or for failure of the Consultant to perform work required of it by the City.
Forbearance of any rights under the Agreement will not constitute waiver of entitlement to
exercise those rights with respect to any future act or omission by the Consultant.
c:93337/bh
9
XII
DISPUTES
Any dispute concerning questions of facts in connection with work not disposed of by agreement
between the Consultant and the City shall be referred for determination to the Director of
Planning/Building/Public Works or his/her successors and delegees, whose decision in the matter shall
be final and conclusive on the parties to this Agreement.
In the event that either parry is required to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any of its
rights in this Agreement, both parties agree that any such action shall be brought in the Superior Court
of the State of Washington, situated in King County.
XIII
LEGAL RELATIONS
The Consultant shall comply with all Federal Government, State and local laws and ordinances
applicable to the work to be done under this Agreement. This contract shall be interpreted and
construed in accordance with the laws of Washington.
The Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City and its officers and employees harmless
from and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands or suits at law or equity
arising in whole or part from the Consultant's negligence or breach of any of its obligations under this
Agreement provided that nothing herein shall require the Consultant to indemnify the City against and
hold harmless the City from claims, demands or suits based solely upon the conduct of the City, its
officers or employees and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the
concurrent negligence of(a)the Consultant's agents or employees and(b)the City, its agents, officers
and employees, this idemnity provision with respect to claims or suits based upon such concurrent
negligence shall be valid and enforceable only to the extends of the Consultant's negligence or the
negligence of the Consultant's agents or employees except as limited below.
The Consultant shall secure general liability, property damage, auto liability, and professional liability
coverage in the amount of$1.0 million, unless waived or reduced by the City. The Consultant shall
submit a completed City of Renton Insurance Information Form, and the Consultant shall furnish copies
of the declarations pages of relevant insurance policies to the City prior to execution of this Agreement.
The limits of said insurance shall not, however, limit the liability of Consultant hereunder.
All coverages provided by the Consultant shall be in a form, and underwritten by a company acceptable
to the City. The City will normally require carriers to have minimum A.M. Best rating of A XII. The
c:93337/bh
10
Consultant shall keep all required coverages in full force and effect during the life of this project, and a
minimum of thirty days' notice shall be given to the City prior to the cancellation of any policy.
The Consultant shall verify, when submitting first payment invoice and annually thereafter, possession
of a current City of Renton business license while conducting work for the City. The Consultant shall
require, and provide verification upon request, that all subconsultants participating in a City project
possess a current City of Renton business license. The Consultant shall provide, and obtain City
approval of, a traffic control plan prior to conducting work in City right-of-way.
The Consultant's relation to the City shall be at all times as an independent contractor.
NW
SUBLETTING OR ASSIGNING OF CONTRACTS
The consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the work covered by this Agreement without the
express consent of the City.
XV
ENDORSEMENT OF PLANS
The Consultant shall place their certification on all plans, specifications, estimates or any other
engineering data furnished by them in accordance with RCW 18.43.070.
XVI
COMPLETE.AGREEMENT
This document and referenced attachments contain all covenants, stipulations, and provisions agreed
upon by the parties. Any supplements to this Agreement will be in writing and executed and will
become part of this Agreement. No agent, or representative of either party has authority to make, and
the parties shall not be bound by or be liable for, any statement, representation, promise, or agreement
not set forth herein. No changes, amendments, or modifications of the terms hereof shall be valid
unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties as an amendment to this Agreement.
The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision in this Agreement shall not affect the other
provisions hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or
unenforceable provision were omitted.
c:93-337/bh
11
XVH
EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE
This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed to be an original having identical legal effect. The Consultant does hereby ratify and adopt all
statements, representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements contained in the Request for
Qualifications, and the supporting materials submitted by the Consultant, 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.
CONSULTANT CITY OF RENTON
i
BY
Signature Date Signature Date
Earl Clymer, Mayor
type or print name
Pr'��\
ATE EST:
Title
B `
Approved as to Lesl Form: Signatu Date
Marilyn J. Vetersen
BY: City Clerk
Lawr e J. Warren,
City Attorney
c:93-337/bh
12
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
CITY OF RENTON
WETLAND MITIGATION BANK
Background: The City of Renton proposes to develop and implement a wetland mitigation
program and plan that will result in no net loss of wetlands. The project boundary includes land
primarily within the City of Renton limits (especially the valley) as well as land outside City
limits that may be annexed in the future ("sphere of influence").
The City's overall objective is to establish large contiguous wetlands on City property along or
nearby Springbrook Creek in the Black River drainage basin. These wetlands will be used to
offset impacts to lower quality wetlands by private and public development that may occur in the
same drainage basin. Other objectives of the wetland mitigation program are:
No net loss of wetlands.
Provide 1:1 replacement for 5.33 acres of impacted Category 3 wetlands according to the
agreement between the City and Glacier Park.
Reduce severity of flooding by increasing flood water storage capacity.
Improve the quality of water entering the Green River.
Increase habitat and habitat value for fish and wildlife.
Provide passive recreational and educational opportunities.
Increase groundwater recharge.
Assumptions: The mitigation sites do not pose significant health risks. Clearance or
verification concerning their hazardous waste status will be available from the
City.
The City will coordinate elements necessary for implementation of the
completed programmatic and technical mitigation plan with the overlying
jurisdictions. For example, it is understood that the Springbrook Creek right-
of-way is owned by King County Drainage District #1. This may necessitate
obtaining a construction easement to allow the establishment of a hydraulic
June 25, 1993 1 55-1779-07
h:I users I traceyl renton I renton2.scp
connection to Springbrook Creek. The City would be responsible for ensuring
that the easement would be granted. This issue will be further evaluated in
Tasks 1 B and 1 D below.
Approach: Five primary tasks and one optional task have been identified to meet the
objectives and are described below.
Products: All final products shall be submitted both as camera ready hard copy, and on
3-1/2" computer disks. Computer files shall be in AutoCad. Geo-Sequel,
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Microsoft Project format.
TASK 1A - PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Purpose: Project management is necessary to ensure that all aspects of the project are
coordinated and managed to meet the objectives on schedule and within
budget.
Description: This task includes scheduling, budget tracking, invoicing, monthly progress
reports to the City, meeting minutes and agenda, in-house coordination, and
coordination with the rest of the project team.
Meetings: Attendance at one meeting to finalize the scope, project coordination, and
schedule (meeting occurred May 21, 1993) is included in this task.
Products: Progress reports will accompany each invoice and will include a description
of activities conducted, progress made, and problems encountered, if any, and
their resolution during the reporting period. Meeting minutes (except for the
first kick-off meeting) and agenda will be prepared by Parametrix and
submitted to the City.
TASK 1B - REGULATORY/RESOURCE AGENCY COORDINATION AND
REQUIREMENTS
Purpose: To determine regulatory requirements and process associated with
implementing the mitigation program.
To coordinate with resource and regulatory agencies.
To determine the type of agreement that would be necessary (perhaps a
memorandum of agreement) and develop a draft of such an agreement.
June 25, 1993 2 55-1779-07
h:I users I tracey I renton I renton2.scp
Description: Local, state, and federal environmental permitting requirements will be
determined based on the project team's knowledge of the environmental
regulatory framework and by telephone interviews with local, state, and federal
resource agency representatives. Examples of the types of permits that may
be required include a construction easement from the drainage district, a
shoreline permit, and water diversion permit and clearing and grading
construction permits.
Discussions on the City's mitigation program should be coordinated with the
state of Washington Departments of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Ecology, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps). Some of the key regulatory/permitting issues are likely to
be associated with compliance of the mitigation program with Section 404
(b)(1) practicable alternatives guidelines, Hydraulic Project Approval
regulations, and consistency with the Shoreline Master Program. Resource
agencies will be contacted to verify the potential permitting requirements of
implementing a mitigation program on the two mitigation sites. At that time
other regulatory and technical issues are likely to be identified.
A MOA would be necessary if the City decides to implement a mitigation
banking program that allows the placement of fill or dredged material into
wetlands larger than 1 acre. The strategy for developing a MOA will need to
be determined once the type of mitigation program to be implemented is
determined in Task ID. It is probably not realistic to expect that a MOA can
be negotiated and agreed to with federal and state agencies during the life of
this project.' However, development of the mitigation plan will reflect the
elements specific to a MOA. These elements include the allowable, required,
and prohibited uses of the mitigation bank and the processes associated with
the formation, implementation, operation, debits and credits, management,
monitoring, bank life, and functional evaluation of the mitigation sites.
Products: A draft agreement and draft and final list and description of regulatory
requirements and permits necessary to implement a mitigation program that
can be included as part of the mitigation plan to be developed in Task 1 E.
A summary of the issues and solutions identified by coordinating with the
resource and regulatory agencies that can be incorporated into the mitigation
plan (either as a section or an Appendix) developed in Task 1 E.
The Washington Department of Transportation has been negotiating a MOA with state and federal regulatory
and resource agencies for well over a year.
June 25, 1993 3 55-1779-07
h:I users I traceyl renton I renton2.scp
TASK IC - MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND POLICY ISSUES
Purpose: To develop goals and objectives for the overall mitigation program. The
161?A3 flAtim *AA&- identification of specific goals and objectives of the mitigation sites will be
developed as part of Task 1 E.
10/_03 WLIVI� C)fiAFr To define draft eligibility requirements for use of the mitigation sites.
>c%143 P41,o- OPAer To identify policy issues that require resolution by the City and provide
recommendations for solutions to these issues.
912I/IS
LYr� p ?d >asr To meet with resource and regulatory agency representatives.
. 9U"7 tA�Jc ,
Description: Preliminary goals and objectives have been developed by the City through
their wetland's ordinance and their agreement with Glacier Park. These will
be reviewed and any additional goals and objectives will be developed for
establishing a mitigation program. Based on the City's review of the
preliminary list of goals and objectives, Parametrix will prepare a draft and
final list suitable for presentation and discussion with the resource and
regulatory agencies. Additional mitigation program objectives will be based,
in part, on the potential future impacts to wetland functions, and acreage,
applicability of replacement ratios (based on City's ordinance), and the type
of program (i.e., mitigation banking or off-site mitigation) that could be
implemented at the mitigation sites.
Eligibility requirements for use of the site will be based on the wetland type
and size, functions and values, relative quality of the habitat, required
replacement ratios, compliance with sequencing and the City's ordinance, off-
site replacement feasibility, and location within the basin's landscape.
Two policy issues were identified in the May 21, 1993 kick-of meeting with
the City. They are as follows:
• Availability of mitigation for public projects
• Use of the mitigation sites does not necessarily preclude impacts to
Category 2 wetlands (as defined by the City's ordinance)
Other policy issues may be identified during Task 1 D and will be presented
to the City as they are identified.
June 25, 1993 4 55-1779-07
h:I users I traceyl renton I renton2.scp
Meetings: Initial coordination with regulatory agencies and review of the overall goals
and objectives for the mitigation program will occur in one meeting. The
purpose of the meeting will be to present the City's goals and objectives for
the mitigation program, outline the process that the City is undertaking to
develop a mitigation program, and to seek input from the agencies on the
overall mitigation program.
io/7/93 Products: Five draft technical memorandums outlining the goals and objectives will be
&ppAr-r prepared and submitted to the City for review. Comments from the City will
Ol fOLIc.)Qs be incorporated into the final discussion of the goals and objectives and will
be included as a section in the mitigation plan developed in Task I.E. A
separate technical memorandum will be prepared outlining the policy issues.
�/2�jd3 �rr /enEo To rrase Agenda and meeting minutes from meeting with resource and regulatory
ID agencies will be transcribed and produced as a document.
'8
Assumptions: The City has the ultimate responsibility for making policy decisions. The
project team will assist the City in making these decisions through discussions
at meetings scheduled under this and other tasks, and through the analysis and
preparation of information under Task ID.
The meeting with the resource agencies will be 2 hours with 1 hour for travel
and the meeting will be at the City of Renton office.
TASK 1D - CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT AND FIELD WORK
Purpose: To review baseline information on the physical and biological features of the
watershed and mitigation sites related to wetland creation on the mitigation
sites.
To determine how much and what type of mitigation (in terms of acreage and
function) is feasible on the mitigation sites.
To determine how much wetland acreage is potentially eligible within the
project area to use the mitigation sites.
To meet with the Corps at the site to determine if the wetlands within the
mitigation areas are above the head waters or adjacent.
June 25, 1993 5 55-1779-07
h:I users I traceyl rent on I renton2.scp
To conduct a site visit to the mitigation sites and to representative categories
of wetlands within the watershed project boundary identified by Jones and
Stokes.
To meet with the City to review the results of the conditions assessment and
evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the two types of mitigation
programs (banking versus off-site) and determine the type of mitigation
program that would be the most beneficial to the City.
To meet with resource agencies to review results of task.
Description: Existing information on the mitigation sites and on the biological and physical
features of the project area provided by the City will be reviewed and
synthesized. Important physical and biological factors include: topography;
soils; vegetation; habitat, hydrologic conditions, including surface and ground
water quality and quantity, and future basin-wide storm water projects; position
of the sites in the landspace relative to other bodies of water, upland and
wetland habitats, existing fish and wildlife populations, and existing and
proposed land uses adjacent to the mitigation sites. The information on
biological and physical features of the mitigation and project area include, but
are not limited to, the wetland delineation reports prepared by David Evans on
the mitigation site; the wetland inventory information prepared by both the
City and Jones and Stokes; a Level 1 Hazardous Substance Assessment Report;
aerial photographs; the Black River Water Quality Management Plan; the East
Side Green River Watershed Management Plan; the Trail Master Plan, and
Comprehensive Park Recreation and Open Space Plan; information pertinent
to mitigation sites 1 and 2 including the letter from the Corps of Engineers;
pictorial history of valley land uses, wetlands, and fill areas; agreements and
restriction; fill plans for Orilla Industrial District; Environmental Assessment
by Golder Associates; FEMA/FIRM; title reports; easement information; Level
II Environmental Assessment by Golder; preliminary Environmental
Assessment by Hart Crowser; recorded plat; wetland surveys; Environmental
Assessment by Kennedy Jenks and the Surface Water and Sediment Quality
Assessment for Springbrook Creek by Hart Crowser. We will rely primarily
on the information and existing data to conduct the conditions assessment, and
will conduct a field reconnaissance to supplement the existing data. In
addition, Parametrix must be familiar with the relative City codes, including
the Wetlands Ordinance, Surface Water Ordinance, Grade and Fill Ordinance,
and the Shoreline Master Program.
Of particular importance is to evaluate whether sufficient hydrology is
available on the mitigation sites. This will be determined in part by evaluating
June 25, 1993 6 55-1779-07
h:I users I tracev I renton I renton2.scp
on-site conditions, topography, aerial photographs, and information in the
literature regarding flooding events. Test pits will be manually excavated in
wetland and upland areas during the site visit to try to characterize the depth
of ground water (inundation or saturation) during the dryer months.
Opportunities for diverting water from Springbrook Creek into Mitigation Site
2 will also be evaluated. The City will provide backhoe excavator services for
upland excavation on the mitigation sites. Parametrix shall notify the City a
minimum of two weeks prior to the site visit and shall determine the number
and location of test pits.
The wetland inventory map completed by Jones and Stokes will be used as a
base map of the entire project area. The existing survey of the wetlands
delineated in the mitigation sites will be integrated onto a base topographic
map produced for the mitigation sites.
The base topographic map, and any other maps created, must be consistent
with the City's Geo-Sequal and AutoCad system. All maps will be prepared
in accordance with City drafting standards. The topographic map for
Mitigation Site 1 will consist of 2-foot contours; Mitigation Site 2 will consist
of 1-foot contours (available topography per telephone conversation with Scott
Woodbury, June 3, 1993). Both contour maps will be digitized onto AutoCAD
from the maps provided by the City. Other important features will also be
incorporated onto the base map of the mitigation sites. The base maps of the
mitigation sites will also be produced at a scale suitable for use in preparing
the site, grading, and planting plans.
The type of mitigation program implemented by the City and the subsequent
fee structure will be based on financial information regarding mitigation costs
(i.e., planning, site development, implementation, monitoring administration,
and maintenance), feasibility of program implementation, financial scenarios
for implementing the various site plans developed under Task 1 E below,
funding that could be pursued/obtained by the City to reduce the City's overall
costs for project implementation, opportunities to obtain up-front financing
from developers potentially eligible to use the sites, the extent of mitigation
that the sites can accommodate, and the extent and type of wetlands that could
potentially be impacted within the project area.
A site visit will be conducted at the mitigation sites to correlate the literature
information on the sites with current filed conditions. In addition,
representative wetlands(e.g., one Category 1, one Category 2, and two or three
Category 3 wetlands) within the watershed project area (with emphasis on
wetlands within city limits), that were identified by Jones and Stokes will be
June 25, 1993 7 55-1779-07
h:I users I traceyl renton I renton2.scp
visited to verify the wetland's type and character. The site visit with the
Corps will be to verify the "adjacency" status of the wetlands within the
mitigation areas. On-site hydrology will be evaluated during the site visits.
Product: Task ID will result in an analysis and five draft reports on opportunities and
constraints of the site to meet the overall goals and objectives of the mitigation
program, requirements for use of the mitigation sites, and recommendations for
the type of mitigation program that could best serve the City's near-term and
future needs.
Five copies of a draft checklist or matrix identifying conditions under which
projects needing mitigation could use the mitigation sites will be prepared as
part of the analysis.
Five copies of any figures, maps, etc., showing any additional information
collected during the site visits will be provided to the City. This information
will be integrated onto the base maps. One set of completed base map
drawings and electronic copy shall be submitted to the City.
Parametrix will incorporate the comments from the City into the final
mitigation plan developed in Task 1 E.
Meetings: One meeting is included in this task to review the results of the physical
conditions and financial assessments, to discuss and finalize the goals and
objectives for the project, and to determine the type of mitigation program to
be developed.
One meeting will be held with resource agencies to present results of this task.
The purpose of this meeting will be to present and seek input on the goals and
objectives of the project and mitigation program. If time permits, Parametrix
will also present the site plan for Alternative 1.
Assumptions: One meeting with the City will be 2 hours with 1 hour of travel time and the
agency meeting will be three hours with hour of travel.
The wetlands inventoried by Jones and Stokes as well as the other information
regarding delineated wetlands written by David Evans, and watershed plans,
etc. are basically complete, thorough, and suitable to use to assist in
developing the mitigation program.
The Corps will be able to visit the site concurrent with the project team will
make a determination on the status of the wetlands within the mitigation sites
June 25, 1993 8 55-1779-07
h:I users I traceyl renton I renton2.scp
relatively quickly. Parametrix will contact the Corps to make arrangements
for a site visit on the same day as the project team in early July.
The City will be able to review the draft products and provide comments to
the project team within two weeks from the time the information is submitted.
A draft capacity analysis for future industrial, commercial, and residential
development will not be available for 2 to 4 weeks (personal communication
Scott Woodbury, June 3, 1993). It is anticipated that the capacity study will
provide information on future use of lands designated for residential,
commercial, and industrial development. Figures and/or text that are or
become available showing where changes in land capacity are predicted to
occur can be compared to the existing wetland inventory. This comparison
can be used to evaluate the types and quantities of wetlands that may be
impacted in the future. The project team will use the draft when it becomes
available to evaluate existing and proposed land use. If the final capacity
analysis is completed by August, 1993, the project team will be able to include
the final and more detailed information into the final mitigation plan.
TASK 1E: MITIGATION PLAN PREPARATION AND REPORTING
Purpose: To prepare a programmatic and technical mitigation plan.
To prepare an overall site plan for the mitigation areas (Alternative 1) and two
alternative scenarios (Alternatives 2 and 3) to show a range of implementation
costs.
To prepare a detailed grading and planting plan for the 5.33 acres of impacted
wetlands of immediate concern.
To prepare conceptual grading and planting plans for the Alternatives 1 and
2.
Description: The programmatic plan will include the following components: the program
goals and objectives, mitigation program requirements; results of Tasks 1 B, C,
and D; monitoring requirements of the sites (construction and post-
implementation); maintenance, contingencies, operating costs, and goals and
objectives specific to the mitigation sites that will be based, in part, on the
potential future impacts to wetland functions and acreage; applicability of
replacement ratios (based on city's ordinance); and the type of program (i.e.,
mitigation banking or off-site mitigation) that will be determined in Task ID.
June 25, 1993 9 55-1779-07
h:I users I traceyl renton I renton2.scp
Three alternative site plans will be prepared ranging from a conceptual overall
plan to a detailed plan for the 5.33 acres of immediate concern. An overall
conceptual grading and planting plan will be prepared for both mitigation sites
(Alternative 1) (assumes full mitigation development). The overall site plan
will also include opportunities for access trails and interpretive signs/centers.
Alternative 2 will consist of a site plan showing a detailed conceptual grading
and planting plan for mitigation development between 5.5 acres and 19.35
acres (amount of upland habitat available on the mitigation sites) and how the
phasing of mitigation efforts could occur. Alternative 3 will consist of a
detailed grading and planting plan for the 5.33 acres of impacted wetlands of
immediate concern. The graphic information presented in the third alternative
will be at a detail suitable for use in development in preparing bid
specifications in accordance with the City of Renton drafting standards.
Products: The final plan shall include a title page; executive summary; table of contents;
list of figures, tables and appendices; and glossary of terms. Five copies of the
draft mitigation plan complete with figures, tables, and text will be prepared
for City review. Parametrix will respond to one round of review comments
and prepare a final document.
One bound (with associated drawings) and one camera-ready reproducible
(electronic) copy of the final mitigation plan. Display size graphics of the
three alternatives plans will also be submitted.
Meetings: Four meetings are included in this task. The purpose of the meetings will be
to discuss the mitigation program protocol, project level goals, site plans,
phasing of mitigation, and status of the overall project. The first meeting with
the City will be held when the project is about 30% complete, the second with
the City when the project is about 70% complete, the third with the City and
resource agencies with the project is about 75% complete, and the fourth
meeting when the project is about 90% complete (see Exhibit B). Parametrix
will coordinate with the City regarding agency participation in the fourth
meeting.
Assumptions: The City will be able to review the draft products and provide comments to
the project team within two weeks from the time the information is submitted.
The four meetings will be 2 hours with 1 hour of travel time and will be held
at the City of Renton office.
June 25, 1993 10 55-1779-07
h.I users I tracey I renton I renton2.scp
Limitations: The grading plan for Mitigation Site 1 may not be as specific as the plan for
Mitigation Site 2 because of differences in contours (2-feet versus 1-foot,
respectively).
OPTION
TASK IF: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Purpose: To develop public consensus on the mitigation program.
Description: A public workshop should be held to inform the public about the mitigation
program and to seek their input. Several media are available to inform and
seek input from the public (i.e., public meetings, a public workshop, surveys).
Based on our discussion with City of Renton employees working on this
project, there was general agreement that one public workshop would be
appropriate.
Assumptions: Some form of public participation will occur during the project.
The City will take the lead in deciding on the type and extent of public
involvement that is necessary.
The City will take the lead in scheduling and planning for public participation.
At least one public participation meeting/workshop will be held.
The City would require that a key member of the Parametrix project team be
present at the meeting.
The public participation meeting/workshop would be 4 to 6 hours, including
travel.
Project team participation and material suitable for presentation would result
in increased expenses.
June 25, 1993 11 55-1779-07
h:I users I tracey I renton I rent on2.scp
1993 June 1993 July 1993 August 1993 September 1993 October 1993 November 1993 December 1993
Name 5/16 5/23 5/30 6/6 6/13 6I20 627 7/4 7/11 7/19 7125 1 9/1 1 8/8 8/15 8/22 U29 9/5 9/12 9/19 9/26 10/3 10/10 10/17 10/24 10/31 11/7 11114 11/21 11/28 12/5 12/12 12/19 12/26
Project Management
Kick-off Meeting
Notice to Proceed
Regulatory Coordination/Requirements
Goals and Objectives and Policies
Field and Conditions
Mapping
Office Assessment
Field
Analysis Report
City Review
Meet with City
Meet with Agencies
Mitigation Plan
Programmatic Plan
Technical Plan
Altemative Site Plan I
Alternative Site Plan 2
Alternative Site Plan 3
Meetings with City(30%)
Meeting with City(70%)
Meeting with City(90%)
Draft Report Review
Meet with Agencies
Final Report
Public Involvement
Project:City of Renton Critical Milestone Summary
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT SCHEDULE OF COMPLETION
CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM
May June July August September October November December
IA Project Management
Kick-off Meeting ❑
Notice to Proceed ❑
1B Regulatory Coordination/Requirements
1C Goals and Objectives
Meet with Agencies
1D Field and Conditions
Mapping
Office Assessment
Field
Analysis/Report
City Review
Meet with City
Meet with Agencies
I Mitigation Plan _ _ IN NINE=
Programmatic Plan __ __ --
Technical Plan
Alternative Site Plan 1 (entire site) __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
Alternative Site Plan 2
Alternative Site Plan 3
Meetings with City 30% WA= 70%
90/o
Draft Report Review
Meet with Agencies 75%
Final Report
IF Public Involvement
Legend:
C = specific dates
-- = preparation/evaluation/analysis of information to complete subtask
designates range of time where meetings will be scheduled and held
reflects entire length of time to complete task
when work actually occurs to complete task
review by City
Exhibit C
Cost Estimate
City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Program
Task l A Task 1 B Task 1 C Task 1 D Task l E
PMX Hours 36 12 18 135 186
PMX Labor $963 $312 $468 $2,983 $3,899
Overhead(169%) $1,627 $527 $791 $5,041 $6,590
PMX Subtotal $2,590 $839 $1,259 $8,024 $10,489
Fee(12.5%) $324 $105 $157 $1,003 $1,311
Dircet Costs $14 $0 $14 $154 $259
PMX Total $2,928 $944 $1,430 $9,181 $12,059
TAL Hours 23 3 4 34 125
TAL Labor $1,700 $255 $340 $2,800 $6,350
Direct Costs $100 $0 $0 $200 $500
TAL subtotal $1,800 $255 $340 $3,000 $6,850
Handling Fee $180 $26 $35 $300 $685
TAL total $1,980 $281 $375 $3,300 $7,535
Project Total $4,894 $1,225 $1,805 $12,481 $19,594 $39,999
EXHIBIT "C"
PARAMETRIX, INC.
COST PLUS NET FEE DETERMINATION
1993 Fee Schedule
Personnel Hourly Rate
Principal $38.00 - $45.00
Project Manager $26.00 - $39.00
Engineer V $26.00 - $39.00
Engineer IV - $24.00 - $28.00
Engineer III $21.00 - $25.00
Engineer H $18.00 - $22.00
Engineer I $16.00 - $19.00
Biologist IV $26.00 - $30.00
Biologist III $24.00 - $28.00
Biologist H $18.00 - $22.00
Biologist I $15.00 - $19.00
Public Relations Specialist $17.00 - $20.00
Design Technician $16.00 - $20.00
AutoCad Operator/Drafter $1450 - $16.00
Word Processor $12.00 - $15.00
Editor $18.00 - $20.00
Graphic Artist $1350 - $17.00
Technical Aide $12.00 - $14.00
Clerical $9.00 - $12.00
Overhead 169%
Fee 12.5%
Outside expenses markup 15%
Subconsultant markup 10%
EXHIBIT C (Continued)
PARAMETRIX, INC.
OVERHEAD RATE
TEN MONTHS ENDING 10/31/91
DIRECT LABOR 4,824,000
OVERHEAD EXPENSES
Administrative and clerical salaries 2,445,018
Employee benefits 1,151,673
Profit sharing expenses 350,000
Payroll taxes 677,944
Telephone and postage 209,456
Office rent 639,888
Insurance 177,680
Promotion and proposal expenses 1,020,168
Prints, Xerox and drafting supplies 144,966
Automobile expenses 39,483
Education and training 54,654
Recruiting costs 67,203
Business meals 38,861
Depreciation 273,343
Office travel 87,761
Business taxes and licenses 309,986
Office supplies and expenses 505,941
Equipment and auto rent 15,031
Equipment and supplies 63,075
Professional fees 139,346
Repairs and maintenance 37,973
Computer supply and repair 54,142
Miscellaneous 53,755
TOTAL 8,557,347
CALCULATED OVERHEAD RATE 177.39%
CONTRACT OVERHEAD RATE 169%
EXHIBIT "C"
PARAMETRIX, INC.
EQUIPMENT USE RATES
(Effective January 1993)
Unit Code Equipment Item Rate Category
Ballers
BAC Bailers, Acrylic $6/day Groundwater Sampling
BPV Bailers, PVC $5/day Groundwater Sampling
BTF Bailers, Teflon $20/day Groundwater Sampling
BSS Bailers, Stainless Steel $5/day Groundwater Sampling
Boat Equipment
CAN 17' Canoe $36/day Boats and Auxiliary Equipment
RAF Rubber Raft $30/day Boats and Auxiliary Equipment
A26 26' Almar Sounder $450/day Boats and Auxiliary Equipment
B21 21' Boston Whaler $350/day Boats and Auxiliary Equipment
B17 17' Boston Whaler $I80/day Boats and Auxiliary Equipment
SNO Snorkel Gear (inc.'s wet/dry suit) $60/day Diving Equipment
DEP Depth Sounder $20/day Boats and Auxiliary Equipment
SCU Scuba Diving Equipment/Diver $150/day Diving Equipment
DIV Diving Insurance $1,000/day Diving Equipment
REC Recording Fathometer $20/day Boats and Auxiliary Equipment
Parametri; Inc. Equipment We Rater
(Effective January 1993) 1
EXHIBIT "C" (Continued)
Unit Code Equipment Item Rate Category
Cellular Phone
C1,I1 Cellular Phone $5/day Field Inspection
Computers
TCU 'Technical Computer Usage $8/hour Computers
CAD CADD Computer $15/hour Computers
GIS GIS Sunstation $25/hour Computers
CCD Construction Criteria Base Program $10/hour Computers
Plotters
PEN 8 Pen Plotter $5/plot Computers
MIX P1XL Plotter $2/plot Computers
YEO Yeoman Plotter $50/week Computers
DRA Electro. Plotter/Drafts $5/plot Computers
FIN Electro. Plotter/Final $20/plot Computers
CPK IIP Color Printer - Letter $1.75/page Computers
CPP IIP Color Printer - Legal $2.25/page Computers
CPC IIP Color Printer - 11 X 17 $3.00/page Computers
Pamn►etrir, Inc. Equipment Use Raw
(Effective January 1993) 2
EXHIBIT "C" (Continued)
Unit Code Equipment Item Rate Category
Copying'
COP Tn-house Photocopies $.10/each
Tleallh and Safely
LVA Level Tl $190/day health and Safety
LVC Level C $90/day Health and Safety
LVD Level D $25/day llealth and Safety
Mall '
In-house Standard Mail $0 No Charge
reimbursable
In-house Large Envelopes/Packages Actual Cost Mail
reimbursable
In-house Express/Overnight Mall Actual Cost Mail
reimbursable
In-house Couriers Actual Cost Mail
reimbursable
'Does not include staff labor costs in photocopying.
Cost recorded by receptionist at the time of mailing. Attach project number to your mailing.
Paraineuk Inc. Equipment Use Rates
(Effective Jaimary 1993) 3
EXHIBIT "C" (Continued)
Unit Code Equipment Item Rate Category
Meters
PliC Meter, pH/Conductivity $30/day Groundwater Sampling
PlIM Meter, pFi $l0/day Groundwater Sampling
OXY Meter, Dissolved Oxygen $30/day Groundwater Sampling
SWO Meter, Swo(fer Flow $40/day Biological Sampling
SAL Meter, Salinity/Conductivity $24/day Oceanography and Water Quality
SA'I' Meter, Saturometer $15/day Oceanography and Water Quality
COR Meter, Corning Checkmate (pH, PO) $40/day Biological Sampling
`I'UR Meter, '1'urbidimeter $24/day Oceanography and Water Quality
Mileage
MIL Employee mileage $.28/mile Mileage
CV'I' Company Vehicle=Trucks/Vans $.40/mile Mileage
CVA Company Vehicle/Autos $.28/mile Mileage
SUR Field Survey Truck, Inc. Equipment $12/hour Field & Construction Survey Equipment
Nets
PIIY Net, Phytoplanklon $17/day Biological Sampling
ZOO Net, 'Looplankton $17/day Biological Sampling
Panametrit, Inc. Equipment Use Rates
(Effective January 1993) 4
EXHIBIT "C" (Continued)
Unit Code Equipment Item Rate Category
NET Net, Gill (40m) $50/day Biological Sampling
KIC Net, Kick $15/day Biological Sampling
BEN Net, Bentbic Invertebrate $10/day Biological Sampling
PUR Net, Purse Seine (30m) $36/day Biological Sampling
PON Net, Pond Seine $10/day Biological Sampling
BEA Net, Beach Seine (30m) $36/day Biological Sampling
TRP Traps, Pier Face $75/day Biological Sampling
TRL Trawl, Beam $30/day Biological Sampling
Samplers
SUR Sampler, Surber Bottom $15/day Biological Sampling
DWG Sampler, Deep Water Grab $35/day Biological Sampling
SPO Sampler, Split Spoon $10/day Soil Sampling
EPI Sampler, Epibenthic $35/day Biological Sampling
ISC Sampler, Isco $36/day Oceanography and Water Quality
SWG Sampler, Shallow Water Grab $15/day Biological Sampling
SOI Sampler, Surface Soil $10/day Soil Sampling
SIIK Electroshocker, Backpack $40/day Biological Sampling
BOT Sampling Bottle, Scott Richards $12/day Oceanography and Water Quality
Pammetti; Inc. Equipment Use Rates
(Effective January 1993) 5
EXHIBIT "C" (Continued)
Unit Code Equipment Item Rate Category
GK13 Van Veen Grab (0.1►n 2) $40/day Biological Sampling
SLO Slope Water Level, Indicator $10/day Gas Group Equipment
131V Bivalve Dredge $25/day Biological Sampling
'I'eleplione
Long Distance $0/call No Charge
Video
CAM Camcorder $50/day
Air Quality
OVA OVA $150/day Air Monitoring Equipment
OVh1 OVM $100/day Air Monitoring Equipment
TIP Micro-'rip $100/day Air Monitoring Equipment
MSA MSA (360,361) $45/day Air Monitoring Equipment
Ill I'll) 11 $100/day Air Monitoring Equipment
GAS Gastech 1929 OX $40/day Gas Group Equipment
GSP Gas Sampling Package $75/day Gas Group Equipment
Panurjelrir, Inc. Equipment Use Raw
(EJrecf4v January 1993) 6
EXHIBIT "C" (Continued)
Unit Code Equipment item Rate Category
G D A Gas Data Analysis Program $50/day Gas Group Equipment
DMB Diesel Motor Blower (test) $150/day Gas Group Equipment
MIC Lab Microscope Package $25/day Laboratory
DIG Digital Temperature Probe $5/day Groundwater Sampling
PRI Blue Prints $1/print
DEV Development Pump $65/day Groundwater Sampling
EXS Exposure Stilts, Freezing Temp. $25/each Oceanography and Water Quality
GLO Global Positioning System $75/day Oceanography and Water Quality
DES Destroyed Tubes $36/tuba
STA Stainless Steel Shelby Tubes $6/mbe
TUB Tubing, #15 Silicone $2/foot Groundwater Sampling
FIV Field Inspection Vehicle $20/day+mileage Field Inspection
SVE Benthic Sieves (Imm 0.25mm) $12/day
AUG Hand Auger $35/day Soil Sampling
LOR Loran C $50/day Oceanography and Water Quality
SOU Sounder $10/day Groundwater Sampling
CEN Table Top Centrifuge $20/clay Laboratory
CUB Cubitainers $1/each Groundwater Sampling
ROP Polyethylene Rope $0.15/foot Groundwater Sampling
Parametric Inc. Equipment We Rater
(Effective January 1993) 7
EXHIBIT "C" (Continued)
Unit Code Equipment Item Rate Category
PAR Paravane Surface Drogues $10/day Oceanography and Water Quality
WIN Windowshade Drogues $12/day Oceanography and Water Quality
SEU Sediment Corer (liners extra) $72/day Oceanography and Water Quality
EXP Explosion Proof Fan $250/day Soil Sampling
F I L Filters, GEO 0.45m disposable $15/each Groundwater Sampling
STF Storage Freezer $30/month
GEN Electric Generator $18/day
GEO Geopurnp $15/day Groundwater Sampling
IIYD Ilydrolab $100/day Oceanography and Water Quality
ramme(rix, Inc.
(E/fec(i►t January 1993) 8 Equi rmenr Use Rarer
Xr
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator
June 24, 1993
Ms. Tracey McKenzie
Parametrix, Inc.
3808 Lake Washington Blvd. N.E.
Kirkland, WA 98033-7350
Dear Tracey:
Members of the Design Team have reviewed the revised scope, schedule, and budget
submitted by Parametrix on June 17, 1993. We are pleased with the overall format of
the revised scope, but still have a number of requests for rewording and clarification of
specific elements under each task.
These concerns are addressed by task in the comments below. New text is underlined.
BACKGROUND SECTION
In paragraph #2, change the first sentence to read: The City's overall objective is to
establish large contiguous wetlands on City property along or nearby Springbrook
Creek in the Black River drainage basin. These wetlands will be used to offset impacts
to lower quality wetlands by private and public development that may occur in the
same drainage basin.
Add to bulleted objectives:
• No net loss of wetlands (Place first in the list)
• Increase groundwater recharge
Assumptions
Change the second sentence in paragraph #1 to read: Clearance or verification
concerning their hazardous waste status will be available from the City.
Change the first sentence in paragraph #2 to read: The City will coordinate elements
necessary for implementation of the completed programmatic and technical mitigation
plan with the overlying iurisdictions. For example, it is understood...hydraulic
connection to Springbrook Creek. The City would be responsible for ensuring that the
easement would be granted.
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
THIS PAPER CONTAINS 50%RECYCLED MATERIAL,10%POST CONSUMER
r Tracey McKenzie
Parametrix, Inc. Page 2
Add Products section
All final products shall be submitted both as camera ready hard copy. and on 3-1/2"
computer disks Computer files shall be in AutoCad Geo-Sequel Microsoft Word
Excel. or Microsoft Project format.
TASK 1A - PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Description
This task includes scheduling, budget tracking, invoicing, monthly progress reports to
the City, meeting minutes and agenda, in-house coordination with the rest of the
project team.
Meetings
Provide separate meetings section as was done for other tasks.
Products
Add a second sentence: Meeting minutes (except for the first kick-off meeting) and
agenda will be prepared by Parametrix and submitted to the City.
TASK 1 B - REGULATORY/RESOURCE AGENCY COORDINATION AND REQUIREMENTS
Purpose
To determine regulatory requirements and process associated with implementing the
mitigation program.
To determine the type of agreement that would be necessary perhaps a memorandum
of agreement) and develop a draft of such an agreement.
Description
Add to last sentence of paragraph #1 : ...shoreline permit, water diversion permit, and
clearing and grading construction permits.
End of paragraph #3: ...and the process associated with the formation,
implementation, operation, debits and credits, management, monitoring, bank life, and
functional evaluation of the mitigation sites.
Products
Paragraph #1 : A draft agreement and draft and final list...
Paragraph #2: A summary of the issues and solutions identified by coordinating with
the resource and regulatory agencies that can be incorporated into the mitigation plan
(as an Appendix) developed in Task 1 E.
t Tracey McKenzie
Parametrix, Inc. Page 3
TASK 1 C - MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND POLICY ISSUES
Purpose
To identify policy issues that require resolution by the City and provide
recommendations for solutions to these issues.
Description
Paragraph #1 : Based on the City's review of the preliminary list of goals and
objectives, Parametrix will prepare a draft and final...
Additional mitigation program objectives will be based, in part, on the potential future
impacts to wetland functions and acreage, applicability of replacement ratios (based on
the City's ordinance)...
Third policy issue: The City only will operate the mitigation program. Remove this
paragraph from the list.
Meetings
Provide separate meetings section as was done for other tasks.
Products
Agenda and meeting minutes for meeting with resource and regulatory agencies will be
transcribed and produced as a document.
Options
Omit optional item under this task.
TASK 1 D - CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT AND FIELD WORK
Purpose
In paragraph #1 : To review baseline information on the physical and biological features
of the watershed and mitigation sites related to wetland creation on the mitigation
sites.
Important physical and biological factors include: topography; soils; vegetation;
habitat, hydrologic conditions, including surface and ground water quality and quantity,
and future basin-wide storm water projects; position of the sites in the landscape
relative to other bodies of water, upland and wetland habitats, existing fish and wildlife
populations, and existing and proposed land uses adjacent to the mitigation sites.
Include resource agency meeting as noted below in the Meeting section.
Description
Tracey McKenzie
Parametrix, Inc. Page 4
Page 6
Paragraph #1, sentence #2: The information on...include, but is not limited to, the
wetland delineation reports...
In addition to items to be reviewed in paragraph #1, Parametrix must be familiar with
the relative City codes, including the Wetlands Ordinance, Surface Water Ordinance,
Grade and Fill Ordinance, and the Shoreline Master Program.
Paragraph #2, sentence #3: Test pits will be manually excavated in wetland...
Delete paragraph #2, sentence #4.
Add to paragraph #2: The City will provide backhoe excavator services for upland
excavation on the mitigation sites. Parametrix shall notify the City a minimum of two
weeks prior to the site visit and shall determine the number and location of test pits.
Paragraph #3: The existing survey of the wetlands delineated...
Page #7
Add to paragraph #1 : The base topographic map, and any other maps created, must
be consistent with the City's Geo-Sequel and AutoCad system. All maps will be
prepared in accordance with City drafting standards.
Meetings
Include in this section the resource agency meeting to present the results of the Task
ID as shown in Exhibit B.
Assumptions
Paragraph #1 : The meetings will be two hours with one hour of travel time, unless the
agency meeting is expected to take three hours.
Paragraph #5: A draft capacity analysis...(omit "gross").
Products
Paragraph #3: Five copies of any figures...during the site visits will be provided to the
City. This information will be integrated onto the base maps.
Add that one set of completed base map drawings and electronic copy shall be
submitted-to the City.
Option
Omit optional item under this task.
Tracey McKenzie
Parametrix, Inc. Page 5
TASK 1 E - MITIGATION PLAN PREPARATION AND REPORTING
Description
Paragraph #1 : The programmatic plan will...and objectives specific to the mitigation
sites that will be based, in part, on the potential future impacts to wetland functions
and acreage;
Paragraph #2: The graphic information presented in the third alternative will be at a
detail suitable for use in development in preparing bid specifications, in accordance
with the City of Renton drafting standards.
Products
Add to paragraph #1 . The final plan shall include a title Page: executive summarx1
table of contents: list of figures, tables, and appendices: and glossary of terms.
Paragraph #2: One bound (with associated drawings) and one camera-ready
reproducible (electronic) copy of the final mitigation plan.
Include display size graphics of the three alternatives plans as products of this task.
Meetings
In the first paragraph, second sentence, omit "The City's tentative scope indicates
that." This and the following sentences should read: "The purpose of the meetings
will be to discuss the mitigation program protocol, project level goals, site plans,
phasing of mitigation and status of the overall project. The first meeting with the City
will be held when the project is about 30% complete, the second with the City when
the project is about 70% complete, the third with the City and resource agencies when
the project is about 75% complete, and the fourth...(see Exhibit B). Parametrix will..."
Option
Omit optional item under this task.
TASK 1 F - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Assumptions
Omit seventh paragraph: The meeting/workshop...
Exhibit B
Include legend for different time line types
Task index numbering needs to be corrected
Kick-off meeting was in mid-May not beginning of May
Remove the footnotes
Adjust notice to proceed as noted below
Tracey McKenzie
Parametrix, Inc. Page 6
The City council just passed an ordinance authorizing the mayor to execute contracts
up to $50,000 without prior council authorization. Because our contract is less than
$50,000 we may be able to submit the contract directly to the mayor for execution.
The notice to proceed could be given as early as July 2, 1993.
CONCLUSION
Please revise your work plan and resubmit before Friday noon, June 25. If the above
comments are fully addressed then execution of the contract could be as early as July
2, as noted above.
Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please call me at 206-277-5547 if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
f� UJAUAI
Scott Woodbury, Project Manager
Surface Water Utility
C:DOCS:93-607:SSW:ps
CC: Ron Straka
Mary Lynne Myer
David Saxen
PUNCH
17Y� wmsp
DOCUMENT/COMMUNICATION LOG
ID# FROM TO TYPE SUBJECT DATE
94-001 O Bank site statistics prepared for 1/31/94 Corps meeting
94-002 O Agenda for 1/31/94 Corps meeting
94-003 O Agenda for public meeting#2 5/27
94-004 O Summary of Corps 404 individual permits issues in 1993 5/27
DAILY LOG
1-26-94
- research assessors records at ron s request to find assessed values for city wetlands south of sw 27th street.
city wetland w-11 and w-12 did not show entirely as city owned. some problems with the assessors office
were still be dealt with by arlene h and is probably the reason that glacier park is still listed as taxpayer.
wetland w-12 is currently comprised of the following parcels with noted 1992 assessed values and taxpayer
name according to 1993 parcel recorded on the network:
2523049076 19.96ac $1,304,100 city
1253810230 163,288sf $20,800 glacier park
1253810170 461,329sf $484,400 glacier park
1253810390 trustees alaskan copper (land for railroad right of way not acquired)
total 34.30ac, excluding railroad
wetland w-11 is currently comprised of the following parcels with noted 1992 assessed values and taxpayer
name according to 1993 parcel recorded on the network:
1253810160 327,299sf $42,500 glacier park
1253810090 326,501 sf $42,400 glacier park
1253810150 190,450sf $24,800 glacier park
1253810100 190,721 sf $24,800 glacier park
1253810390 trustees alaskan copper (land for railroad right of way not acquired)
total 23.76ac, excluding railroad
PUNCH
DOCUMENT/COMMUNICATION LOG
ID# FROM TO TYPE SUBJECT DATE
93-029 s woodbury t mckenzie L Transmitted comments from design team 10/25
DAILY LOG
4-16-93
- meeting w/ long range planning regarding soqs
4-22-93
- call to mark stiefel (wma) returning his call
a. mark wanted ideas on what points to stress in the interview
b. he wanted to know if questions on budget will be posed
c. he wanted to know the ranking of those selected for interviews
d. he wanted to know if the scheduling for interviews was random
- call to david saxon (cor)
a. discussed what mark stiefel had asked david to see if he was duplicating questions. he did ask similar
questions of both david and i. david and i agree that one spokesman is necessary to avoid conflicts in
communciation
5-1 1-93
- call from tracy mckenzie (pa)
a. pleased to receive acceptance letter
b. with call tomarrow with options for meeting date after discussion w/ kitty ford
5-12-93
- call to tracy mckenzie (pa)
a. set meeting date for 2:30pm may 21 in 5th floor conf room
b. contract looks okay. with send draft agenda on may 14.
5-21-93
- held meeting w/ parametrix and talasaea. to prepare memorandum of meeting 5-24-93
5-27-93
- call returned from william hickox of (brh) 323-4144
a. requested digital information of brh survey and wetland delineations for glacier park. he will look into it
- call from steve hitchings at brh 323-4144 to discuss glacier park survey info
6-2-93
- call returned by tracey mckenzie (p)
a. will have draft scope, schedule, and budget by friday
b. gross land use capacity analysis will be available in two weeks to a month
c. mitigation bank is to serve properties within renton (primarily for valley area) and then as space allows
expand to the sphere of influence. per ron Straka.
6-4-93
- received scope, schedule, and budget draft from tracey mckenzie
- gave copy of draft to mark pywell, ron straka, and dave saxon for review
6-7-93
- left message for dave saxon to have comments to scope by end of day
- asked mark pywell to have comments to scope by end of day
- set up meeting w/ ron straka for tomarrow at 10am to discuss scope
6-8-93
- meeting with ron s and dave s regarding draft work plan
a. david to draft response
b. wait for mary lynne to return
- call to tracey mckenzie. no available. left message.
6-9-83
- call returned by tracey mckenzie
a. told tracey that we will wait until mary lynne returns
b. said i would sent letter tomarrow with requested changes along with revisions to insurance form
6-1 1-93
- note from ron straka. 6-11-93 letter to pmx okay. question whether we should wait for mary lynne. decided
to send letter. work plan was much too general. need major revision. hopefully the revised draft can then be
approved with little or no correction.
6-14-93
- call to tracey mckenzie (pmx)
a. follow-up to 6-1 1 letter. tracey said she would call if she had any questions.
6-15-93
- conversation w/ david saxon
a. asked david to prepare issue paper and agenda bill by june 23. i gave him sample from pest consultant
control for map.
6-16-93
- call from tracey mckenzie (pmx)
a. revised work plan will be faxed this morning.
b. tracey has left messages for corps
6-22-93
- call to tracey mckenzie (pmx)
a. left message to return call. said that response letter will be out hopefully today.
6-29-93
- left message for larry warren to call regarding time frame for contract review
7-6-93
- called larry warren's office. attorney review to be done tomarrow.
7-7-93
- talked w/ alan johnson (cor) about capacity analysis. i will asked tracey mckenzie to call alan to arrange for
the transfer of the capacity analysis.
- left message for kitty ford (pmx) to call alan johnson. tracey was out on vacation.
7-12-93
- call from tracey mckenzie (pmx). tracey was apologetic about delay. she had a new request for changes to
the contract before it is executed. i sent changes to larry warren.
- message for Men wang to call. requested information on new law regarding taxation of services
7-13-93
- call to anne santos. verbal approval of requested contract changes received from city attorney
- message left for tracey mckenzie (pmx). relayed attorney approval for pmx to make changes and execute
7-14-93
- conversation w/ priscilla p regarding new law on taxation of services. consultant services not included
7-21-93
- call to tracey mckenzie (pmx)
a. talked about coe issue of adjacency. gail terzi (coe) will be calling tracey back today. tracey will then call
me
b. asked tracey to call me monday mornings with plans for the week
c. tracey asked questions about topography for each site.
7-23-93
- call from tracey mckenzie (pmx)
a. planning to do field work next wednesday. asked for backhoe services.
b. gail terzi (coe) has not returned call. tracey thinks that mary lynne myer may want to call tom mueller
(coe) about adjacency issue. apparently there is not a written document for the shift in coe determination
of adequacy. higher level coe people have been getting involved in this determination. tracey will call
mary lynne monday.
c. pmx digitizing topo maps now
- talked w/ john stein about backhoe. he will call me back this afternoon if they will be available
7-26-93
- call to john t (shops) about backhoe. wednesday possible. thurdsay should be for sure. call back once i talk
w/ pmx
- message left for tracey mckenzie (pmx) to call me back regarding backhoe services
- message from tracey mckenzie (pmx). thursday will not work. if wednesday wont work w/ shops then
arrange for a time next week
- left message for john thompson
7-27-93
- talked with john thompson. wednesday july 28 will not work.
- call from tracey mckenzie. i told her that backhoe not available wednesday. she will call with time for next
week. tracey arranging for gail terzi (coe) and mary lynne myer to make site visit with pmx.
- call from tracey mckenzie (pmx). tues august 3/friday august 6 possible site visit. i left message for john
thompson
7-28-93
- call to john thompson (shops). backhoe service set for tues, august 3 at 10 am
- message left for tracey mckenzie about scheduling of backhoe service for next week
8-3-93
- site field work with tracey mckenzie and kitty ford (pmx) and bill shiels (tc). city maintenance provide backhoe
services excavating test pits. the soil profile information is key to a successful design. pmx asked if ground
water monitoring wells could be installed on the two mitigation sites. i will coordinate with the installation of
the stream gage at 27th street.
8-4-93
- returned call to tim clark (metro) 684-1989 and 277-8558. he did not know who installed pvc at 48" culvert
west of jogging trail and south of 27th. thought it was boeing. he will send me copy of soil report for the
metro project.
- message from mary lynne myer. director of ecology assigned staff to follow up on letter mary lynne had sent
asking ecology assistance. meeting scheduled for august 13 and 10am
8-5-93
- called doug micheau (tukwila), steve kitterman (gardner consultants), and keith harris (rca) to locate
information on hydraulic analysis for se cbd study. keith harris, se cbd project manager, said that the hydraulic
calculations were very crude and that it was probably thrown out when he left gardner consultants. he made
assumptions regarding the time of concentration and said he used cia. however the report said the scs type 1-
a hydrograph was used. i did not pursue the point.
8-10-93
- call from tracey mckenzie (pmx) and bill shiels (tc).
a. hydrologic info to pmx (date, time of day, 12-hr incre, elev, flow)
b. more info from tukwila on site 1
c. working this week on goals and objectives, opportunities and constraints
d. agency meeting to be schedule later
8-12-93
- reviewed draft letter to coe from pmx
8-13-93
- meeting with anne watanabe and thomas hruby of doe and mary lynne myer regarding possible pilot project or
funding
8-16-93
- meeting with mary lynne myer. letter to corps on renton letterhead. city wetland ordinance does not
recognize upland mitigation. she also did not think it was a good idea.
8-19-93
- call to larry karpac (nhc)
a. factor of 0.70 to convert 2-yr storm to 1-yr found for one watershed study
b. cannot go lower than approx 1-yr with freq analysis without changing techniques from annual freq analysis
to partial freq analysis
- call to tracey mckenzie (pmx). relayed what i talked with larry karpac (nhc) about freq analysis, what mary
lynne had said about upland mitigation on 8/16/93, that i am still working on kc gaging info, and the corps
letter to be one renton letterhead with cc to pmx. will talk with tracey on 8/23/93
8-23-93
- call to phil frazier (city of tukwila). he did not have any other info on bank site 1 other that cbd study
- call to steve kitterman (gardner consultants). asked if he would check gc files for h/h work for tukwila cbd.
- call to tracey mckenzie (pxm). kc gage info from 43rd will be received in about two weeks. i will send upon
receipt.
9-1-93
- message left for gail terzi (coe) to call.
- call to tracey mckenzie (pmx).
a. i said that i was concerned about the schedule. tracey said reason for delay is contract execution was late
and coe determination has not be made. she will send revised schedule. pmx will not delay contract
completion date beyond the end of the year. tracey will note reasons for schedule delay in august progress
report.
b. tracey suggested combining agency meeting for goals and objectives with opportunities and contraints
meeting. i thought that it was a good idea considering the difficulty of scheduling agencies and the lead
time for the scheduling required.
c. tracy will submit products as preliminary draft. incorporate city review into final draft. final product would
follow coordination changes with other tasks or comments from agency review.
d. i asked tracey about the capacity analysis. she contacted allan once but did not follow up. she will can
again.
9-2-93
- call to gail terzi (coe). she will call tracey mckenzie when coe will make field visit. gail will probably take tj
stett with her. she will make determination in sept, hopefully early sept. i will send topo and hydrology info to
gail.
- call from gail terzi (coe)
a. site visit scheduled for sept 14 at 8:30 am. will arrange location with pmx.
b. regulation definition for adjacent. wetland which borders, is continuous, or neighboring stream below the
headwaters. levees and other man-made structures considered nonexistent. how far back in time the
corps will go to use as basis for their decision is decided on a case-by-case basis.
9-7-93
- call from tracey mckenzie (pmx).
a. plans for this week. finish conditions assessment for internal review. send to city next week. goals and
objectives and policy issues to be sent this week.
b. will call and confirm corps sept 18 9 am meeting. meet at 34th and oakesdale.
9-9-93
- call returned to bill shiels (tc)•
a. bill asked about hydrologic info. i said kc thought next friday. bill will call then.
b. talked about adjacency call by corps. bill thought mary lynne should do some politicing and the city and
consultants should express their profession opinion that the wetlands are not adjacent.
9-10-93
- schedule pxm was to send last week still hasn't arrived.
9-14-93
- attended corps site visit for adjacency determination with tj stetts and gail terzi of coe, tracey mckenzie of
pxm, david saxon and mary lynne myer of city. corps staff indicated opinion that bank site 1 is adjacent. they
consider bank site 2 adjacent, but may have given nationwide status to portion of wetlands in earlier
application. g terzi to check the files. offical determination expected in about two weeks.
9-15-93
- meeting with david saxon to discuss the public involvement. see notes in file.
- call to tracey mckenzie (pmx) to discuss city callling coe regarding adjacency. tracey sited a mitigation banking
guidance document by mike davis from coe office of regulatory affairs. banking document identified that
adjacency determination guidance not settled but is scheduled to be completed in six months. if coe has not a
published guidance then on what basis can the city dispute a coe call. also not being able to produce a
specific guidance document to back a decision exposes the corps to potential legal action.
- call to lenora blauman at request of mary lynne myer. lenora said she and don erickson are not aware of any
wetlands being determined adjacent in the valley.
- call to mart' lynne myer. she will call tom mueller regarding the adjacency determination probably on monday.
i will prepare outline of the points of emphasis for her review tomarrow.
9-16-93
- call to lori pitzer (boeing). apprised lori of coe adjacency issue and city plans to urge non-adjacency
9-21-93
- left message for gail terzi (coe). asked her to call me to discuss the adjacency determination. also asked that
she contact me after the corps committee has reached an in-house decision before a formal decision is issued.
- draft meeting notice received from david saxon for review
9-23-93
- sent package back to david saxon with review comments
- call to gail terzi (coe). asked if she would send decision and backup information for city review before they
issue an official decision. she said that she would and that it would probably be next week or the week
following.
- message left for david funke regarding status of 43rd st information
9-27-93
- call to tracey mckenzie (pmx). tasks 1 b, 1 c, and 1 d sent out for review next week. flow information from kc
received and ready for pickup. summarized my discussions with gail terzi regarding adjacency determination.
10-1-93
- call from gail terzi (coe). she wanted estimate of mean annual flow at wmbp sites. i said there was the doe
shoreline to sw 43rd st, but i would look into boeing calculation.
10-4-93
- message left with gail terzi (coe). boeing work on limited amount of data. until better information available
must rely on doe shoreline limit at sw 43rd st. asked for her to call me regarding adjacency determination.
- reviewed and concurred with invoice number 2 from pmx.
10-5-93
- mary lynne myer updated me on calls to tom mueller (coe). have not talked directly but tom referenced other
adjacency calls in the valley, probably refering to those made in kent. mary lynne responded that hydrology
issues and history of other calls in renton valley does not support adjacency. she will keep me updated.
- transmitted comments to public involvement to dave saxon to address. will complete on october 7.
- talked with ron straka about concerns with lack of data on north bank site and that if pmx releases drafts of
conditions assessment without complete data it is likely that pmx will want extra work reimbursement to
include the additional data. ron noted that we don't have money for additional data at this time. he considers
pxm work predesign for areas other than final design drawings to be provided under the contract.
10-6-93
- sent elevation conversion for kc gage 03d at sw 43rd to pmx and talasaea.
10-8-93
- meeting with david saxon and mary lynne myer.
- received memo from mary lynne summarizing what was discussed at the meeting.
10-1 1-93
- sent advertisement to the valley daily news to publish in the wednesday, october 13, 1993 issue.
- sent memo to clerk regarding advertisement billing to surface water account
10-12-93
- conversation with bill shiels about public involvement and meeting with joe robels of fisheries.
10-13-93
- sent public involvement package to bill shiels (tc).
- sent copy of mary lynne's 10/8/93 memo to tracey (pmx) and bill shiels (tc).
- conversation with tracey (pmx) regarding the public involvement
- message from gail terzi (coe). adjacency call stands. i then left message for her to call me tomarrow.
- finished invitation letters for public meetings.
10-15-93
- call to gail terzi (coe). both sites below the headwaters and neighboring wetlands connected to the
headwaters or directly neighboring the headwaters.
- discussion with ron s of the adjacency call. he will talk with gregg z
- returned call to john altman (tc). datum for rw beck studies is ngvd 29.
- david saxon relayed to me that tom mueller (coe) left message for mary lynne today.
- returned call to shannon harris (pmx). confirmed that we need the opportunities and constraints draft today
- left message for paul crane (boeing) returning his call
- call from michelle ohare 226-8427. responding to invitation letter. some interest. thought that the letter was
confusing and wanted to clarify.
- returned call to howard seelig 454-0885. wanted more information on the bank. was involved in golf driving
range off of lind. concerned with regulations.
10-18-93
- call from nina o'neil at 206-252-8414, commissior at port of everett. interested in market value of the wetland
mitigation bank sites
- message from jerry mouray at 277-0400 x-153. thurston county courthouse has listing of nurseries which
supply native plantings for restoration of historic communities. i tried calling his number, but was given
message that number disconnected or not in service.
meeting with pmx and design team. reworked list of goals and objectives. see notes in file.
10-19-93
- returned call to jackie hightower 999-9352. planner. wanted to know if she could attend regulatory agencies
meeting. i didn't think that it would be a problem. i agreed to call her once agency meeting set.
10-20-93
- talked with don erickson about expiration of wetland delineation. goes to department administrator and he
recommends only one-year extention so as to not set precident for longer times. do not need to extend glacier
park properties as city has in essense already allowed them to be filled.
- call from joanne stellini (usfws) at 206-753-9440. interested in attending agency meeting.
- returned call to nina o'neil (port of everett). told her information about market value of the properties found by
property management of $2500/acre. i will call her if city attorney can give me more information.
- call from janet garrow at 587-0700. attorney calling on behalf of client. potential interest in bank.
- participated in public meeting at renton senior center. eight people attended.
10-21-93
- prepared for and participated in meeting with the development community at the community center. six people
attended
- received letter from rhys sterling (attorney halinen law office) requesting that the city expand the area
considered qualifying for the bank and not limit the size
10-29-93
- call from tracey mckenzie (pmx).
a. according to doe water rights permit required if culvert or ground water well used, even for non-
consumptive use. pat locke with doe 649-7093 responsible for water rights. if issue of dam safety doug
johnson in lacey.
b. discussed policy issues. asked for policy issues as soon as possible to start city review process.
c. esgrwp new channel from 43rd alternative not ruled out. may be better to select groundwater pump for
augmentation on site 2 because stream flows may be divided into p-1 channel from springbrook creek
depending upon esgrwp alternative analysis
1 1-3-93
- call to bill wolinski (kent). he referred me to gary volchok for info on wetlands in kent green river valley called
adjacent.
- call to gary volchok (cb commercial) at 292-6130. he didn't know of any wetlands in kent valley that were
called adjacent. told me of project he is working on in auburn south of 37th street nw and east of sr167.
been working for seven years on 404 individual permit. look promising to get permit. only fourth permit by
corps since jan 87. others in bellingham, issaquah, and vancouver.
CITY OF RENTON
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 21, 1994
TO: Scott Woodbury
FROM: Lisa Stephens, ext. 250
SUBJECT: CAG-93-080, Adden. #1-94
The attached copy of the original document is being returned to you. The original
document is retained by the City Clerk.
Thank you.
Enclosures: (1)
CONTRACT CHECKLIST
STAFF NAME & EXTENSION NUMBER: Woo o'SJ/41 k-55y7
DIVISION/DEPARTMENT: P��3I P� - Su/L`gc� W,r 7-a U'TI Li7'1
CONTRACT NUMBER:
TASK ORDER NUMBER(if applicable): /,qfllaIj C>i.9rr= NG
CONTRACTOR: fAP-A Nk, L)C-
PURPOSE OF CONTRACT: �i�Ul Df H 1J-AC>JCq
7o NEw
1. LEGAL REVIEW: (Attach letter from city attorney.)
NIA Fad Cc,,-,jZAcT-5 Li5,5 7p '9 /u)600 s ATrA- ere /i3/g3 PY4^4 .
2. RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR INSURANCE: (Attach letter.)
3. RESPONSE TO LEGAL OR RISK MGMT CONCERNS: (Explain in writing how concerns have been met.)
tjl�
4. INSURANCE CERTIFICATE AND/OR POLICY: (Attach original.) OK
5. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE NUMBER: (Call Finance Dept.)
6. ATTACHED CONTRACTS ARE SIGNED BY CONTRACTOR: (If not, provide explanation.)
Y�S , Cx�'-F h<-r 0f. P45 /Avs rodf� vIA/rat 12,0VA-1 JJ ,WP1c H 1S wiry THj;U 15
7. FISCAL IMPACT: G" L,' ORlf ao�- s76�!ev.k . eft OA" jb c ��rk..lr Is csK y
A. AMOUNT BUDGETED (LINE ITEM) (See 8.b)*
B. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: 2`
8. COUNCIL APPROVAL REQUIRED (Prepare Agenda Bill.):
A. CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER IS $50,000 OR OVER: (Refer to Council committee for initial
contract approval; place subsequent task orders on Council agenda for concurrence.)
B. *FUND TRANSFER REQUIRED IF CONTRACT EXPENDITURE EXCEEDS AMOUNT
BUDGETED. (Refer to Council committee.)
C. SOLE SOURCE CONTRACTS. (Refer to Council committee.)
9. DATE OF COUNCIL APPROVAL: &
10. RESOLUTION NUMBER (if applicable): 0p,
11. KEY WORDS FOR CITY CLERK'S INDEX:
B. P�f� i� LFK
C. swP-
c:\winword\forma\chkliat 5(Pj v6 6,U,,K Litt- it A-1t—A(4( P-f'vo W//"
09/02/93
i`R
CITY OF RENTON Office of the City Attorney
Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence I Warren _
MEMORANDUM
qPR 1 4 1993
/To: Ron Olsen, Utility Systems C!-y CF F.f-�` '
From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date: April 13, 1993
Subject: Legal Approval of Task Orders
You called and asked whether I needed to reveiw Task Orders under $10,000.00 when they were
attached to an approved contract and the contract was not modified in any fashion. Under those
circumstances, there is no need for legal review. The Task Orders themselves are technical in
nature and-have little or no legal implication. My main scope of review is of the contract itself, and
since the contract will not be changed I do not need to rereview the material.
Lawrence J Warren
LJW:as.
cc: Mayor Earl Clymer
A8:96:
I
**o,,,�,,
CITY OF RENTON
HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
December 19, 1994
TO: Scott Woodbury
FROM: Beverly Nelson Glode
SUBJ: CAG-93-080
The insurance coverages for the above mentioned project meet the City's risk
management requirements. On future Certificates of Insurance, list the insured's
Washington Labor & Industries number in the policy number section for Worker's
Compensation.
ADDENDUM NO. 1-94 `_'ONC;URREl C� 7
to JIT IAL�--- DATE_ � �L!__
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL I; ;
ENGINEERING SERVICES II r,sip NAMET" 7�
DATE: July 19, 1993 for CAG-93-080 Ate'
WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN
The Addendum is made and entered into this day of 1994, by and
between the City of Renton, hereinafter called the "City", and Parametrix, Inc.
hereinafter called the "Consultant".
WITNESSETH THAT:
Whereas, the City engaged the professional engineering services of the consultant
under Contract Agreement CAG-93-080 dated July 19, 1993, to prepare a Wetland
Mitigation Bank Plan to establish large contiguous wetlands on City property along or
nearby Springbrook Creek in the Black River drainage basin.
Whereas, the City has not sufficient qualified engineering employees to provide the
engineering within a reasonable time; and
Whereas, the City and the consultant have determined that additional work is required
to meet the goal of the project, those additional work items being defined in Exhibit
"A", with costs anticipated to be as shown in Exhibit "C", and schedule for completion
as defined in Exhibit "B".
Now therefore, in accordance with Section VIII - Extra Work of the above-mentioned
Agreement dated July 19, 1993, it is mutually agreed that the above-mentioned
agreement dated July 19, 1993 is amended as follows:
1 . Revise the maximum amount payable under Section VI - Payment from
$39,999 to $49,824, which is an increase of $9,825.
2. Revise the expiration date of the contract under Section V - Time of
Beginning and Completion, from December 31, 1994 to December 31 ,
1995.
All other provisions of Contract Agreement CAG-93-080 dated July 19, 1993 apply to
this addendum.
EXECUTION
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum No. 1-94 to
Contract Agreement CAG-93-080 dated July 19, 1993 as of the day and year first
above-written.
CONSULTANT CITY OF RENTON
Signature Date Signature Date
Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator
Planning/Building/Public Works
Type or print name
Title
H:DOCS:94-1061 a:SW:ps
CITY OF RENTON
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
i
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR CONCURRENCE
E
DATE: December 15, 1994 i
TO: Beverly Nelson Glode
FROM: Scott Woodbury(X-5547) <:� 0
CONTACT PERSON:
SUBJECT: Addendum No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement
CAG-93-080 with Parametrix,Inc., for the Wetland Mitigation
Bank Plan Project
k
Attached for your review, changes and/or comments are copies of the following.
• Exhibit A- Scope of Work(2 pages)
• Exhibit C - Cost Estimate(1 page) i
• Commercial General Liability Coverage form regarding additional insured (1 page)
• Two Certificates of Insurance dated 10/20/94 and 12/09/94(2 pages)
The purpose of the addendum is to contract with the consultant to perform the additional work necessary
for completion of the Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan that was not provided for in the original contract
scope of work. Specifically,the additional work includes:
• assistance in coordinating with the Corps of Engineering resolution of the jurisdictional status of the
wetlands on the projedt sites,
• performing a wetland functional assessment;
• reformating the plan documents to new Department of Ecology guidelines.
Work authorized under the addendum and original contract is expected to be completed in May 1995.
The risk associated with the work to be completed is believed to be low. According to the certificates
only 30-day's prior notice will be provided. This is consistent with the certificates previously approved
for the original contract and I was not aware of the 45-day requirement when I requested updated
certificates from the consultant. For future work with Parametrix, I will see that the certificates
cancellation notice is for 45-days.
Your assistance in returning comments to me by December 21, 1994. If you have any questions or need
more information,please call me at X-5547. Thank you for your assistance.
CONCURRENCE
Name Date
H:DOCS:94-1146!:SW
Attachments
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 8, 1994
TO: File
FROM: Scott Woodbury
SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN
Budget Status
The following is a summary of the Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan budget status:
REVENUE:
1993 Budget Appropriation $45,000.00
1993 Mid-year Budget Appropriation $0.00
1994 Budget Appropriation $0.00
Transfer from Panther Creek Wetlands $20,000.00
Total: $65,000.00
COSTS/ENCUMBRANCES
1993 Soft Capital and Miscellaneous Costs $6,901 .91
Parametrix CAG-93-080 Costs $18,818.81
Parametrix CAG-93-080 Costs (Jan-Nov) $17,704.56
Parametrix CAG-93-080 Remaining Encumbrance $3,475.63
Parametrix CAG-93-080 Addendum No. 1 Pending $9,825.00
1994 Miscellaneous Costs (includes $210.99 for HEC-FFA) $222.34
NHC CAG-94-130 Encumbrance -be✓Mid $2,892.56
1994 Soft Capital Transfer (January-May) Ph Aux $1,422.04
1994 Soft Capital Transfer (June-Sept.) $190.63
1994 Soft Capital (Oct-Dec. estimated) $1 ,400.00
Total $62,853.48
CURRENT AVAILABLE BUDGET
Current Available Budget = Revenue - Costs = $65,000.00 - $62,853.48 = $2,146.52
This budget should be adequate for 1994 if execution of the pending Geotechnical
Investigations contract CAG-94-139 with Dames and Moore is delayed until after January
1 , 1995. The 1995 budget appropriation is $300,000.00 and will be used for the Dames
and Moore contract and for the design and permitting of the Wetland Mitigation Bank site 2
development.
Construction of Wetland Mitigation Bank site 2 is scheduled to occur in 1996. It is
unknown at this time how much additional revenue will be needed in the 1996 budget.
Detailed cost estimates of site 2 development being prepared by Parametrix as part of the
CAG-93-080 contract will be available in January 1995. Project cost estimates will
continue to be refined through the design phase.
H:DOCS:94-1116!:SSW
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 6, 1994
TO: Gregg Zimmerman
FROM: R s n
STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka
Scott Woodbury (X-5547)
SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
CAG-93-080 WITH PARAMETRIX, INC.
ISSUE:
The Surface Water Utility requests approval of Addendum No. 1-94 to Professional
Services Contract CAG-93-080 with Parametrix, Inc., for the Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan
Project.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Surface Water Utility recommends approval of Addendum No. 1-94 to Professional
Services Contract CAG-93-080 with Parametrix, Inc., for the Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan
Project. The contract addendum is less than $10,000 and may be signed by the
Department Administrator.
DISCUSSION:
On July 19, 1993 the City executed a professional services contract with Parametrix, Inc.,
to establish the technical and programmatic framework for the conversion of existing
upland on the two City of Renton mitigation bank sites to wetlands and for the use of
these wetlands to offset impacts to lower quality wetlands by private and public
development that may occur in the same drainage basin. The final product of the
Parametrix original contract and the proposed addendum will be a comprehensive Wetland
Mitigation Banking Program and Plan (WMBPP) document which will include an analysis of
the mitigation sites, criteria for using the sites for mitigation, master plans for wetland
creation and recreational opportunities, detailed grading and planting plans, program cost
estimates, and requirements for program operation, such as monitoring and maintenance
procedures.
Following is a brief description of the tasks included in the proposed contract addendum:
Gregg Zimmerman
Stream Monitoring and Data Analysis
Page 2
Task 1 Adjacency issue assistance and coordination. In late 1993, staff of the
Corps of Engineers visited the wetland mitigation bank sites and determined
that the existing wetlands on the sites would be ruled adjacent. Concerns
over the effect of an adjacency determination to the project and the
potential precedent it would set for future determinations within the City led
to an effort of petitioning the Corps to reconsider their decision. As a part
of that effort, the consultant was requested to review the Corps'
determination and prepare a document in support of a non-adjacency
position. Coordination on this issue culminated in a January 31, 1994
meeting with the Corps at which the Corps chose to stand by their original
decision. A complete summary of the January 31 , 1994 meeting is
documented in a February 8, 1994 memorandum to the Mayor.
Task 2 Wetland functional assessment. Based on a May 2, 1994 meeting with the
regulatory agencies, the WMBPP is to include an assessment of the
functions and values of the existing wetlands on the mitigation banking
sites. The addendum provides for Parametrix to develop a standardized
method of determining wetland function and value. The City's wetland
ordinance does not require use of a particular method, which is appropriate
for unrelated projects. However, a banking program that involves multiple
projects requires use of a specific method in order to consistently determine
debits and credits for any project that will participate in the program.
Task 3 Reformatting to new Department of Ecology guidelines. Since the original
Parametrix contract was executed, the Department of Ecology, Corps of
Engineers, and other regulatory agencies published Guidelines for Developing
Freshwater Wetland Mitigation Plan and Proposals. Task 3 provides for
Parametrix to reformat the WMBPP to conform to the guidelines which
should serve to streamline agency review of the plan.
Task 4 Coordination meetings and presentations. This task identifies meetings
involving the consultant's participation.
In additional to identifying supplemental tasks, the contract addendum extends the
contract expiration date one year from December 31, 1994 to December 31 , 1995 to
allow for completion of the work. The revised schedule of completion is included in
Exhibit B of the attached contract addendum.
The expenditure required for the proposed contract addendum is $9,825. Funding for
the contract is proposed from the Surface Water Utility capital improvement project
account budget for the wetland mitigation bank (421/600/18.596.38.65.651 19). The
unencumbered balance of the approved 1994 budget for this account is $13,259.19,
which includes the approved 1994 budget mid-year appropriation of $20,000. The
remaining 1994 budget for the wetland mitigation bank account will be used to fund
staff engineering and project management costs associated with the planning and
design of the wetland mitigation bank.
H:DOCS:94-1061:SSW:ps
Attachments
CONCURRENCE �1
CITY OF RENTON DATE
NAME R:ITll1L/D.,�
MEMORANDUM R TW21//X
e
DATE: November 17, 1994
TO: Gregg Zimmerman
FROM: Ron Olsen
STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka
Scott Woodbury (X-5547)
SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CONTRACT
CAG-93-080 WITH PARAMETRIX, INC.
ISSUE:
The Surface Water Utility requests approval of Addendum No. 1-94 to Professional
Services Contract CAG-93-080 with Parametrix, Inc., for the Wetland Mitigation Bank
Plan Project.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Surface Water Utility recommends approval of Addendum No. 1-94 to Professional
Services Contract CAG-93-080 with Parametrix, Inc., for the Wetland Mitigation Bank
Plan Project. The contract addendum is less than $10,000 and may be signed by the
Department Administrator.
DISCUSSION:
On July 19, 1993 the City executed a professional services contract with Parametrix,
Inc., to establish the technical and programmatic framework for the conversion of
existing upland on the two City of Renton mitigation bank sites to wetlands and for the
use of these wetlands to offset impacts to lower quality wetlands by private and public
development that may occur in the same drainage basin. The final product of the
Parametrix original contract and the proposed addendum will be a comprehensive
Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and Plan (WMBPP) document which will include
an analysis of the mitigation sites, criteria for using the sites for mitigation, master
plans for wetland creation and recreational opportunities, detailed grading and planting
plans, program cost estimates, and requirements for program operation, such as
monitoring and maintenance procedures.
Following is a brief description of the tasks included in the proposed contract
addendum:
F
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 29, 1994
TO: Mark Pywell
Lee Haro
Leslie Betlach
Don Erickson
FROM: Scott Woodbury Sw
SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROJECT
DRAFT OUTLINE AND
STATUS REPORT AND SCHEDULE
DRAFT OUTLINE
Attached is a copy of the draft outline for the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and
Plan (WMBPP) document. The outline is modeled after the Department of Ecology's
Guidelines for Developing Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Plan and Proposals. In an
effort to minimize the potential need for major changes to the WMBPP document
during City review, the consultant Parametrix agreed to provide an outline of the
complete preliminary draft for City review prior to submitting the full draft.
Please review the outline and provide any comments by October 4, 1994. In addition
to minimizing the potential for major changes, I would also appreciate your review of
the outline for the following reasons:
1 . You may have questions regarding the scope of the WMBPP document (or
project) that the outline may help address; and
2. You may wish to bring ideas or information to my attention for possible
inclusion in the document.
More opportunity for review and comment will be coordinated through future design
team meetings, review of the complete draft document, and other products. However,
your help in identifying major elements that may need expanding or clarification before
the complete draft is submitted is appreciated.
STATUS REPORT
Since my February 11, 1994 project update memorandum to you, the project has been
progressing slowly. The following is a brief summary of actions completed since
February 11 , 1994:
May 2, 1994 The first agency meeting for the project was held. A copy of the
meeting minutes are attached for your information.
June 16, 1994 Comments to draft chapters 1-6 of the WMBPP document were
returned to Parametrix.
Wetland Mitigation Bank Project - Status Report and Schedule
Page 2 R
August 2, 1994 Parametrix provided recommendations on the direction and scope
of the project.
Parametrix has been working on addressing the June 16, 1994 comments and will
provide a complete preliminary draft for City review once the format of the attached
outline is approved.
SCHEDULE
The project schedule is on the critical path if construction is to occur in 1995. While
the chapter on implementation in the WMBPP document (see the attached outline) will
define the scope, timing, and cost of the work needed to go to construction, I wish to
bring the following to your attention now:
1 . Construction is planned to be accomplished in two or more phases.
Construction of the southern Wetland Mitigation Bank site (Site 2) shown on
the attached map is planned to be completed in 1995 as Phase 1 . Phase 2, and
additional phases as necessary, will be used for construction of the northern
site (Site 1). The schedule for construction of Phase 2 and subsequent phases
is not determined and is dependent upon many factors, especially on whether or
not there will be a P-1 Channel adjacent to the site. These factors will be
discussed in the WMBPP document.
2. Approval of the regulatory agencies will be obtained through the Corps of
Engineers Section 404 individual permit process rather than through negotiation
of a formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). A discussion of the MOA and
404 permit options is included in the attached May 2, 1994 agency meeting
minutes.
Concurrent with work by Parametrix toward completion of the preliminary draft
WMBPP document, we will be preparing a contract addendum with Parametrix for the
development of a standardized method for determining wetland function and value.
The City's Wetlands Management Ordinance does not require use of a particular
method, which is okay for unrelated projects. However, a banking program that
involves multiple projects requires use of a specific method in order to consistently
determine debits and credits for any project that will participate in the program.
I have asked Parametrix to submit a draft contract addendum and will provide a copy
to you once it is available. The contract addendum will also clarify work remaining
under the current contract and redefine the project work schedule.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call me at X-5547.
H:D0CS:94-913:SSW:ps
CC: Ron Straka
Attachements
t
SEP-28-94 WED 9:53 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P- 01/04
Post-Its Fax Note 7671 Da goes►
a
Co..
Y j
DRAFT r5—Y:
P . Phone a�Fax ar
OUTLl�—
CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM AND PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART I MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
3.0 WETLAND ACREAGE POTENTIALLY IELIGIBLE IN BLACK RIVER
DRAINAGE BASIN FOR USE OF MITIGAT:ON BANKING PROGRAM
4.0 PRIVATE AND PUBLIC USE OF THE MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM
4.1 Eligibility Criteria
4.2 Requirements to Use the Mitigation Ban zing Program
4.2.1 Federal
4.2.2 State
4,2.3 Local
5.0 CREDIT AND DEBIT SYSTEM
6.0 FEE STRUCTURE
7.0 ADMINISTRATION OF MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM
PART II - MITIGATION BANKING PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
2.1 Site Description
2.2 Ownership
2.3 Responsible Parties
2.4 Rationale for Choice
3.0 WETLAND DELINEATIONS
r
SLF-?b-y4 WLU U:bJ N UMLI'KIX rAA NU. LUb bbd bbub r. uz/u4
DRAFT
4.0 EXISTING CONDrHONS AND ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF MITIGATION
BANKING SITES
4.1 Mitigation Bank Site 1
4.1.1 Existing Vegetation
4.1.2 Existing Water Regime
4.1.3 Existing Soils
4.1.4 Existing Fauna
4.1.5 Functions and Values
4.1.6 Water Quality
4.1.7 Buffers
4.1.8 Wetland Rating
4.1.8.1 City of Renton
4.1.8.2 Department of Ecology
4.1.9. Position and Function of Wetland in Landscape
4.2 Mitigation Bank Site 2
4.2.1 Existing Vegetation
4.2.2 Existing Water Regime
4.2.3 Existing Soils
4.2.4 Existing Fauna
4.2,5 Functions and Values
4.2.6 Water Quality
4.23 Buffers
4.2.8 Wetland Rating
4.2.8.1 City of Renton
4.2.8.2 Department of Ecology
4.2.9 Position and Function of Wetland in Landscape
5.0 MITIGATION PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
5.1 Opportunities
5.2 Constraints
5.3 Acreage and Type of Mitigation Feasible at Mitigation Banking Sites
5.4 Mitigation Sequencing
5.5 Goals
5.6 Objectives
5.6.1 Water Regimes
S.6.2 Vegetation
5.6.3 Habitat and Functional Attributes
5.7 Performance Standards of Each Objective
SKI'-28-U4 WLU y:b4 VAKAME K1X rM NU. CUb bbt bbUb r. u6lu4
DRAFT
6.0 PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS OF MITIGATION BANKING SITES
6.1 Topography
6.2 Hydrologic Structures
6.3 Source of Water
6.4 Soil and soil amendments
6.5 Proposed Plant Distribution
6.6 Section Drawings
6.7 Habitat Attributes
6.8 Buffers
6.9 Public Access
7.0 MONITORING PLAN
7.1 Vegetation
7.2 Water Regime
7.3 Soils
7.4 Fauna
7.5 Development of Habitat Structure
7.6 Water Quality
7.7 Buffers
7.8 Schedule of Reporting Monitoring Results
8.0 SITE PROTECITON
8.1 Physical
8.2 Legal
8.3 Buffers
9.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
9.1 Maintenance Schedule
9.2 Contingency Plan
9.3 Initiating Procedure
9.4 Funding
9.5 Responsible Parties
10.0 IMPLEMENTATION
10.1 Schedule
10.2 Construction
10.3 Monitoring
10.4 Reporting
10.5 Permitting Requirements
10.5.1 Federal
10.5.2 State
10.53 Local
10.6 Cost
SEP-28-94 WED 9:54 PARAME'I'RIX FAX NO, 2Ub 88U 88U8 P. U4/U4
DRAFT
11.0 PERFORMANCE BOND
List of Tables
List of Figures
Appendices
City of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance
Soil Test Location Photographs
Public Involvement
Resource and Regulatory Agency Comments
Others as appropriate
Glossary of Terms
(I'm including these at the end of the outline so they are r-ot forgotten. We still need to figure
out if they are appropriate to include in Part I or Part H)
Alternatives
1. Enhancement
2. Enlarge Site 1 or integrate with P-1 channel
3. Adding other areas to program (i.e., breach dike betwee,7 2 cells in City of Renton wetlands)
4. Preservation credits for City wetlands at 27th St.
S. Fee-in-lieu detention for zones around City wetlands a+td mitigation banking sites
MINUTES TO MEETING
AGENCY MEETING NO. 1
May 2, 1994
The first agency meeting was held at the City of Renton Community Center to
discuss the City's proposed Wetland-Mitigation Banking Program.
In attendance were the following:
Ron Straka, City of Renton Ben Meyer - NMFS
Scott Woodbury, City of Renton Eric Stockdale - WDOE
Tracey McKenzie, Parametrix Gail Terzi - Corps
Phil Schneider - WDFW T. J. Stetz - Corps
Dennis Carlson- USFWS Dick Larson - Senator Dunn's Office
MEETING MINUTES:
Ron Straka opened the meeting and defined the purpose of the meeting. Ron
identified what topics were going to be covered. Topics to be covered in this first
meeting included:
• the project history;
• goals and objectives;
• site conditions;
• alternative site designs under consideration;
• overall permitting issues; and
• establishing a process and commitment for development of an
agreement with the agencies to implement the mitigation bank.
Ron asked'that each person introduce themselves-and state their responsibilities.
Ron stated that.the City recognizes that each agency staff who will be working on
this project needs to work within their regulatory framework and that the City is not
asking for special consideration. However, the City does ask that agency staff
support and make a commitment to work positively toward the completion of a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (or surrogate for an MOA) that could serve as a
model for other communities, and work together cooperatively.
Ron then provided a brief project background that covered the following:
• In response to the Growth Management Act (GMA), the City adopted an
ordinance in 1992 that regulates activities in wetlands which recognized
mitigation banking as an alternative means of providing compensation for
wetland impacts.
• The City and Glacier Park executed an agreement which transferred two
parcels (Mitigation Banking Site 1 and 2) within the Black River Basin to the
City of Renton for use as a wetland mitigation bank.
City of Renton Proposed Wetland Mitigation Banking Program
Page 2
• Under the agreement, the City would allow the filling of up to 5.33 acres of
low quality wetland on six different parcels. Currently, 4.18 acres of
wetlands have been filled under Corps Nationwide 26 permits.
• The City would restore high quality wetlands on the mitigation bank sites to
provide mitigation for fills allowed under the agreement with Glacier Park.
Any excess wetland credits remaining on the mitigation bank sites would be
used to offset other losses to wetlands due to development in the same
drainage basin.
• The City has invested significant resources in the bank and is committed to
its implementation.
• The City has adopted a comprehensive plan in compliance with growth
management standards that seeks to protect, and if possible, enhance
natural resources.
Scott Woodbury presented the goals, objectives, and policies of the project (refer to
the goals, objectives, and policy handout distributed prior to the meeting) and
indicated that:
• The City's mitigation bank program is to be consistent with the agreement
between the City and Glacier Park, the City's wetland ordinance, and the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
• The mitigation banking program should clarify and help streamline the permit
and mitigation process.
• The intent is to implement the policy of no net loss of wetland resources in a
manner that optimizes the ecological benefits while providing a creative
solution for promoting controlled economic growth in compliance with the
requirements of the GMA.
Phil Schneider asked if the program would apply to only public projects, or to both
public and private projects. Response: Currently, the program is intended for both
public and private projects.
Scott indicated that the City would like to be under construction by next summer
(on Mitigation Banking Site 2) and that we need to map a path from now to then.
Scott provided a review of the hydrologic information about the sites and project
area (entire drainage basin). There is a lot of information on the watershed
hydrology and wetland resources within the watershed. The City has been
developing continuous simulation hydrologic (HSPF) and hydraulic (FEQ) models for
the watershed under current conditions and future development scenarios. More
detailed information will be presented as the project progresses.
City of Renton Proposed Wetland Mitigation Banking Program
Page 3
Tracey McKenzie gave a brief overview of the existing conditions (i.e., soils,
vegetation, hydrology, proximity to other habitats/wetlands) of the Mitigation
Banking sites. Refer to handouts from the meeting.
The remainder of the meeting was spent discussing a process for obtaining
agreement and approval of the agencies, anticipated permitting requirements, and
other issues. Specifically, the issues discussed are as follows:
AGENCY AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL THROUGH MOA
• Any MOA would need to be agreed to and signed by Corps headquarters.
• There is a draft National Policy of Mitigation Banking being reviewed by the
federal agencies. It is possible that if the City elected to have an MOA with
the agencies and the National Policy is issued, the project would be subject
to the provisions and requirements of the National Policy.
• If the City wants an MOA with the agencies, the Corps would likely become
the lead agency and the City would have less control over the mitigation
bank.
• Under the MOA scenario, an interagency team would end up deciding
whether projects required to provide mitigation as a condition of permit are
eligible to use the mitigation bank.
AGENCY AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL THROUGH THE 404 PROCESS
An alternative to the MOA was to establish a mitigation agreement as part of the
404 process and permit needed for restoring wetlands on the mitigation bank sites.
Under this scenario, the City could have more control over the management and use
of the bank. The agencies would approve the mitigation sites as projects in and of
themselves through the 404 process, but that would not guarantee that future
potential users of the mitigation bank sites will make it through the permit process
and be eligible for using the mitigation bank. The City needs to decide how they
want to have the program structured and what type of agreement they want.
OTHER ISSUES/ITEMS IDENTIFIED AND BRIEFLY DISCUSSED
• Irrespective of whether the City decides to develop a formal MCA with the
agencies or a mitigation agreement as part of the 404 permit process, the
Washington State Department of Transportation MOA could be used as a
model.
• Ben Meyer indicated that the City may need to mitigate for impacts to any
existing wetlands on the site that would be affected by the
restoration/creation action to establish mitigation banks.
• Ron Straka indicated that the demand for developable sites is high. He knew
of 6 sites in high demand as well as other parcels. Currently, the going rate is
City of Renton Proposed Wetland Mitigation Banking Program
Page 4
about $4.00 to $5.00 per square foot of developable land. We should not
get caught up in the number game when it comes to looking at impacts,
losses and gains. Again, keep in mind the existing functions, the functions
to be gained, and the goal of achieving a true "no-net loss" of wetlands.
• Eric Stockdale indicated the need to look at the project from a landscape and
watershed perspective and consider what is being put back that was
historically lost. Also, we need to consider the additional functions that can
be gained by this action.
• The Corps indicated that when they go out for public notice they will want to
include information on the existing functions and the functions proposed.
The City will need to decide on a methodology that will provide this type of
information. Tracey asked if the agencies had a particular preference for a
method. Everyone agreed that there are several available that there is not
one particular agreed-to method, and that we (the City and the consultant)
need to identify what method we are going to use. We responded that was
acceptable but we did not want to get into a situation where we use one
method and have comments come back later in the process saying we should
have used another method. The City and their consultant will discuss which
method or combination of methods would be suitable for these sites. A
standardized form could be developed for whichever method or combination
of methods is used so that it may be applied now and many years from now.
• Tracey went over the three overheads (also a handout) that described the
federal, state, and local permits that may be needed for the project. In
general, she asked the federal and state agency representatives if all the
potential federal and state permits were identified and correct. Eric
Stockdale needs to check on whether a water rights permit is necessary and
about a dam safety permit. The agencies recommended that the City include
the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe in the development of the Wetland Mitigation
Banking Program.
The meeting was brought to a close and the City indicated that agency staff will be
contacted at least three weeks in advance of the second agency meeting.
H:DOCS:94-602:SSW:ps
i
AUG- 2-94 TUE 11 :20 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P. 01/16
iq Post-it'Fax Note 7671 Dale peges� s'�
To From Y�LeQif 5 /✓' C�j
kud t 1 t�
( { P`C' r/a co./D C
��✓r4 jl' �^ Phone# Ph.)ne#
1v l:t" Fa c q
MEMORANDUM
to: Scott Woodbury gust 1, 1994
from: Tracey Mckenzie AUG 2 - 1994
re: Cityof Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan CITY ee RENTOt.
g Engineering Dept.
My thoughts on direction, what need to happen, and changes in scope of work
1. Revise chapters 1-6 (delete chapter 3)
2. Prepare technical mitigation plan using the Washington Department of Ecology
Guidelines for Developing Wetland Mitigation Plan Proposals
3. Finalize draft programmatic mitigation plan. This deals with how it will be
administered, Some of the issues identified in chapter 3 relate to the administration
of the bank. I need to know if the City agrees with the recommendations so that I
can incorporate them into this section.
4. In lieu of a draft MOA as a product - we should consider using the mitigation plan
kp as the basis for getting a 404 permit. I believe both you and Ron agree that the City
should use the 404 permitting process as a way to get buy off from the agencies on
a mitigation bank versus a MOA with an oversite committee.
5. Overall site plans for each site have been prepared. It does not seem feasible (from
a cost perspective) to develop a third alternative showing just a portion (5.33 acres
1-1 for Glacier Park impacts) of site 2 being alterec'. Instead the site plan showing the
complete build out of site 2 appears to be the plan that the City and agencies were
interested in.
6. For the purposes of permitting the sites (in part;cular Site 2) it is important to have
a conceptual grading plan showing the new elevations and planting plan (these are
on the figures produced by Talasea). The detail-A grading and planting plan should
be prepared concurrent with or following permit approval from the Corps. Decent
conceptual and detailed drawings for Site 1 should be prepared after additional
information is collected on the site. The conceptual plan prepared for site 1 is
s
AUG- 2-94 TUE 11 :21 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 02/16
to: Scott Woodbury
from: Tracey Mckenzie
August 1, 1994
Page 2
adequate considering the data that available to use.
7. An assessment of functions of the existing wetland communities on the two sites
needs to be completed. An assessment of functions that we anticipate following
construction of the banks also needs to be prepared. This will be needed for permit
approval. I recommend that for the purposes of permitting, we use WET II to
iy c, evaluate existing and proposed functions. Thi., is the method that the Corps has
typically used and will rely to support the permit application. However, WET II
should be used along with a modified version of the Washington Department of
vS Ecology's Characterization Inventory forms that assess wetland condition, habitat
L value, hydrologic features, and cultural features (original Ecology forms and modified
t ►-j forms attached for your information). Please note that Ecology's inventory forms do
not allow you to come up with a final rating of i ow, medium, high, or 1, 2, or 3; the
Nil modified version does. All we did was put numbers to Ecology's parameters to allow
you to come up with a rating. The results fram the modified version would be
\4� v evaluated in the context of the WET II results. Together the results from WET II
V and the modified Ecology form can be used to determine existing and proposed
a functions and values.
This is an out-of-scope activity. The cost for completing the functional assessments
�s for existing and proposed conditions of the sites along with interpretation is
$ 5,648.00 (assumes 7 days). They can be completed in a relatively short period of
time (within 5 to 6 working days). If the City determines that it is necessary to
complete a functional assessment on the Glacier Park sites that were permitted under
Nationwide 26, additional time and labor woul-I be necessary (estimated to take 2
additional days ($1,328.00). However, I'm not convinced that doing a functional
assessment on sites that have already been permitted will be to your advantage.
Maybe you should consider using a strict acreage replacement for the Glacier Park
site and a combination of acreage and function to determine appropriate mitigation
,taio$ for future development proposals.
-4 pet'heds for the purposes of permitting this project then the Corps
I&M method to be used by &-velopers to assess the functions of
' These methods wN also need to be used as part of
�`� of the constructed' .ems over time. VET II can be
#no must wa444 4x*" ng firms who do wetland work
00 NVET II. It is aot#a 40cult to use. Ecology's
r
AUG- 2-94 TUE 11 :22 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 03/16
to: Scott Woodbury
from: Tracey Mckenzie
August 1, 1994
Page 3
wetland characterization forms are available from Ecology and most wetland
consultants use these or modified versions (li}.e ours). The City could consider
adopting the modified version we have developE.d and used on several projects, and
make the modified version available to developers.
8. Another out-of-scope activity that has already occurred is assisting the City on the
adjacency issue. I recognize that we may not be able to recover these costs but I
wanted you to be aware of what those costs were. For Parametrix the costs were for
36 hours ($2,988.00) and $ 2,025.00 for Talasea for a total of $5,013.00. This
included writing up information, talking to resou rces agencies and coordinating with
the City,
9. As soon as the City authorizes work to proceec with the functional analyses, I will
start work on them. In the mean time I am revising the chapters you had comments
on and have started revising the mitigation plan to put it in the format of Ecology's
guidelines. This will add some time (about 2 days - 1 day for me and 1 for my
technical assistant) to prepare the mitigation plan. Using their format (which was
signed off on by all the pertinent agencies) should help in the review of the permit
application.
10. The technical and programmatic plan along with revised chapters you reviewed once
will be submitted to you between September 5 and 15. Following City review, we
will finalize the document for the City.
Please call me at (206) 828-4202, extension 3459 to discuss.
WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROGRAM
AGENCY MEETING NO. I
MAY 2, 1994
STAFF AT MEETING
Ron Straka
Scott Woodbury
Tracey McKenzie
MATERIALS AND SETUP FOR MEETING
Materials
aerial photograph of valley area
display maps of site plan alternatives
overheads
agenda
goals, objectives,and policies
wetland inventory and summary table
remaining activities and schedule gantt chart
figures of bank sites 1 and 2
figure of wetland inventory and summary table
figures of entire watershed and tributary area to bank sites 1 and 2
regulatory permit table
easel,paper, and markers
Setup
Chairs around a central table for"roundtable discussion"
OPENING- Ron Straka
Meeting purpose(refer to agenda)
Summary
1. convey information on
the project background
city goals,objectives,and policies
existing site conditions
alternatives under consideration
2. establish process and commitment for development of an MOA
3. overview permitting issues
Comments/expectations
Recognize that each individual who will be signing the agreement has to work within their regulatory
framework and that we are not asking for special consideration,but for their:
a) commitment and support to work positively toward the completion a memorandum of agreement
for the establishment and implementation of the City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank
b) provide a model for other communities
c) work together cooperatively/teamwork
T
BACKGROUND-Ron Straka
Refer to time line handout
Refer to aerial display
Briefly provide a o al ov iew of the history of the City wetland mitigation bank and agreement
with glacier park,the City comprehensive plan,and the wetland ordinance.
Conclusions
1. the city has invested significant resources in the bank and is committed to its implementation
2. the wetland mitigation bank parcels have already been established
3. the city has an obligation to fulfill under its agreement with glacier park(presently only 4.1
acres)
4. the city has a wetlands ordinance regulating activities in wetlands
5. the city has adopted a comprehensive plan in compliance with growth management for
responsible growth that seeks to protect and, if possible,enhance natural resources
GOALS,OBJECTIVES,AND POLICIES-Scott Woodbury
Refer to goals,objectives,and policies handout
Refer to remaining activities and schedule handout
Overview the goals,objectives,and policies and suggest adding to the objectives to clarify that the project is
also to:
a. promotes economic development in areas already served by infrastructure while protecting
wetlands function and values(comprehensive plan)
b. establish functioning compensatory mitigation in advance of unavoidable loss of wetland
C. consolidate mitigation for impacts to smaller,scattered wetlands into a larger,contiguous parcel
d. reduce regulatory uncertainty and increase the potential for successful mitigation
e. provide a more cost-effective solution for wetland impact mitigation
Conclusions
l. the city mitigation bank program is to be consistent with the glacier park agreement,wetlands
ordinance, and comp plan
2. the wetland mitigation bank program is to clarify and streamline the mitigation process
3. implement the policy of no net loss of wetland resources in a manner that optimizes the
ecological benefits while providing a creative solution for promoting controlled economic growth
in compliance with the requirements of GMA
BASELINE CONDITIONS-Tracey McKenzie and Scott Woodbury
Refer to figures of bank sites 1 and 2
Refer to figure of wetland inventory and summary table
Refer to figures of entire watershed and tributary area to bank sites 1 and 2
Scott will first briefly overview the hydrologic setting for the watershed and the bank sites. Tracey will
briefly overview the wetland communities and categorization of the bank sites and City of Renton wetland
inventory area.
Conclusion
1. wealth of information on the watershed hydrology and wetland resources
SITE PLANS-Tracey McKenzie
Brief review of the site plan alternatives for conversion of the sites.
Conclusion
1. potential for meeting the goal and objectives of the wetland mitigation bank program(creating
new wetland acreage and improving the function and values of the existing wetlands etc)
ESTABLISH PROCESS AND COMMITMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOA-ALL
(Tracey McKenzie,facilitator)
Using an easel for all to see, record the process as it is formulated by the group.
Briefly discuss the process used for WSDOT agreement and how the process can be adapted and improved
upon for this project.
Process(below is a potential scenario for the process)
I. Using the WSDOT agreement as a model,prepare and circulate for comment: a)outline of
proposed agreement; b)preliminary draft scope,purpose(goal), and objectives of the agreement;
c)preliminary goals and objectives of the program.
2. Meeting No.2: a)finalize the agreement outline,scope,purpose,and objectives;b)discuss each
remaining item of the outline to define focus of preliminary draft.
3. Prepare preliminary draft of the agreement and circulate for comment.
4. Meetings No. 3 and 4 to resolve any concerns with the preliminary draft.
5. Submit revised preliminary draft for final approval of staff. Once approved,then circulate draft
agreement for formal concurrence of administration, legal review(City Council, Corps Chief of
Regulatory,etc)
6. Revise draft to address comments from administrative and legal review. Meeting No. 5, if needed,
to resolve any comments from administrative review.
7. Final agreement document circulated for signature.
Have brainstorming session to list suggestions that would facilitate reaching agreement.
Establish Communications
Future meetings-when,where(commitment to attend important)
Agenda and minutes-circulate draft and final agenda prior to each meeting
Follow-up phone call for those not in attendance
Written review of documents in a timely manner
Dispute resolution process to ensure timely review
Other suggestions to improved and timely communication
Conclusion
1. ability to formulate and agree to process and communication demonstrates support and a desire
to work cooperatively toward reaching agreement.
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS-Tracey McKenzie
Refer to overhead of regulatory permit table
Overview the permit requirements for implementation and discuss.
Conclusion
1. the project must pass through extensive regulatory review and any assistance to expedite review
appreciated.
r
FOLLOW-UP
Meeting minutes will be prepared by Tracey and submitted to the City for review and distribution to the
agencies.
Other follow-up needs will be defined in the meeting.
CITY OF RENTON
SURFACE WATER UTILITY
WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROGRAM
AGENCY MEETING
May 2, 1994
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION: Ron Straka, City of Renton Surface Water Utility Engineering
Supervisor.
Introduce yourself by giving your name, the agency that you
represent and what you see as being your agency's role as it
relates to this project.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this meeting is:
I To provide information about and discuss with you the proposed Wetland
Mitigation Bank Program.
II To gain regulatory support for this approach to wetlands management.
III To establish principles and procedures to be used in the implementation and
operation of the City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank to allow the issuance
of the required permits for the construction of the Wetland Mitigation Bank
through a Memorandum of Agreement with the appropriate resource
agencies.
EXPECTIONS:
We recognize that each individual agency involved in this project has to work within
their regulatory framework and we are not asking for special consideration, but for
their:
a) Commitment and support to work positively toward the establishment and
implementation of the City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank
b) Work together cooperatively/teamwork
c) Provide a model for other communities
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project consists of mitigating for wetland impacts within the Basin by creating
wetlands on two sites where uplands currently exist and enhancing existing
wetlands on the two sites to create larger, contiguous wetlands of higher function
and value.
BACKGROUND:
I As part of the Growth Management Act requirement, the City of Renton
conducted an inventory of wetlands within the City and adopted a Wetland
Management Ordinance in March of 1992. The ordinance requires the use of
the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
May 2, 1994
Page 2
Wetlands. The ordinance requires that filled wetland be replaced in equal or
greater acreages even if it is less than one acre (No Net Loss)
II In May of 1992 the City signed a Wetland Mitigation Banking Agreement with
the Glacier Park Company. Under the agreement, the City was given two
parcels of land totaling 45 acres with existing wetlands on 25.55 acres of the
two sites and the remaining area on the two sites containing 19.35 acres of z�
uplands. In return, the Glacier Park Company was permitted to fill up to 0.99
acres of wetlands on six separate parcels land for a total of 4.11 acres in
accordance with an Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide #26 permit and the
City of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance. The agreement resulted
because the Glacier Park Company was liquidating all land holding and going
out of business. The City is responsible for mitigation for the 4.11 acres of
filled wetlands on these six parcels. The Agreement allows for a total of 5.33
acres of wetlands to be fill, but additional permits are required prior to being
allowed to fill (predischarge Notification, Individual 404 permit)
III The implementation of Wetland Mitigation Banking is a recommendation of the
City's Comprehensive Plan and will help achieve the goals of Growth
Management for increased density in Urban areas with out the loss of
wetlands functions, values and acreages
SUMMARY:
1. The City has invested significant resources in the bank and is committed to its
implementation and success.
2. The wetland mitigation bank parcels have already been established
3. The City has an obligation to fulfill under its agreement with the Glacier Park
Company (presently only 4.11 acres)
4. The City has a wetlands ordinance regulating activities in wetlands.
5. The City has adopted a comprehensive plan in compliance with growth
management for responsible growth that seeks to protect and, if possible,
enhance natural resources.
6. The City wants to work cooperatively with all of the agencies responsible for
regulating wetlands, to allow for the implementation of the Wetland Mitigation
Banking Program in an efficient and cost effective manner. We cannot do this
without your support and help.
CONCLUSION:
Now Scott Woodbury will present the an overview of City goals, objectives, and
policies that relate to the Wetland Mitigation Bank Program.
D:Vstraka\swucip\brwgmp\wetbank.doc
RECEIVED
PUBLIC 'OR"S DEPT.
the ie,i1 3 u, ITY OF RENTON
Wetslandbank stores mitigation credits
PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. (PRN)—A wetlands bank has been es-
tablished by a private organization in Florida to mitigate for the en-
vironmental losses incurred during development.
Clients purchase credits in the Florida Wetlandsbank in return for
the development of their land.
Permitting agencies determine eligibility and the number of cred-
its needed to mitigate for a development. The project is funded
solely by mitigation credit sales, with a trust fund established by the
partnership ensuring perpetual maintenance.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has approved the practice.
Work is underway at Florida Wetlandsbank's first bank site. Envi-
ronmental consultants are designing, permitting and constructing an
ecosystem with mixed habitats typical of the Everglades and a lim-
ited passive park.The partnership will maintain the wetlands for five
years after planting, then return responsibility to the city of
Pembroke Pines.
01 /
l.�
V -
r
CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY CENTER
1715 MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY,RENTON,WA 98055
WEEKLY RENTAL APPLICATION
• (Monday- Thursday)
PLEASE PRINT
Rental Request(circle one): Banquet Room Arts&Crafts A Arts &Crafts B Kids Korner
Rental Day(s): Dates: Time: r to 3:3 ci
Applicant: Phone (day) (evening)
Address: Street City Zip
Type of Function(circle one): Social Meeting Banquet Other
Estimated number of guests: adults minors Will alcohol be served? Yes No[_J
Will decorations be used? Yes [ ] No[ ] Is yes,what type
Caterers Name (if applicable): Phone:
Will a fee be charged? Yes [_J No " If yes, explain:
Set up requirements:
AGREEMENT: The undersigned hereby makes application to RENTON PARK DEPARTMENT for use of RENTON PARK
facilities described above and certifies that the information given in the application is correct. The undersigned further states
that he/she has the authority to make this application for the applicant and agrees that the applicant will observe all rules and
regulations of the RENTON PARK BOARD. The applicant agrees to exercise the utmost care in the use of the PARK premises
and property and to save the RENTON PARK DEPARTMENT harmless from all liability resulting from the use of said
facilities and further agrees to use only those facilities indicated above. Applicant further agrees to read and abide by the Rules
and Regulations.
No alcohol is allowed for anyone under 21 years of age. Renters are responsible for anyone leaving the function under the
influence of alcohol and/or drugs. The Renton Police Department will be called if any illegal situations occur on the premises.
Applicant Signature Date
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Rental Fee: $ Approved: Yes LJ No Li
Damage Deposit $
Additional Fees: $
Insurance Fee: $ There is a W.00 non-refundable cancellation fee for the banquet room.
Total Payment: $ Final Payment/Set-up Sheets Due:
•
Staff Signature: Date:
The Renton Parks&Recreation Department and/or its staff or personnel are not responsible for lost or stolen articles.
White copy.Office;Yellow copy:Facilities;Pink copy:Applicant
A
CONCURRENCE
DATE
N ME INITIAL/DATE
}
March 31, 1994
Mr. Richard Larsen, Operations Director
8th District
50 - 1 16th SE
Bellevue, WA 98004
SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM
STATUS REPORT
Dear Mr. Larsen:
The City of Renton is working to establish a wetland mitigation banking program that
will result in no net loss of wetlands and create large, continuous wetlands of higher
quality on City property in the Black River drainage basin. These created wetlands will
be used to offset impacts to lower quality wetlands by private and public development
that may occur in the same drainage basin. The wetland mitigation banking program
provides a creative solution to preserving, and potentially improving, valuable wetland
resources while promoting controlled economic growth in compliance with the
requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act.
Enclosed for your information is a copy of a status report for the project. There are
many issues involved in setting up a wetland mitigation bank. The success of the
wetland mitigation bank depends upon reaching agreement with the Corps of Engineers
and other regulatory agencies on what can and cannot be done.
As discussed in the attached status report, the issue of adjacency is of great concern.
Under an adjacency determination a Section 404 individual permit would be required
for any development project with impact to wetlands, regardless of the wetland size or
value. The Corps indication that all other wetlands within the valley could likely be
considered adjacent may negate the whole concept of the banking program as we have
little confidence that there would be any demand for the wetland mitigation bank. This
is because the cost involved in processing a 404 individual permit with little assurance
of success leads developers to look at other sites in other cities.
It is difficult to dispute an adjacency determination because the Corps practice is to
make these determinations on a case-by-case basis according to criteria not available
for public review. Therefore, even if agreement on the wetland mitigation bank
program could be/esaabhsh-e-d' v h the Corps and other agencies, the potential for
recovery of imple entation costs i� highly uncertain.
We have electedLrps
4�for and with the wetland mitigation banking program and
hope that the Cdirecti s on adjacency will change later this year through the
J
current reauthorization process for the Clean Water Act. However, without some
assurance of adequate demand for the bank we are concerned that the cost of
developing and implementing the wetland mitigation bank may not be economical
feasible.
Your support is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Ron Straka at (206)
277-5548 or Scott Woodbury at (206) 277-5547.
Sincerely,
Earl Clymer
Mayor
H:DOCS:94-:SSW:ps
CC: Gregg Zimmerman
Ron Straka
Scott Woodbury
Enclosures
CONCURRENCE
DATE -= 2.
NAME INITIAVDATE
March 31, 1994 ,�� 77— it 37/
Mr. Mike Kreidler, Congressman ------.-
9th District
P.O. Box 4839
Federal Way, WA 98063
SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM
STATUS REPORT
Dear Congressman Kreidler:
The City of Renton is working to establish a wetland mitigation banking program that
will result in no net loss of wetlands and create large, continuous wetlands of higher
quality on City property in the Black River drainage basin. These created wetlands will
be used to offset impacts to lower quality wetlands by private and public development
that may occur in the same drainage basin. The wetland mitigation banking program
provides a creative solution to preserving, and potentially improving, valuable wetland
resources while promoting controlled economic growth in compliance with the
requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act.
Enclosed for your information is a copy of a status report for the project. There are
many issues involved in setting up a wetland mitigation bank. The success of the
wetland mitigation bank depends upon reaching agreement with the Corps of Engineers
and other regulatory agencies on what can and cannot be done.
As discussed in the attached status report, the issue of adjacency is of great concern.
Under an adjacency determination a Section 404 individual permit would be required
for any development project with impact to wetlands, regardless of the wetland size or
value. The Corps indication that all other wetlands within the valley could likely be
considered adjacent may negate the whole concept of the banking program as we have
little confidence that there would be any demand for the wetland mitigation bank. This
is because the cost involved in processing a 404 individual permit with little assurance
of success leads developers to look at other sites in other cities.
It is difficult to dispute an adjacency determination because the Corps practice is to
make these determinations on a case-by-case basis according to criteria not available
for public review. Therefore, even if agreement on the wetland mitigation bank
program could :7NVViv9
ith the Corps and other agencies, the potential for
recovery of imp 1� highly uncertain.
We have electe d with the wetland mitigation banking program and
hope that the n adjacency will change later this year through the
Mike Kreidler
Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan
Status Report Page 2
current reauthorization process for the Clean Water Act. However, without some
assurance of adequate demand for the bank we are concerned that the cost of
developing and implementing the wetland mitigation bank may not be economical
feasible.
Your support is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Ron Straka at (206)
277-5548 or Scott Woodbury at (206) 277-5547.
Sincerely,
Earl Clymer
Mayor
H:DOCS:94-323a:SSW:ps
CC: Gregg Zimmerman
Ron Straka
Scott Woodbury
Enclosures
F CONCURRENCES
WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN DATE 31L Y
STATUS REPORT NAME� INITIAL DAD '
5Qt? w �.
MARCH 31, 1994 �� ,--�--- 59
0
A. BACKGROUND
On May 18, 1992 the City executed a wetland mitigation banking agreement with t -_ , J
Company, as authorized by the City Council. Under this agreement, the City was given two
properties totaling 45 acres in exchange for permits to fill up to 0.99 acre of low quality wetlands on
each of six other Glacier Park parcels. The City also agreed to pay for and complete on the
mitigation bank sites any mitigation for impacts on the Glacier Park parcels required by the City of
Renton Wetlands Management Ordinance, although no mitigation for the fill was required by the
Army Corps of Engineers. After fulfilling the requirements of the Glacier Park agreement, the City will
use the remaining available acreage on the mitigation sites to mitigate for wetland impacts from other
projects.
B. ACTIVITIES COMPLETED TO-DATE
In July 1993 the City executed a contract with Parametrix, Inc., to establish the technical and
programmatic framework for the conversion of existing uplands on the City mitigation bank site to
wetlands, and for the use of the created wetlands as compensation for other wetland impacts within
the watershed, including the impacts permitted by the City under agreement to Glacier Park (up to
5.33 acres). Using information provided by the City on conditions within the watershed and on the
wetland mitigation bank sites, combined with on-site visits and soil exploration, the consultant
prepared exhibits for presentation in public meetings. The exhibits included: 1) existing conditions of
the bank sites and surrounding area; 2) preliminary goals, objectives, and policies for the wetland
mitigation bank program; 3) the regulatory permit process; and 4) comparison of advance and
concurrent compensation of wetland impacts.
Two public meetings were held in late October 1993 to invite comment on the proposed wetland
mitigation bank project from interested individuals, groups, property owners, and developers.
General support of the project was expressed. Issues discussed focused around the scope of
improvements, the potential for successful wetland creation, and the details on the implementation
and operation of the bank.
A subsequent meeting with regulatory agencies scheduled for early November 1993 had to be
canceled because of a labor strike by City union employees. The decision was made to not
reschedule the agency meeting until a separate meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers could be
arranged to discuss concerns with the Corps expressed intent to issue an adjacency jurisdictional
determination for the wetlands within the mitigation bank sites. Because of the authority granted the
Corps by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act to regulate activities within wetlands,
identification of the jurisdictional status was needed. This would establish Corps permitting
requirements associated with alternative site specific plans for converting the existing uplands on the
bank sites to wetlands and potentially restoring the existing wetlands.
A meeting could not be arranged until late January 1994 with Tom Mueller, Chief of the Corps
Regulatory Branch in Seattle, and supporting staff. The response of the Corps may be summarized
into the following main points of the meeting:
1. The Corps will not reconsider the adjacency ruling on the wetland mitigation bank sites. Surface
hydrology to Springbrook Creek was deemed to be irrelevant. Other issues were noted to be of
more importance to the Corps, such as wetland evaluation methods, performance standards,
wetland compensation credit withdrawal procedures, and other bank operation issues.
Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan Status Report as of March 31, 1994
Page 2
2. The Corps did a poor job of determining adjacency in the past and would not make the same
ruling for previous determinations if made today. Although determinations are made on a case-
by-case basis only, the Corps speculated that most, if not all, of the valley would be ruled
adjacent based upon currently used criteria.
3. The Corps published criteria for determining adjacency is very broad and vague. In an effort to
facilitate consistent determinations, the Corps Seattle branch uses a supplemental, multi-
parameter checklist. However, the checklist is for internal use only and is not available to the
public.
4. The Corps permitting authority is currently under review and may change within a year in a way
that will do away with adjacency rulings. The following comparison table illustrates the changes
regarding thresholds for impacting wetlands:
Current Thresholds Proposed Thresholds
Regional Permit 0.0- 1.0 acres. Isolated 0.0 - 0.5 acres for any wetland.
(Nationwide) wetlands only.
Regional Permit With 1.0 -2.0 acres. Isolated 0.5- 3.0 acres for any wetland.
Pre-discharge wetlands only.
Notification
Individual Permit Over 2.0 acres for isolated Over 3.0 acres for any
(Requires alternatives wetlands. wetland.
analysis) Over 0.0 acres for adjacent
wetlands below the
headwaters.
5. Any impacts to existing wetlands on the wetland mitigation bank sites will require a 404 individual
permit. An August 23, 1993 Regulatory Guidance Letter and an October 25, 1993 Draft
Mitigation Banking Guidance Document will be used by the Corps to formulate the individual
permit conditions. The Corps recommended initiating, as soon as possible, the process of
developing a multi-agency agreement regarding the wetland mitigation bank. The agreement
would spell out mitigation and specifically what can and cannot be done in the use of the sites as
compensation for other wetland impacts. The Corps indicated that the bank sites could be used
as compensation for a multi-acre wetland impacts due to a single project, although the Corps
would prefer compensation for many separate and smaller impacts.
6. The Corps 404 individual permit process requires evaluation of alternatives. In general, on-site
mitigation is favored over off-site mitigation.
7. The Corps generally supports the mitigation banking program, but foresees many hurdles and a
minimum of a year long process in obtaining a final inter-agency agreement. A copy of an
agreement between the Washington State Department of Transportation and wetland resource
agencies that is pending execution was provided. The agreement was noted as a potential
model for a similar agreement between the City and wetland resources agencies for the City
wetland mitigation bank project.
Due to the significant effort and cost already expended in acquiring the wetland mitigation bank sites
and in establishing a wetland mitigation banking program, work on the project will continue. Letters of
invitation to the representatives of the regulatory agencies are being prepared to reschedule the
agency meeting and initiate the process of creating a wetland mitigation bank agreement.
Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan Status Report as of March 31, 1994
Page 3
C. REMAINING ACTIVITIES AND SCHEDULE
Agency and public meetings. Qtr 2, 1994
Draft wetland mitigation plan completed. Agency meetings. Qtr 3, 1994
Final plan complete, preliminary design drawings completed. Qtr 4, 1994
Draft agency agreement completed. Submit for SEPA review and
permits.
Qtr 1, 1995
SEPA completed. Local land use permits issued.
Qtr 2, 1995
Federal 404 and State permits issued, final design completed.
Construction permits issued.
Qtr 3, 1995
Construction completed.
H:DOCS:94-322:SSW:ps
GREGG'S ACTION MEMO
TO: Z y J y ❑ Please Call ROUTE TO:
�jJ �� DATE: S
�7 o� Q For your Information
ISSUE/CONCERN: lb , l For Action
❑ For Signature y
°`� 'c��-� C� ❑ Your Recommendation
GOAL/ ❑ Per our Conversation I
PREFERRED OUTCOME: Q Q Per your Request
16,h ❑ Copies Sent to ,
SPECIFIC DO'S OR DON'TS:
FOLLOW UP:
U!'J e ��-� � d P��V� ❑ TICKLER FILE (date)
r Z��a C C�P�� � �1 �. � �i ❑ COMPLETED
r (date)
RESULTS:
DUE DATE:
focrosAag/ACTMEMO.DOCMG/bh 6771 T/L— 1172,117
L'; Y
1
-...,. �_ .._...-... ...... .++.a.......w...KwVa'.:y.iK6�il!aLWM1•....w r. .. w � _
1
' THE CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF I
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
FOURTH FLOOR
200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH I W
RE-NTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 '
FAX TRANSMITTAL
DATE:
TO: Mfst&4 LyNNf /Yllet FAX#: 2�- 75-3-2f'SO
FROM: SC�JT w 000 g unit PHONE#: 2 77 - 55y7
SUBJECT: (,��i�.g,�r� ✓r, tf/(. ATrdrj iK4m( l°v- rao t r
ATT-Ac k' is /¢A yawl- 91 A utpr ; ------ --
/, fL>$ R/ 19911, •-r4,vLo fl4x-. GA"G -'7- ro r-^yog CLy.4A
Z fk*g /�)41H plio, To pf sfG,j 7ZA-W
�, F.t-gi8,� o� (c-,a c�,�,c ►��* � �n N eLp>NGr w/ T�gig e� �.�� S
Number of pagcs cxcluding cover shccc I d
A X( ()V1 I( 1)O( ;,:,
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 1 1 , 1994
TO: Leslie Betlach
Mary Lynne Myer
Mark Pywell
David Saxon
Lee Haro
FROM: Scott Woodbury 5
SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN PROJECT
PROJECT UPDATE
We met as a design team on December 13, 1993 to review the preliminary draft of
Chapter 1-6 of the Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan document. Our latest meeting was
on December 14, 1993 with the project consultants to review conceptual site plans
for wetland creation on the wetland mitigation bank sites. It was concluded at the
meeting that the conceptual site plans would be acceptable for presentation to the
public and agencies as preliminary alternatives. However, we have yet to schedule
these meetings because a separate meeting with the Corps of Engineers was to be
held first regarding the wetland adjacency issue. The Corps was not able to meet with
us until January 31 , 1994.
Attached is a copy of a February 8, 1994 memorandum from Gregg Zimmerman to
Mayor Clymer for your review. It summarizes the January 31 , 1994 meeting with the
Corps and the corresponding implications to our wetland mitigation bank project.
Three options for continuing the project were presented in the memorandum for the
consideration of City management. It is anticipated that City management will be
meeting next week to discuss the options. I will inform you of the meeting time and
date once it has been determined. Gregg has said that he will ensure that all City
departments with interest in the project are involved.
Because of the requirement to satisfy City's obligations agreed to in the Glacier Park
Agreement and the City Wetland Management Ordinance, we will continue with the
preparation of the Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan. I will proceed with arrangement of
the agency and public meetings for sometime in mid-March 1994. We need at least a
one-month lead to ensure that the agency representatives are able to attend.
February 11, 1994
Page 2
In preparation of these meetings, please find attached the following revised drawings
for your review and comment:
Site 1 - Moderate Impact Option. Revised January 24, 1994.
Site 2 - Low Impact Option. Revised January 24, 1994.
Site 2 - High Impact Option. Revised January 24, 1994.
Because the drawings have been revised, please take another look at them and return
any comments by February 28, 1994. These drawings are only preliminary and
another revision prior to the agency meeting is not planned, unless in your review you
determine that you don't want some element shown to the public. Please keep in
mind that we don't have to decided the final configuration now. The plans are
purposely noted as options to allow the agencies and the public to provide input that
may be used to define the final alternative to be selected.
The drawing for site 2 has been completely revised to correct the topography for the
site, which was incorrectly shown in the first version presented by our consultants on
December 14, 1993. Because the project schedule has slipped due to the City Union
strike and the difficulty in scheduling a meeting with the Corps of Engineers, we will
not be doing any construction in 1994. With no further delays, we hope to be able to
go to construction in 1995.
1 will continue to keep you informed as progress on the project continues. If you have
any questions, please call me at X-5547.
H:UTIL/S W/WTL-TEAMS S W:1 f
Attachments
cc: Ron Straka
� A
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 8, 1994
TO: Mayor Earl Clymer
Jay Covington
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman �y
STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka (X-5548)
Scott Woodbury (X-5547)
SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF JANUARY 31, 1994 MEETING WITH ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS REGARDING WETLAND ADJACENCY DETERMINATIONS
This memorandum is submitted as requested to summarize the January 31, 1994 meeting with the Corps
of Engineers, and to outline conclusions to be drawn from the meeting regarding the City wetland
mitigation bank project. A brief background of the wetland mitigation bank project and the events
leading up to the January 31, 1994 meeting is also included.
BACKGROUND:
On May 18, 1992 the City executed a wetland mitigation banking agreement with the Glacier Park
Company, as authorized by the City Council. Under this agreement, the City was given mitigation bank
sites 1 and 2 (Exhibit 1) in exchange for permits to fill up to 0.99 acre of low quality wetlands on each of
six other Glacier Park parcels. The City also agreed to pay for and complete on the mitigation bank sites
any City-required mitigation for impacts on the Glacier Park parcels. After fulfilling the requirements of
the Glacier Park agreement, the City will use the remaining available acreage on the mitigation sites to
mitigate for wetland impacts from other projects.
In December 1992 the City Council adopted the 1993 budget. The budget included appropriation for the
wetland mitigation bank plan. On July 19, 1993 the City executed a consulting contract with Parametrix,
Inc., to establish the technical and programmatic framework for the conversion of existing uplands on the
City mitigation bank sites to wetlands, and use of the created wetlands as compensation for the Glacier
Park mitigation and other wetland impacts within the watershed.
As advised by the project consultant, a letter was sent to the Army Corps of Engineers from the City in
August 1993 requesting that the Corps complete their jurisdictional determination regarding the
adjacency status of the wetlands within the wetland mitigation bank parcels. Identification of the
jurisdictional status was needed in order to establish Corps permitting requirements associated with
alternative site specific plans to convert the existing uplands on the bank sites to wetlands and potentially
restore the existing wetlands.
During a visit to the sites by the Corps, City staff, and project consultants on September 14, 1993 for the
purpose of completing the field portion of the determination, the Corps indicated that the wetlands on the
Mayor Earl Clymer
Jay Covington
February 8, 1994
Page 2
bank site would be called adjacent. Concerns over the effect of an adjacency determination to the
project, and the potential precedent it would set for future determinations within the City, led to the effort
of petitioning the Corps to reconsider their decision. Due to delays caused by the City Union strike in
November 1993, a meeting with the Corps Tom Mueller and staff could not be held until January 31,
1994. The remainder of this memorandum summarizes the discussion with the Corps at that meeting
and the conclusions that may be drawn.
SUMMARY OF JANUARY 31, 1994 MEETING WITH THE CORPS
The meeting opened with Ron Straka of the City Surface Water Utility presenting an overview of the
project history and current status. Corps staff attending the meeting included Tom Mueller and all
representatives responsible for adjacency determinations, as well as Gail Terzi, the Corps staff assigned
to the wetland bank project. The attendance list is included as Exhibit B. Following the project overview,
Ron Straka opened the adjacency discussion by presenting additional information not considered in the
Corps adjacency determination document Memorandum for Record (MFR) received by the City in
November 1993. It was pointed out that the MFR findings concerning the wetlands at the bank sites do
not reflect that 98% of site 1 and 100% of site 2 are above the 100-year floodplain, and that the MFR
findings for site 2 contradicts a 1992 Corps non-adjacency ruling regarding a portion of the wetlands on
site 2.
The response of the Corps may be summarized into the following main points:
1. The Corps will not reconsider the adjacency ruling on the wetland mitigation bank sites. Surface
hydrology to Springbrook Creek was deemed to be irrelevant. Other issues were noted to be of more
importance to the Corps, such as wetland evaluation methods, performance standards, wetland
compensation credit withdrawal procedures, and other bank operation issues.
2. The Corps did a poor job of determining adjacency in the past and would not make the same ruling
for previous determinations if made today. Although determinations are made on a case-by-case
basis only, the Corps speculated that most, if not all, of the valley would be ruled adjacent based
upon currently used criteria.
3. The Corps published criteria for determining adjacency is very broad and vague (Exhibit C). In an
effort to facilitate consistent determinations, the Corps Seattle branch uses a supplemental, multi-
parameter checklist. However, the checklist is for internal use only and is not available to the public.
4. The Corps permitting authority is expected to change within a year in a way that will do away with
adjacency rulings. The following comparison table illustrates the changes regarding thresholds for
impacting wetlands.
Current Thresholds Proposed Thresholds
Regional Permit 0.0- 1.0 acres. Isolated 0.0 - 0.5 acres for any wetland.
(Nationwide) wetlands only.
Regional Permit With 1.0- 2.0 acres. Isolated 0.5 - 3.0 acres for any wetland.
Predischarge Notification wetlands only.
Individual Permit Over 2.0 acres for isolated Over 3.0 acres for any
(Requires alternatives wetlands. wetland.
analysis) Over 0.0 acres for adjacent
wetlands below the
headwaters.
Mayor Earl Clymer
Jay Covington
February 8, 1994
Page 3
5. Any impacts to existing wetlands on the wetland mitigation bank sites will require a 404 individual
permit. An August 23, 1993 Regulatory Guidance Letter and an October 25, 1993 Draft Mitigation
Banking Guidance Document will be used by the Corps to formulate the individual permit conditions.
The Corps recommended initiating, as soon as possible, the process of developing a multi-agency
agreement regarding the wetland mitigation bank. The agreement would spell out mitigation and
specifically what can and can't be done in the use of the sites as compensation for other wetland
impacts. The Corps indicated that the bank sites could be used as compensation for a multi-acre
wetland impacts due to a single project, although the Corps would prefer compensation for many
separate and smaller impacts.
6. The Corps 404 individual permit process requires evaluation of alternatives. In general, on-site
mitigation is favored over off-site mitigation.
7. The Corps generally supports the mitigation banking program, but foresees many hurdles and a year
long process in obtaining a final inter-agency agreement. A copy of an agreement between the
Washington State Department of Transportation and wetland resource agencies that is pending
execution was provided. The agreement was noted as a potential model for a similar agreement
between the City and wetland resources agencies for the City wetland mitigation bank project.
CONCLUSION
The following conclusions may be drawn from the above summary of the January 31, 1994 meeting with
the Army Corps of Engineers:
1. The Corps is much more proactive in making wetland adjacency rulings than they were even
a year ago. Impacting an adjacent wetland, no matter what the size, requires an Army Corps
404 Individual Permit. This could have a profound impact on development in the valley,
since the Corps stated the opinion that most wetlands in the valley are adjacent.
2. By being inflexible on the adjacency issue, the Corps maintains control over the development of the
City wetland mitigation bank through the individual permit process. In order to create a functioning
wetland system on the mitigation bank sites, some impact to the existing wetlands will be necessary,
triggering the 404 individual permit process. Although it is anticipated that this would not prevent
development of the wetland mitigation bank, it could alter the scope of the bank and add to the time
and cost of implementation. Potential changes include:
a. Compensation ratios greater than that required by the City Wetland Management Ordinance.
b. Evaluation of wetland functions and values using a complex method, such as Wetland
Evaluation Technical (WET), that is not required by the City Wetland Management Ordinance.
c. Permitting, operation, performance, and maintenance requirements greater than that established
by the City Wetland Management Ordinance.
d. Limiting the amount of compensation credits available to be withdrawn until a minimum time
period has passed.
3. There is no longer any reason for the Corps to withhold formal issuance of the bank sites MFR. The
Corps has yet to formally issue the MFR, as requested earlier by the City to allow the City more
opportunity to review the issue.
4. The City may choose to legally challenge the Corps adjacency determination. It is likely that a
challenge would receive the support of neighboring municipalities and others with land interests in
the valley. However, significant resources may be expended to reach a decision favorable to the
City, only to have the adjacency issue no longer be a factor because of changes in regulations. The
Mayor Earl Clymer
Jay Covington
February 8, 1994
Page 4
nearness of pending regulation changes alone may make formulating any challenge useless because
of the time needed for initiating such a challenge. The vagueness of the Corps published criteria and
the Corps' proprietary claims of their in-house checklist would also make formulation of a definitive
legal challenge difficult.
5. Under current regulation, the authority of requiring compensatory mitigation lies solely with the City
Wetlands Management Ordinance for impacts up to the 1 acre threshold of the Corps regional
permit. Until there is a change in Corps regulation, issuance of new regional permits in the valley,
such as nationwide 26, is unlikely at this time, given that the Corps has said that most, if not all,
wetlands in the valley would be ruled adjacent. If no developers are willing to risk the Corps 404
individual permit process, then the potential users of the bank are limited to those with existing
regional permits, or to those who are able to secure a new regional permit despite what the Corps
has said.
6. The Corps jurisdiction is determined case-by-case for regional and individual permits. Pursuing a
multi-agency agreement would better define the base of potentially qualifying users of the bank.
Additionally, the developer may give increased consideration to using the bank if the support of the
Corps and other wetland resource agencies is formally contained in an executed agreement.
Formulation of a draft mitigation agreement is within the current scope of the City wetland bank
consultant contract.
7. It is anticipated that the City will need to obtain a 404 individual permit for the wetland mitigation
bank project regardless of whether or not the wetland mitigation bank site wetlands are determined to
be adjacent. Even if the weltands were not determined to be adjacent, it is anticipated that the
preferred alternative wetland creation/restoration plans for the mitigation bank sites will likely either
require impact to the existing wetlands of greater than one acre and trigger the 404 regional permit
pre-discharge notification process, or require impact to the existing wetlands of greater than two
acres and require a 404 individual permit from the Corps.
OPTIONS:
Three choices are available to us:
A. Do not challenge the Corps. Proceed with the mitigation bank project in anticipation of coming
rule changes regarding wetlands.
B. Challenge the Corps adjacency rulings. Since definition of"adjacent wetlands" is so broad,
challenge would probably have to be political, rather than legal, and could involve other valley
cities.
C. Put a hold on the wetland mitigation bank project, but complete the project planning and
construction required to satisfy the City's obligations agreed to in the Glacier Park Agreement
(create 5.33 acres of wetland) and the City's Wetland Management Ordinance.
A follow-up meeting should be set up to determine our approach.
H:SW/WTL-ALOE/SSW:lf
cc: Sam Chastain
Chief Lee Wheeler
Larry Warren
Sue Carlson
Design Team Members
�1
1�
iriir<j ll� ���I �a�_.J �Il CL/�U•n � � � � � ,,U'�,, 1\ s
0 .+ W IS11n 101M1
-''Vi.t'�V 1.. _ t'I{•)Yil --•nf1.__�.__ t: �, �� _�f�
�• �YtiJl.'f AO (,.... '.1 +� � T .A)1dA _."---`_l.I_��'--1 ` ` \�
—
AV rI� -•ll- 04
~ � • Y I M I / Y V n I. I
Ar
rry MIX
� •� 4 � Y �r
a '
Jf I P-Vl D11 — Mr f-lC(f 0 anK(h MPefi 1l11l9�4
L P4 L 7—IrZ-E
G�i L- Ta:�-) co - P96-Ecr M14NA 6 CA '16V-6 903
SV7 (/Jootsu"-� AC---;A6, - Z -77 - s"5-y7
GE - �.µv�roN,ti►Qw�' ( �t�t�l �s �'
� k,4- h LL 7 �f� Stf'%� s�: 77-5-3 y ;
271 - 62-11
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 219 / Thursday, Novemb r 13. 19M / Rules and Regulations 41251
(b)The term"wetlands" means those (b) Tidal Waters of the United States. S—
areas that are inundated or saturated by The landward limits of jurisdiction in 329.11 Geographic and jurisdictional limits
surface or ground water at a frequency tidal waters: of riven and lakes.
and duration sufficient to support, and 329.12 Geographic and junsdictional limits
pp (1)Extends to the high tide line, or of oceanic and tidal waters.
that under normal circumstances do (2) When adjacent non-tidal waters of 329.13 Geographic limits:shifting
"oloport. a prevalence of vegetation the United States are present, the boundaries.
ty pically adapted for life in saturated jurisdiction extends to the limits 329.14 Determination of naviRahility
sou conditions. Wetlands generally identified in paragraph (c)of this 329.15 Inquiries regarding determinations
include swamps, marshes, bogs. and ction. 329.16 Use and maintenance of lists of
simtl,ir areas. (c)Non-Tidal Waters of the United determinations.
c e term"adjacent" means tares.The limits of jurisdiction in non- Authority:33 U.S.C. .o'i er seq.
bordering, contiguous,or neighboring. idal waters: 9 329.1 Purpose.
Wetlands separated from other waters (1)in the absence of adjacent
of the United States by man-made dikes wetlands, the jurisdiction extends to the This regulation defines the term
or barriers, natural river berms. beach ordinary high water mark.or "navigable waters of the United States"
as its used define authorities b the
dunes and the like are"adjacent (2)When adjacent'wetlands are Corps of Engineers.It also prescribes
wetlands."
resent, the jurisdiction extends beyond the policy,practice and procedure to be
erm" ig tide line" means a ordinary high water mark to the limit used in determining the extent of the
the line of intersection of the land with of the adjacent wetlands. jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers
the water's surface at the maximum (3)When the water of the United and in answering inquiries concerning
height reached by a rising tide.The high States consists only of wetlands the ..navigable waters of the United States."
tide line may be determined, in the jurisdiction extends to the limit of the This definition does not apply to
absence of actual data,by a line of oil or wetland. authorities under the Clean Water Act
scum along shore objects, a more or less which definitions are described under 33
continuous deposit of fine.shell or debris 9 32111.5 Charges in thntts of tsraten of the CFR parts 323 and 328.
on the foreshore or berm,other physical United State&
markings or characteristics,vegetation permanent changes of the shoreline 1329.2 Appttcabiltty.
lines. tidal gages, or other suitable configuration result in similar This regulation is applicable to all
means that delineate the general height alterations of the boundaries of waters Corps of Engineers districts and
reached by a rising tide.The line of the United States.Gradual changes divisions having civil works
encompasses spring high tides and other which are due to natural causes and are responsibilities.
high tides that occur with periodic perceptible only over some period of
frequency but does not include storm time constitute changes in the bed of a 1329.3 General porkies.
surges in which there is a departure waterway which also change the .Precise definitions of"navigable
from the normal or predicted reach of boundaries of the waters of the United waters of the United States" or
the tide due to the piling up of water States.For example, changing sea levels 1.navigabihty"are ultimately dependent
against a coast by strong winds such as or subsidence of land may cause some on judicial interpretation and ca«not be
those accompanying a hurricane or areas to become waters of the United made conclusively by administrative
other intense storm. States while siltation or a change in agencies.However, the policies and
(e)The term"ordinary high water drainage may remove an area from criteria contained in this regulation are
mark" means that line on the shore waters of the United States.Mail-made in close conformance with the tests used
establishad by the fluctuations of water changes may affect the limits of waters by Federal courts and determinations
and indicated by physical of the United States;however, made under this regulation are
characteristics such as clear. natural permanent changes should not be considered binding in regard to the
line impressed on the bank, shelving, presumed until the particular activities of the Corps of Engineers.
changgp in the character of soil, circumstances have been examined and
destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the verified by the district engineer. 9 329.4 Gainerai definition.
presence of litter and debris,or other Verification of changes to the lateral Navigable waters of the United States
appropriate means that consider the limits of jurisdiction may be obtained are those waters that are subject to the
characteristics of the surrounding areas, from the district engineer. ebb and flow of the tide and/or are
(f)The term "tidal waters"means PART 329--DEFINITION OF presently used or have been used in the
those waters that rise and fall in a NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED past, or may be susceptible fnr use to
predictable and measurable rhythm or STATES transport interstate or foreign
cycle due to the gravitational pulls of commerce.A determination of
the moon and sun.Tidal waters end Sea, navigability, once made, appliee
where the rise and fall of the water 329.1 Purpose. laterally over the entire surface of the
surface can no longer be practically 329.2 Applicability. waterbody, and is not extinguished by
measured in a predictable rhythm due to 328.3 General policies. later actions or events which impede or
making by hydrologic,wind. or other 329.4 General deftnitiona. destroy navigable capacity.
329.5 General scope of determination.
effects. 329.8 Interstate or foreign commerce. 9 329.5 General scope of determination.
329.7 Intrastate or inters
tate nature of
5 328.4 Umits of jurisdiction. I t It The several factors which must be
waterway. examined when making a determination
Territorial Seas. The limit of 329.8 Improved or natural conditions of he
jurisdiction in the territorial seas is waterbody. whether a n ody is a navigable
measured from the baseline in a 329.9 Time at which commerce exists or Water thee United States are discuss__
seaward direction a distance of throe determination is msd.. in detail
l bellow. Generally, the foijcwing
na.;tiral miles. (See 33 Cf R 329 12; 329.10 of obstruction& conditions ri•:st be satisfied:
CONCURRENCE
CITY OF RENTON DATE
NAME INITIAL/DA-
sc� w sq -
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 8, 1994
TO: Mayor Earl Clymer
Jay Covington
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman (/
STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka (X-5548)
Scott Woodbury (X-5547)
SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF JANUARY 31, 1994 MEETING WITH ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS REGARDING WETLAND ADJACENCY DETERMINATIONS
This memorandum is submitted as requested to summarize the January 31, 1994 meeting with the Corps
of Engineers, and to outline conclusions to be drawn from the meeting regarding the City wetland
mitigation bank project. A brief background of the wetland mitigation bank project and the events
leading up to the January 31, 1994 meeting is also included.
BACKGROUND:
On May 18, 1992 the City executed a wetland mitigation banking agreement with the Glacier Park
Company, as authorized by the City Council. Under this agreement, the City was given mitigation bank
sites 1 and 2 (Exhibit 1) in exchange for permits to fill up to 0.99 acre of low quality wetlands on each of
six other Glacier Park parcels. The City also agreed to pay for and complete on the mitigation bank sites
any City-required mitigation for impacts on the Glacier Park parcels. After fulfilling the requirements of
the Glacier Park agreement, the City will use the remaining available acreage on the mitigation sites to
mitigate for wetland impacts from other projects.
In December 1992 the City Council adopted the 1993 budget. The budget included appropriation for the
wetland mitigation bank plan. On July 19, 1993 the City executed a consulting contract with Parametrix,
Inc., to establish the technical and programmatic framework for the conversion of existing uplands on the
City mitigation bank sites to wetlands, and use of the created wetlands as compensation for the Glacier
Park mitigation and other wetland impacts within the watershed.
As advised by the project consultant, a letter was sent to the Army Corps of Engineers from the City in
August 1993 requesting that the Corps complete their jurisdictional determination regarding the
adjacency status of the wetlands within the wetland mitigation bank parcels. Identification of the
jurisdictional status was needed in order to establish Corps permitting requirements associated with
alternative site specific plans to convert the existing uplands on the bank sites to wetlands and potentially
restore the existing wetlands.
During a visit to the sites by the Corps, City staff, and project consultants on September 14, 1993 for the
purpose of completing the field portion of the determination, the Corps indicated that the wetlands on the
Mayor Earl Clymer
Jay Covington
February 8, 1994
Page 2
bank site would be called adjacent. Concerns over the effect of an adjacency determination to the
project, and the potential precedent it would set for future determinations within the City, led to the effort
of petitioning the Corps to reconsider their decision. Due to delays caused by the City Union strike in
November 1993, a meeting with the Corps Tom Mueller and staff could not be held until January 31,
1994. The remainder of this memorandum summarizes the discussion with the Corps at that meeting
and the conclusions that may be drawn.
SUMMARY OF JANUARY 31, 1994 MEETING WITH THE CORPS
The meeting opened with Ron Straka of the City Surface Water Utility presenting an overview of the
project history and current status. Corps staff attending the meeting included Tom Mueller and all
representatives responsible for adjacency determinations, as well as Gail Terzi, the Corps staff assigned
to the wetland bank project. The attendance list is included as Exhibit B. Following the project overview,
Ron Straka opened the adjacency discussion by presenting additional information not considered in the
Corps adjacency determination document Memorandum for Record (MFR) received by the City in
November 1993. It was pointed out that the MFR findings concerning the wetlands at the bank sites do
not reflect that 98% of site 1 and 100% of site 2 are above the 100-year floodplain, and that the MFR
findings for site 2 contradicts a 1992 Corps non-adjacency ruling regarding a portion of the wetlands on
site 2.
The response of the Corps may be summarized into the following main points:
1. The Corps will not reconsider the adjacency ruling on the wetland mitigation bank sites. Surface
hydrology to Springbrook Creek was deemed to be irrelevant. Other issues were noted to be of more
importance to the Corps, such as wetland evaluation methods, performance standards, wetland
compensation credit withdrawal procedures, and other bank operation issues.
2. The Corps did a poor job of determining adjacency in the past and would not make the same ruling
for previous determinations if made today. Although determinations are made on a case-by-case
basis only, the Corps speculated that most, if not all, of the valley would be ruled adjacent based
upon currently used criteria.
3. The Corps published criteria for determining adjacency is very broad and vague (Exhibit C). In an
effort to facilitate consistent determinations, the Corps Seattle branch uses a supplemental, multi-
parameter checklist. However, the checklist is for internal use only and is not available to the publig.
4. The Corps permitting authority is expected to change within a year in away t at will away with
adjacency rulings. The following comparison table illustrates the change .
Current Thresholds Proposed Thresholds
Regional Permit N 0.0 - 1.0 acres. Isolated 0.0 - 0.5 acres for any wetland.
wetlands only.
Regional Permit With 1.0 - 2.0 acres. Isolated 0.5 - 3.0 acres for any wetland.
Predischarge Notification wetlands only.
Individual Permit (UC ,,� Over 2.0 acres for isolated Over 3.0 acres for any
a 6�104 � wetlands. wetland.
Over 0.0 acres for adjacent
wetlands below the
headwaters.
Mayor Earl Clymer / ! �0
Jay Covington
February 8, 1994
Page 3 � '4�CeMC nU�1 7� 7'�"sites
e� Ct
1�, q c/1 J �' NL14pC 5/3� � ate �''�iy Co? o
Any impacts to existing wetlands on the wetland mitigation will require a 404 individua
permit. An August 23, 1993 Regulatory Guidance Letter and an October 25, 1993 Draft Mitigation
Banking Guidance Document will be used by the Corps to formulate the individual permit conditions.�'IGLJl7;
The Corps recommended initiating, as soon as possible, the process of developing a multi-agency !S COfil�
agreement regarding the wetland mitigation bank. The agreement would spell out mitigation and
specifically what can and can't be done in the use of the sites as compensation for other wetland
impacts. The Corps indicated that the bank sites could be used as compensation for a multi-acre
wetland impacts due to a single project, although the Corps would prefer compensation for many
separate and smaller impacts. A
6. The Corps 404 individual permit process requires evaluation of alternatives. In general, on-site
mitigation is favored over off-site mitigation.
7/G/C-P Akear
7. The Corps generally supports the mitigation banking program, but foresees many hurdles and a y /
long process in obtaining a final inter-agency agreement. A copy of an agreement between the ,
Washington State Department of Transportation and wetland resource agencies that is pending
execution was provided. The agreement was noted as a potential model for a similar agreement
between the City and wetland resources agencies for the City wetland mitigation bank project.
CONCLUSION
er7�-
The following conclusions may be drawn from the above summary of the January 31, 1994 meeting with
the Army Corps of Engineers:
2 , h1! By being inflexible on the adjacency issue, the Corps maintains control over the development of the
City wetland mitigation bank through the individual permit process. In order to create a functioning
wetland system on the mitigation bank sites, some impact to the existing wetlands will be necessary,
triggering the 404 individual permit process. Although it is anticipated that this would not prevent
development of the wetland mitigation bank, it could alter the scope of the bank and add to the time
and cost of implementation. Potential changes include:
a. Compensation ratios greater than that required by the City Wetland Management Ordinance.
b. Evaluation of wetland functions and values using a complex method, such as Wetland
Evaluation Technical (WET), that is not required by the City Wetland Management Ordinance.
c. Permitting, operation, performance, and maintenance requirements greater than that established
by the City Wetland Management Ordinance.
d. Limiting the amount of compensation credits available to be withdrawn until a minimum time
period has passed.
�j There is no longer any reason for the Corps to withhold formal issuance of the bank sites MFR. The
Corps has yet to formally issue the MFR, as requested earlier by the City to allow the City more
opportunity to review the issue.
y ,a. The City may choose to legally challenge the Corps adjacency determination. It is likely that a
challenge would receive the support of neighboring municipalities and others with land interests in
the valley. However, significant resources may be expended to reach a decision favorable to the
City, only to have the adjacency issue no longer be a factor because of changes in regulations. The
nearness of pending regulation changes alone may make formulating any challenge useless because
of the time needed for initiating such a challenge. The vagueness of the Corps published criteria and
the Corps' proprietary claims of their in-house checklist would also make formulation of a definitive
legal challenge difficult.
Mayor Earl Clymer
Jay Covington
February 8, 1994
Page 4
4. Under current regulation, the authority of requiring compensatory mitigation lies solely with the City
Wetlands Management Ordinance for impacts up to the 1 acre threshold of the Corps regional
permit. Until there is a change in Corps regulation, issuance of new regional permits in the valley,
such as nationwide 26, is unlikely at this time, given that the Corps has said that most, if not all,
wetlands in the valley would be ruled adjacent. If no developers are willing to risk the Corps 404
individual permit process, then the potential users of the bank are limited to those with existing
regional permits, or to those who are able to secure a new regional permit despite what the Corps
has said.
�3. The Corps jurisdiction is determined case-by-case for regional and individual permits. Pursuing a
I multi-agency agreement would better define the base of potentially qualifying users of the bank.
Additionally, the developer may give increased consideration to using the bank if the support of the
Corps and other wetland resource agencies is formally contained in an executed agreement.
Formulation of a draft mitigation agreement is within the current scope of the City wetland bank
consultant contract.
6. It is anticipated that the City will need to obtain a 404 individual permit for the wetland mitigation
/ bank project regardless of whether or not the wetland mitigation bank site wetlands are determined to
be adjacent. Even if the weltands were not determined to be adjacent, it is anticipated that the
preferred alternative wetland creation/restoration plans for the mitigation bank sites will likely either
require impact to the existing wetlands of greater than one acre and trigger the 404 regional permit
pre-discharge notification process, or require impact to the existing wetlands of greater than two
acres and require a 404 individual permit from the Corps.
H:SW/WTL-ACOE/SSW:If
cc: Sam Chastain
Chief Lee Wheeler
eve CeM
Ta4l 'mac i� cvti flc�^
1 I
/lam
i �
� 3
A-
to)
Mayor Earl Clymer
Jay Covington
February 8, 1994
Page 3
5. Any impacts to existing wetlands on the wetland mitigation bank sites will require a 404 individual
permit. An August 23, 1993 Regulatory Guidance Letter and an October 25, 1993 Draft Mitigation
Banking Guidance Document will be used by the Corps to formulate the individual permit conditions.
The Corps recommended initiating, as soon as possible, the process of developing a multi-agency
agreement regarding the wetland mitigation bank. The agreement would spell out mitigation and
specifically what can and can't be done in the use of the sites as compensation for other wetland
impacts. The Corps indicated that the bank sites could be used as compensation for a multi-acre
wetland impacts due to a single project, although the Corps would prefer compensation for many
separate and smaller impacts.
6. The Corps 404 individual permit process requires evaluation of alternatives. In general, on-site
mitigation is favored over off-site mitigation.
7. The Corps generally supports the mitigation banking program, but foresees many hurdles and a year
long process in obtaining a final inter-agency agreement. A copy of an agreement between the
Washington State Department of Transportation and wetland resource agencies that is pending
execution was provided. The agreement was noted as a potential model for a similar agreement
between the City and wetland resources agencies for the City wetland mitigation bank project.
CONCLUSION
The following conclusions may be drawn from the above summary of the January 31, 1994 meeting with
the Army Corps of Engineers:
1. The Corps is much more proactive in making wetland adjacency rulings than they were even
a year ago. Impacting an adjacent wetland, no matter what the size, requires an Army Corps
404 Individual Permit. This could have a profound impact on development in the valley/since
the Corps stated the opinion that most wetlands in the valley are adjacent.
2. By being inflexible on the adjacency issue, the Corps maintains control over the development of the
City wetland mitigation bank through the individual permit process. In order to create a functioning
wetland system on the mitigation bank sites, some impact to the existing wetlands will be necessary,
triggering the 404 individual permit process. Although it is anticipated that this would not prevent
development of the wetland mitigation bank, it could alter the scope of the bank and add to the time
and cost of implementation. Potential changes include:
a. Compensation ratios greater than that required by the City Wetland Management Ordinance.
b. Evaluation of wetland functions and values using a complex method, such as Wetland
Evaluation Technical (WET), that is not required by the City Wetland Management Ordinance.
c. Permitting, operation, performance, and maintenance requirements greater than that established
by the City Wetland Management Ordinance.
d. Limiting the amount of compensation credits available to be withdrawn until a minimum time
period has passed.
3. There is no longer any reason for the Corps to withhold formal issuance of the bank sites MFR. The
Corps has yet to formally issue the MFR, as requested earlier by the City to allow the City more
opportunity to review the issue.
4. The City may choose to legally challenge the Corps adjacency determination. It is likely that a
challenge would receive the support of neighboring municipalities and others with land interests in
the valley. However, significant resources may be expended to reach a decision favorable to the
City, only to have the adjacency issue no longer be a factor because of changes in regulations. The
Mayor Earl Clymer
Jay Covington
February 8, 1994
Page 4
nearness of pending regulation changes alone may make formulating any challenge useless because
of the time needed for initiating such a challenge. The vagueness of the Corps published criteria and
the Corps' proprietary claims of their in-house checklist would also make formulation of a definitive
legal challenge difficult.
5. Under current regulation, the authority of requiring compensatory mitigation lies solely with the City
Wetlands Management Ordinance for impacts up to the 1 acre threshold of the Corps regional
permit. Until there is a change in Corps regulation, issuance of new regional permits in the valley,
such as nationwide 26, is unlikely at this time, given that the Corps has said that most, if not all,
wetlands in the valley would be ruled adjacent. If no developers are willing to risk the Corps 404
individual permit process, then the potential users of the bank are limited to those with existing
regional permits, or to those who are able to secure a new regional permit despite what the Corps
has said.
6. The Corps jurisdiction is determined case-by-case for regional and individual permits. Pursuing a
multi-agency agreement would better define the base of potentially qualifying users of the bank.
Additionally, the developer may give increased consideration to using the bank if the support of the
Corps and other wetland resource agencies is formally contained in an executed agreement.
Formulation of a draft mitigation agreement is within the current scope of the City wetland bank
consultant contract.
7. It is anticipated that the City will need to obtain a 404 individual permit for the wetland mitigation
bank project regardless of whether or not the wetland mitigation bank site wetlands are determined to
be adjacent. Even if the weltands were not determined to be adjacent, it is anticipated that the
preferred alternative wetland creation/restoration plans for the mitigation bank sites will likely either
require impact to the existing wetlands of greater than one acre and trigger the 404 regional permit
pre-discharge notification process, or require impact to the existing wetlands of greater than two
acres and require a 404 individual permit from the Corps.
RECOMMEIION: 0J�(�av5'�
Three choices are available to us:
a. Do not challenge the Corps. Proceed with the mitigation bank project in anticipation of coming
rule changes regarding wetlands.
1 b. Challenge the Corps adjacency rulings. Since definition of"adjacent wetlands" is so broad,
challenge would probably have to be political, rather than legal, and could involve other valley
cities. r,
,,ham ¢'...fi
c. Put a hold on wetland mitigation bank project. lo.1- Gm�pG.f— flco `✓.•o�e�L^,�.�o
A follow-up meeting should be set up to determine our approach.
H:SWM/TL-ACOE/SSW:lf A.,
cc: Sam Chastain
Chief Lee Wheeler
Larry Warren
Sue Carlson
r
6,0.grf-�Es l�,(L G/14GG's
GREGG'S ACTION MEMO
TO: (4J DATE: 2 Please Call ROUTE TO:
[j For your Information
ISSUEXONCERN: �-j For Action
Q For Signature
j� 2&c Q Your Recommendation
GOAL/ Q Per our Conversation
PREFERRED OUTCOME: r [7] Per your Request
Q Copies Sent to ,
SPECIFIC DO'S OR DON'TS: La,
t
FOLLOW UP:
o r OUL
TICKLER FILE
Gl/1 (date)
COMPLETED
(date)
a' eG�•
RESULTS:
DUE DATE:
fotms/lag/ACTMEMO.DOC/LAG/bh
Al yew '
I off I
� z
,171
77
/ly, 6or
l
/ \ / ' r
r
�rAV
w Alf-I or e�4
PC-
e;egr
vee6Gti/7`�-/o ss e pia
07,1
Z4�:
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 19, 1994
TO: Ron Straka
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman
STAFF CONTACT: Scott Woodbury
SUBJECT: WETLAND DELINEATION EXTENSION REQUEST
DATED DECEMBER 8, 1993
1 have reviewed your request for an extension of the expiration dates of the final wetland delineations
made by David Evans & Associates for the City of Renton mitigation bank sites 1 and 2, PID numbers
252304-9019 and 125381-0240, respectively. I concur with your recommendation to grant a one-year
extension, as allowed by the City Wetlands Management Ordinance, to be effective from the following
dates:
Mitigation bank site 1 - February 28, 1994
Mitigation bank site 2 - April 20, 1994.
1 also concur that the City should consider revising the two-year period for which delineations are
valid, as currently set forth in the City Wetlands Management Ordinance, to three years for
consistency with the Corps of Engineers. I suggest that you coordinate this and any other proposed
revision to City land use codes with Don Erickson at X-6181.
H:DOCS:94-066:SSW:ps ��
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF RFNTnt i
DEC 8 1993
CITY OF RENTON
RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 8, 1993
TO: Kay Shoudy
FROM: Ron Straka A4
STAFF CONTACT: Scott Woodbury
SUBJECT: WETLAND DELINEATION EXTENSION
CITY OF RENTON MITIGATION BANK SITES 1 AND 2
PID NUMBERS 252304-9019 AND 125381-0240
ISSUE:
Approval of request to extend the expiration date of the final wetland delineations
made by David Evans & Associates for the City of Renton mitigation bank sites 1 and
2, PID numbers 252304-9019 and 125381-0240, respectively.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant a one-year extension of the final wetland delineations as allowed by City
Ordinance 4346, Wetlands Management, Section 4-32-3.C.2.
BACKGROUND:
Delineations of existing wetlands on mitigation bank site 1 were documented by David
Evans & Associates in a wetland report dated December 3, 1991 and confirmed by the
Army Corps of Engineers in the attached February 28, 1992 letter. Delineations for
mitigation bank site 2 were documented by David Evans & Associates in two wetland
reports dated November 12, 1991 and November 16, 1991 . These delineations were
confirmed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the two attached April 20, 1992 letters.
There are two reports and Corps letters for mitigation bank site 2 because, at the time
of the delineations and Corps review, site 2 was divided into two separate parcels
along platted lot boundaries. The two separate parcels have since been combined by a
lot line adjustment, recording number 92061 19003.
This request for extension is based on Section 4-32-3.C.2 of the City's Wetlands
Management Ordinance which reads,
/ it'-it routing request pad 7664
ROUTINGcr- RQUEST
Please
❑ READ To
�+ HANDLE
❑ APPROVE
and
❑ FORWARD Y�
❑ RETURN
❑ KEEP OR DISCARD
❑ REVIEW WITH ME
Date From
WETLAND DELINEATION EXTENSION
CITY OF RENTON MITIGATION BANK SITES 1 AND 2
Page 2
"A final wetlands delineation is valid for two years. Extensions for additional years can
be approved by the Department Administrator if an application is proceeding in a timely
manner through the permit process."
Work on the project has been proceeding in a timely manner. On May 18, 1992 the
City executed a wetland mitigation banking agreement with the Glacier Park Company,
as authorized by the City Council. Under this agreement, the City was given mitigation
bank sites 1 and 2 in exchange for permits to fill up to 0.99 acre of low quality
wetlands on each of six other Glacier Park parcels. The City also agreed to pay for and
complete on the mitigation bank sites any City required mitigation for impacts on the
Glacier Park parcels. After fulfilling the requirements of the Glacier Park agreement the
City will use the remaining available acreage on the mitigation sites to mitigate for
wetland impacts from both public and private projects.
In December 1992 the City Council adopted the 1993 budget. The budget included
appropriation for the wetland mitigation bank plan. On July 19, 1993 the City
executed a consulting contract with Parametrix, Inc., to establish a wetland mitigation
bank plan to create design documents for the Glacier Park mitigation and develop a
framework to guide future mitigation projects. The plan will include an analysis of the
mitigation sites, criteria for using the sites for mitigation, master plans for wetland
creation and recreational opportunities, detailed grading and planting plans for the
required Glacier Park mitigation, program cost estimates, and requirements for program
operation, such as monitoring and maintenance procedures. Work on the plan is
currently in progress and is expected to be completed in the Spring of 1994.
The expiration dates of the delineations imposed by the Wetlands Management
Ordinance two-year limit are February 28, 1994 and April 20, 1994, based on the
dates of the Corps confirmations of the wetland delineations. The project will exceed
these Spring 1994 expirations because of the complexity of the developing the plan,
creating the mitigation design documents, and conducting the environmental and
permitting review. No apparent change of condition on the mitigation sites is evident
from that found in the David Evans & Associates reports. As discussed above the
project has also been proceeding in a timely manner. Therefore a one-year extension
from the dates of the Corps confirmation is requested. This will make the expiration
date of the delineations consistent with the Corps, which considers delineation
confirmations valid for a three-year period. The City should consider revising the
ordinance two-year limit to be three years for consistency with the Corps.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you should need any other information,
please. contact Scott Woodbury, Project Manager, at X-5547.
H:DOCS:93-1 158:SSW:ps
CC: David Saxen
Attachments
• +V UU WL U 1 U•UU ! 11111111E I ll l!1 1 1111 11U, LVU UUU UUUU 1 , UU/ 1 U
�u C U/Z� j
Regulatory Branch FEB 2 8 4992 alldn J?nnJC
Mr. Marty Sevier
Glacier Park Company
1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, Washington 98104
Reference: 91-4_00149
Dear Mr. Sevier: Glacier Park Company
This is in response to your request for a confirmation of a wetlands
delineation performed by David Evans and Associates Inc.
on
behalf, for wetlands located on your property a 1 actingpproxirnaLely 31 acre re your
p Y
situated immediately north ( s)
Of Southwest 33rd Street and west of Oakesdale
Avenue in the City of Renton, King County, Washington,
We concur with the wetlands delineation presented in the report, dated
December 3, 1991, by David Evans and Associates, Inc, and confirmed by a site
inspection of the subject property performed on February 5, 1992.
information contained in the report and associated dravin s a a T
accurate
and complete, This delineation is valid for a period of 3 years fromthe date
of this letter.
We have not determined permit requirements.
development plan, you may reapply and we will determineorequirementtscatlthat
time. We have canceled this file, but please refer to the reference number if
You reapply. This does not excuse you from compliance with
from other Federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances ororegulationsiwhich
may affect this work. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Gail
Terzi, telephone (206) 764-3495.
Sincerely,
01� I
Robert H. Martin 6r
Chief, Processing Section
MACTJN a-e&
cc: David Evans and Associates, Inc.
415 - 118th Avenue, S.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98005-3553
I�Department of Ecology i
P.O, Box 4770
Olympia, Washington 98504-7703
j�
i
DEC-03-1993 17:20 FROM US COE-REGULATORY BRANCH TO 92352541 P.02
2 Q 1992
Regulatory Branch
Mr. Marty Sevier
Glacier Park Company
1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, Washington 98104
Reference: 91-4-00095
Glacier Park Company
Dear Mr. Sevier:
We have confirmed the wetland delineation on the 9.28 acre, arillia Block
8, Lot 4 site located south of SW 34th Street, vest of Springbrook Creek, east
of Oakesdale Avenue SW and north of SV 39th Street in Section 30, Township 23
North, Range 5 East, Renton, Washington. We are in agreement with the
delineation report prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. , dated
November 12, 1991. This confirmation of delineation is valid for a period of
three years from the date of this letter.
We have also evaluated your proposal to discharge fill material into 0.99
acres of wetlands, which are isolated. Department of the Army regulations
dated November 22, 1991, authorize certain activities under nationwide
permits, provided the enclosed conditions are met. Nationwide Permit 26 (Part
330, Appendix A) authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into
nontidal rivers, streams, and their lakes and impoundments, including adjacent
wetlands, that are located above the headwaters where the average annual flow
is less than 5 cubic feet per second . . . .
The entire text of Nationwide Permit 26 is enclosed.
Prior to placing fill, you mgr c�-+rr.�t rt,n
r-coiogy to uetermine wnetner documented habitat for a state listed species is
present. If present, this nationwide permit is not valid and you must contact
us again to determine permit requirements. Please contact:
State Nationwide Permit Coordinator
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Telephone (206) 438-7514 or 459-6038 !
We suggest that you place the following statement on the project plat as
information to future property managers: Contact the Corps of Engineers about
permit requirements for work in wetlands.
{
Iy
-2-
This verification will be valid for two years from the date of this letter
or until the nationwide permit is modified, reissued, or revoked. If
additional placement of fill in waters of the United States, including
wetlands, is contemplated on this site, you must contact us concerning any
additional permit requirements. While you need no further authorization from
us, you must still comply with other federal, State and local requirements
which may pertain to the work. If you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Jack Gossett at the above address or by telephone at (206) 764-3495.
Sincerely,
Robert H. Martin
Chief, Processing Section
Enclosures
cc: EPA; DOE; David Evans & Associates, Inc. ; Mark Stiefel
415 118th Ave. , SE 22312 113th Ave. SE
Bellevue, WA 98005-3553 Kent, WA 98031
NUv-1 U-J3 WLU 1 U: 11 MEAML I H I X h AX NO. 206 889 8808 P, 10/16
Z-
Regulatory Branch ►f►,AftOMQ�}{r�jtZ
Mr, Marty Sevier
Glacier Park Company
1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, Washington 98104
Reference: 91-4-00099
Glacier Park Company
Dear Mr, Sevier:
We have confirmed the wetland delineation on- the 15.15 acre, Orillia Block
8, Lot 1, 2, and 3 site located south of SW 34th Stre �, east of Oakesdale
Avenue SW and northwest of SW 39th Street in Section Township 23 North,
Range j�East, Renton, Washington. We are in agreement with the delineation
report prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc, dated November 16, 1991.
This confirmation of delineation is valid for a period of three years from the
date of this letter.
We have also evaluated your proposal to discharge fill material into 0.99
acres of wetlands, located on Lot 3 of the Orillia Block 8 site, which are
isolated. Department of the Army regulations dated November 22, 1991,
authorize certain activities under nationwide permits, provided the enclosed
conditions are met. Nationwide Permit 26 (Part 330, Appendix A) authorizes
discharges of dredged or fill material into nontidal rivers, streams, and
their lakes and impoundments, including adjacent wetlands, that are located
above the headwaters where the average annual flow is less than 5 cubic feet 4
per second . . . .
The entire text of Nationwide Permit 26 is enclosed.
Prior to placing fill, you must contact the Washington State Department of
.. .-a.. .. _. - ! rS-,���n- -T. , ,...t- 1,..�.r+-,-...- F.... -w,- - ? -. •--7 P.. .. _ _.
present. If present, this nationwide permit is not valid and you must contact
us again to determine permit requirements. Please contact:
State Nationwide Permit Coordinator
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47703 1
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Telephone (206) 438-7514 or 459-6038
We suggest that you place the following statement on the project plat as
information to future property managers: Contact the Corps of Engineers about
permit requirements for work in wetlands.
I
NOV-10-93 WED 10: 11 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P, 11/?5
This verification will be valid for two
or until the nationwide permit is years from the date o£ this letter
additional placement of fill in vater8foed, reissued or wetlands, f the United�States,�oincluding
i8 contemplated on this site
additional permit requirements. r you must contact us
us, you must While you need no concerning any
still comply with other Federal, state andhlocal re requirements
authorization from
which may pertain to the work.
Ms. Gail Terzi at t If You have any questions, Ruirements
he above address or b please contact
y telephone at (206) 764-3495.
Sincerely,
Robert H. Martin
Enclosures Chief, Processing Section
cc: EPA; DOE; David Evans & Associates, Inc. ; Mark Stiefel
415 118th Ave. , SE
Bellevue, VA 98005-3553 Kenntt,, VA2 A 9 Ave, SE
98031
M49TIP op-126
12 E&
CONCURR NCE
DATE
NAME IPIITIAVDATi
SNf7s.w.�
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM � ~
DATE: January 19, 1994
TO: Ron Straka
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman
STAFF CONTACT: Scott Woodbury
SUBJECT: WETLAND DELINEATION EXTENSION REQUEST
DATED DECEMBER 8, 1993
1 have reviewed your request for an extension of the expiration dates of the final
wetland delineations made by David Evans & Associates for the City of Renton
mitigation bank sites 1 and 2, PID numbers 252304-9019 and 125381-0240,
respectively. I concur with your recommendation to grant a one-year extension, as
allowed by the City Wetlands Management Ordinance, to be effective from the
following dates:
Mitigation bank site 1 - February 28, 1994
Mitigation bank site 2 - April 20, 1994.
1 also concur that the City should consider revising the two-year period for which
delineations are valid, as currently set forth in the City Wetlands Management
Ordinance, to three years for consistency with the Corps of Engineers. I suggest that
you coordinate this and any other proposed revision to City land use codes with Don
Erickson at X-6181 .
H:D0CS:94-066:SSW:ps
CC: Scott Woodbury
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 15, 1993
TO: Lee Haro
FROM: Scott Woodbury SLR
SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN
DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CHAPTERS 1 TO 6
Please find attached copies of the draft mitigation plan, Chapters 1 to 6, for your
review and comment. Please return comments by December 27, 1993, if possible.
I will keep you informed of any future developments and meetings. If you have any
questions about any of the information, please call me at X-5547.
H:UTIL/SW/WETL-MIT/SSW:If
1z1/3IF3
Ai-) s7(RP/(ay 14rC i L 6rL A W� rr�a� L+„��� ^Y to
��S/bra T¢.Et•h
I
��N�,l.A'�. I�ER�i�6 0►� oaGu n+ENr d�y .
ft-6 Cr4,o. 0/-A,-,rldro (6-1rr el- 4,-ur-w
Pa 94 0 of `B�6 /N e-Gu0i Cir> -qr4 ws-
6R+ / Y 04UNJ f.*A142fr /,v r A(Wor/ar)
�lG Z. AlJO �LPctc R,,rv�LrZ NltroP�(,e..
D
N� lvt F L_05T 6A C�� 1,"r0 fTAJT pve7t4 L_yl .
SrlE -�,:�. cA70'4aAlS ATr®r1 OF L,*'Q,A110Y F°ti BA,Jr All t 2
AWtA C—rwx O/sC.0 s,�" 64ct rv* C-frll TO
wr✓�+-�5/v�� S Dw 5WA-'(Fj(-A/Uaj of
f-v Tt_An1✓�S - OQ ,�fi n�,E �`Wr�' rrl(
N�ca �3�3 �I�N ��tc �� � of ��r��� r•-E�>v.
�(JL C y 1 . Qfy fr-< cfS S OVLC A w 60. f�k
o LAX W k_p
Gf�t� PrLc J / A ti uu,�h v�L T)#A)T j ry , /h�kti
CO.r.wt 6 76 )CC— a" fo !(y r p A A(IL oN
FAN-, Kowi S. Su PA L4�-eA)r IqL
L- tc L-,O,1-6S
5,-16,0 o/ L"�,ETn �- Cat ( �z .� p� �,,(.e,,►�p
vfit. 4,4r
�U� {� 1'►,.�P��� /hpi6 cl- e+l Pb4ra Aos,A)6
rolSr ,q.S16 WOW
- =(j� /�` t`NT��4�^j j l� � �W '�'�'17n sN� N1.�M ���-� •S �` � 1�l�v
c�� �►�s � ,o�r� �j o+N� ��s��v�+a� �rn-� ti�> � �+fj'.L �� ��i�v�
"Ol�►'��g�7/ 9� iS r W ��l S ��
r-r
f71(1,7nw rvr% rvP15Y 0 vim(
�w d st,4'Vl'7 JOB,—
i
ii -
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 8, 1993
TO: Kay Shoudy
FROM: Ron Straka
STAFF CONTACT: Scott Woodbury
SUBJECT: WETLAND DELINEATION EXTENSION
CITY OF RENTON MITIGATION BANK SITES 1 AND 2
PID NUMBERS 252304-9019 AND 125381-0240
ISSUE:
Approval of request to extend the expiration date of the final wetland delineations
made by David Evans & Associates for the City of Renton mitigation bank sites 1 and
2, PID numbers 252304-9019 and 125381-0240, respectively.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant a one-year extension of the final wetland delineations as allowed by City
Ordinance 4346, Wetlands Management, Section 4-32-3.C.2.
BACKGROUND:
Delineations of existing wetlands on mitigation bank site 1 were documented by David
Evans & Associates in a wetland report dated December 3, 1991 and confirmed by the
Army Corps of Engineers in the attached February 28, 1992 letter. Delineations for
mitigation bank site 2 were documented by David Evans & Associates in two wetland
reports dated November 12, 1991 and November 16, 1991 . These delineations were
confirmed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the two attached April 20, 1992 letters.
There are two reports and Corps letters for mitigation bank site 2 because, at the time
of the delineations and Corps review, site 2 was divided into two separate parcels
along platted lot boundaries. The two separate parcels have since been combined by a
lot line adjustment, recording number 92061 19003.
This request for extension is based on Section 4-32-3.C.2 of the City's Wetlands
Management Ordinance which reads,
WETLAND DELINEATION EXTENSION
CITY OF RENTON MITIGATION BANK SITES 1 AND 2
Page 2
"A final wetlands delineation is valid for two years. Extensions for additional years can
be approved by the Department Administrator if an application is proceeding in a timely
manner through the permit process."
Work on the project has been proceeding in a timely manner. On May 18, 1992 the
City executed a wetland mitigation banking agreement with the Glacier Park Company,
as authorized by the City Council. Under this agreement, the City was given mitigation
bank sites 1 and 2 in exchange for permits to fill up to 0.99 acre of low quality
wetlands on each of six other Glacier Park parcels. The City also agreed to pay for and
complete on the mitigation bank sites any City required mitigation for impacts on the
Glacier Park parcels. After fulfilling the requirements of the Glacier Park agreement the
City will use the remaining available acreage on the mitigation sites to mitigate for
wetland impacts from both public and private projects.
In December 1992 the City Council adopted the 1993 budget. The budget included
appropriation for the wetland mitigation bank plan. On July 19, 1993 the City
executed a consulting contract with Parametrix, Inc., to establish a wetland mitigation
bank plan to create design documents for the Glacier Park mitigation and develop a
framework to guide future mitigation projects. The plan will include an analysis of the
mitigation sites, criteria for using the sites for mitigation, master plans for wetland
creation and recreational opportunities, detailed grading and planting plans for the
required Glacier Park mitigation, program cost estimates, and requirements for program
operation, such as monitoring and maintenance procedures. Work on the plan is
currently in progress and is expected to be completed in the Spring of 1994.
The expiration dates of the delineations imposed by the Wetlands Management
Ordinance two-year limit are February 28, 1994 and April 20, 1994, based on the
dates of the Corps confirmations of the wetland delineations. The project will exceed
these Spring 1994 expirations because of the complexity of the developing the plan,
creating the mitigation design documents, and conducting the environmental and
permitting review. No apparent change of condition on the mitigation sites is evident
from that found in the David Evans & Associates reports. As discussed above the
project has also been proceeding in a timely manner. Therefore a one-year extension
from the dates of the Corps confirmation is requested. This will make the expiration
date of the delineations consistent with the Corps, which considers delineation
confirmations valid for a three-year period. The City should consider revising the
ordinance two-year limit to be three years for consistency with the Corps.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you should need any other information,
please contact Scott Woodbury, Project Manager, at X-5547.
H:DOCS:93-1 158:SSW:ps
CC: David Saxen
Attachments
av VJ YY L.V 1U' UU I IIM 111"111111 11111 11V. LVV VUV VUVU 1 i UU/ 1J
Regulatory Branch FEB 2 8 1992 1u it1�a, f �aHjC!,rt�
Mr. Marty Sevier
Glacier Park Company
1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, Washington 98104
Reference: 91-4-00149
Dear Mr. Sevier; Glacier Park Company
This is in response to your
delineation performed by David Evansest andfAssociates, Inc. , c a wetlands
behalf, for wetlands located on your property acting rOn
e your
p
situated immediately north y (approximately 31 acres)
Of Southwest 33rd Street and West of Oakesdale
Avenue in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.
We concur with the wetlands delineation presented in the report, dated
December 3, 1991, by David Evans and Associates, Inc, and confirmed b a site
inspection of the subject property performed o
information contained in the report and associated drawingsa9e The
and complete. This delineation is valid for a B appears accurate
of this letter. period of 3 years from the date
We have not determined permit requirements.
development plan, ou ma When you have a specific
time. We y y reapply and we will determine requirements at that
have canceled this file, but please refer to the reference number if
YOU reapply_ This does not excuse you from com
from other Federal, state pliance with or confirmation
may affect this work , and local statutes, Ordinances or regulations which
f you
Terzi, telephone (206) 764-3495ave any questions, please contact Ms. Gail
Sincerely,
(:91 -
P.obert H. Martin
Chief, Processing Section M 2AQrlN a op-e&-RG
cc: David Evans and Associates, Inc.
415 - I18th Avenue, S.E,
Bellevue, Washington 98005-3553
f
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 4770 1
Olympia, Washington 98504-7703
1
1
j�
i
DEC-03-1993 17:20 FROM US COE-REGULATORY BRANCH TO 92352541 P.02
2 0 1992
Regulatory Branch
Mr. Marty Sevier
Glacier Park Company
1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, Washington 98104
Reference: 91-4-00095
Dear Mr. Sevier: Glacier Park Company
We have confirmed the wetland delineation on the 9.28 acre, Orillia Block
8, Lot 4 site located south of SW 34th Street, vest of Springbrook Creek, east
of Oakesdale Avenue SW and north of SV 39th Street in Section 30, Township 23
North, Range 5 East, Renton, Washington. We are in agreement with the
delineation report prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. , dated
November 12, 1991. This confirmation of delineation is valid for a period of
three years from the date of this letter.
We have also evaluated your proposal to discharge fill material into 0.99
acres of wetlands, which are isolated. Department of the Army regulations
dated- November 22, 1991, authorize certain activities under nationwide
permits, provided the enclosed conditions are met. Nationwide Permit 26 (Part
330, Appendix A) authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into
nontidal rivers, streams, and their lakes and impoundments, including adjacent
wetlands, that are located above the headwaters where the average annual flow
is less than 5 cubic feet per second . . . .
The entire text of Nationwide Permit 26 is enclosed.
Prior to placing fill, you must cnr"or. the Vashirpron rr_^ra of
hcology to determine whether documented habitat for a state listed species is
present. If present, this nationwide permit is not valid and you must contact
us again to determine permit requirements. Please contact:
State Nationwide Permit Coordinator
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Telephone (206) 438-7514 or 459-6038
We suggest that you place the following statement on the project plat as
information to future property managers: Contact the Corps of Engineers about
permit requirements for work in wetlands.
1
a i
J).V 1 U-cJ WCV I U- I I f NAM IC I R 1 A r HA fiU. CUb ddy dbUb
fit 2
APR ? 0 {932
Regulatory Branch �f f,AffOh �QJ���jfZ
Mr, Marty Sevier
Glacier Park Company
1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, Washington 98104
Reference: 91-4-00099
Glacier Park Company
Dear Mr, Sevier:
We have confirmed the wetland delineation on- the 15.15 acre, Orillia Block
8, Lot 1, 2, and 3 site located south of SW 34th Stre��;, east of Oakesdale
Avenue SW and northwest of SW 39th Street in Section Township 23 North,
Range )East, Renton, Washington. We are in agreement with the delineation
report prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc, dated November 16, 1991.
This confirmation of delineation is valid for a period of three years from the
date of this letter.
We have also evaluated your proposal to discharge fill material into 0.99
acres of wetlands, located on Lot 3 of the Orillia Block 8 site, which are
isolated. Department of the Army regulations dated November 22, 1991,
authorize certain activities under nationwide permits, provided the enclosed
conditions are met. Nationwide Permit 26 (Part 330, Appendix A) authorizes
discharges of dredged or fill material into nontidal rivers, streams, and
their lakes and impoundments, including adjacent wetlands, that are located
above the headwaters where the average annual flow is less than 5 cubic feet
per second . . . .
The entire text of Nationwide Permit 26 is enclosed.
Prior to placing fill, you must contact the Washington State Department of
present. If present, this nationwide permit is not valid and you must contact
us again to determine permit requirements. Please contact:
State Nationwide Permit Coordinator
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47703 i
Olympia. WA 98504-7703
Telephone (206) 438-7514 or 459-6038
We suggest that you place the following statement on the project plat as
information to future property managers: Contact the Corps of Engineers about
permit requirements for work in wetlands.
4% R CITY OF RENTON
Office of the City Attorney
Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren
RECEIVED 1.41
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
MEMORANDUM CITY OF RENTON
To: Lynn Guttmann, Public Works Administrator
From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date: November 30, 1993
Subject: One City's Model Solution to a Wetlands Dilemma
I am enclosing a copy of an article from the Nature Conservancy concerning a wetlands bank in
Eugene, Oregon. The concept does not sound much different from the one that we are pursuing.
However, it is interesting to note that the federal agencies seem to have been proactive in this case
rather than reactive. It is also interesting to note that there is apparently some money set aside to
help other communities adapt the West Eugene wetlands planning process to their own wetlands.
This money is through EPA.
Since Eugene is apparently in the same corps jurisdiction as the City of Renton I wonder how this
process worked. We might want to do a little follow-up.
Isn't it amazing what you can find?
vv
Lawrence J. arren
LJW:as.
Encl.
cc: Mayor Earl Clymer
A8:102.37.
Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206)255-8678
THIS PAPER CONTAINS 50%RECYCLED MATERIAL,10%POST CONSUMER
.�.�-3��q4i� �� � ,.. •a nun'x'r�'�* '''�, yt��<+'�,'4. ° ".'YW*f �t, �1_j�,�l�,,. ;� ?�
r
S •j di ,bR'a a • I
,
„:A'`,r ...nq, �ai `'� t x.:,p, t��,;'3m u � pr} '�v���l •Ti
tl:
••A
,r
t 'r.
Yak_.
t
��'' Q2111
All et
in
..........
0
7,
hh
One city's model solution
P f
to a wetlands dilemma
BY SALLY-Jo BOWMAN
teve Gordon trudges through watery mud mean- bootsucking mud inn-inter.But it dries rock hard in sum-
dering through hummocks of grass at the west mer. We were slow to realize we had significant wet-
edge of Eugene, Oregon. Songbirds twitter in the lands."
leaves of native Oregon ash and a ring-necked The federal action. which meant that the West Eugene
pheasant honks.To the northwest,a freight train rumbles, area had to be protected, came while then-Governor Neil
and white smoke billows from a lumber mill. Beyond a Goldschmidt was in Japan marketing the land for indus-
ent. With the
ncement, property
field blooming:blue with camas lilies, traffic hums on trial owners`feaoedn their investment wasusuddenly worthless.
hless.
Gordon walks part of a 13,000-acre remnant of west- City officials imagined potential jobs and tax money van-
ern Oregon prairie that covered perhaps 360,000 acres ishing.Tempers were on edge,to say the least.
when settlers arrived in the mid-1800s. The settlers The city handed the mess to Gordon, a gentle man
tlh turned most of the Willamette River Valley, of which this with a graying beard and a gift for listening. Over the next
prairie is part, into farmland. During the next 150 years, several years, he worked patiently with a wide variety of
the farmland gave way to industries, businesses and groups and individuals to engineer a plan that both pro-
homes in Eugene, which became Oregon's second-largest tects the environment and provides for economic devel
urban area. Then in 1987, federal regulations gave the op The WestEugene wetlands plan, which The Natw r
west fringe of the city a new identity:wetlands.
"That surprised a lot of people," says Gordon, a land- Conservancy helped craft, has won the support of corpo-
use planner for the Lane Council of Governments,a pub- rate leaders, government officials and conservationists. It
( lic agency that provides planning services for the county. earned Gordon a 1992 National Wetlands Award, an
( "We had the impression `wetlands' meant swamps and honor jointly sponsored by the Environmental La-,t
E bogs. Everybody knew West Eugene was gooey with Institute and the L.S. Environmental Protection Agency
10 NAfYR■ CONSERVANCY • SEPTE.MBER/OC70BER 1993
\
h ..s. 'E' a: .Y j ' :as.•. f...
[�:�\lhr,��' '1 �i.��,�3z �1'.,1 �'�,�., ---� �: �X•4t'�.`'„�3.��•1�,• '/r,�
rA
r
�;'�� � d � L'"`.�.• =�"'�� max" F �
dryz
.yam �1��:� �, ,'� '•„�f to /�� i� I � �1I{. \ _r_G �'i�g�r-,�fyFS�3��3�=r..�-
•w � �'.� '{�
y 't �f 1�� \ � $�_�.: �� cYa .n :t � ._?.. �' f _ .T .j• �:4
�
��.
Land-use planner Steve Gordon (right) and businessman Chucit Missar
found common ground in the ivetlands of Eugene, Oregon. i
I
(EPA).And,perhaps best of all,it has become a model for "'\'Wetlands?!,' I said. I had been a member of The
i other communities facing wetlands challenges. Nature Conservancy for 25 years and I thought I knew
"We ended up with government, environmentalists, what wetlands were. You know, a tidal slough. But I was
landowners and businesses all supporting the plan," says naive."
Robert Moulton, an attorney who represents a number of Not only did federal wetland regulators deny the per-
wetlands property owners and a member of the Eugene mit, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said that Spectra
Chamber of Commerce, "and it's because we were all Physics had filled the first 20 acres without authorization.
brought into the educational process." Says Missar: "We had jumped through all the hoops.
We weren't trying to slime anybody. It's just that nobody
THE XVETIANDS ISSUE in Eugene first came to a head at locally,,vas aware of the federal land-use planning require-
Spectra Physics, a bar-code scanner manufacturer that. ment. The process wasn't in place and there was no prece-
,,ith 500 employees,is one of the largest firms in the city. dent.'
The company came to West Eugene in 1980, con- Missar, a string-bean guy with an easy, warm smile,
structing a one-story wood building on 12 of 32 acres it continues: "At that point we could fight and make some
had purchased. Five years later the firm filled another lawyers rich, or we could say, 'OK, we don't agree, but
eight acres and added a two-story manufacturing unit. we'll try to resolve the issues."'
In late 1987 Spectra Physics applied for a permit to fill The EPA agreed to hold Spectra Physics' fill permit
its remaining acreage and erect a third building. Facility application until the company "mitigated"—bought
manager Chuck Missar remembers: "A city official called additional acreage in the same Amazon Creek watershed
and said, -Chuck, I need to talk to you.' That's always a and did whatever was necessary to make it a functioning
bad-news phrase. He told me wetlands had been discov- wetland.
eyed on our property in an environmental assessment. Over several years, Spectra Physics rehabilitated about
11'1111'.\IBERIM 70131-R 101).; • NATURE CONSERVANCY 1 I
rr43
+tea
�1� 1
.�.- - '•may �� �q;.
A The Willamette Valley daisy, one of several rare species protected at a
Nature Conservancy preserve in the West Eugene wetlands.
30 acres of wetlands near its plant. "We had consultants make business expansion a lot easier than it had been for
4
three layers deep," Missar jokes. They moved 15.000 Spectra Physics.
cubic feet of fill in a rye grass field and created a sinter First Gordon put together a team of engineers, plan-
pond. They burned and plowed invasive reed canary ners and financial experts from several city and county
grass, then planted the native tufted hairgrass. They hired departments and from The Nature Conservancy, which
a nursery to grow other native plants. manages about 350 acres of the West Eugene Wetlands as
Spectra Physics spent about $900,000 on the project the Willow Creek Natural Area. Under Gordon, who
(about half of which has been reimbursed by city and believes hard work should be leavened with humor, th,
state governments), all on the chance that government group became known as-The Wetheads."
regulators would approve the work and grant the fill per- Gordon calls the process "25 percent science and 75
mit. But other developers were less willing to take the percent human interaction." Indeed, the key was citizen
t risk.As Missar says, "no one wanted to get arrows in their involvement, including contacting the 125 property own-
backs." ers who held from 1 to 200 acres in the area. Says Eugene
wetlands coordinator Deborah Evans: "In looking at other
WHILE CHUCK MISSAR was busy learning more than he models, things disintegrated into winners and losers
thought it was possible to know about wetlands, the city Because of that, we rejected the idea of a task force o'
hired Steve Gordon to lead them out of the quagmire. citizen advisory committee and instead involved as man\
The veteran planner had to come up with something citizens as possible.
that would prevent the loss of.wetlands, improve water Between 1988 and 1991, the "Wetheads" led field trips i
quality,control stormwater,protect rare species,provide a to the wetlands,spoke to civic groups and school and uni-
stable development environment for business, help edu- versity classes about wetlands issues, mailed information
cate the public and allow for recreation. And it had to to property holders. and held eight public workshops.
f
i
12 NATURE CONSERVANCY • >11171 \1131 R/o( I01H k 199.f
stewardship ecologist for the Conservancy. He also serves
as a wetlands consultant to the city,and his shared salary
is a good example of the cooperative spirit that developed
as the Wetheads proceeded.
That's just how Catherine Macdonald likes it. She's the
Conservancy's director of stewardship for Oregon.
"Protecting biological diversity in an urban setting can
involve complex land-use and engineering issues," she
says.. , «B forming a partnership with the city of Eugene,
we can take advantage of each other's expertise and
resources."
Alverson fords the east fork of Willow Creek, the only
A Native prairie grasses planted near Spectra Physics' stream in the Amazon Creek drainage that hasn't been
complex in Eugcne—part of the company's effort to channeled for flood control. He heads for several acres
restore wetlands habitat. where the endangered desert parsley is flourishing. This
open area also fosters the endangered Fender's blue but-
terfly. On the west fork of the creek he checks a beaver
They also met individually with property owners and oth- dam,looking for the rare western pond turtle. These wet-
ers wanting to ask questions or express concerns. lands contain five other rare endemic species,such as the
The workshops drew as many as 150 people,and many Willamette Valley daisy, Kincaid's lupine and the shaggy
property owners attended them all. The atmosphere was horkelia.
dominated by a sense of frustration—until early 1990. "Our philosophy has always been to seek a win-win
"In that workshop we finally had an official wetlands solution," Alverson says. "The wetlands plan is a reincar-
inventory and maps," Gordon recalls. "Some people were nation of that on a bigger scale."
relieved to find they didn't own wetlands after all. Others The Conservancy now owns 200 acres in West Eugene
realized their land did fit the definition and that they had outright,and is negotiating to purchase 150 acres it man-
a common problem that was caused by changes in state =
and federal regulations,not by local folks. They started to = ,
understand we'd all have to work together."
As the public—especially property owners—found
they could take officials at their word, the atmosphere = +.
mellowed. "All sides compromised, and those compro-
mises make sense," says Deborah Evans. "They meet state
and federal wetlands law and they return certainty to
development."
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY played an important role
in the process, Gordon says. "The Conservancy is very
good at negotiating with private property owners. Thee A Chuck Missar (right), Spectra Physics'facility man-
brought that tool box to the planning group. They're sci- ager, and county official Steve Gordon survey newly
entifically sound,and interested in the broader ecosystem. rehabilitated wetlands.
And then they brought in Ed Alverson as staff in Eugene,
so we had day-to-day contact with the Conservancy."
The Conservancy had set the tone for wetlands protec- ages under leases. The Conservancy's dream has been to
tion a decade earlier when it leased its first acreage in the connect its acreage to other pieces of wetlands through a
southeast corner of the West Eugene wetlands. The orga- greenway running north to Fern Ridge Lake. With the
nization had identified the site as the best remaining piece West Eugene wetlands plan, that dream could well come
of the Willamette Valley wet prairie—an important habi- true in the next two decades.
tat for rare species that has been reduced to less than 1
percent of its original size. THE WETLANDS PLAN balances ecology with industry,
Ed Alverson was hired in 1991 as Willamette Valley protecting the most ecologically valuable areas while ;
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1993 • NATURE CONSERVANCY 13
i_ ments, the mitigation bank and private nonprofit organi-
zations such as The Nature Conservancy.
STEVE GORDON envisions a future in which business
and industry coexist with nature, where businesses will
---a �4 �/ I � k: locate in West Eugene because of the wetlands—not in
�► r spite of them. Employees could spend their lunch hours
Z7
canoeing or bicycling, strolling among wildflowers or
watching waterfowl. He even sees businesses using an
- image of environmental sensitivity to attract customers.
To Gordon the future is bright for both ecology and
economy. Others agree. Says Clayton Walker,a developer
A With the Conservancy and others, Steve Gordon helped in Eugene for 20 years and president of the West Eugene
z craft a plan that protects both nature and business. Community Association: "In the late 1980s we didn't
know what to do and couldn't get any direction. I've sup-
ported the West Eugene wetlands plan because it has the
allowing development on the less important ones, says goal of providing certainty for the future. It's a good
Steve Gordon. It calls for recreation and educational approach. Now it's starting to look like there will be a
opportunity, with waterways, trails and an interpretive demand for industrial development again. Most of us
center where citizens can learn about wetlands. involved are now cautiously optimistic."
CeMMI to both preservation and enhancement of the The plan itself can be used in other communities deal-
wetlands and to economic development is a "mitigation ing with wetlands management. The federal
t bank." In effect, this allows developers to pay for the kind Environmental Protection Agency, which funded about
of work Spectra Physics did on its own and hand off all 40 percent of the cost of planning, had that in mind from
the details of land acquisition and rehabilitation to the the start. They knew that many cities-16 in Oregon
local or federal government. In addition, a streamlined alone—are facing wetlands issues as they grow.
permit application will reduce the paperwork wait from "We were looking for a community we could use as a
months to weeks. model," says William Riley, EPA regional wetlands pro-
Federal agencies, including the Bonneville Power gram manager in the Northwest. "The plan had to be
Administration and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management good for wetlands and also good for the community in
(BLM), will help implement the plan. The BLM has terms of predictable growth. We got Steve Gordon's lead-
already purchased 18 acres of West Eugene wetlands and ership and drive and a community that took a problem
has offers pending on 200 more. Ultimately, the BLM will and turned it into an opportunity."
oven about 1,000 acres in the area as a public trust. The EPA has allocated$100,000 to help other commu-
Daniel Bowman, BLM wetlands project manager, nities adapt the West Eugene wetlands planning process
points to Danebo Pond,not far from his office in the heart to their own wetlands issues. Officials from at least 25
of the wetlands. "In 1967 this was a barrow pit. It filled in, cities have expressed interest and Gordon already has
and now there's beaver in it, and great blue herons. made more than a dozen presentations at national and
Mother Nature is taking it back. This makes me think that regional planners'conferences.
mitigation can work."
He gestures to an expanse of grassland once used for CHUCK MISSAR STRIDES along Amazon channel,grasses
trap-shooting but otherwise undisturbed. "This 75 acres is waving halfway up his long legs. He's five minutes from
possibly the largest native grassland in the Willamette his office, on the 30 acres Spectra Physics bought to reha-
Valley. In these wetlands we're dealing with a habitat that bilitate. Pink, blue and white flags locate reintroduced
is in much shorter supply than old-growth forest." native plants. Missar surveys stream bank and field, alert
Wetlands acquisition, rehabilitation and maintenance for red fox, pointing to a spot where a pair of Canada
will cost an estimated $16.4 million over the next 20 geese nest.A kestrel falcon soars above.
years. Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield, Representative Peter "I wish we hadn't had to do this," he says. "We have
DeFazio and former Representative Les AuCoin helped enough challenges making scanners at a profit without
appropriate $3 million in federal funds to the BLM. Other becoming wetlands experts.But we did get what we want-
sources of funding include the state and city govern- ed,our permit. The city retained us as a reasonably happy
7 4 NATURE CONSERVANCY • SEPTE.NQER/OC 10131.R 109 i
business and got a first-class wetland reconstruction that
will be a standard.
"Normally this situation would have all the elements of
a battle, but there's been a lot of effort to communicate. -
People feel listened to," Missar says. "Steve Gordon's
style, openness and grace under pressure make a lot of iteoi
,,.:u' ,i ;.'k•;
work."
Gordon is humble about his role and his accomplish- ' �► w\ �:
ments. "It's not just me, you know," he says. "We have a .01
wonderful community of active citizens,local elected offi-
cials and public agency staff, a supportive Congressional
delegation, and state and federal agencies who wanted us
to be a good example. _
"Most of all," he adds, "moving forward depends on '
trust and communication among environmentalists and
developers.That's the magic." E3
SALLY-Jo BOWMAN is a freelance journalist who divides her
time between Oregon and her native state of Hawaii.
V Communication and compromise among businesses,
conservationists, landowners and government officials
were the keys to protecting Eugene's wetlands and their
endangered inhabitants, such as Fender's blue butterfly. 10-
1
t
I
i
1
i
SEI'r1-11RIR/()C 1013EK 199.3 NATURE CONSERVANCY 1 5
1
Sean S. Woodbury _
From: Sean S. Woodbury
To: Ronald J. Straka; Mark R. Pywell
Subject: Wetland Mitigation Bank Project
Date: Tuesday, December 07, 1993 9:10AM
Please let me know when Tuesday, December 14, and Thursday, December 16, you would be available to meet
as a design team. The Tuesday meeting would be at most two hours to discuss the material distributed to you
November 5 and December 1. The Thursday meeting would be two hours with the consultant to review some
conceptual plans for developing the mitigation sites. I will distribute meeting agenda as soon as we have set the
meeting times. Your response by mail or phone at X-5547 by the end of today would be appreciated.
cc: Leslie Betland by phone.
David Saxon will be on vacation and will not be able to attend.
Mary Lynne Myer by phone.
Page 1
ti U )IT C�002;�ii
93 13: 30 FAX 2U6 292 6f%33
/2/03
=�1C'8 4 1%575
Facsimile Corer Sheet
To: Gary Votchuk '�
Company: CB Commercial Real Estate
Phone: (206)-292-613(j
Fax: (206)-292-6033
From: Mark W. Stiefe), PE
Company: Stiefel Engineering
Phone: (206) 854-7472
Fax: (206) 854-1575
Date: 12/01/93
Pages including this
cover page:
4
Comments: Trillium Corporation Fenton Properties
Gary:
Provided per your request is information on the Corps of Engineers Permit and the Department
of Ecology Water Quality Certification issued for Parcel 8E, dated June 24, 1992.
The original application to the Corps of Engineers Consisted of a letter notifying them of the
Intent to fill less than one acre of wetlands, the David Evans Associates wetland report and a
conceptual site plan prepared by Sob Fadden of Lance Mueller's office.
I
The application requested filling all onsite wetlands to the adg8 of the property, 0,79 acres total.
The application and agreement with Renton for the wetiand mitigation bank was to fill all onsite
wetlands with no buffer at the property line. Any required buffer would be taken on the southern
parcel dedicated to the City for the Mitigation Bank.
The lot line adjustment by Bush, Roed & Hitchings adjusted the southerly lot line for this parcel
per the agreement, The sitework and related fill were completed under a Routine Vegetation
Management Permit issued by Renton to Glacier Park and Trillium Corporation. { prepared all
the documentation and coordinated tha permit process as described above.
3il FAX 206 292 6033 CB Ct MM-SEATTLE C]0 3, 1 0 G
Nei,rk W. t Eta - _
P . 05
MARK W, STIEFEL
RECEIVED
y JUN 2 6 1992
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop PV,77 o Dlympia, Washington 96SO4 8717 , (205) 459-6000
June 24, 1992
lit Karen E, Lane
Glacier Park Company
1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, WA 98101,
RE: NATIONWIDE PERMIT VERIFICATION 91.4-00095
Dear Ms. Lane,
Thank you for the information regarding Water Quality Certification for your
Orillia Block 8 site project under nationwide permit #26, Discharge into
.Headwaters and Isolated Waters, The proposed work entails filling 0. 99 acres of
Wetland's in King. County, Washington.
I have checked the list of endangered, threatened a'nd sbnsiti,ve Species and the
location of the project, Section 30, Township 23N, ',Range 5E, is not documented
as habitat for these species, This agency verifies that the project complies
with State requirements for nationwide permit #26 (attached) . The project may
proceed as indicated in the letter that was sent to Ecology on April 27 , 1992.
Any future permits obtained for work that will result in additional impacts to
wetlands on the site, shall be coordinated with Department of . Ecology's
Environmental Review Section, contact Sandra Manning at (206) 438-7514. The use
Of Nationwide Permit #26 shall be limited to one M acre of impact without
mitigation. If the impact exceeds one acre, mitigation will be requirsd.
Sincerely,
�r
Maria Peeler, Supervisor
Permit Coordination Unit
Environmental Review
MvP.slm
n.+• me
DEPARTMENT OP THE AIRMY
sr,.v to SICATtLE dISTR! T CORPS of ENGINEERS GINc�R�
� 1 1 E L
- Box •3733
SLATTLE,WASH INGTOt 4E1241L35 APR z Z 19�2� r,1L«r,WCW
APR 2 0 1992
Regulatory Branch
Mr. Xarty Sevier FIL
E Copy
Glacier a i Park C omps.ny
1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, Washington 98104
Reference: 91-4-00095
Glacier Park Co any
Dear Mr. Sevier: C Plcl. *81r
We have confirmed the wetland delineation on the 9,28 acre, Ori.11ia Block
8, Lot 4 site located south of SW 34th Street, we$t of Springbrook Creek, east
of Oakesdale Avenue SW and north of SW 39th Street in Section 30, Township 23
Forth, Range 5 East, Renton, Washington. We are in agreement with the
delineation report prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. , dated
November 12, 1991. This confirmation of delineation is valid for a period of
three years from the date of this letter.
We have also evaluated your proposal to discharge fill material into 0.99
acres of wetlands, which are isolated. Department of the Army regulations
dated November 22, 1991, authorize certain activities under nationwide
permits, provided the enclosed conditions are mat. Nationwide Permit 26 (Part
330, Appendix A) authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into
nontidal rivers, streams, and their lakes and impoundments, including adjacent
wetlands, that are located above the headwaters where the average annual flow
is less than 5 cubic feet per second . . . .
The entire text of Nationwide Permit 26 is enclosed.
r
Prior to Placing fill, you must contact the Washington State Department of
toology to determine whether documented habitat for a state listed species is
preaent. If present, this nationwide permit is not valid and you crust contact
us again to determine permit requirements. Please I'contact:
State Nationwide Permit Coordinator
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Telephone (206) 438-7514 or 459-6038
We suggest that you place the following statement on the project plat as
3nfornation to future property mgnagars: contact the corps of Engineers about
permit requirements for work in wetlands.
.2-
This verification will be valid for two years from tho date of this letter
or until the nationwide permit is modified, reissued, or revoked. If
additional placement of fill in watera of the united Stater, including
watlands, is contemplated on this site, you must contact use concerning any
additional permit requirements, Uhile you need no further authorization from
w1, you must still comply with other Federal, State and local, requirements
wihich may pertain to the work. If you have any questions, please contact
Kr, Jack Gossett at the above address or by telephone at (206) 764-5495.
Sincerel
Robert H. Martin
Chief, Frooessing Section
Enclosures
i
i
r
Renton Parcel t8E Utilization Map
Lot 4, Blook S (Lot 3 of Short Plat)
drWJ.a Indu$trial Area
Renton, Washington
S.W.3�tih 5z.
1. Wet1"s verif ied by:
* City of Renton
* Corps of engineers, "
2, Wetl" Fill Authorized by y w `
City of Rnto
„ee n per Mitigation Bank
. z y
Agreement. City is respgnsible for
y
wetland mitigation in Banks per city
Dodo.
3. Wetland Fill Authorized by-,
Corps of Engineers ,for filling 0,99
sores of wetland per NWP No. 26.
Refer to permit No. 9 1-4--000 9 5
4. Farm l Ut i l i zat i.on Map shows a layout
of wetland filling aad buildable area.
Other configurations are possible.
40
• Site Area 6. 72 acres
* Total Wetlands 0.79 acres
Wetland fill 0.79 acres
• Buffer width 25 feet
• Usable area 6. 72 acres
CrE D;
Wetland To Remain
Buffer / Open Space
Usable Area
Mitigation Bank
Wetland Biolog..tst, David Evans Associates
Surveyor; Bush, Roed &. Hitching$ North
Engineer: Mark W. Stiefel, PE Scale 1" = 200' (APpx.)
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 1, 1993
TO: David Saxon
Mark Pywell
Leslie Betlach
FROM: Scott Woodbury SLA)
SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN
DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CHAPTERS 1 TO 6
Please find attached copies of the draft mitigation plan Chapters 1 to 6 for your review
and comment. Mary Lynne Myer and Ron Straka have already received and are
reviewing the documents. We will hold a design team meeting early in the week of
December 13 to discuss the attached information and the policy issues distributed on
November 5th. Later the same week we will meet with Parametrix to discuss
alternative conceptual site plans for the mitigation sites. I will be calling you this week
to arrange the meeting times.
If you have any questions about any of the information or the status of the project,
please call me at X-5547.
H:DOCS:93-1 1 17:SSW:ps
CC: Mary Lynne Myer
Ron Straka
i
1i/,d/f3
iii)d G W1 &NG Dq-A c-WC4f
Poo sf l�k A� 5,u(z c A lul rJ/ 1.�NN G vnh.Ar►N� _t.,Ajnr t„)- M�►�
s (,Ro�nN� , . , Cat S'r5� LIfir /N SEI'r iff3 A(7ot rs/r
'A -14(sx)1 L/UMJ01&1la/JS,
B/�S/1 fa it (,e/Z PS b✓`c,S)arj /S ^xtr w)of&SfOoD .
Go yo�l "!2/u/DUA4— 16 CCgPr C4wf/-t
5 u 6 6 9,5 r w/ Cd tuff 6 7��A-P- 7-1,4-ri
c.Upi (, u/aG, �*Qpr rR/s )f Aid r �j1,�€6)n „ r- -7Qr/f%/— ,
1
�h�Nry
1+6
I /vim T�Kt G /sf u� I.J U5Y 6r-r Pr ,,,., e- M5 ✓�� y� �^,�� c,„,�,���
nv
(less Try" TG T! '4 IN D6LTa
L /a (vti S7U6G�j5 1 e/N6 r6 Ap6, ( `l'` /J
A �4^4o)e PAS
L�Nw — `1vifj_ )Sv7' (pun� vrKZ oAOJp\cfrruU!_ �-
'd�/C-FM^' of Ceti r-L I Cq'_ Uri
i.✓/ C�l,o/�L ,
f1�w w� ,FLU c. c-y t7 'IPA'? Nor Ay )L�464 . Caat��D Gu(LI?!E
_ vn•�o�t F �� �?Is c,t,'Sv
uU0
! �Prf L4Tr" S 'r ji 779- c.."l A& dOJ&' 6td6A-V)rca
StrG6017s PoSSel�CE rr W� C:el Ur�r.�kQ . OIJA) wt�
C-'0� , (,^I C S614 S Ad\)l I/✓& C-A S T IAA` -6Murk
q 1L.A
f>v>u 4-If t C CA LA, j 6 w-
;ram fjEG� �iC
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 5, 1993
TO: Ron Straka
Mary Lynne Myer
David Saxon
Mark Pywell
Leslie Betlach
FROM: Scott Woodbury 15LI)
SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN
REVISED POLICY ISSUES
Please find attached copies of the revised policy issues for your review and comment.
Parametrix has expanded the issues and revised them into the problem solving sequence
format as requested. We will hold a design team meeting the week of November 15 to discuss
the issues and formulate a design team recommendation. I will be calling you next week to
arrange for a meeting time.
If you have any questions about any of the information or the status of the project, please call
me at X-5547.
,Iluv- J-di wtu 1 I K I A h AX N0, 206 889 8808 P. 02/18
CHAPTER 3. POLICY ISSUES
During discussions between the City and the project team, several policy issues were identified
that require discussion and resolution. The issues are identified below, followed by a brief
discussion of the issue, options to resolve the issue, advantages and disadvantages to the options,
and a recommendation.
3.1 POLICY ISSUE 1: Should the City be Eligible to Use the Mitigation Sites for
Public Projects?
3.1.1 Jssue
Under the current City of Renton Wetland Ordinance, a wide range of city-sponsored activities
can occur in wetlands without obtaining a special permit. These activities are outlined in the City
of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance (City of Renton 1992), Section 4-32-4 and include:
• Activities affecting a single, hydrologically isolated Category 1 or 2 wetland of less than
2,200 sq ft within a property boundary (City of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-4.C.1).
• Activities affecting hydrologically isolated Category 3 wetlands of less than 5,000 sq ft
within a property boundary (City of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-4.C.2),
• Normal and routine maintenance and repair of existing facilities where no alteration of
the wetland or additional fill materials will be placed (City of Renton 1992; Code Section
4-32-4.A.4). The area must be restored to original conditions.
• Normal and routine maintenance and repair with minimum placement of fill to bring
facility up to established safety standards (City of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-4.A.5).
Impact must be minimized and area restored.
• Site investigation work necessary for land use application submittals such as surveys, soil
logs, percolation tests, and other related activities (City of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-
32-4.A.8).
• New surface water discharges to Category 1, 2, and 3 wetlands where discharge meets
Chapter 22 of the City's Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance. These activities
will not result in significant changes in water temperature or chemical characteristics, and
any changes in hydrology that would result in greater wetland function and value (City
of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-4.A.9).
Parametriz, Inc. 10 55-1779-07 City of Renton - DRAFT
drf?mtig.p(n November 3, 1993
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 11 NARAPIETRIX r X NU, ?Ub 889 bbUb r, Uri ib
• Regional storm water management facilities designed consistent with the Washington State
Department of Ecology's Wetlands and Storm Water Management Guidelines (City of
Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-4.A.12),
• Enlargement of facilities beyond existing needs provided footprint does not increase more
than 10 percent within the wetland or its buffer (City of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-
4.C.6).
• Emergency activities (City of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-4.D),
As outlined above, the Wetlands Management Ordinance (City of Renton 1992) allows for a wide
range of city-sponsored public activities without needing to compensate for the temporary or
minor disturbance to wetlands. However,there are other public projects(e.g., transportation, road
improvements, public works) that the City may consider in the near and long term whose impacts
to wetlands may require compensatory mitigation. These impacts could be compensated for
through the use of the proposed mitigation banking program.
3.1.2 Options
3.1.2.1 Option 1: Allow public project impacts to be mitigated for at the
mitigation banking sites (assumes that the public project meets
the eligibility requirements for using the mitigation banking
program)
Advantages
• The City would not have to necessarily provide on-site mitigation,
• The City would not have to necessarily acquire additional land to implement an off-site
mitigation design.
State and Federal regulatory agency acceptance of the credibility of the mitigation banking
program could increase with City participation.
Allowing public projects to be eligible provides an opportunity for a partnership between
public and private developers.
Disadvantages
• The amount of available "banked" wetland mitigation on the sites may diminish relatively
fast if numerous public projects that affect higher quality wetlands (i.e., Category 1 and
Parametrix, Inc, 11 City of Renton - DR9FT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drflmtig.pin
wcu i c- i c r INN is i tt I n FAX NO, 206 889 8808 N, 04/18
2 wetlands) are implemented and are mitigated for at the mitigation banking sites (i.e.,
less banked wetland credit available for use by the private sector).
• There is the potential that the general public may perceive the City as giving preferential
treatment to meeting the eligibility requirements for public projects.
3.1-2.2 Option 2: Do not allow public project impacts to be mitigated for at the
mitigation banking sites.
Advantages
• Leaves more "banked" wetland available for private projects,
• There may be more public interest in the mitigation program if it was designed just for
the private sector.
Disadvanta es
• The City would need to acquire land to conduct off-site mitigation for public projects if
on-site mitigation could not be achieved.
• The City would not be able to take advantage of the mitigation banking program - a
program to which they are committing substantial financial resources.
• State and federal agencies may not be as supportive of the mitigation banking program
if it is designed solely for the private sector.
3.1.3 Recotnme dation
Comments from the general public(October 20, 1993)and the development community (October
21, 1993) were considered when malting this recommendation. Considerations included the fact
that public projects serve a public need benefiting the entire community, and that implementation
of the mitigation banking program may be financed, in part, by the City (e.g., 5.33 acres of
mitigation required for allowing fill on Glacier Park properties, Parks and Recreation trail
development). We recommend that wetland mitigation projects for public projects that meet the
eligibility requirements for using the mitigation banks be allowed on the mitigation banking sites.
However, the City should consider limiting public participation to not exceed 50 percent of the
total available mitigation banking acreage.
Parametric, Inc. 12 55-1779-07 Ciry of Renton - DRAFT
drftmtig.pin
November 3. 1993
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 13 f ANAME fK I X r Ax NU, ?Ub 889 8808 r, U5/i b
3.2 POLICY ISSUE 2: Should the Mitigation Sites be Used for Impacts to Category
1 and 2 Wetlands, or Only for Projects Impacting Category
3 Wetlands?
3.2.1 issue
In early conversations about the structure of the mitigation bank, the general agreement seemed
to be that only projects affecting Category 3 wetlands should be eligible to use the bank
(Appendix A, Summary of Category 1, 2, and 3 Wetlands). The general reasoning was that this
category represented the majority of wetlands within the Valley, and impacts would tend to occur
on the smaller and lower value wetlands. A review of the Wetlands Management Ordinance and
the current city wetland inventory indicates that some Category 1 and 2 wetlands could also be
potentially eligible to use the bank.
Deciding on whether to consider impacts to Category I and 2 wetlands eligible for use of the
mitigation bank is dependent, in part, on (1) the number and acreage of Category 1, 2, and 3
wetlands within the Valley, and (2) interpretation of the City's Wetland Management Ordinance.
Based on the available wetland inventory data there are 19 Category 3 wetlands ranging in size
from less then I acre to about 20 acres, 12 Category 2 wetlands ranging in size from less than
1 acre to about 23 acres, and three Category 1 wetlands ranging in size from 20 to 65 acres. The
City of Renton owns all of the Category I wetlands (Table 1, see Figure I).
The City's Wetland Management Ordinance is somewhat ambiguous with respect to whether
Category 1 and 2 wetlands can be impacted. As currently interpreted, the ordinance does not
preclude development activities in Category 1 and 2 wetlands; but it does not actually state what
activities are regulated in these higher quality wetlands_
3.2.2 Options:
3.2.2.1 Option 1: Allow the mitigation banking sites to be used for impacts only to
Category 3 wetlands.
Advantages
• Potential impacts to Category I and 2 wetlands would be minimized if project proponents
could not use the mitigation banking sites and had to do on-site and/or off-site mitigation
(Le,, disincentive to impact Category I and 2 wetlands).
• Ensures that only lower quality wetlands are being impacted, mitigated for, and replaced
with greater functional value.
Parametriz, Inc. 13 Ciry of Renton - DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmtig.pin
N'OV- 3-93 WED 13: 13 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 06/18
Table 1. Inventoried wetlands within City of Renton limits,
Wetland
Wetland Code t Type Size
Category 1 2
W-4 3 PFO,PSS,PRM 65
W-5 1 PFO 20
W-123 PSS,PEM 41
Total 3
Category 2
W-25 PFO 1 or loss
W-40 PEM,PSS
W-43 PEM
W-3 POW,PFO,PEM 5-6
W-38 PFO,PSS,PEM
W7N PEM,PSS 11 - l2
W8N PSS,PEM
W13C POW,PENT PSS
W-10 PFO,POW 12-13
W-22 PEM,PSS,PFO 18-19
W-45 PFO,PSS,PEM
W5C PFO,PSS 23
Total 12
Category 3 2
W-54 PEM 1 or less
W-31 PFO,PEM
W-34 PEM
W-35 PEM
W-56 PSS,PFO,PEM 1-2
W-9 PFO
W-16 PEM,PSS
W-3 6 PEM
W-6 PFO,PSS 2-3
W-75 PSS,PEM
W-15 PFO,PSS
W-41 PSS,PEM
W-14 PSS,PEM 3-4
W-33 PER PSS
W-85 PSS,PEM 4-5
W-13a PFO,PEM,PSS
W-21 PEM,PSS
W-32 PFO,PSS 6-7
W-13b PEM 20
Total I9
Notes:
A portion of W-22 is Wetland Mitieatlon Site 1
A portion of W-321s Wcdand Mitigation Site 2
1 From R.W.Beck 1993,Black River Basin Draft Water Quality Management Plan,Volume 3 and
Jones and Srokes 1991,Critical Areas Inventory,City of Renton Wetlands and Stream Corridors
2 Category is based on City of Renton wetland ordinance
7 Owned by the City of Renton
PEM —Palusulne emergent PSS =Palustrine scrub shrub
POW =Palustrine open water PFO =Palustrine forested
NUv- 3-93 WED 13: 14 PARANETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 07/18
• Focusing the mitigation banking program on Category 3 wetlands may result in greater
Opportunities to retain and expand the City's economic base,
• Administrative management of the mitigation would be relatively simple.
Disadvantage
• Projects that may impact Category 1 P g ry (public only) and 2 (public and private) wetlands
would not be eligible to use the wetland mitigation bank and would need to consider on-
site and/or off-site mitigation alternatives,
3.2.2.2- Option 2: Allow the sites to be used for impacts to Category 1 and 2, as well
as Category 3 wetlands.
Advanta e
• Provides greater opportunity for the development community to use the mitigation
banking program and does not necessarily preclude public and private development in
Category 1 and 2 wetlands.
• Provides opportunity for City to use the mitigation banking sites for impacts to Category
1 wetlands.
Disadvantages
• Potential to use up the acreage created for the bank relatively fast because of greater
replacement-to-loss ratio prescribed by the City's Wetland Ordinance (City of Renton
1992) (i.e., potentially fewer users),
• Higher value wetlands have higher buffer requirements, resulting in a net reduction in
wetland mitigation area available for banking,
3.2.3 Recommendation
Based on the available information on inventoried wetlands under the jurisdiction of the City of
Renton, the majority of wetlands that may be subject to future development activities appear to
be a combination of both Category 2 and 3 wetlands, with Category 3 wetlands appearing to be
more abundant than Category 2 wetlands. The majority of the Category 3 wetlands occur in the
portion of the Valley where economic development is desirable. Therefore, it is reasonable to
expect the majority of impacts to occur to Category 3 wetlands.
Para07, Inc. IS
S 5-1779-779-0 City of Renton - DRAFT
drftmagpin November 3, 1993
NUV- wtu 1 J: 14 FAKAML ix 1 x FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 08/18
Neither the general public nor the development community objected to allowing impacts to
Category 2 wetlands being potentially eligible to use the'mitigation banking program. However,
the general public did not want impacts to Category 1 wetlands to occur and be mitigated for on
the mitigation banking sites. The City is currently the sole owner of Category 1 wetlands within
the Black River Drainage Basin (with the exception of a portion of the Panther Creek Wetland).
Future public projects (e.g., extension of Oaksdale Avenue) may affect a portion of the adjacent
Category 1 City of Renton Wetland (see Figure 1). Any impacts will need to be mitigated for
according to the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance (City of Renton 1992) and/or
according to the Corps (and advisory state and federal resource agencies) permit conditions. The
City should, at a minimum, have the opportunity to mitigate for those wetland impacts on the
mitigation banking sites. Because it is unlikely that significant portions of City-owned Category
1 wetlands will be impacted, we recommend that compensating for impacts to Category 1
wetlands be allowed at the mitigation banking sites. We also recommend that the City consider
allowing compensation for impacts to Category 2 as well as Category 3 wetlands to occur at the
mitigation banking sites.
The City needs to remember that any wetland under the jurisdiction of the Corps (and associated
agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and the Washington State
Department of Ecology [Ecology]) are subject to federal regulatory requirements_ The Corps and
Ecology may not determine that compensation for impacts to a given wetland under their
jurisdiction is appropriate at the mitigation banking sites.
Finally, the section of the City's Wetland Management Ordinance on allowed and regulated
activities (Section 4-32-4) is subject to broad interpretation for whether Category 1 and 2
wetlands can be impacted. Therefore, we recommend that the City request administrative
clarification to determine whether the ordinance intended to allow impacts to Category 1 and 2
wetlands.
3.3 POLICY ISSUE 3: Should the Mitigation Sites be Used for Impacts to
Wetlands That are Less Than 1 Acre, or for Projects
Impacting Wetlands Less Than 1 Acre or 1 Acre or Greater
in Size?
3.3.1 Issue
In early conversations with the City of Renton about the structure of the mitigation bank, the
general agreement seemed to be that only projects affecting wetlands of less than 1 acre, and
considered to be above the headwaters, should be eligible to use the bank. The general reasoning
Paramerrix, Inc. 16 City of Renton -DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmtig.pin
NUV- 3-93 WED 13: 15 PAKAMElK1X rAX NO. 2Ub 889 ddUd r, U9/18
for this was that any permitting decisions would largely be a City responsibility and impacts to
these wetlands would not necessarily require a permit from the Corps' and/or Ecology',
However, there are wetlands within the Valley that are larger than 1 acre and a developer (public
or private) may determine that unavoidable impacts to a proposed project are going to impact
greater than 1 acre of wetland, For impacts to wetlands greater than 1 acre, a permit (either a
Nationwide 26 permit or Section 404 individual permit, depending on the jurisdictional status of
the wetland) to fill the wetland is required from the Corps and/or Ecology,
3.3.2 Options:
3.3.2.1 Option 1: Allow the mitigation banking sites to be used for impacts only to
wetlands that are less than 1 acre and above the headwaters.
AdvantaLres
• The City is the primary agency involved in permitting these types of activities and with
working with the development community to determine appropriate compensatory
mitigation.
• Reduces the level of coordination necessary with state and federal resource and regulatory
agencies, thus reducing the time invested in the administrative and technical management
of the mitigation banking program.
Disadvantages
• May preclude a project proponent(public or private) from being able to use the mitigation
banking site if other state and federal permit requirements could be met for wetlands 1
acre or larger.
• If the Corps determines that many of the wetlands in the Valley are adjacent, the wetlands
that would be eligible to use the site would shift to the upper drainage basin areas. These
We are assuming that some of the wetlands within the Valley that are less than 1 acre are indeed wetlands that
are above the headwaters, thereby allowing the City to be the sole agency managing activities in those wetlands and
the wetland mitigation banks. Should the Corps determine that the majority of wetlands within the Valley are
"adjacent," the usefulness of the wetland mitigation banking program will need to be addressed.
' The Corps and Ecology should be notified when a project is going to impact a wetland that is less than 1 acre
and above the headwaters. The Corps will typically issue a jurisdictional letter and/or a Nationwide 26 permit.
However, the Corps and Ecology have not typically required mitigation for impacts to wetlands that are less than
1 acre and above the headwaters.
Parametrix, Inc. 17 City of Renton - DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmrig.pin
NIaV- �-yJ WLU 1�; 1 b YHKHnt I K I A r»n INU. cuo OOJ ooUa r. 1 U/1 b
areas are often considered to be of higher value because they are less disturbed and are
often associated with primary and secondary stream tributaries.
3.3.2.2 Option 2: Allow the sites to be used for impacts to wetlands that are less than
or greater than 1 acre in size that are either above the headwaters
or adjacent.
Advantage
• Provides an opportunity for project proponents (private or public) that can meet state and
federal regulatory requirements to potentially use the mitigation banking site.4
Disadvaptages
• The wetland mitigation credit could potentially be used by one large project, thereby
limiting opportunities for others who develop in the Valley.
• An investment of time and resources may be needed to coordinate and negotiate an
agreement with state and federal resources agencies.
• Agencies(i.e., Ecology, EPA)require higher-value wetlands to have larger buffers. These
buffer requirements may need to be met on the mitigation banking sites.
• Up-front costs for the mitigation program could potentially increase,
• State and federal agencies may have a difficult time agreeing that mitigation on the
banking sites will be adequate compensatory wetland mitigation.
3.3.3 Recommendation
The project team recommends that wetlands that are less than 1 acre and above the headwaters
be eligible to use one of the two mitigation banking sites (e.g., Mitigation Banking Site 2). As
envisioned, impacts to less than 1 acre of either Category 1, 2, or 3 wetlands that are considered
to be above the headwaters would be permitted(including mitigation requirements) primarily by
the City of Renton and mitigated for at one of the taro mitigation sites.
' Impacts to wetlands that are under federal jurisdiction need to be substantiated by meeting the alternatives
analysis Section 404 (B)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act. The basic presumption of the alternatives analysis
is that there is a less environmentally damaging practicable alternative to a project that is not dependent on water,
including wetlands_ Thus, depending on the type of project, it is unlikely that many project proponents who want
to develop wetlands within the Valley will be able to pass the alternatives analysis. If this assumption is true then
it is likely that few impacts from projects that are subject to the federal requirements could potentially be offset at
the mitigation banking sites.
Parametrix, Inc. 18 'City of Renton - DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3. 1993
dYJ?mtig.pin
NUV— 5—d6 WtU 1�; 1 b rHKHCIt i N 1 h r Hn flu, quo ooJ aouo r. 1 11 1 b
However, if a project proponent can meet the state and federal regulatory requirements associated
with activities affecting wetlands [e.g., Section 404 (13)(1) alternatives analysis of the Clean
Water Act], and the agencies, including the City of Renton agree that mitigation banking is the
best compensatory mitigation option, the impacts could be offset at the other of the two
mitigation banking sites.
The City of Renton may not necessarily need to meet and negotiate a Memorandum of
Agreement with the federal and state resource agencies that also have regulatory oversight of the
wetlands. However, the City will need to participate in the evaluation process with the state and
federal agencies to determine if the mitigation banking site is the best option to compensate
impacts to wetlands 1 acre or greater that are above the headwaters or adjacent.
To ensure that sufficient wetland banking credits are available at the two mitigation banking sites,
we further recommend that the mitigation program give preference to projects that impact less
than 1 acre of Category 1, 2, or 3 wetlands that are above the headwaters. Adequacy for using
the mitigation banking sites would need to be determined for projects that affect 1 acre or more
of wetland. This concept is illustrated below in Table 2.
Table 2. Recommended preference for allowing impacts to be compensated for at the mitigation banking
sites.
Size
Priority Weiland Category (acres) Jurisdictional Status
I Cate0ory 3 <l above the headwaters
2 Category 2 <1 above the headwaters
3 Category I <1 above the headwaters
4 Category 3 zl above the headwaters or adjacent
5 Category 2 zl above the headwaters or adjacent
6 Category 1 _>I above the headwaters or adjacent
3.4 POLICY ISSUE 4: Should the City be Solely Responsible for Administrative
and Technical Management of the Mitigation Program and
Mitigation Sites?
3.4.1 Issue
The overall management of a mitigation banking program includes an administrative and technical
management component. In general, administrative management includes:
Parantetrix, Inc. 19 City of Renton - DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drllmttg.pin
Nuv- J_y� Wtu i J: 1 ( r mnt i K i x h AX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 12/18
• Establishing the administrative agent
• Credit brokering and credit tracking
• Collecting and tracking fees
• Financial issues and funding
• Permit tracking
• Being the bank operator (day-to-day management)
In general, technical management of the sites includes:
• Determining whether the project is suitable to use the mitigation banking program
• Monitoring credit evaluation
• Site maintenance
• Implementing contingency actions
• Oversight of site construction
The commitment of individual(s) and time to manage the mitigation banking program requires,
at a minimum, that the individual(s)be knowledgeable about permitting(local, state, and federaI),
wetland delineation, functional monitoring evaluations, financial management, and public
relations. Currently, the City of Renton has staff with experience and expertise in evaluating
SEPA checklists, permit applications, fiscal and financial (permit fee tracking) management, and
public relations. However, it is the project team's understanding that the City requests technical
wetland expertise from Ecology regarding SEPA checklists/permit applications that affect
wetlands, wetland delineations, and mitigation plans.
3.4.2 Options
3.4.2.1 Option 1: The City of Renton is the sole administrative and technical
manager of the mitigation banking program and mitigation
banidng sites.
Advantages
• Typically programs that are administered and managed by one entity are more efficient
and coordinated.
• Project proponents have a greater sense of predictability associated with how the program
works.
• There may be reduced costs if the program were managed by the City.
• The City would benefit from the knowledge it gains on mitigation banking; this can be
used when developing other mitigation banking sites within the City.
Parametriz, Inc. 10 Ciry of Renton -DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drf?mtig.pin
NUV_ WLD 13: I d rAKAl1L i K 1 X r AX NO. 206 889 8808 P, 13/18
• The City engenders a level of trust and credibility with the users of the mitigation banking
program because of the City's administrative and technical knowledge.
Disadvantages
• It may be difficult for the City to keep abreast of the growing body of knowledge
regarding wetland creation, restoration, functional assessment, and monitoring techniques
that may be applicable to the mitigation banking program.
• The City will need at least one staff person who is knowledgeable about technical issues,
administrative and financial management, public relations, and permitting. This person
would need to be dedicated 100 percent to the program.
3.4.2.2 Option 2: The City of Renton is the Administrative manager of the mitigation
banking program and contracts out the technical management
components of the program_
Advantages
• May ultimately be less expensive to contract out for technical management (i.e.,
monitoring, site maintenance, assistance with evaluating permit/SEPA applications, site
visits to assess impacts to wetlands, review of wetland delineation reports, etc).
• Potentially more technical expertise is available from contractors that can benefit the
program.
• Allows the City to focus on the administrative management functions, oversee the
contractor(s), and day-to-day management responsibilities.
Disadvantages
• City has to manage one or more contractors.
• City may potentially lose knowledge to be gained because of indirect participation in the
technical management components of the program.
3.4.3 Recommendation
The City should consider hiring a contractor/consultant for at least the first 2 or 3 years of the
program, from site development through site monitoring for two reasons: (1) there may be a
perception among the regulated community and general public that the City should not be the
developer of the program, manager of the program, and user of the program without involving
Parametrix, Inc. 11 Dry of Renton - DRAFT
SS-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmtig.pin
11V. J VJ WLL 1J' 1V 1 +1111111LIlllll 11111 IlV. LVV vvv VVVV 1 lY/ lU
an objective party, and (2) the City can benefit from the technical expertise of contractors and
consultants that have experience in monitoring, functional assessment, review and verification of
wetland delineations and reports, etc. If this recommendation is accepted, the designated staff
person from the City that will be the administrative manager of the program should maintain an
active role in the technical management components of the program so that the City could
eventually be the technical manager of the sites.
We also recommend that the City develop a simple mechanism to notify the Corps when the City
is allowing a project proponent to use the mitigation banking site that will allow mitigation for
impacts to wetlands less than 1 acre that area considered to be above the headwaters (activities
for altering those wetlands are authorized by the Corps Nationwide 26 permit process)_ The
purpose of establishing a mechanism is to provide the Corps with information on what the City
is requiring for mitigation associated with filling wetlands. Notifying the Corps of City actions
will allow the Corps to have a record in the event that they are contacted about a potential fill
violation. The mechanism would include:
1. Identifying one individual in the Corps regulatory division and one individual at the City
of Renton to be the point of contact for this program.
2. The City requiring a project proponent to submit a copy of the Corps' letter on the
jurisdictional determination of the wetland(for sites without specific project plans), a copy
of the Nationwide Permit, or the Letter of Authorization (for sites with specific project
plans), before the City allows the project proponent to use the mitigation banking program
(this is one of the proposed eligibility requirements).
3. The City then preparing a form letter that references the Nationwide Permit number, the
Letter of Authorization, or the Corps letter and which indicates that the City intends to
allow the project proponent to use the mitigation site(s) to offset losses to wetland
resources. The form letter should be sent to the designated contact person at the Corps
for their files and for its office of law enforcement.
We also recommend, irrespective of the choice of options, that once the program is adopted the
City train an employee, or hire or contract a wetland specialist, to assist with technical
management issues and not rely solely on Ecology for technical assistance with projects that may
potentially use the wetland mitigation banking program.
Parametrix, Inc. 12 Ory of Renton - DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drflmtig_pin
Nuv- J-dJ WGU 1J. 10 f r11%H1Ir-1ftln Inn 11U, CUO 00J OOUO r . 1Ui 10
3.5 POLICY ISSUE 5. Should the City Consider Exempting Category 3 Wetlands
From the Sequencing Process (i.e.,Avoidance,Minimization
Compensation) Currently Required by the City's Interim
Wetlands Ordinance?
3.5.1 Issue
Currently the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance requires that impacts to Category
1, 2, and 3 wetlands from development projects first be avoided and then minimized. Once
project impacts have been avoided and minimized, any unavoidable impacts are then
compensated. This process is typically referred to as sequencing of project impacts. This
sequencing process is consistent with state and federal policies and regulations for wetland
protection and management.
3.5.2 Ontiom
3.5.2.1 Option 1: The City exempts Category 3 wetlands from sequencing."
Advantages
• Eliminates one procedure of the City's Wetland Ordinance with which project proponents
need to comply.
• Potentially reduces time spent in project design.
• Potentially provides added incentive for developers wanting to locate/build industrial,
commercial, and residential developments in the Valley.
• Provides flexibility to project proponent in site planning and design.
Disadvantages
• Only Category 3 wetlands under the primary jurisdiction of the City could be exempt
(wetlands under state/federal regulations would still be subject to sequencing).
• Does not preclude developer from getting a jurisdictional determination from the Corps.
s This option assumes that only Category 3 wetlands of less than 1 acre that are above the headwaters would be
exempt, because any wetland impact subject to state and federal regulatory requirements would require sequencing.
Parametrlx, Inc. 23 City of Renton - DRAFT
5.5-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drf?mtig.pin
NUV- 3-93 WED 13;20 PAMME"l R 1 X FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 16/18
• Special features of the site (i.e., provides flood storage) may make exemption
disadvantageous to achieving regional goals of no net loss of wetlands and wetland
functions,
3.5.2.2 Option 2: The City does not exempt Category 3 wetlands.
Advantage
• All wetlands, whether they are governed by local, state, or federal regulations, are
considered equal with respect to sequencing of project impacts.
Disadvantage
• Potentially may reduce economic incentive for developing lower quality Category 3
wetlands.
3.5.3 Recommendation
While exempting certain Category 3 wetlands from the sequencing process would be viewed as
advantageous for site developers, we recommend that the City continue to require sequencing of
impacts for all wetlands, at least during the first year or two of the mitigation banking program,
for three reasons-
I. Some of the development community and general public may perceive inequality in how
wetland impacts are_evaluated by the City.
2. Some Category 3 wetlands of less than I acre (that are above the headwaters) may
provide a relatively significant function whose impact may affect achieving a goal of no
net loss.
3. Potentially, the time required by the mitigation banking program manager to track and
manage exempted wetlands may increase, and result in increased administrative costs.
We also recommend that the City reevaluate the option of exempting Category 3 wetlands less
than 1 acre that are above the headwaters once the program has been implemented and operating
for 1 to 2 years. At that time it can be determined whether exempting certain Category 3
wetlands can be done equitably and with minimal paperwork.
Parametrix, Inc, 24 Ciry of Renton - DRAFT
.i5-1779-07 Nrnember 3, 1993
drftmtig.pin
NUv- 6-as wall 1�:�u f AKAME l K 1 X FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P. 17/18
3.6 POLICY ISSUE 6: Should the City Consider Modifying the Existing Interim
Wetlands Management Ordinance to Recognize
Enhancement as an Acceptable Form of Compensatory
Mitigation?
The City's Wetland Management Ordinance does not currently recognize enhancement as a
compensatory mitigation option[City of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-6(b)(1)j, because at the
time the ordinance was developed the City decided that enhancement was difficult to define—and
the City lacked the technical expertise necessary to determine if enhancement actually occurred.
In general, enhancement is considered to mean those actions that are taken to improve upon or
establish new functions within an existing wetland.
3.6.1 O ti ns
3.6.1.1 Option 1: The City modifies the interim Wetland Management Ordinance to
recognize enhancement as an acceptable form of compensatory
mitigation.
Advantages
• Provides an additional compensatory option for developers to consider.
• Increases the acreage (approximately 10 to 15 acres) available on the mitigation banking
sites that could be used as credits in the mitigation banking program.
• Establishes consistency with other local, state, and federal wetland mitigation programs
(most recognize enhancement as one of several compensatory mitigation options).
Aisadvantages
• The City will need to define enhancement, establish criteria that will evaluate the success
of enhancement, and develop technical expertise to determine when a wetland has been
enhanced.
• The City's ordinance would need to be revised to reflect that mitigation of wetland
impacts is based on acreage as well as function.
• Anyone proposing enhancement actions on an existing wetland may be subject to local,
state, and federal regulations regarding altering wetlands.
Parametrix, Inc. 2i City of Renton - DR4FT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmtigpin
11V v AJ wcu i j-c i rnnnl fr.i rt t o NIA 11U. cuo dod ooue r, 1 b/1 b
3.6.1.2 Option 2: The City does not modify the interim Wetland Management
Ordinance to recognize enhancement.
Advantaizes
• The City would not necessarily need to modify the existing ordinance, define
enhancement, or acquire expertise to determine when enhancement actions have been
successful.
Disadvantages
• Minimizes opportunities for on-site mitigation actions that could potentially increase or
improve upon wetland functions.
• Existing wetlands on the mitigation banking sites could not be altered to increase their
functional value.
3.6.2 Recommendation
We recommend that the City consider modifying the existing Wetlands Management Ordinance
to include enhancement action as a wetland mitigation option, for the following reasons:
1. PotentialIy, many developments would consider enhancement options either on-site or at
the mitigation banking sites.
2. Actions could be taken on the mitigation banking sites to improve upon some of the
existing wetland communities by either the City or private developers.
3. Enhancement provides an opportunity to fulfill some of the objectives and policies of the
mitigation banking program,
If the City agrees with this recommendation, the mitigation banking program could incorporate
enhancement at a later date, modification of the ordinance would not necessarily need to occur
before the mitigation banking program is adopted and implemented. Modification could occur
when the City adopts final critical areas ordinances_according to schedules determined through
the Growth Management Act (Due in 41994). However, modification of the ordinance prior
to or concurrently with the mitigation banking program would provide an opportunity for the City
to undertake enhancement actions concurrently with restoration of wetlands on the mitigation
banking sites. This would result in a more integrated approach to establishing higher values and
functions on the mitigation banking sites, and may result in long-term cost savings (versus
independent on-site modifications after the uplands on the mitigation banking sites have been
restored to wetlands).
Parametrix, Inc. 26 City of Renton - DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmag pin
Sean S. Woodbury
From: Ronald J. Straka
To: Gregg A. Zimmerman; Linda C. Ferkingstad; Sean S. Woodbury
Cc: Lynn A. Guttmann
Subject: Wetland Mitigation Bank Adjacency ACOE meeting
Date: Thursday, November 04, 1993 9:24AM
Gregg Z., Scott W.
I have scheduled a meeting with Gail Terzi and T.J. Stets to discuss the above referenced subject on 11/10/93
from 12:00 noon till 2:00 PM in the 5th floor conference room. This is the time that Gail T. preferred to meet
since we have the Wetland Mitigation Bank Regulatory Agency meeting on 11/10/93 at 2:00 PM.
I discussed the topic with her and she said that the ACOE has made the Determination already, they just have
not notified us officially. She explained the justification for the determination, but it is still somewhat vague. I
asked her if the ACOE will regulate all wetlands in the Renton Valley as Adjacent wetlands and she said that it
would be handled on a case by case basis. However, when asked if the ACOE, in reviewing their past
Nationwide#26 permit decision in the Valley, feels that those decisions were errors, she said no. The ACOE
does support the project, but is concerned with the management (tracking and inventory) of the program, but has
some guidance from Headquarters to provide us.
My general feeling is that the isolated wetlands in the Valley will no be regulated as adjacent wetlands, but we
will get a better feel for the ACOE position at the meeting.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at X-5548.
Thanks
Ron Straka
Page 1
THE CITY OF RENTON
i
DEPARTMENT OF i .•ti, „
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
FOURTH FLOOR {
200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH I "
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 •
FAX: 235-2541
..
1
FAX TRANSMITTAL
DATE: // 3193
TO: (_ w &u^pm-pi FAX#:
FROM: SC6 F Lj 60 P,6cjAl PHONE#: Z
SUBJECT: 6t f6)6 t ?4 4 3 /i'►A#,,o - ,t c.�ih A 03 AGS.vui
PUASi CALL. m O/ sLO5f_ Wc)L)L., yap
g� ^t/ AiCA QL.L 1'0 mOss y /:� 7-/a ()XS_DA-
/""vo 07_ykA-3 ro P/sC-o 3 J 5T A
Number of pages excluding cover sheet: L
I I/I.um</mi«/1=n X CO V IiR.UOC/I,h
CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY CENTER
1715 MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY,RENTON,WA 98055
WEEKLY RENTAL APPLICATION
(Monday-Thursday)
PLEASE PRINT
Rental Request(circle one): Banquet Room Arts&Crafts A C Ans &Crafts B Kids Korner
Rental Day(s): Wed kes` b"" Dates: It Timer to
CC I n� Imo.,, � t/
Applicants) 't t "' Phone'(day) /� � (evening)
Address: Street City Zip
Type of Function(circle one): Social Meeting Banquet Other
Estimated number of guests: adults minors Will alcohol be served? Yes L) No L]
Will decorations be used? Yes L] No U Is yes,what type
Caterers Name (if applicable): Phone:
Will a fee be charged? Yes L] No U If yes, explain:
Set up requirements:
t.
AGREEMENT: The undersigned hereby makes application to RENTON PARK DEPARTMENT for use of RENTON PARK
facilities described above and certifies that the information given in the application is correct. The undersigned further states
that he/she has the authority to make this application for the applicant and agrees that the applicant will observe all rules and
regulations of the RENTON PARK BOARD. The applicant agrees to exercise the utmost care in the use of the PARK premises
and property and to save the RENTON PARK DEPARTMENT harmless from all liability resulting from the use of said
facilities and further agrees to use only those facilities indicated above. Applicant further agrees to read and abide by the Rules
and Regulations.
No alcohol is allowed for anyone under 21 years of age. Renters are responsible for anyone leaving the function under the
influence of alcohol and/or drugs. The Renton Police Department will be called if any illegal situations occur on the premises.
Applicant Signature —Date
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Rental Fee: $ Approved: Yes U No L]
Damage Deposit $
Additional Fees: $
Insurance Fee: $ There is a$50.00 non-refundable cancellation fee for the banquet room
Total Payment: $ Final Payment/Set-up Sheets Due:
Staff Signature: Date:
The Renton Parks&Recreation Department and/or its staff or personnel are not responsible for lost or stolen articles.
White copy:Office;Yellow copy.Facilities;Pink copy Applicant
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 29, 1993
TO: David Saxon
Mary Lynne Myer
FROM: Scott Woodbury ` >
SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN
Attached for your files are copies of the following:
• October 20, 1993 meeting attendence and listing of questions posed by participants.
• October 21, 1993 meeting attendence and listing of questions/comments posed by
participants.
• Letter from Rhys A. Sterling dated October 21, 1993.
• October 25, 1993 letter by Ron Straka inviting regulatory agencies to November 10,
1993 meeting with listing of recipients
• October 25, 1993 letter to Parametrix from Scott Woodbury
• Presentation material for October 20 and 21, 1993 meetings.
• Agenda for October 20 and 21, 1993 meetings.
• Notes from October 18, 1993 design team meeting with Parametrix.
• October 26, 1993 letter from Gregg Zimmerman regarding ACOE adjacency issue.
If you have any questions please call me at 277-5547.
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM �''�`'�3 v��,•. ,,,g
DATE: October 28, 1993
TO: Kay Shoudy
Mary Lynne Myer
FROM: David Saxen
SUBJECT: Wetland Ordinance Review and Wetland Mitigation Bank
As most of the comments from staff indicate, the wetland ordinance is not presenting any real
difficulties for developers or for the City. However, along with a few items which Mary
Lynne mentions in her comments on the review of the ordinance, there are certain elements of
the ordinance which may limit the full potential of the mitigation bank. Below I have
summarized Mary Lynne's comments on the functioning of the ordinance to date, and then
attempted to outline some of the issues related to the mitigation bank project. The consultant
for the project, Parametrix, will likely give more detailed recommendations on potential
changes in the ordinance.
Comments:
• The mitigation bank is a prime reason Category III wetlands in the valley are developable.
If the bank does not function (isn't implemented?), a backlash against the ordinance could
occur. (MLM)
• If necessary, buffer requirements for wetlands in Shoreline Management areas could be
reduced (SMP designation doubles the wetland buffer from the ordinance), but under no
circumstances should SMP wetland buffers be less than those required under the wetland
ordinance. (MLM)
• The Category III definition which includes the phrase "altered by man" applies to almost
every wetland in the City. This clause would demote many wetlands in the City to .
Category III status. (MLM)
• It is not clear whether the ordinance is supposed to apply to short and long plats. In some
cases, the platting decisions can adversely affect a wetland. It may be appropriate to
include plats in the ordinance's jurisdiction. (MLM)
• The definition of "Mitigation Bank" in the ordinance is inconsistent with the definition
used by most, if not all, of the state and federal resource and regulatory agencies, which is
likely to lead to conflicts if the city needs to execute agreements with such agencies... There
should be a clear distinction between mitigation banking, off-site mitigation (which is what
the current definition alludes to), and fee-in-lieu mitigation. (DBS)
• Under Allowed and Regulated Activities in wetlands and buffers (4-32-4.A), the wording
of#11 implies to me that development without a feasible alternative location impacting
Category I and II wetlands is prohibited outright. Is this true? Though development of
Category I and II wetlands is discouraged by higher replacement ratios, I assume it is
possible. This wording is a little misleading and confusing to me. (DBS)
r
I think this clause may be related to Mary Lynne's first comment. It seems to me that
development can still occur on parcels with any category of regulated wetland provided
there is enough room on site to perform the necessary mitigation and the project proponent
can pay for such mitigation. Obviously, impacts to Category I wetlands are unlikely to be
proposed due to the cost of mitigating at 6:1, but emergent Category II wetlands have the
same ratio as Category III (1.5:1) making it conceivable that they could be impacted.
Mitigation Bank Issues:
Currently wetland enhancement is not recognized by the ordinance as an acceptable form of
compensatory mitigation. The consultant, Parametrix, has suggested that allowing
enhancement of the low quality wetlands on the mitigation bank site would be beneficial in
a couple of ways. It would allow more credit to be established in the bank increasing the
,,,,,1,,,A,,number of potential users of the bank (increasing the capacity of the bank). It could also
CGA „ -L17 result in a much higher quality ecosystem for the entire site and would help reduce the risk
of nuisance species from the existing wetlands invading newly restored wetlands.
• While the mitigation bank was initially intended to be used to compensate for impacts to
Category III wetlands, the consultant pointed out that there is nothing in the ordinance
specifically excluding at least some Category II wetlands from qualifying for the mitigation
bank. This assumes that Category II and I can be impacted, as questioned before.
• In the focus group meetings for the project, the development community emphasized that
the fewer obstacles and requirements confronting them, the better (surprise!). One idea
presented was to eliminate the mitigation sequence for Category III wetlands, which would
make the process more predictable for developers. Since we expect Category III wetlands
to be impacted (and mitigated on the mitigation sites), maybe this idea is not so unrealistic.
Nevertheless, the appropriateness of this idea depends on what kind of mitigation program
the City implements.
In conclusion, with direction from the consultant the City is going to have to decide how the
mitigation bank will work; whether the city will invest its own capital to create wetlands,
then sell credits-to get back the investment (mitigation banking), or whether it will let
developers use the site on a case by case basis (off-site mitigation), or whether it will use a
combination of both concepts. After weighing the pros and cons of each, the City will need
to decide which approach to take. Certain changes in the ordinance, upon which the
consultant will soon elaborate, may benefit the mitigation approach that is deemed most
appropriate for the City. For the sake of simplicity and consistency, it seems that revisions to
the wetland ordinance related to the mitigation bank project should occur at the same time as
the other needed revisions Mary Lynne mentioned.
e
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM PNAME
NCURRENCE
Tl i:,1.L/DATE'
DATE: October 26, 1993 TO: Lynn Guttmann a.
Sue Carlson
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman
STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka
Scott Woodbury
SUBJECT: ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (ACOE) ADJACENCY
DETERMINATION FOR WETLAND MITIGATION BANK
WETLANDS AND OTHER VALLEY WETLANDS
ISSUE:
Securing assurances or an acceptable level of predictability that ACOE will not classify all
remaining wetlands in the Renton Valley as adjacent.
Obtaining an Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) isolated determination for the wetland
mitigation bank sites.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the following plan of action for resolving the above issues with ACOE:
A. A meeting will be scheduled with Tom Mueller, Gail Terzi, and Bob Martin of ACOE to
discuss ACOE adjacency determination criteria and what that criteria means to the
mitigation bank and other valley wetland projects. Scott Woodbury will coordinate the
meeting time and location with ACOE. I will attend the meeting and suggest that a
consultant from the wetland mitigation bank project also attend. Scott will be
contacting you regarding your schedule and if you feel other City representatives
should attend. It is suggested that the number of City attendees be limited to no more
than five, including the consultant.
B. The wetland mitigation bank Consultant will prepare a summary paper for City review
prior to the ACOE meeting defining why they believe the wetland mitigation bank site
wetlands should not be considered adjacent.
C. A City meeting will be held to review the above issues and to establish a strategy for
discussing this topic with the ACOE. The issues listed above are shown in order of
importance. Obtaining an isolated determination for the wetland mitigation bank sites
is not nearly as important as assurance that ACOE will not classify all remaining
wetlands in the Renton Valley as adjacent.
D. Attend the ACOE meeting.
September 21, 1993
Page 2
E. Hold a City meeting to discuss the conclusions reached at the meeting with the ACOE.
Assess the effect on the wetland mitigation bank and other valley wetland projects and
determine the appropriate response to the conclusions.
F. Issue a letter to ACOE to document the conclusions reached at the meeting and
indicating concurrence or exception with those conclusions.
BACKGROUND:
On September 14, 1993, Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) staff, Gail Terzi and T.J. Stetts,
made a site visit to the wetland mitigation bank sites for the purpose of completing the field
portion of the ACOE jurisdiction and wetland adjacency determination. Adjacency
determinations, currently made on the basis of unavailable ACOE "in-house guidance",
increase the ACOE jurisdiction to any wetland, regardless of size, and require an ACOE 404
individual permit for any proposed wetland filling or excavation.
It is unlikely that an adjacency determination for our bank sites would jeopardize restoration of
the wetlands on the bank sites, given ACOE support for restoration projects. However, it may
set an undesirable precedent for other wetlands in the valley, which could impact the City's
economic future. It is also possible that restoration of the mitigation bank sites would not be
realized because adjacency determinations may limit the number of qualified users of the
bank. It is therefore in the interest of the City and the mitigation bank project to obtain an
isolated determination for the bank sites, or at least determine if the ACOE will classify all
remaining wetlands in the Renton Valley as adjacent. It is important to gain an understanding
of what the ACOE determination criteria is in order to have some predictability that other
wetlands in the Black River Basin may also be considered isolated by the ACOE. Without
that predictability the City should reconsider its mitigation bank program because of the risk
associated with construction of a mitigation bank for which there may be no demand.
In an exchange of phone messages with Mary Lynne Myer, Tom Mueller indicated that he
would support an adjacency determination if made by his staff. Gail Terzi has since notified
Scott Woodbury that she had completed her field memorandum giving the bank site wetlands
adjacency status, and that the memorandum has been approved by the ACOE technical
committee. Gail has agreed to give the City the opportunity to arrange a meeting to discuss
the determination before issuing a formal decision letter.
If you have any questions please contact Scott Woodbury at X-5547 or Ron Straka at X-5548.
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 21, 1993
TO: Scott Woodbury
FROM:// rk R. Pywell, AICP
SUBJECT: Wetland Mitigation Bank
Permit Requirements
The way that the Mining, Excavation, and Grading Ordinance is currently worded a Special Permit for fill
and grading would be required for the work conducted in the Wetland Mitigation Bank area. Either the
City could apply for a permit for all of the work to be done or as each part of the bank area is worked on
a new permit would be required. It would be easier and quicker if we can identify all of the work that will
be required up front for the City to apply for a single permit. However, this would require us to be able to
identify where the work would occur, how much fill would be removed or added, truck routes, etc. If this
can be done, then individual grading licenses could be issued for each section (contractor/project) rather
quickly. I believe this is the best way to proceed.
The only other way would be to amend the Mining, Excavation, and Grading Ordinance so that a Special
Permit would not be required. I believe this is the less preferable way for us to proceed. First, it would
probably take several months to get the amended language prepared and then it would need to be
adopted by the City Council through the public hearing process. If the Ordinance is amended, each
project in the wetlands would still require a grading licenses. Each applicant would need to answer the
same questions as listed in the paragraph above. In the long run I do not believe that this would save
time of make it easier for a developer to work in the wetland bank area.
Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Permits are issued by the Development Planning Section. These
permits can generally be issued within 7 days of the application being submitted to the City.
Document5
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 13, 1993
TO: Scott Woodbury
FROM: q0ifrk R. Pywell, AICP
SUBJECT: Wetlands Mitigation Bank
I lost the memo which gave the dates by which you wanted these documents reviewed. I did not have
many comments but I hope they will help you.
DocumenW
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 8, 1993
TO: Ron Straka
Mary Lynne Myer
David Saxon
Mark Pywell
Leslie Betlach
FROM: Scott Woodbury Sw
SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN
PRELIMINARY DRAFT PRODUCTS FROM TASKS 1B AND 1C
Please find attached copies of the following preliminary draft documents for your review and
comment.
• Transmittal cover letter from Parametrix (PMX). October 6, 1993.
Goals and objectives for the wetland mitigation bank program
Policy issues
Eligibility requirements
• Regulatory requirements
The conditions assessment document noted in the cover letter will be distributed by October
12.
Please submit your comments to me by October 15 at 5pm. I have scheduled a meeting with
PMX for October 18 at 1 pm to go over the documents and to discuss the October 20 public
meeting scheduled for 7-9pm. You are invited to attend both meetings. I will notify you of the
location of both meetings and distribute agenda next week. If you have any questions please
call me at X-5547.
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 5, 1993
TO: John Thompson, Maintenance Services Supervisor
John Stein, Street Maintenance Manager
FROM: Scott Woodbury (X-5547)Sui
SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN
BACKHOE SERVICES
Thank you for scheduling the equipment and personell to excavate test pits for the
Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan project. I and our consultants sincerely appreciated the
opportunity to study the soil profile characteristics and collect the information necessary to
facilitate a successful wetland creation design.
Please tell Smitty and Brian thank you for their assistance. Hiring a consultant to perform
the excavations would have been much more expensive and the savings to our project
budget is appreciated.
Thank you again for your help. I look forward to working with you in the future.
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 17, 1993
TO: Mary Lynne Myer
David Saxon
Ron Straka
Mark Pywell
FROM: Scott Woodbury ,--. . ;
SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK - PARAMETRIX
JUNE 17, 1993 REVISED WORK PLAN
I have attached the above proposal for your review. Please submit your comments to me
by Monday afternoon, June 21, at the latest. I need to send comments to Parametrix by
Tuesday noon, June 22, for their edit into a final plan and resubmittal on Thursday, June
24. On June 24, 1 will attach the final work plan to an issue paper and agenda bill for
submittal to the council process.
I have also attached your comments to the first draft. You can throw the comments to the
first draft away when you are finished with them.
Thank you. If you have any questions please call me at X-5547.
MEMO.DOT/LLH
City of Renton
Community Services
Parks & Recreation Administration
MEMORANDUM
D
DATE: May 18, 1993 MA V 18 1993 3
TO: Scott Woodbury Fng n Qr 8evroN
g Dept.
FROM: Leslie Betlach
SUBJECT: Parametrix Request
Enclosed are the documents requested by Parametrix in item 9 of their May 14, 1993
letter:
1. Trails Master Plan
2. Comprehensive Park Recreation and Open Space Plan
3. Environmental Impact Statement
If I can be of further assistance please let me know.
LB/dlf
Enclosure
cc: Sam Chastain
Vince Lee
93-93-206df
THE CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
FOURTH FLOOR
200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH I ""
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189
FAX: 235-2541 I g
l
FAX TRANSMITTAL
DATE: S' 17 - 53
TO: tla 3(14 f3,;r C^&0 FAX#: Z-77 — 552-3
FROM: 5 c a fi wOd06(JA PHONE#: 27 7 55`/7
SUBJECT: Ly ,I / r�k l�lluJk
ON 7-,ije lTAC446D PAGE , lF you Get)" PkWOC /T y
Noa,v nay Z)i /If.3 IT wdut^0 ek pip"ClArf-19
A5fz- GALL UK/a,�j.
Number of pages excluding cover sheet:
I I/I >nn./ntizc/f,\XC<)V I[R.nOC/hh
MAY-07-193 FRI 13:53 ID:U WASH ARCH & URDP TEL N0:206 543 2463 #379 P01 ---
It I
Z;��->r.7 _ z5. 1 AfV4 L, -7
c a-rY u^qr- �N-ra4
TO : scorn wrVPW" , 'D�' vl&- . t)rlurr
Cc ; MACF-q l.YKJ aJt, mj!-,
i?0 13T�
.Y�
twos i sPor. j,-- L4]Tu A
Qt1 i1��JS , ON& Mr-- A OA ,4, RT- -fOwfE '4-7--MD2) )
ktjSo 1 Wl U, OF arh- aF JW oFIFIc ry hw Cr 06,x r
V-tw � �10 -- 14v. . A voki 0 , CAIL- ! F -nacre �F A 7
�S1�or•15 1 CA-Q /4Qs5)i.
�Nir,�
MAY-07-'93 FRI 13:54 ID:U WASH ARCH & UREP TEL N0:206 543 2463 9379 P02
. 2
s 'Ib ubR� u�Rit
'� zDr+��►JPsS ? M"T imp u •
x L9U^rr-f dF FPvPJcM-j
11&I4TkAe9S OF 9.Lpp- ?,Vjy PPCBtEw g
V 7qJ1f oME;?- per,,!fy
MIiG6 PYl.4--O ) r-fA "cbT
0 Mc ilz
���
P-swcD g4Itj bS AS To" CAh n ev
ti M fx ► DffK4)j-'r
DFJtJF3 CWAXP)VRz 1 P�Vr CF T
d)rm G � -
t. NM-J5 +(OVA TO Pt�r KVP- A m nn ten o J pR�
41ILLe11- v,fOfFr , MO}4L,Trro , W^
44V A &WOD ;;-xtV4zj EIJe W 1' THE ' &K;m e gyp,
µ TeKr-Y
�XC�-E��u A'�R'e►"'tsTR..Y , +r•T �tA►TFc.)
pe^-L FLtEKt a4-r-- W irR C-�-I�b-�(9ESl e� 67P^� ,f M cjG&J24 Vr
A LJW L* TO WVV,< OL 1r OE MIT S — --ro Ml t r{ 15ILI.L4(p
t� �J►JTlr�(9 �cGBpc)Q ,. 4Lt�,D 'Ta Cow �.1 SYj.lG�-; uj p-k
MAY-07—'93 FRI 13:54 ID:U WASH ARCH & URDP TEL N0:206 543 2463 #379 P03
fto*mf c> lr�5Fbw I , S)-lPVvfuc-Nk cx7 • p+5uc MI5
It¢+cen J�w�
�f
�ItcR� l�cl.4"T7t�- THIS
DID 1a,1q,✓,, .
11�$q P-MpolJ51dE
"a>� -to c�a�re�•�S �vHr .
�ov+�GtS � tab'
► EFaEv �4 Wt*86p- Gf rIME3 �- 4
W4V Ave;'
4 K,m c
G •J • iT V FPAVel?, T�*4M MIT' •O?I,
-------------
' (,Oc1l.DtJ'r' t�wE '�. 7�"'�`BTU i..1� ►��o rR��`l .
W"T
A S�t ((�c + *t,Dl' VP CPAJPJV'1 c-J9 Wu,44 PL^%4 Ems. A%., BILO
vo,,E 1►4 TUB op INV ppeJ M. CAW.�C,� GOJ+J?I&4 S)
" c m K-e + �m OWE- Je" "OeWASL-L- T"- 'ice fpcjD' --T..
• S,.{� NVrVE Off- �Ect
MRY-07-193 FRI 13:55 ID:U WASH ARCH & URBP TEL N0:206 543 2463 #379 PO4
mep WHO l t-UPT IMMr &65, u riff
r lwT IsE Wok" cc,�J7�tc.T1� . 5o I DrDN'r S�s
_ T�
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 26, 1993
TO: Mary Lynne Myer
FROM: Scott Woodbury
SUBJECT: Department of Wildlife (DOW) Comment on Wetland Mitigation
Attached is a letter from DOW with a list of comments on the Preliminary Draft of the Black River
Water Quality Management Plan (BRWQMP). Please notice the second paragraph from the bottom
of page 2 regarding use of filled wetlands for mitigation. I have attached and highlighted the
paragraph in the BRWQMP about which the comment was made. I have also lined out the sentences
which were subsequently deleted from the text of the BRWQMP. I thought you might be interested in
what Philip Schneider at DOW thinks about using filled wetlands for mitigation. Hopefully this is not
the official position of DOW.
Also attached for your information is a copy of an announcement from METRO regarding an
upcoming seminar.
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 4<, 1993
11,[
TO: Ron Straka, Surface Water
Scott Woodbury, Surface Water
Mary Lynne Myer, Long Range Planning
Mark Pywell, Development Services
Leslie Betlach, Parks
Bob , Transportation �C1�%Y,.12
FROM: David Saxen, Long Range Planning, ext. 2475blis
SUBJECT: Wetland Mitigation Bank consultant selection: Design Team meeting
and consultant interviews.
The City received 12 consultant proposals for the wetland mitigation bank plan.
Long Range Planning and Surface Water Utility have decided to interview 6 of these
firms. We hope to interview the selected firms on Monday, May 3, beginning at
8:30 AM and ending around 3:00 PM with a break for lunch. The next possible
date is Monday, May 10. Later possibilities are May 13 or May 14.
Prior to conducting the interviews, the Design Team will meet to review the
proposals of the finalists, discuss the interview process, review questions, etc.
This meeting is scheduled for 3:30 PM, Wednesday, April 21 , in the first floor
conference room.
If you have any questions, please call David Saxen, Long Range Planning, ext.
2475.
._...._.....
.....
__ _ _.__ .___ _ _._....___ _ _ _ . _.....__ .._......_____.._. __....._ ..._ _
_._._.._____.__._� _-_-�''' -_ . ►�!'�__.!''► � ..___._ _.__..____ ._.._.____.__.._. ...... .............. ......_..... ...................__........._.....10)
T . _ .._.._ _.._..____._._..__._..___..__... _..____._._..__ ___ _._ _.- _ _ _ ......_..........
Lo
o.
:
.__ . ___ ,; _.....
i
._...___-.._._._.
i�
_._. _-._.--.-._._._.__._._._.._
i
iy
li
ii
I
li
Ij
�j
i�
_.-._.-._.._..._.._._._..___..._._._.___.._._ -._.._.__...-.__..._..__._ ._._.._...�..._.._.-_...-._.
74 If.
S�R --...__..._.._.._._.._.._._.._..._._.._.__._.._..__.._..__..._._..._..____._._.._.._..._...._..._..._...__..._._...____._.._... ....._....._._._....._..._...........
_.._.._
_....._............. _..._.___._._..__...._....
_
a;
i
i;
.... _...
'" sF��9'..__._�.�_____-_7_��.._._v�l Giv_T�.�t�►-�.._.^'�-£�TiMG _�o.._��'_f-�_.._PI�_u.�_ _ _ ____._
F;
i �E SI�.N_. _...__ N_T ✓_1C1.J ..__ o^'__�% �._-76(f c7-,f o
I
�� S�-o ra �4,AN0�_._�c.Er-/�v�✓ _%i�0_�iW1�w��Ful�c9r/�r�__..��'/��S_...._._.._..._._.__ _.__.__.__
_..._... _ ._....._. . . Avt0..._..._._ 'C-r_.....__
..._.......... _lrE�tvlEw...__._...___.._..__.._..__..._.
06
____<-0 _L _ � -__ o.._.�!✓T�i4riFr _._.6ccl�s�_� G____.____._.____
N"Gvuod- —CA-7-i —n"r
w _.__—_.G�S ^1� wnnT___��4r-��/1 G���j''c,? �� _•fi bE,rC,�,�1
O/ w�•�(�
!I
f)
i;
I
i
i
Ij
Ij
jl
f
li
i�
fj
Ij
i'
If
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 5, 1993
TO: Ron Straka
Scott Woodbury
Mary Lynne Myer
FROM: David Saxen
SUBJECT: Review criteria for consultant proposals for the mitigation bank.
Review of Proposals
Consultant SOO's for the mitigation bank project are due April 5th, after which we
can begin reviewing the proposals. We will meet at 2:00 PM on April 7 in the third
floor library for one hour+ (?) to discuss the criteria to be used in reviewing
proposals and to work out the next steps of the selection process. We should
establish a short-list with a maximum of 4 consultants no later than Friday, April
We should be receiving 2 copies of each proposal. The proposals will be divided up
between Long Range and Surface Water to review. Based on the general criteria
outlined, we will rank each proposal, then compare our prioritized lists and come to
a consensus on which consultants to short-list.
Wetland Creation
Wetland creation and restoration is part science and part art incorporating a number
of different professional disciplines. It is a relatively new endeavor, therefore it
lacks a well established methodology. Little professional training for wetland
creation is available. Most knowledge about wetland creation and restoration has
come from trial and error in the field. To date, the errors have been many, though
inadequate funding and lack of enforcement of mitigation requirements account for
many of the failures. The limited understanding of wetland creation makes the
criteria for selecting a consultant somewhat arbitrary. Past experience and
demonstrated success in wetland creation are obviously important qualifications to
note. The selection criteria are tentatively prioritized below.
Prioritized Selection Criteria
1 . Past wetland creation/restoration project experience and success; experience
and knowledge of individual team members in each element of wetland
creation/restoration (hydrology, soils, wetland vegetation). For past mitigation
projects: How big were the projects? How complex? Budget size? Regulatory
agency involvement?
J,J, 2. Experience with wetland mitigation banking. Not many consultants will have
direct experience implementing mitigation banking programs. A few will have
written papers on different approaches to mitigation banking.
2 , 3. Designated approach to the project and proposed scope. Organization and 3 2
thoroughness of proposed scope.
4. History of performance and, if applicable, quality of work performed for the City
on past projects.
�G 5. Experience coordinating with regulatory agencies. WALL 81 04"ot im-ArF.D /N Ifroti'f
of PERFo�w�,a�vFi Ck'-YP�R��cG)
3- 6. Approach to project management. 7FArr• /►tiCMR61C r�cyiwtcgc /n,a,�ec,Es�ENr— Yk/CL is
7. Familiarity with site and basin. Familiarity with the City. Has the consultant
done work in the Green River Valley, or in a similar landscape?
�1 8. Affirmative action and minority business usage. S
Consultant's demonstrated enthusiasm about project/ N-0hSAu OVAI-iry S
10. Firm's availability.
5
(0 1 1 . Office location.
S
12. Other?
These are tentative selection criteria. We can decide whether any of these criteria
should be prioritized differently at the meeting on Wednesday. I obviously feel that
the first items on the list should be given the most weight in the selection. I am a
little less certain about the order of the less important criteria. Ultimately, selection
will be based on the whole package. For the interview process, we will use a
matrix to rate each of the finalists for the project.
Attached are a few potential interview questions. Please review these and feel free
to offer others.
CITY OF RENTON
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Interview Questions
1 . What do you think are the most critical elements in wetland
creation/restoration? What do you see as the most vital tasks in this project?
2. What was your largest mitigation project? How successful was this project?
What were the major limitations?
3. What would you say are the main reasons mitigation projects don't meet their
goals?
4. What is your experience in mitigation banking? What are some of the different
approaches to wetland "mitigation banking"? What are the opportunities and
limitations of each of these approaches?
5. What are your firm's greatest assets? : ?
6. What are the current limitations on implementation of mitigation banks? How
could implementation of wetland mitigation banks be improved and made more
successful?
C7) Given a very limited budget, what aspects of the site analysis (conditions
assessment) would you consider to be absolutely necessary? What could be left
out? What do you think the chances for success of this particular project are?
8. Describe the most complicated mitigation project your firm has attempted?
Describe how you resolved the complexities. '--/ Z ,
9. What is your experience dealing with regulatory agencies? How would you
approach regulatory agency coordination? IAAr" P7,*1�-W-r+" lw'- P"J&.r 1'^Y*-
Now t. Ll_ yob ^19 tt,s^cAt <7-2 w/w-,C, S 7)36- MF}JbL Addy PLA9P-S.
10. What problems would you expect to encounter in a project of this nature?
(Inadequate budget?).
1 1 . eet-+a-w h+c k�-Ye ka-f e n
t-�ade
1 2. How did you learn to do wetland creation and restoration? ',V^ To S gl
13. What is your experiori-ce working-with citi*es�--Mav ?
W4t-h the City of Renton'?"'
z;*P -ArN r}ow you `61[. YaLik P(t6po-S 0 S'C,0P6 MFff5 rho P/La IE�a
C"3JFcT/v�$, W44AT ,R L?J/t.,VArl✓,ES D,O yOu Cdr)S'1►0,1;4L ✓ 9;�, z
P T or YOUR 'X001f_ 14.vo L-OY a/0 yw mA1Cft 7-4+4
Sf 4Cii '1uU o/p?
iS. D�SCR-1$C 7,0f 6)UAL aF yoUR leVWVroUAL
,ENO 00 TIMIt wtt 1, con.?R�gv/lz ro 74jf 7�C',af+.��
YOU s Hly 0 g k S¢t-� o Ldrt T10►r f Jk��-.
pnwxCT :rrrcIGlc Qv 4�.ow$
CITY OF RENTON
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 31, 1993
TO: David Saxen
Utility Systems
FROM: Cindy Anderson
Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: Legal Publication, Daily Journal of Commerce
Attached is the billing for the statement of qualifications for the wetland mitigation project
published in the Daily Journal of Commerce which is forwarded to you for payment.
If you have any questions, please call me at ext. 2604. Thank you.
enc.
STATE OF WASHINGTON - KING COUNTY
2/901
—ss.
City of Pent.ori
City of Renton No. `'OO` CONSUL 1 A
Wetland Mitigation
Project' Affidavit of Publication
Submittal Date,April 5
CITY OF RENTON
NOTICE TO CONSULTANTS FOR STATEMENT OF The undersigned, on oath states that he is an
QUALIFICATIONS authorized representative of The Daily Journal of Commerce, a
The City of Renblic Works
Plan- daily newspaper, which newspaper is a le al newspaper of general
Plan-
ning/Building/Public Works De- Yg
partment is soliciting State- circulation and it is now and has been for more than six months
mentconsultant
of Qualifications from a prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to published in
consultant or team of consult- P P >
ants which can provide ex the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in Seattle,
pertise in all of the following
areas for a wetland mitigation King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time
pproject in the Renton Valley In- was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of
duatrial Park:
A.Wetland Analysis publication of this newspaper. The Daily Journal of Commerce
B. Wetland Mitigation/Miti- was on the 12th day of June, 1941, approved as a legal newspaper
gation Banking
C. Wetland Creation/Resto- by the Superior Court of King County.
ration
D. Fish and Wildlife Habi-
tat The notice in the exact form annexed, was published in regular
E.Soils Engineering issues of The Dail Journal of Commerce, which was regularly
F.Hydrologgyy Y g y
G. Survey/Mapping distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The
H. Community/Regulatory'
Agenvyy Involvement. annexed notice, a
The PlanningBuilding/Public
Works Department of Renton is
seeking a consultant or team of C/N W l L N D .M I l I G A l I O N
consultants to provide services
entailing the establishment of a
wetland mitigation program and was published on
the design of large freshwater
wetlands.'
Major elements of the:project 03/22/93 0 3/29/93
include, but are not limited to:I
1) analysis-of,existing•and'his-
toric. wetlands and uplands; 2)
site survey;'3)`settingg goals and
objectives;4)establishment of aI
mitigation program;5)coordina
tion with and understanding of The amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is
an existing flood control project;
6) master plan; 7)ggrrading plan; the sum of$ , which amount has been paid in full.
8) planting plan; 9) monitoring /
and maintenance plan; 10) con-
tingency plan;and 11)coordina-
tion with Federal, State, City
and other local agencies. Subscribed and sworn to before me on
If your firm wishes to submit 0".3/219/`a_3
a Statement of, Qualifications,'
please request a project in-
formation packet from the Sur-
face Water Utility Section of the
Planning/Building/Public Works
Department, Renton Municipal Notary Public for the State of Washington,
Building, 200 Mill Avenue residing in Seattle
South, Renton, Washington
98055, at (206) 235-2631. In-
formation packets may also be
picked up in person at the 4th
floor information counter in the
Municipal Building.
Deadline: Statements of
Qualifications are to be directed
to the Surface Water Utility
Section no later than April 5,
1993, at the address listed
above. Questions are to be
directed to David Saxen at(206)
277-2475 on Monday and Wed-
nesday afternoons, or all day
Friday.
Dates of publication in the Se-
attle Daily Journal of Com•,
merce,March 22 and 29, 1993.
3/29(27901)
CITY OF RENTON MAR 19 1993
MEMORANDUM CITY OF RENTON
Engineering Dept,
DATE: March 17, 1993
TO: Sam Chastain, Parks
Gregg Zimmerman, Utilities Division
Jim Hanson, Development Services
Mel Wilson, Transportation
Kay Shoudy,�" Range Planning
FROM: Lynn Guttma i
STAFF CONTACT: David Saxen� ng Range Planning, x-2475, MWF
SUBJECT: Wetland Mitigation Bank Interdepartmental Design Team
and Agreement.
The City is establishing a wetland mitigation banking program in the Valley
(Black River drainage basin) and is in the process of selecting an
environmental consultant to create a wetland mitigation plan, which will
consist of a protocol for running the mitigation program and a physical plan
for wetland construction on the two sites.
An Interdepartmental Design Team will be formed to assist in the consultant
selection process, provide input for the City's project manager, and review
the consultant's products. The Design Team will meet periodically
throughout the planning process to accomplish these tasks.
The Design Team will consist of representatives from each department with
an interest in the project including Parks, Surface Water, Development
Services, Transportation, and Long Range Planning. One representative
from each department should be designated to participate on the Team.
The first task of the Design Team will be to approve the RFP and assist in
selection of the consultant. A meeting to accomplish these preliminary
tasks will be scheduled within the next two weeks at which time each
department's representative should be designated.
Please inform David Saxen of the staff member designated to participate on
the Design Team by March 24.
cc: Larry Warren