The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWP272171(41) 61 CITY OF RENTON TR Planning/Building/Public Works Department 7 e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 31, 1998 Jim Kelley,PhD Parametrix,Inc 5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE Kirkland,WA 98033 SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANHING PROJECT SIGNED ORIGINAL OF ADDENDUM NO.2 TO CAG-93-080 Dear Mr.Kelley: Attached is a fully signed original of Addendum No. 2-98 to our contract CAG-93-080 for the Wetland Mitigation Banking Project. Since I believe that you will be given the work of evaluating the Oakesdale Extension Project Phase 2 wetland mitigation options, it makes sense that we delay completing the wetland mitigation banking project so that we can incorporate the information we will collect from the Oakesdale work into the banking project documents. So unless I notify you to the contrary, please assume for now that the banking project is to be completed concurrent with the Oakesdale work. Thank you for your assistance. I believe Lin Wilson will notify you soon regarding your proposal for the Oakesdale Extension work. If you have any questions,please contact me at 425- 277-5547. Sincerely, 13�� Woodbury,�J- Scottct Manager Surface Water Utility U:65119:98-003:SW attachment cc: Ron Straka iv 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer • CONTRACT CHECKLIST STAFF NAME & EXTENSION NUMBER: 57C6r WaoJL V DIVISION/DEPARTMENT: / fi CONTRACT NUMBER: O 86 TASK ORDER NUMBER(if applicable): CONTRACTOR: PURPOSE OF CONTRACT: �•►�ole,¢-e Df�n r��n-� o�LtAS 1. LEGAL REVIFW: (Attach letter from city attorney.) S"ee QAAhW 3/„A6, 2. RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR INSURANCE: (Attach letter.) Sck 41�� l 3/)9/gg 3. RESPONSE TO LEGAL OR RISK MGMT CONCERNS: (Explain in writing how concerns have been met.) N/A 4. INSURANCE CERTIFICATE AND/OR POLICY: (Attach original.) Sz'e- q 41J4, 5. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE NUMBER: �15' (Call Finance Dept.) 6. ATTACHED CONTRACTS ARE SIGNED BY CONTRACTOR: (If not, provide explanation.) 7. FISCAL IMPACT: A. AMOUNT BUDGETED (LINE ITEM) (See 8.b)* V 0.13, q51 (If f 14(6� µrfr,vJ 11) t.Jkd B. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: l L avb 8. C UNCIL APPROVAL REQUIRED (Prepare Agenda Bill.): AP CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER IS $50,WO 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: RS 10. 14JROLUTION NUMBER (if applicable): A 11. KEY WORDS FOR CITY CLERK'S INDEX: A. l•sie��a 1y1 a, �,� P B. C. cAwinword\tormakhklist 09/02/93 R CITY OF RENTON Office of the City Attorney Jesse Tanner,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren MEMORANDUM To: Scott Woodbury From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date: March 11, 1998 Ot F, Subject: Parametrix Consultant Contract CAG-93-080 Addendum eerrr' = Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan I have reviewed the above-referenced document and the same is approved as to legal form. Lawrence IJarren LJW:as. cc: Jay Covington A8:138.19. Post Office Box 626 - 1Q0 S. 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425)255-8678 14 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer Jti`+I CST •Ar%InUN UA1 I AunLA J-1�7-JU IJ-XUL ui �-- ------ -FAX Date 03199156 Number of pages including cover sheet TO: Rhonda Walmsly FROM: Doug Meyer City of Renton Arthur J. Gallagher P.O. Box 24809 RE: Parametrix Consultant Denver, CO 80224 Contract CAG-93-080 Addendum Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan Phone (303) 773-9999 ext. 431 Fax Phone (303) 773-9776 Phone Fax Phone 425 235-2576 I CC: REMARKS: ❑ Urgent ❑ For your review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please Comment Rhonda, I have reviewed the Certificate of Insurance submitted for the above referenced contract. The insurance coverage provided for this project meets the City's risk management requirements. If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call. Doug Meyer Feb-27-98 03 : 16P Pavar- -tvix Finance Group 253 P�3 7399 P.03 rcts-zr-ats rni uc;ut M rnr►u, r. ua 02/24/se 10:01 FAX 423 20s 1s41 V/ REMN F/B/PM Q 007/00T CM OF RENTON llu WAN RESOURM h RISK MANAGEMRNT DEPARTMENT INSURANCE IPNFOIMATION FORM COIfTRACfONt:.ANSIILTAM'r , pl=cTttm►=pj SS=/ `� -C,7 ST�CONTAC-. .��e d� ?� oudfimm of Im 3M iadioft the arras{W and Wain mpeCie.d in ooe wwa If ao,VVIAb beiaw: *Yts CI No ,�theCs � f�� ar ISO Im Ocmrxm Patty a E4ir41au4 pf Yes O No (If ax+.attach a oopr otthe polNrdrwiQa n4sdtad�>�dorslT idrn�Aod} CO W41 Austadatael►F.udoaawmtProvided?'a �Ya 0 No CCd.tletaral Agrxpt<peervidod an o"par pmjcd b$M((`GM3)7' )dyes O No A"fioW ULMW w0e64 pOMW?" ,0 Yes O Na Al oovasp on a primary bask and d*oKoavftfwg bads't' NJ Yes �No Watm d9diasogatiop Cbwe s1Neor0 Yes O No uvwo&w orlmum cum ofou Lbwbty)applies! itw Yea a No Netlae Of amanded b 43 dayM f"s iU 140 •rahesk"man cortifiGweal or b AW rgrlrcd ijlso ooft"c tce fwm is! PQ or wher,may also be onoxed ruder oo wua, AM XZM BRAYING TOR C/tKlZR: Ibis Quwdwmaim is l+wo4 as a mmmw of inform aoa. 'ILis goesdotmt X is rat as i mtmw policy sad Am ad araeod, =mod or dw Its0 ow4up dilorded by *0 pdicksa iadiwted on on apacbw CZRTLFNATY OF IN URAWM •Tbe CITY OF R8N2YK at In option. " "a mPW d the Wki a"do=spKiao dodmgdoa pipes FACIK preasdo 1 bWdar price ee exangd n of anksm f1/1 N,S -- Aieaoyl&v a cry"°_ - Tt� /Soo Addsas Naas of paeans m ooetaa Tekplro4e Noraber YOM rMS LI)VEMONNAIRET RIST FL COWZnM AKP AITACHM 70 CFRTf CAPE OF INSURANCE FOR EilClf MNE OF COMUGE ftumma.wlorlir Unix 32 ■.:.r w AC MD. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE CSR LB DATE(MM/DD/YY) PARIN-1 03/02/98 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE Hurley, Atkins & Stewart, Inc. HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR 1800 Ninth Ave. , #1500 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Seattle WA 98101 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE Jude LeGrande COMPANY Phone No. 206-682-5656 Fax No. A Connecticut Specialty Ins Co INSURED COMPANY B American Economy Insurance Co Parametrix, Inc. COMPANY GWRB, Inc C P 0 Box 460 COMPANY Sumner WA 98390 D COVERAGES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. CO TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LIMITS LTR DATE(MM/DD/YY) DATE(MM/DD/YY) GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE S 2,000,000 A X COMMERCIAL GENERA L LIABILITY GL300043 10/20/97 10/20/98 PRODUCTS-COMP/OPAGG S 2,000,000 CLAIMS MADE � OCCUR PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 OWNER'S&CONTRACTOR'S PROT EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 X WA Stop Gap FIRE DAMAGE(Any one fire) $ 50,000 , X , Per project Agg MED EXP(Any one person) $ 50000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 1,000,000 B X ANY AUTO 02CC2826924 10/20/97 10/20/98 ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY S SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per person) HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY NON-OWNED AUTOS (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE $ GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY-EA ACCIDENT $ ANY AUTO OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH ACCIDENT $ AGGREGATE $ EXCESS LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ UMBRELLA FORM AGGREGATE $ OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND TO STATU- OTH- ER LIMITS ER EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY EL EACH ACCIDENT $ THE PROPRIETOR/ INCL EL DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $ PARTNERS/EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ARE: EXCL EL DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE $ OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONSNEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS Re: Project # 55-1779-07, WETLAND MITIGATION BANKS The certificate holder is an additional insured on the General Liability, but only as respects work performed by the named insured. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION RENC+I—1 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF,THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL MAIL 4 5 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, City of Renton Attn: Scott Woodbury 200 Mill Ave. S. AUTHORIZED RE ESENT TIVE / ' Renton WA 98055 Jude LeG a(� 4-4'�l'.&, AGORD 25-S(1/95) ©AC )RD CORPORATION 1988 AVO/ D . A D /( PARIN-1 03/02/98 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE Hurley, Atkins & Stewart, Inc. HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR 1800 Ninth Ave. , #1500 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Seattle WA 98101 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE Jude LeGrande COMPANY Phone No. 206-682-5656 Fax No. A Security Ins Co of Hartford INSURED COMPANY B Parametrix, Inc. COMPANY GWRB, Inc C P O Box 460 COMPANY Sumner WA 98390 D COVERAGES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. CO TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LIMITS LTR DATE(MM/DD/YY) DATE(MM/DD/YY) GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE $ COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PRODUCTS-COMP/OP AGG $ CLAIMS MADE F-1 OCCUR PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $ OWNER'S&CONTRACTOR'S PROT EACH OCCURRENCE $ FIRE DAMAGE(Any one fire) $ MED EXP(Any one person) $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per person) $ HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY NON-OWNED AUTOS (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE S GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY-EA ACCIDENT $ ANY AUTO OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH ACCIDENT S AGGREGATE $ EXCESS LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ UMBRELLA FORM AGGREGATE $ OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM $ WC WORKERS COMPENSATION AND TORY 0TH ER-'LIMITS IMIT EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY EL EACH ACCIDENT S THE PROPRIETOR/ INCL EL DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $ PARTNERS/EXECUTIVEF1 OFFICERS ARE: EXCL EL DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE $ OTHER A Professional PL508106-01 10/20/97 10/20/98 1,000,000 Each Claim Liability 2,000,000 Aggregate DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS For Professional Liability, the aggregate limit is the total insurance available for all claimspresentedyywithin the policy period. The limit will be Re:reProjd#b55p1779-07,oWETLAAND MITIGATION-B and ANKS CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION'' RENCI-1 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF,THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL MAIL 45 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, City of Renton SUfffflEnCEUtALlinFOCERMOKODMUMATIOtNt Attn: Scott Woodbury 200 Mill Ave. S. AUTHORIZED R RESE ATIVE Renton WA 98055 Jude Le xdoll -Q'7��J ACORD 25-S(1/95) ©ACORD CORPORATION 1988'' Parametrix, Inc. To: p �Zr Date: Project No: ' ! From: �I p Washington gon ❑ 5700 Kitsap Way ❑ 25 N.Wenatchee Avenue f41f 24 Capitol Way El7820 N.E. Holman Suite 202 Suite 207 ll.• 8Yte 1,T -- Suite B-6 Bremerton,WA 98312-2234 Wenatchee,WA 98801-2236 ,f�ly{n,ia,VA0b$r01,V Portland,OR 97218-2859 360 377 0014.206 383 1835 509 664 3290 503-256-5444.360-694-5020 Fax:360-479-5961 Fax:509-663-8816 F2x:360 94 2 Fax:503-256-4221 Internet:pmxbrem@parametrix.com Texas 5808 Lake Washington Blvd. N.E. ❑ 1231 Fryar Avenue ❑ 10540 Rockley Road Suite 200 P.O. Box 460 Suite 300 Kirkland,WA 98033-7350 Sumner,WA 98390-1516 Houston,TX 77099-3531 206-822-8880 206-863-5128.206-838-9810 713-530-1920 Fax:206-889-8808 Fax:206-863-0946 Fax:713-530-6744 Internet:pmx@parametrix.com Internet:pmxsumner@parametrix.com We are transmitting the following materials: ! -�.— --�� -- CFI G -Ra-cqzf) . Comments: These are: ❑ Per your Request Sent via: U.S. Mail For your Information ❑ Courier ❑ For your Review and Approval ❑ Express Overnight ❑ For your Files ❑ Other- Interoffice ❑ For your Action Sincerely, AD#3-5/96 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR CONCURRENCE DATE: March 9, 1998 TO: Larry Warren FROM: Scott Woodbury (425-277-5547) <5t') CONTACT PERSON: SUBJECT: Parametrix Consultant Contract CAG-93-080 Addendum Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan Attached is a copy of the above-referenced addendum for your review as to legal form. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact me at 425-277-5547. Attachments CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR CONCURRENCE DATE: March 9, 1998 TO: Rhonda Walmsley FROM: Scott Woodbury (X-5547) 5'W CONTACT PERSON: SUBJECT: Parametrix Consultant Contract CAG-93-080 Addendum Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan Attached for your review are copies of the following: • Draft scope and budget for the proposed Parametrx contract addendum. • Certificate of insurance for insurance coverage other than professional liability • City of Renton insurance information form • Certificate of insurance for professional liability The risk associated with the work under the contract is believed to be low. I would appreciate your help in completing the insurance review by March 16, 1998. If you have any questions or need more information, please call me at (425)277-5547. Thank you for your assistance. CONCURRENCE Name Date Attachments Parametrix, Inc. LC Scott Woodbury March 2, 1998 The City of Renton Dept. of Planning/Bldg./Public Works 55-1779-07 Fourth Floor 200 Mill Avenue Renton, WA 98055-2189 vYaatrvnyiu;, Oreggi r ❑ 5700 Kitsap W J 1231 Fryar Aven! ❑ 2j0�'E�j Qlman Suite 202 P.O. Box 460 Je, 6".l ff,,�� Bremerton,WA c umner,WA 9839u-i u i u Ponta ��j d7 4, 59 360 377-0014•Fa 53 863 5128•Fax:253 863 0946 503 256 544� 36��j44D20 E-mail: pmxbre.m@parametnx.cnm E-mail: pmxsumner@parametrix.com Fax: 503-256-422T'�' ;a X Texas___ -=I 10540 1 Suite 300 Houston.TX 77099-3531 - _-+n ,mn,c.,.,. 'P j ;,3n R7' Two signed copies of Addendum No. 2-98 to your consultant agreement CAG-93-080 for the Wetland Mitigation Plan. XX X Sinc rely J Kelley FEB-17-98 TUE 03: 51 PN PARAMETRIX, INC. FAX NO. 1 425 889 8808 P. 01 Parametrix, Inc. 5808 Lake Washington Blvd, N.E., Suite 200, Kirkland, WA 98033-7350 206-822-8880 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER PAGE FAX # 206-889-8808 To: Scott Woodbury Company Name, City of Renton �/— �� G Fax #:1'425 235 2541 V From; Jim Kelle y ie 7' loco �f is d� Sent By: dr- T4tj Z, Date: February 17 1998 0 Number of Pages: 4 Comments/Message: Scott- Attached is a scope for finalizing the wetland mitigation banking project (finally!- I recently broke my arm and this has slowed me down). We estimate that completion of this scope will cost $12,000, with about $8,000 for the CAD work, and the remaining for finalizing the reports. I'll call you later today to discuss. Thanks, �J P,r1 r Jim Kelley 7 -4 ��,��ed Sc4(-- . f/"(fASt f-CV, C" , S�N� v� �H ",Je-f .i l61 Backup Copy Will ❑ Will Not ❑ Be Sent Via PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2631 � AT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2620 TO: DATE: Z 7 JOB NO. : RE: tAAl-r1di.J 6441C 0108 l4kcW , RtA - V, J wA ! ATTN: GENTLEMEN: WE ARE;SENDING YOU p( ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS ❑ REPRODUCIBLE PLANS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS ❑ COPY OF LETTER ❑ COPIES DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS C f s fl "l � /'tau/' � �c Sir �S eSs i�• 11-7 e4 ly rltit. s � � hew a 9f7 w cv THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL Q' FOR YOUR USE ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION P& AS REQUESTED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS ❑ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPIES TO: j SIGNED (f/ TITLE IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE l/ �!4 y A . ) As" y G h �, An ( L c Ivie- rr.,t I y AcW y At- A �v ©n 7hifi l WETLAND MITIGATION BANK (WMB)#1 MITIGATION PLAN CHOICE Wetland Mitigation Bank (WMB) #1 was donated to the City of Renton (CR) as part of a mitigation banking agreement between the CR and Glacier Park. The site is appropriate as a WMB Site for several reasons. WMB #1 is degraded, in the ownership of the CR, and could contribute to the larger natural landscape of wetlands, rivers, streams, and upland habitats that provide an ecological corridor in the Renton valley and BRDB. WMB #1 has been altered by filling and ditching over the past 20 years, and its ability to provide wetland functions important to the landscape and BRDB is limited. Improvements made to the vegetation communities and establishing specific wetland functions will result in a net gain in wetland acreage, habitats, and functions. WMB #1 has the capacity of providing wetland functions that will benefit the CR and the public. For example, the CR identified storm and flood water attenuation as an important issue in the BRDB. WMB #1 can provide up to 52-acre ft of flood water control that would minimize impacts to downstream areas. In addition, WMB #1 is located within an ecological landscape that supports upland and wetland corridors and is next to protected wetlands to the north and east. SITE DESCRIPTION WMB #1 is located north of Southwest 34th Street, south of the Boeing Longacre Park site, east of the Burlington Northern Railroad, and west of Oakesdale Avenue Southwest. The site is 30.97 acres, within the CR, and is partially zoned industrial and resource conservation. Developed land zoned industrial occurs along most of its southern boundary. Undeveloped commercial, industrial, and resource conservation zoned land is next to the western half of the southern boundary and to the eastern and western boundaries (City of Renton 1993a). Its northwest corner is within the 100-yr Springbrook Creek floodplain. 1 hob Abo one-third of the site has been cleared ,or cleared and filled ,over the past several years. In abou %71'5 the site was cleared of all trees, and a former Green River meander through the site was filled, creating localized wetlands (Hart Crowser 1991a). Based on aerial photographs, farming appeared to be the predominate activity on the site until the early 1970s. Currently, the site consists primarily of revegetated fill material, placed approximately 20 years ago, 12.19 acres of relatively undisturbed upland meadow and shrubland and 18.78 acres of predominately emergent, forested, and shrub wetlands. Wetland Delineation Three wetland communities were identified and delineated on Mitigation Banking Site 1; they ranged from 0.14 to 17.91 acres in size (David Evans and Associates 1991 a., Table 1). The wetland communities typically occur in depressional areas, and the majority of upland communities occur in elevated areas. Topography on the site ranged from an elevation of 18 to 20 ft. Wetland J is a 0.14- acre scrub-shrub wetland, Wetland L is a 0.73-acre scrub-shrub wetland, and wetland M is a 17.91- acre emergent, and scrub-shrub, and shrub-young-forested wetland. Table 1. Existing wetland community characteristics on the CR WMB#1. Wetland Size(acres) Class Primary Community Characteristics J 0.14 PSS willow, red-osier dogwood L 0.73 PSS willow, red-osier dogwood, crab apple M 17.91 PFO/PSS/PEM black cottonwood,willow, reed canarygrass Total 18.78 Vegetation Communities Several vegetation communities occur on the site; these include upland meadow and shrub communities, a wet meadow, and scrub-shrub and shrub-young-forested wetland. The upland meadow communities are variable in species composition, but in general are dominated by upland and facultative upland species. Species common to the upland meadow community include: creeping bentgrass, Agrostis stoloneifera; English plantain, Plantago lanceolata; velvet grass, Holcus lanatus; common tansy, Tanacetum vulgare; hairy cats-ear, Hypochoeris radicata; soft chess, Bromus mollis; and Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense. (David Evans and Associates 1991a). The upland shrub community consists primarily of Himalayan blackberry and Scot's broom (David Evans and Associates 1991a; personal observation, Parametrix 1993). The Himalayan blackberry stands are almost impenetrable and reach up to 15 ft tall. The blackberry stands have overgrown vegetation described above in the upland meadow community, and below in the seasonally wet meadow community. The seasonally wet meadow portions of on-site wetlands are dominated almost exclusively by reed canarygrass (David Evans and Associates 1991a; personal observation, Parametrix 1993). Secondary vegetation within the wet meadows includes creeping bentgrass and common velvet grass. The scrub-shrub and shrub-young-forested wetland community is dominated by young willows and black cottonwood with some western crab apple, Malus fusca; red-osier dogwood, Corpus stolinifera; and Douglas spirea, Spirea douglasii. The herbaceous layer consists of creeping bentgrass, creeping buttercup, Ranunculus repens, soft rush, Juncus effusus, and common horsetail, Equisetum arvense. Soils Previous Characterization WMB#1 was farmed prior to the 1970s. In 1978 the site was cleared and filled (Orillia fill). A 4-foot- high mound of fill material covers approximately 1 acre in the southeast portion of the site placed likely in the 1980s. Prior to the Orillia fill the site was characterized by three soil types: Puyallup fine sandy loam (non-hydric), Woodinville silt loam (hydric), and Puget silty clay loam (hydric) (Snyder et al. 1973). Puyallup fine sandy loam is a well-drained soil formed in alluvium. This soil is found on natural terraces adjacent to streams in valleys. The A horizon ranges from fine sandy loam to very fine sandy loam and silty loam. The upper portion of the C horizon is very fine sandy loam. Non- hydric inclusions of Briscot, Newberg, Nooksack, Oridia, and Renton soils and hydric inclusions of Woodinville and Puget soils can occur. The central portion of the site was mapped as Puyallup fine sandy loam (Snyder et al. 1973). Woodinville silt loam is a hydric soil composed of poorly drained material that formed in alluvium on stream bottoms. The A and B horizons range from silt loam to silty clay loam. Thin lenses of very fine sandy loam and loamy sand or peat occur within the horizons. Non-hydric inclusions of Puget, Snohomish, Oridia, Briscot, Puyallup, Newberg, and Nooksack soils can occur. David Evans and Associates' (1991a) on-site soil investigation indicated that the western, northwestern, and eastern portions of the site are representative of this mapped soil unit, and that the depth of the hard pan ranged from 5 to 10 inches. The last mapped soil unit, Puget silt clay loam, occurs on less than one percent slopes. The A horizon ranges from silty clay loam to silt loam. The B horizon is silty clay loam stratified with silt loam, silty clay, and fine sand. This soil unit is mapped in a small portion of the site along the western edge. David Evans and Associates(1991a)did not evaluate this soil type. Hazardous Materials A preliminary environmental site assessment indicated that the source of fill material brought onto WMB #1 to fill the former Green River meander is unknown (Hart Crowser 1991a). The chemical constituents of this fill material are also unknown. A second environmental site assessment, prepared by Golder and Associates (1992), observed that there was no obvious evidence of significant dumping or related chemical contamination. Recent Soil Characterization The CR and consultant staff evaluated soils at three locati 7a�vid WMB #1 in the summer of 1993. Soil test location 1 was excavated near wetland flag M-51 Evans and Associates 1991 a) at a ground elevation of approximately 18 ft. Fill occurred fo tbelow the ground surface to an elevation of about 16 ft. Silty sand, with heavy mottles mixed with fill, extended to an elevation of approximately 16 to 14 ft. Fine silty sand occurred below the silty sand. Active slumping of sediments was evident at an elevation of approximately 9 ft below the surface, indicating the depth where water was actively entering the test location. Depth of fill was estimated to be at least 4 feet. Soil test location 2 was excavated in the northwest corner of the site at a ground elevation of approximately 18 ft. Its characteristics were similar to those observed in soil test location 1. Fill occurred from a surface to 18 to 16 ft. Saturated silty sand mixed with mottles and fill occurred at an elevation of 16 to 12 ft. Below a surface elevation of about 12 ft, the sediment was primarily silty sand. The depth of fill was estimated to be at least 2 ft. No water was observed in this soil test hole. Soil test location 3 was excavated in the southeast corner of the site at a ground elevation of approximately 18 ft. Fill consisting of sandy silt and silty sand occurred from the surface elevation to an elevation of 16 ft. Between the sandy silt fill and silty sand fill was a 3/4 inch deep iron oxide layer. Woody debris (natural) was observed at a surface elevation of about 14 ft. Water seepage was evident at a sbdatce elevation of, ft. The depth of fill was estimated to be at least ft. Under contract to the CR, Dames and Moore (1995) evaluated soil conditions underlying the site by excavating five soil holes with a rubber-tired backhoe to maximum depths of up to 14 ft below current ground surface elevations. WMB#1 is covered with fill soils about 2 to 3 ft in thickness. The fill materials include gravel, silty sand, and silt. The fill soils are underlain by alluvial deposits which include interbedded layers of silt, silty sand, and sand. In general, the upper 4 to 10 ft of the alluvial deposits is a soft',and the silt is underlain by a sand. The exception to their profile was found at the center of th a where the surface fill soils was directly underlain by sand. Silt Hydroloav Sources of hydrology for the existing w4llands on WMB #1 are precipitation, surface runoff from bordering uplands with an approximately�f-acre tributary areas, and ground water. The wetlands are in depressional areas that hold precipitation prior to evapotranspiration and infiltration. Under current land uses, approximately 10% of the drainage basin is covered in impervious surfaces. Surface water runoff conveyed in a drainage ditch along the western and northern border of the site may provide water to WMB#1. However, the elevatPrg of tVite a pear to beat least 3-g 4 6 ft higher than the ditch, and overflow of the ditch is 'e cor'pw. to ace water flows from the Orillia pond about 2,000 ft south of WMB#lythrough a culvert into a dayji hWd north-south drainage ditch located just inside the western boundary of WMB#1 then into an east-west drainage ditch along the northern perimeter of WMB #1 and emptie into the South Marsh Wetlan VV-�) at the Boeing Longacres Office Park properly a no ast corner o�WI�AB7) Dur extree storm events flooding of CR owned wetlands (W-12) may backflood the south Marsh Wetland which in turn backfloods the ditch on the northern and western perimeter of WMB #1 f'4t_ CAin2. t, '",, ,( f41, Fv✓ tR. /I?fr �../�'rCh. et f{•c. !r?Ae- A-a 6f A third source of hydrology�a seasonally high ground water-tgai8. Ground water was encountered during test hole excavation and monitored in piezometers during February 1995 (Dames and Moore � G t, 1995__)�, Ground water occurred within 2 to 6 ft of the ground surface elevation and =deepest '✓°"(`� o n. One test hole was located about 30 ft from the ditch the bottom of was a 11 bout -tZLI" below the ground surface of the test hole. The ditch h d about 1 ft of water during the excavation of the test hole (Dames and Moore 1995). Thus, sea onal high ground water elevations may contribute hydrology to the wetlands during the winter. h44'- 11 Dames and Moore (1995) also\ valuated the permeability of the on-site soils. Permeability rates on ;� WMB #1 ranged from x 104 o 84-r--1,34-cm/sec. Seepage analysis conducted to estimate the potential seepage loss7frbm'th ottori of th`e created wetlands assumed the presence of a 6-ft-thick 1+ layer below the bottom (Dames and Moore 1995). Ground water at both the bottom of the wetland and at the bottom of the silt layer were considered in the analysis. The former simulates ground water conditions during the wet season and the latter simulates ground water conditions during dry seasons. In addition, a synthetic flexible membrane liner with a permeability of 1 X 10-8 cm/sec was also considered in the analysis. Tawa t evaporation I sses, the seepage analysis indicates that without the membr ne liner seepage loss would be inches/day [4,569�allons per minute(gpm)]during the dry sea on and 0.2 inches/day (200 gpm) during the wet season. Seepage loss would be substantially less with a membrane. Only 0.01 inches/day W/bm) would be lost during the dry season and 0 05 inches/day (6 gpm) would be lost during the wet season. Therefore, water loss through s epage.is relatively high during thg/�r�seasons. Existing BuffersSh Buffers surrounding WMB #1 vary in size and characteristic (Table 2). The largest and most vegetated buffer occurs north and west of WMB#1. The southerry and eastern buffers are relatively narrow, unvegetated, and consist of roads or development. R � iE Table 2. Existing buffer community conditions on WMB#1. Buffer Location Characteristics East Narrow;Oakesdale Avenue North Wide buffer consisting of ditch (largely unvegetated) and deciduous and coniferous upland and wetland forest, shrub (e.g., Himalayan blackberry, dewberry,thimbleberry),and grasses / South Narrow mostly unvegetated buffer comprised of paved and unpaved surfaces r<w Pq9+ �Z West Relatively wide buffer comprised of a north-south ditch (largely unvegetated), sale. grasses,and some shrubs. Farther to the west are BN rail tracks. �✓� �/z aPJ o�nr•.t.J un-fy')'e Existing Fauna �P-f la„�s ✓ Wildlife use of WMB #1 and its associated wetlands and uplands appears to be limited to human tolerant species. WMB #1 is dominated by grasses, forbs, shrubs, and young forested vegetation. Areas to the north and east of WMB #1 are emergent, shrub, and forested wetland. BN rail tracks are west of WMB #1. South of the site, wildlife habitat has been largely eliminated by industrial development. No permanent aquatic habitat occurs on WMB#1. . 1 The drainage ditch on the west and north perimeter of WMB #1 provides some�,aquatic habitat. Shrub and forested slopes along the west and north banks of the ditch provide habitat connectivity to other wetland and upland systems. The habitat quality of the wetlands (and the adjacent grassy uplands) is degraded due to the dominance of invasive plant species, low vegetative diversity, and lack of habitat structure. Small mammals may use the area for foraging nd breeding. The site may provide foraging habitat for raptors, such as Northern harriers Hrt d-tailed hawks. For most passerine bird species, the forested portion of the site provides some habitat structure for nesting, protection from predation, thermal cover, and perching. David Evans and Associates (1991a) did not observe unique or water- dependent species during a site investigation in winter. Several varieties of songbirds were seen and/or heard in summer 1993. Coyote, deer, and raccoon also occurred on or near WMB #1 as evidenced by the presence of fecal droppings. Several assessment methodologies are available to determine wetland functions; these include the Wetland Evaluation technique (WET) (Adamus 1991) and the Wetland Assessment Assessment Techniques (Reppert et al. 1979). Wetland functional assessment methodologies for wetlands typically identify and evaluate physical attributes that provide predictive rather than direct measurements of specific ecological functions (Reimold 1994). Due to limitations of many available functional analysis methods, expert opinion is important when assessing wetlands for indicators that predict functions (Ecology 1996; USCOE 1994). Assessment methodologies 'typically do not recognize local variations in wetlands on a scale such as the CR and BRDB. Many methods emphasize the importance of waterfowl and flood control functions of wetlands (Adamus 1991), but they typically do not differentiate the functions of smaller wetlands that lack aquatic habitat (Ecology 1996). Because of the diversity of wetland systems nationwide, general functional assessment procedures often do not recognize local or regional variations in wetland functions. To address this gap in assessment methodologies, Hruby et al. (1995) developed an assessment methodology (indicator Value Assessment of IVA) that establishes a performance score for a wetland by developing a numeric model for' each function based on the importance scores assigned to wetland functional indicators. This system is based on professional evaluation by technical and scientific experts and the numeric evaluation of physical attributes in the field. Due to the above limitations, a combined approach was used to assess wetland functions of wetlands on WMB #1 by determining the presence of recognized indicators of biological and physical functions (Hruby et al. 1995; Adamus 1991; Reppert et al. 1979; USCOE 1994; Ecology 1996) and by using professional judgment to evaluate the overall significance of these field indicators to fish and wildlife, hydrologic, and water quality functions. A list of functions, ratings, and rationale for each rating is presented in Table 3. The biological functions are generally significant to the local vicinity (rather than to a larger landscabecause urban development isolates that area for many species of wildlife, and the size of tow f the wetlands are smaller than the habitat requirements of many mammals and bird species (Brinson 1993). The biological functions of the wetlands are further limited by the lack of permanent open water, the short duration of seasonal ponding or soil saturation, and the high occurrence of non-native, invasive plant species. The biological functional performance increases where trees and/or shrubs are next to grass-dominated emergent areas. Hydrologic functions (such as floodflow storage, ground water discharge, and storm water detention) are important at the watershed level, because, when present, they may affect hydrologic and habitat conditions in the BRDB. Table 3. Functional assessment of existing wetlands on WMB#1. Function Rating Rational Resident and Low The wetlands are "isolated" from streams and other fish habitat Anadromous Fish Functional and have only small amounts of standing water during winter and Performance spring months, and are thus unable to provide this habitat function. Although the north-south, east-west ditch along the perimeter of WMB #1 is connected to Springbrook Creek via CR owned wetlands and culverts; the connections and the ditch provide no significant habitat to fish nor do they allow fish to access the wetlands. Passerine Birds Moderate Wetland M, the largest of the three wetlands has most of the Functional habitat attributes associated with breeding birds. However, much Performance of its emergent, shrub, and forested component lacks open water or standing water during the breeding season and emergent components are vegetated reed canarygrass, velvet grass, or other emergent plant species with limited value to birds such as the marsh wren, red-winged blackbird, song sparrows, and common yellowthroat. The shrub and forested components of the wetland lack a mixed deciduous-coniferous component, interspersion of habitat classes and interspersion of water and wetland classes. In this wetland, black cottonwood provides nest and perch sites for birds, although man tress re too young to provide cavity nesting habitat Herptiles Low to Soils in the emergent portions of the wetlands is typically Moderate saturated, but lacks significant amounts of standing water during Functional the late spring and summer months. In addition, there is a large Performance percentage of developed land in the immediate area potentially limiting the diversity if amphibians and reptiles that can move into the wetlands. Where extended seasonal ponding is present (ditch), Pacific chorus frog, red-legged frog, and long-toed salamander may be present. Small Mammals Low to Wetland M is likely to provide habitat for small mammals. The Moderate small size of Wetlands J and L, and the lack of diverse habitat Functional structure within them, limits this wetland function. Species likely to Performance inhabit the wetlands include deer mice, voles, and species tolerant of human activity. Waterfowl Low The wetlands on WMB#1 lack significant open water or seasonally Functional flooded meadow areas suitable for waterfowl. Performance Export of Production Low Due to the lack of permanent hydrological connections to Functional downstream systems, the wetland do not appear to provide Performance significant export function. Minor export could occur from Wetland M, during periods when flow in the north-south, east-west running ditch is present. Control of Floodflow Low Since only the northwest corner of Wetland M is associated with Functional floodplains, the wetland do not appear to provide flood control Performance functions due to their elevation and lack of permanent connection with surface water. Surface Runoff Low Shallow depressions within the wetlands seasonally collect storm Storage Functional runoff and may reduce runoff rates during storm events. Performance 0$/E4 weflh /!' Nutrient ( Modefate Portions of Wetlamd M tha#—Fes®��e stnrr�w^tP�_____T!�+o—a,^d are Retention/Transform Functional associatedwiththe ditches provide biofiltration functions that likely ation Performance result in some water quality improvement. These improvements could include nutrient retention, nutrient transformations, sedimentation, and removal of some chemical pollutants associated with storm water runoff. of Wetland Rating /'"'y''6rre�/ ,l� fad 'ffy' Awlel) City of Renton Under the CR's wetland classification system, the wetlands qualify as Category 3 wetlands because they (1) occur on top of fill material, (2) are characterized by hydrologic alterations, and (3) they have a predominance of invasive species. Washington Department of Ecology Wetland M is classified as a Category II wetland accordin tot he ashington State Wetlands Rating System, Western Washington (Ecology 1993) based on its size. Wetlands J and L are category III wetlands because more than one non-invasive native plant species occurs in the wetland. Preliminary Site Development Plan Compensation Goals and Objectives ? 2 The goals for WMB #1 are to (1) re ace or augment lacking or limiting functions in the Renton valley, (2) compensate for filling ex° ting wetland and lost functions by creating a total of 12.19 acres of wetland and enhancing 1 :78 acres of wetland, (3) simulate natural Pacific Northwest plant communities an habitats not dominated by exotic or invasive species (4) establish acres of forested wetland, acres of shrub wetland, acres of emergent wetland, and acres of enhanced buffer, and (5) establish a surface water connection between the ditch and WMB#1. The preliminary mitigation plan has been developed to meet the following objectives: 1. Enhance plant species diversity on WMB#1, thereby improving overall habitat diversity. 2. Create native Pacific Northwest forest and shrub wetland communities to replace area, communities, and functions impacted by anticipated development projects. 3. Create a hyrologically self-sustaining ecosystem that minimizes maintenance of the newly created wetland and ensures its long term viability. 4. Provide flood and storm water storage potential, and wildlife habitat. 5. Create a average -ft buffer community along the east and south composed of trees and shrubs to compensate for the absence of existing buffer along the eastern and southern perimeter of WMB#1 and protect the integrity if WMB#1 from further impacts to water quality. 6. Provide educational and passive recreation opportunities. Quantitative Performance Standards 1. Three wetland classes, as defined by Cowardin et al. (1979) totaling 12.19 acres will be established within 5 years (shrub and emergent ) and 10 years (forested wetland communities). 2. Eighty % plant cover of the created wetlands will be by native species with no more than 20% of the cover consisting of invasive species. 3, Additional flood and storm water storage (up to 52-acre ft). 4. Interspersion of vegetation community classes including habitat structures for wildlife. 5. Eighty % plant cover in the enhanced buffer will be by native species, with no more than 10% of the cover consisting of invasive species. Mitigation Site Design Plan Primary Plan The site design plan proposes to create 12.19 acres of wetland next to existing on-site wetlands and enhance 7.2 acres of existing wetland. The 12.19 acres will consist of acres of forested wetland, acres of shrub wetland, and acres of emergent wetland. Enhancement of the 7.2 acres of wetland will be by planting a variety of native tress and shrubs. Also, acres of enhanced buffer will be created and preserved. The mitigation plan is designed to simulate native Pacific northwest inland freshwater forest, shrub, and emergent wetlands. The wetland system will be designed to mature over the course of 5 to 10 years, following patterns of natural succession in these types of plant communities. It will include features such as snags, downed logs, multiple canopy structure, and dense vegetation that will provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species life history stages during all seasons of the year. In addition to wetland creation and enhancement, an enhanced -average ft buffer of native vegetation will be planted along the eastern and southern perimeter of WMB #1. As part of the mitigation plan, the enhanced buffer area will be planted with native species to create a densely vegetated transitional habitat. Plant species would include tree and shrub species that are tolerant of a wide range of hydrologic regimes. Excavation and Grading Excavation and grading will be required to create new wetlands. The proposed excavation and grading involves three earthwork construction steps. First, the top 6 to 8 inches of top soil will be excavated and removed from the site. The soils contains the roots and rhizomes of pasture grasses and other undesirable invasive species such as reed canarygrass. Second, two to 12 ft of underlying soils will be excavated, with some stockpiled for reuse on the site. The last step is to replace the stockpiled soil which will be graded at varying thickness' to provide the appropriate rooting depth and zones of saturation for each of the desired wetland classes. The construction steps related to technical issues and approximate soil quantities are described below. Surface soil will be removed because of potential adverse impacts from invasive species. Excavation of 6 to 8 inches of surface soil in most areas will largely eliminate seeds, roots, and rhizomes and reduce colonization by most invasive plants; excavation depths would be slightly greater where reed canarygrass predominates. LL ( 4, , 41 s k 7�.2 Excavation of the new wetland areas will be n�eisary � ensure wetland hydrology. The t-� �� g elevations of WMB #1 currently range from about T�-ft. In winter, ground water occurs about 2 to 6 ft below the surface. Excavating 2 to +10 ft in WMB#1 will be necessary to establish seasonally high ground water levels and a surface hydrology connection from the north-south ditch in the southwest corner of WMB #1. Approximately 165,000 yd3 of soil will be excavated to create WMB #1, with excavation depths ranging from 2 to + 10 ft. Some excavated material will be selectively stockpiled on-site for use as backfill. The bottom of the excavation will slope toward the low points which will generally drata�ro ortheast. The transition slope between created wetlands and undisturbed grades will mately 3H:1V. Within created wetlands, slopes will generally be less than 10H:IV, but will be variable to promote diversity of habitats and desired hydrologic regimes. Proposed grades are shallow and gradual to provide a variety of water regimes, including areas of temporary standing water up to 8 to 12 inches in depth to soils saturated to the surface. The final topographic configuration will range in elevation from 8 to 20 ft, and would be natural and sinuous to resemble natural landscapes. Topsoil will be replaced and graded to varying thicknesi'.Ao provide the proper rooting medium and zone of saturation for the selected vegetation classes. Topsoil thickness will change between wetland classes, with the thickest topsoils (24 inches) occurring in forested areas and 12 inches of topsoil in emergent areas. The proposed grading and wetland class acreage's indicate that approximately yd3 of replacement soil are needed. Suitable stockpiled soils on-site will be used as topso Hydrology An adequate water regime is the most critical factor required to establish the desired wetland communities on WMB #1. The duration and amount of standing water and soil saturation control the wetland community types present on-site. Knowledge of the hydrology requirements of natural Puget Sound (Ecology 1993) wetland communities indicates that it is feasible to create hydrologic conditions necessary to sustain diverse wetland communities. These hydrologic conditions will be attained by surface flow from the north-south running ditch at the southwest corner of WMB #1 and by excavating 2 to +10 ft below the ground surface to intercept the seasonally high or permanent ground water table. This will result in ground elevation of about 8 to 2 p )k ft, which will allow a range of wetland plant communities to persist on soils with varying degrees of flooding and saturation. The approximate elevations, hydrologic regime, and wetland vegetation classes proposed for WMB#1 are presented in Table 4. Two sources of water will support targeted wetland communities. The first source of water is from the drainage ditch at the southwest corner of the site. An inlet equipped with a flow splitter at an elevation of about 17 ft would be constructed. The amount of water in the drainage ditch is expected to exceed the amount of water needed to support proposed wetland communities. The amount of water in the ditch in spring an fall is expected to meet the needed water amount for targeted wetland communities. Proposed grades allow for sheet flow into targeted wetland communities. A notched weir outlet at an elevation of about 12 ft will be located at the northeas corner of the site to retain water in the wetland and to allow excess water over an elevation of 9P r '� ft to leave WMB #1. The second source of water is ground water. Proposed grades, particularly at 'evig on of 8 to 12 ft are proposed to intercept documented seasonally high winter/spring GI�+t�ioh Cam" l`� ground water table6) Table 4. Proposed wetland classes, elevation ranges,and hydrologic regimes. Wetland Class Elevation Range Anticipated Hydrologic Regime (feet) Forested 16-18 Seasonally saturated soil during years of average rainfall. Wetland Soil will be unsaturated to at least 18 inches below the ground surface during most summer and fall periods. Shrub Wetland 12-18 Seasonally saturated or flooded with up to about 6 inches of water during years of average rainfall. Soil will generally be saturated within 12 inches of ground surface during most of the summer and early fall. g Emergent 8-12 Seasonally flooded with up to aboutft of water during Wetland intense storm events. The water table will be at or within about 6 to 14 inches f the ground surface elevation during summer and fall. Planting Three wetland vegetation classes will be planted in WMB #1. These general classes will include wetland plant associations typical of freshwater wetlands and forested uplands in the northern Puget Sound basin. These plant associations are groups of plants selected to mimic naturally occurring native plant groups that may be found within a wetland class. The species composition and relative abundance of species in each plant association and their wetland indicator status are listed in Table 5. These plant associations were selected because they are adapted to the expected soil moisture regime during normal rainfall years and they provide a range of moisture tolerance during unusually dry or wet years. Plant species were also selected based on their food sources for wildlife. Table 5 . Proposed plant species list for WMB#1. Scientific Name Common Name Type Indicator Relative Condition Elevation Status Density (ft) Forest Communities Black cottonwood/willow2 Carex obnupta slough sedge herb OBL 2 plug/seed 8 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash tree FACW 4 container 16 Lonicera involucrata twinberry shrub FAC+ 5 container 14-16 Populus trichocarpa black cottonwood tree FAC 3 container 16-18 Salix hookeriana Hooker's willow shrub FACW 2 bareroot 12-16 Salix lasiandra Pacific willow tree FACW+ 1 bareroot 16 Salix sitchensis Sitka willow shrub FACW 2 bareroot 12-16 Red alder/salmonberry2 Alnus rubra red alder tree FAC 2 container 16-18 Carex obnupta slough sedge herb OBL 3 plug/seed 12 Comus stolonifera red-osier dogwood shrub FACW 3 bareroot 12-16 Lonicera involucrata twinberry shrub FAC+ 5 container 16-18 lD Scientific Name Common Name Type Indicator Relative Condition Elevation Status Density (tt) Pyrus fusca western crabapple tree FACW 3 container 12-16 Rubus spectabilis salmonberry shrub FAC+ 1 container/ba 14-18 reroot Oregon ash/slough sedg_e� Carex obnupta slough sedge herb OBL 2 plug/seed 12 Carex stipata Sawbeak sedge herb FACW 4 plug 14 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ah tree FACW 1 container 16 Rubus spectabilis salmonberry shrub FAC+ 4 container/ba 14-18 reroot Salix lasiandra Pacific willow tree FACW+ 3 bareroot 16 Mixed Forest Acercircinatum vine maple shr FAC- 3 container ub Alnus rubra red alder tre FAC 2 container e Carex obnupta slough sedge her OBL 3 plug/seed b Comus stolonifera red-osier dogwood shr FACW 2 bareroot ub Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce tre FAC 4 container e Populus trichocarpa black cottonwood tre FAC 1 container e Pyrus fusca western crabapple tre FACW 2 container e Salix lasiandra Pacific willow tre FACW+ 3 bareroot e Salix sitchensis Sitka willow shr FACW 3 bareroot ub Thuja plicata western red cedar tre FAC 1 container e Western red cedar Acercircinatum vine maple shr FAC- 3 container ub Alnus rubra red alder tre FAC 4 container e Carex deweyana Dewey's sedge her FAC+ 3 plug b Carex obnupta slough sedge her OBL 3 plug/seed b Comus stolonifera red-osier dogwood shr FACW 2 bareroot ub Physocarpos capitatus Pacific ninebark shr FACW- 4 container ub Populus trichocarpa black cottonwood tre FAC 3 container e Pyrus fusca western crabapple tre FACW 2 container e Rhamnus purshiana cascara tre FAC- 4 container e �r Scientific Name Common Name Type Indicator Relative Condition Elevation Status Density (tt) Salix scouleriana Scoulers willow shr FAC 3 bareroot ub Thu/a plicata western red cedar tre FAC 3 container e Shrub Zone Carex obnupta slough sedge her OBL 2 plug/seed b Comus stolonifera red-osier dogwood shr FACW 1 bareroot ub Lonicera involucrata twinberry shr FAC+ 4 container ub Salix hookeriana Hookers willow shr FACW- 2 bareroot ub Scirpus microcarpus small-fruited bulrush her OBL seed b Emergent Zone Carex obnupta slough sedge her OBL 1 plug b Carex stipata Sawbeaked sedge her FACW 4 plug b Eleocharis palustris common spike-rush her OBL 1 plug b Oenanthe sarmentosa water parsley her OBL 3 container b Polygonum amphibian water smartweed her OBL 5 container b Potentilla palustris marsh cinquefoil her OBL 5 container b Scirpus acutus hardstem bulrush her OBL 1 plug b Scirpus microcarpus small-fruited bulrush her OBL 3 seed b Sparganium emersum narrow-leaf burreed her OBL 1 plug b Upland Buffer Acercircinatum vine maple shr FAC- 3 container ub Acermacrophyllum big-leaf maple tre FACU 1 container e Corylus comuta hazelnut shr FACU 3 container ub Oemeleria cerasiformis Indian plum shr FACU 1 container ub Populus trichocarpa black cottonwood tre FAC 2 container e Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir tre FACU 3 container e Rosa nutkana nootka rose shr FAC 4 container ub Sambucus racemose red elderberry shr FACU 4 container ub Symphoricarpos albus snowberry shr FACU 2 container Scientific Name Common Name Type Indicator Relative Condition Elevation Status Density (ff) ub Tsuga heterophylla western hemlock tre FACU- 4 container e Wetland Seed Mix3 Agrostis alba redtop FAC Carex obnupta slough sedge OBL Deschampsia caespitosa tufted hairgrass FACW Festuca rubra red fescue FAC Glyceria elata tall mannagrass FACW+ Scirpus acutis hardstem bulrush OBL Scirpus microcarpus small-fruited bulrush OBL Upland Seed Mix Agrostis albs redtop FAC Deschampsia caespitosa tufted hairgrass FACW Festuca rubra red fescue FAC Regreen sterile wheatgrass ' Relative density is approximated as follows: Relative Density Planting Density 1 2 3 4 2 Community types described in preliminary classification of native, low elevation, freshwater wetland vegetation in western Washington(Kunze 1994). 3 Mix will vary depending on plant community and hydrologic conditions. The forested wetland plant associations and shrub wetland plant association used will both correspond to slight hydrologic variation in the wetland and provide habitat diversity. Selected species, including red alder, Oregon ash, western red cedar, willow, salmonberry, and red-osier dogwood, are typical of lowland Puget Soun esh water wetlands. Each association includes species that tolerate the seasonally saturaVgbil conditions expected on WMB #1. However, some association, such as black cottonwo willow and Oregon ash/slough sedge, include a higher proportion of FACW species that are particularly adapted to wetter soils. These associations are identifies or planting next to seasonally and more permanently flooded emergent areas. Following site grading, a hydroseed mix that includes a small percentage of sterile hybrid grass will be planted over all areas identified for shrub and forested wetland and upland plantings. The hybrid grass will provide rapid soil stabilization while the slower-growing native grasses establish. Emergent wetland areas will be seeded with OBL species such as slough sedge, hardstem bulrush, and small-fruited bulrush. Shrub and forest areas will be seeded with grasses such as red top, tufted hairgrass, red fescue, and tall mannagrass. A small percentage of slough sedge and small-fruited bulrush will be seeded in the shrub wetlands and the wetter portions of the forested wetlands. It is expected that some small stands of the more shade-tolerant species such as tall mannagrass, slough sedge, and red fescue will persist after overstory establishment and become part of the understory. Planting of overstory tress and shrubs in forest and shrub plant associations will occur during the first fall or early spring season following site grading, when soil moisture is optimal. Two-to three- year old branched seedlings at least 24 inches tall will be planted at a density of approximately 250 stems per acres (or 13 ft on center). This density allows for some natural mortality during the f � early years. Shrub understory species in forested areas will be planted in patches to mimic their natural occurrence at densities of about 300 plants per acre. Shrubs in the shrub wetland area will be planted at a density of about 300 to 400 plants per acre. Part of the site can be graded to an abrupt shoreline, eliminating the shrub wetland zone, thereby providing forested wetland cover and overhanging vegetation adjacent to flooded emergent areas. Development of the herbaceous layer in the forest and shrub wetland areas will occur by plantings of slough sedge, beaked sedge, and Dewey's sedge and by seeding with native grass and sedge species. Some of the forested wetland species that are intolerant of direct sunlight (include vine maple, Sitka spruce, western red cedar, and false lily-of-the-valley) will be installed two years following the initial planting of faster growing tress and shrubs. This will allow some overstory to develop so that the intolerant species can survive. Emergent wetlands will be planted with native emergent species in the BRDB, Green River valley, and the northern Puget Sound Region. Since wetland hydrology is designed to create both seasonally flooded and saturated areas, selected plants that are tolerant of extended flooding and soil saturation will be established. Species include water parsley, slough sedge, narrow-leaf burreed, hardstem bulrush, and common spike rush. The typical growth patter for emergent marsh plants is in monotypic patches with some interspersion in open, less densely vegetated areas, and proposed planting will mimic this pattern. Planting shoots with rhizomes 18 inches on center in monotypic stands of varying size and seeding a mix of emergent species in the areas between the patches should achieve this result. Because ponding in emergent areas is expected into early summer, planting of emergent species will occur during the fall months when soils are becoming saturated but before water levels reach their winter maximum. All vegetated upland areas disturbed during mitigation construction will be seeded using native upland grasses. Following seeding, forested buffer will be planted bordering the east and southern boundaries of WMB #1 where the area is susceptible to potential disturbance. Trees and shrubs will be planted at densities identified above for forested wetl 11ineated habitat. As in the forested wetland areas, species less tolerant of direct sun will be installed to three years after initial plantings. Land along the western and northern edges of WMB #1 is as wetland and will remain undeveloped, therefore, buffer plantings are not proposed for these areas. Habitat Structure Specific habitat structures including fallen tree logs, snags, and large downed woody debris will be located in created and enhanced wetland. Fallen tree logs consist of western red cedar and Douglas fir trees, with roots and a substantial portion of limbs intact. Fallen tree log structures should be a minimum of 24 ft in total length and minimum of 16 inches in diameter at about 4.5 ft above the ground. Snags should be comprised on western red cedar and Douglas fir with a substantial portion of their limbs intact. Woody debris, in varying quantities, will be scattered around upland buffer areas and within emergent wetland areas. Woody debris will consist of whole naturally broken or roughed-up logs with a diameter of 3 to 16 inches. Post-construction Functions The anticipated functional performance of wetlands to be created on WMB #1 along with enhanced wetlands is identified below in Table 6. Table 6. Anticipated wetland functional performance of WMB#1. Function Rating Rational Resident and Low The wetlands will remain "isolated" from streams and other fish Anadromous Fish Functional habitat and will be unable to provide this habitat function. Performance Passerine Birds Moderate to WMB#1 will have habitat attributes associated with breeding birds, High including open water or standing water during the breeding season Functional and emergent components vegetated with native grasses with Performance nutritional value to birds such as the marsh wren, red-winged blackbird, song sparrows, and common yellowthroat. The shrub and forested components of the wetland will provide a mixed deciduous-coniferous component, interspersion of habitat classes and interspersion of water and wetland classes. Herptiles Moderate Soils in the emergent portions of the wetlands will typically be Functional saturated, with standing water during the late spring and summer Performance months. The large percentage of developed land in the immediate area will still potentially limiting the diversity of amphibians and reptiles that can move into the wetlands. Addition of forested buffer, habitat-water interspersion, and downed woody debris will provide more habitat for herptiles. Where extended seasonal ponding is present(ditch), Pacific chorus frog, red-legged frog, and long-toed salamander may be present. Small Mammals Moderate WMB #1 is likely to provide more habitat for small mammals than Functional currently exists. A more diverse habitat structure will promote this Performance wetland function. Waterfowl Moderate During the times of the year when WMB #1 has or has the Functional potential to have significant open water or seasonally flooded Performance meadow areas, this wetland complex will provide suitable habitat for waterfowl. Export of Production Moderate WMB#1 is expected to export more detrital matter downstream by Functional establishing a surface water connection to the ditch and providing Performance an outlet for downstream receiving waters. Control of Floodflow Moderate WMB #1 was designed to provide up to 52-acre ft of flood water Functional storage and will store this water to minimize potential downstream Performance erosion and flooding impacts. Surface Runoff Moderate Depressional areas established through grading will seasonally Storage Functional collect storm runoff and reduce runoff rates during storm events. Performance Nutrient Moderate WMB#1 will receive storm water inputs associated with the ditches Retention/Transform Functional and provide biofiltration functions that likely result in some water ation Performance quality improvement. These improvements could include nutrient retention, nutrient transformations, sedimentation, and removal of some chemical pollutants associated with storm water runoff. Socioeconomic Values An environmental interpretive shelter, interpretive signage, and trail will be constructed on WMB #1. The trail would provide limited access to WMB #1 with entry and exit off of Oakesdale Avenue. The interpretive shelter would provide views to the south of WMB #1. Interpretive signage would provide information on natural and created and enhanced wetlands, wetland mitigation banking, and flora and fauna. Adaptive Management and Contingency Plan It is important to have a contingency plan in effect should it become apparent through monitoring that the objectives of wetland creation and enhancement are not being met. All contingencies cannot be anticipated; thus the contingency plan should be flexible so that modifications can be made to the original plan if it is clear that portions of the original design are not producing the desired results. Any problems or potential problems should be evaluated by a qualified wetland ecologist as well as the CR and agencies involved with the WMB. Specific contingency actions will be developed and implemented based on all recommendations that are scientifically and economically feasible. WMB #1 is designed to achieve the final performance standards without significant ongoing maintenance. Proposed plant communities are adapted to the designed hydrologic regime and floodplain location. Supplemental irrigation during the first season following planting may be used to enhance plant establishment and reduce the risk of mortality due to transplant shock. This maintenance activity will depend on rainfall occurrences. Contingencies could include modifying a water source, modifying grades, and/or additional plantings. In order to achieve a relati ar pid overstory development and structural diversity, trees would be planted closer together that which would generally occur in mature stands under normal conditions. At the end of the hat monitoring period, some deciduous trees could be cut or girdled and left as woody debris for wildlife habitat. This management activity will allow the remaining trees adequate space to reach full size, while providing additional microhabitat for small animals. Since reed canarygrass is present, and this is an undesirable species that could invade the wetland through seed dispersal, maintenance actions may be required to control its spread. These actions could include periodic mowing, treatment with herbicide and/or reseeding with native wetland grasses. During monitoring years conditions requiring contingency actions will be identified (Table 7). Contingency actions would be implemented in coordination with the CR and agencies associated with the WMB. Table 7. Contingency measures for WMB#1. Design Feature Monitoring Phased Performance Contingency Action Year(s) Standards _ Forested and Shrub 1-5 >80%survival of planted stock None _.. Wetland Plantings 60-80%survival Evaluate reason(s) for mortality, and replant to achieve standard <60%survival Evaluate reason(s) for mortality; consider species susceptible to mortality; replant with same or alternate species 3-5 Average stem elongation of at None least 2 inches Average stem elongation less Evaluate potential reasons for lack of than 2 inches plant growth; consider species suitability for the site or increase planting to achieve performance standard 5-10' Tree density at least 200 None stems per acre tree density less than 200 Evaluate reason(s) for mortality and stems per acre replant to achieve performance standard 3-5 Presence of seed and/or fruit None production on shrubs 3-5 Lack of seed and/or fruit Evaluate potential reason(s) for lack of production on shrubs seed and/or fruit production; evaluate health and vigor;consider fertilization Emergent Vegetation 1 Total cover by emergent None wetland species at least 20% Total cover of emergent Re-evaluate the suitability of the plant wetland species less than species and substitute if necessary 20% 2 Total cover of emergent None species at least 40% Total cover of emergent Re-evaluate the suitability of the plant species less than 40% species and substitute if necessary 3-5 Total cover by emergent None species at least 70% Total cover by emergent Re-evaluate the suitability of the plant species less than 70% species and substitute if necessary Hydrologic Regime 1-10 In forested areas, saturation None to evaluate reasons for non- within 12 inches of surface attainment. Possible solutions include late December to April(normal modifying drainage to wetland and adding rainfall years) structures to regulate water levels. 1-5 In shrub areas, saturation None to evaluate reasons for non- within 6 to 12 inches of attainment. Possible solutions include surface late December to April modifying drainage to wetland and adding (normal rainfall year); flooded structures to regulate water levels with variable depth between December and May 1-5 In emergent areas, saturation None to evaluate reasons for non- within 6 inches of surface attainment. Possible solutions include October through July; flooded modifying drainage to wetland and adding with variable depth from structures to regulate water levels November to June Forested Buffer [same standards as [same contingency actions as forested forest/shrub wetland] and shrub wetlands] Flood Storage 1-5 A maximum storage capacity Maintain hydraulic connection to surface Capacity of 52-acre ft water feature Applies to forested communities only. Protection Plan A �t WMB #1 -be_-dasign /aced-NG will remain an DIVA in perpetuity. Implementation Schedule The CR anticipates constructing WMB#1 within five to ten years following approvals. Management and Maintenance Plan WMB #1 will remain under CR ownership. The CR will be responsible for maintaining WMB #1 until regulatory agencies determine that the mitigation action has successfully met performance standards for two consecutive years. Thereafter, the CR will be responsible for conducting general inspections annually to ensure that the wetlands in the WMB are not being altered by active human and domestic animal intrusion and activities. Opportunities and Limiting Factors The mitigation site development plan is designed based on a proposed hydrologic regime to ensure establishment of vegetation communities at appropriate elevations. The proposed hydraulic regime, the availability of surface and ground water hydrology with site manipulation, greatly increase the opportunity to provide adequate water to WMB#1. Creating shrub, forested, and emergent wetlands and an enhanced buffer will result in a more diverse and higher-quality wetland ecosystem with multiple functions. WMB #1 will provide an opportunity to improve water quantity and quality protection in the BRDB. The size of WMB #1 and its proximity to adjoining wetland and upland communities provides habitat connectivity, food chain support, and wildlife habitat. The fact that wetlands already exist on site, and that a significant portion of the site has been degraded over time, indicates a high probability of success for wetland creation and enhancement. Features to provide socioeconomic value without mitigation credit are expensive and present funding challenges to the CR. A substantial amount of soil will need to be excavated from WMB #1 significantly increasing mitigation implementation costs. Site Development Monitoring Schedule The performance monitoring will focus on the collection of baseline hydrology, vegetation and d Ir data to evaluate wetland functional performance and compliance with performance standards identified in Table 7. Monitoring will also include photographic documentation of site features and the development of habitat on WMB#1. Table 8. Proposed monitoring schedule for WMB#1. Monitoring Year Task 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 As-built X survey Vegetation Forested Win 30 July July July July Jul July days of y planting Shrub & w/in 30 July July July Emergent days of planting Wildlife July July July' Hydrology Surface Quarterly Quarterl 2Xs/yea 2Xs/year 2Xs/ye y r ar Ground Monthly Monthly Monthly Quarterly Quarte rly Reporting Dec Dec Dec Dec D Dec Dec Dec e c l� 1 2 3 SURFACE 18 SURFACE ELEVATION - 16 4 14 i LU -6 12 w LL z_ w S, S J p 8 10 -10 8 -12 6 -14 4 Sandy Silty Fill Silty Sand with Mottles and Fill Figure 9. Fine Silty Sand Seepage Soil Test Location Characteristics ® Iron Oxide Layer Wood Debris of Mitigation Banking Site 1 -OA,U~= ,77, vcr�ve ""O ,T CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator November 5, 1996 Tracey McKenzie Parametrix, Inc. 5808 Lake Washington BLVD NE- STE 200 Kirkland, WA 98033-7350 SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK Dear Tracey: Attached are the wetlands sections from the East Side Green River Watershed Project technical appendices and draft EIS. Since the copies I am sending you are our internal working versions, please use them only for your own personal reference in preparing the products for the wetland mitigation banking project. I will send you a copy of the public review draft EIS once it is published later this month. If you have any questions, please call me at Q06)277-5547. Thanks. Sincerely, Scott Woodbury,P.E., Pro' ct Manager Surface Water Utility H:DOCS:96-750:SW:ps Attachments CC: Ron Straka H:\DI V I S ION.S\UTI LITIE.S\DOCS\96-750.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT U��Y p� MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 E4 y ♦ '-a- UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2631 NT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2620 TO: U 4 —AC-6-w-Lit' DATE: 11131 9 JOB NO. : A i RE: Wf rl' uo d AN 5908 1,4aA G.otJ t3e-ilo Nf 'S'4 2,00 ATTN: k/A A WA c' `)2 3- -73` O GENTLEMEN: WE ARE:SENDING YOU ki!( ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS ❑ REPRODUCIBLE PLANS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS ❑ COPY OF LETTER ❑ COPIES DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS G /iw roti THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL FOR YOUR USE ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION AS REQUESTED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS ❑ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPIES TO: ,,� J SIGNED - �1'�/ q TITLE IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - --- - - --- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ✓ �v�r w/ mAel(A `'Z51Q4 Ile Y� j=r C U� � S�� S �v✓C 511n' !, C�,�r�.,,, G/�wp �zU.V� GGact,�C lie s ��r 7-1LAQS7 ,Al.�'rJ him UJA g,411N 74hqCvX Sam f 1 L �� ► PR 6�io5� �l� Z Scams r,�vo� /�(�vr� �� ✓�� l AwLr)eO AlL 0rt tk �'�'l�,i✓�ySQ L, /�.�t2t'/G�i� wen l pie /-"t < nt S'-c uss G.w/ S cAvh< a©-n-, �C (9 w/A 21T Parametrix, Inc. To: 'x 0�t 1 AX.yd m. Date: ��r1-hLrn Project No: T-4 )ZQ.M hW , LU A3 Rom+$t f OCR 311996 From: IN R"" ' Oreg on on g ❑ 5700 Kitsap Way ❑ 25 N.Wenatchee Av4Qee 924 Capitol Way ❑ 7820 N.E. Holman Suite 202 Suite 207 Suite 107 Suite B-6 Bremerton,WA 98312-2234 Wenatchee,WA 98801-2236 Olympia,WA 98501 Portland,OR 97218-2859 360-377-0014.206-383-1835 509-664-3290 360-943-2330 503-256-5444.360-694-5020 Fax:360-479-5961 Fax:509-663-8816 Fax:360-943-2360 Fax:503-256-4221 Internet: pmxbrem@parametrix.com Texas 5808 Lake Washington Blvd. N.E. ❑ 1231 Fryar Avenue ❑ 10540 Rockley Road Suite 200 P.O. Box 460 Suite 300 Kirkland,WA 98033-7350 Sumner,WA 98390-1516 Houston,TX 77099-3531 206-822-8880 206-863-5128.206-838-9810 713-530-1920 Fax:206-889-8808 Fax:206-863-0946 Fax:713-530-6744 Internet:pmx@parametrix.com Internet: pmxsumner@parametrix.com We are transmitting the following materials: f(Qz.+vra !1 x Olcl we'- . M-4 - tQ ),;nA Comments: QP irJ Lobx Lam. These are: ❑ Per your Request Sent via: 49 U.S. Mail ❑ For your Information ❑ Courier ❑ For your Review and Approval ❑ Express Overnight ❑ For your Files ❑ Other- Interoffice KFor your Action Sincerely, cc: AD#3-5/96 / • • • i i W-5C S- W-15 S-21 W-5D W-5 :. W-56 O Valley ,- ' i w-21 w-19 Subbasin __--'� -31 S-27 W-42 � •�• S-6 I S-31 �\ -6 I z -32 Rolling Hills -41 W-13A }` Subbasin W-138 � j '� -- i S-7 ' W-4 1-38 I i 1 -y.. 4 i i W-7S .....: �' V-BN17 CITY F CITY DF ;` W-16 . RENTON -10 :},.....o... -85 w-12 WETLANDS .;; ; 1 PANTHER I T U K W I LA CREEK W-13c WETLAND j ►-�alum c�Nr W- � � i � 'l R 2 YY16V� i t L.-A P- 1 Gt�a►vlw,l yy_ a `� I I W-22 v o o ' W66K i W-32 ° 9 ` 'I W-35 Panther Creek (V-451 rcmave ��" w-°° ' Subbasin (W-3)I � � 00� © W-33! W-36 (W67K) W65K i CITY OF S-28 wBOK KENT _ - �l Up - W-1 Springbtook V�rell � "° �x Springs Subbasin 1 i W-25 S-4 g S-2 t W-37 C.� (W68K) 1i W59K i M �o S-1 IV ot-�o f►um fu1�Jc urw� �o Sca ft -illveyrfaL $ - Cl2 J L_pdo . CC A1)U o CA_D � � CARR ON (s W uk pwd/i c e nec,.j M 4-p • UJ Yja,.21_ f SOURCES: JONES AND STOKES, 1991 I ' I JONES AND STOKES, 1998 CITY OF RENTON, 1993 FlLE C: JOB:95-1779-0 -- City Unit Boundary +o 1 Figure 1 Blank River Basin Boundary ac,�� wa�s6.,l Inventoried Wetlands and Streams subbasin Boundary h o." 0 1000 2000 �FNT O� Inventoried Site Boundary-rnalcQ �, City of Renton Inventoried Wetlands h4�_y okc� SCALE IN FEET 0 City Owned Wetlands SCR a btzk Qy(• [P Parametrix Inc i i L._._._.. ` I i l S-19 W-5C �. S- W-15 S-21 C' \ W-5 W-513 0 Valley\41 ��. W- 1 W-19 Subbasin -31 S-27 - W-42 S-6 5 Y WA'1 S-31 i -32 Rolling Hills 41 W-13A t I w_� Subbasin W-136 -- ( � r -- i S-7 ` W-4 ` 1-38 1 ti 1 -9 W-7c \ 1 CITY OF , CITY OF W-16� RENTON -10 °... -BSII 1 WETLANDS },. PANTHER i W-12 0 " � } -- -- T U K W I LA CREEK w-13c WETLAND 1 W-43 j r-1 CHANNEL EAUMMEr W-1 1 _x_I ►�. j \ I i W- I 0 1 ! W-22 W66K W-32 y +! 0I W-35 Panther Creek 145i ..�` G�� W-4o /+ Subbasin (W 3). o� q , O� W-33rr W-36 (W67K) W65K J 1 i - i S-28 i K c 3— N T � W60K i 7' 70 ►� W-1 SpringbOok i Sprinbs JSubba�-sin --- --.-.-. r._.-._._.--i 1 i W-25 1 S-4 ! W-37 C-- i (W68K) ©59K � 1 S-1 ! - --� 1A \ 1" P NTH R ' � K �A �ARRWQRff`/C �. ._ I i 1 i 1 1 � / — / SOURCES: JONES AND STOKES, 1991 / JONES AND STOKES, 1993 1 CITY OF RENTON, 1993 FILE:C:\ACADD\RENTqXGj JOB:55-1779-07 A40 kA--OS, L� c�l�� ¢CA�ft6fz rH�S F/Gv/US U�ira !/(,AA7j/J /r'��Pdru1 n"D c_ltCeM - City Limit Boundary 09 �/�,�'1l n/ d/atc� .' Blaok River Basin Boun ry Ajo-5�� /G�4 L� Figure 1 �LowU,,�Y� g, �"aA Subbasin Boundary Inventoried Wetlands and Streams Mitigation site Bounds City of Renton 0 1000 2000 FN T Inventoried Wetlands plFF,cvLr i 4 SCALE IN FEET 5 � City Owned Wetlands v` ` Parametrix Inc 7_/ ,,,icy gk ,o. RAD01007 �--Watershed Black River King County �..•••`'• Boundary Water ouality , ,- Management Plan ._,.•' ...•••"' Study Area ...• ♦ .. ............. • .......... ♦� ♦� 4,0 • •••'� ••' ire Panther Lake ; •0. I ! King Count Garrison405 ! •• Renton Creek Renton t., 1 1 ! panther Creek King County Up er Spring 6 roc,<• r •-----•-•-i �•-•-•-•-•-• r s Valley Area V 167 Kent ; Springbrook Creek • East Valle Road . C •� Springbrook .................. Creek e n t o Mill 167 = _._----- �._._._._._._._. - fiukwila ee,T • •• �• , � een Black River � ent — co :.,..�•� ! 181 ' i T uk Pump Station wil o 181 { -----•--•-•- -•-•-•--•----•-' CN Kent Tukwila C/) Kent r-•-• �,,ir Lagoons • i._._._._._._._._._._._ � 1 1 i 1-5 E�A�ss�-�StD.� RF-N�.RVER_WALERSHE-D -.PLAN v� PROJECT- SUMMARY,_DQeUMENT ------------ FIGURE &PI A -19 d-0 Z ZQj - A __ ' R Cf) T�<eOr9 TALBOT Rp S � O to •�Q- aos - � SHATTUCK %QQ Z p +'! r,, .. .�•`!1� {p D !:t ) r,� .•j ti ri?`�rJ:r� ram" 67 Q � \`t �S/`~+�!``+Ir:..�'" , ISY`S`'^ A�. �! ,�y S y \ 11 l +•11 J••' I/I SHOPPING CENTER 17("'l�(:G� lx•� L'!' !'`1 Jr.:1 r ! t ,,1 `� t'i, t +yt i'1 r \I SI � \ N! rs �,.\ 1 4 •r�J 't' ;i`11•\t ,t. 7. �P� , ~•� •�`1 )�yl' Ltir, t .J`�t .rt .!'` i .J`�:}F�-,;tr r��!`..l'�-!(t'V:J�''1\��y: .r• 11:�.1•J`. .`c �`c* l.Y+ �, •t. �� j /�.\J, -tt :,.� +'-�j•7.:�r"`'."-.``•�'•. -��•L�r y.', ,• -r 1� r•ii•=`• �'+r=`�,-��'`^•f �•�r=.i�� >, ... � ., "_ � f-1:�'`'rf+ , .7:`..�f, yJ.. 1ra, •y..\ yrf<.. .'�. `�•r\`•:t z��t Jr r_., \.< ..r. ..lrr �, "lsr,l <"�� _ ' z •+ ,r••..�.r:�./- J�: ti� -)�•_.r :i�Y.' _,r` 1Y;i- l't +_ /-..-'Y`�•!•..:`�.. .rt:> ..,,- ;( l '.:1. ok-, J' i, t.r" .y ``'�trtt .t ),� ...f \•,K r. � r- ,t'� \ +: <�rl,,•�t�.s�. + )1�',r\ •r,l ',�. 1 .r., I"- �( Cti .4yy' + ! �`/t, ~�r r ,) / J� r.. J• :ram Y1.7 ))Crt:j r`1:J ! lt.�- :s , j!_ rn - 1 I(i /gl. 4".x J r'Y•:L, r= - - ,:''� �('L .!•!' r '�/^'''r r;/• :l rat L.' ,'j•x-,r ''j k,!' r:y ! a: j ,\ f< / `' S�r i Z \ \J • Y \J <' ( <1 �^ +`.♦ 1•. J y J� 4i � ''!.\• r. YY•��" r. r\ 1 y;t „ 1>• , i 1 r '�,1 , rr-,Fl d' j ,. c�•y� -�.,� -r.��♦-`( N ,y X4\.)ti"t ),`l `Jt. .'i \`1:, .\J� ' .\j}*•`l.s�` �` t L11{I•t.1(J. +tfJ�'1t•y.\}< .;.. .�,x.y.\•rI rn s / j•�•�• ;t•l`c••Y' )�-r .•c.l:. ,?.._Y�J\ ! \ ! - + .'•;-:Y,'ti:Ji,+ {It\:,/ '*' .: v) co LIND AV S - r j -f- r f:i L Ltt 11 r_ � .�� ... \.f ty+t y ♦t _�a e"'t•^ t � !i'17J J• - tr r 1 � •4�( (V = t •Y -_r,`..•Y;�r 4� ,„�f�•,t`J`�•. y ,jam ? ;�`.:Y.;��e- ,� r ` .,t�J'..<.!� r,.: .� ! �:J 1,, ,Y !,. Q In , _ r, x > / �. l�r_�/.L ',f•L) ' r r f 1, lr ! ('41 i t� < Q C) y1.J<,.1. 4d' I1 .`t+' t y:\�•t"lfs�,-'t.•+tr-,`y rt• ! '`�1 J<' . Jr .� ."� ,,..`ri`., 1- r r r r�. H _. /: ) )I w.i l.Y •r^• r,' , r :) Y r ;r -__ f ! _ �" z lU l'�t1,L' L,i.J< 'r f •:\•r .\-{��'(:1.'1�` ! \r \/ ✓� � L!•f � J ,. Lti ,1 ..fir 1x. :✓..,"a. � 1' 1 .if r , y f rr r\`+S. j. 1 y. .t 11 y 1, r... T' L�<. r.\`.♦ 1ti 1 >1: :f :Jti.� Y -I�y )4! ��:J.,-:� •t !: .1�1 ,.j1�: :Ji~'f fl 4' f -i+ +.,_�S'� }'`'1��-.t R -,�` . f !ti`�.1`l�""., ll OAKESDALE AV SWINi �P� ,-��E its<.:sue.• .+r.,`r,�..'�- ,t`\r-� N/�p0 NE !f L.1 �ti f 1.=.r 5PP`P�GAP CL JACKSON SW •.�/::'�rf.: ,. �--- � 1 RENTON CITY LIMITS MILL CREEK \ BLACK RIVER TUKWILA PUMP STATION \ FOREBAY Figure Natural ands in 1972 Prior cq to Extensive ton Valley � � Development/Fill ,rl� rS f 164 BLACK = 92F RIVER PUMP \ ' ` " Source: City of Renton,1993 STATION TO GREEN DUWAMISH _ SCALE IN FEET RIVER rK i N 0 500 1,000 4 XY TALBOT RD S rg4eOr s Rp U) j�Q YQ 405 ` SHATTUCK a PANTHER CREEKVd� AND Q 0 r. Pp,\N\EP PJ N 16 SR-167 167 SHOPPING CENTER HEWN tD r a n 2 H LIND AV S x « � LIND AV SW'. 5 { n#�. �u U r r d "! • y •n• C, 1 , P� OAKESDALE AV SW 'sev �y /E LONGACRES Q l RACE TRACK I cc / JACKSON SW ---�J RENTON CITY LIMITS ;MILL CREEK 1 \ BLACK RIVER - \ PUMP STATION TUKWILA \ ' FOREBAY Figure 4. Approximate Extent of Filling c9`�Fti in the Renton Valley to 1987 ��Fi��r TN �S BLACK ri )�� RIVER PUMP \ Source: City of Renton, Fill Permits and Stop Work STATION �J Expired Fill Permit TO GREEN-DUWAMIS SCALE IN FE RIVER Areas Filled After 1975 ' 0 500 1 000 Areas Filled Before 1975 TALBOT RD S Q Tg4eOT V s > I SHATTUCK 3 ao5 ER CREEKWET► r o PANTH ��-- a � 167 P P`I N SHOPPING CENTER r rw � GLACIER PARK t SITE 5 �P 405 2 = �_ ti 2 ' I— t0 N N ., r ,.r r Scc N U) GLACIER N PARK 3: 07 cn SITE 6 co LIND AV S LIND AV SW+, , GLACIER Co PARK 517E 2LO r ., _ Lrrrrrw rr� r , 1— Z K o �/ GLACIER C w PARKLL cn SITE 9 M 0 ' GLACIER • I /" �• PARK— SITE 8E 0� GLACIER I MITIGATIONPARK— �O9� SITE 8W gS ANKTEINf� OAKESDALE AV SW /SAE MITIGATION.. BANKING SITE i m LONGACRES Iz I RACE TRACK y rc U) JACKSON SW • � � I RENTON CITY LIMITS MILL CREEK • ,-..... .. _. .. .:.�:AY� ... . .. . /�,'Ys 'HCY'-E! Y.Y-S''hT.a'�F'. BLACK RIVER TUKWILA PUMP STATION FOREBAY Figure 5. Renton Valley Drainage Patterns, Mitigation Banking Sites 1 and 2, Fti9� and Glacier Park Sites �� U&v-*c� - BLACK 7 \\ �F9 Source: City of Renton, 1993 I Y1 Z • RIVER / , PUMP G_0 Yl(J� STATION SCALE IN FEET r TO GREEN-DUWAMIS & 0�(Q3 c LC s�I l a 1 RIVER 1 0 500 1,000 , �' „a1! ,}",.,,.: i_,. A" ,,y. ..`.,r ��yr)� '! .,� � ,�:" ,Y�.y�?.M,< ��t �ti q, R;11'..., ,�,�,��'•S'Yr� 4 ti�i� �� 1 9°r..Ff r - -(' !_ :.;n .•t 'F' ;.�o' 4°' ,r"'°-2tt-�. A•r « ,}Shr 4�.;w',• %�"p"t ab.. ,�'" �A i v,i.�` i'"„ '/''►"�'-;1 {��3'+�r ':.tr' ..� 3.s W .;rr� ..,,-!.+ �s5r`" \ .,`•Y�"' F�J� � rP�'+ t,l. �,F .�r �,,i�2' ',' � �'' � I IY (i,�E.;:ua-•,. - ��'�,r�i r?tfr F �7:.Ar ��' "f'�� `�`,�1 r✓.• xP E'�I + +,��1 ��.a� � :! ,1 .y �a x.�jn�J �YXw"ctx * .* •� '�r:H; 'i � �4t r8,f,7 '4 - .4 �' ' �� `T^ � -.. �_ pE �,7..�� li+ � 77 , pb• { '��n I.,Fdn ,.. •;. �;�r 'aA Q� ; �� ♦..1� 3 t l . R - Ya, ., _ ti 7R1C w!;de xd ► f'r •2r ' g <' ,,b , s it •:r', a . • � .1�,''p.f• /,�'r �C. � A x�' ,-,_ ��,.r �' ; y,�r �_ '' _.rr5� � 1,4 '7{� i--7ft< 7�-,y�.,�� r ,..r.!� .� ..>~7A ! .. „/Ip' ,f i1y{,7L� t•_ -✓i'"iTd"A9` ial Ski f(r7 *"},1` 7� "J`'. ,N� ..�'' ", .. �- � "};- ,� �yr"�t•F N� ham.^1 :':C_ FwJ. ° +yy°;,.+!i!(_... �w•'Ke:: `.'•} «.,�`+�,t+ v Y,i. , ,i:,S ,I1f4tac "' j.1 .' -S•u y✓ � nYYy :, =1 i(,,r},rR'4_.' of •".C/7�y�^I�{Cam. •�,. -J .{ l �...^..� �,. 1�.. {,� •L—.-� � ^a� � rr F ,',f - _.,� / •Fa '3' d//r. Y CIr- fM :t C V 4 r�"' ^rY - t ,y.•.r^ / ..i ,( ^ t s r P W .rig 4P, ' .�..(.:� .', 9y,s• .. C,Ro,c.°° �tf1� ,ft-�.`.. .:rr� cni� wa ,� ..a,.n.� z ',��` :,�^. ;•� i �. ,�e`:.y-i ,,�. �K. _ r� '�� .(:.- i�� i Ip„� ;�: r r N�;. •_� -._..... �. �,, .�.•' 'kr'h.Y v,( ,_„ �,,.. ,�_, .-,� � I"u,c•.C1 i`vl..± t I' 1 6 Z, _ _ 11 iK ^r,. i'•. �y Y i�,`?� "` r �� r "a�Y,,rr ''x'-� ,�m�"'�� .� �' �� i.oi I� 4(> .y+�' ;�- «r. � ;•iC,A } ,f� / .. •fir �. \�� '�.�' T. S ,r `` .r.,, �_ {.li (�'.t"'3-n ^.;Q 1.' �..i� I � ... n'i'��'�' '•-' r: J �� 1 '.t. 1�•� <3 •�t1. R r-�'�`'I r" '1`:1`.. �""'-.` ' 1� ;�(I� a.�' , y�1 .�3''" ,E-k+� '-_ ,. _.. !. lt/ t •. 4.�,u1� #..,�,, �\$ •'d^S,Wit, V. :il !1'r ,.I��7 -+-��1 �.('. y. r '. �ar�` r J I: , s� �,ya � ,.s !D� ryy {;' � �«, i�Y� •�.. 1 I (J. +. 1 !I 11-,. y i,' �� "� �'t '« 3"� n .,, r� :g��" �� rCe l_ ',�f ti �f��.pp �r. ;,';i,��']yw��'.� � � �•�,, (' '�"� )�y�i"�✓ :. "�''7:,�P -,+ �h �' , �' a _' °'.` _, ;:'. ._... ,, ,1� 'yY�, .� ��, ` �:. +'`k N .•-YIYt'�'s! 1 ,J`:, `rl 1 -��r ��' K. /. , �' �.. "Ct S�.^"`«w�'�V..x: , •• 1 � ��- ,\V�l�,r,1+' 3 '•�j' tll �:py,,,l, ��,... '1 ,� ,P �, i i ��. y'i�l'.. {, ��,, h :(.N.k �^T\�\• \ •;� �`,. ♦I�'�I41,\/ �A �:�' �`\\ \k\. A 'S�lf�' f1' 4 .. -... • ss �" V t;T � '4��. a., ,'iA `', ' a�,+v�•N��:�"�t 1 \. � v :11 ,� '�;"` �, ,ti :.y ,�^�,t• � � ,. -r .:. �, �� .^�;. a V. ,.s „rt i,.r'�,� +�,ar I� � ,;.+'.I�,. .{��..,,., �•.•mr \• -�- .,.�,(t+'K' '?!S. kYR/^b4.;�,. ` ,Apst y� j"`•1 ^?1 .r S 1 i_ fir• !j' .'"I«,+ prcF� t:.! Mi(..h!I.M. C�Dq +' N � J'+ rl\ ,,{, LrY :.:Y k'^1 .•k' ...'< `� �� - - _ � - ... �'fVS-': _...- .., T �''f' �...ll"s A•.-e� t f"� y! ��.a /! i Y �-'. ,V 7 + , � ,�,,. •.r - _ r-.� ''<p- r� w'�'r ��-rG rof _ "'. M i�':�.°n�r .f '�`7F qt(,.,' s �` -+' •� rG��x •,".:, r._+.2,a�c - �i�r� t;,�THE r F 4 �'6, 'Aw .yi a 'i�`� �( ,�.s a11::.>h. � - .«,n.aa• "�""rR� �{ !�': ni°c,e"e.•"ry~ '-;' t. T •r �'. ''�'r�.��' _ _„ f3 �}.�jl RJ •. �,{\ i ,:-:-..a=^L•T+n � �- b�'I°, f "' � r ^`.?" �- �:--•Ff d• r i 1 1'r 7 x FA '' 1 r w f i ^w. "`"* i` +. d _ Fah Iz4j, ku .,a3 f7'uh ,M,..`vM 1 '.:. t. -.. ,ai.a'.S '�Y.� s,- / >r�'' �' rx'r�„'1i• t.t:,M�•.�a„a'—yr 8 •� 'A4 {�; -v ^^ fic, r3• „I w ,, A,• a y t f, V,s�' r �i,; � 3, r Y"A. `',I w 1y:'� � y f: � rl--i `'� '0�•�"�tr ,��v'`' , z:'". ,,"�:. ,VF � .- .r.. � T.�, r'�' � 1r i•'y. 7' `l': f: l _ ��r, y � f �#r._ i�. � I a s( ID H -�::4 x Al� +.1,i .Y �1 .}r i�gf ::i ,n+t' 1 -I •'� .t _y'.,t I k,. +tu, :;,�„ �� 1"Zy� -�, \ 7A,ii",�•""i ,i Z.. t ,r � �� ,<�. r .-.,:-, Q "'tAt��i �p !(- x, �'�,��., >b, r � yam• 1;. L`�..f •`` r. I tN. •1 i, �'•'.. 9 �` y nsT+,,''•V�� ''(r' JG. 'Rf,4 x{' ,f ). -i•t�:rl Is •, F .n,..'1 r>. ,yJ\. _.T' t 1 .1 � h. !r. .1-Y •� �� 5 'S<+r..",+. r, � �'�'. A 'g P taFY ,i\ rt�1 rVt - V' 1V. � �' �' YSJ�-off, '` ,t" t, � 1_-w ,.11 �tl�y%i� ��t '1`�:'�A4,' A I s s � -'r.i.�t,�'• -- ��' ,.. w O�"r ...b �.Ywe•�'"14,tar+� �,7'� - I e. ', a '"t e 'i..,,, e: 7'�Tf `� ., f � 3�M�. . ,. �/=7 ,. °��4,s�s 1'xn to E$f' .(- V �.1• ;'; �* f}. t �j � ¢"' ,»s. a _ w ,'• __. „_ 1 '.yl i !(,., - r� fr,• Ir,,l _ : • '•s 1 .'., ��.., 1 _ rAF��. " 4 aRTEET f. b n{�wa .' �,� ,,,. r„ r � t 4`.,•. J r i -;rsu R ?.1 iajrJr ri, ,_i-. �,.tl^;l .... , .,.a/v'r ,.. � - ":� �,E¢a _ r �• 1 I R,I -`-• I �l� � :4 1 W yy�� ,•�, 1. � `� - /•k ts' l,� —Mt 'St- _- �� '. � •1f J?�Y,�'9, T.., 'q .'Y) 1 � d -.1}�.. -.__ '.'! _ �,1 •a1 th G� .I1` j F,-..,�\' ✓, \ .. +�x� i R � �.r.; i�� f �rf:AY•( � ��.� � r '`x�,,y,,, kY/,e%' r .�f7- 1 ^^..,:.[a!t y��'yQ ��, � B e. � ,i O. - IN. , w x ,� s � 1 `S .- r a'' 1 • �F :�-, .. Y �• f' r a '�H::.a ` 'i w ,� M }• I IN �,.SI►. i. • a 1+1 ` ,.r�l h.:+..q f ,F.{ i .' 1,'r �'' `' '..V. ^..'7 '.'''al'�. 1 :i �,r�1 ' j }1 _ .Q �'L. /i'I rfb� >k+•_:nS +�( jyi;t r 4/ ..s.. n.. 's.- u 1. � - t t - 3.' ..n, r 1' F'•y �n� M(( 1+� f ,{" , ), R, Kz' .� M #'Ytv s ,,. r ` x ,. f C 1 ed a 1 ... :'/`•'�A �, i:. �4 i'i.f51Ti r !�� /��T M'9: } �t Y I. `'�-' 3��r ^.�.>•-.AY`' te.k.l.':'/', ; •S i- ,IW71 ..�,..4. •A,�`. �(R i,T r :l,t �"•c.;• .t•,I '' ' RE r .�,•.• '�1.' ....��.., 4 y'4v j '1{P: Y'L`'YY"'4... '., � !fi:f��a ':� I' t!` ____ 't� ''"!1s .�� •'': Y( •1. •I 4a '�`N: 6!t � r...�.�y,. y r � ",';� .t ,�• '.,.� r ,..�!:rl"•••a+R'+ T; 1� �r +(� � 'j; I $' .� �'��wL'i +�,�"... !', F.1..,y+�y�',,`r �. f•T WWI` j it � IL( r ✓ QW PS,r / .. c_... a ,'�• ,s; _ I ��pp °S rr.it �+' F 1�1��:� ? �1J�`' .1� ..' ,t+ .".^G�1 pry /{}'•i t IM, `? ..�A 1F`t � i �a T11�-`• d Vi �lr' k'k+'`7- ,�9' 1`e, 1, iI r > r•�,.. i v - n:'" I P `t� ig 1' ,'' 's• L r"� -SW�ti cQ. _1 I �: Lid Ir ,�..Y'eif•J` r `" -'i Y - •-'..-� .---,r;.- .wr-^ -- /' f i y.. � / ,.� � g,,� AV i � � � I _•i�� 4 �a4 ��m37 ��al,,r1 I �:''F�. -.t t Yut 1'•�' .�,f"a a 1 J t 1"^iR ! iH�� «1„�,� ,7 �' .e 1��'�S' m '+ t+• sr',' p �S •�•., .� '..y.r �F�'`,.,<(�-q:., �). s r,; f�,,,7 "� 111 1 1 / 11 `!.r Y� i `a'" '. E1 ✓; ��•-.r--�� L (,l -ll 3_e�k. _ (aie�� (rIi � y •rnl '}$•i .t'_ns. ( �a+lw��r�r �C v RI" �'�:y-•S (r, '_e � J� St� j fd.: ��'`, - rr W i -� �•f`~' ... I tl 1 `1 g �iv*` t +t^ ' aft" ✓,ir *� _ .. w✓. .a'F t�-`.. �. �L,..` a�, �,. 'T f i i }•a S H S �k -"`7 1 +vys __ �� I_ S+ �I a .t'y t `.S" tSyf •'." wl "ya '�i'I •'�„. 1 s_.d...._-.-K .'.../... 4 Q '::',.' `_'.tdI t (+ inC� t¢ij, i:.r IN _..M .� r— �'. .'� �,• \ `a'`bl , n: ;it � 'i ,p�^ .�—� ___.. ...._�M1p11 d�s �� i h +awlsi'......."«�.`"'IA �! a ti W}Z.�'�,�� •y'/r .t",„r r.:1 ��r _},'/. 'I r•-y7 ., v L _ :); i ` bu �'P ti. '4'4�-71<•sta 1,'tlxiS3 ....1 a�� a'� � «r` *• ^{!fr mm d ,✓ If! '/w - -1" ��i i'r .r� }h"`, �Yl�thr !fy"',rAl1'}'r++ �� •r, w lY��a i'�: _ ....��h hr: \✓� rT IZA�' � `(r i>I 1�� :r9 y'ik'a ��r+r�� til .ts 1. r' :'I. ' i�, . r 1�r 1',s n IT r{.f�fi'>•0 1:,{, njV l ,eft a� a G>':{uM�cnha ,,1/�,� � 1 a,��Y i 1IY. .: ,� � t�F�, G �� V'% `_ � .. .. : I II�• r: ..., .r'l+f'I{+i Y 't' 1��F;i1,�,iMn a..+; r7 �,'� .F,, � dA�'' ('F;� r M'r 1.... �rc^x'"'s¢M!L,'Y b."'ir ,'p� CV i d ¢# - R -- QI #" a -iNvt40woV4 ti"tib AT" t M-D%O (els--v.7-v) = cv N CO OAKESDALE AVENUE S 1N. - �;��1 ' -p c O OO R �0' If 0. { add c�..�l�cxt- � � ` ��_- = X WA -CVcn 12,4 IMUNum low umI'm Or VAX" STOW eve"r, ram.. �rf •�.+.� !,. "�" . tiw � ��., -� Rw� ,� pia.: _ ♦ � - *r .ryr. E IhI1�DW WWW(7.0')30 yC now to*v SIV" HAW 'r" ■ tR6fL E.N1RY j Npc.� GM Paawa.p w�mtrcry'r wn=7+.v J«•vpw..,A-d tt.rtirr�r rbr It.tILF'+re,.l�-4 v v m• t t i u; _.�....•.a�ew�... s . F. e.ie, w»,. ♦ sk1NAl-1 - .:;.,>�_->� a s+er.rF:t�.t _ T,.�„o„..r.�a«s.d,r.•/.a+.n.e...ra a».N r.,r..nk :_ •'_�. +fit ti :.� ram-�,,. „►,�,.,, _ ..sew.w�1+ .«1..�.�.re.w,•.w `� : \ NJ1F F't�iT1VB 1RDil- 59CA)CWI AR At N.T.G. 4 • T, w.,+ too � MAW ,� -• - :.Y.l1ulP�rrgw r1e.amwW:...lP..rt - �:�5r.+....>ane 1 yk�.� ►uu i f1Mrl�gf lw.�t.+Y✓!r„rtiyw.fvasea,..rM r»14f �•- _ .71td* gw�h.u.riW 4.amwj-s,�twrr...e...M.. _ - - - --- - it Ar1Yr..la.M+r.o...pn{tll.ek.....*..M.nn of Y� w �r.N t r.r..e w�1*w..rpr•,m rWo.r.r�.ww R++r "� � ..�. •- _. MI �- �.. m �.,, t M.�Y.rr-r,si.".l i+veaar."srr�+gnwl.. - t n.s. i ,�,,� ,,,,• �: •I M H- iM�►4r.A..o+ef� Sur lrN—w h-ffn --mh ""+ •rs r jw*.M►lwen.Au..n lj cra -r w�•., 4�1.lMRXitii e �w:;. ..w tiu.,..t. ,ftn r .yprdw+Wr�e.�•J rar.n+s.m..d.ww w ewwrs - - �' ' 1 tnu.nr � , ree0 ilj _♦I ➢ ri»M,Mi�.i/knlnY.ite"�a�r-��w'r.raNu.1.! ��ii C Il..$.J�M.M I iW�k'd/!OTt«JI:�.M.."YtF!(MM.•4y IYl.:�ts1•i pm,'rl� - - .fW1� I% T(fi�� I,ir Y. •-�� ••U'w.Yltt.f wwa•.�.r.w.r.»ar,rr.re,..r�n..w t p i r..<.. ..:. ,.,y�,Ny«..t, -!•.t,. , itls,/rw wmrw d#�AMwM fiw�Y>.1'.(iws»wm - _ �- � � 1 i1i+ � , knfs/e,4>rY,t; ,fe.�:p� IAr ,MiWf•Llyl:usA'.H:p«.tYSAr+Mrl�tp'M1/I b�»,wn- - 1 I F fr-b�t.�.-Ma'i' tWd yea iWl.ra4 ,illt 1•rt/N74/tNA : - -.—•••�•- ' I e �d!'N l k-,,,rx- f1r.0/bi..,a l am . r».W-d-..0 AJW r.a.41*I p».w.i,A.lyatgi,.d 7 i} i! ila....r.+P'y� ! I M...+N..rrtu$aNr,.ar M:.M•fYc�w.�n-.wr af.A«ws w y� $ } at %.b4—• t WETLAND CODE FROM .,.41 awr.Ir 1) 44 + I,-- • .sr..m,�r.tywr. .00614N.Mer i l,de � JONES AND STOKES, MITIGATION SITE BOUNDARY SOIL TEST PIT � �r•�p'�" '� LOCATION '' } ' (APPROXIMATE) i mm, N \. 4 �k�h Tp. oF.. x, r mlam rr!'M yYh nl wiyp: '\. 1p IN, ,�' jury : W' • w IN '"� °'��, y. INS •�I��a�i . �, °'"•'N!"•'�Ill�lam�,...,,y�,o,,,„«^Wy".,w�,� .. "' 1, In m^ R F � • H';� you lNn '� '" k. ;' r {, ..: •. i '„111 .ti ,mod J µ n Noe Sille Ol If I / Y qu wl , 2 ry " �mo 4 33 Ail Im loom �N � I v ' tiw� A Ill ovoloses Option Model OIIJ oe ar Iianliking llr'sr)OeIr I a rarrMw�tr x �mc, Figure 11. Proposed Site Plan - Mitigation Banking Site 1 c: C> j 'A 3 � k D , i I� I� (O ilk � I u WO ll)) I[ ' 'am P F r 'Iw x Iw z� W r 2 act >© zo <z t7 ry y� A v (I...{ �✓` In Or" —hW, w. A NkIN k I �N ',,. rW' MMMMIn11XrMWunWnn nrn rM�uu.xr�.�wrnn"•� 1 1 r n i . r wr o Z Parmrn'et�rix. ins. " `A)raASAEA —,F ... ( t;°� rr/Renlan ,�'/itr�uarxrr�r� I� ��1�'Irr,� � a �ivr _ M Xr Fi uiw�w wr Figure 8. Existing Conditions Mitigation Banking Site 2 � a ' - „�,.,�,.,...+•x+.W..'.�„«,M+xwr,w«.ay ..."yny.w yy . �wi hd kk I�+�r �I 1} , •rwr�wlrwl r MMIMw�w�i�� h N, „I�.,�'�r I 00 19 a y in 4 �:.•., a� Mkt �..'�"..,,,,,•-,�� , ,;. II �� i ._ � ��a• �f'° �Iv � " � �. �,� �'N��V��a M .�'�I'4'� I lia"'^` Ih y' i i y w 4 µ • n i .a I y y W ,,...,...+.r,...»..rxy. ,d �*�. r r � l /"a"'�y..., �� h mr x �• A 4 ' �g. .m* m„1 01 NW , �� .�r�rl�ws�w�l�rr*�rurrrrr��• DAKE`SDALE AVENUE S,V�" to I ' (aF#=r�f'Rer�trrr, t i paho"BdnAO,x:g l►rop"10'�' .00 Figure 7. Existing Conditions Mitigation Banking Site 1 SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE 1 ELEVATION 2 ELEVATION 3 ELEVATION 4 ELEVATION 5 ELEVATION SURFACE 19.5 16.5 16 15.5 16 -2 17.5 14.5 14 13.5 14 77 4 15.5 12.5 12 11.5 12 ~ 6 13.5 10.5 10 9.5 10 w w w z .. . . .. . p -8 11.5 8.5 8 7.5 8 \ \ \ . \ \ ♦ ♦ \ \ \ 10 9.5 6.5 6 5.5 6 ...............:::.:: .........,.......... ..... / ! ! i r r i ! r r \ r \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ♦ \ \ \ \ \ ♦ \ \ r r r ! i ! r ! i ! ! ! / ! ! r r . / r r f . ! -12 7.5 4.5 4 3.5 \ . . \ 4 • / / r f r r ! f r / • r ♦ r ! r / ! r r r • / / / ! f ! r r r r r • / i ! ! ! f l / ! ! ! l • / / / f r f f f / i J ! \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -14 5.5 2.5 2 1.5 2 Sandy Silty Fill Seepage G,A Silty Sand Fill with Mottles Concrete --1� Figure 10. Fine Sand Clay `!`!```` Black Sand Soil Test Location Characteristics ® Iron Oxide Layer Sandy Silt/Silty Clay Historic A Horizon of Mitigation Banking Site 2 QCLvm t92,q ►iGUD • i • 1 2 3 SURFACE 18 SURFACE ELEVATION -2 :.;;;:;..,.:.;;.. :.;..:..:... 1 -4 14 F- g 12 w w w z 0 8 10 -10 8 -12 6 -14 4 Sandy Silty Fill V�- Silty Sand with Mottles and Fill Figure 9. Fine Silty Sander Seepage rJ G v Soil Test Location Characteristics ® lqZ 9 of Mitigation Banking Site 1 Iron Oxide Layer Wood Debris ■ ■ ■ ■ ROLLING HILLS SUBBASIN —� 1 � i ♦ J 1 • i i CITY OF + VALLEY TUKWILA SUBBASIN 0 I • N ! O • • I ! � I ! i PANTHER CREEK CITY OF SUBBASIN w KENT ¢ ........... i • J.1 ' ,♦i � i • i i • i SPRINGBROOK SPRINGS L. SUBBASIN �J PANTHER / LAKE Sources: Jones and Stokes, 1991,1993 Gt City of Renton, 1993 . SCALE IN FEET Figure 2. _._._ City Limit Boundary Black River Black River Basin Boundary 0 1,500 3,000 •"' Subbasin Boundary Drainage Basin CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 18, 1996 TO: Tracey McKenzie FROM: Scott Woodbury �w SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES AND OPTIONS Attached is a very preliminary draft funding matrix for each of the banking sites. I will try to contact you Monday, September 23, to discuss this memo and the other information I sent to you recently. FAX TRANSMITTAL MEMO M of pa of FAX• BANK SITE 1 FUNDING MATRIX PARTICIPANT PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING CONSTRUCTION AREA TOTAL COST COST PER FUNDING SOURCES TO ACHIEVE PURPOSE ACRE OF (acres) WETLAND City of Renton Create 4.08 acres of wetland to mitigate 4.08+ 7.2(4.08/12.2) = 6.49 $2M(6.49/19.4)_ $164,000 Appropriation will be Transportation for 1.36 acres of impact to Category 1 $670,100 through the TIP. See Division and 2 wetlands for the SW 27th St HOV attached worksheet from Lane Widening Project. 1996-2001 TIP. City of Renton Create 5.01 acres to wetland to mitigate 5.01 + 7.2(5.01/12.2)=7.97 $2M(7.97/19.4)_ $164,000 Appropriation will be Transportation for 1.67 acres of impact to Category 1 $821,600 through the TIP. Division wetlands for the Oakesdale Extension Project Phase 2 from SW 27th St to SW 31st St(LUA-95-024,ECF). City of Renton Create 3.10 acres of wetland to mitigate 3.10+ 7.2(3.1/12.2)=4.93 $2M(4.93/19.4)_ $164,000 City of Renton General (Glacier Park) for 3.10 acres of impact to Category 3 $508,300 Fund wetlands filled under RVMP-92-118 in accordance with Mitigation Banking Agreement(King Co. Recording No. 9206241805). Totals 19.4 total construction area $2,000,000 12.19 acres wetland created September 17, 1996 Page 3 Notes for Bank Site 1 Funding Matrix: 1. About 7.2 acres of existing wetland will be impacted to construct bank site 1. This acreage has been divided proportionally between each of the participants. The proportioning is used only for purposes of calculating a preliminary cost. The cost of constructing the mitigation for each participating project will be refined during design when specific plans for phasing of the construction on the bank site will be developed, with separate phases of construction planned for each participant project. Each participant would then be solely responsible for funding its phase of the master site construction plan when construction of the applicable phase is undertaken. See also note 5. 2. The $2,000,000 construction cost is preliminary. This cost will be revised when I have received a detailed cost estimate from you for this site. 3. Please see the current available acreage table included in my 9/17/96 fax for more information on the bank participants. 4. We (city staff) may wish to develop some financial analysis to justify why the general fund should pay for at least part of the Glacier Park mitigation. Some reasons I have include: a) A primary purpose of he mitigation banking agreement was used to facilitate development of the Glacier Park sites and thus bring in tax revenue into the general fund of the City. All of the Glacier Park sites involved in the mitigation banking agreement have been developed and thus the revenue increase resulting from development of the wetlands (and buffers) on these sites could justifiably be used to funds the mitigation obligation of the City. I believe this is similar to what is called "tax increment financing". The increase in taxes could also be used to justify the City "subsidizing" the cost of credits as well for other future participants, particularly for Site 2. b) Funding of the Glacier Park mitigation can not justifiably be made a part of the Transportation Systems Division projects and it is unrelated to the proposed transportation improvement. c) Construction of Site 1 will not significantly reduce flooding or improve water quality and therefore use of Surface Water Utility funds would inappropriate. Greater benefits can be achieved by using Surface Water Utility funds elsewhere. 5. The above table assumes no credit for enhancement. We need to resolve as soon as possible how enhancement credits will be handled as it will likely change the funding matrix considerably. September 17, 1996 Page 4 BANK SITE 2 FUNDING MATRIX PARTICIPANT PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING CONSTRUCTION AREA TOTAL COST COST PER FUNDING SOURCES TO ACHIEVE PURPOSE ACRE OF (acres) WETLAND City of Renton Create 1.01 acres of wetland to mitigate 1.01 $1.33M(1.01/8.92) $149,300 City of Renton General (Glacier Park) for 1.01 acres of impact to Category 3 = $150,800 Fund wetlands filled under RVMP-92-118 in accordance with Mitigation Banking Agreement(King Co. Recording No. 9206241805). Benaroya Create 0.38 acres of wetland to mitigate 0.38 $50,100 $131,800 A mitigation fee is to be for 0.38 acres of impact to Category 3 ($3/sf) paid by Benaroya to the wetlands filled under LUA-96- City. The City will place 034,SA,SM. the fee into an account for later use in constructing the mitigation. City of Renton Create 1.22 acres of wetland to mitigate 122 $1.33M(1.22/8.92) $149,300 City of Renton General (Glacier Park) for 1.22 acres of impact to Category 3 = $182,200 Fund wetlands that may be filled at some time the future in accordance with Mitigation Banking Agreement(King Co. Recording No. 9206241805). September 17. 1996 Page 5 BANK SITE 2 FUNDING MATRIX(continued) PARTICIPANT PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING CONSTRUCTION AREA TOTAL COST COST PER FUNDING SOURCES TO ACHIEVE PURPOSE ACRE OF (acres) WETLAND Future Create 4.63 acres of wetland to mitigate 4.63 $605,000 $131,800 Future Participants Participants for as yet unknown impacts. ($3/sf) City of Renton Enhance 6.69 acres of existing wetland 6.69 $1.33M(6.69/8.92) $149,300 Surface Water Utility on the bank sites to achieve floodwater =$998,900 storage, water quality, and other environmental benefits. Totals 13.93 total construction area $1,987,000 total 8.92 acres City responsibility $1,331,900 City 7.24 acres wetland created cost Notes for Bank Site 2 Funding Matrix: 1. For Benaroya and the Future Participants, I show a$3/sf cost, which is what was negotiated with Benaroya. The Benaroya project sets a precedent for future projects. 2. The construction cost is preliminary. This cost will be revised when I have received the final detailed cost estimate from you for this site. 3. See notes 3, 4, and 5 of the Bank Site 1 Funding Matrix. U:65119:96-010:SW CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 1996-2001 SIX YEAR TIP PROJECT: Func. CL: Minor Arterial Fund: 317 SR 167/SW 27th St HOV Proj. Length 0.8 miles Proj: 12138 RANK: 16 CONTACT: Lee Haro (206)277-6217 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Construct a new HOV exclusive interchange at SR 167 and SW 27th Street and construct arterial project start delayed one year pending completion of WSDOT 1-405 HOV access HOV lanes on SW 27th Street to Oakesdale Avenue SW. Includes roadway, structures, curbs, study. sidewalks, drainage,traffic signals, lighting, signing and channelization. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Serves the Valley, including the Boeing Longacres site,where TDM will be an important element in addressing increasing traffic volumes. Allows HOV's to bypass the other congested ramps, arterials Newly adopted city-wide traffic mitigation system, has replaced the Valley TBZ that and intersections in the Valley. divides costs between mitigation and LID. Funded : 464,000 UnFunded : 9,656,000 Project Totals Programmed Pre-1996 Six Year Pro ram EXPENSES:ITEM Programmed S ent Pre-1995 95+ Carr over Total 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Project Development Precon En /Admin 1,344,000 1 501 127,149 1,215,350 335,350 380,000 300,000 200 000 R-O-W includes Admin 1,000,000 1,000,000 1 000 000 Construction Contract Fee 7 180 000 7 180 000 2 020 000 5 160 000 Construction En /Admin 596,000 596,000 Other 164,000 432.000 TOTAL EXPENSES 10,120,000 SOURCES OF FUNDS: 1,501 127,149 9,991,350 335,350 380,000 300,000 1,200,000 2,184,000 5,592,000 1/2 Cent Gas Tax Business License Fee 120 000 1 501 118 499 Vehicle License Fee Grants In-Hand ISTEA 344,000 344 000 Mitigation In-Hand L.I.D.'s Formed Other In-Hand Grants Proposed 3,656,000 3,656,000 100,000 100 000 300,000 956000 2200000 L.I. .'lion Proposed 3 000 000 3,000,000 280,000 200,000 400,000 528,000 1,592,000 L.I.D.'s Proposed Other Proposed Undetermined 3 000 000 3 000 000 500 000 700 000 1 800 000 TOTAL SOURCES 10 120,000 1,501 462,499 9 656,000 380,000 300,000 1,200,000 2,184,000 5 592 000 H:OMSION.S\TRA SPQR.TATOESIGN ENGt EEl96TP�6FM0L V 1 06/29195 03 35 PM 5 - 16 794cl(i Wk New "Ok Ar fvNo�,i&- L f4 W6 I Garr-�f- ,� Via, /Z,z�✓►f its oA�, 71415 rc!,k /5 5" CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 17, 1996 TO: Tracey McKenzie FROM: Scott Woodbury j u SUBJECT: REVISED CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR THE WETLAND BANK Following I have revised the capacity analysis for the wetland bank that I previously transmitted to you in a memo dated April 10, 1996. This transmittal includes: 1. Three tables regarding potentially available acreage on the mitigation banking sites, recognizing previous or pending commitments for use of the bank. 2. Table A, Worst Case Demand Scenario, Reasons for Exclusion. I have added wetlands W-5c, W-16a, W-16b, W-16d, W-53 to this table from the previous version. 3. Table B shows the possible worst case demand scenario for the bank with the wetlands listed in Table A subtracted from the wetlands inventory. Subtracting these wetlands from the inventory greatly reduces the estimated acreage of wetlands that may use the bank. The table also notes the estimated demand if the City's wetlands ordinance was revised to not regulate wetlands on fill (Case Q. Under this case,there may not be sufficient demand to fill the bank sites. Also,the wetlands on bank site 2 have also formed on fill. Such an ordinance change would make the whole of site 2 available for use as mitigation. This also then raises questions about the effect such an ordinance change would have on previous mitigation projects that were required for wetlands that were formed on fill, such as Seattle Times, Homes Base, Glacier Park, etc. Would these mitigation wetlands no longer be recognized as wetlands? I personally do not see how an ordinance change could be made to be retroactive to previous projects. However, this is an issue that would require detailed study should the City wish to consider not regulating wetlands that have formed on fill. The capacity issue is something I definitely wish to discuss with you, in particular what should we include in the banking plan document and how should the information be presented. Thanks for your help. Potentially Available Acreage on the Wetland Mitigation Banking Sites Existing Upland Existing Total Site Area Potentially Convertible Wetland to Wetland(acres) (acres) (acres) Site 1 12.19 18.78 30.97 Site 2 7.24 6.69 13.93 Total 19.43 25.47 44.90 Current Available Acreage-Mitigation Banking Site 1 Bank Participant Project Approx. Debit Balance Timing of' Impact Initial Acreage 12.19" City of Renton 27th Street HOV Lane Widening After 2000 4.08 8.11 Transportation Systems Division City of Renton Oakesdale Extension Project After 2010 5.01` 3.10 Transportation Systems Phase 2 from SW 27th St to SW Division 31st St(LUA-95-024,ECF) ,,- lacier Park Wetlands Filled under RVMP-92- 1992 3.10 0.00 uF Rk--ru �) 118 in accordance with Mitigation Banking Agreement (King Co. Recording No. 9206241805) Assumes all upland on the site can be converted to wetland and that no credit is realized for enhancement of the existing wetlands on the bank site. However, more or less wetland may be created depending upon buffer width and location with respect to the property lines and whether mitigation bank site 1 is expanded to include the adjacent former P-1 Channel right-of-way. bBased on 4/28/92 memo from Lynn Guttmann to Larry Warren. Assumes 1.36 acres of wetland impact and a 3:1 mitigation ratio. °Based on 8/15/96 memo from Bob Mahn to Mark Pywell/Jana Huerter. Assumes impact of 1.67 acres and 3:1 mitigation ratio. dA total of 4.11 acres of wetlands have been filled on six separate sites in accordance with the Mitigation Banking Agreement with Glacier Park. Using a 1:1 mitigation ratio, it is assumed that a portion (3.10 of the 4.11 acres) of the mitigation required for the Glacier Park impacts will be mitigated on Site 1. The balance of 1.01 acres will be mitigated on Site 2. Current Available Acreage-Mitigation Banking Site 2 Bank Participant Project Approx. Debit Balance Timing of Impact Initial Acreage 7.24 Glacier Park Wetlands Filled under RVMP-92- 1993/1994 I.01" 6.23 118 in accordance with Mitigation tft� uF (�E1 Banking Agreement (King Co. Recording No. 9206241805) Benaroya SW 16th Street Technical Center 1996 0.38 5.95 (LUA-96-034,SA,SM) Glacier Park Wetlands yet to be filled in Unknown L22 4.63 !�h o� accordance Mitigation Banking Agreement (King Co. Recording 0--,T&J No. 9206241805) Future Participants Future private and public Unknown 4.63 0.00 development projects `See footnote d in the table"Current Available Acreage- Mitigation Banking Site 1." bBased on 0.38 acres (16,700 sq. ft.) of impact and a 1:1 mitigation ratio per 4/30/96 memo from Gregg Zimmerman to Jim Kelley of Parametrix(Project File LUA-96-034,SA,SM,ECF). `Assumes a 1:1 mitigation ratio. Wetlands yet to be filled are designated on the City's Wetlands Inventory as W-18 (0.66 acres), W-51 (0.48 acres), and W-44(0.08 acres). dPossible additional credits for future privately owned development projects for which wetland mitigation is required solely under the City's Wetlands Management Ordinance (no Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit is required). eAssumes all upland on the site can be converted to wetland and that no credit is realized for enhancement of the existing wetlands on the bank site. However, more or less wetland may be created depending upon buffer width and location with respect to the property lines and whether additional wetlands may be established on the upland area of the adjacent greenbelt along Springbrook Creek. Table A-Worst Case Demand Scenario Reasons for Exclusion Ref No. Wetland Approx. Reasons for Exclusion Type Acres (for purpose of estimating demand for the bank only) Category 1 W-4 PFO, PSS, 59 Most of this wetland is on city-owned property. Assume it will PEM remain as open space. W-5 PFO 34.7 This wetland is on city-owned property. Assume it will remain as open space. W-7N PEM, PSS 12.3 Assume that this wetland is used only for peak rate runoff control storage for future development on the adjacent site to the north. W-12a PSS,PEM, 22.2 With the exception of the acreage already reserved in the bank POW for SW 27th Street HOV transportation project wetland impacts, assume that the wetland remains as open space. Category 2 W-3 POW, 10.3 This wetland is mostly on city-owned property. Assume it will PEM, PFO remain as open space. W-8N PSS, PEM 9.6 The adjacent site is currently developing, avoiding the wetland. W-10N PFO, POW 8.6 This wetland is on a previously developed site. W-10S PFO, POW 2.9 This wetland is on a previously developed site. W-11 PEM, PSS 24.2 With the exception of the acreage already reserved in the bank for SW 27th Street HOV transportation project wetland impacts, assume that the wetland remains as open space. W-12b PSS, PEM 12.7 With the exception of the acreage already reserved in the bank for SW 27th Street HOV transportation project wetland impacts, assume that the wetland remains as open space. W-13S_j POW, 10.92 The Boeing Longacres Office Park EIS notes that this wetland PEM, PSS will be preserved. W-25 PFO 6.1 This wetland is presently in King County. W-37 POW, PSS, 83 This wetland is presently in King County. PEM W-52 PFO, PEM 2.41 This wetland is on a previously developed site within a native growth protection area. Ref No. Wetland Approx. Reasons for Exclusion Type Acres (for purpose of estimating demand for the bank only) W-54a PFO 1.80 This wetland is on city-owned property. Assume it will remain as open space. W-54b PFO 5.2 This wetland is on city-owned property. Assume it will remain as open space. Category 3 W-5c PFO, PSS 0.7 This wetland is at the toe of a steep slope and lies adjacent to and north of railroad tracks. Access to the wetland is therefore very difficult. Replacing the wetland's stormwater function elsewhere on the adjacent steep slopes would also be very difficult. The wetland would more possibly be used for peak rate runoff control for a development upslope from the wetland. W-8S PEM, PSS 1.3 This is a mitigation wetland. W-9a PFO, PSS, 2.1 This wetland is between an existing development and a site that PEM is being developed. W-9b PEM, PSS 0.8 This wetland is on a previously developed site. W-13Na PEM, PSS 1.47 This wetland is on a previously developed site. Also, the EIS consultant for the ESGRWP doesn't believe that this is a wetland. W-13 POW, PSS, 15.0 These are mitigation wetlands. Nb-Nd PEM W-13 PEM 4.08 These wetlands are on the Boeing Longacres Office Park site. Sa-Si Assume that mitigation is done on the Office Park site. W-14 PSS, PEM 2.58 This is a mitigation wetland. W-16a PEM 4.2 The property owner has submitted a development proposal (Raymond Center West, LUA-96-104) that avoids this wetland which lies on the south half of the site. W-16b PEM 9.9 This wetland lies between the Allpak developments to the south, the planned Oakesdale Extension on the west, the proposed Raymond Center West proposal (LUA-96-104)to the north, and Springbrook Creek to the east. The wetland is also largely on City owned property that was purchased for the now abandoned ESGRWP P-1 diversion channel. The Oakesdale Extension project and the ESGRWP channel widening may impact this wetland. Mitigation for the Oakesdale project impacts to this wetland is preliminary planned to occur along the new roadway, not in the mitigation bank. Mitigation for the ESGRWP would likely occur within the widened channel section. Ref No. Wetland Approx. Reasons for Exclusion Type Acres (for purpose of estimating demand for the bank only) W-16c PEM 0.87 This is a mitigation wetland. W-16d PEM, PSS 2.0 This wetland lies between the Allpak development to the east, the planned Oakesdale Extension on the west, wetland W-16b on the north, and SW 27th Street on the south. The wetland lies entirely on City owned property that was purchased for the now abandoned ESGRWP P-1 diversion channel. The Oakesdale Extension project may impact this wetland. Mitigation for the Oakesdale project impacts to this wetland is preliminary planned to occur along the alignment of the new roadway, not in the mitigation bank. W-18 PEM 0.59 This is a mitigation wetland. W-19 PEM 2.3 This is a mitigation wetland. W-21 PEM, PSS 4.7 This wetland is on a previously developed site. W-22 PEM,PSS, 18.78 This is Mitigation Banking Site 1. PFO W-28 PFO 0.4 This wetland is on a previously developed site. W-32 PFO,PSS, 6.69 This is Mitigation Banking Site 2. PEM W-33a PEM, PSS 1.06+ These are mitigation wetlands. W-33b W-36 PEM 3.5 This wetland is presently in King County. W-44 PSS 0.08 This wetland is on a previously developed site. W-48 PFO, PSS, 5.32 These wetlands are within SR-167 right-of-way. WSDOT a-h PEM avoided these wetlands in the recent HOV lane widening project. W-49a, PFO, PSS 0.44 Mitigation for fill of this wetland will be accomplished on the wetland bank sites. This wetland is not shown on the inventory mapping. W-49b PSS, PEM 0.1 The adjacent site is currently developing, avoiding the wetland. W-50 - 1.7 Wetlands violation cited by the Corps of Engineers. W-51 PEM 0.48 The adjacent site is currently developing, avoiding the wetland. Ref No. Wetland Approx. Reasons for Exclusion Type Acres (for purpose of estimating demand for the bank only) W-53 PEM 0.2 This wetland is narrow in width and lies along Panther Creek. The creek's 25-foot buffer and the wetland's 25-foot buffer would nearly coincide. There may be buffer impacts associated with a development proposal, but it is unlikely that the creek would be culverted. If the creek remains an open channel, it is unlikely that the wetland would be filled. One alternative of the ESGRWP identifies potential widening of this reach of Panther Creek. Any impacts to the creek and wetland would likely be mitigated within the widened channel section. IThe reasons for exclusion cited are only for the purpose of estimating the capacity of the bank and represents a possible worst case scenario for deciding whether there may be sufficient demand for the credits to be created at the bank sites. The Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and Plan will outline eligibility criteria. U:65119:96-009:SW enclosures cc: Ron Straka Table B Possible Worst Case Capacity Scenario Est.Area on Total Ref Wetland Fill Approx. Demand Demand Demand Category No. Type (acres) (Acres) Case A Case B Case C 2 W-1 PFO,PSS,PEM None 25 1 0 0 3 W-5a PSS All 0.1 0.I 0.1 0 W-5b PSS,PEM 0.04 1.14 1 0 0 W-6 PFO,PSS None 1.2 1 0 0 W-7S PSS,PEM None 3.3 1 0 0 W-15 PFO,PSS None 7.4 1 0 0 W-31 PFO,PEM None 1.2 1 0 0 W-33c PSS,PEM All 3 1 3 0 W-34 PEM None 1 I 1 1 W-35 PEM None 1 I 1 1 W-45 PFO,PSS,PEM 16.5 28 1 16.5 0 Total 70.1 10.1 21.6 2 Demand Case A. This case assumes that the Corps issues nationwide permits for fills of up to one acre for each of the wetlands listed. Demand Case B. Except for wetlands that have formed on fill,this case assumes that the Corps rules every wetland in the valley as being adjacent,requiring an individual 404 permit for any wetland impact in the valley. Also assumes the Corps issues nationwide permits for fills of up to one acre for each non-valley wetland. For wetlands assumed to require a 404 individual permit,assume that developers either avoid the wetlands or go elsewhere. Finally,this case also assumes the Corps does not take jurisdiction for wetlands that have formed on fill,but mitigation is required under the City's ordinance. Demand Case C. This case is the same as Case B,with the exception that the City implements an ordinance change to not require mitigation for wetlands that have formed on fill. THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF a ' PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS '' w FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 J To: Tracey McKenzie Company: Parametrix Phone: 206-828-4202 x3459 Fax: 206-889-8808 From: Scott Woodbury Phone: 206-277-5547 Fax: 206-235-2541 Date: 09/10/96 Pages incl this page: 167 Attached is a draft memo on requirements of the City's wetlands ordinance pertaining to mitigation banking. I have not had a chance to review this with Mark Pywell and so have noted it as a draft. I have also reviewed the Snohomish County MOA and implementation plan. Attached is a copy of my preliminary comments and questions on these documents. have yet to complete a review of funding options and to identify how an ordinance change to not recognize wetlands on fill would affect the banking project. I hope to finish a draft memo on each of these topics by Thursday noon. I will be off tomorrow, but will try to reach you on the afternoon of Thursday, Sept 12. Thanks for your assistance. Comment/Questions Resulting from Review of Snohomish County MOA and Implementation Plan as may Pertain to Renton Bank Project 1. MOA Section 11.4. The first sentence of the 2nd full paragraph states that the MOA requires annual inspection of the WCB sites into perpetuity. The next sentence states that annual reporting is required through the WCB operating life. Are perpetuity and the WCB operating life synonymous? Inspecting into perpetuity seems excessive. According to MOA Section 11.3, monitoring only needs to be done until performance standards are met for two consecutive years. 2. Use of impact compensation ratios and mitigation conversion ratios seems to be a good idea. However, for our banking project the combination of the two should not produce ratios greater than the wetlands ordinance. They could be less if the impact occurs after the mitigation has met performance standards. 3. What about allowing out-of-basin mitigation, similar to SCA? 4. Do you feel quantitative performance standards for <10% of invasives and exiting water meeting class A standards and maintaining projected water levels are difficult to achieve? It may be difficult to maintain water levels some seasons as these are so dependent upon precipitation and groundwater. (Plan Section 1.7.3) 5. Contingency to direct more water to or take water away from wetlands could be very difficult in our case. (Plan Section 1.7.6). Use of water level control device (weir) more feasible for Site 1. 6. What data/analysis was available or generated to ensure adequate hydrology for SCA wetlands? Plan Section 1.8.10 says creek provides stable hydrological source. How often does creek overflow into wetland? Is available data at same level as ours? 7. Is wildlife census necessary for monitoring? 8. Why is contingency plan not prepared up front? See Plan Section 1.8.6. Possible contingencies are listed, but in our case contingency plan is required per ordinance and is valuable to protect City should initial plan fail. 9. Do you feel we should try to fight invasives? This could be prone to failure and would be expensive. 10. Forested wetlands are noted to be monitored for 10 years. When does establishing forested wetlands need to be objective? City ordinance has greater compensation ratios for forested wetlands, I believe, because forested wetlands take more time to replace, greater ratios serve to discourage impact to forested wetlands, and/or forested wetlands may be more difficult to replace equal to forest that was lost, even over time (Section 1.8.12, Objective 1). 1 would like to discuss the forested wetlands issue further. If we include forested wetland as objective, could reduced ratios be justified as a result? H. Use of Bentonite noted as only if necessary. We will want specific recommendation as to whether or not it is needed as it greatly affects costs and design. U:65119:96-006:S W 96-006.DOC\ T� ��d� ��:3. CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS /v MEMORANDUM DATE: September 10, 1996 .i TO: Tracey McKenzie FROM: Scott Woodbury SUBJECT: REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO MITIGATION BANKING IN THE CITY'S WETLANDS MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE I have reviewed the City's Wetland Management Ordinance (WMO) for requirements pertaining to wetland banking in general or our banking project specifically. Following is summary of the WMO provisions I identified. I did not attempt to list requirements that must be followed regardless of whether banking is used or not, such as content of the mitigation and monitoring plans, etc. l. Section 4-32-4.A, Allowed Activities within Wetlands and Buffers, Item 10: "Any wetland and/or buffer restoration or other mitigation activities which have been approved by the City." Construction of the bank is therefore an allowed activity, provided it is approved by the City. 2. Section 4-32-5.A, Procedures, would apply to the wetland banking project. Item 1 h states: "If wetland mitigation is proposed, a mitigation plan which includes baseline information, environmental goals and objectives, performance standards, construction plans, a monitoring program and a contingency plan." 3. Section 4-32-5.D, Waivers, states: "Requirements of this Chapter may be waived upon determination by the Department Administrator that all impacts on wetlands would be mitigated as part of an approved area-wide wetlands plan that, when taken as a whole over an approved schedule or staging of plan implementation, will meet or exceed the requirements of this Chapter(see 4-32-6C)." This section gives wide latitude to the Administrator in waiving sections of the ordinance. The City design team concurred with the use of this provision in issuing several general waivers pertaining to the wetland bank(see my March 9, 1995 memo to the design team). 4. Section 4-32.6.C, Wetlands Creation, Item 2, states: "Multiple or cooperative compensation projects may be proposed for one project in order to best achieve the goal of no net loss." 1� Tracey McKenzie " WMO Requirements Pertaining to Wetland Banking Page 2 5. Section 4-32.6.C, Wetlands Creation, Item 4, states: "The City may increase the ratios under the following circumstances: uncertainty as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions; projected losses in functional value; or off-site compensation." This provision could be applied because the mitigation would be offsite. It could also be applied if impacts are allowed to occur before the bank is constructed or if 100% of the credits are withdrawn before restoration objective are achieved. However, the waiver provision noted above could be used to justify that the gain in functional value to be realized through consolidating mitigation on a single site outweighs any temporal losses. 6. Section 4-32.6.C, Wetlands Creation, Items 5 and 6, state: "The City may decrease the ratios for Category 3 emergent wetlands to 1.0 times the area altered provided the applicant has successfully replaced the wetland prior to its filling and has shown that the replacement is successfully established for twelve(12) months." (Item 5) "If the applicant can aggregate two (2) or more Category 3 wetlands, ranging in size from five thousand (5,000) square feet to ten thousand (10,000) square feet, into one wetland, the replacement ratio shall be reduced to 1:L" (Item 6). Because of lack of available funding and the intense development pressure the valley is currently experiencing, it is unlikely that bank site 2 will be constructed to make use of the Item 5 provision above. Mitigation site 2 is currently scheduled for construction in 1999. Therefore, our assumption that a mitigation ratio of 1:1 is to be used for category 3 impacts is based upon the consolidation of wetland mitigation as allowed in Item 6. The limitation on size could be waived by the Administrator in accordance with Section 4-32.5.13 of the WMO. The recent approval of the Benaroya (Group Health) wetland impact under City file No. LUA-96-34 was greater than 10,000 square feet, but was allowed to use the bank at a 1:1 ratio. 7. Section 4-32.6.C, Wetlands Creation, Item 7, concerns the use of a functional analysis method for determining mitigation requirements for impacts to category 3 wetlands, in lieu of replacement by acreage only. The City design team concurred with the use of the functional analysis you were developing for the program in determining compensation for category 3 wetland impacts (see my March 9, 1995 memo to the design team). With this approach it is possible to gain credits for enhancement of the existing wetlands on the bank site. The WMO at present does not allow enhancement to be used for mitigation, except for category 3 wetlands if a functional analysis method is used. The Snohomish County wetland bank memorandum of agreement give credits for enhancement of wetlands at the bank site at a 2:1 ratio. Note: there is growing interest in the City of revising the WMO to allow enhancement outright as appropriate mitigation for impacts to all wetland categories. 8. Section 4-32.6.F, Compensating for Wetland Location, requires that wetlands be mites ig t�ionn on- site, except under special conditions. However, Section 4-32.6.G., Cooperative Wetlands Basin Planning, Mitigation Banks, or Special Area Management Plans(SAMP), states that: i Tracey McKenzie WMO Requirements Pertaining to Wetland Banking Page 3 "The City encourages, and will facilitate and approve cooperative projects wherein a single applicant or other organization with demonstrated capability may undertake a compensation project under the following circumstances: a. Restoration or creation on-site may not be feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, or other factors; or b. Where the cooperative plan is shown to better meet established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions." The proposed mitigation banking program should therefore qualify as an off-site alternative because it will meet at least one of these conditions. OW w-,.41 4-eew 54-c- /oc-� .� 4-c s rdeo! 9. Section 4-32.6.F.4, Timing, requires that mitigation projects be substantially complete and approved by the City prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. However, Section 4-32.6.G.3, states that: "Compensation payments received as part of a mitigation or creation bank must be received prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit." According to a recent decision by the Department Administrator, a project with wetland impacts proposing to participate in the bank may be issued an occupancy permit prior to the mitigation being constructed on the bank site under the following conditions: a. the required compensation payment is made to the City prior to issuance of the occupancy permit, and b. the mitigation could be created on the bank site under City permit authority without triggering any federal or state permits. The second condition is added because the City does not want to allow a wetland impact to occur when there is uncertainty whether the City could obtain the necessary state and federal permits to construct the mitigation on the bank sites. Even if the permits could be obtained, there may be conditions attached to the permits that the City did not anticipate and cannot afford or otherwise comply with. Based on the recent Corps letter regarding their jurisdiction over Sites 1 and 2, creation of wetland mitigation on Site 1 will require a U.S. Corps of Engineers Section 404 individual permit. Therefore the City would not allow Site 1 to be used to provide mitigation knowing that a Corps permit would have to be obtained to construct the mitigation. However, the Corps determined that Site 2 would not come under their jurisdiction, except for activities below the ordinary high water mark of Springbrook Creek. Because work related to site 2 below the plane of the ordinary high water of Springbrook Creek would be minor, this work may potentially be handled through a Section 404 nationwide permit. Nationwide permits (NWP) that may apply include: • NWP#18, Minor Discharges. • NWP#19, Minor Dredging. • NWP#25, Structural Discharge. t Tracey McKenzie WMO Requirements Pertaining to Wetland Banking Page 4 The difficulty of obtaining federal and state approval should be commensurate with the minor extent of work involved with Site 2 that falls under federal and state jurisdiction. Therefore there is thought to be little risk from a permitting perspective in allowing a wetland compensation fee to be paid in advance of the construction of the mitigation on Site 2. In any case, if design and permitting for Site 2 were to proceed and be completed in 1997, then once all permits are obtained there would be no risk in allowing a wetland compensation fee to be paid in advance of the construction of the mitigation. I hope that this overview is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact me at(206)277-5547. U:65 119:96-008:SW cc: Mark Pywell Ron Straka rv`n`R�II�, //a S oa45S- Nam -U�✓r�,s okw /moo � 4�//�,� c��,,-y►� �' � Gr /4A - �vsw�l air ✓ pst v (�i�� °rl ant ro 6& rut-vqp. tok4m,( AJUY 4� /�,� f dFiax ap I Not This Fax was sent using FAXcilitate The Premier Fax Software for the Apple MacintoshTM To: Mr. Scott Woodbury, - City of Renton From: Tracey McKenzie, ❑ Fax Phone Number: (206) 546-5714 Date: Mon, May 6, 1996 . 8:22 PM Transmitting (1)pages, including cover sheet. If there is difficulty with this transmission, please call: (206) 546-5714 Note: Scott- I received your information on the wetland inventory update. I received Table A, Table 1, worst case capacity scenario, and 11x17 print out. The updated wetland inventory AutoCAD map was not included in the package. After looking at the information- I agree that there is sufficient acreage in the area to use bank- credits. The first available date to get together to discuss closire of the project is Friday May 24 or anytime the week of May 27. There are many issues I woul like to talk to you about includiung these: Jim Kelley of our office told me that Gail Terzi, Corps, recently completed a wetland verification on a parcel in Renton. We had delineated wetland on the site. The Corps basically said that they were not wetlands because they were formed on fill. Jim indicated that this has been the "parry line" on a couple of projects recently reviewed by the Corps. I'd like to discuss the possibility of asking the Corps to reevaluate the wetlands on Bank#2 to see if they are regulated. y , ❑❑❑❑❑❑How does the recently issued federal guidance on establishment, use, and operation of wetland mitigation banks affect❑completion of this project? I can call Gail Terzi before we meet to get the Corps "read"on this question. 1,AAr.64r G, ^#W) 76 oo Brij A."o T1'e e=,A/(, "Our 7-Pt 0""1 I'll call you on Tuesday May 7 to discuss. Thanks. I look forward to talking to you. Mi 14 PARAMETRIX, - FAX NO'. 206 889 8808 F. 01/03Ql 4-95 THU 9: Earametrix, Incill 5808 Lake Washington Blvd. N.E., Suite 200, KIMarid, WA 98033-7350 206-822-8880 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER PAGE FAX # 206-889-8808 ........................................I.,.................................. TO: .......... ..................................................-';t CompanyName. ................................................... .................... . -4 Fax#: pMX Project . ............................................. From: ..... Sent BY: Data: Number of Pages (Total): Comments/Message: ...................................I'll",.................... ...................................... ................................ .................. ...... ............ . ........................ ............................................................................. .............................................................................1.111,...................... ........................ ......................."I....................................."I'll.......,....... ..................I........-........................ ................................................... ................11.......I'll,...................11......11...........................I'll......... .......................11.11.........................11............................I.............................. Mil Not El Be Sent Via Backup COPY will El -privileged, 11 you are not the intended recipient, or the person This facsimile is confidential and may also be attorney responsible for its distribution,please call us collect immediately at 2C)6) 8,22_8880 and return the original to us vla the U.S. postal Service.Thank you. - __... Mitigation Bank Site 2 Unit Cost Total Cost uantit Unit Blement /3�0 « � 2 oeo. o0 9v'z ou$5 OOa � &1✓for lvlitig _ � each $ S,Oo0.00 a.Generals ecifications 1 4 500.00 $54,000.00 b.Technical s ecifIcations 12 sheet $ S 18,000.00 gyp%- 12 sheets} sheet 1,SOO.OQ c,Design drawin s ( 12 $ 300.00 I $3,b00.00 d Desi drawings 60 to 90- 12 sheets) 12sheet e.pesign drawin s(90. 1000/0. 12 sheets) e to Suave • �. /�csi � }� a.Ri 1at bank S rin brook Creek N- b.Full channel{ roe line to SW 41 t.) _ stt_� �•_�.. d��re ran u - e 200 Construction contract mane emeut c NsP fi o00 , inistratio-W.o ft1 �e� Advertisin I fn�l' (-a isition of) 1,500.00 $4,500.00 Berm ittin each_��_$ $10,000.00 ation Site 2 3 2,000.00 Iviitig each S $15,000.00 a,local $ 15,OOo.00 1 I each �I I b. State -t-- c.federal I oi/o 37 $0.00 Site Construction oou g 2 '00t' $�' � 14 acre S1,050,000.00 M, obilization 7 00 8 150,000 cubic yazds S '$ Clearin and grubbin ' Sun 2 u ao 0 00 Excavation, grading&haulm —�— 2,000 I In UA �o , Pollution control M In(as-Foot I ptir�s �� devices I Gu,* f� 25.00 $261,625.00 'I�r, �LV water monitoring z28�asp �'�Q Site dewatering 10 465 I cubic�,ards 8 ooA �0- °l- 00 to Soil amendments '/ i $ 2� pie membrane 2 2 / i B a a �nPer�u:514- Rip ra 1 uar $pall ! I � � / �0 z1O ooD 00 VAVAld planting$ .0 ' a. 1-SD00 /S p Imo° S � b, sn�s.... _ � s o /y ovo S u,S Habitat structures yam'l l g dro5eed m!Y. SN m 808 r. U11/Ud Zo 17 IUD $0.00 Concrete sidewalk Y' jv a SG*GO' �lI/h9 Sv M I U ODa i?edestrianbride Spy, / zS 28�U S0.00 As halt avin 2 ou j 3oiy y• � 2-0o G bom $0.00 S, bioras I $ Z,000AO $10,000.00 Signa e(lnte retive Panels - 5 each � o ono J0 Traffic control ; _40z@er— IU _ each g 400.00 $4,000.00 Inspections, g each $ 2,000.00 $16,000,00 Monitorin g each $ 5,000.00 $40,000.00 Re orting I each $ 5,000.00 S50,000.00 Maintenance 10 10 each $ 5,000.001 $50,000,00 Contingencies Total s usrar,R� CCa„Sr(Lrcr�f+wct. w�,a) f 2/13 g/57Z .00 r�x C 8, 27.) A I75-1 362 . 90 ��rac, t,.Nsrnuu,�a 21 3/3 93y 9O i k'r } x. PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 V E9 Cg'UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2631 `�l Q� INT IT 0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2620 TO: -r/u+ L '4 44.1cfal DATE: y27-/Wf4 JOB NO. : RE: i.t/ ou/; ATTN: GENTLEMEN: WE ARE:SENDING YOU ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS o PRINTS o REPRODUCIBLE PLANS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS ❑ COPY OF LETTER ❑ COPIES DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ow n4Ec.r ati.. ,��h 3<rif at' rif4 odwtf S's 4'� lctl* otl G r 7"/-oiGf W-As"f iA CQL vli `T kj iwit/e 1711A Sr Goew lAa�► THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: 511-.4 'L 15 A,A) 6,C1 4.-.Ir. ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL FOR YOUR USE ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION o AS REQUESTED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS ❑ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPIES T0: _ �,/, SIGNED -00'�1 4mjjt4(4 TITLE IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: �Nliy-2<1996 oArco L.P.,- TO: Tracey McKenzie FROM: Scott Woodbury SUBJECT: UPDATED WETLAND INVENTORY AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR THE WETLAND BANK As you know we halted work on the Wetland Banking Project until the wetland inventory was updated. Finally the update has been completed and we would like to move ahead and finish with the project. Prior to work resuming I think it is important that we meet with you to discuss the status of the work, what needs to be done, and budget considerations. Please contact me at (206) 277-5547 to arrange a time. If is more convenient we could meet at your office. To facilitate completing the project, attached are copies of the following: 1. Updated Wetland Inventory Mapping(AcadR12 file wet1nd96.dwg). 2. Updated Wetland Inventory Table(I Ix17 printout and Excel 5.0 file Renton3.xls). 3. Revised Table I for the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and Plan document (Excel 5.0 file tablel.xls). Based on review of this table, I think there is sufficient acreage in the program area to use the credits that will be created in the bank. 4. To evaluate a possible worst case demand scenario for the bank, I have prepared the following Table A, listing wetlands that for one reason or another may not participate in the banking program. I have also included a table (Excel 5.0 file capacity.xls) with the wetlands listed in Table A subtracted from the inventory. Subtracting these wetlands from the inventory greatly reduces the estimated acreage of wetlands that may use the bank, but I believe that this is still sufficient acreage to continue with implementing the banking program. Thanks for your help. Table A-Worst Case Demand Scenario Reasons for Exclusion Ref No. Wetland Approx. Reasons for Exclusion Type Acres (for purpose of estimating demand for the bank only) Category 1 W-4 PFO, PSS, 59 Most of this wetland is on city-owned property. Assume it will PEM remain as open space. W-5 PFO 34.7 This wetland is on city-owned property. Assume it will remain as open space. W-7N PEM, PSS 12.3 Assume that this wetland is used only for peak rate runoff control storage for future development on the adjacent site to the north. W-12a PSS, PEM, 22.2 With the exception of the acreage already reserved in the bank POW for SW 27th Street HOV transportation project wetland impacts, assume that the wetland remains as open space. Category 2 W-3 POW, 10.3 This wetland is mostly on city-owned property. Assume it will PEM, PFO remain as open space. W-8N PSS, PEM 9.6 The adjacent site is currently developing, avoiding the wetland. W-10N PFO, POW 8.6 This wetland is on a previously developed site. W-10S PFO, POW 2.9 This wetland is on a previously developed site. W-11 PEM, PSS 24.2 With the exception of the acreage already reserved in the bank for SW 27th Street HOV transportation project wetland impacts, assume that the wetland remains as open space. W-12b PSS, PEM 12.7 With the exception of the acreage already reserved in the bank for SW 27th Street HOV transportation project wetland impacts, assume that the wetland remains as open space. W-13Sj POW, 10.92 The Boeing Longacres Office Park EIS notes that this wetland PEM,PSS will be preserved. W-25 PFO 6.1 This wetland is presently in King County. W-37 POW, PSS, 83 This wetland is presently in King County. PEM Ref No. Wetland Approx. Reasons for Exclusion Type Acres (for purpose of estimating demand for the bank only) W-52 PFO, PEM 2.41 This wetland is on a previously developed site within a native growth protection area. W-54a PFO 1.80 This wetland is on city-owned property. Assume it will remain as open space. W-54b PFO 5.2 This wetland is on city-owned property. Assume it will remain as open space. Category 3 W-8S PEM,PSS 1.3 This is a mitigation wetland. W-9a PFO, PSS, 2.1 This wetland is between an existing development and a site that PEM is being developed. W-9b PEM, PSS 0.8 This wetland is on a previously developed site. W-13Na PEM, PSS 1.47 This wetland is on a previously developed site. W-13 POW,PSS, 15.0 These are mitigation wetlands. Nb-Nd PEM W-13 PEM 4.08 These wetlands are on the Boeing Longacres Office Park site. Sa-Si Assume that mitigation is done on the Office Park site. W-14 PSS,PEM 2.58 This is a mitigation wetland. W-16c PEM 0.87 This is a mitigation wetland. W-18 PEM 0.59 This is a mitigation wetland. W-19 PEM 2.3 This is a mitigation wetland. W-21 PEM,PSS 4.7 This wetland is on a previously developed site. W-22 PEM, PSS, 18.78 This is Mitigation Banking Site 1. PFO W-28 PFO 0.4 This wetland is on a previously developed site. W-32 PFO, PSS, 6.69 This is Mitigation Banking Site 2. PEM W-33a PEM, PSS 1.06+ These are mitigation wetlands. W-33b W-36 PEM 3.5 This wetland is presently in King County. Ref No. Wetland Approx. Reasons for Exclusion Type Acres (for purpose of estimating demand for the bank only) W-44 PSS 0.08 This wetland is on a previously developed site. W-48 PFO, PSS, 5.32 These wetlands are within SR-167 right-of-way. WSDOT a-h PEM avoided these wetlands in the recent HOV lane widening project. W-49a PFO, PSS 0.44 Mitigation for fill of this wetland will be accomplished on the wetland bank sites. W-49b PSS, PEM 0.1 The adjacent site is currently developing, avoiding the wetland. W-50 - 1.7 Wetlands violation cited by the Corps of Engineers. W-51 PEM 0.48 The adjacent site is currently developing, avoiding the wetland. 1 The reasons for exclusion cited are only for the purpose of estimating the capacity of the bank and represents a possible worst case scenario for deciding whether there may be sufficient demand for the credits to be created at the bank sites. The Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and Plan will outline eligibility criteria. U:65119:96-003:SW enclosures cc: Ron Straka Table 1. Inventoried wetlands in the Black River Basin within the Renton City limits and Sphere of Influence Ref Wetland Approx. Ref Wetland Approx. Category No. Type Acres Category No. Type Acres 1 W-4 PFO,PSS,PEM 59 3 W-13Na PEM,PSS 1.47 W-5 PFO 34.7 W-13Nb POW,PEM,PSS 4.6 W-7N PEM,PSS 12.3 W-13Nc PEM,PSS 1.5 W-12a PSS,PEM,POW 22.2 W-13Nd PSS,PEM,POW 8.9 Total 69 W-13 Sa-Si PEM 4.08 W-14 PSS,PEM 2.58 2 W-1 PFO,PSS,PEM 25 W-15 PFO,PSS 7.4 W-3 POW,PEM,PFO 10.3 W-16a PEM 4.2 W-8N PSS,PEM 9.6 W-16b PEM 9.9 W-10N PFO,POW 8.6 W-16c PEM 0.87 W-10S PFO,POW 2.9 W-16d PEM,PSS 2.0 W-11 PEM,PSS 24.2 W-18 PEM 0.59 W-12b PSS,PEM 12.7 W-19 PEM 2.3 W-13Sj POW,PEM,PSS 10.92 W-21 PEM,PSS 4.7 W-25 PFO 6.1 W-22 PEM,PSS,PFO 18.78 W-37 POW,PSS,PEM 83 W-28 PFO 0.4 W-52 PFO,PEM 2.41 W-31 PFO,PEM 1.2 W-54a PFO 1.80 W-32 PFO,PSS,PEM 6.69 W-54b PFO 5.2 W-33a PSS,PEM 1.06 Total 202.73 W-33b -- -- W-33c PSS,PEM 3 3 W-5a PSS 0.1 W-34 PEM 1 W-5b PSS,PEM 1.14 W-35 PEM 1 W-5c PFO,PSS 0.7 W-36 PEM 3.5 W-6 PFO,PSS 1.2 W-44 PSS 0.08 W-7S PSS,PEM 3.3 W-45 PFO,PSS,PEM 28 W-8S PEM,PSS 1.3 W-48 a-h PEM 5.32 W-9a PFO,PSS,PEM 2.1 W-49a PFO,PSS 0.44 W-9b PEM,PSS 0.8 W-49b PSS,PEM 0.1 Assumed W-50 -- 1.7 Cat.3 W-51 PEM 0.48 W-53 PEM 0.2 Total 131.74 5/24/96 7:02 AM TABLE1 ALS Page 1 Possible Worst Case Capacity Scenario Ref Wetland Approx. Category No. Type Acres 2 W-1 PFO, PSS, PEM 25 3 W-5a PSS 0.1 W-5b PSS,PEM 1.14 W-5c PFO,PSS 0.7 W-6 PFO,PSS 1.2 W-7S PSS,PEM 3.3 W-15 PFO, PSS 7.4 W-16a PEM 4.2 W-16b PEM 9.9 W-16d PEM,PSS 2.0 W-31 PFO,PEM 1.2 W-33c PSS, PEM 3 W-34 PEM 1 W-35 PEM 1 W-45 PFO,PSS,PEM 28 W-53 PEM 0.2 Total 87.1 14AR 2 ciao of RENTON Engineering Dept MEMORANDUM to: March 11, 1995 from: Tracey McKenzie re: Senate Bill 5875 - Wetland Mitigation Banks I wanted to share comments with you on SB 5875 I provided to WPPA. Please call me at (206) 822-8880 if you have any questions or need more information. ///7/�'5 To dlotaivi a (6pq ofi the few pid'n(�4_ caa / t3�u 83z- 7828 r Parametrix, Inc. 5808 Lake svasninctcn 2!va. `! E'. { = 206-822-8880 -C6-389-351' Mr. Eric Johnson March 10, 1995 Washington Public Ports Association 90-1000-01 (PO) PO Box 1518 Olympia, Washington 98507 Re: Senate Bill 5875 Wetlands Mitigation Banks Dear Eric: Thank you for the opportunity to review proposed Senate Bill (SB) 5875 and provide comments to the Washington Public Ports Association (WPPA). You asked me to keep in mind the following as I reviewed the bill: • Will it be beneficial to Ports? • How much effort should you invest in seeing this bill pass? Your questions are addressed below in addition to my general and specific comments on the bill. General Comments SB 5875 is not very well written. Much of the information is presented in a way that leaves a wide window for interpretation and could make it more difficult to pursue mitigation banks - not easier. I do not believe SB 5875 will benefit public ports and other governmental entities. Nly perception of SB 5875 is that it will compound the already burdensome and arduous task of coordinating and negotiating with local, state, and federal agencies on wetland mitigation.banking. The only existing wetland mitigation banking interagencv agreement is the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Development of the MOA and establishment of an oversite committee limits the amount of control WSDOT has over use of a mitigation bank site. Currently, there are about five aovernmentai entities developing wetland mitigation banks in western Washington. Some are proposing to develop an interagency agreement similar to WSDOT's while others have decided that an -'v1OA -.with state and federal regulatory agencies eliminates any control over who uses the bars and what projects are eligible. Therefore, there is still some flexibility for the development of a mitigation bank - flexibility that some jurisdictions would like to retain. r Mr. Eric Johnson Washington Public Ports Association March 10, 1995 Page 2 Part of the difficulty in developing a mitigation bank is the lack of a process agreed to by the federal agencies and the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). Thus, I understand the intent of SB 5875. However, the issuance of federal guidance on developing mitigation banks is imminent. Five federal agencies have recently signed-off on a document that provides guidance to governmental and private entities operating or proposing to operate a mitigation bank. Based on my conversation with EPA Headquarters, notice of the document was or will be published in the Federal Register "very soon - within days". In general, the document describes procedures for agencies and project proponents to use to establish a mitigation bank including the development of an interagency agreement. In fact, SB 5875 mimics what I have been told is in the federal document. If five federal agencies have already invested the time and resources to develop an interagency guidance document on developing wetland mitigation banks (including procedures for developing an interagency agreement), then enabling Ecology to do the same is duplicative. If we are going to have to play by the federal agencies rules on developing wetland mitigation banks anyway, another layer of regulatory authority and state mandates may just muddle an already muddled moving target. (This is similar to the problem we are currently experiencing with different entities requiring different wetland delineation methods). Since Ecology is already involved in the mitigation banks currently being developed, I would rather develop a mitigation bank with one or two federal jurisdictions as lead agencies than develop a mitigation bank with both federal and a state agency as lead agencies. Passage of SB 5875 would likely result in a long coordination process between Ecology and the federal agencies to determine the roles, responsibilities, etc. of Ecology, EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. While this process is occurring few, if any, decisions will be made on mitigation banks. I would not want mitigation banking projects I'm working on to be caught in the cross- fires of potentially conflicting federal and state goals and requirements for developing mitigation banks. Lastly. SB 5875 places the responsibility of developing interagency agreements on Ecology. Unless the SB 5875 appropriate monies for Ecology. I see this as another legislative action that requires an agency to do more with less. Currently. Ecology has a difficult enough time responding to Ports needs. Passage of SB 5875 would not necessarily make coordination with the % ashington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFIV� on mitigation banking projects any easier. or make `VDFW more receptive to mitigation barks. As with the current processes of developing -mitigation banks. under SB 5875. WDFW would still have the on_ lion of not bei^_� 1 Signatory to a mitigation banking program. L� Mr. Eric Johnson Washington Public Ports Association March 10, 1995 Page 3 Specific Comments Page 1, line 12 "This and .V will provide ..." A word is missing after the word and. Page 2, line 10 Section (a) refers only to creation and restoration. This would eliminate all potential for enhancement actions. This is not favorable for ports or other governmental entities. Page 2, line 15 SB 5875 would require at least a twenty-year plan for maintenance. The intent of this statement should be clarified. Is the intent really for maintenance versus performance monitoring and maintenance monitoring? I am concerned with how this statement could be interpreted by Ecology and other resource agencies. In addition, twenty years is a long time and will potentially require significant up-front capital in the way of a bond. Page 2, line 25 This line states that "discussions with the following government agencies" but does not specifically identify the agencies. Page 2, line 35 "Other state agencies with wetland regulatory jurisdiction" There are none. Ecology does not even have legislative regulatory jurisdiction. They regulate wetlands through SEPA,shoreline processes, and administration of some of the Nationwide permits and the 401 water quality certification. Page 3, Line 6 Currently, methods (i.e., 1987 and/or 1989 manual) for consistent delineations of wetland boundaries are discussed with Ecology and the federal agencies before conducting wetland delineations. As you know, the federal agencies use the 1987 manual. Ecology %L-iil accept delineations using the 1987 manual unless the wetland is associated 1;tizth a shoreline (then 1989 manual is required). I doubt that Ecology's position regarding wetland delineations in shorelines will change. However, the results of the long awaited studv by the National Academy of Sciences may result in a different wetland delineation methodology. Page 3, line 7 "functional values" should be charged to functional "performance". Page 3, line 11-13 The meaning of Section edl is u:.ciear. My interpretation 's that zuidelines would need to be deveioced for deter:liinina the phvsical and aeoararhic Mr. Eric Johnson Washington Public Ports Association March 10, 1995 Page 4 location(e.g.,watershed, subbasin) of the wetland mitigation bank relative to the location of the wetlands to be impacted. In summary, it does not appear that the drafter of this bill had the ports best interests in mind. I hope these comments help you in evaluating the importance and usefulness of this bill to public ports. Please call me at (206) 822-8880 if you have any questions or need more information. Sincerely, PAR.AMETRIX, INC. Tracey McKenzie 1 PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5875 ' 2 J 3 WETLANDS MITIGATION BANKS _ 4 — 5 6 J 1 AN ACT Relating to wetlands mitigation banks; adding a new chapter 2 to Title 90 RCW; and creating a new section. 3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. The 5 legislature finds that wetlands compensatory mitigation banks may 6 provide an important alternative, allowing projects that impact 7 wetlands to be approved while ensuring that mitigation for such impacts 8 are achieved. The reform of wetland regulatory programs in part 9 requires greater coordination of agencies with overlapping regulatory Ij10 responsibilities, and consistent procedures and methods for using i I11 wetland bank "credits" as compensatory mitigation for wetlands impacts 12 are needed. This =and `;will provide greater certainty to project 13 applicants and timely decisions on permit applications. Compensatory 14 mitigation achieved through participation in larger wetlands creation 15 and. restoration areas as part of mitigation "banks" generally provide 16 greater assurance of long-term viability of the created or restored 17 wetlands than smaller projects required as mitigation for an individual 18 development project. Public entities, because of their increased 19 accountability, permanent nature and long-range planning abilities, are 20 particularly likely to successfully use compensatory mitigation to 21 benefit overall wetlands values while planning for rccessar- Duhlic 22 facilities. 23 For these reasons it is the purpose of this chapter to provide an 24 optional procedure for governmental entities operating a wetland 25 mitigation bank or proposing to do so, by which the entity may request I26 the development of an interagency agreement among wetland regulatory 27 agencies. The agreement would provide coordinated procedures and 28 methods for use of such a wetland mitigation bank in regulatory review 29 of public projects by the regulatory agencies entering the interagency 30 agreement. 1 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2 . INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS. (1) Beginning 2 January 1, 1996, at the request of a governmental entity operating or 3 proposing to operate a wetland compensatory mitigation bank, the 4 department of ecology shall initiate discussions for the purpose of 5 developing an interagency agreement among regulatory agencies ; ; 6 consistent with this chapter. 7 (2) Prior to initiating discussions under subsection (1) , the 8 entity shall demonstrate that the bank or proposed bank meets the . 9 following minimum criteria: 10 (a) The wetland area included or proposed to be included in the 11 bank has been or will be artificially created, or is or will be the 12 restoration of degraded wetlands, and the biological and hydrological 13 function of the wetlands are or will be typical of natural wetlands of 14 that type; 15 (b) There is at least a twenty-year plan for the care and 16 maintenance of the area to ensure its long-term viability, including 17 provision for financing necessary repairs or restoration; IJ ' - a 18 (c) The wetland area is or will be dedicated to wetland � 119 conservation purposes in perpetuity by binding limitations on the title i 20 to the real property; and 21 (d) Provision has been made for monitoring the wetland area's 22 functional performance and for periodically reporting this information 23 to the department. 24 (3) Upon receiving the request the department shall initiate 25 discussions with the"following government agencies, with the objective 26 of entering an interagency agreement for review of project proposals 27 that include proposals to use the bank as wetlands compensatory 28 mitigation: 29 (a) The general purpose local government :ait-hin. whi CIn tl,-e bank area 30 lies; 31 (b) Other general purpose local governments with jurisdiction over 32 areas within seventy-five miles of the bank area that contain 33 substantial wetland areas for which compensatory mitigation in future 34 projects by public agencies may be proposed; 35 (c) Other state agencies with wetland regulatory jurisdiction; and 36 (d) The appropriate regional offices of federal agencies with 37 wetland regulatory jurisdiction, including at a minimum the United 38 States environmental protection agency and the United States army corps 39 of engineers. SB 3875 p 2 2 1 (4) The department and other agencies involved in the discussions 2 should address the following in the interagency agreement: 3 (a) Methods for uniformly measuring the credits and debits to 4 wetland bank areas as part of a project's compensatory mitigation, 5 including how and when such credits and debits are created; C6) (b) Methods for consistent delineation of wetland boundaries and 7 measurement of wetland functional Lva es1 (c) Uniform guidelines for acreage ratios and other methods to 9 compensate for the uncertainty of long-term success in the artificial 10 creation and restoration of wetlands; 11 P (d) Guidelines for required proximity of the bank area to serve as 12 compensatory mitigation to the project site where wetlands impacts will 13 occur; and �� Z1- }.�I JA_ r��- ;,2�2_ 9 =�' C� / emu) 14 (e) Procedures to achieve integrated review by multiple regulatory 15 agencies of projects proposing the use of bank credits as compensatory 16 mitigation. 17 (5) The state agencies and local governments included in the 18 discussions shall use their best efforts to enter an interagency 19 agreement within one year of the initiation of discussions. The 20 department shall solicit the participation of appropriate federal 21 agencies with wetland regulatory jurisdiction. 22 (6) The agreement shall not limit a project applicant's choice of 23 compensatory mitigation alternatives to the use of a bank addressed in 24 the agreement. 25 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3 . NOT AFFECT EXISTING BANKS. Nothing in this 26 chapter shall affect wetland mitigation banks in existence on the date 27 of this chapter or affect any project approved and satisfying 28 compensatory mitigation requirements through the use of such a bank. 29 The wetlands mitigation bank created by the Washington department of 30 transportation through interagency memorandum of agreement dated 31 September 15, 1994 , is declared a recognized interagency agreement 32 under section 2 of this act. 33 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. PROGRESS REPORT. The department shall 34 provide a report to the appropriate standing committees of the 35 legislature by December 1 of each even-numbered year that includes: 36 (1) A description of publicly operated wetland banks for which an 37 interagency agreement under section 2 was requested; p11 3 _SB 53-5; 1 (2) A description of other mitigation banks in operation within the 2 state; 3 (3) A description of the interagency agreements entered under 4 section 3 of this act; 5 (4) A description of the projects for which wetland bank credits 6 were used for compensatory purposes, including a description of the 7 wetland impacts for which compensation was required; and 8 (5) Recommendations for administrative, budgetary, and legislative 9 changes necessary to make the wetland bank provisions of this chapter 10 operate more effectively, and recommendations to expand this pilot 11 program to compensatory mitigation banks that are privately owned or 12 operated. 13 NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. CODIFICATION DIRECTIONS. Sections 1 through 14 4 of this act shall constitute a new chapter in Title 90 RCW. 15 NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. CAPTIONS NOT LAW. Captions as used in this 16 act constitute no part of the law. --- END --- J SB 5875 p A 4 PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ��ti` `SY O� MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 0 UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2631 NT 0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2620 TO: DATE: JOB NO.: RE: ATTN: GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ ATTACHED o UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS o PRINTS ❑ REPRODUCIBLE PLANS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS ❑ COPY OF LETTER ❑ COPIES DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL ❑ FOR YOUR USE ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED o SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION o AS REQUESTED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS ❑ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPIES TO: SIGNED TITLE IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 v �s D UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2631 NT 0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2620 TO: DATE: JOB NO.: RE: ATTN: GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ ATTACHED o UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: o SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS ❑ REPRODUCIBLE PLANS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS o COPY OF LETTER o COPIES DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED o RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL ❑ FOR YOUR USE ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION ❑ AS REQUESTED o RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS ❑ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ o PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPIES TO: SIGNED TITLE IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 9, 1995 Tracey McKenzie, Project Manager Parametrix, Inc 5808 Lake Washington Blvd. NE Kirkland, WA 98033 SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM AND PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Dear Ms. McKenzie: Thank you for the submittal of the above-referenced document for our review. Review of the document is completed. Detailed comments are contained in the following enclosures: • a marked-up copy of the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and Plan document with review comments noted in the text; • design team comment memoranda; I have added responses to the comments regarding how the comments will be addressed in the document as we discussed in our recent meeting; • a summary of policy and implementation decisions resulting from January 27, 1995 design team meeting. General comments on the separate sections of the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and Plan (WMBPP) are noted following: Table of Contents. The table of contents generally followed the outline previously approved in September 1994. However, there were some changes and deletions which I was surprised to find. I have reinserted these in the text of the table for_inclusion in the document. In the future, please let us know if you feel a change should be made to a previously approved product before making changes. The following two sections should be added: Program Compliance With the Wetlands Management Ordinance and Plan Compliance With the Wetlands Management Ordinance. These sections are needed to clearly explain how the program and plan complies or differs with the ordinance. Areas of difference include allowing fee in lieu and allowing preservation credit. List of Figures. I will supply the additional figures listed in the comment text of the WMBPP document. Please incorporate references to these figures into the text where appropriate. Executive Summary. The executive summary should be as brief as possible and yet be complete in its summary of the document. Comments made in the text of the current WMBPP executive summary may or may not apply depending upon the following suggested reformatting. Suggested Reformatting. To provide a complete overview and to make the summary more easily readable, each section of the document should be listed sequentially followed by a brief summary of that particular 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 T Parametrix, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and Plan Review Comments Page 2 section. For example: Introduction/Project Overview. State the purpose of the document (to develop a mitigation banking program and plan consistent with ...), what is a wetland mitigation bank, why the City is developing the bank (satisfy the Glacier Park (G.P.) agreement, provide regulatory option, realize economic/land use benefit, and future public projects), and how the bank will be established (through individual permit, coordination with property owners, etc). This section should also explain how the document is formatted. Background. It is best not to repeat the background information in the executive summary that is included in the text of the document. I suggest that we simply reference where the background information is in the text for the reader to turn to if interested. Part I. Mitigation Banking Program. Goal, Objectives, and Policies of the Mitigation Banking Program. Briefly summarize this section. Potentially Eligible Acreage. Briefly summarize this section. Each section would be listed and summarized until all sections have been included. Capacity of the Bank and Potentially Eligible Wetland Acreage. I am working on updating the wetland inventory to reflect fill/mitigation projects that has occurred or been permitted since the wetland inventory was last updated in 1992. I will provide a copy for your use in updating this chapter as soon as possible. Based on the enclosed summary of policy and implementation decisions resulting from January 27, 1995 design team meeting, Category 1 wetlands are not eligible unless the impact is for a public project for which there an overriding need. This section should also include: discussion of the capacity of the bank (the total anticipated acreage achievable, the acreage reserved for the G.P. mitigation and other City project mitigation, and the net remaining acreage available for private projects), a determination of whether or not demand exceeds supply, and the order of preference for eligible wetlands (Category 3 preferred to Category 2 and valley wetlands preferred to plateau wetlands). Credit and Debit System. The acreage and functional credit to be established should be clearly summarized. The existing, proposed, and net change in wetland and upland acreage distribution for the bank sites should be summarized as shown in the attached example table. The existing, proposed, and net change in function should also be summarized in a similar table. The tracking forms and other necessary forms should be created and included in the appendix such as are included in the WSDOT bank agreement. A complete example of how the credits would be withdrawn and recorded in the tracking form should be included using the G.P. wetland impacts. Part II -Mitigation Banking Plan. In addition to the requested changes noted in the text of the WMBPP, please revise Part II of the document as follows: Format the sections so that it is clear where more information is to be added for site 1. For instance, in the performance standards would have a subsection for each site. The subsection for site 2 would include that information currently in the text of the WMBPP, while the subsection for site 1 would simply state that performance standards for site 1 will be included when more information becomes available. In Parametrix, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and Plan Review Comments Page 3 summary, I wish the WMBPP document to accommodate space for the expected additional information now to minimize the need for future reformatting. Since there will not be a trail along Springbrook Creek on site 2, I wish to reconsider how the existing berm is utilized in the proposed site plan. I think the existing berm should be excavated down in elevation so that it is overtopped by whatever design storm we choose. It is not currently overtopped for even a 100-year event. Allowing the berm to be overtopped in lesser event would reduce in-stream velocities and provide even greater shoreline stabilization as well as additional flood storage and flow capacity. We will continue with the present scheme for the agency and public meetings, however, before making any changes. I do not think we should use cultural value in the functional evaluation. Some of the characteristics would appropriately work fit in the wetland condition function, such as number of wetland types and ownership. The site base maps are to be AutoCad drawings made to City of Renton standards as agreed to in the contract. The location of transects and other monitoring-stations should be shown on the plan. There seemed to be some confusion in Chapters 4 and 5 of Part II regarding the methods for measuring that performance standards have been met and methods for achieving the proposed objectives. There also needs to be a clearer connection or distinction between the monitoring required in Chapter 6 of Part II and the monitoring that is needed to demonstrate that the performance standards have been met. Monitoring should be conducted in accordance with standard practices or methodologies, such as is done for wetland delineations. Please cite these standard practices or methodologies where appropriate for monitoring vegetation, soil, fauna, etc. Several hydrologic and hydraulic analysis reports that contain information relevant to the project were not cited in the document or included in the list of references. These include the 1989 FEMA, the 1991 Hydrologic Analysis by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, and the March 1992 Hydraulic Analysis Report by R.W. Beck. In conclusion, when revising the document, keep in mind who the readers may be, i.e., the general public, City Council, business owners, developers, property owners, agencies, and special interest groups. The executive summary in particular should be written so that it is clear to all readers. Sincerely, (,j':v AW� Scott Woodbury, P.E., Project Manager Surface Water Utility H:DOCS:95-205:SSW:ps Enclosure CC: Ron Straka CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 9, 1995 TO: Mark Pywell Sue Carlson Leslie Betlach Don Erickson Lee Haro FROM: Scott Woodbury SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS FROM JANUARY 27, 1995 DESIGN TEAM MEETING ON THE WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROGRAM AND PLAN (WMBPP) Following is a summary of the policy and implementation decisions resulting from the January 27, 1995 design team meeting: Decision 1. Issue a general wavier from the Wetlands Management Ordinance (WMO) so that no separate City documentation is required when a Corps nationwide permit with notification or an individual permit is required. Decision 2. Issue a general wavier from the WMO so that only the 1987 manual for delineation of wetlands is required when a Corps nationwide permit with notification or an individual permit is required. This decision was contingent upon the findings of further study as to whether there would be enough acreage to fill the available space in the bank if the 1987 manual was used or if there were some other overriding county or state requirement to use the 1989. It has been since been confirmed that adopted King County policy requires use of the 1989 manual for wetland delineations. The 1989 manual must continue to be used in order for the City to be comply with the County policy as required by the Growth Management Act. Therefore, a general wavier for use of only the 1987 manual cannot be issued. Decision 3. Issue a general wavier from the WMO for the banking program so that certificate of occupancy may be issued prior to implementation of the bank if fee in lieu payment is paid in full and a Corps permit is obtained. The mitigation must be implemented in a timely manner as required by law. The maximum allowable time limit, if any, will be confirmed with the City Attorney. /A:> -r/l--V- L-,.-,17- A�-A AIT04" 3/j(,1g6, sEl, N�,65 Decision 4. Issue x general wavier from the WMO to allow use of the proposed bank functional cn-y analysis method for compensation determination in lieu of acreage replacement for Category 3 wetlands. Fi(4t Decision 5. Allow Category 1 and 2 wetland impacts from public and private projects to use the 1g1tr, mitigation banking sites, but indicate that preference will be given to Category 3 first, then Category 2, and lastly Category 1. Since the January 27, 1995 meeting, it has been since been confirmed that adopted King County policy prohibits impacts to the highest class of wetlands and City policy EN-13 of the November 16, 1994 Draft Comprehensive Plan states that high quality wetlands shall have more protection. Therefore, to be consistent with these policies the banking program should not give the appearance of trying to lessen this protection for Category 1 by making impact compensation more affordable. Therefore, Category 1 M. Pywell, S. Carlson, L. Betlach, D. Erickson and L. Haro Policy and Implementation Decision Page 2 wetlands impacts should not be allowed to be compensated at the bank sites, except for public projects for which there is an overriding public need. Decision 6. . Issue a general wavier from the WMO to allow reduction in compensation ratios for an applicant who dedicates wetlands for preservation, provided that the reduced ratio is not less than 1:1. Decision 7. Issue a general wavier from the WMO so that restoration replacement ratios of the WMO may be reduced to 1:1 for impacts to Category 3 wetlands impacted during construction of the wetland mitigation banking sites. Decision 8. Allow immediate withdrawal of 100% of the expected credit to be achieved at the mitigation banking sites. In subsequent discussions with the project consultant, it is recommended that immediate withdrawal of 100% apply to acreage credit only. Immediately withdrawal of a lesser percentage of some of the functional credit was recommended by the consultant for functions such as habitat structure which take more time to become established. It is believed that this approach will be more acceptable to the agencies. Decision 9. Add a procedure to the implementation section of the WMBPP document to allow additional banking areas to be added to the wetland mitigation banking program. Decision 10. Give preference to wetlands within the valley or to wetlands in industrial/commercial land use areas by not opening the bank for hillside or hilltop wetland impacts until a sufficient period of time has elapsed (possibly 3 years) for valley area demand to be satisfied. It is recommended that the timing for opening of the bank to hillside or hilltop wetland impacts be at the discretion of the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator. Decision 11. Separate, costs on a per mitigation site basis. Fee-in-lieu payments made prior to the construction of the mitigation bank are to be final and not subject to adjustment for actual construction costs incurred. Monitoring, maintenance, contingency, and administration costs should be included as a reasonable percentage of the construction costs. No separate full time banking program administrator is needed. Recommended Addition to Decision 11 - While fee-in-lieu payments prior to the bank construction are to be based on preconstruction cost estimates without later adjustment for actual cost incurred, any fees assessed after construction is complete are to be based on the actual cost. Decision 12. To fulfill the City's agreement with Glacier Park, the City will create new wetlands on the mitigation banking sites to compensate for the impacts allowed per the agreement. However, debits for the Glacier Park impacts may not be withdrawn immediately from the credit to be created on the site 2, but may be partially or fully withdrawal from site 1 credit. Thank you for your assistance in the development of the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and Plan. If you have any questions or if there are any corrections or additions which you would like included, please call me at X-5547. H:DOCS:95-206:SW:ps CC: Ron Olsen Ron Straka r CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 9, 1995 TO: Mark Pywell Sue Carlson Leslie Betlach Don Erickson Lee Haro FROM: Scott Woodbury � SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO DESIGN TEAM COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM AND PLAN DOCUMENT Attached are copies of the comment memoranda submitted regarding review of the Wetland Mitigation Banking Prggram and Plan (WMBPP) document. In the margin of the comment memoranda, I have added a response reference number for each comment. Use the reference number in your comment memo to find the corresponding response below to see how your particular comment will be addressed. Response 1. The comment(s) will be addressed in the document. Response 2. Scotch or Scot's broom are both proper uses. Response 3. The high and low designations of Wetland Condition will be reversed for clarity. Response 4. Throughout the design process we will continue to coordinate with the Parks Department regarding the location and extent of trail, interpretive, and other recreational improvements to be included in the site design. The final scope of improvements to be constructed depends upon what the agencies will give us permits to build. Response 5. Implementation will be completed in at least two phases. Mitigation site 2 is scheduled to be fully constructed in 1996 as Phase I to initiate the program. Site 1 construction may be done in more than one phase and the timing for implementation depends upon the need for mitigation, successful implementation of site 2, available funding, and other factors. Because there is not as much detailed existing information for site 1, the proposed design scope and cost for site 1 will be further refined when more information becomes available. The document will be as complete as possible with respect to site 1 while clearly identifying that further refinement is planned for the design of site 1. Because more information is available for site 2 for a detailed cost estimate and because site 2 will be constructed prior to site 1, the costs for participating in the bank will be separated on a per mitigation site basis. M. Pywell, S. Carlson, L. Betlach, D. Erickson, L. Haro Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and Plan Document Page 2 Response 6. A "blow-up" of the valley area will be added as an additional figure as well as making the other suggested changes. Table 1 and Figure I will also include references to each other. Response 7. As discussed in the January 27, 1995 design team meeting, the WMBPP document was given to the design team to review concurrently with Surface Water Utility (SWU) staff review. Therefore, SWU staff were not aware that the consultant had assumed that a full-time administrator would be needed. SWU staff concur that no separate full-time banking program administrator is needed. The costs included in the January 1995 version of the WMBPP, however, are believed to be low at only $25,000 per acre. More detailed costs estimates are being prepared by the consultant to more accurately define the costs. Response 8. The consultant is working on revising the WMBPP based upon design team and SWU staff comments. The revised draft when completed will be issued for the review of property owners, agencies, the general public, and others. Separate agency and general public meetings will be held to solicit input. As discussed in the January 27, 1995 meeting, your assistance in developing a marketing strategy for the bank and in coordinating input from the property owners is appreciated. Response 9. The Wetland Mitigation Banking Program implements the City and King County policy of "no net loss" by offsetting losses to other wetlands. Offsetting losses to lower quality wetlands will be accomplished if there is a net gain achieved by the compensation. In the case of a Category 3 wetland there may not be a net gain in acreage if the replacement ratio is 1:1. However, a net gain in function will likely be realized because of the higher quality of the created wetlands on the wetland mitigation bank sites. Thus function, as well as acreage, can be used to assess whether there is a net gain and that "lower quality wetlands" have been replaced. Since the January 27, 1995 meeting, it has been since been confirmed that adopted King County policy prohibits impacts to the highest class of wetlands and City policy EN-13 of the November 16, 1994 Draft Comprehensive Plan states that high quality wetlands shall have more protection. Therefore, to be consistent with thes&.policies the banking program should not give the appearance of trying to lessen this protection for Catagory 1 by making impact compensation more affordable. Therefore, Category 1 wetlands impacts should not be allowed to be compensated at the bank sites, except for public projects for which there is an overriding public need. Response 10. Section 4-32-6C.5 and 4-32-6C.6 specify when a 1:1 replacement ratio applies for Category 3 impacts. In summary, a 1:1 applies if the compensation was successfully completed 12 months in advance of the impact or if an applicant can aggregate two or more wetlands into one wetland. Mitigation by the City for the Glacier Park impacts will be at 1:1 because the impacted wetlands will be compensated by the construction of a single larger wetland. For other potential users of the mitigation bank, it is hoped that both conditions are met. Response 11. It is preferred that the banking program will be solely used to mitigate impacts to Category 3 wetlands and it will be clearly so noted in the document. Category 1 impacts will not be allowed to mitigate at the bank sites as noted in Response 9 above, unless for a public project for which there is an overriding public need. Category 2 impacts will be allowed as agreed in the January 27, 1995 design team meeting. It is expected that the higher replacement ratios and thus higher user fees for Category 2 wetlands will serve to limit use of the bank by Category 2 impacts. Use of the bank in any circumstance is subject to all other state and federal approvals. M. Pywell, S. Carlson, L. Betlach, D. Erickson, L. Haro Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and Plan Document Page 3 Response 12. In order for the program to work, user fees will have to be reasonable priced. Anticipating what cost the user market will consider reasonable is one of the challenges of establishing a banking program. The costs included in the January 1995 version of the WMBPP are believed to be low at only $25,000 per acre. More detailed costs estimates are being prepared by the consultant to more accurately define the costs. Whether the City may or may not need to subsidize part of the cost will need to be defined prior to requesting City Council approval to appropriate and expend funds for design and construction of the bank. Response 13. It is believed that the purpose of the sentence in question is to acknowledge that the City will perform maintenance or contingency actions should monitoring results indicated that such actions are needed for the performance standards of the mitigation to be met. The funds for such actions will be appropriated through the user fees as a percentage of the construction costs. Thank you for your assistance in the development of the WMBPP. If you have any questions or if there are any corrections or additions which you would like included, please call me at X-5547. H:DOCS:95-204:Sw:ps Enclosure CC: Ron Olsen Ron Straka CITY OF RENTON Planning / Building / Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: January 17, 1995 TO: Scott Woodbury FROM: ark R. Pywell, AICP SUBJECT: WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROGRAM AND PLAN DOCUMENT Overall I felt that the document was well written and understandable. My comments are as follows: 1. Page 10, Second Line, As this refers to the Renton City Code, the number should read 4-32-1.13, this will provide a consistency between the two documents. Also, some Objectives give the name of the ordinance that is being referred to and others do not. We should state that 4-32 is the Wetland Management Ordinance for consistency and ease of reading. 2. Page 20,_4.32.3.1, As part of the streamlining process, many permits can now be obtained in three months. 3. Page 24, Second Paragraph, Second Line, I believe this would read easier if the first and was =-F�Por�sE I removed and a comma was inserted after grease. Although grease and oil are often thought of together as pollutants they are not necessarily dependent on each other and can be listed separately. 4. Page 24, Second Paragraph, Second to last sentence, This appears to be a run on sentence that can be separated into two complete sentences each with their own thought. 5. Page 26, 5.4.1, The lowest replacement ratio in the Wetlands Ordinance is 1.5 to 1. If we are allowing a reduction in the replacement ratio then the criteria we are using to base that reduction on should be included here or at least referenced. 6. Page 29, There is a reference here to the Public Works Department. There is no such Department in this City. Should we not use the latest title and reference the correct division so that if someone reads this and calls in they can contact the correct people to answer their questions? 7. Page 35, Second Paragraph, The Western Garden Book uses the common name of Scotch Broom for this plant. Although common names can vary from region to region, I believe that Scotch Broom is the most common name for this plant. �8. Page 42, Please define a piezometer for those of us who do not recognize this term. 9. Page 43, Table 4, When I first got to this table I was really confused by the Wetland Condition line and I went back and re-read this page several times to try and figure out what I had missed because it appeared to be backwards. It was not until I gave up and proceeded to the next page that it became clear. This might be one of those tables that is better located after the descriptions (3.1.6.1 L - 9). Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Document2 City of Renton Community Services Parks Administration MEMORANDUM DATE: January 23, 1995 TO: Scott Woodbury FROM: Leslie Betlacv SUBJECT: Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and Plan Document After reviewing the above-referenced document and specifically Page 62, Section 5.6, Public Access, and as we discussed last Friday, Parks does not see the necessity for developing a trail along the berm on the west side of Springbrook Creek in Mitigation Bank Site 2. Currently, there is a developed trail along the east side of Springbrook Creek. We would prefer to see developed and improved RSPa�S� y access from the existing trail out to Oakesdale Avenue and then out to S. W. 43rd Street. In addition, a loop system could be developed utilizing Oakesdale Avenue, S. W. 34th Street, and the existing Springbrook Trail on the east side of Springbrook Creek. We also recommend trails and viewing areas extending into Mitigation Bank Site 2 with interpretive signage. In both Mitigation Bank Sites 1 and 2 the shelter concepts should be investigated further in regard to annual maintenance costs, vandalism, and accessibility. Other concerns pertain primarily to the City's required long term commitment and { the initial cost of setting up the mitigation bank. Additional information regarding KESPo�� S Mitigation Bank Site 1 is required in order to provide a thorough review of this document. It appears additional studies are to be completed. This document is labeled as the final draft and so it might be helpful to have another final draft once the additional information for Mitigation Bank 1 is completed. (Additional comments pertain primarily to spelling: 1. Page 40, Agrostis stoloneifera should be Agrostis stolonifera R�SPo�Js� I 2. Page 40, Cornus stolinifera should be Cornus stolonifera 3. Page 40, Spirea douglasii should be Spiraea douglasii L4. Page 60, Pyrus fusca should be Malus fusca Please contact me at x-5549 if you have any questions and/or would like to discuss this cc Sam Chastain wetlndmit City of Renton Mayor's Office Memorandum To: Scott Woodbury From: Susan Carlson ^' �'y ti L' Date: January 23, 1995 Subject: Comments on Wetland Mitigation Bank My comments on the Wetland Mitigation Bank are as follows: 1 Development Potential - _ • How many of the inventoried wetlands are actually on undeveloped property? How many properties are already developed and have done on-site mitigation? What is the estimate of users. It would be helpful to have some idea of what the potential use of the mitigation bank Would be. S�oIK E0 Is the Mitigation Bank an incentive for property owners? How does the Mitigation Bank cost compare to the cost of mitigating on site? 2. Map of Inventoried Wetlands and Streams - • It would be helpful if the wetlands on the map could be color coded to reflect the category of wetlands. • The addition of a few more streets, maybe Lind Ave and SW 27th would make it easier to identify where the wetlands are located. SP�rsS (� I would recommend putting Table 1 and Figure I together. • Table 1 is hard to read. Is there a more logical way to organize this list so that a particular site is easier to locate? For instance, can the sites be listed in some sort of numerical order within each classification? 3. Fee Structure and Management- • The annual cost to administer this program seem Iiigh. Why does it take "at least" on full 1 time staff person to monitor this program. I'm not sure the development demand will C support this. What are the justifications for this estimate? We have a total of 19.43 acres L available for mitigation banking. The costs seem high for such a small number of acres. • Maybe its time to ask the property owners in the area if they would use the bank if it was fo�1S E d L available. !r How will this full-time mitigation bank staff person occupy liis or her time? What type of activities will take up 8 hours a day, 5 days a week? I would like to see some additional detail on staffing costs. cc: Jay Covington CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: January 24, 1995 TO: Scott Woodbury FROM: fu Don Erickson SUBJECT: Preliminary comments on Final Draft, City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and Plan Thanks fore the opportunity to respond to the Final Draft of the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and Plan. Whereas we enthusiastically applaud what we are doing with the wetland bank there were a few areas where we thought clarification would be useful and a couple of areas where we saw potential conflicts with the provisions of the City's existing Wetlands Management Ordinance. These differences might be explained by the Wetland Bank Agreement between the City and Glacier Park, but this was not included in the Appendix. The following comments are listed by Chapter beginning with the Executive Summary. Summary: • Paragraph one states that the Mitigation Banking Plan is intended of offset "losses of lower-quality wetlands often due to private or public development." However, on the next page in paragraph three on this page, it states that a total of 34 FC�SP�r�SF wetlands including Category 1 , 2, and 3 are "potentially eligible to use the mitigation banking sites." Since Category 1 wetlands are, by definition, "very high quality" wetlands, and Category 2 wetlands are "high quality" wetlands there appears to be something missing in this initial explanation. • In paragraph four on page one reference is made to Burlington Northern having decided to divest some properties held by Glacier Park. What is unclear to the `ks average reader is the relationship of Burlington Northern to Glacier Park. Some clarification here would also make this a bit clearer_ I believe that Glacier Park was a subsidiary of BN. • In this same paragraph there is reference to the original agreement setting up the j mitigation bank and reference to the 4.11 acres of Category 3 wetlands on six � Fo �Sk to different parcels that Glacier Park was allowed to fill in exchange for the bank. It is my understanding that the 4.1 1 acres would have to be replaced pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance 4346 at a ratio of 1 .5:1 .0, not 1 .0:1 .0 as suggested here. January 23, 1995 Page 2 , This item also should be clarified for the reader since elsewhere we say that the program must be consistent with Renton's Shorelines Master Program.. • The third paragraph on page two describes the 34 wetlands (including Category 1 ,2, and 3) that potentially could use the mitigation bank. This, as noted above appears to be in conflict with the purpose statement in paragraph one on page one that the program is intended to offset losses of lower-quality wetlands. Except for rare instances where there are no other alternatives such as the extension of Oaksdale Avenue or Metro's Trunk Line Extension, it does not appear to be in the public interest to allow Category 1 or 2 wetlands to be filled and then replaced in the bank. Also, it would not appear to be practical either since the replacement ratios for Category 1 Category 2 wetlands ranges from an average of 2 to 6 times the area being filled, depending on whether it is forested wetland or scrub shrub. I believe we should be very cautious about converting Category 1 or 2 wetlands to other uses since there are likely to be significant adverse impacts that could be challenged under SEPA, there is the potential of running afoul of DOE and what was recently negotiated in terns of new shoreline jurisdiction for Springbrook Creek, and it could send the wrong message to groups that we have been working with such as the Seattle Audibon Society, Northwest Wildlife Fund, etc. that it is our intent to save and protect these remaining wetlands. I would prefer to see the program say that it is intended to primarily replace Category 3 wetlands, however, in rare instances where there is an overriding public purpose and no other alternatives limited filling of some Category 1 and 2 wetlands may be allowed, subiect to all other state and federal approvals. • In the last paragraph on this page reference is made to the estimated average cost per acre to construct wetlands. Since this is a substantial amount it is unclear whether or not the City intends to subsidize part of this cost. • Paragraph one on page three refers to the Public Works Department. This should be corrected to read: The City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department. • In paragraph two of this same page it states that most of the plan is specific to Mitigation Banking Site 2. Some explanation as to why this is so would be helpful here. r• As noted above, some explanation is needed in paragraph four to explain why the to I City is replacing the filled wetlands on the six Glacier Park sites at a ratio of 1 :1 L rather than 1 .5:1 .0 as set forth in Ordinance 4346. The word "city" in this paragraph should be capitalized. (; I In the last paragraph the word "and" in the last sentence should be changed to are • On page four of the Executive Summary mention is made that monitoring program maintenance needs and/or contingency actions may be identified later on that are required to ensure the success of the mitigation plan. It is unclear how these January 23, 1995 Page 3 would be funded and whether or not the applicant might be required to do this R�SPa/fS� 13 under SEPA. Part I - Mitigation Banking Program • Since many of the comments made above in the Summary, also apply here they have not been repeated. • In paragraph two on page 6 the relationship of Burlington Northern to Glacier Park should be explained. Likewise the reason that Glacier Park's Category 3 wetlands ASP°rJS�� are being replaced at a ratio of 1 .0:1 .0 rather than 1 .5:1 .0 as required in Section )0 4-32-6.C.3. Wetlands Creation, of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance ! should be explained. • On page nine Goal 2.1 states that the program and plan are to be consistent with the City's Wetland Management Ordinance. That ordinance states in its purpose section that it is the City's policy to: "provide maximum protection of those high value wetlands remaining in the City." However, later on in Section 3, the proposed new program states that the City: "will consider mitigation proposals for Sao NSA S the mitigation banking sites that involve impacts to Category 1 ,2, and 3 wetlands . If the program is not intended to be used to fill Category 1 and 2 wetlands I I (highest quality and high quality wetlands) except in the rarest situations these should be stated somewhere. If I were a developer and I read Part 1 .3, Potentially Eligible Wetland Acreage, I would believe that I could apply to fill in all or portions of my Category 1 and 2 wetlands under this program. Again, I would recommend that this be reserved for public projects where the public benefit is great and other alternatives do not exist. Some minor edge refinement on private developments might be considered, again, where there would be a substantial public benefit and environmental impacts are not substantial. I • Likewise, it is hard to imagine how filling of Category 1 or 2 wetland would satisfy Objective 2.2.9 on page 10. • In paragraph one of Section 3 on page 12 reference is made to approximately 37 wetlands that were identified within the Black River Drainage Basin. Later on in ��SPoNS� I this same paragraph reference is made to 34 wetlands which have been classified as Category 1 ,2, or 3 that are potentially eligible for the wetland bank program. It is unclear which three wetlands were dropped out and it is also unclear whether the City owned wetlands are also subject to filling and replacement, and if so at what ratios? Again, it is not clear why the City is considering the replacement of Category 1 and 2 wetlands under this program on both public and private lands. Wouldn't this be in potential conflict with Comp Plan Policies EN-5.0 and EN-7.0, for instance, as well as Ordinance 4346? Why this is being considered other than L for public projects where there is a substantial public benefit needs to explained. r �SPs�S� I j• On page 15, under 4.1 Eligibility Criteria, reference is made to mitigation banking as basically being a form of compensatory mitigation. This raises the question of SEPA and how it will be integrated into the program. It might make sense to make January 23, 1995 Page 4 SEPA compliance one of the eligibility criteria. Also, since criteria is plural the individual elements should be identified as criterion (Criterion 1 , 2, 3, et cetera). • On page 19, SEPA is listed as a state requirement. It should also be noted that the City has its own Environmental Ordinance which implements SEPA (Ordinance 3891 ) and which all proposals would have to comply. The second paragraph on this page suggests that the SEPA review must precede the issuance of any state or �FSNor)S� I local permits or approvals by 7 days. I do not know where the 7 days came from since WAS 197-1 1-340(2)(a) states that an agency shall not act upon a proposal for 15 days after the issuance of a DNS if the proposal involves another agency with jurisdiction such as the Army Corps or DOE. There also is a 14 day appeal period which can run concurrently with the 15 day comment period for other agencies or, in some cases, these are run consecutively. • Under Local Requirements, Subsection 4.2.3.1 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit reference is made that a shoreline permit "is required for any substantial development within 200 feet of a shoreline area." This statement needs to be clarified. A shoreline permit is required for any substantial development within 200 feet of a shoreline of the state measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark, as well as floodways, marshes, bogs, swamps or wetlands associated with a stream or lake of the state. I would suggest that we include a copy of the wetlands in the Valley that DOE has told us are associated with Springbrook Creek south SW 16th Street to SW 43rd Street (see attached). • In Subsection 5.1 , Acreage Determination on page 23, it states that a project proponent shall complete a wetland delineation. Since this is a fairly technical task I would prefer to see this read that: "A project proponent shall retain a wetland biologist or specialist certified by the Department of Ecology to prepare a wetland delineation." !• In Subsection 5.2, Functional Determination where is discusses Wetland Conditions i the last sentence of this paragraph states: " A high wetland condition rating ;._5F6,As¢ 3 j indicates that the wet►and has been altered and impacted." Since a high rating in 1 the other categories appears to indicate the potential for a high level of f attenuation/mitigation in the existing state, it is unclear why a high wetland condition rating would indicate an altered/disturbed wetland? Some explanation L here would be helpful. j• In the next paragraph under Buffer Conditions in the second sentence it states that: "Buffers can be native vegetation, open-water areas, roads, industrial, commercial and residential development, conservation areas, etc." This definition is in conflict with Ordinance 4346 which states that "it is the policy of the City of ,Renton to require buffers of natural vegetation around wetlands . . "(see 4-32-1 .13). • In Section 5.3, Credits under subsection 5.3.2, Functional Credits it is unclear why 1 ,000 credits, rather than say 100 credits, are being assigned to each of the seven categories. This differential is particularly noticeable because acres are measures L_ in the tens. January 23, 1995 Page 5 In Subsection 5.4.2, Acre Debit, forth sentence it states that replacement ratios can be adjusted and states that: "if 0.5 acres of emergent wetland were impacted, the city[sic] would require 0.625 acre[s] be replaced (1 .25:1 ratio)." This appears to be an error since Renton ordinance requires a minimum replacement ratio of 1 .5 times the area being altered for all three types of Category 3 wetlands(see 4-32- 6.C.3). . In Subsection 5.4.2, Functional Debits, second paragraph, last sentence it states that a debit of 0.625 acres would be subtracted from the number of available acres in the bank to compensate for the filling of 0.50 acres of emergent wetland. Again, it is unclear where this figure came from since Ordinance 4346 requires a replacement ratio of 1 .5 times the area being altered or a 1 .5:1 .0 replacement ratio. In order to comply with Renton's WMO 0.75 acres would have to be provided and therefore we would be subtracting 0.75 acres from the number of acres available in the bank. Part II - Mitigation Banking Plan Fln the Introduction section on page 31 the same issues about filling of lower quality wetlands needs to be addressed since this conflicts with statements elsewhere which suggest that Category 1 and 2 wetlands are eligible for filling. Also, the issue about F-the replacement ratio for Glacier Park's six emergent wetlands totaling 4.11 acres I,Lneeds to be addressed, e.g. shouldn't the replacement setaside be 1 .5 X 4.11 acres for a total of 6.165 acres? please see previous comments in this regard. Scott, for the sake of time and to give you something to start with, 1 will reserve my other comments until Friday. Thanks. cc: Ron Straka Mike Kattermann WETBANKS.DOC/CoR r. Parametrix, Inc. Consultants in Engineering and Environmental Sciences 5808 Lake Washington Blvd. N.E. Kirkland,WA 98033-7350 206-822-8880•Fax:206-889-8808 0 February 21, 1995 Scott Woodbury 55-1779-07 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Scott: Enclosed is our invoice #009804, in the amount of$1,386.53, for services rendered in the month of January, 1995, on the Wetland Mitigation Bank project. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (206) 822-8880. Sincerely, PARAMETRIX, INC. Tracey P. McKenzie Project Manager enclosure IT Printed on Recycled Paper THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF `i:i$i.'•'n$ii:�ry7i:�$S'.i .. PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR `'' " 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 zozzo To: T%Aae w\,c1Ciij Company: Phone: Fax: From: r L Joj0l3�l�t Company: Phone: Fax: Date: Pages including this cover page: Comments: �, t L Note TU F�� S cl;rh 68orf/w �, Wyss ,c/d 07WM �J(S�bd 7-,( ro %4A-CICy l �),4 // o s#i,R L4 ,,tA 6/�T j�2 a r .£ O 1 rC c S f w7 r,4 I ail 'T A)Lj A-5,dAe1 program issues requiring decision or action T,u A Nip s, 1 . problem. If an applicant must obtain corps nationwide permit with notification or individual permit, problems may arise because separate corps process is required. Problems include confusion over the area considered impacted (because the city uses the 1989 manual and the corps uses the 1987 manual), conflicting compensation requirements (replacement ratios, buffer widths, etc), and because separate documentation is needed for the city and corps processes because content and form requirements are different between the two agencies. solution: issue general wavier from the ordinance so that no separate city process or documentation is required and only one manual is used (either city use 1987 or corps use 1989). Use of the 1987 manual is more likely and will benefit the City program. It is equally important that the impact determination and compensation requirements defined by the program are agreed to by all agencies. discussion. wetland acreage and location may differ for 1987 and 1989 manuals. use of the 1987 manual for the bank will generally delineate less acreage. boeing longacres is an example. using 1987 manual, it is likely that each participating project will have lower compensation requirements. the bank would then potentially be able to accomodate a greater number of users. possible process if corps nationwide permit with notification and individual permit is required. 1 . applicant completes corps application material and provides to city for review prior to submittal to corps. 2. city works with applicant to develop application acceptable to city and applicant. concurrent preliminary discussion is also held with corps. 3. city issues wetland permit with conditions, contingent upon applicant obtaining corps permit 4. corps permit is issued or project is revised. if revision needed return to step 1 . 2. problem. ordinance requires mitigation be complete prior to issuance of certificate of occupany. prevents fee in lieu as method of raising capital for bank construction. solution: issue general wavier from ordinance so that certificate of occupancy may be issued prior to implementation of the bank if fee in lieu payment is paid in full and corps permit is obtained. if fee in lieu is used, is there a time limit for the mitigation to be performed according to state or other law. if sufficient users of the bank are available to completely use all of the credit immediately after the bank is constructed, then the bank and donor sites permit applications could be submitted to the corps in one package as a joint off-site compensation project. otherwise the city bank site permit would be separate and independent of the donor site permits. January 19, 1995 Page 2 3. problem. wetlands ordinance requires more than 1 :1 replacement ratio for restoration. impacts to existing wetlands made by construction of mitigation banking wetlands requires restoration of additional acreage above that impacted in order to mitigate. solution: issue general wavier from ordinance so that restoration replacement ratios of ordinance may be reduced to 1 :1 for impacts to catagory 3 wetlands made in conjunction with a mitigation banking program. if the ordinance recognized enhancement, then a less than 1 :1 restoration replacement ratio would potentially be possible. corps approval of less than 1 :1 is unlikely unless the replacement had met performance standards. 4. problem. applicant obtains corps permit for large category 1 or 2 wetland and because of large compensation ratios, uses the entire bank. solution: limit bank participation to category 3, except for city projects, unless approved by department administrator on case-by-case basis. this is expected to enhance the potential that the corps will approve the program and minimize risk that the bank would be used up by one large private project that is able to get a corps individual permit 5. problem. no incentive for wetland preservation solution. allow reduction in compensation ratios for an applicant who dedicates wetlands for preservation. city has recently acquired large areas for preservation. 6. problem. ordinance does not recognize enhancement except when using a nationally recognized method such as WET solution. issue general wavier from ordinance to allow for use of proposed bank functional analysis method for compensation determination in lieu of acreage replacement. allow to apply to category 3 wetland impacts only after the performance standards on bank have been met. this will allow some credit to be realized for functional gains achieved by restoration of existing wetland areas. it may be worth trying to see if agencies will allow less than 1 :1 for the glacier park mitigation based on function after performance standards are met. must realize that function of glacier park wetland impacts will be recovered through restoration of existing wetland areas. only acreage must still be compensated and potentially at less than 1 :1 if enhancement is recognized. 7. problem. timing for credit withdrawals. the corps and other agencies may place restrictions on how much of the credit may be issued before the wetland mitigation bank site performance standards have been met. solution. propose immediate withdrawal of 100% of the expected gain. this will give the city bargain position for a lesser percentage if less the agencies will not allow 100%. in the wsdot agreement on 50% of the expected credit could be used immediately. the remaining 50% could be withdrawn only after performance standards are met. January 19, 1995 Page 3 8. problem. no procedure for adding area to wetland mitigation bank program. what if p-1 channel right-of-way adjacent to site 1 is not used for p-1 channel. what if east cell of wetland w-12 may be enhanced by breaching dike between east and west cells and sharing water confined in west cell over entire wetland. solution. add procedure to implementation section of the plan to allow areas to be added. 9. problem. generating program capital solutions: 1 ) allow fee in lieu detention for sites adjacent to bank sites; 2) allow users of bank to pay fee in lieu prior to bank construction (see problem 2); 3) obtain public works trust fund loan; 4) utility, other city department, or general fund finances more than its proportionate share and is paid back by user fees. determination of proportionate share will need to be determined once more accurate cost estimates are available. 10. problem. corps has postured that all wetlands in valley will require individual permits. if this holds true, then a valley wetland will take longer to obtain a corps permit that a hilltop or hillside. therefore hillside and hilltop wetlands may take precidence over valley wetlands if first come first serve basis is used for bank program. bank may be depleted before industrial areas in valley are able to get corps permits. solution: give preference to wetlands within the valley or to wetlands in industrial/commercial land use areas by only allowing hillside or hilltop wetlands to withdraw credits that become available after the performance criteria in the bank have been met (see problem 7). 11 . problem. alternatives analysis for corps to issue nationwide with notification and individual permits may require looking at alternative sites out of city of renton. solution. obtain corps commitment to limit alternatives analysis to other city of renton sites with same land use designation. as most of remaining industrial land in within valley this will hopefully limit alternate sites to valley 12. problem. uncertainty in construction, monitoring, and maintenance costs limits use of bank by private projects. solution: separate costs on a per site basis. site 1 would be refined as more information becomes available. if fee in lieu prior to construction, then charge initial fee based on construction estimates. the final fee would be based on actual construction costs within a predefined upper limit. monitoring and maintenance January 19, 1995 Page 4 costs should be included as a reasonable percentage of construction cost. contingency costs to fund non-maintenance reconstruction, if needed to meet performance criteria, would be paid for by city from a pre-established contingency account. exactly who pays into the contingency account needs to be determined. 13. problem. uncertainty in administration costs limits use of bank by private projects. solution: administration costs are not included in bank fees, but are paid from other city revenue (business tax, sales tax, other). other program needs: 1 . debit determination form (with wetland evaluation forms include summary of acre/function/values impacted; replacement ratios, required compensation, other) 2. credit withdrawal form 3. credit/debit balance sheet 4. reporting forms 5. administration handbook plan issues for decision or action 1 . review options for modifying site 2 design to incorporate pedestrian easement area along springbrook creek. modify pedestrian trail component of project per parks memo. 2. problem. invasive weeds. solution. start interim vegetation management program now and continue until bank construction occurs 3. issues needing discussion in plan. dewatering/stream bypass construction phasing disposal of excess material (need for city owned fill site) sediment and other water quality issues (temperature, dissolved oxygen) fish passage/stranding/rearing/resting/habitat maximize flood storage public access contaminated sediment erosion during and after construction pollution control mosquito breeding structures for bridge (or use of existing bridge) structures hydraulic controls January 19, 1995 Page 5 protecting plants from predation invasive weeds utility conflicts (sewer line at sw corner of site 2, other) activity within shoreline, waters of u.s., ordinary high water mark tree removal potential design/permitting/bid phase costs 1 . survey a. right bank of springbrook creek along site 2 b. full channel from south site 2 property line to sw 41 st street. need to resolve location of district ownership in this area. unclear on assessor's maps. C. city owned fill site (if necessary) 2. design drawings and specs for bank site and potentially city owned fill site (if necessary) 3. administration and securing funding 4. local, state, and federal permits for bank site and potentially city owned fill site (if necessary) 5. advertizing, bid review, and award potential construction bid items (include tax) ✓excavation Jfill mobilization d pollution control .,monitoring devices (ground and/or surface) riprap dewatering J topsoil/soil amendments ✓geomembrane J planting habitat structures J surveying k concrete sidewalk j pedestrian bridge r asphalt paving ✓crushed surfacing signage clearing and grubbing ,1 traffic control i gabions for sidewalk from 41 st street to south property corner January 19, 1995 Page 6 other construction related costs construction contract management inspections monitoring and reporting maintenance contingencies administration Parametrix, Inc. Consultants in Engineering and Environmental Sciences 5808 Lake Washington Blvd.N.E. Kirkland,WA 98033-7350 206-822-8880•Fax:206-889-8808 V Mr. Scott Woodbury January 17, 1995 City of Renton 55-1779-07 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Scott: Enclosed is the computer disk with the text of the mitigation program and plan and the AutoCAD files. I looked at the text after it was converted to Word, and the format appears to be intact. Please let me know if the format changes when you open the file on your computer. Some of the figures in the document were created by the graphic department using existing map sources from R.W. Beck. The maps from R.W. Beck were scanned into a computer, and figures were generated from the computer scan. We can not convert these computer files into AutoCAD because of incompatibilities between the scanner and AutoCAD. Computer Image Technologies (206) 441-4015 does have a scanner that is compatible with AutoCAD and can convert the figures into AutoCAD. The cost to convert figures to AutoCAD depends on the density of information on a figure. Rates for an 11 inch by 17 inch figure range from $150.00 to $200.00. Please call me at (206) 822-8880 if you have any questions or need more information. Sincerely, PARAMETRIX, INC. Nam Tracey McKenzie 1�� Printed on Recycled Paper Parametrix, Inc. Con �Igineering and Environmental Sciences 5808 Lake Washington Blvd.N.E. Kirkland,WA 98033-7350 206-822-8880•Fax:206-889-8808 N 1995 CITY OF RENTON Engineering Dept. January 3, 1995 Scott Woodbury 55-1779-07 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Scott: Enclosed is our invoice #009297, in the amount of$298.13, for services rendered in the month of November, 1994, on the Wetland Mitigation Bank project. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (206) 822-8880. Sincerely, PARAMETRIX, INC. t "wkuv o Tracey P. McKenzie Project Manager enclosure Printed on Recycled Paper PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ��Y O� MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 a UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2631 NT 0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2620 TO: DATE: JOB NO.: RE: ATTN: GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS ❑ REPRODUCIBLE PLANS o SPECIFICATIONS ❑ COPY OF LETTER ❑ COPIES DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: o FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL o FOR YOUR USE ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION ❑ AS REQUESTED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS o FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPIES TO: SIGNED TITLE IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 v �� a UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2631 NT 0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2620 TO: DATE: JOB NO.: RE: ATTN: GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: o SHOP DRAWINGS o PRINTS ❑ REPRODUCIBLE PLANS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS ❑ COPY OF LETTER ❑ COPIES DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL ❑ FOR YOUR USE ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION ❑ AS REQUESTED o RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS o RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS ❑ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT o ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPIES TO: SIGNED TITLE IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 ;�: :�;•,.zN: FAX: 235-2541 To:TQx E"i- Company: Phone: Fax: oC°g-�g08 From: od93um Company: Phone: Fax: Date: 17-4-hzf Pages including this cover page: 5- Comments: D U .�7-Y60 CAN7-P. - T P�s� PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 0 UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2631 NT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2620 TO: DATE: JOB NO.: RE: ATTN: GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU o ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: o SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS ❑ REPRODUCIBLE PLANS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS ❑ COPY OF LETTER ❑ COPIES DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ❑ FOR APPROVAL o APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL ❑ FOR YOUR USE o APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION o AS REQUESTED o RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS ❑ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPIES TO: SIGNED TITLE IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 s To: Shannon Harris Company: Parametrix Phone: 1 -206-822-8880 Fax: 1 -206-889-8808 From: Scott Woodbury Company: Phone: 206-277-5547 Fax: 206-235-2541 Date: 1 1 /18/94 Pages including this cover page: 6 — 11 Comments: Following is a revised draft of contract CAG-93-080 Addendum No. 1-94 for your review. I added Task 4 to clarify what meetings we wish Tracey or someone else from Parametrix to attend. I also made minor changes to Exhibits B and C. Please call me as soon as possible with concurrence so that we can route the contract to the City Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator for signature. Also attached is a copy of Parametrix's Professional Liability Certificate of Insurance. We need the certificates revised as noted and new certificates issued as soon as possible. Please call me if you have any questions at the above number. Thank you for your help. NOV-13-94 SUN 18:45 PAKAME'l'KIX FAX N0, 205 889 8808 P. 01/04 ADDENDUM NO. 1. =ExhibitA - odigcation to Scope of Work Task 1. Adjacency Issue Assistance and Coordination Purpose: To assist the City and try to get the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to not designate wetlands on the banking sites as adjacent. Description: Parametrix and Talasea assisted the City of Renton in their discussions with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regarding the jurisdictional status of the wetlands on the mitigation banking sites. Specifically,Parametrix and Talasea reviewed documentation provided by the Corps and the City, prepared an issues and position memo fob the City to use in their discussions with the Corps, and coordinated with the City of Renton. These activities were done at the request of the City and were considered to be an out-of-scope activity. Product: An issues and position memo for the City to use in their discussions with the Corps. Task 2. Wetland Functional Assessment Purpose: To prepare a wetland functional assessment on the existing on-site wetlands and on the wetlands to be established on the sites. Description: Based on a meeting with the regulatory agencies, the City will need to complete an assessment of the functions and values of the existing wetlands on the mitigation banking sites. The method used to complete the functional assessment will be the method employed after the mitigation banking sites have been constructed to compare how functions and values have changed and increased. The functional method will also be used by project proponents to assess the functions and values of wetlands they want to fill so that the City can determine if these functions and values can be replaced at the mitigation banking sites. The City and Parametrix have discussed various methodologies that could be used. There are several methodologies available; however, there is no one methodology agreed to by the federal and state regulatory agencies. Since the functions and values methodology will be used by project proponents and the City, Parametrix believes that the methodology to be used must be accessible and relatively easy to understand and use. Therefore, Parametrix proposes to complete a functions and values assessment of the wetlands on the mitigation banking sites using; a modified version of the Post-it'Fax Note 7671 Date Llgv "0 pagos� addendimp From Co./Dept. � Co. Phone# /t Pnono ---_.- Fax#C935j. a5 Fax w -- NOV-13-94 SUN 18:46 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P. 02/04 Washington Department of Ecology's (Ecology) wetland characterization inventory forms. This form along with an explanation of how to use the form will be incorporated into an appendix of the final plan. Product: Wetland functional assessment data sheets and documentation explaining the methodology. The assessment and documentation will be included in the final draft plan. Task 3. Reformatting to Conform to Department of Ecology's Recently Issued Mitigation Plan Guidelines Purpose: To reformat the mitigation banking plan to conform to the format adopted by federal and state agencies. Description: Since the City has embarked on developing a mitigation banking plan, Ecology, the Corps, U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency have developed guidelines for preparing wetland mitigation plans for freshwater wetlands, This document provides the framework, format, organization, and check lists that should be Used to develop mitigation plans. After discussions with the City, the City and Parametrix believe that reformatting the final draft and final mitigation banking plan to conform to the guidelines will be beneficial, Specifically, it will be presented in the format agreed to by the agencies and will aid them in their review of the document. Product: A mitigation plan in a format developed by federal and state agencies. PuR.fosls P sFNT P/5 jsr o1-Pil 7AS/C P�ouc�s 7a VP�4tbU57 &fl,3U/57 pfSGKt/flop Tia S/t A414/G/1Ar/aw r�1 ?kf �oc,GUw/Ut wowto is ,x �' Ii�d r iUv�,a L Cja rT 6iChvS io to TNT TIni,W— j-tlt T4E Slf ,•y%f�jr,,,-t,s /.,, 5Vv..,.' i,r k-t-ifiAir Ar• � r )-ellh6 6k,,na awa ho,NLttS j //U5,fr71>r1,N n1�FICh'4- / 1, 76 7`!'f </ �i�sIG✓ 7E. addendl.w n` November 1U, 1994 Z P/usiE-,NnPT/ctiJ A" C ZO",k.,AF,„N "'A"rr'16-S U/rr9 fiyf GIN 3 PR�a�,�r�►��ou 7-6 7,4 e, c4r-, of R4-iTuO c4u4c iL NOV-13-94 SUN 18:46 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 03/04 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION /wM�►wf� ��,p(?�U�� F.(:>~ - �titx c<, R,a� rt,Au- 12/94 "' �`'t r�.�S�N� "s0cr Preliminary Internal Draft 4401 WMBP to Ecology Guidelines Teen, i r 1J95 Mot. Etlllr-� �.44L' r+ Ar Design Team Review G+n� c,�,, ,rs. L ( .r,uN�ra Gr£txi ,To T wry a"'n Apc lrgA /n+►��( r o� �Nco/e%Jv+,fff L/yS AgefiGYg 945 Public Meeting ak�lG,j C.,, 4rr /ts3s�L Council Presentation v( mbof __.---------------------------------- ———--——————————————CoiitractAddendum raft Final�Zv raft Perriiminary D Site 2 _ plicFatio Agency Review —fif4S �s Submit Local, State, and Federal Permit Applications Local Permits Issued State and Federal Permits Issued 3/96 Bid Documents Final Design 4/96 Advertise/Award 6/46 Start Construction CD o Exhibit C- Addendum 1 �- Cost Estimate City or Renton Wetland Mitigation Program t Task I Task 2 Task 3 -r 7` �L co 0 co MX Hours 36 34 22 co M MX Labor $1,097 $1,163 $775 co Overhead 169% ( ) $1,854 $1,687 $1,125 o PM Subtotal $2,951 $2,850 $1,900 N Direet Costs S I DO c5 PMX Total $2,951 $2,850 $2,000 x T TAL Hours 32 TAL Labor $1,840 Direct Costs TAL subtotal $I,840 Handling Fee i $184 TAL total $2,024 PTota!s 4 $4,975 E $2,850 $2,000 1y9;$; �j q Pj Z rx F— z ¢ co z z rn i i z OCT-26-94 WED 10:20 TWO EMS, INC, FAX NO. 2032451805 l%/9Y P. 01 Two Ems, Inc. 782 Boston Post Rd., Madison, Connecticut 06443 Date: S)zi_ z G- 19 l g Pages following: TO: Name: Sc&f+ V-:etnd bJ)�i Company: CL ii� oF t�e►nion Fax - a,5}1 FROM: Name: T ru(eu mcl4gp t- Phone #: 203-245-8211 Fax #: 203-245-1805 cof)-�-fo' o-- . OCT-26-94 WED 10:20 TWO EMS, INC, FAX N0, 2032451805 P. 02 ADDENDUM NO. 1 Exhibit A - Modification to Scope of Work 1. Adjacency Issue Assistance and Coordination Parametrix and Talasea assisted the City of Renton in their discussions with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regarding the jurisdictional status of the wetlands on the mitigation banking sites. Specifically, Parametrix and Talasea reviewed documentation provided by the Corps and the City, prepared an issues and position memo for the City to use in their discussions with the Corps, and coordinated with the City of Renton. These activities were done at the request of the City and were considered to be an out-of-scope activity. 2. Wetland Functional Assessment Based on a meeting with the regulatory agencies, the City will need to complete an assessment of the functions and values of the existing wetlands on the mitigation banking sites. The method used to complete the functional assessment will be the method employed after the mitigation banking sites have been constructed to compare how functions and values have changed and increased. The functional method will also be used by project proponents to assess the functions and values of wetlands they want to fill so that.the City can determine if these functions and values can be replaced at the mitigation banking sites. The City and Parametrix have discussed various methodologies that could be used. There are several methodologies available; however, there is no one methodology agreed to by the federal and state regulatory agencies. Since the functions and values methodology will be used by project proponents and the City, Parametrix believes that the methodology to be used must be accessible and relatively easy to understand and use. Therefore, Parametrix complete a functions and values assessment of the wetlands on the mitigation banking sites using a modified version of the Washington Department of Ecology's (Ecology) wetland characterization inventory forms. This form along with an explanation of how to use the form will be incorporated into an appendix of the final plan. 3. Reformatting to Conform to Department of Ecology's Recently Issued Mitigation Plan Guidelines Since the City has embarked on developing a mitigation banking plan, Ecology, the Corps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency have developed guidelines for preparing wetland mitigation plans for freshwater wetlands. This document provides the framework,format, organization, and check lists that should be used to develop mitigation plans. After discussions with the City, the City and Parametrix believe that reformatting the final draft and final mitigation banking plan to conform to the guidelines will be beneficial. Specifically, it will be presented in the format agreed to by the agencies and will aid them in their review of the document. addendl.wp October 13, 1994 OCT-26-94 WED 10:21 TWO EMS, INC. FAX NO. 2032451805 P, 03 ADDENDUM NO. 1 Exhibit B - Schedule for Completion Overall, the final draft mitigation banking plan and program document will be submitted to the City of Renton to review by November 16, 1994. All sections will be complete and will include all sections identified in the final draft table of contents already submitted to the City, appendices, tables, figures, functional assessment, etc. AS 1--kA 0V4 addendLwp October 13y 1994 OCT-26-94 WED 10:21 TWO EMS, INC. FAX NO. 2032451805 P. 04 _ ADDENDUM NO. 1 Exhibit C - Costs Anticipated for Contract Amendment 1. Adjacency Issue Assistance and Coordination Parametrix $2,988.00 Talasea $2,025.00 Total $5,013.00 2. Wetland Functional Assessment $2,800.00 3. Reformatting to Conform to Department of Ecology's Recently Issued Mitigation Plan Guidelines $2,000.00 Total Contract Amendment $9,813.00 if /N 7YA„, addendl.wp October 13, 1994 THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS x FOURTH FLOOR ` ice 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 »>} > FAX: 235-2541 To: 7GC'6� Vt-'c,c�-214 Company: Phone: Fax: From: SC,d- LJ000 /3(A Company: Phone: '--? 7 - 557" Fax: Date: b/ Pages including this cover page: Z Comments: F'L,�(A S,,( 00gi;�VoVA. FaS "� � PaSf! (�� - T*t A09 /vorj /ac, (auk Ic I 1 ADJ .uC.�i 1 SSu,' COWI-0 ASS!SSrw T �a 3) I' col i T4 PLfAsh- w/ 7-4 FCAO Wv JLV Li 0 /a, Fuu, PJU clm i,l/A DAFT CK410Rt III l o� / I!-' Ay-TleL'�. ADDENDUM NO. 1 to CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES DATE: July 19, 1993 for CAG-93-080 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 $xx,xxx, which is an increase of $x,xxx. Z_# 6uC 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 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 Earl Clymer, Mayor Type or print name Attest: Signature Date Title Marilyn J. Petersen, City Clerk H:DOCS:94-work2:SW:ps FA 1 RANSMITtML MEIVI-0- -- 4—of pages . FRO 1°y�9y 2-2-7- 55g7 Table 111- ,3 Interpretation of Inundation Data ..Elevation GREATER than or equal Critical Total Hours Analysed: 224016 (1) Period of Analysis :11/ 9/1961 - 5/30/1987 using months 1 to 120 Critical Depths 17.500 18.000 19.000 20.000 21.000 22.000 23, 0 %t >- Critical 4.447 2.615 0.912 0.288 0.077 0.018 0.002 t >= Critical 9962 5859 2044 645 172 40 5 Total Events 427 273 103 35 10 5 1 Duration(hr) Events 3 402 256 99 35 10 5 1 6 356 230 89 30 10 3 0 9 292 188 75 28 8 3 0 12 260 154 57 22 6 1 0 18 191 110 46 15 5 0 0 24 135 90 32 12 1 0 0 30 ill 70 24 7 1 0 0 36 91 51 15 4 1 0 0 42 74 40 12 2 0 0 0 48 56 29 7 1 0 0 0 60 32 18 2 0 0 0 -0 72 20 8 1 0 0 0 0 84 12 4 1 0 0 0 0 96 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 108 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 120 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 132 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 144 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 168 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 18080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Notes: 1. Total no. of hours in analysis 2. Months (season) analyzed 3. Water surface elevation D 4. Percent of time water surface elevation exceeds D 5. No. of hours water surface elevation exceeds D 6. No. of discrete events in which water surface elevation exceeded D 7. No, of events in which water surface elevation exceeded D for a duration greater than T Example: There were 230 events in the period of analysis in which the water surface elevation was greater than +18 ft for a duration greater than 6 hours. ..Elevation GREATER than or equal Critical Total Hours Analysed: 56304 Period of Analysis :10/ 9/1961 - 5/30/1987 using months 1 to 3 Critical Depths 17.500 18.000 19.000 20.000 21.000 22.000 23.000 %t >= Critical 8.019 3.936 1.060 0.325 0.123 0.016 0.000 t >= Critical 4515 2216 597 183 69 9 0 Total Events 197 103 . 34 10 5 2 0 Duration(hr) Events 3 187 99 33 10 5 2 0 6 161 84 30 10 5 1 0 9 139 69 23 7 5 0 0 12 119 61 20 6 3 0 0 18 86 53 13 4 1 0 0 24 64 43 9 3 0 0 0 30 50 27 6 2 0 0 0 36 45 20 5 1 0 0 0 42 37 12 2 1 0 0 0 48 25 10 1 0 0 0 0 60 15 4 0 ,0 0 0 0 72 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 84 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..Elevation GREATER than or equal Critical Total Hours Analysed: 56040 Period of Analysis :10/ 9/1961 - 5/30/1987 using months 4 to 6 Critical Depths 17.500 18.000 19.000 20.000 21.000 22.000 23.000 %t >= Critical 1.394 0.439 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 t >= Critical 781 246 38 0 0 0 0 Total Events 58 22 4 0 0 0 0 Duration(hr) Events 3 56 21 4 0 0 0 0 6 42 15 4 0 0 0 0 9 31 11 2 0 0 0 0 12 23 8 1 0 0 0 0 18 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 24 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 30 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 36 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -Elevation GREATER than or equal Critical Total Hours Analysed: 55200 Period of Analysis :10/ 9/1961 - 5/30/1987 using months 7 to 9 Critical Depths 17.500 18.000 19.000 20.000 21.000 22.000 23.000 %t >= Critical 0.792 0.250 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 t >= Critical 437 138 18 0 0 0 0 Total Events 44 15 2 0 0 0 0 Duration(hr) Events 3 41 14 1 0 0 0 0 6 32 9 1 0 0 0 0 9 21 6 1 0 0 0 0 12 14 5 1 0 0 0 0 18 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 24 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF h;# :.: N s- PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS =� "xF� `�L`'``F" '$F F"ram# ; : ,:,,:,::, . ,.......... .. OFF,:;: FOURTH FLOOR 3%r- }%% 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 #yv1: To: Company: Phone: Fax: From: SLov- rjo6a3ol� Company: Phone: Z-7-7- Fax: Date: Pages including this cover page: Comments: BL S I'T ---A V, w iF/ ��7 6'61 m "T S . 7/4,,)r5, wuu t G LFA7 c y 1�,PhO,�,O, 22 '94 07:50 NW HYDRAULIC CONSULT 604 P02 r Exhibit A - Scope of Work Wetland Banking Reconnaissance Study for East Side Green River Watershed 11 Ta - Project Administration Project administra ' eludes quality control, invoicin e control, miscellaneous client contacts, work sum emoranda, effort related to the administration of this contract. Product • othly n invoices and work summaries, and q ance on all work products I Task - Preliminary Mode i e Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) will modify ourAuture land-use/current conveyance system HSPF model of Springbrook Creek to account for additional storage proposed at Wetland Mitigation Bank Site 2 near Oakesdale Avenue and SW 34th Street. Note that the attached estimate assumes that the current conveyance system HSPF model being developed for the ESGRWP will be available for use in this study. Quantification of the stage/volume relationship for the proposed bank site will be provided by the City of Renton. For preliminary modeling, the inflow/outflow effects of the wetland banking site will be assumed to be negligible (i.e. flows will be assumed to pass freely into and out of the bank site without hydraul�FC 55or�strai nt) NHC �,kJ will perform long term simulations for water years 1961-1991n#or tie-lei g' ringtrooT tleW Sw 3� as System with the existing conveyance system and with the proposed addj*tiQnal off-channel storage S provided by the wetland bank site. ��'r �04 a4 'f%.� �c •�•L(ur� the 31 simulated Lecoi e rmin ey r �ArinPl)rOOk t'r�lr j ctr�am $W i4th Ctrr�t�with anti withoirt the ivatland banking-rresect. - mp t. of rernT�d�.+h� a�►-be-ehosemto-�chara en gs ofile4ispF-nvdeft. B on these preliminary HSPF and HEC-2 modeling results a recomm 'on to the City of Renton on orm more detailed hydraulic and hydrologic m e expected benefit, in terms of flood peak and stage reduction, f e proposed ban ect. a G.,rrre�+ QJ ;tJfK/t Products: HSPF models (version 10) of the-,Iewef Springbrook Creek system with and without the proposed project Frequency plots for Springbrook Creek upstream of SW 34th Street �1 Table of nts ReGer- mendation ^^_*b 1iP}I1Pr (lr not to n rform additinnal mn�g 7TH� vo Sf6— ti,-��u. c� TI(.&71 J 9 Ic 5-17-,f 15 64C/�( o or/-or VN�EA /a S¢�,4(1�� S�BCr,)- - TU T GJTys GAG-Sa-U33 /'roa�,�pv.+. �tld. co"77 �Cf' t/�719 (,'v.J. 15'!r6k. T/4 �kSu�rS wi 3� 4v m,�Itrt F� �� 7 7�4 r dj�AA)04h, TV 6 r, "22 rIn/o /.A 'rb v .,��Atr F„Il /__ A i.... — -1- A -- H'l/M 4n-VrtV r r,P --,vvy Uw n Gr G yynvrl `^ '17 02�01 3� c Yff-z r'/ _s <s v 7-9 `,^may L Ving c o o 000 N N N Nl fiBo r�NII 9Nl1 M MM ei N CA to Nt/ SE°-26-94 MON 12:41 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P. 01/05 Parametrix Inc. 7�2 7�9y 5808 Lake Washington Blvd N.E. , Kirkland, WA. 98033 Phone: 206-822-8880 Fax: 206-889-8808 FAX TRANSMISSION COVI,R PAGE FAX # 206-889-8880 Number of Pages (including this page): 5 To: Scott Woodbury From: Tracey McKenzie Receiving FAX Number: 235-2541 Date: September 26, 1994 Time: 12:35 Comments: Attached is a revised outline per our discussion last weak. I have divided the document into Part I and Part II. Please review and call or fax any comments. Thanks. SEp-26-94 MON 12:41 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 02/05 FA�X�^TRANSMITTAL MEMO fL�FSE r--��'r��__m__ CA COMPANY DRAFT fitj ApK j PHONE �� -.��-7 FAX R <no-r OUTL CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATI G P OGRAM AND PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PART I MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM 1, 0 INTRODUCTION 2. 0 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES 3. 0 WETLAND ACREAGE POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE IN BLACK RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN FOR USE OF MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM 4.0 PRIVATE AND PUBLIC USE OF THE MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM 4.1 Eligibility Criteria 4.2 Requirements to Use the Mitigation Barking 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 'w RESPONSIBLE PARTIES 4.0 WETLAND DELINEATIONS- WU4 No4 5.0 ACREAGE AND TYPE OF MITIGATION FEASIBLE AT MITIGATION / BANKING SITES i SE°-26-94 MON 12:42 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P. 03/05 2 �, . c his DRAFT 6. 0 EXISTING CONDITIONSAOF MITIGATION BANKING SITES 6.1 Mitigation Bank Site 1 6.1.1 Existing Vegetation 6.1.2 Existing Water Regime 6.1.3 Existing Soils 6.1.4 Existing Fauna 6.1.5 Functions and Values (WET II) 6.1.6 Water Quality 6.1.7 Buffers 6.1.8 Wetland Rating 6.1.8.1 City of Renton 6.1.8.2 Department of Ecology 6.1.9. Position and Function of Wetland in Landscape 6.2 Mitigation Bank Site 2 6.2.1 Existing Vegetation 6.2.2 Existing Water Regime 6.2.3 Existing Soils 6.2.4 Existing Fauna 6.2.5 Functions and Values (WET II) 6.2.6 Water Quality 6.2.7 Buffers 6.2.8 Wetland Rating 6.2.8.1 City of Renton 6.2.8.2 Department of Ecology 6.2.9 Position and Function of Wetland in Landscape 7.0 MITIGATION PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 7.1 Mitigation Sequencing 7.2 Goals 7.3 Objectives 73.1 Water Regimes 7.3.2 Vegetation 7.3.3 Habitat and Functional Attributes 7.4 Performance Standards of Each Objective 8.0 MITIGATION BANKING SITES 2•a. ' 8.1 Site Descriptions G4� 8.2 Ownership 8.3 Rationale for Choice $.4 Ecological Assessment of Mitigation Banking Sites bow is This 8.5 Opportunities r�►� .o 8.6 Constraints SEP-26-94 MON 12:42 PARAMETRIX FAX N0. 206 889 8808 P. 04/05 DRAFT 9.0 PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS OF MITIGATION BANKING SITES 9.1 Topography 9.2 Hydrologic Structures 9.3 Source of Water 9.4 Soil and soil amendments 9.5 Proposed Plant Distribution 9.6 Section Drawings 9.7 Habitat Attributes 9.8 Buffers 9.9 Public Access 10.0 MONITORING PLAN 10.1 Vegetation 10.2 Water Regime 10.3 Soils 10.4 Fauna 10.5 Development of Habitat Structure 10.6 Water Quality 10.7 Buffers 10.8 Schedule of Reporting Monitoring Results 11.0 SITE PROTECTION 11.1 Physical 11.2 Legal 11.3 Buffers 12.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLi-,N 12.1 Maintenance Schedule 12.2 Contingency Plan 12.3 Initiating Procedure 12.4 Funding 12.5 Responsible Parties 13.0 IMPLEMENTATION 13.1 Schedule 13.2 Construction 13.3 Monitoring 13.4 Reporting 13.5 Permitting Requirements 13.5.1 Federal 13.5.2 State 13.5.3 Local 13.6 Cost SER-26-94 MON 12:43 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P, 05/05 DRAFT 14.0 PERFORMANCE 13OND 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 not forgotten. We still need to figure out if they are appropriate to include in Part I or Part II) Alternatives 1, Enhancement 2. Enlarge Site I or integrate with P-1 channel 3. Adding other areas to program (i.e., breach dike between 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 and mitigation banking sites SEP-28-94 WED 9:53 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P. 01/04 Post-Ite Fax Note 7671 Da 0of 7 f pages ` . 1 L F Co. DRAFT Phone^ Phone C, Fax f► OUTLl�3� 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 ELIGIBLE IN BLACK RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN FOR USE OF MITIGAT:ON BANKING PROGRAM 4.0 PRIVATE AND PUBLIC USE OF THE MITIGYATION BANKING PROGRAM 4.1 Eligibility Criteria 4.2 Requirements to Use the Mitigation Ban sing 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 SEP-28-94 WED 9:53 PARAIIEI'RIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P. 02/04 DRAFT 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ECOLOGICA(-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 4.2.7 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 5.6.2 Vegetation 5.6.3 Habitat and Functional Attributes 5.7 Performance Standards of Each Objective SEE-28-94 WED 9;54 NAHAMB'I'RIX FAX N0. 206 889 8808 P. 03/U4 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 PROTECTION 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 10.5.3 Local 10.6 Cost SEP-28-94 WED 9:54 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P. 04/04 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 rot forgotten. We still need to figure out if they are appropriate to include in Part I or Part II) Alternatives 1. Enhancement 2 Enlarge Site 1 or integrate with P-1 channel 3, Adding other areas to program (i.e., breach dike betwee.'? 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 aptd mitigation banking sites I no mitigation credit should be accorded such areas. However, if beneficial effects can be clearly demonstrated, such environments should be accorded credit for mitigation purposes which is proportional to their functional contribution. The inclusion of upland areas would be particularly beneficial in I a banking situation in which the in-kind replacement of wetland functions is dependent on the existence of upland areas. For example, the vegetated upland fringe surrounding a prairie pothole is vitally important to the habitat function of the pothole, particularly as waterfowl breeding habitat . In this example, if a bank fails to replace both types of environment, true compensation of the loss may not be achieved and relatively few credits might accrue. If a habitat based evaluation method (HEP for example) is used for the estimation of credits and debits, the valuation of upland and deepwater area is a relatively straight forward process using the same evaluation species for the area as a whole. Habitat evaluation is the preferred method to use when a bank consists of a mixture of wetland, upland and deepwater environments . However, if this is not possible and compensatory replacement is based on area rather than function, the extent of credits accorded upland and deepwater areas should be estimated using alternative methods described in the following section. 4 . Determination of credits and debits The capital in a mitigation bank exists as credits measured in units of either acres or functional units . It is desirable to use an approach that can be documented, that can be consistently applied (by different individuals or by the same individual at different times) , that gives outputs of quality as well as quantity, and that can be used to compare existing with future conditions . Debits for compensation should be measured in the same units and using the same approach as credits . These guidelines cover the determination of credits and debits in methodological and procedural contexts . a. Methodologies . Neither acres or functional units can be specified as the correct measure for credits in this document. It is possible to develop replacement strategies, including variable compensation ratios, using either type unit; thus, from that standpoint the measurement method selected is relatively immaterial . However, the Corps should recommend an approach based on other meaningful criteria which are indicated in the following decision diagram. The further right on the scale the factors are judged to be, the more important it is to use a functional evaluation. If the majority of the factors are considered low, then acres ma be use the basis for credits . FAX TRANSMITTAL MEMO • o} Pases �� COMPANY r.. PHONE# -7 g FAX Fax r j_ �_-M-8 a .SEP-13-94 TUE 16;59 PARAMETR I X /�3��j� FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P, 01/04 ' Post-it"'Fax Note 7G71 >a� of ► pagss ` 44,,. To From r<19cllFA* ��fP L..,z D/, ult IN,cEdan Co. DRAFT — Phone* Phone S Fax# F ax S 1 OUTLINE CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION BM;KING PROGRAM AND PLAN '5,ffAN-1r(-, 107-0 �P(W-S /- pM�E c� OtSc fteTjod 3 j 1110111,13 "ovNDR"7 2. P4 G R,4,,,. , s T�m � n�� £Cfelt use 1. Executive Summary � , /M�VrA-r)ON yi2,lu, r8 si�'g'9 '7' P/Zo6�L�Fw MR/�rFriy�(� b,.n�,ro/bI�C ,Qg4i r� 15 Ib ,7 2. Introduction 1 � , 61Tt"I Vr P P,tvr 1,5,j Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Mitigation Banking Program Regulatory Requirements to Implement the Mitigation Banking Program Federal State Local Eligibility Criteria for Use of Mitigation Banking Program and Sites lv Regulatory Requirements to Use the Mitigation Banking Program Federal State Local Wetland Acreage Potentially Eligible within Bla_k River Drainage Basin for Use of Mitigation Banking Program �. Credit and Debit System to Use the Mitigation Bank Sites �. Fee Structure 1,l�. Mitigation Plan Project Description Project Location Responsible Parties Description of Overall Project Wetland Delineations Acreage and Type of Mitigation Feasible for Mitigation Banking Sites �� enlarGR/tS Sl�� , or i.,fcy,4 7 w/ V%s �� Proo�r�J arti�ll �(tI;AS y� PRE5f*,-TRo C{t 4IfS r- ,k Ugh w6rL s 2'� f) FEE-i✓-C l u �J 6,:11-W f=uA ':)Wh f 4NUL,00 NM w9'L^^ T o /� �� v� `''j�,� �. (�(�l� � /�I S!S �� ,��a��c�s ��F� ��r�,�- �I � 4�< 5EP-13-94 TUE 16:59 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 02/04 DRAFT Existing Conditions and Ecological Assessment of Mitigation Banking Sites General Baseline Information Mitigation Bank Site 1 Existing Vegetation Existing Water Regime Existing Soils Existing Fauna Functions and Values (WET II) Water Quality Buffers Wetland Rating City of Renton Department of Ecology Position and Function of Wetland in Landscape Mitigation Bank Site 2 Existing Vegetation Existing Water Regime Existing Soils Existing Fauna Functions and Values (WET II) Water Quality Buffers Wetland Rating City of Renton Department of Ecology Position and Function of Wetland in Landscape } Mitigation Goals, Objectives and Performance ;standards Mitigation Sequencing Goals Objectives Water Regimes Vegetation Habitat and Functional Attributes Performance Standards of Each Objective Hvw 1� 7�a,S fJ' Mitigation Banking Sites ft.-Ack 8ffC'RA exsr Cepo)f7eN.? c,HA^WC Site Descriptions o�ak,r Ownership Rationale for Choice Ecological Assessment of Mitigation Banking Sites SEP-13-94 TUE 17:00 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 03/04 DRAFT -7 Constraints 'Opportunities 1 Preliminary Site Plan for Bank Site 1 and 2 (will vary in specificity based on existing / information for each site) Topography Hydrologic Structures Source of Water Soil and soil amendments Proposed Plant Distribution Section Drawings Habitat Attributes Buffers Public Access 2 Monitoring Plan Vegetation Water Regime Soils Fauna Development of Habitat Structure Water Quality Buffers Schedule of Reporting Monitoring Results 1X Site Protection Physical Legal Buffers Maintenance and Contingency Plans Maintenance Schedule Contingency Plan Initiating Procedure Funding Responsible Parties Implementation Schedule cosr Construction Monitoring Reporting o iP (�p,IurJ SEP-13-94 'f UE 1_f:00 NAKAPIEYR 1 X FAX N0, 206 889 8808 F, 04/04 DRAFT Performance Bond Appendices City of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance Soil Test Location Photographs Public Involvement Resource and Regulatory Agency Comments Others as appropriate ` 'Sr UST GCaSSi��`f f 7� S S/t(cr Sl��t Z P-1 cNP�N�c, Sr7� Z F(-ASRO/4/ri rh�� «oM�C� t„��c-tS �(L�R AC�It� F�1(�U(>,-�S�Tf�B��.S �ti P(P,kI_S/✓MD IpC(£-S nYDMLo1srL gNAL`-fSiS A T iClv,, 0RhMt D1r64 WfIK9/�yG(ZE LA(—E5 �(' C)uT,,pE Wj9 ry,�Niro�N� sYsT�,�, aN S/�k �l�yti �o✓�tRPc-r ao>,��Dun� L �/UtL K�LI M!�✓A P'Y /I✓T'i.LNAL To wood. cou/oF u/N� �6SI(-N TFAA,- [Z,6 kL-j PaFc,/MI��Mc 7ru�r w►r8P p4- SrGNs oP7/otJ AL S/Th Z DAX, lo/ o(2 I.1N��71UVv LUCAL (�EnJ /L 4 h'Vf�.T N °IN Ti��nJ r I�N s Pin.ITS SugM lr' -02 LoEnL ��9y V(z�fTp,T►arJ c0�j71tPC-r A. Do,Er14v,+ti MAr'�G�n^-fw� �LAu PST 1 , wrzrLn,NO Da1,INrATIO+0C1-1 STTi- 1) A L I(i/J rv% ) � . rn 0.i/TO14to(> lv�Cll 0 ,4-rA RNALyrls y(�S y. W�I-L-AdO o")IJA-,-C/. vrS/rPQ •r0 µlo AL)LIC, ALLOW �r'fl pN��^�i�? N�FlTS � /v�ar�6Lr�6 Ott RVT t 5-, /- (1DILA Lu(r 1C. f _ 5�95 ��FFf FINaL wM$P D r-f-- Pr; rT 00C,UrnA�Ts O4 rr61J i ��/�w•Af J rSSuE/J �9S Su�rv��r ST,A;a Fk: o ,(AGf 706 570'ci,, muSF P6 law r rf II Iz�95 P�M,fs I=ISh wlNoaw . Do >=eIt UTYfA loamoos, /9G F/nJ�L �>�5r6N ov6�Tr�� nJ S F/ter s ca X, v v � t 4 J y THE CITY OF RENTON \ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ' FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 ' FAX: 235-2541 i To: Larry Karpack Company: N H C Phone: 872-0218 Fax: 872-0518 From: Scott Woodbury Company: Phone: 277-5547 Fax: 235-2541 Date: 08/30/94 Pages including this cover page: 2 Comments: Following is a copy of the ALTA survey for Wetland Mitigation Bank Site 2 located south of SW 34th Street, east of Oakesdale Avenue SW, and west of Springbrook Creek. As we discussed in our phone conversation the City is exploring alternatives for restoring weltands on the entire site to be used as mitigation for other wetland impacts within the watershed. One alternative for restoring wetlands is to excavate the entire site down to the level of Springbrook Creek so that the site provides off-channel storage for flood waters. Currently the entire site is elevated out of the floodplain. Preliminary calculations show that the site could provide approximately 80 acre-feet of storage. Please call to let me know a rough estimate of the cost to perform a feasibility level analysis using HSPF/HEC2 to determine the benefit that the additional storage would have on reducing flooding in Springbrook Creek. The connection of the site to Springbrook Creek would probably be an open channel and not a culvert. For the analysis I would assume that flood flows can enter and exit the site freely. To save paperwork I would like to include the analysis with our pending stream gaging contract. I have yet to check with Ron Straka to see whether this would be okay, but I think it will be. S.E. 1/4 & N.E. 1/4 OF THE S.E. 1/4 OF SEC. 25, 1. Zs N., t 4 L., W.M. r ETASTLINESEC. 25 CITY-OF-RENTON,- KING COUNTY, WAS11INGTON p PER PLAT N 01'47'34"E 339.44• -60.00•— 40' . y L f 2- CORPS Fib GRAPHIC SCALE A)0, 9/-y-ao09S .a pwr 26. C OSpFIL� 1 iMA�1WR r10.OF 00' EASEMENT TO THE CITY RE OF RENTON REC.NO.8702080435 1;7 ,\ BASIS OF BEARINGS: PLAT OF BURLINCTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL In dt TO PUGEI.SOUND POWER h LIGHT \ - ARK RENTON It. COMPANY REC.NO.8306240522 N (OUTER To'OF ALL LOIS 8 ROAD FRONTAGES) LOT 3,a R`� \ AREA: 292.5 6. SO. fin: - - AREAS 6.7T ACRES S _ - � - � i W o - I Lot 4 ,'s ohs �O�- - TOTAL WETLAND REMAINDER 1 S NQ NEW LOT LINE w;.. ? S Top `W NEW LOT 1 606.797 SO.FT. 291.610 SO.FT. 315,187 SO.FT. - � o .�. �t,� NEW LOT 2 210,282 69,057 141,225 = JjPROER ELEASED&OUIT CLAMED Tp �' �� y 4+_ F IURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD J. 'RL` 4- - NEW LOT 3 292,581 34,593 257,988 I"1 m TIES,INCPER REC.NOa682 � NOTE 1TETLAND INFORMATION FROM B.R.H.'SURVEY JOB NO.91020.01 38'03'15 DATED 10-14-91. TRACKAGE EASEMENT � R 536.67' \356.44•.. ✓r S E INSTRUMENT: r N 01'30'1 2"E 463.95' MER BNR.R.R.O.W. 9�ry C) 1 A�sr. ELECTRONIC THEODOUTE*(3 SECOND)SERIAL NO.337190. raLD T6f000U 303.7L as m,�� 30.w S� •(j. f7J, FIELD PROCEDURE: N R�. 10'4754- Y `'i•• r fy ...I -. L .lr ry f'Y�..,` THE+SURVEY WAS PERFORME0..8Y GROUND TRAVERSE METHOD_ THE SURVEY 'n-I J / \ f „P E oN E%CEEDS 1:10,000. -- _ -20 � 17'22'S2 ,r - �7 I UT,() 'E45EMENT =-506.67' Z I \N Q I P T 153:70" 6 _ f 1 A 14'15.00• 6� NOTE: .ow LOT 2,. f" �\ R 66917�'� LOT 1 OF THUS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IS RESTRICTED TO A USE :2 I qkE 797 SO.FT.' .93 A --,_L 16643 � OR USESWHICH MAINTAIN 17 AS OPEN SPACE PERSUANT TO THE AREA:210,282 SO.Fir J T ,'T - 1Oi Txa3f"' �` J. AGREEMENT BETWEEN GLACIER PARK COMPANY AND THE CITY OF. _ 4.83`ACRES / IO c .a N f/-` - .r- "� RENTON-DATED MAY 18.1992. 61, 1 y/ EXISTING LOT LINE 1: TIN OBE t` L _ /\ 1' B.R.M.RCBAR 8 CAP TO BE SET _r 3 TO REMAIN PER I I ldD_ LOT - 1 \' s° UPON RECORDING TOF THIS LOT c-i„ THIS LOT LINET/ - :'1 /! O LINE ADJUSTMENT(TYP) ADJUSTMENT ; f J 7.00R°X- - EASEMEN SEWER� ,L /`.15.00. I-1 N UNUTY EASEMENT ,REC. E 'l .f p 90'38'39' 'PER PLAT `8t12020484" R 55.00' //) -A= 7417'54` L 87.01' / R= 46-34 FOUND CASED CONC. VON. S 01-30'31 W(PLAT) �1/�A,�' 145851-(MEAS.) �10-20-89.STAMFEC�X89'3- II, OAKESDALE AVENUE S.YY. a IIELO FOR Ctl I1R_I'.: - -- --- 4 — - -- �- - --- — 5-4-99 . .__ F. ,C c _)-. `c SUS'✓E 1'OnS CERTIFICATC `` J Ja GLACIER PARK_ CO. .,..,. �9 -'Jane -G.2 1::j.o3Pn'. :•s�::J;�s.,.C:LCSC;l- e s. C' ''l =. _� - F- z,' Iz F.- - _- BUSH, RO D'd HITCHINGS II C. F F BUSH, ROED d HITCHII CS., 11, C. A EC r AC[E Ppk' wy-a1.� vrL .- - SEATiLE Y./.S41NG10:t(2�C� 323<1'< C o...•:: A,,,,.c �< Ct ., of Peco'cs 3 1 THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF ;r;s:y :;��',3 ;;r:xz:::xz�>:rvv3`s>;i✓':-:.,,,,,:::N.,;:`x, PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 r -.. To: Tr(AC4 Company: Phone: Fax: From: Sc4 r ujo ooBu" Company: Phone: Z7-7- 554/ 7 Fax: Date: 9136/�' Pages including this cover page: Z Comments: �L-� Psi cA0, Ta SjjFl SIIk 7 P-I Gt+PNv�t S/?rf 2- FCASpO/c/TY -� e/yy GKES! S�/c6G` GAL€S� RPF'f W'fUNE 4 LISf p(- NYOMLOt./c. ANAL45/5' A /�. M-9or f .) W�US /��R ftC+kA f16U(LEsI7A8LE5 RPPcr10*� 5' 7r&,Pokkk Dirt* WF/t• W�� IN-N)TOMNG Sf'Sfd,h Onr S/r4 I 9�yy N'rOCA- A001;11DVM L•f/ok (•L/M INA MI /NTE/NAL /DRhFi- �MBP 7'0 Woo( UIIX LINE S L. PaEL/�,.,�a/n �luu-r wMeP C�&vuvr A,- D�SrGas OArtovAL Sltoi 2. ONLN I�/ ID(t I.Ivf A?Ia JJ -� A�oENL4 �✓C.E'fIN� 7-6t 9N G�rC,vrloNf �1 r (,O�NLIL /2ES-LTA-/OIJ I1/p VIE 6FrAF,6,J Ga�7/10�t /� OD�NOUrv. �7 (1..Mp,ArnG6rrfn,? AN E, P�'tr f, O/4fLAN0 D(z1,INFATI0n1(P'I G/E,cNNbl, 6 S7TE 1) Z �UIU/EyS Cf/'>•/L II i/ E �-I CYANNG•E 3, �oN/rol..rnlG wEu.�pliu� vh/r( ,�� n�A RNALyrls y. wrr(-Add 61-01v4+CA ZEvISIrN ro �sGk.+P I�MOfU��r< ALl.OIw,J �N�Jp.,r>�rn£ra— OSEN4FIrS �GW Me06LING OF AVT I Q / S, /dCID Iw L0 e/C A Al 4fls l f/7e�� L, o7M�(L 5/9S DftFFr FINAL W-BP prrn,rif Do(.Cjm I �cLln NA PA D4.1-16,J i i A6fN4a aivr6.v.! BEM..Kj rSSuE I, --- - Suny�#r 7TA PsAlr -r '� Ins �LGCA�� -- C�,wSrlLuLfle� I sfRP-rS Sk/A C.emPLfrf y/9S /U0J•F; UNL4 Luu14C El<E�rI�G e/9s I Su�mlr 57P;E Fk Ok-.<AL Tye 57ithA . MuSr Y P6 tL,I r r C-um PLErEO /✓ 2 6-A ifs /fSuF q 5l9s l9S F/Sh w/Nooyu. t�.v SrR..r ur ra+,1 S7p(s �EF DF,ft WWA IokltNS /NAB pes/6,uOF Cn.,fo. ovbdTr�fc F}✓AM10 (o�yL Ler/Sv(w�-r loiJ SSPrLfS AUG- 2-94 TUE 11 :20 PARAMETRIX FAX N0. 206 889 8808 P. 01/16 Post-it'Fax Note 7671 De1e pages To From 1/Lt.aQ Co./D Cu Phone# Phone# _.. Fa c# MEMORANDUM EVI 9217 1_�@to: Scott Woodburygust 1, 1994 from: Tracey Mckenzie AUG 2 - 1994 re: City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan CITY OF RENTON 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 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 for Glacier Park impacts) of site 2 being alteree... 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 detailed 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 AUG- 2-94 TUE 11 :21 PARAIIETR I X 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 evaluate existing and proposed functions. This; 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 Ecology's Characterization Inventory forms thZA assess wetland condition, habitat value, hydrologic features, and cultural features (original Ecology forms and modified 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 modified version does. All we did was put numbers to Ecology's parameters to allow you to come up with a rating. The results from the modified version would be evaluated in the context of the WET II results, Together the results from WET II and the modified Ecology form can be used to determine existing and proposed functions and values. This is an out-of-scope activity. The cost for completing the functional assessments 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 Cite 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 ($1,328.00). However, I'm not convinced that doing a functional assessment on sites that have already been permitted will be to your advantage. Maybe you should emsider using a strict acreal;e replacement for the Glacier Park site and a combination of acreage and function to determine appropriate mitigation ratios for fature development proposals. If we we dmw wwthe& for the purposes of permitting this project then the Corps will rAqV&$ OW &%M method to be used by developers to assess the functions of vmtb" So b$ impScmd. These methods wi:l also need to be used as part of psp 'asps of the constructed *ids over time. WET II can be pbt�#�No of and most w0ftnd,oc►Mkiing firers who do wetland work JW dower wm tea "WET lt_ It is not difficult to use, Ecology's 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 developed 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 Talwea for a total of $5,013.00. This included writing up information, talking to resources 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. co \ 0 PARAMETRIX, INC. WETLAND CHARACTERIZATION ANALYSIS (Source. Wusltrrlglat Deparonent of Ecology) PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ; DATE: LOCATION: BY: REVIEWED BY: co 0 co rn Evaluation 00 Chttraderisttk/Dxta Sheet Re(. Low Medium High 00 co CD :v Welland Condition 0 I. Presence of exotica WC-1 >50% 1 10-50% 2 <10% 3 z 2 s..dFG!.._:. ,..__,•_ p 2 minimal impact 3 ..j ..avb.�ui.uau�Nla vYl.-L C1lCR.IS1Ve ImpceG 1 moderate impact d 3. Other impacts WC-3 extensive >50% 1 moderate 25-50% 2 Iow <25% 3 4. Timing of impacts WC-4 ongoing to <1 yr J 1-3 ,yr 2 >3 yrs 3 S. Evidence of polhnanl inpAs WC-5 >3 probabk or any visible inputs ! 2-3 probable or no visible 2 <I probable or no visible 3 inputs TOTAL oink (5-7 points) (8-I1 p0in/.c) (12-/5 porrrls) _ Buffer Condifion <399points 1 400-799points 2 >Rmpoints 3 for each buffer type,calculate and sum poinls: %of buffer x(_type) x(___width) _ x ?� Buffer Type: 1 = lawn, grazed Buffer Width 1 = 25-50 feet 2 = herbaceous, tmgrazed Factor: 2 = 50-100fed x 3 = native shrub, grassland 3 > 100 feet 4 = forest, scrub/shrub TOTAL R pow) (2 points) 0 points) �1 Biological Support :V I. Size GD-1 0-5 acres 1 6-20 acres 2 >20acres 3 2. Value of buffer (from "BUFFER" summary, low (IM399) I medium (400-799) 2 high (800-1200) 3 above) M i � wdlud�.1 co LO 0 n� Ernlnetion Cheracler7nticlData Sheet Ref. Low Medium lligh 3. Number of habitat types(structural I type 1 2 types 2 3 or more types 3 diversity) BS-7 4. Shape of wetland (edge) BS-3 simple t moderate 2 complex 3 5. Prescnm of open water BS-1 seasonal open water t pennaneM open water <'fl 2 permanent open water 3 ca acre >'A acre co 6. Inlerspersion of vcgctstion classes US-2 simple I modcrale 2 complex 3 co rn 7. Hydrologic connectivity 11-3 isolsled I connected to stream without 2 continuous/adjacent or 3 (DO fish mnnocled to open eonnmicd to permanent 0 o freshwater dream with fish or 0 c\j marine or estuarine 8. Habitat fealures BS-4 I feature 1 2-3 features 2 >3 features 3 0 9. Corridors BS-5 <100 ft w/herbacoous. low cover 1 <100 fed with c+xx1 cover 2 rinnrian corridor or >100 3 x or feet with forestod or <E: >100fect with low cover shrub cover 10. WdLand oondhion summnry (from low(<8 points) I medium (8-1 1 points) 2 high (>I 1 poitrts) 3 "WETLAND CONDITION" above) TOTALS (10-16 points) (17-23 poinh,) (24-30 poiam) Water Quar-ily: Nnlrient and Sediment TrRpping 1. % vcgdalive cover H-7 <30% 1 30-75% 2 >75% 3 2. Rate of Water movernent H-5 fast/channelizrd I moderate 2 no movernernl or slow 3 3. Average slope of area within 200 feet H-8 sleep (>89'o) 1 moderate (3-8%) 2 low(<3%) 3 4_ Pollutionhwdiment inputs from high 1 medium 2 low 3 � "WETLAND CONDITION" #5 summary TOTAL (4-6 points) (7-9 points) (1 a 12 points) Mood and St"mwaler Desynchrortizati m I. Storage capacity H-I slight depression and <20acres 1 mod-doep and <6acres 2 mod-doep, and <6acres 3 M (depth of depression and size) or any flat slight depression and 20-40 slight depression and N acrel >40acres '1 2. Location in watershed and size GDA &2 Iow in watershed 1 high and <20acres middle 2 high and >20acres 3 and <6 acres middle and >6 acres F-- �r rn CV I Fop) I C7 co co CD cz Evolvelion Chsracler!Wk/Def& Sheet Refs LOW Medium f ligh 3. Association with river or stream H-2 isolated 1 associated with Acaponal 2 associated with 3 river or stream permanent river or stream 4. Vegetation density H-6 Ar 7 <50%dense emergent 1 25-50% dense woody 2 >50%dense woody 3 <25%woody moderate sparse >50%dense emergent >75%moderate woody Co emergent 25-75% moderate woody 0 w ap 5. Sivc CD-1 <6acres 1 6-20 acres 2 >20acres 3 M TOTAL (5-7 points) (8-11 poim.v) (12-I5 point,r) CID co Co 0 CV O Z x ry x rx F-- t T I ¢ rx n_ c� CV W E-- I CV Parr l I C7 C CC) 0 o.: Bvalusttion Characleristk/Dala Sheet Re[- Low Medium High Ground Water Exchange 1. Presence of confining layer;if no, go on to yea(perched) I --- no 3 next criteria H-9 m GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE H-3 seasonal or no inundation and I moderate duration 2 permanent inundation 3 co BS-1 visible inlet permanent inundationand visible inlet and no visible inlet 00 inundation and no visible oudcl 00 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE H-4 permanent inundation and no t long duration inundation 2 seaaonatly flooded not 3 00 BS-I visible outlet and visible outlet visible outlet co 0 CV Support of BxwcRo�v Z 1. Streamtlow HS-1 Reaenoal flow not ioclu&nr_ Jaly t seasonal flow ineludine Duty 2 r+enrnnent stream or 3_ x H-1Is and August and August river ¢ 2. Support of down gradient aquatic habitat-1-10 wetland I lake, marine 2 stream with fish estuarine 3 3. Proximity H-10 isolated from surface water 1 (loodplain 2 hydrologic connectivity or 3 system adjacent TOTAL (3-4 points) (5-7 points) (8-9 points) _ Cultural Values I. Weiland condition low t medium 2 high 3 (from "WETLAND CONDITION" summary) x 2. Proximity C-3 >.Shour drive 1 .25- .5hour drive 2 adjacent or <.25hour 3 3. Scenic diversity C-2 no scenic vista I scenic vistas 3 cL — 4. Presence of open water BS-I seasonal open water 1 permanent open water <1 2 permanent open water 3 r'V1 acre >1 acre o_ S. Access C-1 no established access 1 trails/roads to wetland 2 trails/roads wAhin 3 wetland 6, Ownership C-6 private ownership 1 adjacent to public 2 public ownership or 3 GD-7 ownership or adjacent to adjacent to existing CV proposed observation area conservation area 7. Number of wetland types BS-7 1 type I 2-3 typo 2 >3 types 3 LU E-- rn 1 cV i co m 0 �; Evaluation Characteristic/Data Shtd Ref_ IAW Medium High 8, Habitat value low l moderate 2 high 3 (from "HABITAT VALUE' summary) 9. Educational value GS no exalting rcsoarch 1 -- existing research 3 10. Archeological/historical sites GDP —— — yea 3 co 11, Parks and Recreation Plan GD-8 — -- yes 3 co TOTAL (11-17 points) (18-25 FOWN) (26-33 points) co - rn `o Shoreline StabiCraation co 1. It adjacent to a wafer body G7 &B adjacent to water body with little I adjacent to water body with 2 adjacent to water body 3 0 cv or no fetch or edjaoent to stream moderate fetch and sparse with long fetch and dense 0 with sparse or no vegetation woody or dense herbaceous woody vegetation or vege•fation or ndjncenl to adieeent to %!ream with ¢ Mmam with sparse dense woody r vegetation Sea Level Rise 1. C-9 tidally influenced steep upland I tidally influenced moderate 2 tidally influenced low 3 slopes (>8%) upland slope (3-8%) upland elope (<3%) lieriinge Value(rank by highest level checked) _ 1. Threatened and endangered species;priority — priority species or state 2 threatened or endangered 3 and sensitive species GD4 listed sensitive species species,or: x 2, Washington Natural Herilage welland GD-S — documented site 3 F— tTx Q CV w F— d- rn i CV FrSri.f 1 C5 PUG- 2-94 TUE 11 ;25 PARAMETR1X FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 09/16 sASZa3Ur= allAi SM C! =A C6T MAMA DATA (CO) (TO 3L FT[t xn =7 IY non (F r=) UstiaDd field #: Hetlmasd fl"L #: WeLl.aad oaele: Date: Siar stair: Time finish: Field tee♦ ass: Fill field ?kp na+ee: arrho quad nee: _ Aerial photo #: Location: I Y S Li CQR=t7: city: 1. WetFd size in acres: 2. Iadicat■ e0ich of the following best deseribea the location of the wetland rithln the wstarshed: a. low b. riddle a. hibb 3. Stich of the following best descr_ibea the accuracy of W1 is identi."}int the wetlmd? (mart all that apply) a. Indicated m RMI bat does lot exist in the fie1A b. Indicated m Foil, but TAMmS Location c. Indicated on 3iPI, bat wrouS size d. 3ot indicated on MWI, bat exIA" i3 the field e.,Diff■z-at olassificatim thm fadicated on SHI A. Doan the wetland include dooa.efaid habitat for 1) madma sled or UM-satened picot, fish, or mmimm i specie■ or 2) for priority or senaitiv+ "Jed 7.iated eith Safi, or 3) listed fiats species in Woor b d'rsnlla WAC? CWDW, Sal, SDKR) 3o Tom list species, if ]rnose: 3. Is the wetlmd doctsaented by Istaral Saritage as a high gnmiity n.ttTe wtlad site, or does it qualify as A Eatutel.13er4ts6e netlaadT No yes 6. Is the wetland listd on the latiooel or State Rabistar of dreheolm4ica1 and Eiatoric Sites, or, if not listed. does it bare amy know areheolaLieA1 feataresl 3o Tes 7. Zs the site part of of sdjaemt to m es:Lstiag or yruvo ed recZamtim area, at is the site ec nuoted to sa existing or proposed em:ervatioalnatnrAl Aram' (SS) So Tom, G. Does the eetland Meet recreation 3.eds that are identified in the 1oca1 jUzl-- atian's 'Parka and Recreation Plea'? So Tea AUG- 2-94 TUE 11 ;25 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P. 10/16 WASErSCLW DZPAMM Q E33 C= WXTLA)m COOTTIOK (WC) v.GlaxIod field #: WetL-ad final }: 4it].sasd smmos t 1. Arm =T of the follaring invasive or emotic species present sithia tSe eetlmd? ($Q) (Refer W list 1 for species not liatod belay,) io Tea i. It Ten, indicsts e$ich special and parconat co-el. Species a. IIwd emery are" f. Jun=z 0ffnsam b. maple 1=sastxiSe S. 83alarmq bLack]2 r a, Sp&z%AM h. Orchardarass d. Yvssiw o Live i. otbar ii. Sotal percent mover by emGics: b_ 1D-501 a. < 1131 or A-4nated by native plant cawommmmm{ty 2. Ia there vi ible e.idence of b7drologic alt■rationa to the wLlAnd? (9) No_ Tom- L. If 702, indicate type (airele all that app1,7): a. drm4a1aa e. drainage ditabea/divaraicmi:;s b. A—111a f. blocked outlata/islets a- d4i3ug S. other d. ro.de it. Sadicate the sx%aiut of iapect dce to hrdavlagio alt:sratiuM. a_ ortensive Cna4ar change in bydrolaa7, eetlmd of-:Oct drained)) b_ sodarate (moderate change is h7drolnaT) a. miaiael (no visible chcsds in b7drolnp, or wtLmd stabs Ize ) d. ®Yao.a 3- Are there other apparent isLects to the wetland from human asaT go yes i. It 7VA, indicate t7'pe (circle all that "Iy): a. 1min4 e. peat e=tsaatiao b_ aras:Lug f. crop production c- Litter b- stxactures d_ fiIILng h, recreational orerase i, other ii. If yes, .bat is the extent of eombined impact(%) to the -eta? a. extansive Sapeot 01-501 of wetland tapectad) D. s�4 cate impact (27-50% of ..tLmd erected) C. mood-4-1 impact (dSZ of wetland ia.pac=ad) •. If yes to #2 and/or #a. LMicata the apgraz;,sat4 tiniva If tba aLtaratim or imgmct. a_ >3 ,ears b. 1-3 years a. mgAing to <1 year d. aodeterstiined AUG- 2-94 TUE 11 :26 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 11/16 S. %at is the t7Pe of aorroumdIng Lmodwe within 2D0 Loot of the wotLeaw cen L. ME22 e. fore w et-eoereial/barveated b. toreet-meut a. shrub d. a6ricsltsiral-cniti•.e.4 e. aarioe.Ltural-erased f. ocmareial/iadast=iALL i. reaideaLLaL h. road L. oozing J- gmtamted cmaarvatioa or sataral area ii. What is the average doosita of eamimareiaL cm Seuideatts,L str=tarea w•1thln 2.00 feet of the sotland2 a. bigh doaait7 M bailding per 2 sorva) b. smarm densit7 (1:2 to 1:10) e. I.ow doositT (r1:10) ra_ To Lhasa eri.deace of aM pollution or sedi.mat iapata to the wtlaad which eanld L=oct the water gaaLLt7 of the watloodi (i.e. culverts, agricultural pcoatices, road rxm-off, to etc" YaLar tc #t above to deteruiae probable pollutiea or ■odlwa6 iiepata.) (g" No Toll- e. no mown inparA b. tmdeta ed a, probable LapuU. d. visible iapets 7. flees the wedged bsre a bar at adhere aims its pezAs+etet7 (8V) b 'fee L. It lee, which t7pee of buffer are present and wi1at pareeatage oL the wetlmda "go is repreeootood b7 weh t7poi Moto. total aboald add t.w 1002) i width a. Lam, ssased/caltivated field t feet b. barsaeoass am anealtiverAW field Z tact b. shrob, arasslAnd I foot a. foreatod I feet d. other. I toot a. Dane I Loot AUG- 2-94 TUE 11 :26 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P. 12/16 x.9m3m7= =exxmm or x==r tea(: 3v=rz= Anx ^J��1 f a{YU .•1 Wet'* d field #•� Wtlmd _!=Al is Wetlmad naeaa 1. Indicate which of the fOLiwins best deseribas tha presaws of open .star is the wtlaad. (IIate: �7 indicate it aes p eaiar is >V2 acre or >202 at the wec:.sai.) a. no opp "star b. •aasmaL open .star a. paramnaat open wtar 2. Which of the follo.riaa bat reprasants the intarrparsim (mmobar and diatribQum) of r.tlmd aL.mxsa Cimclndl open eater) sdthin the wetland? (Note: =LLT indicate wetlaad e.lsases that are >L2 acze ar >102 of the wwtl,wl.)M/A) K� Cau= 2. bhioh of the follwius bat reprsamts the *hays Of the pwrland edge? Ml,&) CD C: Q arxyr r !i�$24SS f22i= 1. Does the tat]and baev mrr of tbA Collaring bahit.at feetarms? (Clrcls all tbat APp17) 3o Zee ti 7m, aircls all That apply: a. m^" b. to n m. logs, a. psznhae. .. . trso d. islAZNds e. beater lodsas or caaant widwee of ass by b-nea C. rapt4we mast, sdtbin 300 feet s. haze zoakAx7 within 300 feat S. In the wtlmd a part of a arembalt corridor rtrich ine3lae other vetl.mds at other rstat Dothan? So Tq If lam. indicts .&ich at the fnllarlaa Dqt daec•`Das the a- idar; a. c®e.ota to is riparim corztdor eith orhar wt"*" oitbAm .23 a"; b. cnama.:ts to cosidor 21,100 feet wide wits dense _trot or ihrnb covar- a. oomeets to nsaoer enssidar <100 feet Vida with des• asear; d. ccone.ta to a oaaidor >100 feet Vide with harb4cions or rpaaa carat; ■. asme.:ta to a eaaidor <100 feat ride rich har'baeioma eater. AUG- 2-94 TUE 11 :27 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 13/16 7, IIsiag Careac +n elsseitioatioa, iadieate the war Lsod t7peis iomwd is the wrt.Laod_ (ZoILS: ipdicate 041,7 those wetlsd el.amees that are MJ2 scrip or >10Z of th'i WoUsad.) 1_ 2. 3. 5. 6_ a- Dees the wtlsd iaaLode sn7 of the following wtlaod cola mitiss which arm provide irrw l"oablm eee1,06ical ftmectiam sod saich are tmd4stmtbed with QSZ isaamivw/®Cie speciss2 it. s'E'b- ban es tap w/ at lama-- 1/2 sane of cmtigumm peat b. wtnarine wtlmd >i acre d. sent• fosseted wtlmd (dr—Ati-t trees atw >60 reed old or dmdnant tros are So-so tea elld and with high stvwtmral diveait7 of trees, ahr+bm, and bagbsaioum vegetatim. Other notes: AUG- 2-94 TUE 11 :27 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 14/16 9&SE31 M DEPART? t ar aa= XMIAIM C3MAC=SaZA== 13 WErr 4Y MMYJXD= YZAXM= (3) Ustlmd field i:_ Wetlamd tiaai # Wetland ase: I. Zod cote the ganersl storage capacity and dapta of t4a sal-land beau. a_ wetLsnd is a miodarate to deep depresatoo b. wetlAnd is in a alight depression a. weeL>ad is general3.7 tl.at with no depression 2. Indicate eh,icII of the foLlowiag best represents the b7dz Logic emneetivity of the wetlmd.CHo) ■, vetlsod is cantiti•cus or cmmectad to persmant at;aau with fish; b. watLand is continuous or aoffieetaed to martne, or estuarine syretme ' a. wetLaod is cantinuoux or coomactad to a seasonal atresa witbout fish; d. Wetland is eoatiauoua or counectad W open lreebeater systaim; e, wetland is isolated (there is no surface water comectim via channel or flooding)_ 7. Does the wwtla�d haves it risible inlet or Surface star sauce: Yo Tea Zt yea, iDdlcat4 type: s_ seep or Spring D. river or atremin a. Calvert or d=altlaaa pipe d_ ditch •. other (describe) t. modetet:ined A. Does the wetlaoad have a visible ovtlet7 so Tee 2L Tea, indicate type: A. river at stress b. c"vest as 4x Atp+ita Pipe a. diWa d. tomdabo -9ed S. Which of the followitg beat describes tbs water sov •:Liv ah the wetland? a. to ""we" se llar iMeesest *. cost 094400 i. t a. ra/siasemtaei +, wa♦ e4 Sko te",amp" boo& danerl,bee the d.aaity, of emer;ant or woody .etlmmd vwaetaeiam? 1M *00" wm, ewes 1. Mmsh 06 06 osudIA1mw *no as 'fiv%*$�4,ee river in the wetlAud? OUG- 2-94 TUE 11 :28 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 15/16 S. What is the average •logs of the ores withia 2DO Coat of ';bm Melaodt V. 8%) b. moderato (3-81) c. low (<az) 9. IIsin6 soolosic maps, soil iafe=a.cioa, and tc~wpbie Lafsm.tim. dons tbare appoar to be s cc*flalns layar mach as bacdpm, bsd ock. eto. bolas t3s we.Lmdt so Tim Describe 90Y=CeCm) Of infeooL me Ia. Is the aatLml upstrem, +d3aemt, or within the floodpLiia of soy habitat awes saeh as comeet1=4 .seats fair fish bahitaC. ertastins or other tTpe of w m tld, or othec azoaa dependent an base flow? =o yes i. U 764, idmtitjF hsbitML t7pe; U. =ydie■ts bow the wtlaed Vtowldes has• flaw support. a. h7dvlosic comactivitp b. adjacent C. within t&A floodplsins d. apstroam 0. mnko.n Il, Does the ■ttaw whLcb supports tbs bmbitat atom (idwr-M.ed abo") b,coe water flew durum Liao lmte steer ocuth+.l (Do not iaelads straaay or rims that are fad by g).acial sslt.) Mo Yam AUG- 2-94 TUE 11 :28 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 16/16 ��ss afse�a�r � �ocr �acr�ry�rla� z�� C9LTU eL VAL= (C) Wee-Imd field wtlmi Baal I_ Indicate the typos of sans■ to/withlO the .etlsnd. To wetland S►ithia wetLamd a. pedestrian Gird _ I'. road a. boatabLe access 2. GQ any distant scenic -istsa or LeaTbT Landforaa such as mmmtai , ottabore islsods, open %mz-m, atiffs, amm7ma, or v%U"x be some from the wtLaadl ae _ Two If yes, describe- 3- What to the pcmkia.ity is milts ism the wetland to the I'aI AawL=o ereaa? <.ZS br. 25 .5 b=. •5 nr a. nearest sobaol/univeraity Is. nearest nature Center _ a. nearest urban Center d. nearmum pack i. Ia the w%tLsnd currently being used for passive recreational sctioities such as swiafttng, !!mains, birdnatch.Sag, stc. at the wetland? 3. Ia the wetland currently being axed for education mWor research? so Zee If yes, deaoribe: i 6. Ss the wtlmd adjacent to an astabliahmd consarvatloo a=" or parikZ io Two 7. IS the watland is adjacent to aootLaf wotauc body, which of the fo,l awrina best describes the amnsmt of Latch in the adjacent watar body? a. litt;s or no fetch b. nodsrats fetch e. long fwtrA d_ If the metLend is adjacent to a water body with a aodaia" to Lena fet4b, rbioh of the fOLLO- ng best describes the do"it7 of the vegetation? 3 a. sparse Grua/Lorbs or no wesetatim b. spssse woody Vu5station or dense herb vagetatios o. dams• moody vegetatim 9. If the wtlmd is adjacent t4 a tid&U7 iannseced warms- body, which of the folLowins best describes the aplaed arsat (Include ..ah into Ca�' 1751�w+5: �; i- . £3',3 1 ■. awe i drLD9-0 moderato slope D. and a daeelew.aat s. steep slope o. loped Parametrix, Inc. 0 To: Scott Woodbury — Date: July 26, 1994 City of Renton Project No: 55-1779-07 200 Mill Avenue South Wetland Mitigation Bank _ Renton, WA 98055 From: Washington Oregon Hawaii ❑ 5808 Lake Washington Blvd.N.E. 5700 Kitsap Way J Ei 1231 Fryar Avenue r 7820 N.E. Holman 1164 Bishop Street Kirkland,WA 98033 Suite 202 P.O. Box 460 Suite B-6 Suite 1600 206-822-8880 Bremerton,WA 98312 Sumner,WA 98390 Portland,OR 97218 Honolutu,HI 96813 Fax:206-889-8808 206-377-0014 206-863-5128 503-25 4-0594 Fax:206-479-5961 Fax:206-863-0946 F 8-523-2995 ' 2 D We are transmitting the following materials: JUL 2 81994 Ci-Y OF RENTON Engineering Dept Comments: Tracey McKenzie (of our Kirkland Office) asked that these Talasaea Invoice copies be sent to you. We will also send copies of any further Talasaea charges. These are: X Per your Request For your Information For your Review and Approval For your Files For your Action Sincerely, cc: Terri Strother, Billing Dept. PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 v !y 0 UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2631 NT 0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2620 TO: DATE: JOB NO.: RE: ATTN: GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS ❑ REPRODUCIBLE PLANS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS ❑ COPY OF LETTER ❑ COPIES DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL o FOR YOUR USE ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION ❑ AS REQUESTED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS ❑ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPIES TO: SIGNED TITLE IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE