HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272171(16) CITY OF RENTON
_ Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator
Za
April 20, 1993 �0;
Ms. Mary Burg
Wetlands Planning and Management
Department of Ecology
Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
Dear Ms. Burg,
Thank you for including the City of Renton in DOE's recent Mitigation Banking
Task Force meeting. We are progressing with our wetland mitigation bank
project and have enclosed the recently issued Request for Consultant Proposals
and information packet. We expect to have a consultant selected by May 7,
1993 to help us do the bank plan. The plan will include a site analysis, banking
protocol, planting and grading plan and a monitoring and maintenance plan for
our wetland mitigation bank. We expect to have this completed by September,
1993. Ostensibly, the bank would open for business at this time.
The City is committed to funding the creation of the mitigation plan through our
Surface Water Utility Division. We anticipate the construction, monitoring and
maintenance of the project will come from developer contributions for use of the
site. In this scenario, creation of wetlands would be dictated solely by current
demand. If financially feasible the City would prefer to create additional wetland
acreage to be used as "credit" to compensate for future impacts. However, we
are still exploring ways to make the establishment of credits in the bank feasible.
We are hopeful that funding for the initial excavation might come from sources
other than developers, such as grants, bonds, etc. This would indeed get the
bank off to a good start and keep us from doing deficit banking, which is against
our better judgment and our ordinance. Would DOE be interested in participating
with the City on this project? We are interested in your comments on our
tentative scope of work and on suggestions for funding for which the project
would qualify.
In addition, we understand you may be doing some pilot projects around the
region. Would our project fit your pilot project guidelines? We believe DOE's
involvement and support would increase the likelihood of success for the project
and will refine application of the mitigation banking concept in the Puget Sound
region.
We will be calling to talk with you further on this idea. If you have any
questions, please feel free to call me at (206) 235-2719.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ma`r�y LLyhne Myer
Principle Planner
Long Range Planning
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
THIS PAPER CONTAINS 50%RECYCLED MATERIAL,10%POST CONSUMER
THE CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF �e� � 4
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS == ,
FOURTH FLOOR IMill
XW1
an.
200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH I A
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 I x
FAX: 2 2 41
ate:.... ...
l
FAX TRANSMITTAL
DA-IfE: � t, ZC,e I q Q
TO: V�lJfJI+JI�j FAX#: laiz'4JE ' 747
FROM:jNlr,> 5N)6e4j— WOP ZAIJ61r,- PHONE#: 7-?7 -247-
SUBJECT: %CTICW 311
Number of pages excluding cover sheer.
11/1-orm:/niisc/I'A XCO V 1:It.l
City of Renton
Watershed Restoration Grant Application
Section 319, Clean Water Act
Attn.: Kahle Jennings fax: (206) 438-7490
319 Coordinator
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Project #:
Project Name:
City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank
Project Description:
The City of Renton has two properties in the Green River Valley (Black River drainage basin)
on which exist several low quality wetlands. Upland areas on these properties have the
potential to be excavated to create new wetlands adjacent to the existing wetlands, thus
creating a wetland "bank" area. These properties, which total 45 acres, would function as a
wetland mitigation bank for the entire drainage basin. This wetland bank will complement
nearby high quality wetlands in the Black River basin already owned by the City.
The City's primary goal for its mitigation bank is to achieve no net loss of wetlands. The
City will facilitate development on privately owned parcels with scattered and isolated low
quality wetlands by establishing these larger, more contiguous, and higher quality wetlands
on its property in the Black River drainage basin.
In addition to compensating for low quality wetlands impacted elsewhere in the basin, the
City will establish much higher quality wetlands on the bank parcels which it owns. Since
high quality wetlands existed on the sites prior to their having to be filled, the likelihood of
success for restoration efforts is very high if the fill is removed. Over twenty-five years
ago, during federal "Swamp buster" legislation, the City allowed over 800 acres of wetlands
to be filled. The City is committed to reestablishing some of these historic high quality
wetlands and monitoring and maintaining them in perpetuity.
Project Purpose:
With increasing urbanization upstream of the project site, water quantity in Springbrook
Creek will likely increase while water quality decreases. The Springbrook Creek corridor is
subject to periodic flooding, thus one objective of the project is to reduce the severity of
flooding by increasing flood water storage in the lower part of the basin. Another objective
is to improve the quality of water entering the Green River and Puget Sound. Along with
the above two objectives, the City intends to increase the habitat value for fish and wildlife
as well as providing environmental education and passive recreation opportunities for
residents and employees in the vicinity of the project.
While the benefits of wetland mitigation banking are not thoroughly documented, the
general consensus among wetland specialists is that one large, contiguous wetland provides
higher values than many small, scattered, low quality wetlands. The City's primary goa► for
its mitigation bank is to ensure no net loss of wetlands, but the opportunity also exists for
creating much higher quality wetlands than those which are impacted. In Renton's case,
the low quality wetlands likely to be impacted in the Green River Valley are recently formed
wetlands on top of fill. They have very low functional value and little hydrological relation
to streams in the drainage basin. Nonetheless, they are wetlands under the COE definition.
Because the City's mitigation sites are adjacent to the basin's primary tributary, Springbrook
Creek, created or restored wetlands will have a much greater effect on the quality of water
leaving the basin entering the Green River, especially if higher quality wetlands than those
impacted can be established.
Mitigation banking also makes it possible to use existing underutilized infrastructure in an
already urbanized area. By allowing a more efficient use of land in an urban area, the
project is indirectly reducing travel distances and infrastructure expenses associated with
development in areas at and beyond the urban fringe.
Project Elements Relating to Public Education and Involvement:
The mitigation bank sites are located in one of the City's major employment areas and are
surrounded by intensive office and industrial land uses. The area surrounding the existing
wetlands owned by the City currently attracts many employees from adjacent businesses
and is the only amenity in the vicinity.
The mitigation banking concept puts private low quality wetlands into public ownership
allowing public access to the sites. While the City wishes to encourage access and passive
recreation on the sites, it does not wish to do so at the expense of wildlife habitat.
Nevertheless, some access and interpretive information is planned for the site. Once fully
developed, the mitigation bank site should serve as a valuable amenity for businesses in the
vicinity. The sites provide an excellent opportunity for environmental education having a
potentially large audience.
The master plan underway by our consultant will include provisions for public access and
interpretive information. The Renton Parks Department is also in the process of completing
a trail which will connect the Interurban trail with the Black River wetlands further to the
north providing access to the sites for pedestrians and bicyclists, without impacting
habitats.
The City will solicit assistance in some planting activities from schools, Boy/Girl Scout
troops, and volunteer groups. The City also expects such groups to be involved in ongoing
environmental education programs occurring on the site.
Plan for Monitoring Results:
Part of the mitigation bank project is to create a monitoring plan to evaluate the success of
the restoration project. The degree of success will be determined by a monitoring program
that evaluates wetland functions such as the following: plant species composition and
density; presence of certain fish and wildlife species; water quality to determine pollutant
loading changes; water quantity for base and peak flows; and sedimentation rates. The
monitoring plan will also address economic development facilitated by the mitigation bank,
and public use of and satisfaction with the mitigation project.
Waterbody Type:
The existing wetlands on the two mitigation sites are low quality freshwater wetlands. New
wetlands established on the site would be freshwater wetlands associated with Springbrook
Creek.
Does the proposed project fall within a watershed listed as a priority for Section 319
nonpoint source implementation on the attached list?
Yes. The project is within the jurisdiction of the Green/Duwamish Watershed Management
Plan which was the highest priority plan for funding in the region.
Does the project implement actions specifically called for in the watershed management
plan? Reference.
Yes. The City of Renton Black River Water Quality Management Plan (BRWQMP), developed
in response to Recommendation 52 of the Green/Duwamish Watershed Management Plan
(approved on 01-29-90), recommends the mitigation bank project. The BRWQMP is funded
in part by the Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund and will be completed
this summer.
If the watershed is not on the list, do you recommend it be added because a watershed
management plan has either been approved or will be completed by December 31, 1993?
Please justify your recommendation.
Watershed is on the list.
What types of jobs will your project create?
Short-term (temporary: one year or less)
Short-term jobs created will include consultants writing the mitigation bank plan and,
depending on how long the planning takes, contractors constructing the initial projects.
Plant nursery workers will be involved in the plant delivery and installation as well. The
project also requires significant City planning staff time.
Long-term (over one year)
Long term jobs include contractors constructing the project, consultants monitoring the
construction and success of the wetland restoration, and planners administering the
mitigation program.
By making possible development on lands that were once restricted by low quality wetlands,
the project facilitates the creation of jobs in new or expanding businesses. This is the
strongest component of newly created jobs. A potentially large number of employees will
be associated with these new developments, and these positions will be more or less
permanent.
As an example, considering the six Glacier Park properties that were made developable by
the mitigation bank (see note below), the ability to fully develop all six properties yields 394
more jobs than if the same properties were developed without the bank. This estimation is
based on the total square footage of the properties multiplied by an employee/1000 square
foot factor of 1.7 for manufacturing uses. This is the square footage multiplier used by the
Puget Sound Council of Governments for manufacturing uses. Using this factor for the six
sites, development restricted by wetlands would yield 2396 jobs, while development
unrestricted by wetlands would yield 2790 jobs; the difference being 394 jobs. This is only
for six small parcels restricted by wetlands in the valley and is based on a relatively low
employee/square footage use, manufacturing. The factor for office uses is about 4.5
employees/square foot.
Currently, there are 976 acres of vacant or partially vacant land in the Black River drainage
basin on which exist roughly 150 acres of low quality wetlands likely to be filled.
Note: The Glacier Park Company donated the two wetland mitigation bank sites to the City
in exchange for permits to fill up to one acre of wetlands on six other Glacier Park parcels.
The City also accepted the obligation of mitigating these six acres of impacts on the
mitigation bank sites.
At or near minimum wage ($4 25/hour)
Some jobs associated with the construction of the projects(s), such as wetland plant
delivery and installation, would be near minimum wage. Consultant assistants performing
long-term monitoring of the project, as well as university students funded to monitor the
project might also be near minimum wage.
Equivalent to the prevailing wage rate that can support a family in your area?
This varies depending on how "family" is defined and what standard of living is attributed to
such a family. For a two income family paying $600/month for housing, with the housing
cost being 30% of their combined income, the wage would be roughly $6/hour. A one
income family would need to make $12/hour to afford $600/month for housing.
What is that wage?
$12-$6/hour (depending on marital status).
Provides training in skills currently in demand by the iob market so workers can reasonably
expect to qualify for permanent employment?
Since most jobs will be permanent, this does not apply.
What are those skills?
Does not apply.
What are the Full Time Employee (FTE) equivalents for each of the job classes created by
your project?
[Determine the total number of hours of employment for each individual iob class
(supervisors laborers equipment operators etc ) and divide by 2080 You should have a
separate FTE equivalent for each iob class LIST THEM SEPARATELY DO NOT COMBINE
THEM INTO ONE FTE EQUIVALENT!]
For the example of the Glacier Park properties presented above where 394 additional jobs
are created, there would be roughly 36 supervisors for 358 laborers. Equipment operators
would be temporary positions. For one year these additional positions amount to 74880
hours for supervisors and 744640 hours for laborers.
Will the project: (appropriate categories underlined)
Protect water quality
Restore water quality (clean it up so it meets state WQ standards)
Enhance water quality (make it better than it is, but it won't meet standards)
Protect habitat
Restore habitat
Enhance habitat
Types of habitat:
Wetlands
Streambanks
Shorelines
Uplands
Seagrass beds
Other aquatic related habitats
Does the project coordinate with other federal, state, local, or private nonpoint source
implementation activities?
Yes. The project is a recommended action of the BRWQMP as described previously.
The project also coordinates with the implementation actions being developed in the East
Side Green River Management Plan (ESGRWP) by the City of Renton with the assistance of
the Soil Conservation Service under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act
(Public Law 566). The ESGRWP is being developed in conjunction with the BRWQMP listed
above and when complete will be a comprehensive flood protection plan which minimizes
impacts to environmental resources and, where possible, enhances these resources.
The City of Kent initiated a five-year water quality program for 1992-1996. Efforts to
improve water quality in Kent will effect the water quality of the lower portion of the Black
River Basin within Renton because Kent is upstream of Renton.
Contacts:
State Contact: Teri Fisher
Duties: 319 Administrative/Coordination
Agency/Entity: Department of Ecology
Address: P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA, 98504-871 1
Phone: (206) 438-7073
Local (Project) Contact: Ron Straka
Duties: Project Manager
Agency/Entity City of Renton
Address: 200 Mill Avenue S.
Renton, WA 98055
Phone: (206) 277-5548
Budget
Section 319 Funds Requested: $250,000 (for construction)
Local Match (none required): $45,000 (for mitigation bank plan)
TOTAL $295,000
Task Level Description
Task: Mitigation bank plan
Description: Establish programmatic and physical plan for the site
Outputs: Mitigation plan
Completion Date: September 1993
Cost: $45,000
Task: Wetland construction
Description: Excavation and planting of the site
Outputs: Wetlands
Completion Date: 1994?
Cost: $250,000 (roughly $70,000/acre)
STATE
J PLANNING DIVISION
�� C1TY OF RENTON
J' n
dy yJY
STATE OF WASHINGTON U t APR 16 1993
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - PiECEIVED
Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459-6000
P�e�T �7' �
April 14, 1993 °
,�D `(tom 'f�(t, ✓. �1J 3F(D�-D S"T11.c. ikppL,-( ✓,�Ix�
-1ur(00 311 �tve slr � ?
Dear City and County Governments: 1iM t 7Z) ^GMT -M-V vomno,6
MUA-r-D i 7? 5JZ WA-770fl 7
R Grant Funds Available for Developing Local Wetlands Programs
W e pleased to announce that the Department of Ecology (Ecology) and
epartment of Community Development (DCD) are soliciting grant
pro sals from local governments for the development of comprehensive
wetland programs. The funds to support this grant have been awarded to
the state -x the Environmental Protection Agency under the authority of
Section 104bf the Clean Water Act.
The grant program has been established as part of the State Wetlands
Integration Strategy (SWIS) . SWIS proposes to improve Washington's
wetland protection activities by coordinating among federal and state
agencies and local governments to reduce confusion, resolve conflicts,
and minimize duplication. Since wetlands planning in Washington is
accomplished at the local level, this grant will be awarded to a local
jurisdiction.
Purpose
The purpose of this grant is to explore ways to better integrate
potential elements of local wetland programs into a single, comprehensive
and consistent local wetlands program. Ecology and DCD hope that this
project will serve as a wetlands planning model that can be used by other
local jurisdictions across the state and will be reviewed to determine to
what degree a comprehensive local program can also serve state and
federal program requirements.
Eligibility and Funding
To be eligible for this grant, a jurisdiction must already have adopted
development regulations for protecting critical areas as required by the
Growth Management Act (GMA) .
At this time, the amount of funds available for this project is $50,000.
Given this limited amount, it will be awarded to a single jurisdiction.
However, Ecology and DCD have applied to EPA for an additional $110,000.
Within the next several weeks, we will learn whether we will receive
these additional funds. If we do, additional grants will be awarded
based on the results of this application. Local governments who wish to
be considered for those possible future funds should apply now.
3 0
Page 2
April 14, 1993
I
A local match of 10% is required (match in amount of $5,000) . This match
can be cash or in-kind (volunteer services) . Applications must be
postmarked no later than June 15, 1993. Grant projects should be
completed by the GMA deadline of the local government.
Elements of a Successful Application
Ecology and DCD have prepared an application guide that contains specific
criteria and procedures for applying for this grant. However, the
following comments provide some idea of the elements of a successful
application and project:
* A watershed approach should be used to develop the local program.
The application should describe the goals of the local community
regarding wetlands. It should also discuss growth and development
pressures the community is experiencing.
* The application should contain specific strategies for involving
both the public as well as state and federal agencies in the
decision-making process.
* The project should integrate a variety of regulatory and non- i
regulatory protection mechanisms.
* The application should clearly define the final products of the
grant process (e.g. , comprehensive plan policies, development
regulations, inventory and/or land use maps) .
For Furthe
r Information
If you are interested in receiving a grant applica ' n d r have any
questions about this grant process, please contact L n Beat at (206)
438-7155 or by writing to:
Lynn Beaton
Department of Ecology
Shorelands Program
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Again, both Ecology and DCD are excited about the potential of this grant
program. We look forward to working with you in this effort.
Sincerel ,
D. Rodney Mack, Program Manager
Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program
1
DRM:LB:del
A:\LETTER.#2
2
04/13/93 15:30 P. S. WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 002
Y `
MEMO
UPDATE ON 319 FUNDS
I am faxing the official memo from DOE, with the application form, on
how to apply for the potential supplemental Section 319 funds for projects
creating jobs while restoring/protecting watersheds.
Please note the deadline is Monday APRIL 261
Please send your application directly to Kahle Jennings at DOE. You may
still call me if you have any more questions, or Kahle at 438-7528.
Good luck,
Kathy Klinsch, PSWQA
Nonpoint Program Lead
04i13i93 15:31 P.S. WATEP. QUALITY AUTHORITY 003
Katny jYj 111J11t
' Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority
PO Box 40900
Olympia, WA 98504-0900
Sif
.)EPANT;%IE_N F ()F F CC)I (_)c ,1
P.O. t{ON a'I,01) �)hmpia, 1idshinVoiP 911504 600 .10(0 4. 10- jao
April 9, 1993
TO: Nonpoint Source Implementation Organizations
FROM: Kahle Jennings, 319 Coordinator ,
SUBJECT: Availability of CWA §319 Nonpoint Source
Implementation Funds to Create Jobs
President Clinton's Economic Stimulus Package includes a proposal to use existing federal
environmental restoration programs to fund the creation of new jobs. Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act is one of the programs that has been identified for a one-time infusion of funds to create some of
these new jobs. As many of you are aware, this legislation has been passed by the federal House of
Representatives, but is being held up In the Senate.
In anticipation that this program will be approved and funded, EPA has developed draft
implementation guidance. Because the legislation includes provisions that any money appropriated by
congress be awarded to implementing organizations at the state level within sixty to ninety days, we
are being pushed to identify and select projects for these one-time funds by April 30, 1993.
Washington State has been assigned a target amount of funding under this jobs program of$897,500.
This is not a guarantee. However, if funds are actually appropriated and we submit quality project
proposals we can anticipate receiving funds near that amount. We are being encouraged to submit no
more than four to five projects under this program. This transiates into projects that are built around
a budget of approximately $200,000 to $250,000.
As part of their CWA §319 work program for 1993, EPA requested that states submit a list of
priority watersheds for NPS implementation with §319 funds. As an interim measure Washington
State submitted a list of watersheds that have approved watershed management plans developed under
existing state or federal programs. Because we will be using this list to focus NPS implementation
projects funded under CWA§319 in our 1994 work program (submitted in March of 1994) this list
also includod watersheds that were expected to complete their planning by December 31, 1992. This
list will be used until a formal prioritization mechanism can be developed. All proposals submitted
for consideration under this 319/lobs proeram must be linked to the priority watersheds identified on
the attached list. If you feel that a watershed you know of qualifies for that list but is not included,
the proposal format provides you with an opportunity to justify your position.
R VED
APR 12 1993
QUALI I r MU i I iUkITY
0��13�93 15:32 P. S. WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 005
WASHINGTON STATE PROJECT PROPOSAL
FOR EPA WATERSHED RESTORATION GRANTS
CLEAN WATER ACT §3I9
APRIL 1993
EROJECT LEVEL DESCRtPTIQN
Project # (Scats will assign upon consultation with EPA)
Project Name:
Project Description:
Project Purpose:
Projcct Elements Relating to Public Education and Public Involvement:
Plan for Monitoring Project Results:
Waterbody Type: (River, Lake, Estuary, Salt Water)
Does the proposed project fall within a watershed listed as a priority for §319 nonpoint source
implementation on the attached list?
Does the project implement actions specifically called for in the watershed management plan?
Reference.
If the watershed is not on the list do you recommend It be added because a watershed management
plan has either been approved or will be completed by December 31, 1993? Please justify your
recommendation.
What tXRes of lobs will your prW"t create?
Short term (temporary. one year or less)
Long-term (over one year)
At or near minimum wage ($4.251hour)
Equivalent to the prevailing wage rate that can support a family in your area?
What is that wage?
Provides training in skills currently in demand by the job market so workers can
reasonably expect to qualify for permanent employment?
What are those skills?
What are the Full Time Em2loyee (FTE) equivalents for each of the Job classes created bv_vour
Vrotect?
[Determine the total number of hours of employment for each individual job class
(supervisors, laborers, equipment operators, etc.) and divide by 2080. You should
have a separate FTE equivalent for each job class. LIST THEM SEPARATELY, DO
NOT COMBINE THEM INTO ONE FT,E EQUIVALENT'.]
04i1Oi93 15:02 P. S. WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 0F76
WASHINGTON STATE PROJECT PROPOSAL
FOR EPA WATERSHED RESTORATION GRANTS
Page 2
Will the proiect: Nircie t a2proi) .ate categories)
Protect water quality
Restore water quality (clean it up so It meats state WQ standards)
Enhance water quality (make it better than it is, but it won't meet standards)
Protect habitat
Restore habitat
Enhance habitat
Type of habitat.
Wetlands
Streambanks
Shorelines
Seagrass beds
Other aquatic related habitats
Does the project coordinate with other federal, state, local, or private nonpoint source implementation
activities? Describe.
CONTACTS
State Contact: Teri Fisher
Duties: , 319 Administration/Coordination
Agency/Entity: Department of Ecology
Address: P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA, 98504-3711
Phone: (206) 438-7073
Local (Project) Contact:
Duties:
Agency/Entity:
Address:
Phone:
BUDGET
§319 Funds Requested:
Local Match (none required):
TOTAL
TASK LEVEL DESCRIPTION
Task #
Description:
Outputs:
Completion Date:
Cost:
04/13/93 15:32 P. S. WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 007
WASHINGTON STATE PROJECT PROPOSAL
FOR EPA WATERSHED RESTORATION GRANTS
Page 3
Repeat far additional tasks. Tasks can be broken down into sub-tasks which represent specific
activities with specific costs and completion dates.
Washington State Priority Waters (February 26, 1993)
State Funded Watershed Management Plans (Centennial Clean Water Fund)
Drayton Harbor, Whatcom County (Anticipate approval by 9/93)
Dyes Inlet/Clear Creek, Kitsap County (Approved 12-22-92)
East Fork Lewis River (Anticipate completion in 93)
Eld Inlet, Thurston County (Approved 08-17-90)
Chehalis, multiple counties (Plan approved)
Green/Duwamish, King County (Approved 01-29-91)
Hangman Creels, Spokane
Henderson Inlet, Thurston County (Approved 08-06-90)
Issaquah/Lake Samamish, King County (Anticipate approval by 6/93)
Kamm Creek, Whatcom County (Approved 03-28-90)
Longfellow Creek, King County (Approved 12-2-92)
Lower Hood Canal (Anticipate approval by 12193),
Oakland Bay, Mason County (Approved 08-30-90)
Pipers Creek, King County (Approved 11-15-90)
Quilcene Bay, Jefferson County (Approved 06-18-91)
Salmon Creek, Clark County (Plan done, but county not supportive)
Sequim Bay, Clallam County (Approved 11-15-91)
Silver Creek, Whatcom County (Approved 05-29-90)
Stillaguamish River, Snohomish County (Approved 01-10-90)
Tenmilo Creek, Whatcom County (Approved 11-02-90)
Totten/Skookum, Thurston County (Approved 12-00-91)
Weber Couloc, Adams County (Approved, state implementation grant signed)
White Salmon River, Klicitat County (Anticipate completion in 93)
Yakima River, multiple counties
Federally Funded Watershed Management Plans (SC P - 66)
Johnson Creek, Whatcom County (Will soon be officially completed)
North Pine/Spring Valley (Landowner contracts almost all written)
(trib. to Palouse)
Paradise Creek, Whitman County (Landowner contracts almost all written)
Pleasant Valley, Whitman County
Rebel Flat Creek, Whitman County (Landowner contracts almost all written)
Tucannon River, multiple counties
North Wishtrand, Benton County
(trib. to Yakima) (Plan complete, but not yet funded)
Omak Creek [trib. to Okanogan River) (Plan done by end of 1993)
04i13i93 15:33 P. S. WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 023
WASHINGTON STATE PROJECT PROPOSAL
FOR EPA WATERSHED RESTORATION GRANTS
Page 4
Pilot Salmon Restoration Efforis
Asotin Creek [crib. to Snake River]
Omak Creek or Salmon Creek [cribs. to Okanogan Riverj
�I
Carlisle Lake, a watershed management
plan was developed as part of tho
Clean Lakes Project
Moxee Irrigation Canal (Plan developed)
Granger Drain SCS Hydrologic
Unit Area project
i
r �
City of Renton
EPA Watershed Restoration Grant Application
Clean Water Act, Section 319
Due: 5:00 PM, April 26
Attn: Kahle Jennings
319 Coordinator
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
P.O. Box 40900
Olympia, WA 98504-0900
Project #:
Project Name:
City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank
Project Description:
The City of Renton has acquired adjacent properties in the Green River Valley
(Black River drainage basin) on which there exist scattered low quality
wetlands. The City intends to use two of these properties, which total 45
acres, to establish a wetland mitigationconsisting large
contiguous wetlands.
The City's primary goal is to achieve no net loss of wetlands. The City will
facilitate development on private parcels with scattered low quality wetlands
by establishing larger, more contiguous, and higher quality wetlands on its
property along Springbrook Creek in the Black River drainage basin.
The City's mitigation site will initially be used for off-site mitigation projects
on a case by case basis. When possible, imp.lemehtation of separate projects
will be coordinated to-decrease construction costs .as well as- impacts to
existing wetlands'on the site.�G.onstruction of a mitigation project will occur
in advanp-&-6f or concurrently with the impact, but never after the impact.
If feasible, the City will;-in conjunction with off-site mitigation projects, create
additional wetland acreage to-be used at a later date to compensate for
unknown future-limp�acts: If a surplus of wetland -acreage is established, the
mitigation s-rte will function as a mitigation...bank selling credits to compensate
for wetl o�st-'elsewhere in the drainage basin.
Ideally, the City would like to establish wetland credits for the entire site well
in advance of known and unknown future impacts, however this is currently
financially unfeasible for the City. At this point, creation of wetlands would
be dictated solely by current demand.
t
Project Purpose:
With increasing urbanization upstream of the project site, water quantity in
Springbrook Creek will likely increase while water quality decreases. The
Springbrook Creek corridor is subject to periodic flooding, thus one objective
of the project is to reduce the severity of flooding by increasing flood water
storage in the lower part of the basin. Another objective is to improve the
quality of water entering the Green River and Puget Sound. Along with the
above two objectives, the City intends to increase the habitat value for fish
and wildlife as well as providing environmental education and passive
recreation opportunities for residents and employees in the vicinity of the
project.
i
While the benefits of wetland mitigation banking are not thoroughly
documented, the general consensus among wetland specialists is that one
large, contiguous wetland provides higher values than many small, scattered
wetlands. The City's primary goal for its mitigation bank is to ensure no net
loss of wetlands, but the opportunity also exists for creating much higher
quality wetlands than those which are impacted. In Renton's case, the Class
III wetlands likely to be impacted in the Green River Valley are recently
formed wetlands on top of fill. They have very low functional value and little
hydrological relation to streams in the drainage basin. Nonetheless, they are
wetlands under the COE definition. Because the City's mitigation sites are
adjacent to the basin's primary tributary, Springbrook Creek, created or
restored wetlands will have a much greater effect on the quality of water
leaving the basin entering the Green River, especially if higher quality
wetlands than those impacted can be established.
Logically, the most cost-effective and least environmentally damaging way to
establish a mi ation bank is to construct the entire project at one time.
However, as above, the City's financial ability is too limited to fund ffn�csS
wetland creation for the entire site at one time. sty expe p ase ^�
the project based on a case-by-case need for mitigation in the valley. The
extent to which individual mitigation projects can be coordinated will
determine the phasing of the construction.
The other disadvantage of basing construction on the immediate need for
mitigation is that a net loss in functional value occurs when the functional
value of the wetland created fails to equal that of the impacted wetland at the
time it is impacted. Creation of wetlands well in advance of expected impacts
increases the likelihood that the functional value of the created wetlands will
surpass that of the impacted wetlands by the time of the impacts. If the
entire project can be constructed at one time, a net-gain in wetland functional
value in the valley is likely to occur. Ideally, this is what the City desires.
Mitigation banking makesit possible to utilize existing unused infrastructure in
an already urbanized area. By allowing a more efficient use of land in a well
serviced area, the project is indirectly reducing travel distances and
infrastructure expenses associated with development in areas beyond the
urban fringe. jj~;rZJZ 5JaP_ ,..k ^41- b.,A17 I ", jz�' crrl!
racl/ir4lY� 4,J 0rer.„W-tie de,.olgr,..w. h he^M Jvh WtA&%- CJ
Project Elements Relating to Public Education and Involvement:
The mitigation bank sites are located in one of the City's major employment
areas and are surrounded by intensive office and industrial land uses. The
area surrounding the existing wetlands owned by the City attracts large
numbers of people from adacent businesses and is the only amenity in the
vicinity.
The mitigation banking concept puts private low quality wetlands into public
ownership allowing public access to the sites. While the City wishes to
encourage access and passive recreation on the sites, it does not wish to do
so at the expense of the potential for habitat creation. Nevertheless, some
access and interpretive information is planned for the site. Once fully
developed, the mitigation bank site should serve as a valuable amenity for
businesses in the vicinity. The sites provide an excellent opportunity for
environmental education having a potentially large audience.
The master plan created by our consultant will include provisions for public
access and interpretive information. The Renton Parks Department is in the
process of completing a trail which will provide direct access to the sites for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Plan for Monitoring Results:
As part of the mitigation bank plan, our consultants will create a monitoring
plan to evaluate the success of the restoration project. Monitoring will occur
for at least five years after the completion of the last mitigation project.
Waterbody Type:
The existing wetlands on the two mitigation sites are low quality freshwater
wetlands. New wetlands established on the site would be freshwater
wetlands associated with Springbrook Creek.
Does the proposed project fall within a watershed listed as a priority for
Section 319 nonpoint sources implementation on the attached list?
Yes. The projec rt of the East Side River Watershed Plan/Black
River Water Quality Man n which is in the Green/Duwamish
Watershed Management King a proved on 01-29-90). The
Green/Duwamish rshed Management Plan the highest priority plan
for funding i e region.
Does the project implement actions specifically called for in the watershed
management plan? Reference.
(Don now)
If the watershed is not on the list, do you recommend it be added because a
watershed management plan has either been approved or will be completed
by December 31 , 1993? Please justify your recommendation.
Watershed is on the list.
What types of jobs will your project create?
Short-term (temporary: one year or less)
Short-term jobs include consultants creating the mitigation bank plan, and
contractors constructing the initial projects. Plant nursery workers will be
involved in the plant delivery and installation.
Long-term (over one year)
Consultants monitoring the construction and success of the wetland
restoration. Indirectly, by making development that was once restricted by
wetlands possible, the project facilitates the creation of jobs in new or
expanded businesses. Plant nursery workers will be involved in ongoing plant
delivery and installation.
At or near minimum wage ($4,25/hour)
Some jobs associated with the construction of the projects(s), such as plant
delivery and installation, trails construction. Consultant assistants performing
long-term monitoring of the project, as well as university students funded to
monitor the project.
Equivalent to the prevailing wage rate that can support a family in your area?
What is that wage?
Provides training in skills currently in demand by the job market so workers
can reasonably expect to qualify for permanent employment?
What are those skills?
What are the Full Time Employee (FTE) equivalents for each of the job classes
created by your project?
[Determine the total number of hours of employment for each individual job
class_(supervisors, laborers, equipment operators, etc.) and divide by 2080,
You should have a separate FTE equivalent for each job class. LIST THEM
SEPARATELY, DO NOT COMBINE THEM INTO ONE FTE EQUIVALENT!]
Will the project: (circle the appropriate categories)
Protect water quality
Restore water quality (clean it up so it meets state WO. standards)
Enhance water quality (make it better than it is, but it won't meet
standards)
Protect habitat
Restore habitat
Enhance habitat
Types of habitat:
Wetlands
Streambanks
Shorelines
Seagrass beds
Other aquatic related habitats
Does the project coordinate with other federal, state, local, or private
nonpoint source implementation activities? Describe.
Contacts:
State Contact: Teri Fisher
Duties: 319 Administrative/Coordination
Agency/Entity: Department of Ecology
Address: P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA, 98504-8711
Phone: (206) 438-7073
Local (Project) Contact:
Duties: Project Manager
Agency/Entity City of Renton
Address: 200 Mill Avenue S.
Renton, WA 98055
Phone:
Budget
Section 319 Funds Requested: $250,000
Local Match (none required):
TOTAL $250,000
Task Level Description
Task #:
Description:
Outputs:
Completion Date:
Cost:
Task #:
Description:
Outputs:
Completion Date:
Cost:
Repeat for additional tasks. Tasks can be broken down into sub-tasks which
represent specific activities with specific costs and completion dates.
r.
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Admin1sc;atar
April 2, 1993
Ms. Kathy Minsch
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
P.O. Box 40900 -
Olympia, Washington 98504-0900
Dear Ms. Minsch,
I am writing in regard to potential funding soon to be available under Section
319 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The memorandum from the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority, issued March 17, requests information on
"ready-to-go" projects which meet the 319 criteria. The City of Renton is
engaged in a project which deserves your consideration.
The City is implementing a wetland mitigation banking program on two
parcels, totaling 45 acres, which it has acquired in the Green River Valley and
is in the process of hiring a consultant to create a mitigation program and plan
for the site. Currently, the most financially feasible mitigation approach for
the mitigation bank is "off-site" mitigation on a case-by-case basis, with
separate projects being coordinated whenever possible. If financially feasible,
along with the construction of individual mitigation projects, the City will
create additional wetland acreage to be used as "credit" to compensate for
unknown future impacts. Ideally, the City would like to establish wetland
credits for the entire site well in advance of known and unknown future
impacts, however this is financially unfeasible for the City. At this point,
creation of wetlands would be dictated solely by current demand.
While the benefits of wetland mitigation banking are not thoroughly
documented, the general consensus among wetland specialists is that one
large, contiguous wetland provides higher values than many small, scattered
wetlands. The City's primary goal for its mitigation bank is to ensure no net
loss of wetlands, but the opportunity also exists for creating much higher
quality wetlands than those which are impacted. In Renton's case, the Class
III wetlands likely to be impacted in the Green River Valley are recently
formed wetlands on top of fill. They have very low functional value and little
hydrological relation to streams in the drainage basin. Nonetheless, they are
wetlands under the COE definition. Because the City's mitigation sites are
adjacent to the basin's primary tributary, Springbrook Creek, created or
restored wetlands will have a much greater effect on the quality of water
leaving the basin entering the Green River, especially if higher quality
wetlands than those impacted can be established.
Logically, the most cost-effective and least environmentally damaging way to
establish a mitigation bank is to construct the entire project at one time.
However, as implied above, the City's financial ability is too limited to fund
wetland creation for the entire site at one time. The City expects to phase
the project based on a case-by-case need for mitigation in the valley. The
extent to which individual mitigation projects can be coordinated will
determine the phasing of the construction.
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washinzn
gton 98055
..
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator
The other disadvantage of basing construction on the immediate need for
mitigation is that a net loss in functional value occurs when the functional
value of the wetland created fails to equal that of the impacted wetland at the
time it is impacted. Creation of wetlands well in advance of expected impacts
increases the likelihood that the functional value of the created wetlands will
surpass that of the impacted wetlands by the time of the impacts. If the
entire project can be constructed at one time, a net-gain in wetland functional
value in the valley is likely to occur. Ideally, this is what the City desires.
The City is very excited to be pursuing this progressive approach to wetland
mitigation, however its limited resources prevent it from implementing the
mitigation banking concept in the most efficient and cost-effective way. By
forming partnerships with resource agencies, the City will be able to more
efficiently implement its mitigation banking program which promises to result
in a net-gain in wetland functional value.
We feel that our wetland mitigation bank fits your criteria outlined in the
memorandum and look forward to discussing this project with you in the near
future. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mary Lynne Myer
Principle Planner
Long Range Planning
Planning/Building/Public Works
200 Mill Ave. S.
Renton, Washington 98055
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton. Washington 98055
NANCY NclUY
Executive Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY
�4
PO Box 40900 • Ohmpia, Vtashington 98.504-0900 (306) 493-9300
Nl EMORANDUM
March 17, 1993
Interested Parties:
I want to alert you to the probability of a new source of federal money which will be
available within the next few months, under Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water
Act. A bill is pending before Congress which would appropriate $47 million dollars
to EPA to distribute through the 319 state lead agencies for projects which create jobs
to clean up and protecting waterbodies from nonpoint sources. The State of
Washington would receive approximately $600,000. This is in addition to the regular
319 grant funds. Once this bill is passed and signed, there will be a very short time
period for identification and selection of projects; states must submit their projects to
EPA in 30 days.
The Authority would like to see part of this money used to implement the Puget Sound
Plan. In order for this to happen, we need to have a list of project ideas ready to give
to the Department of Ecology, the lead 319 agency. Limitations on these funds are
expected to be the following:
* They must be used to increase jobs in the private sector.
* EPA only expects to fund large projects, in the $200K
* Projects must be on-the-ground, ready-to-go, wi
measurable water quality benefits.
The priority is for habitat, wetland or stream restoration projects. Other possible
projects could involve construction of demonstration farm BMPs, construction of
stormwater retrofits, construction or repair of septic systems as demonstration
projects,.and provision of alternative sources of shade or fencing to protect riparian
areas from overgrazing. Monitoring, planning, inventories, and projects funded under
another program are not eligible.
-2-
We are frequently asked for ideas for water quality related projects which are ready to
implement if funds were provided. In addition to the new 319 funding, there are
several bills before the state legislature which would fund jobs to carry out
environmental enhancement.
We hope you will take a few minutes to inform us about projects which meet the 319
criteria or might meet criteria for other programs which fund "on-the-ground",
"ready-to-go" projects. Please send brief descriptions (one to two paragraphs) of
projects to Kathy Minsch at the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, P.O. Box
40900, Olympia, WA 98504-0900, or by fax at (206) 493-9155. If you have any
questions, please contact Kathy at (206) 493-9408.
Sincerely,
Nancy McKay
Executive Director
r
STA7't.
z PLANNING DIVISION
"s �? CITY OF RENT ON
�y'�1AA9 a�Y
Pull— STATE OF WASHINGTON APR 16 1993
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY DECEIVED
Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459-6000
April 14, 1993
3i
i
1
�I
Dear City and County Governments:
R Grant Funds Available for Developing Local Wetlands Programs
W e pleased to announce that the Department of Ecology (Ecology) and
epartment of Community Development (DCD) are soliciting grant
pro sals from local governments for the development of comprehensive
wetland programs. The funds to support this grant have been awarded to
the state by the Environmental Protection Agency under the authority of
Section 104 of the Clean Water Act.
The grant program has been established as part of the State Wetlands
Integration Strategy (SWIS) . SWIS proposes to improve Washington's
wetland protection activities by coordinating among federal and state
agencies and local governments to reduce confusion, resolve conflicts,
and minimize duplication. Since wetlands planning in Washington is
accomplished at the local level, this grant will be awarded to a local
jurisdiction.
Purpose
The purpose of this grant is to explore ways to better integrate
potential elements of local wetland programs into a single, comprehensive
and consistent local wetlands program. Ecology and DCD hope that this
project will serve as a wetlands planning model that can be used by other
local jurisdictions across the state and will be reviewed to determine to
what degree a comprehensive local program can also serve state and
federal program requirements.
Eligibility and Funding
To be eligible for this grant, a jurisdiction must already have adopted
development regulations for protecting critical areas as required by the
Growth Management Act (GMA) .
At this time, the amount of funds available for this project is $50,000.
Given this limited amount, it will be awarded to a single jurisdiction.
However, Ecology and DCD have applied to EPA for an additional $110,000.
Within the next several weeks, we will learn whether we will receive
these additional funds. If we do, additional grants will be awarded
based on the results of this application. Local governments who wish to
be considered for those possible future funds should apply now.
3
Page 2
April 14, 1993
A local match of 10% is required (match in amount of $5,000) . This match
can be cash or in-kind (volunteer services) . Applications must be
postmarked no later than June 15, 1993. Grant projects should be
completed by the GMA deadline of the local government.
Elements of a Successful Application
Ecology and DCD have prepared an application guide that contains specific
criteria and procedures for applying for this grant. However, the
following comments provide some idea of the elements of a successful
application and project:
* A watershed approach should be used to develop the local program.
* The application should describe the goals of the local community
regarding wetlands. It should also discuss growth and development
pressures the community is experiencing.
* The application should contain specific strategies for involving
both the public as well as state and federal agencies in the
decision-making process.
* The project should integrate a variety of regulatory and non-
regulatory protection mechanisms.
* The application should clearly define the final products of the
grant process (e.g. , comprehensive plan policies, development
regulations, inventory and/or land use maps) .
For Further Information
If you are interested in receiving a errant a 1'ca n d r have any
questions about this grant process, please contact L n Beat at (206)
438-7155 or by writing to:
Lynn Beaton
Department of Ecology
Shorelands Program
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Again, both Ecology and DCD are excited about the potential of this grant
program. We look forward to working with you in this effort.
Sincerel ,
D. Rodney Mack, Program Manager
Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program
DRM:LB:del
A:\LETTER.#2
2
i
PLANNING DIVISION
STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OFRENTON
WETLANDS PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT APR 2 7 1993
APPLICATION GUIDE RECEIVED
PURPOSE
The Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Department of Community Development (DCD)
have established a wetlands planning assistance grant program as part of the State Wetlands
Integration Strategy (SWIS) project. The project is supported by a grant from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under the authority of Section 1040 3) of the Clean Water
Act. A portion of the federal grant is designated to assist local governments develop local
wetlands plans.
The purpose of this grant is to explore ways to better integrate potential elements of local
wetlands programs into a single, comprehensive and consistent local wetlands protection
program. This program is intended to be developed through the local comprehensive planning
process, rather than by developing any new wetlands regulations or requirements. Ecology and
DCD hope that this project will serve as a wetlands planning model that can be used by other
local jurisdictions across the state and will be reviewed to determine to what degree a
comprehensive local program can also serve state and federal program requirements.
A watershed approach should be used to develop the local program. To design the program,
a local government should use functional assessment data to_describe the wetlands and balance
this data a ai he velopmm -nit he community. The final wetlands program should
inclu a comprehensive plan policies, regulations, and maps and it should contain an array of
regulatory and non-regulatory measures sufficient to implement the planning decisions.
ELIGIBILITY AND FUNDING
To be eligible for this grant, a jurisdiction must already have adopted development
regulations for protecting critical areas as required by the Growth Management Act
(GMA).
At this time, the amount of funds available for the local wetlands planning grant is $50 000
Given this limited amount, it will be awarded to a single jurisdiction. Grant projects should be
completed by the GMA deadline of the local government.
A local match of 10% is required. This match can be cash or in-kind (volunteer services).
Applications must be postmarked no later than June 15, 1993.
Ecology and DCD also have applied to EPA for an additional $110,000. Within the next
several weeks, we will learn whether we will receive these additional funds. If we do,
additional grants will be awarded to local governments based on the results of this
application. Local governments who wish to be considered for those possible future funds
should apply now.
GRANT MANAGEMENT AND TECB NICAL ASSISTANCE
This guide describes the grant application procedures. It is intended to assist applicants in
developing high quality and complete applications. Lynn Beaton, a wetlands planner with
Ecology, will administer the grant program and coordinate the selection process. Please contact
Lynn if you have questions concerning this program.
Lynn can be reached by calling (206)438-7155 or by writing to:
Lynn Beaton
Department of Ecology
Shorelands Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
BACKGROUND
The State Wetlands Integration Strategy (SWIS) is intended to find methods to make
Washington's wetlands protection programs work better. SWIS proposes to integrate wetland
protection activities by coordinating among federal and state agencies and local governments to
reduce confusion, resolve conflicts, and minimize duplication.
One of the best ways to identify methods for achieving this integration is to actually test ideas
on the ground as part of a demonstration project. Since wetlands planning in Washington is
accomplished at the local level, the demonstration project grant will be awarded to a local
jurisdiction.
ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT
A successful project should be based on a watershed planning model. This means that you
should examine your project area in the context of the surrounding watershed, outline the
ecological and hydrological issues that are present (e.g., water quality problems, flooding,
erosion, etc.), and then prioritize these issues according to state and local values. This
information can also then be used to evaluate individual sites.
Although focused on the local government, a successful project should involve the state and
federal levels of government and their respective wetlands programs. It should also integrate
a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory protection mechanisms. The regulations to address
include the following:
At the state level:
The Growth Management Act requires that local governments designate critical
areas (including wetlands) and adopt regulations that protect them.
2
The State Environmental Policy Act provides a process for analyzing the
environmental impacts of proposed development.
The Shoreline Management Act regulates development on shorelines of the state,
including certain wetlands.
At the federal level:
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the
United States, including wetlands. The Corps issues or denies permits for these
activities by examining alternatives and requiring minimization of adverse
impacts.
At the local level:
In addition to coordinating between the local jurisdiction and other levels of
government, a purpose of this grant is also to coordinate within the local
government system. This means that the project should coordinate wetlands
management programs with other aquatic resource programs (e.g., floodplain
management, stormwater management, etc.) as well as addressing other local
planning issues (e.g., economic development, transportation planning, public
facilities siting, property rights concerns, etc.).
Non-regulatory mechanisms should also be part of a comprehensive wetlands protection
program. Non-regulatory mechanisms provide proactive incentives for protecting wetlands while
regulatory mechanisms are generally reactive. Non-regulatory techniques are most useful when
they are applied both on a programmatic as well as a rn oject level. This means that provisions
allowing for non-regulatory techniques should be: (1) incorporated into your comprehensive
plan as part of the "big picture;" and (2) explored as individual wetland sites and projects are
evaluated. Examples of specific non-regulatory tools include:
Acquisition: There are a variety of funding sources that can be used to purchase land
containing wetlands. Locally, these include conservation bonds and real estate excise
tax.
Conservation Easements: This is another permanent protection tool. The landowner
agrees to restrict certain uses of the property, but retains ownership and property uses
not inconsistent with the conservation values of the property. These easements may be
held by local governments or private organizations such as land trusts.
Land Use Mechanisms: This includes options such as transferring development rights
in exchange for protecting wetlands.
3
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND RELATIVE SCORING
All applications must contain the elements described in this section. Some of these elements are
scored while others are not; however, all must be present for an application to be considered
complete. The first four elements are not scored:
It 1. Map of Proposed Plan Area:
Include a map showing the location of the proposed plan area and provide general
locations of the wetlands within the planning area. The plan can include just a portion
of your jurisdiction; the entire jurisdiction area does not need to be included. (To
designate the location of wetlands, use, at a minimum, the National Wetland Inventory
maps, and any wetland maps developed as part of your local planning process.)
2. Demonstrated compliance with the Growth Management Act:
The GMA requires that local governments classify, designate and protect their critical
areas, including wetlands. To be eligible for this grant, a jurisdiction must already
have adopted development regulations for protecting critical areas as required by
the GMA. We will determine compliance by reviewing the 1992 annual report you have
submitted to DCD.
3. Designated local wetlands planner:
Designate a local official or staff person to be responsible for managing and
administering the grant. Provide the qualifications and position(s) of person(s)
performing grant tasks.
44. Local endorsement:
Applicants must have the written commitment of the local legislative body.
The following five elements are scored:
5. Goal statement and explanation of issues (0-30 points)
Statement describing the goals of your community regarding wetlands. Also provide a
brief explanation of the wetlands issues identified through your GMA process to this
point, and your approach to addressing them. This explanation should address
development and growth pressures, as well as describe valuable wetland areas needing
protection.
Priority will be given to jurisdictions which have identified serious c nflicts between
wetlands,protection and economic development. For example, a serious conflict may
exist where a high percentage of land zoned within the Urban Growth Area for any
specific use (e.g., industrial, residential, or commercial) is identified as wetlands on the
National Wetlands Inventory or other inventories.
4
Applicants are encouraged to include (briefly) data which may indicate the Lent of
development PressUr . scithin the whole uns ichon as well as within the specificuplan
area. This data can describe develonment indicators such a rmit activity, population
growth, capital improve etc.
Priority will also be given to communities which have identified wetlands the
community believes are valuable and need to be protected. Wetlands may be
considered important for a variety of reasons, including high ecological value,
recreational use, educational value, aesthetics, etc.
6. Description of following work tasks: (0-40 points)
a. Inventory and assessment process - briefly describe how the inventory and
functional assessment work has been or will be accomplished. Please briefly
answer the following questions:
(1)What will be the map scale of the inventory? (The map scale should be useful
for local planning decisions.)
(2) Who will do this work, the local government staff or a private consultant?
b. Federal and State Agency Involvement - describe how you will involve federal
and state resource agencies in this project. For example, one option is to create
a technical advisory committee to review inventory and assessment data and assist
in categorizing the wetlands within the plan area. The agencies which should be
informed and included in this process include Ecology, DCD, Department of
Natural Resources, Department of Wildlife, the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
C. Public Involvement Strategy - outline how and when the public will be informed
of this project and involved in the decision-making process. This strategy may
include such techniques as: workshops, public presentations, formation of a
Citizen Advisory Committee, surveys, newsletters, etc. This strategy should
involve a variety of interests such as: environmentalists, developers, the
agricultural community (if appropriate), recreation interest groups, and local
landowners.
d. PIanning Phase - after defining the functional characteristics of the wetlands in
the program area, this information should be balanced against the development
needs of the community. A program should then be developed which is based on
the results of this planning process; it should incorporate regulatory and non-
regulatory mechanisms sufficient to implement the planning decisions. Please
describe how you will conduct this planning phase.
5
e. Plan products - clearly describe the products that you propose to develop as part
of this project. Products should include comprehensive plan policies (if not
already completed), implementing ordinances, and land use maps.
7. Timetable for completing work tasks: (0-10 points)
Provide a timetable showing the estimated completion date for each task. The timetable
should realistically project the sequence and timing of the tasks. For example, an
inventory would be completed before zoning changes are developed.
8. Estimated budget: (0-10 points)
List the estimated cost for each grant task and show the budget estimate for each step of
the process as separate line items. Describe whether it will be planning staff or
consultants who will complete each grant task. (Preference will be given to jurisdictions
which conduct the planning work themselves.) Remember that only expenditures made
during the grant period may be charged against this grant.
9. Local Match: (0-10 points)
The jurisdiction receiving this grant will be required to provide match of at least 10%
of the grant amount ($5,000 of match). This match does not have to be cash; it can also
be "in-kind" (volunteer services). Please list the source and amount of all matching
funds. Match is required to be spent during the grant period.
PROCEDURE FOR FILING APPLICATIONS
Completed applications must be postmarked by June 15, 1993. Applications postmarked
after this date will not be eligible for funding. (Faxed material will not be accepted.)
Five complete copies of all applications are required. Applications must be typed on double
sides of eight and one half by eleven inch recycled standard weight paper and should not contain
more than 15 numbered pages, excluding maps. The document must have a table of contents
and all pages must be numbered sequentially and be stapled or bound.
Applications must be mailed to:
Lynn Beaton
Department of Ecology
Shorelands Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
All applications which are postmarked by June 15, 1993 will be reviewed to ensure that they are
complete and meet the above requirements. Applications may not be modified once they have
been received by Ecology unless supplemental information is requested by the funding agencies.
6
All complete applications will be reviewed and scored by a panel of Ecology staff, DCD staff,
and a local government representative according to the criteria outlined above.
The successful applicant will be notified by phone on June 30th of the results of the grant
application process. All applicants will receive a letter mailed during the first week of July
notifying them of the results of the application process.
TIPS FOR A SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
Special consideration will be given to applications which:
1. Explain how and why your proposed process can serve as a wetlands planning model for
other local jurisdictions in the state.
2. Use a watershed model as the context for the proposal. This means that the project is
described in relation to the watersheds, basins, river systems, etc. of the surrounding
area.
3. Explain how both regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms will be integrated into a
comprehensive wetlands program.
4. Do not propose to spend a large portion of the grant on developing a wetlands inventory.
The purpose of this grant is to develop a comprehensive wetlands program, not just a
better map of your jurisdiction's wetlands.
5. Contain specific and comprehensive strategies for involving both the public as well as
state and federal agencies in the decision-making process.
6. Clearly describe the final products of your grant process. (e.g., comprehensive plan
policies, development regulations, inventory and/or land use maps.)
7. Include a strategy for monitoring the success of the project in the ensuing years.
7
FINAL APPLICATION CHECKLIST
You may wish to use the following checklist to verify that the contents of your final
application are complete:
Application cover pages, with the remaining pages in the application numbered
sequentially. Application should not contain more than 15 numbered pages, excluding
maps.
Location map and description of the planning area, depicting the planning area within the
larger surrounding area.
Name, title and address of local wetlands planner.
Written endorsement of local legislative body.
Goal statement and narrative description of wetlands issues your community is facing.
Includes explanation of progress made in complying with the Growth Management Act.
Brief description of how inventory and functional assessment work has been or will be
accomplished.
Description of how state and federal resource agencies will be involved in the process.
Description of how public outreach will be accomplished.
Description of how planning phase of this project will be conducted and by whom.
Outline of proposed plan products.
Project timetable.
Estimated budget.
Source and amount of local match.
Be sure to send five copies of your application.
8
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY nP RFNTON
CITY OF RENTON APR 2 11993
MEMORANDUM DECEIVED
Date: April 21, 1993
To: Department Administrators
From: Iwen Wang T__1_J
Subject: Consultant Business License Requirement
The City requires all businesses or persons engaged in business activities for gain or profit to
maintain a valid City of Renton business license. This requirement covers all consultants working
for the City on any project, contract, etc. Please let your consultants be aware of this
requirement, and if they have any questions regarding how to obtain a City's business license, or
how the fees will be calculated, please have them contact Vivian Griggs at 235-2608 for detail.
Thank you for your corporation!
BUZLIC.DOC
1
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF RENTON
FEB 15 1993
State Wetlands Integration Strategy for Wa D
Issue Paper 11/4/92
f �
OVERVIEW 1l"
Concerns about wetlands management in Washington State have arisen in recent years. p
First, the present system for wetland protection is simply not adequate; we are still losing
our wetlands resource base. Secondly, there is general agreement that the regulatory
system is confusing, duplicative, over-complicated, and may actually be inhibiting efforts
to achieve no net loss of the state's remaining wetlands. ti �J
Many issues related to these two primary concerns have been addressed by state and
local government agencies carrying out existing wetland protection laws, including the
Growth Management Act. Some issues, however, have not been resolved and others
remain. Certain national concerns, such as the content of the federal delineation manual,
cannot be resolved at the state and local level. However, the state departments of
Ecology and Community Development believe that most remaining issues can best be
resolved through collaborative development of a State Wetlands Integration Strategy
(SWIS) and local wetlands management program guidance. This SWIS will emphasize
integration of existing programs to more effectively protect wetlands.
BACKGROUND
In order to'provide a context for discussing the proposed State Wetlands Integration
Strategy, it is important to briefly review some of the state's recent efforts to address
wetlands protection. In 1987 a National Wetlands Policy Forum was convened by The
Conservation Foundation at the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and Governor Booth Gardner served as vice-chair between 1987 and 1988. The Forum
recommended that states prepare state wetlands "conservation" plans to improve,
integrate, and simplify wetlands regulation and protection efforts. Further, they agreed
upon an interim goal of "... no overall net loss of the nation's remaining wetlands base"
and a long-term goal "to increase the quantity and quality of the nation's wetlands
resource base." This goal was later adopted by President Bush as official federal
wetlands policy.
Concerned about the fate of wetlands in Washington State, in 1988 Governor Gardner
issued Executive Order 88-03 directing the Department of Ecology to take a
comprehensive look at the status of Washington's wetlands and report back with
recommendations for improving wetlands protection statewide. An Executive Order
Advisory Committee was formed to assist Ecology in this effort. The Executive Order
Advisory Committee included representatives from timber, agriculture and development
interests, business, environmental organizations, federal, state, local, and tribal
governments, as well as legislative staff. The committee identified wetland issues of
1
f
STATE WETLANDS INTEGRATION STRATEGY FOR WASHINGTON
Issue Paper 11/4/92
concern, discussed solutions, and agreed on a number of recommendations regarding
wetlands definition, mitigation policy, information and education needs, preservation,
landowner incentives, regulatory consistency, funding, and legislation.
Subsequent efforts, including those of a Washington Wetlands Policy Forum, convened in
1989 at the request of Governor Gardner, focused on the development of wetlands
legislation. Although Forum representatives did not achieve consensus on all topics, they
did agree on the goal of no net loss of wetlands, and agreed on enough substantive issues
to draft a wetlands bill for the 1990 legislative session. The bill would have required
local governments to develop wetlands protection programs subject to approval by the
Department of Ecology, but the bill did not pass. The legislature, however, did pass the
Growth Management Act of 1990, which required that certain counties, and the cities
within those counties, develop wetland protection programs that would preclude
incompatible development within their wetlands.
In addition to these efforts, Governor Gardner issued two more executive orders on
wetlands, E.O. 89-10 and E.O. 90-04. The first adopted no net loss and long-term gain in
the quantity and quality of Washington's wetlands as the official policy of the Gardner
administration. The second requires state agencies to "...rigorously enforce their existing
authorities to assure wetlands protection" in the course of executing their respective
mandates in order to achieve the twin goals of no net loss and a long-term net gain. This
order also established the Interagency Wetlands Review Board which meets on an as-
needed basis to further coordinate wetlands protection efforts. The executive orders did
not provide the agencies with any increased authority, but rather assigned tasks,
priorities, and funding to bolster existing wetlands protection efforts.
In 1991 the Growth Management Act of 1990 was amended to require that all counties
and cities adopt development regulations to protect wetlands and other critical areas. In
March, 1991 the Department of Community Development adopted minimum guidelines
for classifying critical areas, which reference various wetlands planning guidance
documents that cities and counties are encouraged to consider. At the same time,
Community Development also published their Planning Data Source Book for Resource
Lands and Critical Areas, which references sources of information and other wetlands
planning guidance documents, including the Puget Sound Water Quality Management
Plan that provides guidance to Puget Sound counties for developing comprehensive
wetlands protection programs.
By March, 1992 all local governments were to have adopted development regulations for
the protection of wetlands and other critical areas, and a majority of jurisdictions
2
STATE WETLANDS INTEGRATION STRATEGY FOR WASHINGTON
Issue Paper 11/4/92
complied or indicated an intent to comply in the near future. These development
regulations, however, are regarded as interim regulations that may be modified when the
cities and counties develop their final ordinances after they adopt their comprehensive
plans. These ordinances should establish a clear public health, safety, and welfare basis
for any wetland regulations and include both regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms
to protect wetlands.
Because the Growth Management Act requires that all cities and counties protect
wetlands, the state in effect now has a framework for comprehensive wetlands protection
covering all wetlands and activities affecting them, not just those regulated under the
Shoreline Management Act, the State Hydraulic Code, the State Water Pollution Control
Act, and the federal Clean Water Act. However, the Growth Management Act does not
indicate how local wetlands protection programs should relate to these other existing
state and federal wetlands protection programs. The state therefore could benefit from a
wetlands integration strategy that promotes consistency and minimizes conflicts and
duplication.
Because so much has happened since 1988 when the governor's Executive Order
Advisory Committee comprehensively examined wetlands protection and made its
recommendations, it is appropriate to reassess and take the next steps toward
coordinated wetlands management. In order to do this, the departments of Community
Development and Ecology jointly submitted a grant application to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to collaboratively develop a State Wetlands Integration
Strategy (SWIS) and guidance; it was recently approved. The purpose of this paper is to
promote discussion of the major issues that will be addressed in the SWIS and related
guidance. We encourage the suggestion of additional issues that should be included.
Following the discussion of key issues, we describe our proposal and a possible approach
for actually developing the strategy.
ISSUES
Wetland Functions and Values as the Basis for Wetlands Protection
Wetland functions and values should be the cornerstone of any program for the
management of wetlands. To provide for this effectively, a standardized functional
assessment methodology, and a flexible wetlands rating system are highly desirable. A
standardized functional assessment methodology allows for consistent identification of the
functions a wetland provides and a determination of the extent it does so. A rating
system allows a wetland to be categorized according to its overall quality. Ecology has
developed a four-tier rating system which may or may not meet all needs. Subsequent
3
STATE WETLANDS INTEGRATION STRATEGY FOR WASHINGTON
Issue Paper 11/4192
revisions or adaptations can address issues of flexibility and ease of application. Our
objective is to have a rating system or systems and a standardized functional assessment
method that will allow jurisdictions to consistently meet their goals using wetlands
functions and values as a foundation.
Better Protection of Wetlands
Both regulatory and non-regulatory wetland protection efforts need to be improved if we
are to achieve no net loss and a long term gain of wetland resources. For example, case-
by-case permit review and avoidance criteria sometimes result in wetlands that are
fragmented or isolated from other functionally related aquatic or upland habitats. In
some of these cases, creation, restoration, or enhancement of a replacement wetland
could provide significantly higher resource value than avoiding wetland impacts. Planning
for stewardship at a system level by taking a basin-wide approach to wetlands protection
may be necessary to ensure that local protection goals are accomplished and that
cumulative impacts are minimized or avoided.
Alternative approaches for providing wetlands protection and mitigation need to be
utilized to augment existing regulatory efforts. For truly effective wetlands protection,
regulations need to be combined with both public and private initiatives for wetlands
preservation, restoration, education, and evaluation. Ecology and Community
Development will provide guidance to local governments for establishing comprehensive
wetlands protection programs that incorporate these non-regulatory tools in
comprehensive plans and regulations under the Growth Management Act. Further, a
range of funding options for ensuring the long-term success of such programs needs to be
explored.
Consistency
Inconsistency between federal, state, and local wetland protection programs has become
a significant issue as more and more local governments have adopted wetland protection
programs under the Growth Management Act, and as more agencies attempt to
adequately protect wetlands as recognition of their values increases. Property owners
may be obliged to comply with differing requirements at various levels of government,
only to find in the end that the requirements of certain agencies may prevail, typically
those that are most stringent. We can promote consistency by developing uniform
methods for classification, functional assessment, and other protection methods. Given
the variation in stringency, we need to clarify which authority prevails in a given situation
and identify available dispute resolution mechanisms. Finally, consistency will make the
regulatory system less time-consuming and complex, so property owners will have equal
access to the process.
4
i
STATE WETLANDS INTEGRATION STRATEGY FOR WASHINGTON
Issue Paper 11/4/92
Reduce Duplication
We recognize the need to reduce duplication of effort in federal, state, and local wetland
management program requirements. In some cases, property owners are obliged to
satisfy duplicative regulatory requirements. Further, federal, state, and local governments
frequently provide similar services to the public in the form of technical assistance and
guidance. Therefore, we propose to define the appropriate roles (where any discretion
exists) for each level of government in wetlands management in Washington and
investigate methods for reducing duplication of effort. In addition, Community
Development, Ecology, and local governments will identify the types of wetlands
management guidance that are needed by local governments to support effective local
decision-making.
PROPOSAL
The Departments of Ecology and Community Development propose to collaboratively
develop a State Wetlands Integration Strategy and guidance for the development of local
wetlands management programs. This means we will work in partnership with other
state agencies and all interested parties in developing the State Wetlands Integration
Strategy. We want to use advisory committees, structured work groups, and public
workshops to identify actions that a broad majority of the participants support and agree
should be implemented.
As mentioned above, Community Development and Ecology have received a grant from
the Environmental Protection Agency to fund the development of the strategy. The
grant proposal includes four activities:
• development of a comprehensive state wetlands integration strategy;
• development of local wetlands management program guidance;
• training for local governments in use of the guidance; and
--� funding a local wetlands management program demonstration project.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
The primary objective of the state wetlands integration strategy will be to develop
processes for local, state, and federal agencies to work in a coordinated and efficient
manner to ensure the best protection and long-term management of the state's wetland
resources. Through structured work groups, consensus objectives will be identified,
methods will be examined to fill gaps and minimize inconsistency and overlaps in
wetlands protection, and an implementation strategy will be developed. We will
investigate possible processes and funding mechanisms for transferring federal and/or
state responsibilities for issuing permits for activities in wetlands to state and/or local
5
1'
STATE WETLANDS INTEGRATION STRATEGY FOR WASHINGTON
Issue Paper 11/4/92
governments who request it. This will involve identifying the federal and/or state
agencies responsible for providing technical assistance, oversight, and enforcement of
wetland permit requirements, as well as possible criteria or standards for such a transfer.
Guidance materials will be developed to assist cities and counties revise or create
comprehensive plans and development regulations that will protect wetlands as required
by the Growth Management Act. The guidance will encourage the establishment of local
wetlands programs that are based on wetland functions and values and include both
regulatory and non-regulatory components to achieve goals of no net loss and a long-
term gain. Particular emphasis will be placed on implementing system-wide stewardship
efforts de reservation ro—ams, a ca i e nom-c n fives, and watershed
tannin to achi wetland otection within a landscape perspective. in addition, the
gui ance wi 1 identify methods to situp or expedite wet an permitting procedures, or
methods to assume certain state and/or federal wetland protection responsibilities. This
may involve comprehensive or special area management planning, including advanced �,�✓
identification of wetlands.
CONCLUSION '
Development of a State Wetlands Integration Strategy is an exciting opportunity. By
working together, we can significantly improve the protection of wetlands. Successful
strategy development and implementation depends on your participation and support.
Ecology and Community Development welcome your suggestions on issues to be
addressed.and processes to be used in developing the strategy, and we look forward to
working with you to make the State Wetlands Integration Strategy a reality.
6
NANCY NCK,AY U
Executive Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY
PO Box 40900 • Olvmpia, Ltashington 98304-0900 • (206) 493-9300
IN EMORANDLTM
March 17, 1993
Interested Parties:
I want to alert you to the probability of a new source of federal money which will be
available within the next few months, under Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water
Act. A bill is pending before Congress which would appropriate $47 million dollars
to EPA to distribute through the 319 state lead agencies for projects which create jobs
to clean up and protecting waterbodies from nonpoint sources. The State of
Washington would receive approximately $600,000. This is in addition to the regular
319 grant funds. Once this bill is passed and signed, there will be a very short time
period for identification and selection of projects; states must submit their projects to
EPA in 30 days.
The Authority would like to see part of this money used to implement the Puget Sound
Plan. In order for this to happen, we need to have a list of project ideas ready to give
to the Department of Ecology, the lead 319 agency. Limitations on these funds are
expected to be the following:
* They must be used to increase jobs in the private sector.
* EPA only expects to fund large projects, in the $200K
_ range_
* Projects must be on-t ie=groun , rea y- o-go, -
measurable water quality benefits.
The priority is for habitat, wetland or stream restoration projects. Other possible
projects could involve construction of demonstration farm BMPs, construction of
stormwater retrofits, construction or repair of septic systems as demonstration
projects, and provision of alternative sources of shade or fencing to protect riparian
areas from overgrazing. Monitoring, planning, inventories, and projects funded under
another program are not eligible.
-2-
We are frequently asked for ideas for water quality related projects which are ready to
implement if funds were provided. In addition to the new 319 funding, there are
several bills before the state legislature which would fund jobs to carry out
environmental enhancement.
We hope you will take a few minutes to inform us about projects which meet the 319
criteria or might meet criteria for other programs which fund "on-the-ground",
"ready-to-go" projects. Please send brief descriptions (one to two paragraphs) of
projects to Kathy Minsch at the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, P.O. Box
40900, Olympia, WA 98504-0900, or by fax at (206) 493-9155. If you have any
questions, please contact Kathy at (206) 493-9408.
Sincerely,
Nancy McKay
Executive Director
r=
NANCY McKA1
Executive Director T
H _ v
STATE Of WASHINGTON �ti�
PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY
PO Sor 40900 • GiAmpia, Ltashington 9830.1-0900 • (206) 493-9300
MEMORANDUM
vW'7-5&A p w( 1 w1 ,JSu.(
March 17, 1993 &AV
Interested Parties:
I want to alert you to the probability of a new source of federal money which will be
available within the next few months, under Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water
Act. A bill is pending before Congress which would appropriate $47 million dollars
to EPA to distribute through the 319 state lead agencies for projects which create jobs
to clean up and protecting waterbodies from nonpoint sources. The State of
Washington would receive approximately $600,000. This is in addition to the regular
319 grant funds. Once this bill is passed and signed, there will be a very short time
period for identification and selection of projects; states must submit their projects to
EPA in 30 days.
The Authority would like to see part of this money used to implement the Puget Sound
Plan. In order for this to happen, we have a list of project ideas ready to give
to the Department of Ecology, the lea�r? gency. Limitations on these funds are
expected to be the following:
* They must be used to increase jobs in the private sector.
* EPA only expects to fund large projects, in the $200K
range.
Projects must-e on die group , rea y--to=go,-w to
measurable water quality benefits.
The priority is for habitat, w Hand o tream restoration projects. Other possible
projects could involve construction of demonstration farm Ps, construction of
stormwater retrofits, construction or repair of septic systems as demonstration
projects, and provision of alternative sources of shade or fencing to protect riparian
areas from overgrazing. Monitoring, planning, inventories, and projects funded under
another program are not eligible.
= o iE
-2-
We are frequently asked for ideas for water quality related projects which are ready to
implement if funds were provided. In addition to the new 319 funding, there are
several bills before the state legislature which would fund jobs to carry out
environmental enhancement.
We hope you will take a few minutes to inform us about projects which meet the 319
criteria or might meet criteria for other programs which fund "on-the-ground"�
"rea y-to-go" projects. Please send brief descriptions (one to two paragraphs) of
projects to Kathy Minsch at the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, P.O. Box
40900, Olympia, WA 98504-0900, or by fax at (206) 493-9155. If you have any
questions, please contact Kathy at (206) 493-9408.
Sincerely,
Nancy McKay
Executive Director
' CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Depam-ment
Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Admg>m ss mt®ir
April 2, 1993
Ms. Kathy Minsch
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
P.O. Box 40900
Olympia, Washington 98504-0900
Dear Ms. Minsch,
I am writing in regard to potential funding soon to be available under Section
319 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The memorandum from the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority, issued March 17, requests information on
"ready-to-go" projects which meet the 319 criteria. The City of Renton is
engaged in a project which deserves your consideration.
The City is implementing a wetland mitigation banking program on two
parcels, totaling 45 acres, which it has acquired in the Green River Valley and
is in the process of hiring a consultant to create a mitigation program and plan
for the site. Currently, the most financially feasible mitigation approach for
the mitigation bank is "off-site" mitigation on a case-by-case basis, with
separate projects being coordinated whenever possible. If financially feasible,
along with the construction of individual mitigation projects, the City will
create additional wetland acreage to be used as "credit" to compensate for
unknown future impacts. Ideally, the City would like to establish wetland
credits for the entire site well in advance of known and unknown future
impacts, however this is financially unfeasible for the City. At this point,
creation of wetlands would be dictated solely by current demand.
While the benefits of wetland mitigation banking are not thoroughly
documented, the general consensus among wetland specialists is that one
large, contiguous wetland provides higher values than many small, scattered
wetlands. The City's primary goal for its mitigation bank is to ensure no net
loss of wetlands, but the opportunity also exists for creating much higher
quality wetlands than those which are impacted. In Renton's case, the Class
III wetlands likely to be impacted in the Green River Valley are recently
formed wetlands on top of fill. They have very low functional value and little
hydrological relation to streams in the drainage basin. Nonetheless, they are
wetlands under the COE definition. Because the City's mitigation sites are
adjacent to the basin's primary tributary, Springbrook Creek, created or
restored wetlands will have a much greater effect on the quality of water
leaving the basin entering the Green River, especially if higher quality
wetlands than those impacted can be established.
Logically, the most cost-effective and least environmentally damaging way to
establish a mitigation bank is to construct the entire project at one time.
However, as implied above, the City's financial ability is too limited to fund
wetland creation for the entire site at one time. The City expects to phase
the project based on a case-by-case need for mitigation in the valley. The
extent to which individual mitigation projects can be coordinated will
determine the phasing of the construction.
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
THIS PAPER CONTAINS 50%RECYCLED MATERIAL,10%POST CONSUMER
% - CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator
The other disadvantage of basing construction on the immediate need for
mitigation is that a net loss in functional value occurs when the functional
value of the wetland created fails to equal that of the impacted wetland at the
time it is impacted. Creation of wetlands well in advance of expected impacts
increases the likelihood that the functional value of the created wetlands will
surpass that of the impacted wetlands by the time of the impacts. If the
entire project can be constructed at one time, a net-gain in wetland functional
value in the valley is likely to occur. Ideally, this is what the City desires.
The City is very excited to be pursuing this progressive approach to wetland
mitigation, however its limited resources prevent it from implementing the
mitigation banking concept in the most efficient and cost-effective way. By
forming partnerships with resource agencies, the City will be able to more
efficiently implement its mitigation banking program which promises to result
in a net-gain in wetland functional value.
We feel that our wetland mitigation bank fits your criteria outlined in the
memorandum and look forward to discussing this project with you in the near
future. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mary Lynne Myer
Principle Planner
Long Range Planning
Planning/Building/Public Works
200 Mill Ave. S.
Renton, Washington 98055
1*6-,-( aY
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
THIS PAPER CONTAINS 50 RECYCLED MATERIAL.10%POST CONSUMER
c�
NANCY %4cKA
Executive Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 't
PO got 40900 • Ohmpia, btashington 98304-0900 • (206) 493-9300
iV1EMORANDLTM
March 17, 1993
Interested Parties:
I want to alert you to the probability of a new source of federal money which will be
available within the next few months, under Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water
Act. A bill is pending before Congress which would appropriate $47 million dollars
to EPA to distribute through the 319 state lead agencies for projects which create jobs
to clean up and protecting waterbodies from nonpoint sources. The State of
Washington would receive approximately $600,000. This is in addition to the regular
319 grant funds. Once this bill is passed and signed, there will be a very short time
period for identification and selection of projects; states must submit their projects to
EPA in 30 days.
The Authority would like to see part of this money used to implement the Puget Sound
Plan. In order for this to happen, we need to have a list of project ideas ready to give
to the Department of Ecology, the lead 319 agency. Limitations on these funds are
expected to be the following:
* They must be used to increase jobs in the private sector.
* EPA only expects to fund large projects, in the $200K
nge-
* Projects must be )n-the-ground, ready-to-go, wi
measurable water quality benefits.
The priority is for habitat, wetland or stream restoration projects. Other possible
projects could involve construction of demonstration farm BMPs, construction of
stormwater retrofits, construction or repair of septic systems as demonstration
projects, and provision of alternative sources of shade or fencing to protect riparian
areas from overgrazing. Monitoring, planning, inventories, and projects funded under
another program are not eligible.
-2-
We are frequently asked for ideas for water quality related projects which are ready to
implement if funds were provided. In addition to the new 319 funding, there are
several bills before the state legislature which would fund jobs to carry out
environmental enhanccment.
We hope you will take a few minutes to inform us about projects which meet the 319
criteria or might meet criteria for other programs which fund "on-the-ground",
"ready-to-go" projects. Please send brief descriptions (one to two paragraphs) of
projects to Kathy Minsch at the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, P.O. Box
40900, Olympia, WA 98504-0900, or by fax at (206) 493-9155. If you have any
questions, please contact Kathy at (206) 493-9408.
Sincerely,
Ala".c.c_4 l
Nancy McKay
Executive Director
r
r
04/13/93 15:30 P. S. WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 002
/3
MEMO
UPDATE ON 319 FUNDS
I am faxing the official memo from DOE, with the application form, on
how to apply for the potential supplemental Section 319 funds for projects
creating gobs while restoring/protecting watersheds.
Please note the deadline is Monday APRIL 261
Please send your application directly to Kahle Jennings at DOE. You may
still call me if you have any more questions, or Kahle at 438-7528.
Good luck, V
Kathy Minsch, PSWQA
Nonpoint Program Lead
04/13/93 15:31 P. S. WATER. QUALITY AUTHORITY 003
Kainy Millis
Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority
PO Box 40900
Olympia, WA 98504-0900
-T�II of, w.\S11IN(,7o,\
}=I'ANT,%IE:ti V OF FC"01
1'.0. UO.t"a-auu • r)linipm, 1%ashing(orl 98504-7/,(00 • :(1(il ii'I•bfJ!!U
April 9, 1993
TO: Nonpoint Source Implementation Organizations
FROM: Kahle Jennings, 319 Coordinator
SUBJECT: Availability of CWA §319 Nonpoint Source
Implementation Funds to Create Jobs
President Clinton's Economic Stimulus Package includes a proposal to use existing federal
environmental restoration programs to Hind the creation of new jobs. Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act is one of the programs that has been identified for a one-time infusion of funds to create some of
these new jobs. As many of you are aware, this legislation has been passed by the federal House of
Representatives, but is being held up In the Senate.
In anticipation that this program will be approved and funded, EPA has developed draft
implementation guidance. Because the legislation includes provisions that any money appropriated by
congress be awarded to implementing organizations at the state level within sixty to ninety days, we
are being pushed to identify and select projects for these one-time funds by April 30, 1993.
Washington State has been assigned a target amount of funding under this jobs program of$897,500.
This is not a guarantee. However, if funds are actually appropriated and we submit quality project
proposals we can anticipate receiving funds near that amount. We are being encouraged to submit no
more than four to five projects under this program. This translates into projects that are built around
a budget of approximately $200,000 to $250,000.
As part of their CWA §319 work program for 1993, EPA requested that states submit a list of
priority watersheds for NPS implementation with §319 funds. As an interim measure Washington
State submitted a list of watersheds that have approved watershed management plans developed under
existing state or federal programs. Because we will be using this list to focus NPS implementation
projects funded under CWA§319 in our 1994 work program (submitted in March of 1994) this list
also included watersheds that were expected to complete their planning by December 31, 1992. This
list will be used until a formal prioritization mechanism can be developed. All proposals submitted
for consideration under this 3191jobs 2mmm must be ILed to the priority watersheds identified on V
the attached list. If you feel that a watershed you know of qualifies for that list but is not included,
the proposal format provides you with an opportunity to justify your position.
R iVEr)
APR 12 1993
QUALII r rAu,1jukf(Y
04/13/93 15:31 P. S. WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 004
Nonpoint Source Implementation Organizations
March 9, 1993
Page 2
If you decide to submit a proposal to fund a project under this potential environmental/jobs program,
please pay close attention to the following criteria - they will form the basis for the process used to
select the projects that are finally submitted to EPA. Projects should:
Create new jobs or employment opportunities;
* Fall within one of the priority watersheds for NPS implementation identified on the
attached list;
* Protect, enhance, or restore water quality and/or habitat including: wetlands,
streambanks,' shorelines, seagrass beds or other aquatic habitats; and
* Coordinate with existing federal, state, local and private NPS implementation
activities that are underway in your selected watershed.
Provisions requiring state or local match for the federal dollars awarded under this program have been
omitted. Since match is not required (projects funded at 100%) we will be looking most favorably at
projects that do not contain program administrative costs. We would expect them to be absorbed by
the sponsoring organization.
P_ronosals should be prepared using the attached format and must be received by 5.00 2.m. Anril 26
12&
If you have any questions please contact either Teri Fisher at (206) 438.7073 or call me at (206) 438-
7528.
04/13/93 15:32 P. S. WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 005
WASHINGTON STATE PROJECT PROPOSAL
FOR EPA WATERSHED RESTORATION GRANTS
CLEAN WATER ACT §319
APRIL 1993
PROJECT LEVEL DESCRIPTION
Project X (State will assign upon consultation with EPA)
Project Name:
Project Description:
Project Purpose:
Project Elements Relating to Public Education and Public Involvement:
Plan for Monitoring Project Results:
Waterbody Type: (River, Lake, Estuary, Salt Water)
Does the proposed project fall within a watershed listed as a priority for §319 nonpoint source
implementation on the attached list?
Does the project implement actions specifically called for in the watershed management plan?
Reference.
If the watershed is not on the list do you recommend It be added because a watershed management
plan has either been approved or will be completed by December 31, 1993? Please justify your
recommendation.
What tines of Jobs will your =AQ r A 1
" Short term (temporary. one year or less)
Long-term (over one year)
At or near minimum wage ($4.25/hour)
Equivalent to the prevailing wage rate that can support a family in your area?
What is that wage?
Provides training in skills currently in demand by the job market so workers can
reasonably expect to qualify for permanent employment?
What are those skills?
What are the Full Time -mnloyee (FTE) equlvalents for each of the job classes created by your
prgigct?
(Determine the total number of hours of employment for each individual job class
(supervisors, laborers, equipment operators, etc.) and divide by 2080. You should
have a separate FTE equivalent for each job class. LIST THEM SEPARATELY, DO
NOT COMBINE THEM INTO ONE F ,,E EQUIVALENT!]
04/13/93 15:32 P. S. WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 006
WASHINGTON STATE PROJECT PROPOSAL
FOR EPA WATERSHED RESTORAnON GRANTS
Page 2
Will the project. (circle Wf, �pnropriats categori l
Protect water quality
Restore water quality (clean it up so it meats state WQ standards)
Enhance water quality (make it beater than It is, but it won't meet standards)
Protect habitat
Restore habitat
Enhance habitat
Type of habitat:
Wetlands
Streambanks
Shorelines
Seagrass beds
Other aquatic related habitats
Does the project coordinate with other federal, state, local, or private nonpoint source implementation
activities? Describe.
CONTACTS
State Contact: Teri Fisher
Duties: 319 Administration/Coordination
Agency/Entity: Department of Ecology
Address: P.O. Boat 47600, Olympia, WA, 98504-8711
Phone: (206) 438-7073
Local (Project) Contact:
Duties:
Agency/Entity:
Address:
Phone:
BUDGET
§319 Funds Requested:
•Local Match (none required):
TOTAL
TASK LEVEL DESCEMMON
Task #
Description:
Outputs:
Completion Date:
Cost:
04/13/93 15:32 P. S. WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 007
WASHINGTON STATE PROJECT PROPOSAL
FOR EPA WATERSHED RESTORATION GRANTS
Page 3
Repeat for additional tasks, Tasks can be broken down into sub-tasks which represent specific
activities with specific costs and completion dates.
Washington State Priority Waters (February 26, 1993)
Stele Funded Watershed IVia "ement Plans (Centennial Clean Water Fund)
Drayton Harbor, Whatcom County (Anticipate approval by 9/93)
Dyes Inlet/Clear Creek, Kitsap County (Approved 12-22-92)
East Fork Lewis River (Anticipate completion in 93)
Eld Inlet, Thurston County (Approved 08-17-90)
Chehalis, multiple counties (Plan approved)
Green/Duwamish, King County (Approved 01-29-91)
Hangman Creek, Spokane
Henderson Inlet, Thurston County (Approved 08-06-90)
Issaquah/Lake Samamish, King County (Anticipate approval by 6/93)
Kamm Creek, Whatcom County (Approved 03-28-90)
Longfellow Creek, King County (Approved 12-2-92)
Lower Hood Canal (Anticipate approval by 12/93)
Oakland Bay, Mason County (Approved 08-30-90)
Pipers Creek, King County (Approved 11-15-90)
Quilcene Bay, Jefferson County (Approved 06-18-91)
Salmon Creek, Clark County (Plan done, but county not supportive)
Sequim Bay, Clallam County (Approved 11-15-91)
Silver Croak, Whatcom County (Approved 05-29-90)
Stillaguamish River, Snohomish County (Approved 01-I0-90)
Tenmile Creek, Whatcom County (Approved 11-02-90)
Totten/Skookum, Thurston County (Approved 12-00-91)
Weber Coulee, Adams County (Approved, state implementation grant signed)
White Salmon River, Klicitat County (Anticipate completion in 93)
Yakima River, multiple counties
Federally Funded Watershed Management plans au Ut -c ut
Johnson Creek, Whatcom County (Will soon be officially completed)
North Pine/Spring Valley (Landowner contracts almost all written)
(trib. to Palouse)
Paradise Creek, Whitman County (Landowner contracts almost all written)
Pleasant Valley, Whitman County
Rebel Flat Creek, Whitman County (Landowner contracts almost all written)
Tucannon River, multiple counties
North Wishtrand, Benton County
46h. to Yakima) (Plan complete, but not yet funded)
Omak Creek (trib. to Okanogan River] (Plan done by end of 1993)
04/13/93 15:33 P. S. WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY BBC
WASHINGTON STATE PROJECT PROPOSAL
FOR EPA WATERSHED RESTORATION GRANTS
Page 4
Pilot Salmon Restoratign ffo c
Asotin Creek [trib. to Snake River]
Omak Creek or Salmon Creek [trios. to Okanogan River]
Carlisle Lake, a watershed management
plan was developed as part of the
Clean Lakes Project
Moxee Irrigation Canal (Plan developed)
Granger Drain SCS Hydrologic
Unit Area project
Mary Lynne Myer
To: David Saxen
Subject: 319 grants
I just talked with Kahle Jennings of DOE. Long and short of it is: their 319 money for jobs related grants
looks threatened by the Republicans veto of the President's jobs creation bill. However, they are not totally
sure of this, so submit the grant application but don't hold your breath. More money will be coming
through in the fall for wetlands restoration and if we have an application on file already , it will be helpful.
He will put us on a mailing list and let us know if any miracles occur and when the fall funding cycle comes
through.
Page 1
METHODOLOGY USED TO ESTIMATE BUILDING SPACE REQUIREMENT
Sina Zarifi , PSCOG Staff
The objective of this report is to document the methodology
and sources used in developing density factors . These
density factors were used in estimating the square feet of
the building space needed to accomodate the employment
forecast growth to the years 2000 and 2020 .
The employment density factors were estimated for the five
employment categories forecast by the PSCOG :
■ Manufacturing Employment
■ W. T. C. U. Employment (wholesale, trade , transportation
services, communication, and utilities )
Retail Trade Employment
■ Service Employment
■ Government/Education Employment
Our determination is based on employment density
observations from a number of nationwide studies of various
employment categories ( list of data sources and references
is attached) .
Based on review and analysis of national sources, the
assumed density factors for each employment category are :
■ Manufacturing 1 . 7 EMP/TGSF
■ Retail 1 . 9 EMP/TGSF
■ W. T. C. U. 1 . 25 EMP/TGSF wholesale/warehouse
employment stores
3 . 9 EMP/TGSF transportation,
communications, and
utility program
Services 3 . 9 EMP/TGSF
■ Government/Education 4 . 5 EMP/TGSF Government
Services
1
STATE. PLANNING DIVISION
c� CITY OF RENTON
� - s
ms J �i
19w� °� OCT 16 1992
STAT-1 OF WASHM,FON RECEIVED
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, 0,ldshington 98504-8711 • (206) 459-6000
October 12, 1992
TO: Interested Parties
THROUGH: Peter Birch, Supervisor -� —`�`�
Urban Non Point Management Unit
FROM: Helen Pressley (
Urban Non Point Management nit
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS NOW AVAILABLE
The Washington State Department of Ecology's Urban Nonpoint Management Unit has contracted
with the Center for Urban Water Resources Management at the University of Washington to provide
technical assistance to local governments in the Puget Sound basin. Technical assistance to local
governments has been mandated by the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, and this
program is one facet of the technical assistance being provided. This technical assistance is intended
to assist local governments in developing and implementing stormwater management programs, with a
particular emphasis on applying the "Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin."
Technical assistance will be available immediately in two ways. The Center has established a
telephone "hotline" which local government staff can call to ask technical questions concerning
stormwater management. The Center's director, Richard Horne, is also prepared to make a certain
number of visits to local governments to present information and discuss problems in more detail.
Technical Assistance Hotline
The telephone hotline number is (206) 543-6272 (SCAN 323, for those who have the state's wide-area
dialing system). This line will be staffed by graduate students during usual working hours, and by
voice mail at other times of the day. The students will be familiar with the Stormwater Manual and
prepared to answer many questions on the spot. When necessary, they will research answers and call
back with the information. The students will have access to documents in the Center's collection and
the University's libraries, as well as to the Center director and other experienced personnel.
Although they will have time to perform some problem analysis, it is intended that the questions
handled over the hotline deal with fairly limited matters of technical interpretation. More extensive
discussions can possibly be held during a visit. Very involved issues, the design of specific facilities
or programs, and similar detailed and extended tasks should be handled by staff or consultants
retained by the local government, perhaps with some preliminary advice from the Center.
The following are examples of some subjects that would be appropriate for telephone discussion:
I-ev— J
0
Interested Parties
Page 2
October 12, 1992
The meaning of terminology in the Stormwater Manual;
Workable processes for analyzing problems and finding solutions;
General appropriateness of a best management practice (BMP) for a given application;
Various ways in which BMPs can be effectively used to fit site conditions;
The theoretical or empirical background for techniques covered in the Stormwater Manual;
Advice on performing calculations;
"Second opinions" on analyses already performed or decisions reached; and
Sources of additional information on a given topic.
Local Government Site Visits
You can also call the hotline number to arrange a visit by Richard Horner. Visits will have to be
scheduled around other demands between now and next May and distributed throughout the Puget
Sound Basin. To get the most complete coverage in the time available, it would be best to speak at
one time with all persons in an area who are interested in a particular subject. We encourage
neighboring jurisdictions to jointly participate whenever it is appropriate, and also encourage local
governments to include private consultants who work in the area and citizens who are interested in the
topic should this be appropriate.
Visits could take several forms depending on the circumstances. One is an illustrated presentation to
a large or small group on a topic of interest. Some subjects on which the Center has special expertise
as a result of past work are:
The nature of stormwater, its potential impacts, and problem solutions;
Erosion and sediment control;
Biofiltration for runoff water quality control;
Th_ a relationships and management of natural wetlands-nd urban stormwater;
Wet ponds and/or constructed wetlands for runoff water quality control;
Inspection for erosion and sediment control and/or for permanent drainage facilities; and
Response to the requirements of the stormwater NPDES permit program.
Another form that a visit could take is a roundtable discussion either on a general topic, such as one
of the above, or an issue facing the local government. A third possibility would be a visit to a
problem site in the field for discussion there or afterwards.
Other Technical Assistance
The technical assistance program will perform some other tasks in addition to the hotline and visits.
A half-day course on erosion and sediment control will be developed for construction site personnel
and offered three times in early 1993. Two applied research projects offering benefits to local
governments will also be completed.
Local government personnel are invited to communicate their needs for technical assistance to either
Helen Pressley or Melany Lee of the Washington State Department of Ecology (206) 438-7089 and
(206) 438-7058 respectively, or to the Center. This information will be very helpful in planning the
technical assistance program in future years.
�WASHINGT0N STATE
=0 1 P A R T M I N T OF
EC0L0GY n.kpn123' 1993
PLANNING DIVISION
STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) APR 2 11993
APPLICATION ANNOUNCEMENT RECEIVED
The Department of Ecology's Water Quality Financial Assistance Program (WQFA) is pleased to
announce the opportunity to apply for a low-interest loan from the State Revolving Fund (SRF).
Approximately $39 million will be available for low-interest loans for water pollution control this
funding cycle. The application period will begin June 1, 1993 and close July 1, 1993.
The SRF provides low-interest loans to public bodies for construction of wastewater treatment
facilities and implementation of activities that improve and protect the state's water quality. The
loans can also be used to match grants awarded from the Centennial Clean Water Fund program or
other state and federal agencies. Interest rates are zero percent for terms up to five years, three
and one-half percent for 6714 year loans, and four and one-half percent for 16-20 year loans.
To find out more about how to apply for an SRF loan and to receive an application packet, please
come to one of our regional workshops listed below. Those people who attend workshops become
better informed on program requirements and application prerequisites and almost always prepare
better applications. If you are unable to attend a workshop, you may request an application packet
after May 28, 1993 by calling Tammy Riddell at (206) 459-6838 (SCAN 585-6838).
Note: All applicants proposing projects for SRF assistance to construct or upgrade wastewater
treatment facilities must complete the facilities planning process. A facilities plan must be approved
or deemed approvable by WQFA b the he application deadline (July 1. 1993) in order to be eligible
for an SRF loan.
Applications must be received in our office by 5:00 p.m. July 1, 1993. Applications received after
this date will not be accepted. No new information will be accepted after the application deadline.
FAXed applications will not be accepted.
Mailing Address: Water Quality Financial Assistance Program
Policy and Evaluation Section
Department of Ecology
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Street Address: Second Floor, Moduline Building
4500 Third Avenue SE
Lacey, WA
If you have any questions about SRF financial assistance, please call:
Brian Howard (206) 438-7515 - Project Eligibilities/Environmental Review Requirements
Genny Matteson (206) 459-6006 - Financial Capability
YAKIMA TA COMA
Wednesday, May 25, 1993 Thursday, May 26, 1993
9:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. 9:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Yakima Valley Museum Shilo Inn - Tacoma
2105 Tieton Drive 7414 South Hosmer
Yakima, Washington Tacoma, Washington
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
MAIL STOP PV 11 'FIRST CLASS
PO BOX 47600 UWa5wnptonD stateD
OLYMPIA WA 98504-7600 Department of PrinItna
WQFAP MAST DSTI461 191
liRonStraka , � .bCity of Renton ,'�: .�;��
City Hall 5,
200 Mill Ave S `
RENTON WA 980155-2189
a
`F {EN SON
Enb�neermg Dept.
sTnrE•,o�
_ v 9L.V4NING GlViS ION
CURT SMITCH a x
�, � 02 r"1T1'!?F RlsNT 01�I
Director
188y�
MAY -- 1 1 991
STATE OF WASHINGTON HECEIVED
DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE
16018 Mill Creek Blvd., Mill Creek, WA 98012 Tel. (206) 775-1311
April 30, 1992
Ms. Mary Lynn Meyer
City of Renton Planning Dept.
200 Mill Ave. S.
Renton, WA 98056
Dear Ms. Meyer,
Thank you for talking with me on the phone today. As I indicated, we are interested in finding
new possibilities for our Urban Wildlife Habitat Demonstration Project. The purpose of the
Project is to increase the public awareness of urban wildlife and to create urban wildlife habitat.
We have developed three demonstration projects over the last five years in the Cities of Bellevue,
Seattle, and Mill Creek. Currently we are developing a Backyard Wildlife Sanctuary
demonstration project at the Governors Mansion in Olympia at the request of Mrs. Gardner. Now
we would like to find site in other areas. We have typically worked with municipalities but we
would also like to develop more working relationships with private sector organizations.
Our demonstration projects range in size from 1 to 40 acres, and must provide public access.
Existing sites include a rehabilitated abandoned street end next to Gas Works Park in Seattle, a
newly developed neighborhood park in conjunction with a wetland mitigation project in Mill
Creek, and a large greenbelt with a multi-purpose pond in Bellevue. Projects must also provide
long-term maintenance of plant materials, interpretive signs and other materials. We can also
develop,design, and coordinate the production of signs, brochures, and press releases through our
Information and Education Division. These provisions are negotiated with cooperators and written
into a memorandum of understanding signed by all cooperating organizations. We provide
funding for plant materials, interpretive signs and materials, and on-site technical consultation
during the project planning and construction phases. During project implementation we provide
coordination that can vary from volunteer management to brochure reprinting.
Project planning, construction and implementation can vary from two years to four years. We
anticipate funding available with the beginning of the next two-year state budget cycle in July of
1993. We can work with sites dedicated to urban wildlife habitat or mesh with multiple-use
projects with area available for habitat enhancement.
The project possibilities that we discussed sound very exciting. I would then like to meet with you
at a convenient time to pursue it further. If you have any questions please call me at 774-8812.
Sincerely,
Becky Herbig
Wildlife Biologist
3
°C
CURT SMITCH PLANNING DIvjIS,10N
Director ��9 a�y� i ` 1'rNTM!
1839
MAY 1 1992
STATE OF WASHINGTON HECEIVED
DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE
16018 Mill Creek Blvd.. Mill Creek, WA 98012 Tel. (206) 775-1311
April 30, 1992
Ms. Mary Lynn Meyer
City of Renton Planning Dept.
200 Mill Ave. S.
Renton, WA 98056
Dear Ms. Meyer,
Thank you for talking with me on the phone today. As I indicated, we are interested in finding
new possibilities for our Urban Wildlife Habitat Demonstration Project. The purpose of the
Project is to increase the public awareness of urban wildlife and to create urban wildlife habitat.
We have developed three demonstration projects over the last five years in the Cities of Bellevue,
Seattle, and Mill Creek. Currently we are developing a Backyard Wildlife Sanctuary
demonstration project at the Governors Mansion in Olympia at the request of Mrs. Gardner. Now
we would like to find site in other areas. We have typically worked with municipalities but we
would also like to develop more working relationships with private sector organizations.
Our demonstration projects range in size from 1 to 40 acres, and must provide public access.
Existing sites include a rehabilitated abandoned street end next to Gas Works Park in Seattle, a
newly developed neighborhood k in--conjunction with a wetland mitigation proiect .-m Mill
CreeIC-and a large greenbelt with a multi-purpose pon m Be evue. Projects must also provide
long-term maintenance of plant materials, interpretive signs and other materials. We can also
develop,design, and coordinate the production of signs, brochures, and press releases through our
Information and Education Division. These provisions are negotiated with cooperators and written
into a memorandum of understanding signed by all cooperating organizations. We provide
funding for plant materials, interpretive signs and materials, and on-site technical consultation
during the project planning and construction phases. During project implementation we provide
coordination that can vary from volunteer management to brochure reprinting.
Project planning, construction and implementation can vary from two years to four years. We
anticipate funding available with the beginning of the next two-year state budget cycle in July of
1993. We can work with sites dedicated to urban wildlife habitat or mesh with multiple-use
projects with area available for habitat enhancement.
The project possibilities that we discussed sound very exciting. I would then like to meet with you
at a convenient time to pursue it further. If you have any questions please call me at 774-8812.
Sincerely,
&"f I Cflu• - Aq' AKT futl ol.ie' 6(2+-JT3
Becky Herbig VYJ I if 1�E d
Wildlife Biologist I
3
Bob Brandow
Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account
Program Manager
Division of Aquatic Lands
PO Box 47027
Olympia,WA 98504-7027
SCAN 321-9033 FAX(206) 586-8217
`� (206) 5$6-9A33
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
�� Natural Resources
v Brian Boyle-Commissioner of Public Lands
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
Natural Resources
Memorandum
To
n m location A/
From l
name /ocation
Subject L Date
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF RENTON
OCT 1 91992
RECEIVED
RES 35-2503 (6-86)
7540-RES-013
RP
For Immediate Release: Contact: Sandi Snell
No. 92-104 (206) 753-5330
DNR AWARDS FIRST EVER WETLAND STEWARDSHIP GRANTS
Seven wetland projects to benefit from $1.3 Million
OLYMPIA, Sept. 17, 1992 — Commissioner of Public Lands Brian Boyle has
announced the first recipients of wetland stewardship grants. Seven wetland
projects will receive a total of $1.3 million dollars from the new grant program
created by the Department of Natural Resources.
The seven wetland stewardship projects are in King, Thurston, San Juan, Mason,
Cowlitz and Clark counties.
"These projects represent the Department of Natural Resources' desire to foster
local stewardship of significant and threatened wetlands throughout the state. The
grants were awarded to jurisdictions with a strong incentive and ability to manage
wetlands for ongoing educational benefits," Boyle said.
Money for these grants is distributed from the agency's Aquatic Lands
Enhancement Account (ALEA). DNR generates income for ALEA through its
management of state aquatic lands — mostly from aquatic land leases and geoduck
sales.
"This is a prime example of good stewardship — earning income from natural
resources and reinvesting in the resource for the benefit of the environment and
the public," Boyle said.
The ALEA stewardship grants include acquisition of wetlands, and they require
the development of management and education plans to ensure their sustained
viability. Public access is encouraged where appropriate. The grant details:
KING COUNTY
Greenwood Park, Lake Sammamish
ALEA Grant: $200,000 Total Project Cost: $2 million
Sponsor: King County Parks Division Office of Open Space
This 19-acre parcel adjacent to Lake Sammamish State Park has a high potential
for use due to its visibility and location. Future site development will be limited to
trails and signs. The future of the wetland was immediately threatened with plans
for commercial or condominium development.
South Carnation Marsh, Snoqualmie River
ALEA Grant: $150,000 Total Project Cost: $162,000
Sponsor: King County Resource Planning and Audubon
King County will purchase 67 acres, of which 95 percent is a category 1 wetland
on the Snoqualmie River near Carnation. The Audubon Society, which owns an
adjacent 80-acre parcel, will manage the site as part of the complete 147-acre wetland.
Future development plans include parking on the upland portions of an integrated
trail system.
SAN TUAN COUNTY
Fisherman Bay, Lopez Island
ALEA Grant: $200,000 Total Project Cost: $496,000
Sponsor: San Juan County Land Bank
This 22.5-acre site has an 8-acre, relatively pristine, category 1 estuarine wetland.
A boardwalk and turnout benches are proposed for the site, along with a covered
signboard with educational brochures and intepretive signs. The property abuts
state-owned tidelands and could provide upland access to about 2,300 feet of public
tidelands. The San Juan County Land Bank has a strong environmental
management mandate that will require establishing a $40,000 trust fund to ensure
sustainable management of the site.
THURSTON COUNTY
Lake Lois Wetlands
ALEA Grant: $181,000 Total Project Cost: $204,935
Sponsor: City of Lacey
This 11-acre site includes 3.6 acres of open water and 3.7 acres of wetlands on
Lake Lois in the Lacey city limits. It's a high quality type II wetland in the
Henderson Inlet watershed. The city will fund education and management plans, as
well as future trail development. Amenities will be provided at an adjacent city
park.
MASON COUNTY
North Bay,Case Inlet
ALEA Grant: $109,086 Total Project Cost: $109,086
Sponsor: Mason County
This acquisition of 34 acres includes uplands and former oyster tract lands. The
site is one of the few remaining undeveloped waterfront parcels in North Bay.
Management of this wetland would directly promote shellfish production in Case
Inlet and aid in the recertification of North Bay while protecting valuable habitat.
The site will be used by the community, including schools and the county, to
demonstrate water quality control through wetland management. A viewing
platform and sanitation facilities are planned.
C'OWLITZ COUNTY
Silver Lake Wetlands
ALEA Grant: $200,000 Total Project Cost: $490,000
Sponsor: Washington State Parks
The 175 acres for this grant abut Seaquest State Park/Mount Saint Helens Visitor
Center. The U.S. Forest Service wiled-evelop and maintain the site through a joint'
agreement with State Parks. Potential for exposure to the public is extremely high,
with the completion of the Spirit Lake Highway. Several themes will be developed
in the education plan for this area, which is visited by out-of-state and international
visitors.
CLARK COUNTY
La Center Bottoms, East Fork Lewis River
ALEA Grant: $265,000 Total Project Cost: $320,000
Sponsor: Clark County and La Center
This 100-acre wetland is located immediately south of the town of La Center on
the East Fork of the Lewis River. This property, which was on the market, was
threatened by conversion and loss of the wetland. Interpretive signs will be erected.
Future plans call for a trail system and habitat enhancement and restoration,
including coho rearing ponds to reestablish natural runs in Breeze Creek.
Awarded once a year?
TRH err w
i41T7er-,F,)µ Okl-�K WA-r-O YPeJ�s
®
x
m
OcationZ� Air,
m t
a
a
/ *AQUATIC LANDS ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
Natural Resources
v Brian Boyle-Commissioner of Public Lands
Art Stearns-Supervisor
APRIL 1992 DIVISION OF AQUATIC LANDS
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
STATE 0 Brian J. Boyle
o b tt COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS
9
d x
W(P
1889 Wo
May 1992
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS
The attached application packet introduces you to a new aspect of the
Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) — the Wetland Stewardship
Grant Program.
This newly instituted wetland program offers financial assistance to
local and state governments, and Indian Tribes for the acquisition of locally
significant wetlands. The program underwrites efforts to increase public
understanding of the resource value of wetlands. Up to one million dollars
will be distributed during 1992 to prevent the loss of wetlands in imminent
danger of development. The ALEA funds will help communities purchase
and preserve wetlands and, when appropriate, provide public access to them.
The statewide program reflects the underlying philosophy of ALEA:
public access and natural resource protection are compatible, achievable goals.
Since 1984, ALEA has provided increased public access to our waterways and
recreation opportunities while protecting the environment.
The Department's Aquatic Lands staff welcomes your participation in
the wetland stewardship grant program. Please count on their cooperation
and support in making your project a success.
Sincerely,
9��
Brian Boyle
Department of Natural Resources
Olympia, Washington 98504
206 753-5317
3
4Ejj4
eta d Stewardship
r n A pplication
a d orms
1 9
*AQUATIC I.ANDS ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
Natural Resources
v Brian Boyle-Commissioner of Public lands
Art Stearns-Supervisor
APRIL 1992 DIVISION OF AQUATIC LANDS
#f
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 9�4
For general information about the Aquatic Lands Enhancement
Account (ALEA) contact:
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Aquatic Lands
PO Box 47027
Olympia, WA 98504-7027
(206) 753-5325
SCAN 234-5325
Special thanks to the Adopt-A-Stream Foundation for the use
of their art work which has been reprinted from "Adopting A
Wetland, A Northwest Guide. "
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Message from the Commissioner of Public Lands
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
0 ALEA Wetland Stewardship Objectives . . . . . . . . . . 1
ALEA Wetland Stewardship Grant Fact Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . 2
0 Basic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Grant Application and Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Grant Schedule 3
Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Letters of Interest 4
Application Forms/Deadline for Applying . . . . . . . . 4
Technical Review 4
Evaluation Committee Review and Rating . . . . . . . . . 4
• Commissioner' s Review and Selection . . . . . . . . . . 5
Eligibility/Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Applicant Eligibility/Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Project Eligibility/Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
ALEA Acquisition Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Grant Agreements and Expense/Reimbursement . . . . . . . 7
Recipient Obligations 7
Fees for Use of ALEA Sites 7
Attachments - ALEA Wetland Stewardship Project
Application Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendixes
A Wetland Stewardship Project Selection Criteria 10
B Application Forms and Samples . . . . . . . . . . . 13
INTRODUCTION
This guide is for local and state agencies requesting assistance in
funding their stewardship goals for the acquisition of locally significant
wetlands from the Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Lands Enhancement
Account (ALEA) . Program objectives and guidelines, project standards and the
grant application process are described.
The Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account was established by the 1984
Legislature. Funding for the ALEA comes from revenues received by DNR from
leases of state-owned aquatic lands. Dedication of certain state-owned
aquatic lands to maritime trade, transportation, aquaculture and commerce is
vital to the state's economy. However, these commercial uses withdraw from
the land some public access and environmental value. Use of ALEA funds to
preserve local wetlands while facilitating the public's understanding of the
significance of wetlands is one way of balancing the private and public
benefits from these lands. Funding is provided in the form of grants to local
and state agencies for the acquisition of wetland property and for wetland
management/education plans, as required.
ALEA WETLAND STEWARDSHIP OBJECTIVES
The DNR ALEA wetland stewardship grant program is guided by the following
objectives:
0 Provide new opportunities for the public stewardship of wetlands.
Emphasis will be placed on those sites with local community support as
well as sites with the greatest potential for loss if not protected.
0 Encourage the preservation and enhancement of locally significant
wetlands through the development of a long term management plan.
0 Facilitate the general public's understanding of the role and
significance of wetlands through the development of an educational plan.
0 Provide high quality stewardship opportunities that meet public
educational needs, are appropriate to the sites and provide access
opportunities, where appropriate.
0 Distribute wetland stewardship benefits throughout the state while
concentrating on areas with the largest population and greatest needs.
0 Increase the public's awareness of wetlands as a finite natural
resource and irreplaceable public heritage.
DNR reserves the right not to fund any project that it determines is not in
the public's best interest.
1
1992 ALEA WETLAND STEWARDSHIP GRANT FACT
SHEET
BASIC INFORMATION
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administers the ALEA Wetland
Stewardship grant program. DNR develops program guidelines and selection
criteria, manages the selection process, administers project contracts, and
monitors operation and maintenance of completed projects. DNR also
distributes grant application information, assists project sponsors during the
application process and administers contracts with project sponsors.
Technical assistance to potential applicants is provided upon request whenever
possible.
Initial applicant contacts should be made with DNR at:
Aquatic Lands Division
Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 47027
Olympia, Washington 98504-7027
Telephone (206) 753-5325
SCAN 234-5325
ALEA Wetland Stewardship Grant Program
Average grant per project $200,000 (or less)
Eligible Applicants: Any local government body, indian
tribe or state agency.*
Eligible Projects: Wetland acquisition projects which
are on, or significantly associated
with, navigable waters.**
*NOTE: All projects will be evaluated together.
**NOTE: Questions regarding whether a body of water is associated with,
or is considered itself to be navigable should be directed to
DNR.
2
GRANT APPLICATION AND SELECTION PROCESS
GRANT SCHEDULE
IMPORTANT DATES
STEP 1 Application Workshops May 5 - 14
(see insert for schedule)
STEP 2 Letters of Interest June 5
(recommended by)
Site Visits to Potential May 20 - July 8
Applicants (when requested)
STEP 3 Application Deadline July 8
(postmarked by - O.K. No application will be considered for
funding until all items listed in ALEA Manual Appendix A are
submitted. )
2nd Round Applications July 9, 1992
Applications accepted pending funds available for distribution
in March 1993 and final reimbursement in June 1993.
STEP 4 1st Project Presentation July 22 - 23
Sponsor presentation to
Committee in Olympia
STEP 5 Funding Announcements August 1992
STEP 6 Final Reimbursement March 1993
(bills submitted to ALEA)
1 . WORKSHOPS
Workshops are scheduled during May 5 - May 14 at several
statewide locations. The application process and project
requirements will be reviewed in detail . A71 potential project
sponsors are encouraged to attend. For information on workshop
locations, please call (206) 753-5325.
3
2 . LETTERS OF INTEREST
Letters of interest from potential applicants are recommended by
the DNR on or before June 5. Receipt of letters of interest provide
ALEA staff with the opportunity to work with potential project sponsors
to prepare their applications effectively. Each sponsor submitting a
letter of interest will be contacted by Aquatic Lands staff to provide
guidance in the ALEA grant application process.
The letter of interest should include the following information:
0 Sponsoring agency and contact
0 Address and phone number
O Description of wetland (include unique characteristics of
significance) and adjoining lands
Estimated grant amount
Map showing approximate boundary of the total wetland
area, the site to be acquired, and proximity to navigable
water (identify the body of water)
Location of project; section, township, range
county
The letter of interest alerts staff of the project sponsor's
intention and possible need for assistance. Sponsors are not bound by the
letter of interest. Letters of interest should be postmarked by June 5, 1992,
to allow for adequate preparation time.
3 . APPLICATION FORMS/DEADLINE FOR APPLYING
The list in Appendix B shows the names and uses of the various
application forms. The formal application must be on appropriate DNR
ALEA forms. All sample forms are included in Appendix B. The
application forms will be used to determine if projects are eligible for
DNR ALEA funding, to formalize the commitment of the applicants and to
provide necessary information about the projects.
Applications must be postmarked by July 8, 1992. A complete application
consists of all requested items, including slides and completed
questionnaire.
4. TECHNICAL REVIEW
Technical review for the 1992 Wetland Stewardship Grants will be
done by ALEA staff. The purpose of the review is to verify project and
sponsor eligibility, identify any technical shortcomings, and help
prepare the sponsor for the formal evaluation.
5 . EVALUATION COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RATING
Projects are Formally Reviewed and Rated by an Evaluation
Committee
The formal evaluation will be done in July 1992. The evaluation
committee includes local and state environmental managers, planners,
educators, and public interest group representatives. At this time, the
4
project sponsors have the opportunity to present their projects and to
review their responses to the questionnaire. The project sponsors must
be present at the evaluation. After careful consideration of all
criteria, the evaluation committee members score each project based on
selection criteria as outlined in Appendix A.
COMMISSIONER'S REVIEW AND SELECTION
Projects are Selected by the Commissioner of Public Lands
The final step in this process is a review and selection by the
Commissioner of Public Lands. When making the final project selection, the
Commissioner considers the evaluation committee's ratings and other factors
such as statewide geographic distribution and funding urgency. Grant awards
are announced by the Commissioner.
ELIGIBILITY/REQUIREMENTS
APPLICANT ELIGIBILITY/REQUIREMENTS
Any local government unit such as a city, county, special districts
(conservation, park and recreation, etc. ) , or a public school district, port,
or other authorized public body can sponsor a project. Native American Tribes
are also eligible. Nonprofit and other civic organizations are not eligible
to be grant recipients. Such groups are encouraged to enlist sponsorship from
appropriate government units.
State agencies can be a project sponsor providing they have adequate
local involvement and support. Restrictions apply to the number of projects
that may be submitted by a single state agency. Please contact ALEA staff if
you plan to submit more than one application.
1 . PROJECT ELIGIBILITY/REQUIREMENTS
Wetland Stewardship projects funded from the DNR ALEA must comply with
the following requirements.
A. DNR ALEA funded projects must be associated with navigable
water. All marine waters are navigable. Navigable rivers and lakes are
those found navigable by the judiciary, those bounded by meander lines and
those which could have possible commerce. DNR staff can assist in determining
whether a water body is navigable. If the site is distant from navigable
water, then a management plan must show the ability to retain the integrity of
the water quality of the wetland enroute to navigable water in order to make a
significant contribution.
5
B. Sites Which Qualify as Wetlands. Wetlands may include tidelands,
shorelands, estuaries, bogs, and marshes. For the purposes of this program, a
site qualifies as a wetland if is meets one or more of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) definitions for a wetland. "Wetlands means those
lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water
table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow
water. . .Wetlands must have one or more of the following attributes: (1) at
least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes, (2) the
substrate is predominately undrained hydric soil , and [sic] (3) the substrate
is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some
time during growing season of each year." (From the DNR Wetland Policy dated
January 9, 1991. )
C. All applications must be evaluated for any adverse impacts
to wetlands. Activities conducted with ALEA funds must be consistent with
the Department of Natural Resources "No Net Loss" Wetlands Policy. By this
policy, the project must not cause a net loss of wetland area or function.
Areas which satisfy the regulatory mitigation requirements for another project
�_- will not qualify for funding. A procedures manual is available that
identifies applicable DNR policies. Call the Aquatic Lands Division at
(206) 753-5325 or SCAN 234-5325 for further details.
D. ALEA funds may be used for administration (specific to the
project) , and development of the management/educational plan. All such
costs cannot exceed 20 percent of the approved grant amount, unless otherwise
approved in writing by DNR. Other reimbursable costs include: letter of opinion,
appraisal , appraisal review, title insurance, cost of relocation of eligible
occupants, closing costs, pro rata real estate taxes, and recording fees. Some of
these costs are also eligible as a local match if incurred within the two years
previous to the date of the ALEA grant agreement.
E. ALEA funds may be used for an environmental assessment for
hazardous substances. An environmental assessment report for hazardous
substances may be required prior to reimbursement. However, it is strongly
recommended that, as prudent landowners, entities complete this study prior to
purchase. Project readiness will be greatly enhanced if this information is
available for the committee evaluation. If the project is chosen for funding, the
assessment is a reimbursable cost of up to ten percent of the grant amount.
F. Project funds may be used only for acquisition of the specific
properties described in the project contract or as approved in writing
by DNR. The application, including cost detail forms will be attachments to the
contract.
G. Projects must follow all applicable permits and coordination.
The project must be consistent with local shoreline management and other land use
plans. Those projects with environmental or regulatory permits ready are more
likely to succeed.
H. Growth Management Act (GMA) - For project sponsors covered under the
GMA, a local government's performance toward the adoption of regional planning
policies will be a factor considered in funding of all projects commencing with the
1993 ALEA Grant Program.
6
2. ALEA AcauISITION PROJECTS
Acquisition projects are generally subject to the policies and procedures
described in the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) Participation
Manual No. 3. However, Sections 03.03 "General Acquisition Project Related
Items. . . " and 03.05 "Application Submittal Deadlines" do not apply to DNR ALEA
projects. If these materials are not available or if you have questions after your
review, call ALEA staff at the DNR Aquatic Lands Division.
3 . GRANT AGREEMENTS
AND EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
After the grant awards have been announced, the DNR local projects manager
prepares agreements between the project sponsors and DNR. Agreements are written
and administered by DNR in accordance with the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account
Approved Project Reimbursement Procedures Manual (available from DNR) .
Project sponsors are reimbursed for expenses incurred in completing the
project described in the application. Only those project elements that are part of
the approved grant application are eligible for reimbursement from the grant.
Costs incurred prior to agreement are ineligible for reimbursement unless a
waiver of retroactivity was obtained prior to the cost.
4. RECIPIENT OBLIGATIONS
Maintenance of developments and management of any land acquired must be
assured by the state agency or local public body (as defined in RCW 43.99.020) .
Properties acquired and facilities developed with ALEA funds must remain and be in
public use or be replaced (with prior written DNR approval ) in equal amount, value
or utility.
A permanent sign crediting ALEA participation, must be approved by DNR
and placed in a prominent location at the site. In addition, interpretive
signs may be required. The interpretive signs shall explain public values in
the wetlands at and near the site. These signs are eligible project costs and
must be approved by DNR. One sign may serve both purposes.
Grantees enter into a grant agreement one to two months following
announcement of awards. Acquisition and final reimbursement must be completed
in six months.
5 . FEES FOR USE OF ALEA SITES
Fees may be charged for using wetland sites acquired with DNR ALEA
funds. Fees must be in accordance with DNR regulations on fees for public use
sites in DNR aquatic lands lease areas. These regulations are available upon
request from DNR.
7
ATTACHMENTS - ALEA WETLAND STEWARDSHIP
PROJECT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
The following items must be provided with the application
information. Preface each with number references and headings.
WETLAND ACQUISITION PROJECT FORMS
1. STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
2. ALEA ACQUISITION PROJECT RESUME
3. ALEA ACQUISITION PROJECT DETAIL
This form is to be completed by all projects. Interpretive and credit
signage costs are eligible as a minor portion of ALEA overall request.
4. ALEA Wetland Stewardship Project Selection Questionnaire must be
completed and submitted at the time of application.
5. Resolution - Provide a copy of a resolution adopted by the
appropriate governing body authorizing the request for ALEA funding
assistance and identifying the intended source of the local share of the
project cost. (A sample resolution is in this manual . ) This must be
for the current year and specific to the project submitted.
6. Legal Opinion - Attach a legal opinion as to the applicant agency's
established legal authority to conduct the proposed activity. (A sample
legal opinion is in this manual .) A Legal Opinion may not be necessary
if the sponsor has previously made application for ALEA funds. Please
check with ALEA staff to verify that a legal opinion is on file.
7. Copy of Option - (if applicable)
8. Appraisal Report or Letter of Opinion - Provide one copy of an
appraisal report which meets the appraisal requirements described in IAC
Participation Manual #3 (including a preliminary title report) for each
parcel to be acquired, along with a copy of an IAC approved Review
Appraiser's concurrence. A Letter of Opinion may be substituted for the
appraisal report for the application only (see Appendix F, IAC
Participation Maual #3) . Statement of Accompaniment should be included
as part of the appraisal . These forms are included in Appendix B.
9. Encumbrances - Discuss any encumbrances on the property, as shown in
the preliminary title report and on the project site plan, and explain
their immediate or potential effect on the proposed use of the property.
10. Uniform Relocation Assistance - (if applicable) Provide a worksheet
showing the basis for the estimated relocation payments. Relocation
assistance may not be required. These costs are reimbursable to the
sponsor if a relocation plan is submitted.
8
i11. Vicinity Map - Provide a vicinity map. The map should show the site
in relation to the total service area and depict other existing aquatic
land public access/recreation projects in the service area. Use a color
35mm slide of the map showing the site as the required vicinity map
slide.
12. Site Plan - Provide a simple site plan showing the proposed future
development (use a 35mm color slide of the plan for the required site
plan slide) .
13. Slides - Develop two sets of slides. Send one set with the
application. Retain one set for later use. Two projectors are used
simultaneously for slide presentations. Use the provided in this manual
to identify the intended slide order noting sequentially at the front,
top, right corner. Also, identify left or right projector (i .e. , 1L,
2L, 3L. . . and 1R, 2R, 3R. . . . ) . A maximum of 20 slides total may be
submitted. No plastic slides please.
Required:
0 Aerial slide showing entire property (minimum 1) .
(For projects costing less than $50,000, slides from the ground may be
substituted. )
Vicinity Map showing the location of the site and service area.
9
i
APPENDIX A
WETLAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT
SELECTION CRITERIAAQUESTIONNAIRE
ACQUISITION
The following criteria will be used in project evaluation. Points
assigned indicate relative importance. The total points used in this rating
system is 370. The completed questionnaire must be submitted in final form to
ALEA staff by July 8, 1992, to allow adequate preparation for the evaluation
committee presentation on July 22-23, 1992.
Please retype and number the questions in this format.
1. The Suitability of the Site. (0-35 pts. total )
A. Describe the natural features of this site which make it a
suitable location for education and research. Please supply as
much relevant detail as possible.
B. Indicate on a topographical map the wetland area. Identify the
appropriate buffer zones for the wetland type.
C. Is the site suited for the project proposed?
2. The Proximity or Ecological Relationship of the Site to State-Owned
Aquatic Lands. (0-40 pts. total)
A. Is the site considered to be associated with a navigable water
body?
B. If the site is not directly on a navigable water body, describe
the management plan which assures the integrity of the improved
water quality enroute to the navigable water.
C. Does the proposal bring about a significant improvement to the
state's ability to manage local and state-owned resources?
3. Habitat and Wildlife Protection/Enhancement. (0-30 pts. total)
A. What are the important overall habitat and wildlife
characteristics of the site?
B. Describe how this site would directly promote, protect or enhance
a shellfish, eelgrass, or other valued plant or wildlife
population.
10
C. If not directly protecting these resources, describe how the
project will provide enhancement of water quality in the watershed
in which these resources are located.
4. Long term manageability of the site. (0-40 pts. total)
A. Is the site manageable as a viable wetland system within itself,
or is it part of a larger sustainable viable system that will be
adequately managed?
B. Describe how this wetland site will be protected or enhanced in a
long-term management plan. This plan should include watershed
management and control of incompatible uses. Can mitigation of
those uses be effective?
C. If not yet completed, demonstrate your ability to produce a long
term management plan within 12 months of the date of contract and
provide public access to the site within 24 months (where
appropriate) .
D. Are there sensitive or threatened species on the site? If so,
describe how protection will be provided.
5. Is the Acquisition consistent with the DNR Wetland Policy? (0-30 pts.
total)
A. Describe the future development as needed for the
educational/management plans. Show the potential access points
and the means of access from existing roads.
B. Describe how this development will comply with the DNR wetland
policy of "no net loss of wetland area or function" .
6. The Capacity to Own and Manage the Site, Including Ongoing Maintenance.
(0-25 pts. total )
A. Does an operating management plan exist for the site, or has the
clear ability to develop one been demonstrated?
B. Briefly discuss the key management issues covered by the site
management plan and how it was prepared.
C. How will funds for the long term operation and maintenance of the
site be provided?
7. Educational values. (0-35 pts. total )
A. What value does the site have as an area for educating the public
on the functions and values of wetlands? Does the management of
the site anticipate and plan for the site serving an educational
role in the community? Does the educational program appear
sustainable?
11
I
B. Is there involvement by an organization with an educational
mission? Will the public be allowed adequate access and use?
8. Potential for Loss. (0-35 pts. total)
A. What is the potential for loss of this site?
B. Why is this project the most effective approach to protecting this
site?
9. Local Community Support. (0-30 pts. total)
A. Describe the tangible elements of community support for this
project. Have private contributions of property or other
resources been provided or future commitments been made? This may
include volunteer labor, or other in-kind contributions.
B. What is the public's support for this project and how is this
demonstrated? (letters, petitions, plans, newspaper articles,
etc. )
C. Is there any significant local controversy or opposition to the
project?
10. Readiness to Proceed. (0-50 pts. total)
A. All acquisitions will be required to expend granted funds and
complete the project by March 12, 1993. What is the current
status of the acquisition of this property? What steps other than
ALEA award of funds are incomplete?
B. Has a Hazardous Substance Assessment Report been performed on this
site?
C. Have any other environmental or permitting requirements been met?
11. Involvement of Other Funds. (0-20 pts. total)
A. Describe all project funding, including source(s) and amounts
involved. Are any of these sources uncertain?
B. Do you have a contingency in case a source isn't realized? If so,
explain.
12
APPENDIX B
APPLICATION FORMS AND SAMPLES
This section contains forms to be used in applying for ALEA wetland
acquisition projects. No application will be considered for funding until all
items listed have been submitted and approved. Following is a brief
description of the use of each form:
SLIDE PRESENTATION FORM
Use the form provided in this manual to identify the intended slide
order. Number each slide sequentially at the top, right hand corner (as they
would be placed in the slide carousel ) . Also, identify left or right
projector (i .e. , 1L, 2L, 3L. . . and 1R, 2R, 3R. . . . ) . Two projectors are used
simultaneously for slide presentations. A maximum of 20 slides total may be
submitted. No plastic slides please. Develop two sets of slides. Send one
set with the application and retain one set for later use.
SAMPLE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION
All applicants should submit a formal request for funding assistance
from the responsible decision making body. The sample resolution in this
manual covers the elements necessary in such a request but should be
customized for the individual local public body and proposal . This must be
for the current year and specific to the project(s) submitted for ALEA
funding.
SAMPLE LEGAL OPINION
All applicants must provide assurance they have the legal authority to
conduct the proposed activity. This must be specific to the ALEA grant
program. The sample legal opinion in this manual should be customized for the
individual local public body and proposal . Previous applicants are not
required to submit a legal opinion if a valid legal opinion is currently on
file with the ALEA program. Please contact ALEA staff if you have a question
regarding your status.
IAC FORMS
Copies of the following IAC forms have been included for your convenience.
For more complete information, please refer to IAC Manual Number 3, Guidelines
for Land Acquisition. (Available by calling DNR, Division of Aquatic Lands or
IAC. )
* Statement of Accompaniment
* Offer of Purchase at Estimated Just Compensation
* Appraisal Forms
* Appraisal Review Forms
13
Project #
Sponsor
SLIDE PRESENTATION FORM
Submit this form and slides with application material .
See required and recommended slides as listed in the Attachments - ALEA
Wetland Stewarship Project Application Requirements number 13 found on page 9.
The slides for your project will be presented using two projectors. Please
indicate the order in which you would like your slides shown. We recommend
you begin your presentation with a vicinity map showing the site location.
Mark the sequence of each of your slides in the top right hand corner (as they
would be placed in the slide carousel) . Please provide the order and a brief
description of each slide on the form below. No plastic slides please.
Left Screen Right Screen
#1 L #1 R
#2 L #2 R
#3 L #3 R
#4 L #4 R
#5 L #5 R
#6 L #6 R
#7 L #7 R
#8 L #8 R
#9 L #9 R
#10L #10R
A maximum of 20 slides may be submitted. You may exceed 10 slides on either
screen (use a copy of this form) .
Please make sure you have duplicates of these slides. Label each slide with
the sponsoring agency. Slides will not be returned.
I
SAMPLE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION*
CITY OF WATERTOWN
Resolution Number
A resolution authorizing application for funding assistance for an Aquatic Lands
Enhancement Account project to the Department of Natural Resources.
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Chapter 79.24.580, RCW, state funding assistance
has been authorized and made available to aid in financing the cost of land and the
construction of facilities for public access to, and aquatic land enhancement of, state-
owned aquatic lands, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Watertown considers it in the best public interest to
acquire a waterfront park in the northern part of the city generally located on Noname
Lake south of the mouth of Watertown Creek, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Watertown,
Washington:
1. That the mayor be authorized to make formal application to the Department of
Natural Resources;
2. that any fund assistance so received be used in the acquisition and development
of ten acres of land at the confluence of Watertown Creek and Noname Lake;
3. that the city's share for the project will be derived from the sale of bonds;
4. that any property acquired with financial aid through the Aquatic Lands
Enhancement Account be placed in use in accordance with the terms of the financial
aid approved by the Department of Natural Resources;
5. that this resolution become part of a formal application to the Department of
Natural Resources; and
6. that adequate notification has been given and opportunity provided for public
input.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Watertown, Washington at its regular meeting
held , 19
Signed and approved by the mayor and clerk of the City of Watertown,
this day of 19
Attest: Approved as to form:
Mayor: (City Attorney) :
'THIS IS A SAMPLE ONLY. UNDERLINED PORTIONS MUST BE ADJUSTED TO SUIT APPLICANT.
SAMPLE LEGAL OPINION
RE: Application to the Department of Natural Resources
Sir or Madam:
I am an attorney at law admitted to practice in the state of Washington
and the duly selected and appointed attorney of Watertown.
I have examined your applications which are to be filed with the
Department of Natural Resources whereby state assistance is requested for the
acquisition of land and the development thereof for the purpose of providing
public access to publicly-owned aquatic land.
I have reviewed all pertinent state and local laws and particularly
Sections , inclusive, of the Revised Code of Washington as
related to Watertown's authority. I have further examined the proposed
program outlined in the applications in the light of the comprehensive land
use plan for the City of Watertown, including plans for the acquisition of
land and the development thereof for public access proposed by this agency.
Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion that the City of Watertown,
Washington is a public body empowered to receive and expend state and local
funds, to contract with the state of Washington, to acquire and improve land
for public parks and outdoor recreation, to undertake planning activities
incidental thereto, to receive and expend the funds involved for said
purposes, to accomplish the objectives set forth in the project proposal , to
commit the applicant to statements made in the proposal , and that the
acquisition of land and the development thereof is in accordance with the
comprehensive land use plan adopted by the City of Watertown, Washington.
Very truly yours,
/s/
City Attorney
ALEA
STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY APPLICATION
TRANSMITTAL FORM
TO: Department of Natural Resources RE:
ALEA Program (ALEA project #)
Division of Aquatic Lands Box 47027
Olympia, WA 98504-7027
FROM: (Agency Name)
(Address)
You are hereby requested to consider this application for financial assistance for
the project described herein and to grant funding from the Aquatic Lands Enhancement
Account. This application has been prepared with full knowledge of, and in compliance
with, the instructions contained in the "Grant Application Manual for Aquatic Lands
Enhancement Account Funds. " Further, we agree to cooperate with the Department of Natural
Resources by furnishing such additional information as may be necessary to qualify for
state aid; to execute an ALEA project grant agreement and to adhere to all appropriate
state statutes governing the grant funds used in the project grant agreement.
We are aware that the grant-in-aid, if approved, will be paid on a reimbursement
basis.
Inquiries regarding this application are to be directed to:
(Name, Title, Address, Phone)
We certify that, to the best of our knowledge, the data in this application are true
and correct.
(Signature of Authorized Representative)
(Name and Title)
ALEA ACQUISITION PROJECT DETAIL
Note: Applicant agencies must comply with Chapter 8.26 RCW requirements relating to relocation
assistance and real property acquisition. Items listed as "required" must be budgeted at some
appropriate amount.
1. Source of local match:
Donation $ Appropriation $
Bonds $ Other Grants $
Total Sponsor's Share $ , Date Available
2. Have any applications for other funds been made for this project?
( ) No ( ) Yes - explain:
. Has the sponsor obtained any interest in the site to date, such as a lease, use permit or
�asement?
( ) No ( ) Yes explain:
. Does the sponsor hold an option agreement on the property?
( ) No ( ) Yes - expiration date:
5. Type of interest to be purchased:
( ) Fee Simple ( ) Less than Fee
Type of instrument to be obtained: ( ) Warranty Deed ( ) Lease ( ) Other-specify:
6. Complete the following Acquisition Schedule (separate tidelands, shorelands, uplands).
Parcel Acres Anticipated Appraised or Number of Appraised or Letter Estimated Total
Date of Letter of Improvements of Opinion Value of Relocation Estimated
Acquisition Opinion Value Improvements Cost Cost
of Land (RCW 8.26)
6. Sub-Total
'. Will the assistance requested cause the displacement of individuals, families, business or
'arms?
No
Yes - Number of: Individuals
Families
Businesses
Farms
�. Is the project in a designated flood hazard area?
) Yes ( ) No
i. Estimated future development and operation/maintenance cost:
Year Development Costs Operation/Maintenance Costs
[0. Will any income be derived on this project through proposed management plans?
) No ( ) Yes - What is the estimated annual income? $
kre there plans for interim use of project site subsequent to acquisition and prior to
ievelopment? Explain:
11. Interpretive costs (explain in detail) :
11. Sub-Total $
STATEMENT OF ACCOMPANIMENT
Date:
Name of Owner:
Appraiser:
Project Sponsor:
Dear:
The Project Sponsor has requested that I appraise the following property:
According to the records at the County Auditors Office, you are the
owner of the above-mentioned property. In compliance with the State and/or Federal
regulations, the appraiser must ask if the owner would like to accompany him/her when
he/she inspects the property.
I plan to appraise the property on , and this letter is an invitation
for you to go with me when I appraise the property. Please indicate below whether or
not you wish to accompany me and return the letter to me as soon as possible. If you do
wish to be present but cannot make the set date and time, please call me at
Sincerely yours,
Reply by the owner
I have read the above letter and I ( ] do, [ ] do not wish to accompany the appraiser to
inspect the property.
(Signature of Owner)
artiapauon Manual# w es for d Acgwauon
November 1991 page 26
OFFER OF PURCHASE AT ESTIMATED JUST COMPENSATION
Sample Letter
Date of Offer
Property Owner
Address
RE: Offer of Purchase at Estimated Just Compensation
Dear Property Owner:
This letter is to advise you of the estimated just compensation for your real property as described herein (or
attached) and the offer to purchase the property at no less than the estimated just compensation.
In compliance with State and Federal law,you are advised that the estimate of just compensation for fee
interest in your property is: S
You are hereby offered$(Estimated Just Comyensationlfor your property which is the estimated Fair
Market Value of your real property herein (or attached) described.
Property description paragraph or reference to attachment
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by completing the following section:
STATEMENT OF OWNER
T F
I have read the statement of Estimated Just Compensation al:,ove [] []
I have been offered, at a minimum, the Estimated Just Compensation [ ] [ ]
There are no persons living on the property ( ] [ ]
There are no businesses being conducted on the property by others [ ] [ ]
The following are living or are conducting business on the property.
(Including owner if in occupancy) Give name and address:
Signed (owner)
Please retain this letter for your records, and return a completed copy to me by If you have any
questions please call me.
Sincerely,
Public Agency
NOTE: This offer in effect opens official negotiations with the owner or his/her representative. No discussions
with the owner prior to this time should include purchase price (see Section 03.18).
Participation Manuai#3 GWdefinea for d Acq uon
November 1991 Page 27
IAC FORMAT USED FOR:
LETTER OF OPINION
Date:
For:
Re: Property Located at
Dear
In accordance with your request, I have made a feasibility study of the above referenced
property as of (date) This feasibility study consisted of (state specifically what
steps the appraiser performed in his study. and what analysis if any, he made). It should
be clearly understood that an appraisal has not been made of the above referenced
property, and that this letter does not constitute an appraisal report.
Based upon this preliminary study, it is the appraiser's belief that if an appraisal were
made, the final valuation estimate as of (date) would probably be in the range of
approximately $ to $ . (See note A)
It should be clearly understood that the this approximate range of value is subject to
adjustment upon completion of an appraisal.
Very truly yours,
(Signature)
Note A: The letter of opinion never refers to a specific value.
Paraapanon Manuai mdelmea for d Acq upon
November 1991 Page 32
SPECIFICATIONS FOR STANDARD APPRAISAL REPORTS
The report on any individual property may vary depending upon the type of property under
appraisal. Additional data may be required in the case of highly specialized properties.
Generally, however, all real estate items must be considered by the appraiser and included in
the report unless otherwise requested and agreed to by the IAC. Omissions must be ezMlained.
The Appraisal Report must provide the following:
1. Letter of Transmittal. Should reference any contractual arrangements.
2. Title Page. This shall include:
a. Project identification, County, Auditor's Fee Number, and Parcel
identification of the property;
b. The name of the individual making the report;
C. The effective date of the appraisal; and
d. Owner's name, address, and telephone number.
3. Table of Contents.
4. Photographs. Pictures shall show the property from a variety of locations so that
the general physical characteristics of the real property being appraised can be
seen. The photographs should also show at least the front elevation of the major
improvements, plus any unusual features. There should also be views of the
abutting properties on either side and that property directly opposite. When a
large number of buildings are involved, including duplicates, one picture may be
used for each type. Views of the best comparable should be included whenever
possible. Except for the overall view, photographs may be bound as pages facing
the discussiozi or description which the photographs concern. All graphic material
shall include captions.
5. Statement of Limiting Conditions and Assumptions. The appraiser
should provide clear concise statements of all assumptions including the following
specifics:
(a) that title to the property is marketable,
(b) that the appraiser assumes no responsibility for legal matters, and
(c) that all data furnished by others are presumed correct.
Participation Manual#3
November 1991 w tines or d Acquisition33
Page 33
6. History of Conveyance - Delineation of Title (Property sales and transfers).
Include parties to transactions, dates of purchase and amounts of consideration for
at least 10 years prior to appraisal, or the date, purchase consideration, and
principals in the last known conveyance of subject property.
7. Purpose of the Appraisal. This shall include the reason for the appraisal, and a
definition of all values required, and property rights appraised.
8. Legal Description. This description shall be so complete as to properly identify the
property appraised. If lengthy, it should be referenced and include in the addenda.
9. Area. City. and Neighborhood Data. This data (mostly social and economic)
should be kept to a minimum and should include only those facts which are
considered to be essential in formulating the appraiser's conclusions as to
significant trends.
10. Proper X Data.
a. Site. Describe soil, topography, mineral deposits, amenities, utilities,
developability, access, size, shape, crops, easements, etc. If there is an
indication that mineral deposits have more than a nominal commercial
value, this fact shall be clearly stated.
b. Improvements. This shall be by narrative description, including dimensions
of principal buildings and/or improvements.
C. Equipment. This shall be by narrative description including the condition of
equipment.
d. Condition. The current physical condition and relative use and obsolescence
shall be stated for each item or group appraised and, whenever applicable,
the repair or replacement requirements to bring the property to usable
condition.
e. Assessed Value and Annual Tax Load. Include the current assessment and
dollar amount of real estate taxes. If the property is not taxed, the
appraiser shall estimate the assessment in case it is placed upon the tax roll,
state the rate, and give the dollar amount of the tax estimate.
f• Zoning. Describe the zoning for the subject and comparable properties and
if rezoning is imminent, discuss under item (11).
11. Analysis of Highest and Best Use. The report shall state the highest and best
market use that can be made of the property (land and improvements and where
applicable, machinery and equipment) for which there is a current market. The
valuation shall be based on this use.
Patudpauon Manual#3 Guidelines for Land Xi-t-
November 1991 Page 34
I
I
12. Land Value. The appraiser's opinion of the value of the land shall be based upon
its highest and best use, regardless of any existing structures and shall be supported
by confirmed current factual data (sales and offerings) of comparable, or nearly
comparable, lands having like optimum uses. Differences shall be weighed and
explained to show how they indicate the value of the land being appraised.
13. Value Estimate.
a. Value Estimate by Cost Approach. This section shall be in the form of
computational data, arranged in sequence, beginning with reproduction or
replacement cost, and shall state the source (book and page if a national
service) of all figures used. The dollar amounts of physical deterioration
and functional and economic obsolescence, or the omission of same, shall be
explained in narrative form. This procedure may be omitted on
improvements, both real and personal, for which only a salvage or scrap
value is estimated.
b. Value Estimate by Income Approach. This shall include adequate factual
data to support each figure and factor used and shall be arranged in
detailed form to show at least (a) estimated gross rent or income; (b) an
itemized estimate of total expenses including reserves for replacements.
Capitalization of net income shall be at the rate prevailing for this type of
property and location. The capitalization technique, method and rate used
shall be explained in narrative form supported by a statement of sources of
rates and factors.
C. Value Estimate by Comparative (Market) Approach. All comparable sales
used shall be confirmed by the buyer, seller, broker, or other person having
knowledge of the price, terms, and conditions of sale. Each comparable sale
(minimum of three sales) shall be weighed and explained in relation to the
subject property to indicate the reasoning behind the appraiser's final value
estimate from this approach.
14. Interpretation and Correlation of Estimates. The appraiser shall interpret the
foregoing estimates and shall state the reasons why one or more of the conclusions
reached in items (9) (10), and (11) are indicative of the market value.
15. Appraisal of a "partial taking" must include:
a. Valuation of the Whole Property in the Before Condition;
b. Valuation of the Remainder Property assuming completion of the project;
C. The difference between A and B is the total estimated compensation;
Participation ManualGuidelines for d Acquisition
November 1991 Page 35
d. Allocation of the total estimated compensation into take, damages, special
benefits.
16. Certification of Appraiser.
a. He/she has personally inspected the property.
b. He/she has no present or contemplated interest in the property.
C. That in his/her opinion the market value of the taking as of_�/ is $ _
(Valuation Date)
Signature Date Report Submitted
EXHIBITS AND ADDENDA
17. Location Map'. (Within the city or area)
18. Comparative Sales Data Man. (Show geographic location of the appraised
property and the comparative parcels analyzed.)
19. Details of each Comparative Sale with an n vsis.
20. Plot Plan'.
21. Floor Plans'. (When needed to explain the value estimates.)
22. One of the following: Title Report, Title Commitment, Title Evidence, Title
Profile.
23. Hazardous Substance Report.
24. Special Reports - Wetland, Timber, Ballast.
25. Copy of Contract.
26. Other Pertinent Exhibits.
27. Oualifications. (Of all Appraisers and/or Technicians contributing to the report).
' All maps and plans may be bound as facing pages opposite the description, tabulation,
or discussions they concern.
Partiapamm anal#3 Guidefines for d AcquisitionNovember 1991
Page 36
SHORT FORM APPRAISAL
The short form appraisal must at the least, include the following:
1. Letter of Transmittal
2. Title Page. This shall include:
a. Project identification, county and parcel identification of property;
b. Name of individual making report;
C. Effective date of the appraisal; and
d. Owners name, address and telephone number.
3. Photographs of Subject Pictures shall show at least the front elevation of the major
improvements, plus any unusual features. There should also be views of the abutting
properties on either side and that property directly opposite. When a large number of
buildings are involved, including duplicates, one picture may be used for each type. Views
of the best comparable should be included whenever possible. Except for the overall
view, photographs may be bound as pages facing the discussion or description which the
photographs concern. All graphic material shall include captions.
4. A brief description of the subject property to include physical characteristics, present use,
zoning, public utilities associated with the land, deed restrictions, and any other pertinent
information.
5. A legal description of the real property to be acquired and a plat.
6. At least a 5 year history of conveyances (sales and transfers), including parties to the
transactions, dates of purchase, and amounts of consideration.
7. An analysis and statement of the property's highest and best use.
8. An analysis of three or more comparable sales, a narrative comparison of each sale to the
subject property, a correlation of value and a vicinity map showing the location of
comparable sales and subject property.
9. The appraiser's certification and signature.
10. The date the value estimate applies.
11. A statement of the appraiser's experience and qualifications.
12. Assumptions and limiting conditions.
Participation Manuai#3 Guidelines for Land Acquis►tion
November 1991
Page 37
SHORT FORM APPRAISAL CHECKLIST
PREFACE
[ ] I. Copy of specifications and Checklist provided to
appraiser prior to start.
[ ] 2. Checklist attached.
[ ] 3. A copy of the Preliminary Title Report, Opinion of Title or Commitment for
Title Insurance attached.
[ ] 4. Deed Restrictions as found in Preliminary Title Report, etc. included in
Appraisal.
[ ] 5. Appraiser advised of legal description of subject property.
FORMAT
[ ] Bound Report
Part I - Introduction
[ ] 1. Title Page
[ ] 2. Table of Contents
[ ] 3. Letter of Transmittal
[ ] 4. Photographs
[ ] 5. Statement of Limiting Conditions and Assumptions
[ ] 6. References
Part II - Factual Data
[ ) 7. Purpose of Appraisal
( ] 8. Legal Description
[ ] 9. Area, City and Neighborhood Data
anicipation Manual♦ Guidelines for d Acquaunon
November 1991 Page 38
[ ) 10. Property Data
( ] a. Site - Minerals
[ ] b. Improvements and Conditions
[ ] C. Equipment
[ ] d. History - 10 year History of Conveyance
[ ) e. Assessed Value and Annual Tax Load
[ ] f. Insurance
[ ] g. . Zoning
Part III - Analysis and Conclusion
[ ) 11. Analysis of Highest and Best Use
( ] 12. Land Value
[ ] 13. Value Estimate
[ ] a. Cost Approach
[ ] b. Income Approach
[ ] c. Comparative (Market) Approach
[ ] 14. Appraisal of "Partial Taking"
[ ] 15. Interpretation and Correlation of Estimates
[ ] 16. Affidavit and Statement of Owner Notification, Accompaniment
Part IV - Exhibits and Addenda
[ ] 17. Location Map
[ ] 18. Comparative Sales Data Map
[ ] 19. Details of the Comparative Sales Data
[ ] 20. Plot Plan
[ ] 21. Floor Plans
[ ] 22. Other Pertinent Exhibits
[ ] 23. Qualifications
Participation Manual#3 GuRefines for Land Acquisition
November 1991 Page 39
STANDARDS FOR APPRAISAL REVIEW
The review appraiser must field inspect the property appraised as well as the comparable sales
which the appraiser(s) considered in arriving at the fair market value of the whole property and
of the remainder(s), if any. If a field inspection is not made, the file shall contain the reason(s)
why it was not made.
The review appraiser shall examine the Appraisal Reports to determine that they:
a. Are complete in accordance with IAC Participation Manual 3, Guidelines for Land
Acquisition. Section 03.29.
b. Follow accepted appraisal principles and techniques in the valuation of real property in
accordance with existing State law.
c. Include consideration of compensable items, damage, and benefits, and do not include
compensation for items noncompensable under State law.
Prior to finalizing the estimate of just compensation, the review appraiser shall obtain
corrections or revisions of Appraisal Reports which do not substantially meet the requirements
set forth in the Local Agency Guidelines. These shall be documented and retained in the
parcel file.
The review appraiser may supplement an Appraisal Report with corrections of minor
mathematical errors as long as such errors do not affect the final value conclusion. The
reviewer may also supplement the appraisal file where the following factual data have been
omitted:
a. Project and/or parcel number.
b. Parties to transaction, date of purchase, and deed-book reference to sale of subject
property and comparable.
c. Statement that there was no sale of subject property in the past 10 (ten) years.
d. Location, zoning, or present use of subject property or comparable.
The review appraiser shall initial and date corrections and/or factual data supplements to the
Appraisal Report.
The review appraiser shall place in the review report a signed and dated statement found in
Appendix I of this manual.
NOTE: If the review appraiser determined that the fair market value of the subject property is
different than the amount of total compensation estimated in the appraisal, then the
reviewer's reasoning and/or market data supporting these conclusions must be clearly
reported in the reviewer's statement.
Participation Manuai#3 Guidelines for LAWd Acquuntion
November 1991 Page 40
Review Appraiser Certificate
Project Name or No. Parcel No.
Owner's Name Address
Property Address:
The appraisal(s) submitted on this parcel(s) are as follows:
Date of Before After Value Allocation
Appraiser Valuation Value Value Difference Acquisition Damages
I, the review appraiser, certify to the following:
The above appraisal reports(s) have been reviewed by the undersigned and were found to
have followed accepted appraisal principals and techniques in the valuation of real property
in accordance with existing State law.
That the determination of value which is set forth below has been independently reached
based on appraisals and other factual data of record without collaboration or direction.That
I have no direct or indirect present or contemplated future personal interest in such
property or in any benefit -from the acquisition of such property appraised. That I have
personally inspected the property to be acquired and the comparable sales applicable
thereto.
Just Compensation $
Allocated Acquisition $ Damages $
Date Review Appraiser
Concurrence and Authorization (i.e., City Council, Board of County Commissioners,
etc.):
The (local governing body) does here indicate the
concurrence with the above certification and does authorize further action by the
(staff) to proceed according to established procedures with the acquisition of the
designated property.
Date:
Participation Manual#3 Guidelines for I and Acquisition
November 1991 Page 41
1
LAG'S AG'TIO;N MEMO
TO: Nm r -C DATE: _2 103 Please Call Q ROUTE TO:
S Yt -4 For your Information
ISSUE/CONCERN: 1 (� For Action
[� For Signature
Your Recommendation
GOAL/ Q Per our Conversation
PREFERRED OUTCOME: �a.Q�IS? Q Per your Request
CopiesSent to , �rn � , C�
SPECIFIC DO'S OR DON'TS: U Jam CS
FOLLOW UP:
QTICKLER FILE
(date)
1 v 1„ ' 7 ! r h c,� Q COMPLETED
;iy� {.�jry �-e.i ..Xl (date)
RESULTS:
DUE DATE:
IV V IV
forms/lag/ACTM EMO.DOC/LAG/bh
FEB 41993
CITY
n OF.,�; RENTCN
ng Dept.
L YN N ;
7
a
Fug s
Regional Shoreline
J - Improvement Fund
CLe 56,cu/d Solicitation for
Dcr"rv�- M I f A
�� � ,� Project Proposals
�MFTRO
February 1993
WV4 V }y
� w
Clean Water - A Sound Investment
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle,WA 98104-1598
February 2, 1993
TO: Government agencies, interested in sponsoring, or non-profit
organizations and individuals interested in co-sponsoring
shoreline acquisitions and/or improvements !L
FROM: John Spencer, Director, Metro Water Pollution Contro v1N V
SUBJECT: Pre-application to indicate interest/eligibility for regional
shoreline improvement funds.
Public agencies, with or without co-sponsorship by a citizens group, have the opportunity
to apply for a portion of a $5 million dollar fund set aside for shoreline acquisition or
improvements in the Metro service area. (See map, Attachment 1.) If your jurisdiction has
a proposal that can meet minimum requirements, we urge you to return the enclosed pre-
application form (Attachment 2) to Metro by March 15, 1993. A workshop has been
scheduled for Feb. 23, from 4-6 p.m. in the Metro Council Chambers,.17th floor of the
Pacific Building, 720 3rd Avenue, Seattle, to provide program information and answer
your questions.
This opportunity results from a negotiated settlement related to the expansion of the West
Point Treatment Plant to provide secondary sewage treatment. As part of an agreement
with the City of Seattle, Metro provided mitigation funds to offset impacts to the
shorelines. Metro gave $25 million to the City of Seattle and set aside $5 million for
regional shoreline acquisitions and improvements. You now have the opportunity to apply
for a portion of the $5 million regional fund. The funds will be used for shoreline projects
that replace, enhance or provide substitute environments; that provide shoreline for public
access and use, and for wildlife habitat. (See selection criteria, Attachment 3.)
It is important to know that a government entity must act as a sponsor for these funds. If
you are connected with a non-profit organization or have a project to propose as an
individual, you will need to negotiate with a governmental body, such as a city or county _
parks department, to see if it will sponsor and provide long-term stewardship of the
project. We also ask that you distribute copies of this packet to interested parties, such as
schools or community groups.
The Technical Evaluation Committee (Attachment 4), made up of representatives of
governments, agencies and interest groups, has developed criteria and a process for
selecting projects eligible for funding. The criteria were adopted by the Metro Water
Quality Committee. During 1993, the Technical Evaluation Comrruttee will receive and
evaluate proposals and make recommendations to the Metro Water Quality Committee,
which will in turn recommend selections to the full Metro Council who will make the final
selection decisions. It is the goal of the Technical Evaluation Committee to provide
substitute resources for impacts at the West Point site and to provide maximum benefit to
the citizens of the region.
Water Pollution Control Department • (206)684-1280 • Clean Water—A Sound Investment
f �
You will be indicating your interest in receiving a portion of the funds by completing the
attached pre-application form. Please note that there are basic eligibility requirements,
evaluation criteria, guidelines and processes that may affect your decision to apply.
Agencies are being asked to demonstrate both a high-quality project and a long-term
commitment to its stewardship and maintenance.
THE SELECTION PROCESS
(See adopted process guidelines, Attachment 3, page 5)
1. Pre-application/Eligibility Screening (Round T)
Applicants must submit the attached pre-application form by March 15. Metro staff and
the Technical Evaluation Committee will screen the forms to determine eligibility for
funding. Additional information may be sought, if necessary, to make a determination of
eligibility.
2. Application/Evaluation of Merits (Round II)
Sponsors of projects deemed to be eligible in Round I will be required to submit additional
information(See information to be required, Attachment 5). The Technical Evaluation
Committee and Metro staff will evaluate proposals primarily based on the degree to which
they meet criteria, taking into consideration input from the public. They may conduct site
visits. They will group proposals into three categories: 1)outstanding, 2)attractive or
3)acceptable, and rank them individually as necessary. Numerical processes will be used
as necessary. The Committee will recommend high-priority projects for funding, including
back-up projects for the event that implementation of higher-ranked projects becomes
problematic. The Technical Evaluation Committee will report its recommendations to the
Water Quality Committee of the Metro Council for their approval.
A workshop is scheduled for May to provide information for Round H.
3. Confirmation/Development of High Priority Projects (Round III)
The Technical Evaluation Committee may request additional, more refined and/or new
information to help them make final selection recommendations. They may select among
project components and negotiate with project sponsors to modify proposals in order to
maximize use of the funds to meet project goals. Information that may be required at this
stage is listed in Attachment 3. The Technical Evaluation Committee and Metro staff will
make its final recommendation to the Metro Water Quality Committee and Metro
Council, which are expected to make final selection decisions in November 1993.
4. Contracting
This process has been designed to limit the submission of extensive detail, until the number
of proposals has been narrowed to those projects for funding. Please see the information
sponsors shall be expected to submit at this stage.
(Attachment 3)
BASIC REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA
(See adopted criteria and project requirements, Attachment 3)
Requirements
Area
The project must be within the Metro service area (see map, Attachment 1,
and list of agencies within the Metro service area, Attachment IA, to
determine whether your project is within the eligible area,)but located
outside the borders of the City of Seattle. Project locations shall be
contiguous to a water body. Please note that the salt water south of the City
of Seattle, but within King County, is not within the Metro service area and
would require a special resolution of the Metro Council to be eligible. There
is no guarantee that such a resolution would pass, but the Technical
Evaluation Committee feels that it is important to consider truly outstanding
saltwater sites in the southern portion of.King County.
Sponsor
The sponsor must be an appropriate entity of government capable of
developing, maintaining and providing long-term stewardship of the area.
Non-profit groups can act as co-sponsors.
Not Eligible
Routine maintenance.
Streams and wetlands other than class I& II.
Projects that would have substantial effect on habitat or natural features.
Projects on private property unless the sponsoring agency can demonstrate
adequate tenure.
Any costs related to litigation or condemnation.
Certain proposal development costs.
Deadlines for Submittal
Pre applications are due March 15, 1993. (See schedule, attachment 6)
Criteria
Important values that the Technical Evaluation Committee have identified
are: (For details, see selection criteria, Attachment 3, page 2.)
1. Habitat
Habitat, particularly for valued species, that is similar to West Point and that
provides connections with other habitat, is particularly valued.
2. Shoreline Access
Public uses compatible with habitat are preferred, e.g. passive uses such as
viewing, walking, picnicking and environmental interpretation.
3. Saltwater/Freshwater Sites
These are preferred as substitutes for the West Point area, but freshwater
sites are considered a priority also.
4. Acquisition/Restoration .
Acquisition of shoreline property is a high value. In addition, restoration of
high quality habitat is particularly important.
5. Regional significance
A few significant projects that provide outstanding regional benefit are
preferred to many small, local projects.
6. Expansion of funding base
It is important to maximize use of these funds, so ability to leverage them or
obtain good values will be taken into account.
r
7. Feasibility of the project
Applicants must demonstrate their ability to implement and manage their
proposed project. They must demonstrate that the project is doable in terms
of factors such as: property rights, legal authority, compliance with
environmental regulations, long-term stewardship, and (possibly)
engineering viability.
The Technical Evaluation Committee will use these criteria as its major guide, but will
consider other factors that could result in a higher benefit to the Metro ratepayers and
region. The committee will use its discretion in funding components of projects rather
than entire proposals. It should be noted that this is a one-time program without
institutional guidelines. It will require an evolving approach to address issues.
We look forward to receiving some exciting proposals. However, we recognize that
shoreline acquisition and improvements are very expensive and that we will face very
difficult choices as we select projects to receive funds.
If you have any questions, or need copies of the solicitation documents, please call Judy
Bevington, Senior Water Quality Planner of Metro at 684-1230. We hope to see you at
the workshop on Feb. 23. Please remember that the deadline to return the pre-application
form(Attachment 2) is May 15.
Attachments
1. Service Area Map, (1) Agencies within Metro Service Area(IA)
2. Pre application form
3. Adopted Criteria and Process Guidelines
4. Technical Evaluation Committee members/phone numbers
5. Information required from sponsors
6. Schedule
Y Shoreline Improvement Funds: Eligible Area
N
92
M sville
• Lake Stevens
Everet , 2oa
526
•Snohomish
525
9
Monroe 2
s27
sea s2
Mountlake Snohomish County
rrace King County
' 104 �
s 52 Bothell
Duvall
20
99 203
Kirklan
908
Redmo
Carnation
520 Bellevue 202
alnbrl a Sea tle • /
la
Fall City
99
405
509 900 Issaquah 90 Snoqualmie
Renton North Bend
5
Vashon
— — Island es 515 Ma le Valley
M 'nes Kent 18
30
516
16
i509
Gig Black
Harbor \ 99 Auburn Diamond
ilton
Fircres) M 167 164 169
Fo
an Tacoma o
cN 167 Sumner Enumclaw
Island
5 K 09
Cow
A dens 410 uckle 410 PiE? C H
y
Island 512 Puyallup 162 a,nty
Steilacoom 7
1 Current Metro Wastewater Service Area
March 1992 (approximate eligible area)
Orting Potential additional area for shoreline
161 improvement funds
Attachment 1
L i
AGENCIES WITHIN METRO SERVICE AREA
Attachment 1A
Metro provides service to these agencies. Whether proposed projects are within the
area served by these agencies will be considered to determine project eligibility
ALDERWOOD City of FEDERAL City of PACIFIC City of TUKWILA
3626 - 156th St. SW WAY 100 3rd Ave. SE 6200 Southcenter B1
Lynnwood, WA 31627 - 1st Ave. S Pacific, WA 98047 Tukwila, WA 98188
98037 Federal Way, WA 833-2660 433-1849
743-4605 98063
941-1516 RAINIER VISTA VAL VUE
City of ALGONA 11846 Des Moines 14816 Military Rd. S
402 Warde St. THE HIGHLANDS Memorial Drive S. P.O. Box 68063
Algona, WA 98001 453 McGilora Blvd. Seattle, WA 98168 Seattle, WA 98188
833-2741 Seattle, WA 98112 244-3740 242-3236
362-2100
City of AUBURN City of REDMOND WATER DISTRICT
25 West Main City of ISSAQUAH 15670 NE 85th St. #107
Auburn, WA 98001 P.O. Box 1307 Redmond, WA 98052 7415 - 129th Ave. SE
931-3010 Issaquah, WA 98027 556-2152 Renton, WA 98056
391-1005 325-9200
City ofBLACK City of RENTON
DIAMOND City of KENT Renton City Hall WOODINVILLE
25510 Lawson 220 - 4th Ave. 200 Mill Ave. S 17238 Woodinville-
Black Diamond, WA Kent, WA 98031 Renton, WA 98052 Duvall Rd.
98010 859-8677 235-2729 P.O. Box 1290
631-0351 Woodinville, WA
City of KIRKLAND SHORELINE 98072
City of BELLEVUE 123 - 5th Ave. WASTEWATER 483-9104
P.O. Box 90011 Kirkland, WA 98033 DISTRICT
Bellevue, WA 98009 828-1124 17505 Linden Ave. Town of WOODWAY
462-2034 P.O. Box 33490 23920 113th Pl. W.
City of LK. FOREST Seattle, WA 98133 Edmonds, WA 98020
City of BOTHELL PARK 546-2494 542-4443
18305 - 101st NE 17711 Ballinger Wy
Bothell, WA 98011 NE SAMMAMISH
486-6250 Seattle, WA 98155 PLATEAU
364-7711 1510 - 228th Ave. SE
City of BRIER Issaquah, WA 98027
2901 - 228th St. SW City of MERCER 392-6961
Brier, WA 98036 ISLAND
775-5440 9611 SE 36th St. City of SEATTLE
Mercer Island, WA Dept. of Engineering
BRYN MAWR- 98040-1440 660 Dexter Horton
LAKERIDGE 236-3566 Bldg.
8419 S. 116th St.. Seattle, WA 98104
Seattle, WA 98179 NORTHSHORE 684-5253
772-1580 UTILITY
DISTRICT SKYWAY
CEDAR RIVER P.O. Box 489 11909 Renton Ave. S
18300 SE Lk. Kenmore, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98178
Youngs 823-6101 772-7343
Renton, WA 98058
255-6370 NE SAMMAMISH SOOS CREEK
3600 Sahalee Way P.O. Box 580-39
EASTGATE Redmond, WA 14616 SE 192nd
3205 - 148th Ave. SE 98053 Renton, WA 98058
Bellevue, WA 98007 868-4005 630-9900
746-9100
SHORELINE IMPROVEMENT FUND PRE-APPLICATION (ROUND 1)
Attachment 2
This column for Metro use only
Please type or use ink. Use only this form and specified attachments. Project No.
Project Name
A. SPONSOR/CO-SPONSOR Date Received
1. Unit of Government 2. Co-sponsor
Contact Person Contact Person
Address Address
Phone Phone
3. Status of government sponsorship
Attach letter of support (Note: Resolution required only in Round II)
B. SITE (Locate with * on attached map)
I. Nearest Cross Streets 2. Contiguous Water Body
3. Project is located in jurisdiction of which Metro component agency?
(See attachment 1A)
4. Size (e.g. acreage) 5. Lineal feet of shoreline
6. Site assets 7. Site liabilities
Pagel
C i
SHORELINE IMPROVEMENT FUND PRE-APPLICATION (ROUND 1)
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Attach up to 2 additional pages, no more than This column for Metro use only
3 slides of area and no more than 2-8.5 x II schematics)
I. Describe project. (Project component nature of improvements,type of
habitat, public use and access) Project No. _
2. Describe objectives, benefits and approach of proposal; address
project criteria
D. PURCHASE /COST INFORMATION
Requested From other sources Total
I. Cost estimates
Land Acquisition
Habitat Restoration
Improvements
Administration
Engineering
Other
Total
2. Estimator/Position
3. Current Use
4. Current Owner:
Name
Address
Phone
5. Is the owner willing to sell? Yes No Explain:
Page 2
SHORELINE IMPROVEMENT FUND PRE-APPLICATION (ROUND 1)
E. EXPANSION OF FUNDS This column for Metro use only
Describe any plans to extend funds (e.g. matching funds, less than fee
acquisition, in-kind goods and services). Project No.
F. SIGNATURE
Date
Representing Phone
1. Letter of support
2. Location on map
3. Project descriptions (less than 2 pages)
4. Slides
5. Schematics
Mail to: Ms. Judy Bevington; Sr. Water Quality Planner; Metro-M.S. 81;
821 Second Avenue; Seattle, WA 98104-1598
Page 3
METRO REGIONAL SHORELINE IMPROVEMENT FUND
Attachment 3
Technical Evaluation Committee recommendation for project selection,
approved by the Metro Water Quality Committee
CRITERIA FOR PROJECT SELECTION
Backaround Information
The Shoreline Improvement Fund Technical Evaluation Committee (the Committee) is
proposing criteria that will be used to recommend projects for selection by the Water
Quality Committee and the Metro Council to receive shoreline mitigation funds. The
Committee reviewed the language of the City of Seattle/Metro Agreement.
Following is the specific language the committee used to determine the draft selection
criteria and process.
"WHEREAS, the City and Metro intend that such mitigation efforts will, among other
things, directly mitigate the loss of potential shoreline recreation, access, and
unavoidable environmental impacts of the secondary treatment improvements at West
Point and Alki..."
Mitigation Conditions West Point and Alki
Adopted by the Committee of the Whole, Seattle City Council on July 11, 1988.
"10. Shoreline Park and Community Improvements
A. Mitigation Fund
To mitigate the loss of potential shoreline recreation, access, and other
unavoidable impacts at West Point, a shoreline and park improvement
fund shall be established pursuant to Metro Council Resolution No. 4780
and shall be funded by Metro in the total amount of$30 million. Of this
total, $25 million will be used solely within the City of Seattle and $5
million will be available for regional projects in the Metro service area.
The principal use of the fund will be to enhance public use of, access to,
and access along bodies of water. The fund will be used for projects
that compensate for the impact of the West Point plant by replacing,
enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. Within this
category of use, the first priority will be the acquisition, construction,
expansion, and rehabilitation of salt water beaches, such as those at
r y
Carkeek Park, Golden Gardens, West Point, Myrtle Edwards Park, Alki,
and Lincoln Park. Acquisitions and improvements that provide or
increase public access to bodies of fresh water will also be eligible for
funding. At least $2 million of the funds allocated to the City will be set
aside as a permanent trust fund. Interest earned on the trust fund will be
used to maintain beaches in their original or restored conditions."
PROPOSED SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
Introduction
It is the Shoreline Improvement Fund Technical Evaluation Committee's belief that
mitigation projects should be carefully evaluated in order to substitute, as best
practicable for the loss of habitat and quality shoreline access at a prime habitat-
convergence location such as West Point. Committee members are dedicated to
finding, studying, and recommending a package of mitigation projects to the Metro
Water Quality Committee in the hope of bringing into public ownership other currently
unprotected shoreline areas.
The committee has identified particular habitats and species for which mitigation sites
should be found. (Please see Attachment A.)
A. Selection Criteria
The following are criteria proposed for use in evaluating projects submitted to
the Shoreline Improvement Fund Technical Evaluation Committee:
1. Threshold Project Location Requirements
a. The site(s) chosen shall be located outside the boundaries of the
City of Seattle.
b. Projects chosen shall be located within the boundaries of the
Metro sewerage service area. Saltwater shorelines from the
southern City of Seattle limits to the South King County line, and !
including Vashon/Maury Islands shoreline zones only may be
considered by the TEC by approval of the Metro Water Quality
Committee and subsequent special resolution of the Metro
Council.
2
2. Eligible Habitat and Land Types
a. Saltwater projects are a priority. Saltwater projects of otherwise
equivalent habitat, open space or recreational value to fresh water
projects will be considered more attractive than such fresh water
projects.
b. Projects can be located in river systems and the saltwater zone
will extend upstream the full length of tidal influence and be limited
to King County-designated Class One or Class Two streams.
C. Projects should be located contiguous to Puget Sound, streams or
wetlands that meet the King County Class One or Class Two
designations, lakes, or located contiguous to any permanently
preserved lands which themselves are contiguous any such water
areas.
d. Projects should ensure wildlife corridors to or along shorelines.
e. Projects should contain an environment which either creates
ecological continuity from the shoreline to the uplands or add to
an existing waterfront park.
f. Projects should contain habitat for threatened or endangered
species or species of local significance which use Puget Sound,
freshwater lakes, and rivers. Wetlands should meet the definition
of King County designated Class One or Class Two wetlands.
3. Site Use Criteria
a. Projects should provide controlled public access and/or dedicated
undisturbed habitat for wildlife.
Outstanding passive recreational sites will receive special
consideration. Public use of project sites should advance
appropriate passive recreation uses, including walking,
observation of wildlife, enjoyment of promontories/vistas,
swimming, launching of small, non-motorized watercraft, "carry-
in/carry-out" picnics, and other passive uses. Access by
handicapped persons should be provided wherever possible.
b. Projects which promote scientific and educational opportunities will
receive special consideration.
3
s ,
C. Projects that provide a significantly attractive setting for
appropriate passive recreational uses will receive special
consideration.
4. Acquisition./Restoration
a. The committee will give highest priority to acquisition of land. In
addition, habitat restoration or enhancement projects on public
lands will receive a high priority.
b. Property with existing structures may be recommended for
acquisition; however, the committee will consider what should be
done with the structures and require estimates of associated
costs. Funds may be used for demolition of existing buildings at a
unique and significant site.
5. Regional Significance
Since the funding is quite limited, projects should be of region-wide
significance for both habitat and public use and access, rather than
based on strictly geographic distribution.
6. Expansion of the Funding Base
Projects which expand the available funding, such as projects which
include matching funds or involve less than market value acquisitions will
receive special consideration.
B. Proiect Requirements
Applicants will demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed projects by meeting
the following requirements.
1. Applicants
Projects must be sponsored and formally approved by a unit of local,
county, tribal governments, or state government in order to ensure
permanent stewardship. Metro and the Port of Seattle also could
sponsor projects. Individuals are encouraged to work with units of
government on sponsorship of applications and private non-profit
organizations are encouraged to co-sponsor applications with
governmental agencies.
4
2. Sponsor Requirements
a. Sponsoring agencies must demonstrate the ability to implement
and manage projects and provide long-term stewardship.
Sponsoring agencies will be asked to demonstrate that the
objectives of the project are consistent with the goals of the
Agreement. Sponsors will also be required to provide a
stewardship plan for proposed projects and identify the funding to
support implementation of the plan. Intergovernmental contract
specifics will be developed to assure long-term consistency with
goals of this mitigation program. Sponsoring agencies should
demonstrate technical (including legal) support available and their
record of other land stewardship.
b. Project sponsors will be asked to demonstrate project consistency
with all applicable land use plans, including but not limited to
Sensitive Areas Ordinances.
C. Sponsoring agencies should provide preliminary evaluations to
determine whether or not there are dangerous or other hazardous
substances on-site. Choice of final sites may require further
investigation of possible dangerous wastes or other substances.
The application will report any known environmental concerns and
how they will be addressed. The sponsor may be required to
prepare a formal environmental assessment.
d. Sponsoring agencies should demonstrate project feasibility by
describing the project cost, design, engineering feasibility,
boundaries, shoreline characteristics, beneficiaries, and type of
use proposed and proposed improvements. Applications should
provide photos or schematics of sites.
e. Sponsors should pursue condemnation only where there are
extraordinary or compelling circumstances for public benefit.
Metro Mitigation Fund Proiect Selection Process Guidelines
The TEC should use the following guidelines in general to identify, evaluate and select
projects for recommendation to the Metro Council for each project funding round:
1. Solicit Submission of Eligible Projects - Provide public notice of the
opening and closing dates for submissions of statement of interest on
eligible projects. Public notice shall consist of public notice to the major
5
f •
daily newspapers in King County and direct mailings to the local
governments in the Metro service area. Public notice shall also be
provided in the King County Digest and Metro publications.
A. Public notice shall indicate that projects must be sponsored by a
local government within King County. Notice also should indicate
that non-profit organizations and community groups may co-
sponsor an application. Press releases will be issued.
B. Public notice shall explain the evaluation process and the
proposed decision time line. It should note that if necessary, a
numerical process will be developed in order to select
recommended projects.
2. Initial Screening - Metro staff and a subcommittee of the TEC will review
submitted projects for required conformity with the definitions of one or
more eligible project types. The staff findings of threshold compliance or
noncompliance with project criteria on each submitted project will be
presented to the TEC for it consideration and ratification.
3. Additional Screening - the TEC may request additional written
information from each jurisdiction after the initial screening phase.
4. Project Evaluation - A limited number of projects will be selected by the
TEC based on the following procedure for recommendation to the Metro
Water Quality Committee. TEC may request Metro staff to provide
appropriate assistance.
A. TEC applies criteria for project selection.
B. TEC establishes three project priority groups:
• Outstanding Projects
• Attractive Projects
• Acceptable Projects
C. TEC targets amount of Metro mitigation funding to be used in
current selection round.
D. TEC and staff conduct site visits as they deem appropriate to fully
evaluate projects.
6
t
E. TEC holds a public meeting(s) and invites presentations by
proponents of applicant projects that are within top ranked
grouping.
F. TEC confirms/modifies the nature and scope of high priority
projects.
G. TEC ranks projects within priority groups:
• Select entire group if within targeted funding.
• Use selection criteria to recommend projects if group exceeds
remaining targeted funding.
5. Submit Findings and Recommendations - TEC presents its
recommendations and supporting information to the Metro Water Quality
Committee and Council.
6. Metro Water Quality Committee/Council Review = Metro Water Quality
Committee reviews TEC Findings and Recommendations and adopts a
list of projects to be recommended to the Metro Council.
7
t ' 1
CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICIES FOR MEMBERS OF THE TEC
All TEC members shall act in good faith to evaluate and recommend to the Metro
Council the best of the submitted project proposals. A TEC member as well as the
spouse, siblings, parents or children of a member) shall have a conflict of interest
when he or she has a material, personal interest in a transaction or project under
consideration by the TEC. In such instances the member shall resign from the TEC.
A need for disclosure exists whenever an organization which employs or retains a
member or to which a member is an officer or Director or formally provides advice,
direction or counsel is known by the member to have a material interest in a
transaction or project under consideration by the TEC. In such instances, the member
shall fully disclose to the TEC the existence of the relationship.
8
METRO REGIONAL SHORELINE IMPROVEMENT FUND
ADDENDUM 1
Project Requirement
There will be no reimbursement for indirect costs such as design, engineering and
planning to develop and plan projects, provided however, that small cities, as defined
by the current Metro Council designation, may be reimbursed for costs directly related
to design, engineering and planning for habitat restoration projects, but not more than
10% of each grant shall be used for such purposes. Certain site acquisition and
project management costs will be reimbursable for funding.
The above cost will not be used in evaluating projects on the expansion of funds
criteria.
9
TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE
Members
Attachment 4
I. CITIZEN/ENVIRONMENTAL INTEREST GROUPS
Audubon Society
Ms. Nancy Kroening
Citizens Water Quality Advisory Committee
Mr. Tom Harmon
Friends of Discovery Park
Mr. Scott Grimes
King Co. League of Women Voters Coordinating Committee
Ms. Susan Ringwood
People for Puget Sound
Ms. Dyan Oldenburg
Seattle/King County Land Conservancy
Mr. Gene Duvernoy
H. AGENCIES/GOVERNMENTS
City of Issaquah Parks & Recreation Deptartment
Mr. Kerry Anderson
City of Redmond Planning Deptartment
Ms. Cathy Beam
King County Council Parks Commission
Mr. Tim Hatley
King County Office of Open Space
Mr. Jim Greenfield
WA State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
Mr Eric Johnson
Suburban Cities Association
Mr. Ned Lawson
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Ms. Chantal Stevens
III. STAFF
Metro
Ms. Judy Bevington
821 2nd Ave., MS-81
Seattle, WA 98104
684-1230
INFORMATION NEEDED FROM APPLICANTS
Attachment 5
Sponsors will be required to submit the following information, at minimum, at different stages in
the selection process. The Technical Evaluation Committee reserves the right to request more
information if needed. It is expected that applicants will be as succinct as possible.
L Pre Application/Eligibility Screening (Round I)
A.. Completed pre application form, with:
1. Letter of support from sponsoring agency
2. Site located on map
3. No more than two pages of project description
4. No more than three phontographic slides of the area
5. Two 8.5 x 11 schematics drawings
11. Application/Evaluation of Merit (Round.II)
For Acquisitions and Improvements
Information to be submitted by sponsor:
A. Address how project meets criteria.
Include items listed.
1. Habitat
a. Habitat type and amount
b. Species abundance and variety
c. Contribution to an ecosystem
d. Long-term viability
2. Shoreline Access
a. Amount of public shoreline access
b. Shoreline features/quality
c. Proposed uses
d. Barrier-free access
3. Saltwater/Freshwater
a. Amount of saltwater shoreline/tidelands
b. Amount of freshwater shoreline
c. Classification of streams/wetlands (e,g. King Co. I or 11)
d. Contiguous water body
4. Acquisition/Restoration
a. Rights to be acquired
b. Nature of tenure
c. Restoration/improvements proposed
5. Regional significance
a. List regional benefits for habitat and public use and access
b. List site/project attributes and liabilities
6. Expansion of funding base
a. Plan to leverage funds - amount of request
b. Planned use of the funds
c. Amount and source of match or other expansion of funds.
7. Feasibility
To a great extent, feasibility will be determined by
the information required below.
1
For Acquisitions
A. Information regarding agency capability
1. Authorizing resolution/legal opinion. Include:
a. statement of ability to sponsor and record of
such sponsorship
b. commitment of share
2. Implementation plan(include designated stafly
proposed budget and schedule)
3. Long-term stewardship plan, (include operation
and maintenance staff and proposed budget)
B. Site information
1. Location map
2. Slides (aerial, other)
3. Site plan. Include:
a. Site dimensions
b. Project components
c. Site liabilities and assets. Include:
1)Statement of potential or actual environmental
problems(e.g. floods, hazardous waste) and,
plan to resolve them
2)Other such as safety, barrier-free access
4. List of any permits and approvals needed and statement
of feasibility of obtaining them -r
C. Purchase/cost information
1. Statement of current owners willingness to sell,
e.g. option agreement or letter showing
feasibility of purchase
2. Type of interest to be purchased
3. Estimate of value, e.g. appraisal, letter of opinion
or planning estimate
4. Acquisition schedule
5. Acquisition cost (amount requested)
6. Identification of shorelines/tidelines to be purchased
7. Preliminary title report and encumbrances
8. Demolition plan if applicable
9. Relocation plan relative to Public Law 91-646, RCW 8.26.010
For Improvements
A. Information regarding agency capability
1. Authorizing resolution/commitment of share
2. Implementation plan(include budget, designated staff, schedule)
3. Long term maintenance plan including staff/budget
B. Site information
1. Location map
2. Slides (aerial, other)
3. Site liabilities and assets. Include:
a. Statement of potential or actual environmental
problems(e.g. floods, hazardous waste) and
plan to resolve them.
b. Other such as safety, barrier-free access
2
B. Site information (cont.)
4. Adopted site plan. Include:
a. Statement of consistency with land use policies
b. Project.dimensions
c. Project components
5. Design/Construction/Demolition Plan (include phasing, costs)
6. List of any permits and approvals needed and statement of
feasibility of obtaining them.
C. Cost information
1. Realistic cost estimates/basis of estimate
a. Cost of components(e.g. access, habitat,
engineered features)
b. Implementation costs requested
(e.g. Project management, engineering
construction supervision, labor goods)
2. Title information
III. Finalists/Project Development (Round III)
The Technical Evaluation Committee may seek more, updated, and/or
specific information to help make final selection recommendations. They may
select among project components to develop an optimum funding package.
This could include information such as:
1. Level I environmental audit
2. Certainty of match
3. Updated title report and current status of property availability
4. Likelihood of obtaining pernuts/approvals
5. Cost information
IV. Contract/Payment Information Requirements (Round IV)
Sponsors will be required to provide at least the following information
for contracts purposes. There will be additional contract elements, such as requirements
to receive reimbursements.
A. Agency capability
1. Legal authorization to enter into contract.
2. Stewardship/permanent dedication plan(include budget,
staff, and method to assure long term compliance e.g.
ordinance to assure "no substantial change in character
in perpetuity)
3. Ability to meet legal requirements e.g.
Women/Nfinorities Business Enterprise,
Americans with Disabilities Act
Uniform Acquisition and Relocation Act
B. Site information
1. Refined design/engineering information
2. Environmental Audit(s), (prior to closing):
Level I, and level II, if indicated by
Level I, and plan to resolve problems.
3. Survey (prior to closing)
3
•
B. Site information(cont.)
4. Guarantee of consistency with any and all regulatory/land
use requirements and permits, e.g. Sensitive Areas Ordinance,
Hazardous Waste, Shoreline Management ACT, NEPA)
and necessary approvals e.g. from jurisdictions, tribes
C. Cost/Purchase Information
1. Itemized costs, e.g. off/on-site costs (labor, engineering,
administration, planning, property, goods)
2. Sources and amount of matching funds
3. Contract e.g. purchase and sales agreement that includes:
a. appraisal, e.g. Member of American Institute of Real Estate
Appraisers, Residential Member of the American Institute,
Service Real Estate Analyst
b. environmental audits (prior to closing)
c. survey (prior to closing)
d. legal authorization
e. title/deed of right
f. conditions/encumbrances, e.g. mineral rights, air rights,
tribal interests
4
SHORELINE IMPROVEMENT FUND
Selection Process Schedule
Attachment 6
PRE APPLICATION (ROUND I)
2/02 Solicitation
2/23 Workshop
3/15 Pre-application deadline
screening for compliance
4/09 Water Quality Committee approval of list
4/15 Special resolution for saltwater proposals
(possible)
APPLICATION (ROUND H)
4/20 Solicitation
5/04 Workshop
6/15 Deadline for applications
7/01 Evaluation
Apply criteria
Review information
Site visits
Presentations
Public hearing
Water Quality Committee briefings/site visits
8/26 Water Quality Committee approval of recommendations
PROJECT FINALIZATION (ROUND HD
9/6 Solicit information .
10/4 Deadline for information
10/29 Review information/Negotiate projects/Target funds
COUNCIL DECISION
11/11 Technical Evaluation Committee Final Recommendation
to Water Quality Committee
11/18 Metro Council Action
INIPLEMENTATION/DISBURSEMENT
12/93-1/96
M