HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272171(5) NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 10 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P. 01/18
Parametrix, Inc.
5808 Lake Washington Blvd. N.E. Kirkland, WA 98033
206-822-8880
FAX TRANSMISSION COVER PAGE
FAX # 206-889-8808
Number of Pages (not including this page)
To: LkD
From:
Receiving FAX Number:
I
Date: 1 -3 L 9_3 _ Time: 1
Comments:
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 11 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P, 02/18
CHAPTER 3. POLICY ISSUES
During discussions between the City and the project team, several policy issues were identified
that require discussion and resolution. The issues are identified below, followed by a brief
discussion of the issue, options to resolve the issue, advantages and disadvantages to the options,
and a recommendation.
3.1 POLICY ISSUE 1: Should the City be Eligible to Use the Mitigation Sites for
Public Projects?
3.1.1 Issue
Under the current City of Renton Wetland Ordinance, a wide range of city-sponsored activities
can occur in wetlands without obtaining a special permit. These activities are outlined in the City
of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance (City of Renton 1992), Section 4-32-4 and include:
• Activities affecting a single, hydrologically isolated Category 1 or 2 wetland of less than
2,200 sq ft within a property boundary (City of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-4.C.1).
• Activities affecting hydrologically isolated Category 3 wetlands of less than 5,000 sq R
within a property boundary (City of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-4.C.2),
• Normal and routine maintenance and repair of existing facilities where no alteration of
the wetland or additional fill materials will be placed (City of Renton 1992; Code Section
4-32-4.A.4). The area must be restored to original conditions.
• Normal and routine maintenance and repair with minimum placement of fill to bring
facility up to established safety standards(City of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-4.A.5).
Impact must be minimized and area restored.
• Site investigation work necessary for land use application submittals such as surveys, soil
logs, percolation tests, and other related activities (City of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-
32-4.A.8).
• New surface water discharges to Category 1, 2, and 3 wetlands where discharge meets
Chapter 22 of the City's Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance, These activities
will not result in significant changes in water temperature or chemical characteristics, and
any changes in hydrology that would result in greater wetland function and value (City
of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-4.A.9).
Parametriz, Inc. 10 City of Renton - DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drflmtigpin
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 11 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P, 03/18
• Regional storm water management facilities designed consistent with the Washington State
Department of Ecology's Wetlands and Storm Water Management Guidelines (City of
Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-4.A.12),
• Enlargement of facilities beyond existing needs provided footprint does not increase more
than 10 percent within the wetland or its buffer (City of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-
4.C.6).
• Emergency activities (City of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-4.13),
As outlined above, the Wetlands Management Ordinance (City of Renton 1992) allows for a wide
range of city-sponsored public activities without needing to compensate for the temporary or
minor disturbance to wetlands. However,there are other public projects(e.g., transportation, road
improvements, public works) that the City may consider in the near and long term whose impacts
to wetlands may require compensatory mitigation. These impacts could be compensated for
through the use of the proposed mitigation banking program,
3.1.2 Options
3.1.2.1 Option 1: Allow public project impacts to be mitigated for at the
mitigation banking sites (assumes that the public project meets
the eligibility requirements for using the mitigation banking
program)
Advantaees
• The City would not have to necessarily provide on-site mitigation.
• The City would not have to necessarily acquire additional land to implement an off-site
mitigation design.
• State and Federal regulatory agency acceptance of the credibility of the mitigation banking
program could increase with City participation.
• Allowing public projects to be eligible provides an opportunity for a partnership between
public and private developers.
Disadvantages
• The amount of available "banked" wetland mitigation on the sites may diminish relatively
fast if numerous public projects that affect higher quality wetlands (i.e., Category 1 and
Paramerrix, Inc, 11 Ciry of Renton -DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3. 1993
drftmtig.pin
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 12 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P, 04/18
2 wetlands) are implemented and are mitigated for at the mitigation banking sites (i.e.,
less banked wetland credit available for use by the private sector).
• There is the potential that the general public may perceive the City as giving preferential
treatment to meeting the eligibility requirements for public projects.
3.1.2.2 Option 2: Do not allow public project impacts to be mitigated for at the
mitigation banking sites.
Advantaees
• Leaves more "banked" wetland available for private projects,
• There may be more public interest in the mitigation program if it was designed just for
the private sector.
Disadvantages
• The City would need to acquire land to conduct off-site mitigation for public projects if
on-site mitigation could not be achieved.
• The City would not be able to take advantage of the mitigation banking program - a
program to which they are committing substantial financial resources.
• State and federal agencies may not be as supportive of the mitigation banking program
if it is designed solely for the private sector.
3.1.3 Recommendation
Comments from the general public (October 20, 1993)and the development community (October
21, 1993) were considered when making this recommendation. Considerations included the fact
that public projects serve a public need benefiting the entire community, and that implementation
of the mitigation banking program may be financed, in part, by the City (e.g., 5.33 acres of
mitigation required for allowing fill on Glacier Park properties, Parks and Recreation trail
development). We recommend that wetland mitigation projects for public projects that meet the
eligibility requirements for using the mitigation banks be allowed on the mitigation banking sites.
However, the City should consider limiting public participation to not exceed 50 percent of the
total available mitigation banking acreage.
Parametriz, Inc. 12 Ciry of Renton - DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3. 1993
drftmtig.pin
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 13 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 05/18
3,2 POLICY ISSUE 2; Should the Mitigation Sites be Used for Impacts to Category
1 and 2 Wetlands, or Only for Projects Impacting Category
3 Wetlands?
3.2.1 Issue
In early conversations about the structure of the mitigation bank, the general agreement seemed
to be that only projects affecting Category 3 wetlands should be eligible to use the bank
(Appendix A, Summary of Category 1, 2, and 3 Wetlands). The general reasoning was that this
category represented the majority of wetlands within the Valley, and impacts would tend to occur
on the smaller and lower value wetlands. A review of the Wetlands Management Ordinance and
the current city wetland inventory indicates that some Category I and 2 wetlands could also be
potentially eligible to use the bank.
Deciding on whether to consider impacts to Category 1 and 2 wetlands eligible for use of the
mitigation bank is dependent, in part, on (1) the number and acreage of Category 1, 2, and 3
wetlands within the Valley, and (2) interpretation of the City's Wetland Management Ordinance.
Based on the available wetland inventory data there are 19 Category 3 wetlands ranging in size
from less then I acre to about 20 acres, 12 Category 2 wetlands ranging in size from less than
1 acre to about 23 acres, and three Category I wetlands ranging in size from 20 to 65 acres. The
City of Renton owns all of the Category 1 wetlands (Table 1, see Figure 1).
The City's Wetland Management Ordinance is somewhat ambiguous with respect to whether
Category 1 and 2 wetlands can be impacted. As currently interpreted, the ordinance does not
preclude development activities in Category 1 and 2 wetlands; but it does not actually state what
activities are regulated in these higher quality wetlands.
3,2.2 Options:
3.2.2.1 Option 1: Allow the mitigation banking sites to be used for impacts only to
Category 3 wetlands.
Advantages
• Potential impacts to Category I and 2 wetlands would be minimized if project proponents
could not use the mitigation banking sites and had to do on-site and/or off-site mitigation
(i.e., disincentive to impact Category 1 and 2 wetlands).
• Ensures that only lower quality wetlands are being impacted, mitigated for, and replaced
with greater functional value.
Parametrix, Inc. 13 City of Renton - DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmtig.p1n
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 13 PARAHETR I X FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 06/18
Table 1. Inventoried wetlands within City of Renton limits,
Wetland
Wetland Code t Type Size
Category 1 2
W-4 3 PFO,PSS,PRM 65
W-5 3 PFO 20
W-123 PSS,PEM 41
Total 3
Category 2
W-25 PFO 1 or less
W-40 PEM,PSS
W-43 PEM
W-3 POW,PFO,PEM 5-6
W-39 PFO,PSS,PEM
W7N PEM,PSS 11 - 12
«V 8N PSS,PEM
W13C POW,PEM,PSS
W-10 PFO,POW 12- 13
W-22 PEM,PSS,PFO 18- 19
W-45 PFO,PSS,PEM
W5C PFO,PSS 23
Total 12
Category 3 '
W-54 PEM 1 or less
W-31 PFO,PEM
W-34 PEM
W-35 PEM
W-56 PSS,PFO,PEM 1 -2
W-9 PFO
W-16 PEM,PSS
W-3 6 PEM
W-6 PFO,PSS 2-3
W-75 PSS,PEM
W-15 PFO,PSS
W-41 PSS,PEM
W-14 PSS,PEM 3-4
W-33 PEM.PSS
W-85 PSS,PEM 4-5
W-13a PFO,PEM,PSS
W-21 PEM,PSS
W-32 PFO,PSS 6-7
W-13 b PEM 20
Total 19
Plates:
A portion of W-22 is Wetland Mitigation Site 1
A portion of W-321s Wetland Mitigation Site 2
1 From R.W.Beck 1993,Black River Basin Draft Water Quality Management Plan,Volume 3 and
Jones and Stokes 1991,Critical Areas Inventory,City of Renton Wetlands and Stream Corridors
2 Category is based on City of Renton wedand ordinance
7 Owned by the City of Renton
PEM °-Palusalne emergent PSS =Palustrine scrub shrub
POW =Palustrine open water PF0 =Palustrine forested
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 14 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 07/18
• Focusing the mitigation banking program on Category 3 wetlands may result in greater
opportunities to retain and expand the City's economic base,
• Administrative management of the mitigation would be relatively simple.
Disadvantage
• Projects that may impact Category 1 (public only) and 2 (public and private) wetlands
would not be eligible to use the wetland mitigation bank and would need to consider on-
site and/or off-site mitigation alternatives.
3.2.2.2 Option 2: Allow the sites to be used for impacts to Category 1 and 2, as well
as Category 3 wetlands.
Advantage,E
• Provides greater opportunity for the development community to use the mitigation
banking program and does not necessarily preclude public and private development in
Category 1 and 2 wetlands.
• Provides opportunity for City to use the mitigation banking sites for impacts to Category
1 wetlands.
Disadvantages
• Potential to use up the acreage created for the bank relatively fast because of greater
replacement-to-loss ratio prescribed by the City's Wetland Ordinance (City of Renton
1992) (i.e., potentially fewer users).
• Higher value wetlands have higher buffer requirements, resulting in a net reduction in
wetland mitigation area available for banking,
3.2.3 Recommendation
Based on the available information on inventoried wetlands under the jurisdiction of the City of
Renton, the majority of wetlands that may be subject to future development activities appear to
be a combination of both Category 2 and 3 wetlands, with Category 3 wetlands appearing to be
more abundant than Category 2 wetlands. The majority of the Category 3 wetlands occur in the
portion of the Valley where economic development is desirable. Therefore, it is reasonable to
expect the majority of impacts to occur to Category 3 wetlands.
Parametr&, Inc, IS City of Renton -DRAFT
.5-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmtigpin
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 14 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 08/18
Neither the general public nor the development community objected to allowing impacts to
Category 2 wetlands being potentially eligible to use the mitigation banking program. However,
the general public did not want impacts to Category 1 wetlands to occur and be mitigated for on
the mitigation banking sites. The City is currently the sole owner of Category 1 wetlands within
the Black River Drainage Basin (with the exception of a portion of the Panther Creek Wetland).
Future public projects (e.g., extension of Oaksdale Avenue) may affect a portion of the adjacent
Category 1 City of Renton Wetland (see Figure 1). Any impacts will need to be mitigated for
according to the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance (City of Renton 1992) and/or
according to the Corps (and advisory state and federal resource agencies) permit conditions. The
City should, at a minimum, have the opportunity to mitigate for those wetland impacts on the
mitigation banking sites. Because it is unlikely that significant portions of City-owned Category
1 wetlands will be impacted, we recommend that compensating for impacts to Category 1
wetlands be allowed at the mitigation banking sites. We also recommend that the City consider
allowing compensation for impacts to Category 2 as well as Category 3 wetlands to occur at the
mitigation banking sites.
The City needs to remember that any wetland under the jurisdiction of the Corps (and associated
agencies such as the U,S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and the Washington State
Department of Ecology [Ecology]) are subject to federal regulatory requirements. The Corps and
Ecology may not determine that compensation for impacts to a given wetland under their
jurisdiction is appropriate at the mitigation banking sites.
Finally, the section of the City's Wetland Management Ordinance on allowed and regulated
activities (Section 4-32-4) is subject to broad interpretation for whether Category 1 and 2
wetlands can be impacted. Therefore, we recommend that the City request administrative
clarification to determine whether the ordinance intended to allow impacts to Category 1 and 2
wetlands.
3.3 POLICY ISSUE 3: Should the Mitigation Sites be Used for Impacts to
Wetlands That are Less Than 1 Acre, or for Projects
Impacting Wetlands Less Than 1 Acre or 1 Acre or Greater
in Size?
3.3.1 Issue
In early conversations with the City of Renton about the structure of the mitigation bank, the
general agreement seemed to be that only projects affecting wetlands of less than 1 acre, and
considered to be above the headwaters, should be eligible to use the bank. The general reasoning
Farametrix, Inc. 16 City of Renton -DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmtig.pin
NOV- 3-93 WED 13; 15 NAKAME IR 1 X FAX NO. 206 889 8808 N, 09/18
for this was that any permitting decisions would largely be a City responsibility and impacts to
these wetlands would not necessarily require a permit from the Corps' and/or Ecology',
However, there are wetlands within the Valley that are larger than 1 acre and a developer (public
or private) may determine that unavoidable impacts to a proposed project are going to impact
greater than 1 acre of wetland. For impacts to wetlands greater than 1 acre, a permit (either a
Nationwide 26 permit or Section 404 individual permit, depending on the jurisdictional status of
the wetland) to fill the wetland is required from the Corps and/or Ecology,
3.3.2 Options:
3.3.2.1 Option 1: Allow the mitigation banking sites to be used for impacts only to
wetlands that are less than 1 acre and above the headwaters.
Advantages
• The City is the primary agency involved in permitting these types of activities and with
working with the development community to determine appropriate compensatory
mitigation.
• Reduces the level of coordination necessary with state and federal resource and regulatory
agencies, thus reducing the time invested in the administrative and technical management
of the mitigation banking program.
Disadvanta es
• May preclude a project proponent(public or private) from being able to use the mitigation
banking site if other state and federal permit requirements could be met for wetlands 1
acre or larger.
• If the Corps determines that many of the wetlands in the Valley are adjacent, the wetlands
that would be eligible to use the site would shift to the upper drainage basin areas. These
We are assuming that some of the wetlands within the Valley that are less than 1 acre are indeed wetlands that
are above the headwaters, thereby allowing the City to be the sole agency managing activities in those wetlands and
the wetland mitigation banks. Should the Corps determine that the majority of wetlands within the Valley are
"adjacent," the usefulness of the wetland mitigation banking program will need to be addressed.
' The Corps and Ecology should be notified when a project is going to impact a wetland that is less than 1 acre
and above the headwaters. The Corps will typically issue a jurisdictional letter and/or a Nationwide 26 permit.
However, the Corps and Ecology have not typically required mitigation for impacts to wetlands that are less than
1 acre and above the headwaters.
Parametric, Inc. 17 City of Renton - DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmrig pin
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 16 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 10/18
areas are often considered to be of higher value because they are less disturbed and are
often associated with primary and secondary stream tributaries.
3.3.2.2 Option 2: Allow the sites to be used for impacts to wetlands that are less than
or greater than 1 acre in size that are either above the headwaters
or adjacent.
Advantage
• Provides an opportunity for project proponents (private or public) that can meet state and
federal regulatory requirements to potentially use the mitigation banking site.'
Disadvanta es
• The wetland mitigation credit could potentially be used by one large project, thereby
limiting opportunities for others who develop in the Valley.
• An investment of time and resources may be needed to coordinate and negotiate an
agreement with state and federal resources agencies.
• Agencies(i.e., Ecology, EPA)require higher-value wetlands to have larger buffers. These
buffer requirements may need to be met on the mitigation banking sites.
• Up-front costs for the mitigation program could potentially increase.
• State and federal agencies may have a difficult time agreeing that mitigation on the
banking sites will be adequate compensatory wetland mitigation.
3.3.3 Recommendation
The project team recommends that wetlands that are less than 1 acre and above the headwaters
be eligible to use one of the two mitigation banking sites (e.g., Mitigation Banking Site 2). As
envisioned, impacts to less than 1 acre of either Category 1, 2, or 3 wetlands that are considered
to be above the headwaters would be permitted(including mitigation requirements) primarily by
the City of Renton and mitigated for at one of the two mitigation sites.
Impacts to wetlands that are under federal jurisdiction need to be substantiated by meeting the alternatives
analysis Section 404 (13)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act. The basic presumption of the alternatives analysis
is that there is a less environmentally damaging practicable alternative to a project that is not dependent on water,
including wetlands. Thus, depending on the type of project, it is unlikely that many project proponents who want
to develop wetlands within the Valley will be able to pass the alternatives analysis. If this assumption is true then
it is likely that few impacts from projects that are subject to the federal requirements could potentially be offset at
the mitigation banking sites.
Parametrix, Inc. 18 'City of Renton - DRAFT
53-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drf?mrigpin
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 16 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P, 11/18
However, if a project proponent can meet the state and federal regulatory requirements associated
with activities affecting wetlands [e.g., Section 404 (B)(1) alternatives analysis of the Clean
Water Act], and the agencies, including the City of Renton agree that mitigation banking is the
best compensatory mitigation option, the impacts could be offset at the other of the two
mitigation banking sites.
The City of Renton may not necessarily need to meet and negotiate a Memorandum of
Agreement with the federal and state resource agencies that also have regulatory oversight of the
wetlands. However, the City will need to participate in the evaluation process with the state and
federal agencies to determine if the mitigation banking site is the best option to compensate
impacts to wetlands 1 acre or greater that are above the headwaters or adjacent.
To ensure that sufficient wetland banking credits are available at the two mitigation banking sites,
we further recommend that the mitigation program give preference to projects that impact less
than 1 acre of Category 1, 2, or 3 wetlands that are above the headwaters. Adequacy for using
the mitigation banking sites would need to be determined for projects that affect 1 acre or more
of wetland. This concept is illustrated below in Table 2.
Table 2. Recommended preference for allowing impacts to be compensated for at the mitigation banking
sites.
Size
Priority Wetland Category (acres) Jurisdictional Status
1 Category 3 <1 above the headwaters
2 Category 2 <1 above the headwaters
3 Category 1 <1 above the headwaters
4 Category 3 zl above the headwaters or adjacent
5 Category 2 al above the headwaters or adjacent
6 Category 1 >_1 above the headwaters or adjacent
3.4 POLICY ISSUE 4: Should the City be Solely Responsible for Administrative
and Technical Management of the Mitigation Program and
Mitigation Sites?
3.4.1 I sue
The overall management of a mitigation banking program includes an administrative and technical
management component. In general, administrative management includes:
Para►netriz, Inc. 19 City of Renton - DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmtigpin
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 17 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 12/18
• Establishing the administrative agent
• Credit brokering and credit tracking
• Collecting and tracking fees
• Financial issues and funding
• Permit tracking
• Being the bank operator (day-to-day management)
In general, technical management of the sites includes:
• Determining whether the project is suitable to use the mitigation banking program
• Monitoring credit evaluation
• Site maintenance
• Implementing contingency actions
• Oversight of site construction
The commitment of individual(s) and time to manage the mitigation banking program requires,
at a minimum, that the individual(s)be knowledgeable about permitting (local, state, and federal),
wetland delineation, functional monitoring evaluations, financial management, and public
relations. Currently, the City of Renton has staff with experience and expertise in evaluating
SEPA checklists, permit applications, fiscal and financial (permit fee tracking) management, and
public relations. However, it is the project team's understanding that the City requests technical
wetland expertise from Ecology regarding SEPA checklists/permit applications that affect
wetlands, wetland delineations, and mitigation plans.
3.4.2 Options
3.4.2.1 Option 1: The City of Renton is the sole administrative and technical
manager of the mitigation banking program and mitigation
banking sites.
Advantages
• Typically programs that are administered and managed by one entity are more efficient
and coordinated.
• Project proponents have a greater sense of predictability associated with how the program
works.
• There may be reduced costs if the program were managed by the City.
• The City would benefit from the knowledge it gains on mitigation banking; this can be
used when developing other mitigation banking sites within the City.
Parametriz, Inc. 20 Ciry of Renton -DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drf?mtig.pin
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 18 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 13/18
• The City engenders a level of trust and credibility with the users of the mitigation banking
program because of the City's administrative and technical knowledge,
Pisadvantages
• It may be difficult for the City to keep abreast of the growing body of knowledge
regarding wetland creation, restoration, functional assessment, and monitoring techniques
that may be applicable to the mitigation banking program,
• The City will need at least one staff person who is knowledgeable about technical issues,
administrative and financial management, public relations, and permitting. This person
would need to be dedicated 100 percent to the program.
3.4.2.2 Option 2: The City of Renton is the Administrative manager of the mitigation
banking program and contracts out the technical management
components of the program.
Advantages
• May ultimately be less expensive to contract out for technical management (i.e.,
monitoring, site maintenance, assistance with evaluating permit/SEPA applications, site
visits to assess impacts to wetlands, review of wetland delineation reports, etc).
• Potentially more technical expertise is available from contractors that can benefit the
program.
• Allows the City to focus on the administrative management functions, oversee the
contractor(s), and day-to-day management responsibilities.
Aisadvantaees
• City has to manage one or more contractors.
• City may potentially lose knowledge to be gained because of indirect participation in the
technical management components of the program.
3.4.3 Recommendation
The City should consider hiring a contractor/consultant for at least the first 2 or 3 years of the
program, from site development through site monitoring for two reasons: (1) there may be a
perception among the regulated community and general public that the City should not be the
developer of the program, manager of the program, and user of the program without involving
Parametrix, Inc. 21 Ciry of Renton - DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmdg.pin
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 18 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P, 14/18
an objective party, and (2) the City can benefit from the technical expertise of contractors and
consultants that have experience in monitoring, functional assessment, review and verification of
wetland delineations and reports, etc. If this recommendation is accepted, the designated staff
person from the City that will be the administrative manager of the program should maintain an
active role in the technical management components of the program so that the City could
eventually be the technical manager of the sites.
We also recommend that the City develop a simple mechanism to notify the Corps when the City
is allowing a project proponent to use the mitigation banking site that will allow mitigation for
impacts to wetlands less than 1 acre that area considered to be above the headwaters (activities
for altering those wetlands are authorized by the Corps Nationwide 26 permit process). The
purpose of establishing a mechanism is to provide the Corps with information on what the City
is requiring for mitigation associated with filling wetlands. Notifying the Corps of City actions
will allow the Corps to have a record in the event that they are contacted about a potential fill
violation. The mechanism would include:
1. Identifying one individual in the Corps regulatory division and one individual at the City
of Renton to be the point of contact for this program.
2. The City requiring a project proponent to submit a copy of the Corps' letter on the
jurisdictional determination of the wetland(for sites without specific project plans), a copy
of the Nationwide Permit, or the Letter of Authorization (for sites with specific project
plans), before the City allows the project proponent to use the mitigation banking program
(this is one of the proposed eligibility requirements).
3. The City then preparing a form letter that references the Nationwide Permit number, the
Letter of Authorization, or the Corps letter and which indicates that the City intends to
allow the project proponent to use the mitigation site(s) to offset losses to wetland
resources. The form letter should be sent to the designated contact person at the Corps
for their files and for its office of law enforcement.
We also recommend, irrespective of the choice of options, that once the program is adopted the
City train an employee, or hire or contract a wetland specialist, to assist with technical
management issues and not rely solely on Ecology for technical assistance with projects that may
potentially use the wetland mitigation banking program.
Parametrix, Inc. 22 Ctry of Renton - DR,4FT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drj?mtig_pin
NOV- 3-93 WED 13: 19 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P, 15/18
3.5 POLICY ISSUE 5: Should the City Consider Exempting Category 3 Wetlands
From the Sequencing Process (i.e.,Avoidance,Minimization
Compensation) Currently Required by the City's Interim
Wetlands Ordinance?
3.5.1 Issue
Currently the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance requires that impacts to Category
1, 2, and 3 wetlands from development projects first be avoided and then minimized. Once
project impacts have been avoided and minimized, any unavoidable impacts are then
compensated. This process is typically referred to as sequencing of project impacts. This
sequencing process is consistent with state and federal policies and regulations for wetland
protection and management.
3.5.2 Options
3.5.2.1 Option 1: The City exempts Category 3 wetlands from sequencing.'
Advantages
• Eliminates one procedure of the City's Wetland Ordinance with which project proponents
need to comply.
• Potentially reduces time spent in project design.
• Potentially provides added incentive for developers wanting to locate/build industrial,
commercial, and residential developments in the Valley.
• Provides flexibility to project proponent in site planning and design.
Disadvantages
• Only Category 3 wetlands under the primary jurisdiction of the City could be exempt
(wetlands under state/federal regulations would still be subject to sequencing).
• Does not preclude developer from getting a jurisdictional determination from the Corps.
s This option assumes that only Category 3 wetlands of less than 1 acre that are above the headwaters would be
exempt, because any wetland impact subject to state and federal regulatory requirements would require sequencing.
Parametrlx, Inc. 23 City of Renton - DRAFT
5S-1779-07 November 3, 1993
dr9tmtig.pin
NOV. 3-93 WED 13:20 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P, 16/18
• Special features of the site (i.e., provides flood storage) may make exemption
disadvantageous to achieving regional goals of no net loss of wetlands and wetland
functions,
3.5.2.2 Option 2: The City does not exempt Category 3 wetlands.
Advantage
• All wetlands, whether they are governed by local, state, or federal regulations, are
considered equal with respect to sequencing of project impacts.
Disadvantage
• Potentially may reduce economic incentive for developing lower quality Category 3
wetlands.
3.5.3 Recommendation
While exempting certain Category 3 wetlands from the sequencing process would be viewed as
advantageous for site developers, we recommend that the City continue to require sequencing of
impacts for all wetlands, at least during the first year or two of the mitigation banking program,
for three reasons:
1, Some of the development community and general public may perceive inequality in how
wetland impacts are evaluated by the City.
2. Some Category 3 wetlands of less than 1 acre (that are above the headwaters) may
provide a relatively significant function whose impact may affect achieving a goal of no
net loss.
3. Potentially, the time required by the mitigation banking program manager to track and
manage exempted wetlands may increase, and result in increased administrative costs.
We also recommend that the City reevaluate the option of exempting Category 3 wetlands less
than 1 acre that are above the headwaters once the program has been implemented and operating
for 1 to 2 years. At that time it can be determined whether exempting certain Category 3
wetlands can be done equitably and with minimal paperwork.
Parametrix, Inc, 24 City of Renton - DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmtigpin
NOV- 3-93 WED 13:20 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P. 17/18
3.6 POLICY ISSUE 6; Should the City Consider Modifying the Existing Interim
Wetlands Management Ordinance to Recognize
Enhancement as an Acceptable Form of Compensatory
Mitigation?
The City's Wetland Management Ordinance does not currently recognize enhancement as a
compensatory mitigation option[City of Renton 1992; Code Section 4-32-6(b)(1)], because at the
time the ordinance was developed the City decided that enhancement was difficult to define—and
the City lacked the technical expertise necessary to determine if enhancement actually occurred.
In general, enhancement is considered to mean those actions that are taken to improve upon or
establish new functions within an existing wetland.
3.6.1 Options
3.6.1.1 Option 1: The City modifies the interim Wetland Management Ordinance to
recognize enhancement as an acceptable form of compensatory
mitigation.
Advantages
• Provides an additional compensatory option for developers to consider.
• Increases the acreage (approximately 10 to 15 acres) available on the mitigation banking
sites that could be used as credits in the mitigation banking program.
• Establishes consistency with other local, state, and federal wetland mitigation programs
(most recognize enhancement as one of several compensatory mitigation options).
Pisadvantages
• The City will need to define enhancement, establish criteria that will evaluate the success
of enhancement, and develop technical expertise to determine when a wetland has been
enhanced.
• The City's ordinance would need to be revised to reflect that mitigation of wetland
impacts is based on acreage as well as function.
• Anyone proposing enhancement actions on an existing wetland may be subject to local,
state, and federal regulations regarding altering wetlands.
Parametriz, Inc. 25 City of Renton - DRAFT
-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmt igpin
NOV 3-93 WED 13:21 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 18/18
3.6.1.2 Option 2: The City does not modify the interim Wetland Management
Ordinance to recognize enhancement.
Advantar-es
• The City would not necessarily need to modify the existing ordinance, define
enhancement, or acquire expertise to determine when enhancement actions have been
successful.
Disadvantages
• Minimizes opportunities for on-site mitigation actions that could potentially increase or
improve upon wetland functions.
• Existing wetlands on the mitigation banking sites could not be altered to increase their
functional value.
3.6.2 Recommendation
We recommend that the City consider modifying the existing Wetlands Management Ordinance
to include enhancement action as a wetland mitigation option, for the following reasons:
1. Potentially, many developments would consider enhancement options either on-site or at
the mitigation banking sites.
2. Actions could be taken on the mitigation banking sites to improve upon some of the
existing wetland communities by either the City or private developers.
3. Enhancement provides an opportunity to fulfill some of the objectives and policies of the
mitigation banking program,
If the City agrees with this recommendation, the mitigation banking program could incorporate
enhancement at a later date, modification of the ordinance would not necessarily need to occur
before the mitigation banking program is adopted and implemented. Modification could occur
when the City adopts final critical areas ordinances according to schedules determined through
the Growth Management Act (Due in 1: 1994). However, modification of the ordinance prior
to or concurrently with the mitigation banking program would provide an opportunity for the City
to undertake enhancement actions concurrently with restoration of wetlands on the mitigation
banking sites. This would result in a more integrated approach to establishing higher values and
functions on the mitigation banking sites, and may result in long-term cost savings (versus
independent on-site modifications after the uplands on the mitigation banking sites have been
restored to wetlands).
Paramerrix, Inc. 26 City of Renton - .DRAFT
55-1779-07 November 3, 1993
drftmtigpin