HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA97-096 (‘')
...t..-
x
Cu•
Ci)
• Til
'
;-I
• immli 1.)
. E INIMINM4 (1.)
C) Ct 4-i__,
CZ
Ct
u < E
CA
tO .< 0
;-•1 r24
g111
Ct
lin W C.)
• v4
E 0
. .,_
. ,
•
..,..,i..,. >.,,,...,...;' .
Imilif
r.....mi
..-zt---,:.•.:. ?! 0
I-1)
• • Il .4.
,
,
411
-
Qi
-- )
,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,m,..„...?,,,, „,,,,,,,,,,o.m.,.,v,,kA.K.,..,4:::-.p,::::.,:w.:iy.,-.77.-z---r— - .:,';..,:'7.:::::'f.;i.:...:-:.,:.:..•:::-.,:-.,,:-: .:-.':-.-- ... ... . . .. :.. • ._._._.,.. ...:,... -...:.,..;";i. :,...„:..,:-..a.;..,..z;•iv:-.-?. ::.. .ik.,;,:::. ,-.-f:?2',..-.,.. .P'.',.-;;,',A;A:Rilig:f4:1
.-. •....... . ..- -..-.-.--:::..-.:.,..,-'...;..,:::.;f'.--....;•.-,.-7:_-._--5:-.:'..--;:',:'::4:: ,..i...,..,.--r,i-ri.--.5.--;:;qfr-W--;,; ;;,;=:,.e.',5.,. .w.Vc.,gi-50':'-*,k
-.-1r,'",,',A1‘.-.,-10,-',m'',-,:i<':%,,,,'5.5:z-',,;z:.,,, -,,,‘,-.,.:.-.,.:,:,:.,i.:•.7,.:.A.-zzz:,..c•:,-,-,---—--.— -. .- .•, .-,..--.....,•,••••.... .•...
,:,,,,I.Zci.,gsz ,:;.',7,; ,,,.: -..,!,,,.",,.";&•-w,-."'.-,-i•:,j.,:;,,-,--gf:,,..;.,;.-„,./,,-,:,..:.:,.;;,.....-., . . ..- .:„. . . ..-.......-..-..... . . ..:... . .
. .
....I....:.......,......• '---',..,"':,•.-',.:;'',''...,'',.....:-..:'''.‘.::.";'...•;.y.'o.'iAi'''Q.•:;;;;/1. ;',7;. ::',2.k.!;V.-.. 5-W:'1,W,',0.,,,,;,,.... .,,..,
•. ,... ....•...•"••
'i.,,f.0.1‘MO:M-0.:1;',';'''ONA:';',?':W.,% ;1'il).g.:1',).''' ''..f'•:;.t:''.' '-'1-:''''1:.,,'::',Vg:••''•.;:••.1••••••••••:--, •''.' ''''' -' - .'''',.:'''...''0."-.. ,'.-...'''''':.:-..:(',,a4;;".;:;',":.'•,..,:,,i'.. ,:,,P;,,M,:0';;;:'',WicP,,:k.%;.';',';',-*Igt4)4,
'00.0ragni0;'';'•,':Vi.:',.;.i'i•a''AZ'',i,Wi'Vq;,.',:,,,,:'7,,......, , ,' :...",,..:•:•.!.,-, .."-...:.:"......,.,."...:,::'.:.:•.:'' • '''•••::.::;••:::::.:••.....'•..• • ..:',•,, i'1'•'/''!Irl'.'
. , ......, „.._,,._.,.„_. „...:..„,..,.........
.'-.....1.....-:-.'-'-'-'''''''''''' ;''''''''''(:%.•'''''',-r/-;;:.-Ji,','".%'-;^..,,-;,-:;-k:1;;', .:1*. 3:7:/.At',.',;,a',-,-..,,,i-A,,,,,,,,,
" :Stit'475:*,'Y'',R*,,',.M,:.7,!i'r,:.;', :',1' -:-''-';'-:"--':$g',.:',f'.:;;','; '-',V,;Iff.-::'-' .:,,:.'.,,,,,...,.',:.:.,--,1....i,4,-,.:,4..,..•_;,...,i.•„.,,,,..t. n,,,,,,, rim-..Ergm„.:,.-e.7..m....-.m..:eIlr. ,..,4,-.,;. .A.,,,,,.,:pl,,,,;t1;,,,,,,i,:,,,,,..., ,,,,,,v,,,j4,,,.,cl,,,,,r,,,,..w...,11,„'-,;::.i.
aqRqfiik.!7r4ig*k%il,k-kttlg'i''r.l:':'CVA:',W.,g:V.KS:''1:tf:,4:::fgVt'r44: KCji-E0g.:IitiIia.'.--..ta:i121, t .-- ;,iw.4:-1.-40::A:%;roe;,;wtn.,..-4,,vtmA.,,J.!t-it?'p.,.4
.....„0
) ,•:!. ..,-P'...'''. .1'7- ::7:::'7: ,'!'.1..:i.:....:t l'.'.: '.:'''''' ..::.....r.::''..:-. .....r...:,........Lr.':':.... '"":.:...:', ....': f:--''''-,...V..-',','..',1'..':'.':::':'..';'..'i',V...'i'.. ...11::.!%=','.':!ni'.;-4•.:-,.-,;.'. .:A.:,:...,,,,-.:.4.‘k,....*:
h''01. 44.fs=r;'°5."'n_.,;):.yi.:'.).1;';^`.;ry:}'.5„i.
` LLB . ; �
:t_ Topics Discussion
„....,.._„....„..,..„„:„,,,:„.„„.„.„,‘„,,,,.:„.„
,...„,„,...,....2.:,......,„:„.„..,,,r.,,.....„„.„,„„: .
,„..,,,,.2.,.....„.:.,::,,,.,:,, '',...!-,t'.5
■ Bioswale and buffer insufficient
, . ,....
- ----. ■ Fire an Buildingmaintenance
access
..... .„ :.:::...... . ..:.....
...---.-. .. -.-:-:-.•• ••• •.-
.„:„...,„.. .. ." .
„:„:„. • Maintaininghydrology of Wetland C
•
•
%A: ■ Stream Mitigation•
. . ................, .
. .... ... ... ...... ......
.. . . . .... .......„ . .
-•::•.,,,,.......•. :.,..„:„,,,,,,,.,„:„.,,..::.:.......
:Yi.W�'t4i
'3
Su
4` ,1,-;'v'�W.::6 �:£ :'±Bart Y
FpnifiagirvgqIni.1 015.1 -41,-4.01,Wei:4a,,eA&,.-4'
i.•;.,,,i,,,,A•V*a•PA•tag,*';•;,WAN
,?#.:,•:?t,u,,-,•-0.,-r •-, ,',. ,'M
4 ft•WA'Pr,4.-\:,,40.4,qt0,1
i',,a'.''..I.,,,g5s,•g?,V0;.1,W•.:5-.,,,,..1:-;41
,•,.„,..,4„.:,,„„:„,,,,:ag,,„,-,,,,,.,::-„„k„
„...,,,,:„:„.„,„,•:,‘„,i,::,..,,,,.„.,,,•,.:,..,„
..,..„..„.„,,„5,....„5„:„.„:„.„,,,,,,.„,„•.„.„,„",
Bioswale and buffer insufficient
„,„..,,..„:„..,,,:„.,-„:„.„.•::„..„..„,,,,,„.„,,,.„.„.„
•
''g',';','''',.':•:,•it'•: f-'•'':',3.-.•,,':':-Sf'•',•,.:
c.1.7tY:Z.:;''';',";`:•-:':1: :-:•-n..;..4:;`;,:
11:•;1;•:•W:4'1';';';'•'1•I'S;:..:•',V.'. 1::',"•‘;',.r.'.:.:.
:•,•,•'•it.:1'i;'',:e,;')•'•''',';''•, ''''' '',••1:-:.:',!:,',.:::',.
,,,Ma':::-,;''''''...::-,.-.1--.,4,::-.,-,.:-,.-.1:,,.•, .
.'.Rft,..: v.,,'---"...,.,..",‘.../.•.. ,',....•! .
Maintenance on bioswale in buffer will
,vic,q31:.7.-",'-:].,-:,:._:g.--,,...:..4.-,,.;•.I:'-:
;-.4t,a_V--.--i--.-•::;::]--e-f,:•-:.••?....--:-...,•-::,--::::-,,:
.::::....,•:. •-.-- :-.-c-:';',•••,:•:.::::-,1•:7:.:: ...'..:':•:-,'•:.'..',:
.:::105„1:1-':•.:' ''... 1-::•::•,. ..',...:::,:.: :.:;,..',•:,... significantly impact buffer and wetland
,„...„,..„..:-... ....:•:•..-...,,,;:::•.....:•,••••:••,.,;,:_„,„
.:...b..,... ..,!.,:•.-•:-.--. ... .....,..-..,-._.-....,.,...:
. .... . . . ... .....
. . .. . . . .... ....
.-..p..7.- . ..- . • •._._. -..•. functions
wi
•.:EFI.:•.-_. ... .... • •••_• ... ..: •
....:,..,,-:-4_•.:•••...,....,..:,..::.::-:-:....E:,-,:-::::....:,:--i•-:•..:H., . DOE comments
•,,,,,,,,I..,...:•..,......„,.:•• ••::.:. :•.....:.
,::::-.,,„„:„.:::::,•:.::.••::,,,..„...-.,.::-: „.:,•:•.••:••
..,,,,,,,,„..::::„.:•:„.:.„,„,::..,..,,,,.:,.......... .:..,.....,,,,....
."-,''-'. :'-'1''''-'-"''''-'!.•-•-::-.''' • Recommendations
,,...io,.:.,..,',..... ...,,.•'..,:;,.-,-,i-,.:,',.:.,,,' .
.„.
r-,-,,,N ..,',-;.I--:.--,,,,,,.,;-::,•::::::,.'-.,.,---::,'.: -,.:,„.
:=..",F,m4,, ...,-,„?,:.,..n:,,- : ..,:•.,,:. isr.::',..,
. .,
r' =: ,,,,,- ..f,,,,.:.,-,.,..t,...,,,,,-..-,-,,,, ,:,. ,,,-..-:-.-•
,,,,,,0414, ,,,.;:.',,!,W:;•.,',4-',.', 4 'i;--:-:.
:-.f,t4;44,,.••;•--.4,../,. ......'•, :4..,:-..•-•,-,..,:•-,,A ..- ..• ...
r.,,,,,•,-,',.,-,,,:.:-.,,,,,,!;;;;;.,:,-:,6,,,..,..,,,,,,....,,,,..„.,..,
;,-.;44:;,,,, ,:,';','34p.-.2',.,z-', •!::?.-.),.:
1:•,:::t;,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,:v;,;:-,,...,,,:,-.. „...-:,:.,:,,,,„_::!,i,-:,.3 , ...
'';'.!IFIK.MV115,.•:':,',,R,;;:-.al , .,
. ... , .
,;.,,•,...,,,,,,p,z,I.:,,,::,-j,„rn..]=;i.::!•MV.;;T:S .
0,4,,,,g40.,:;!.,,,,c-j-ii*,,v,ts.-,•it '', ,,_„..-
N:',/,::f,‘c-','- est..Va'F;. %W.:,".4
i'-13(„4,%•'::/:4;:„.',,,,s,4m,,,.,14,41,411 •,,„..,,,,..
:.?'-.,i. t-,p,m,.4.4..,,A,--:44, ,,:,::•,,,.'J
Y.,,-41:-,•z*--,-0, .-k,,E;;;?,,K-4.9.',4:',14-,;•',4, ,--:-..,,•• ,
;,,.:•::.,L,_.;,,,-.*„..x.;p;-,•*-;itfg. ,-;,,.. 1n,,,=;•
cl,,447•PA,,, s.t,.,.4',.:,,,•;ez4-ir,iti•-:.4t,k,:g1,1
A•i•T''''' ''''34,'IVa,,X,',,,E,?,,,,W.:j,:,:,..$;,,,,,,:-.29,',:::'41-•.n,V,A,t4,a'AP,,!-&
k,,•4Z.".*•'"•Nft,%Z,='ftr,gR41..,
4•'."4:'1•;'Are.*.Tii',;'21K`MK-1: •
CA4',1, :Ai',',^'.•t•',4:,1pp,'.;e;4%:%.,4., ...-
-:,.,,,,,,a,Xe,,t4.*: ii.?4,,•4V53";•'ke-,,
V=i4kia',1at.,&;;;:t,:ti:IVEZ5 14
._ .
Cr.:
:: ,M--,w de,`"-:C'A`
•
•
a F' .
.: =....-: -: ..r:. . Fire and Building maintenance access
,,,,,,..,„,,••„„,,,,,.,„,„:„,,,,,,:„.„,„:,.i,•,,.,,,:„.•,
,.„:,,,,,„,„„:„...„,,„,„,„,„,„,•,:::„.:,:,.„•:;,,
„.•,,,,,y,,,,,-__,,,,,,,,„:„.„,„,,,,,,„•,„,„:•,,„,„,„
,,,t,:„„:„,,,,„:„.„,,,,,..„:„.„.,„.„
,r,,,,n%'1,:',.'i,-,,::',,f, .. .S:;:.1.;,',V%;:-. ";
`'' '' • Fire and buildingmaintenance access
overlooked
a
t,.,,:.1,-,, . . .
,. ■ DOE comments
. . ..
. ,,,,,-;,,,, .---.. •..:....:.-:.........•
{- : • Reco• mmendations
x
�_:
':
R\'Yr
Maintaining hydrology of Wetland•
C
• Mitigation for recharge to May Creek
• DOE comments
• Recommendations
',
{ •
•
.r�
; .�'':��>>:c�. ,`';rye>:•
p:i .,,. - - ^k13
WhatT is Means
::,„....„,.......„.,...,,,..„.„.„.,„„...,,,,..,„„.„„,„,„,..,,,,
.,„....,:4,,„.„,„,.,......,,„„„:,..„:„.„:„.„.„.„„:„..
,..,,,,,„,„,„„„,„,:,:„...,..,.,,,,.,,,„,:„,„:::.„,„,,,,„,
-,„,....„.„..„3„,„:„.„,„:„.:,,,,,./..:„,,,;:,
:„..„„,:,,,,,,,,,,,:,,i„,,,,,,,.„:5 ,--;;:-.;:-,:.'
,c,...„,..„,„,,,,,,,„.„,„,_,,.....,.,„„„:„,,..,2,„.„,
,...„..,.:::„.s.,....,.,.,„....„.„,.:,,,„,„:„ .
.„„,..,E,,...,;..„,,,„.,:ir..:::,,,,_,":„,k„:„.„,,.. ,
...:„..„.....",.:•:.•,:,„:„:„•,-....„.„:„.:•:,..„,.„.
• Established: We live in a fragile area with
: valuable habitat, wildlife and critical .
•
... ... .. :..... :,...... : .i
:.., .--.. ...:-..: -. .,. .,.?.. •. .•.. ..:: ........ . .
drainage needs
„..•.,
xFy
., :. _..._. : ._... ......
.fl,, . ... ..... " ... :: .'::'--:----'''-'ir'----------':' ---- -:----: -:-:.::......E.L.:-.,:•,.,:::-...i.--.:.,---.•:... :•-.,.. :::-..: :
■ Necessitatesneed for proper m it igat ion
• • • •'lfaZtlli. ,•;''...1-1i:"I':•;: :::li:-?:;%;:', 'Safer in C./Z L-
.x �,= : • Summarize key p
,,,.,:„••••,,,„:•••,„:„.,,,,•...;‘,„,,,..„,..,•,..,..,,.: 7;g:',1
t ,
i
.;, ,,,,,, ^ate " ,Y
z >•.
es
Next
t
•
■ Developer, City of Renton must adequately
q y
mitigate this development
•: •..
•
..• :• •
g
9
2R44.Sn«:i��Od:;`'.k`.":^�✓y'�.�'R�:3.(ayr`:.G:.�-..a3:�
. s
•d
op
DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY _
4fi�� h1x SETTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS C� Ir" ,
.w� '�)-1 siM P.O. BOX 3755
Q� �'�I�I� f1 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9 8 1 24-22 5 5 I a
-�1 J J L 0 5 Lit
l ,�� �' �' ♦ RE►LY TO �7�J/�(A/
\��ATLS U ATTENTION OF - 1 r1v �3
regulatory Branch 1 J
JUL - 2 1997
Mr. Mark Goldberg
4739 University Way Northeast, Suite 1607
Seattle, Washington 98105
Reference : 97-4-00860
Goldberg, Mark
Dear Mr. Goldberg:
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 26 authorizes the proposed filling of
wetlands for a bioswale and relocation of 220 linear feet of an
unnamed tributary to Lake Washington for a road widening project
near Renton, King County, Washington. The proposed work is in
association with a subdivision development (Williamsburg
Condominium Development) . The work must be performed as depicted
on the enclosed drawings . Total impact acreage including wetland
and stream relocation would be 0 . 08 of an acre . You must meet
specific requirements and conditions .
We are in agreement with the delineation report prepared by
Talasaea Consultants dated February 7, 1997 . This confirmation
of delineation is valid for a period of 5 years from the date of
this letter unless new information warrants revision of the
delineation.
We have determined that the wetlands on the site are
adjacent to and upstream of the headwaters of May Creek and an
unnamed tributary to Lake Washington.
The regulations which govern our permit program contain a
series of NWPs . Each NWP authorizes a specific category of work,
provided certain conditions are met . The NWP 26 (Federal
Register, December 13 , 1996, Vol . 61, No. 241) authorizes
"discharges of dredged or fill material into nontidal rivers,
streams, and their lakes and impoundments, including .adjacent
wetlands, that are located above the headwaters where the average
annual flow is less than 5 cubic feet per second . . . . "
The entire text of NWP 26 and conditions are enclosed. The
stream relocation does not impact wetlands and is in conformance
with Regional Condition 3 .
/%xl,_ A
-2-
This NWP 26 verification will be valid until
December 13 , 1998, or until it is modified, reissued, or revoked.
If the project meets the enclosed terms and conditions, you will
need no further authorization from us for the above described
project .
You must still comply with other. Federal, State, and local
requirements which may pertain to the project . If you have any
questions, please contact Ms . Cindy Barger at telephone
(206) 764-5526 .
Sincerely,
+� obert H. Martin
} Chief, Processing Section
Enclosures
I. Cr �, PARK u... _fie., g T 9` 1 _r,, i s ^I Se leTY . • \ \
E I ^/ N .
'`< ST- R / :.! , 3O r,/ `\J\ 15 r} .SE I2v0 = - PI
-
•IST p` 1 1 `§, S ,•./ C 1 �6 1. 5i
r t t NAZELWOO
4s= �•` SE 72ND PL 2^'�<' 15.. ,^=�� . r�r, '—.' "� PK
' _ 2 sl = STD = y'�.� `Yc Wri
L�9DL?' \ G p , -
°° _ .�1� =r ,tip j 2 ''.�
. , zt7' ih„..,i.
" ,,,,.,45,:' 1 , -. :...„ ah. .,- j• .1:
/ 4-I'''. /t/
s ;Iff :
s. i. •
(`�` BEACX 1 • ', $j °`6N
• 'i.• al. , r I ST
,SSE _c' - S:• .... s1�Y ST.‘ �A%• PROJECT�� 13a_u�sE- 8JT;+, a- sT ^=
Lr7j .Y ."11:4, g!- .$.. / SITE' .. 112.:• 11000
c.
} 44.,Nes 5 Two
r� a/ /N� f 405 SE :: :. �E F-
(� AY'osaa , f _ r.
�f N .DTH ST >a v: �t ! I' E-' 'B4TH
:r
1 R1 :.YALCN v �% 2 :::,J x ;i ;r AlU` I. - 't s
/J . . R E EX
n I 3 i/ ,f N 38TH I ST ',..,1 <g s 1' v
11, =� 1 : j 11 377.1 ST 1 ^ N.>' 4!i' SE ST' ST 1 - 77T. ^-+,
`1'C I•:. XENNY?ALE 7 j n Si <> Q o N = ,_, 1
�� BEAwv PARK / 367H 3 t; 36TH Si li :7,
SE ST701 f�, /, J 35TH ST 1 W ,� R<a.! p150J^ I/
S. ` J 34
H '< ST ' > s�A(til "i SE 89Ti 5T
II •
NI POINT i f 1 + '"` _�_. SE
33RD PL - ST
✓�1 NE 33RD ST`-: SE 91ST
1 N 33RD S7 < - .I sc
cr sr. 92—N 5
CoLEmAN POIAT ( /'/ 700
NI 31ST STC I°I:i'A `; Nc 315T sr f =r,. r= ^ . .
- N 31TH ST PaY • ,
S. 700 i300 �� CREEK RK Y SE. 93
'+ 4I N 1 29TH ST o ; m "<< Y � �� ;': .'
7.1-,\� c N 28TA_ PLI ❑r 4.
3't YE 287H ST y�, PA'
LAKE 4'�` ^ •;27TH 27TN ST aE_ -77r
'o -" .KLIONS E Y.`<j511 Si
.77 N 2:TH s.g NE �\11 �— I.,�
1 •L - 1= u I� _ ® .C.;RD PL
SHINGTON +7JJ E
11 N } < E N n 2",IE 25 3R0 ST
\ t y V_ND z47JJ
1 • C N8 22ND ST= 1
= ST
ti !,� _: tie 215r 5T=_
SS y \c 20iH Z S7 :
/VJ
�. Y I,- I 8"RTN
.1 `L..= ,:. +•E :"a91 ST X:GiIUk°S
W x aPARK
Lk.
_ c 16
j'y1 11 G_ 18 m '� - 7 - 1H
p I z_\ BOAT LAWCN a: 11� ..... zc` .."--1
`PLGO <a
tT\ T -- r -TH : ST^ c -NE!I;;i, :_o JR Y < LL
GENE C°L.N i c ni D r
`' M5ri7RIAL _ <O CI is:sr
H vS �G BEACH PARK -i NE 12TH S
0 ,-,-': E-- y® y, \I 4�" 4/C I 12100 (. - $c5��v$71 x fr/i '
•
SOURCE: ..The Thomas Brothers Guide, Commercial Edition I9°5
O i /� F•
rr.tT.;_.,h' ,:'tr: ):j "�w Tea: 1 AI,
I.
INF
e•gc., 32 1,. a Lim `•
5& i{�ti ' i'L , 1•i'.I��: &a.":3 if E (.CYF ",'
fs,•x.,�� �.G11- 1-1 -goat North
�I � FISURE I: Location Map �s1�+ AO
\1J) TALASAEA SCALE
- I CONSULTANTS Williamsburg Condominium N.T.S.
Resource a Environmental Planning DATE Development
I
5020 Bear Creek Rood lbrtheost
2-5-9? 3
1-40odhv,Ne,o°'h1Nt.on q 72 Renton Washington
&»(206)H61-7550-Fax(206)861-'i549 RNI.JED
a ,
' 11 �r r •
i 7:%- : -
/ 7
1 TIIT611 // /f il - -::= - . ': ) I r —1------\--- ---- /r (,,.:;r,..til., "_.c .-
__:____, •
_._,
A Q' '-'1 >c) ;.. \ VT I .1 ' 1-- --7 ' ----- ' •-c-•-- - -,""-----_v- - - -.:. --)-71---Cg.+.4z,24.,/
li > 74!° ; _.,, , ' ) Pi\ 1(11 1 '
\..,-------.7
- r \' p' ��� l � IIII \\� c / l -„, „hII ,�E/ EEE
o �,, r ., ,� I l�•� t � \\ I � _ — .�, \IIII r E I
ii1 sOrn ` � / .� II I` \�\t \ \\V ) I �1 )l11III • EI. E E
1 O „ � s I �•'N \. \ i11 1 / 1 11 I I E
� o � A -/ ----N, / % � V\s,\k -13.\- Illllllf 1 111111111I � EE
zz -c l III / 1 III�f / / A 1 ��� II IIII! \ \ 111II I 1 • � E 1 N
u, tI — \ l
4 -o -
/ / / y l � II � �I ) 11111 ` I E
, h, .. ,,,v-\� IIII 1 I �� � E I �,r�' I \ \ z\ IIII1111 I ? I I >
rna / \ \. . \\ iIIII 11 / � .� � 1 \11111111 ° z� , m ,. \ \ \ \ 11111 / / \ ter `,9 I \ 11111 • � d_ -� -\\\ \ \ IIII IIIIIII / � \ � _ � 1111 � _
0' Ir`)\\ j I \\ \\\' \ 1 II11 11 s , M1 \1 7
\ IV // .�/ );\• 1 11 IIII lll� v ^ \ II 1\�
N / // /// -,r 1)1 I I II111 Jl / ,� \ / 11111
/ / r /) 1 1 l / / — 11\1
!: �/ /// / /;��Z :�1/11li1 / k, \ ) �- --1011\\\1
,, . // /,,'//// / Z� �// I / 4eN \ N 11111111\\1
,, li / / 0/ li•rI� //l / 1 / _ —u ,\ h111 z1�
N •
,1 // % �gi'/ ) i�/ // ) I// / ` — \\ ` l IR IIIII \III1'
/ � 7/ / / _ > \ \ �. WO
�_ / /� /• / I4./ �\ /// r,� �. _o� f I` I I III I�l
o /•. / it // /// / / // /1/ �Po_/ j /(/ �,/ �,� /// / / /�/ � _ _� 11111 1� 1 � 1 I1 111 III
;:. ►,� /% ,�, / , ��i / l/ / // � I � L \ � �I (IIIIIII
//il / // //. -` - ) / \ \ 1 _ ` 1) 1111 11 I �,
o /‘4 ,/& /;,/,/, ,-=-__ ,---;---„
Ij� '/104---ii7,./ /�j/ / �� � / / 1 �1-- _ \ \ I11141IIII �
r •
,• l ` i /// / ice i 1 I \ \ \ \ I001\ 10(
ll
//� 1, i l i 117r// /// / • / \ / \\• \ 1
Z t) /,,,`n_, 111, ,„ , . r J - 1 \ \ \ IIII IIII
° 4) 'ilj/iii-'. ' I041IIJ ' - -1 \ �� \ IIIII ��1 �1�
� tI1,�I � �//I // �� III / � _ _.— ____(vs._ ._ 1 \ ) J I / I I�1�\\1 \11
• „ 1 zIII /a / 711 \ \ c / ) 1111
11i1 , I lj , 1 r 7 —.4— —.�—, \\ / / 1 I III 11
III : a�I/ 11iII � 7 � � fir- 1 \ \\ \\�� / / / ► I1 11
,.r.\ I111\ i' /1 11 1��I 1 r / / .---.--- _ �, ' ���\ \\� ���/ v� II l II
H1L-3
Illn� I �� l 11 111 $/ I N d \ \ -- - --------- �%i 11111 i\a\ Ij I//I rPI7 /•� ( _ _� —� ��
a � (Illl ���a\\ // ///14� ;� / /•� E E E \ V %/�
i o r) I / pl1 b\ \\II l 11///1// / ( / E E E E E.E E / / I�
;q --,:o_ zti,
'�V1 • I I ( ` e / ftli
. Ii \\\ vIIIII! ( ]`:t E E E�E / •" E ` N ,—"� �i� , l ( J�om, \ \\ I 1 " -EJ1 UJE./ 1 / E " �` .\ •
6
( Ai - —_-:_� — ) / �'
i , a, x
.. �` ir
. : i7 :-.1 2, f-G% t I , r— •
-i 9 • I I E'
. xis:. .,4, i / \ i I r
a
•
In a •
�- >>. I r• o ki
0 0 �, `
0\
z z rn kllz
N a _ s : ': r 0 nl CAI
Fg.,'J, b- MzE -1
I--
g c
o ° `�
0
. _
....., r .. . ._. .
, •
• I• s 1 IAIETLAND "G"' ma...0 ota 1••lie•ot 110•1" Oro o IA 1°gESNI, .
•
, .. . . . %..
es....2•nla...1.•=N: .I
i ............ .. . .......
. s .,. .\ 2,611 s.P. (on-site) -", . ...,al e ..f., .1.? .. .. . .. .....,•. • ..
••••.... . . . -:•.. ;00....... .. ••: ‘ ,... I 1
•
• --..................... . .. . .-----....... .....--V•• % UNDI5T1JRBED 1^1ETLAND5
, .• 4 -----------...............--- .. - - • - :-...... . .. . ,. „, 1
. *. • ‘ • • .......................................... .....----r.. ..... :. . ... ... . ..., %
,Q . . .t.. .... . ; !‘.. .. ...j...,R_j , , 1 01.iti:t14:1::•...;.•14•14...;:if;;;;.:1,...:tit I tetitt:34:F IR E.AL I-
. • ‘ '. ... ......-!.3 / I
....'-'art..........•••-• •.................................. . . . . . . . . .. . , ...., ‘e61\°./(13 ,
-••-•"•••-•••-••........‘.:,-A.::•:-.... ................ .. . . . ... . •:.._....... . .. .. ... ...
'or Evv:TEpHEacjili_AN(0D0.5.:1 liaaolz,12cit juS-f.
-'" ‘--------- - - - -".. : : . .-:...-:: -. . .%;As.;.% ...'.. Ci'l\\ I .. 1
1. .. •. •• '. % •
..'-''. .... .. :.. .....1:::...,,,., ..
.4.:...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
5111.11'..-:%!..:-.-1:...... 1.1:4'rtj1;z•-liii:t!!:4-Z:--------------: :*:.---..-:-- :• : : . ' I -
.-. . ..
,
.. .IF It''/C".::g'•"1-1iWIL tii.:.T•vira,l,..................:::::::::...........................:_ ....,_............„,„„,.‘„,„
PP' -Nig=-_.-_-_-_-?,_
0 HETLAND 1,624 s.f.
• '''''',- ----;%19-i II t'•..':,'."it:- •1••=-i: • ----,•••.....................---••••.::-.:-.....::::::::___,-- ---1•••,..:•,..........v.•:•:-., .
.• .!••••!--•••••0- -1.t,,,,••--.7-n..:.-,..:.. .,,.:,>.z..............------....-----__--,--
.
---.....- •-•:-!:-;•::••;0:-..;,,:-........ aro.,,,-;:::.-:-. -,!•.1,........................::__.--- ,
,- - •
I.,\ • 1 •-•••: j , -.Lal. \-\ , ii:Ittli1-7:r•-::::-:::,,:i...... ;:rjfitati,itt,-4 ii,?.?-i- Vilt-,-171"'" 7.-. .-- --- -*". I. 1 -1'1)4) 1 :4:‘.7....% - ../...--.......................
,- -•-• ,-L:1-, . 1 1!1!iii.,wit.i!Irilir;;I:lit:r.17:::::r-;;',.::::411.12.2,:J;_cti.... ;4;4'llill;l4;, ... --- ' • ' ,--. ' -.:! II: .../1.::.• , •
• ti 1 \ 1111:Aii: 11.1.Pillir.rifIllilli1;;;Ift .•:‘,4..71i:!:r`'Is,t.:82341; fiTI.E11-;.Ilillif .-• .
-.1•:.• .31•-...' ll:it:111.41::..r.1:..::;11-1.,:;!..%:: :':ciUg.i .rC.::.%).”-jr:145:“IF „iiiiii1U11111" • '- '.....Y.--- ' .•• ,. --.I •. • . • ..,- '' . •••!--- • •-•,-;•=4-4.:':• ... ,.. ..,, .. . s . . e- .st
.. ,.....,. . ., .......-. 1.--,!, •• ,&;:...y,10 !.„,..,:2--,r-,:it-_:Iiiiliiiriiiiiii ,•• . , ..- T\----r-_. --f •1; -',.,"1 : . f;1:•%i IV.• - • : ; • E3
•.,‘.1"•,.‘. ..•
•••••1% %.%.....11..... I.:J•rt::•--i-'1•!i5:11G.•'''.%..'7'•%.:P''-1111•:[ifill" IT ' II" • \ . \•:;* IAIETLAN1-.7
.e.,,-...'...%%•• . . 411-0 : 1,-..!..,"• . '• 1..!.U.;•:::.:::,::,.'ililii.lil. -,JI 1 1 I
. 4-1Dil.kj tYVIclet.eit-- - °‘ Diaci' -'
,.....,.......... i ... .}!-;--Ii.--,, ,......ii•-:....:-.::--.2--,ii. 110111111111 i . . .. • ..-\ .. '-- ..----. •-"A ,
1
, A .
••• ‘ •• -----7. /1-- -7-•••••-•1....7... :27.-t-,. i-i ; ill-I!. • ‘1/4 ..."-s----
. ' • 1 ' .
.•• I%.•.. "" - ,---,7 .4:".f:----.- -'1r1..r.;.--•••.4.:•4
•••,••• 1.\\C•.••••.\\'•'•--- -.1111q11C-11:111i:MIEL.:111.".:-.1-e".'::.'il..111111.1! " • .\\\;:'‘..\!;%;\ v.V1\--;-:. ' .\---..\''''\ *. - „...-___.--1 : i
••••..`"••• •••• . :fi;;r. 11;ti".'-•..., ; ; IL: • ..t c:, .. . •.,.
••••%\.\\.\\\\.'•:••%--,-''1:.pi-i-r.q'ilifify 1.-0,-rz..., A---T., LE r.i...,
.,......).,,......... .c Fl.st , _ . --i--,„ :.-•:--,.^P 7-i-•
° .\----%..." •\ /-•\.•,:y -• ' •---- r„ . ' : . .. ..1, , ..1-•_. ,f,.-0-. ......:-.N... , : , : , .. ...t. : -....
. ,.:_ ..4 _ -_-__•__.-'---: •cf---f : , ---'• ••'• .-',.." / i i 1 \ •g •
--....-J . : • e . ' .
...\\%•\\•%1•••%%....11 1. .\‘‘..... : •••• : l' : ... .....•::......Y.:y..:.. ...• • LI... -1.- ...••• I...... ' • e !..' • ! . •
.\A,,..\ '............ ...........••••;.••"..,,,...."..:4:"... ....'..,:s•-•-•7•-..- 1 .. ' ..s• 41. ••• '-.1 ' 1 '1 I I . I ' .
- --.1r---t---- 7.- .--1-- , ..... . • , ._._,• IP
"." I•'. I • ' ."14..".• ; .
.3 •
-- •• - ....,- .---se_m...4- ; .-- ..... ... 1:...- , _ -r, . r.. . .•...,.. ....... _..• ,. -mum. 1 A • _
,•.•.1 It:•t:; •
_- ..,.... • -; t , ; ' .• ..- • . •
- 0.:%%ill:`11% •• ......
I .....'.. L') I •-‘ 4.' 4.....-•;?... i ' . ' .....1771 M.°11. -' • f ' , .
. ,
••••••••••If.:111',: "
- . .;•••:*
•0`.T.:te..:I s '' ‘....• b ...... .... ./. "..C...et . ---• .....? .7/........ : 0 4" a / U • ...
. . .............„I r-.,..ar •--" . • • .. Ati ................... -. . •
..,',‘.,•'.•1'.'.'.•I 1
„
• ••si'A:Vt..%'AI t ' .. 1--- : a ... 41Ply --:-‘1-1 •-• 1
•
•• -'; : I 11. 11 ...01.
rIlt:::ii1•:•• • 1~ ' ' i ; . i. • 1 1, ..__1 T.. .' •::4„:114:
;1...... -- • • . ,illti!iiii ill .
.• .• '.
% .„ I ! ' .1 i• .. . i ,., 1 ; I
• - 1--•-•---_,•.-.-.4._. . I ..•
--E , . •
... : 1 N.•:.;; I 1 \ 41;44%,„,, 51051^1ALE
e t j .
, g a
. •
..--4 ipVC44).
, • , • • • i -.7, / Age. __I__-'11-1
li
, .•--Ks .'":•rr ‘‘,Itie\ '''..
.• '..'"/ • Lk. ..• .1'.• -.45" 1
, ,,*•':::
1 , ;
Iiiiiiii fl------- 1
I 1
1 '•-. ..
• ,- p ,
' • • 1-----. •-1:-.. •.2...•-•.•: ,. I •-/.---,'; ..2 i
. .•• . , .•
- - "•i• .0 .•\ '*•-• '• ;
r •
-.-- "1"•";.---__ • (--Th•: ; ••.:::_••• ---:: ,:-.- ••,..,' • • -r-- L': , -.„-... --,....
. .11 ... I , . ..
... '
S.
i F.
s•-J--. -..r.-..... ,-..:..... .. /.... .. ..,..:...... ,.. .. , lig!1 . s,‘ !lir.: .-_.. -.
;),..... :
IIii li i :: 1! '• ‘`, a ...,•• ............---...--.i..--r.:.LD.::: ..7.::-:--:::::$ .'..17--::-.I 1}1.\. •
. , .
;I:::: : .----I- .:,,L..,: x......L.:-1 Is,/ •../ • s- --:::-1 ' r '.. l
:I III: 1 1 \ .". 7j 1/---1----::::-- '11-.-4.-----,."::::; '___P-_-,t:E4_, .s .',..-- --.-, ... ' '4.„, gib --..... ; ,••:.. '•
.1,,••1: • •
• • .: --/s• . \ N ‘ .
, - =
:!:::: , .,, s --.-•,, ; ----t• -. . .• • \ \ .. i ,:7::::1. z! ... . .....,, :. .,. .-:'--;,--. ":.--.T--- _ __ ,, k il . , . . . ,;„ if / ,., vtii.„, . •,......... s .t:rs:___.•?•?•___L_jax--rr • ..' .
-- --.- -- • ,-_n----- .0.41 Fb •-- 1.---!:-"g- --0-""r. v• .. % % ' -. ..,-,'.`,.' s> "'"/ t-..-` f , --.-:...11'-_.2._._1_.• .- . N,, ;,.,. .ett ..1 i li i 1 •---tm-- --• --=.::-.-%.:::: ---.--- 51f:. f, 1.--1 • ,-- .. „ • " ' %- ' •'-c": ••••••..../•:••' • / 4.". 1 •..' °•• ••• t. t. \ \ n.,_ •-._ .. /?...•,- . It 5,07c1 s.f. (on-site) . , •
1i11:(t. • ' •-•":-%:::.:::::::-- - ••1.--Iii:'1•••"1" -.---........i. 111.1gqi1:11 (...h;‘);' , \,./,'-?;•s-/ \ /\ 7e€,-.). 1\i'.•:--.4%. --\--- \ --\-1 \ ' . . .: ".-- s' ...
...Y., )...1 ., .--.--2-..-••,...---J.q. • J.• .-- -- .-- ..--1-04thilit tilii 1......q.,,. , ,, ./. :/)›.,.,,,./- ......,-. A . i , . . ... .
. .
..• .. .- „ ...-- 1-.Iii• , 4-ril...:. •,11 .1.', ivitir,; ..:7••./ •. .- h•P,P....,' '-',..NV ,t- 1,..,,,...ii,I • . . , . .. ., ..
• Ili i lient11110•Irlii•n. HItINItiritliji1.11-,:. • %. ;•Z i'- -/;--›.-1.:Y." ...--1 t!: ." .41'-il'I:i j \i "--.•1•A ' ...--.... .
I-'•". -will(3111,[filli iiiiii10100111•0_11'.• t-if111,11i.)111ifil .2 /. •.. • •, •••,: :wq`. --1 it-%i is....1; 1 :-.`i v! 12. ••.....,!,,,,,, ••••,.,1NAM 61,‘.,..
....•c.•.-..r,r,(, . %t, t---. ---w.- 1-1-rro J b; 411-11 .fr „iv I,.1,Rify- .. :,:,:if,, L , 1 , III., s. •. -. ,., ;:it \ ._,L__. , . . : , i ,
. ,,.,. . ......4 % - 1 ,-•••"---•-_,. til.'.
". %. .%%.% % . I. ::...''‘‘ eltrillillir 1 1"j, Ill _ _.____11ifl 1:111 lir fitler>... .. ....:.... N,1111...iffirp.titricilniiiiii ..,:::.:1 1 1.1 i 1:s\`..\\ sfp..1110 I..917.D jai ln...D ir-i6si. \,.... .."'Po. ••• '18
.:.'...1.:11,•11 ' ••• .1.........................145.iiinTiFiriftrEill,, 11,re
1. 0
... I , ,c,„ 1 . ....... .,11. 1.;1.iiiiii.!IL-11 '---7 . :1",-ti rlie • .. ..
3,1,-11,i.,11 i-iCi,•-•-----...-4--1,..• ,..,., • ,c--- - ••-, la: 1 : ...,' • ..s.‘.... --- " il-,,ii-,14,1,1uniiillii., :,‘I.,:.„....•,..-,-........:-.,. .... , ii---.1 I •.,1,:v-d., I \ii 1‘, -• c-,),. •:••>. , - ..• :
:••• 1 ;- • ••-rrrw.iirtrric:•.:-I•i•-••=•--,._ . ,_
' •':7-.Y 11 % laPr'lli'l..-1•111,01) .- .1'-IIL • - 'al Wifili11-17:-.11qiitif \:.---.. -1j1 'i,• ill' -. •.'• *•%,'• .-- '• •• • • • ' .'• 1 .---s *‘•.
' -- ..1...;•• -•-f ' ":1- '"' -''''•- - •N'1,4riirrilill rriiii.-,ritiiiimill 1.1;N.•:-. *--- Jhii!,,,--..„1111;„.;• ---•-•:-- -.-------:•-•"t•- - •.......................-......,.......---- -:. -r -- ---,--- 1
i..-:•-:•-;, ,`,1 11 ....... .•-:: -P.-4" .---- .• • .... I.__ 1,. ...r.. ..... ---. ••:,•!•••••,1 ,11.,:i ,,,;.,. --..„--.:-...,-.....--...-- -,.--- -.....- ..... ....... 4.--- -' ". ...'. ° '
.... ... .................... ......... ....‘, 1,.. .....,,, . 0 ..• 0 ...'. : Ht. ..
•---:•••-;Z•j"...2" I i 11 ........ ..... ..................... .. .-•••• . -.. •••••• ... ••••::••,, •••: ."-.. •.... ci.,..• , .., .. ...... .".-- •••.1... -6-... •••••••••.. •• •-e: ,e, ' .,•••) 2. I I, •••1 .
% %••••••• .:.. .•• ••••••• ............."••••,-••n. '• - -
- -f1:5" V .....,1.!... - • •-• -- ... ---„ „ , - ,........--• ...--... .'......:-...... ,%N, ..--.... ''', ''''.s ,.'ZZZ-.::•....-... ........ ..- . ..............--- - -".:-2.'----.:3 • ''..1
. -. .......:-.....„ . ..- ..---..,-..----- .7- ,, • - ‘, .. ..-
. ... ,
......,.......• I .... ..............._ . . „.. ..... ... ,__- •.. .... •• . ,.. • -..-......,,, • • ‘ ••• •• • "..-- ..... .. ".•••• ... '• .-".-• •• ., 1 . 1 I Dr%MT..ILI•••"0.<
.......................... '........' •••••••-..-:' 01•••••• • •••• •• ••• S, •• -• ••%."'",...,.... . '.. \ • I •• %....•'.......••••••••......•-- ... •••'•-•-... .... ..- "•••....'••• •
.... .••• •••••• ......-•"' •••••• ••. ••••, ..... • •. • , ••• •• • ...•• •• • .. ".•••• ••••••••••._............"•••.."••• '...... •••••••• ..... ""••• ".•••• •••••.. • l i i I ' I.....,'Z.. ,..0••••• . ........,/,...... ••••• ; 0". .•••••••• •• .....,. :•u••• • %. , •• . ••.•••, •••,. . • .., •• ... -'•.........-.•:•7'•••.•-:..•••••••••••••... ...••• .."••••• ""••• .."-- •••••......... •.' ; . ' 1 I • ---.. •••- . .
rrg':'•!••••-•••-•-•-e-y., .•:••••••••••-•.--...- --7....N.....4...
i N % '',. 8%IIC-;•• ..• "•• '',.'.•‘.• % '• * ... '-'' s-.I.1:"..... ..............:::••••••••` .:..•.•-•••••••••-•-•••••••••:.''....:.......--' : ; I, ; e .
..•-:6•••••• -• /
1 ' .."-••7••••- /•••-.
-=‘-...;,'a• .
?- ..•
'--
••,........
-- . ' .-s‘. % '. .. '. ".•. ......fPkbeC61) s-rioffin -,Ift....-.-•-------.-----:.---..--:..--:.---;,... : : : , i, . .
._.....:._.___......._......--=::::::::-:.
•-• • •-------_-.‘• •••••••:-•:•-.`. . .......... tic_
.:.......... ......._.--:-7.~........;!::::•• ---.. --'--... _-__Cekiii.N- ..-- ..- •• 1. ,-",----..--•.% e'-`":17 .cs,. ..,, ..
-•• ' ....... .................. -,,::•,- • ) . -.. „
' 'cits---- ...::::::,::::::::::•-• ........ _ .... ... -- ........,1 -.3 ••• •• ......I.:1 ...:-- ....,.. ....%. -'.. ...-., '
. I .,,, . „ •-• ; ..1
--. --•-.`-- ---
--.,-------4------- .--:-7::„.,27Z:::::::-:-...• -- . . . , • . - V.,.. z,..: ,L!...,:... ',•.,..E:t., '-..,lij••j:7., "--1.....,g
'...•i .". S.0' ''S '‹S . •
V.'•.:,•1 , ' '. --;-__,
, ..:_-_-;•:,..:,,,r..z.,..-3 ta.:-..
'-. : %O.o••••4•.;;..5..-•-•- •••.../ / . • 1
,,s \ , . ••••.......7,::•4:••••:.....•'.:••.....:...........:-:".-..••••.... --..---7...:' •.--"zrz..:.::::;','•'•-••••/ ......:.•• - . "••••••-........
... 1 '•-... •••••,. 7.;:r..1.1•.-;,...1.1:-7.**--,‘---••:.„, ...- / „. .• .
: I
• .
\,4. •• ----------.:*•.-4',.-:::.-::::.::-..::-...,-_-..._-_-...:-.•:--_-:=-:_--:.-z---:-..7:-.'----. . .. -.... .,..............
".'4.._ ---. ,:v: "..:......t.:Y1-T,_.......:;:,1,,<t. ./1 . . • _,..,
I ''...,--'`.. •-• ....... t-•--;?.4 / -------.:- ..------• ,•'• -'=',.... ......-"-•77.-------1,,...1._ L {co , . .,..
..,-‘4• '
,. .. ', ‘•
--::......--- .A... ......? / __----..-.7,•::`.- '--.- -.--•":----- --"- ...z._..1-•._.!- . --_._ . :;-- .._ • s„
--__ ----- • . ...
r...- I .. . .. %1:•• . .s':' ':%-------:'-‘;'--• ----•-••••;:-•...
••• --_____________ --____ . . ,,A-.
---.
• "-- -...
• ,-,,.---.„!,:_-..--•
-. 2441f51\16)SligaMC141ViO6L ql''ll' C:ID ('°?) .
1
NOTE:
FIGURE 5: Site Plan c. ,IGH DRA,,,,.,
•
AO•
. Site plan provided by Kussman Assoclates,
1,411liamsburg Condominium ,.„,...e
N.T.S.
cwre ..•••-•
1/ 6 I
Archltt.---cts, Planners Consultants, 1 ReSov Development 2-5-crl
ii., P.O. Box 1'705, F3othell, HA c1/30•41. North :I icCe OA,NE r ii-jS1 r Ao rUi 7.1.:SnTt 0AAI FNI EorT„ASe
15020?..ece Greck Ftoc.:7 Mort1-.ecst
trstcri qao72 Renton, 1^1ashIngton . REVISED
E...5(",C-6.)e.,-5:-7550-Fax(DOS)C-61-754.1
VIEW
sm.., •
-- • " - ------
NATIONWIDE PERMIT/CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/22 FEBRUARY 1997
26. HEADWATERS AND ISOLATED WATERS DISCHARGES.
Discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters provided that the
activity meets all of the following criteria:
a. The discharge does not cause the loss of more than 3 acres of waters of the United
States nor cause the loss of waters of the United States for a distance greater than 500
linear feet of the stream bed;
b. For discharges causing the loss of greater than 1/3 acre of waters of the United
States, the permittee notifies the District Engineer in accordance with the "Notification"
general condition;
c. For discharges causing a loss of 1/3 acre or less of waters of the United States, the
permittee must submit a report within 30 days of completion of the work, containing the
information listed below;
d. For discharges in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must
also include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including,wetlands (also see 33
CFR 330.1(e)); and
e. The discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is
part of a single and complete project.
NOTE: This NWP will expire on December 13, 1998.
For the purposes of this NWP, the acreage of loss of waters of the United States
includes the filled area plus waters of the United States that are adversely affected by
flooding, excavation or drainage as a result of the project. The 3 acre and 1/3 acre limits of
NWP 26 are absolute, and cannot be increased by any mitigation plan offered by the
applicant or required by the District Engineer. Whenever any other NWP is used in
conjunction with this NWP, the total acreage of impacts to waters of the United States of
all NWPs combined cannot exceed 3 acres.
Subdivisions: For any real estate subdivision created or subdivided after
October 5, 1984, a notification pursuant to subsection b. of this NWP is required for any
discharge which would cause the aggregate total loss of waters of the United States for the
entire subdivision to exceed 1/3 acre. Any discharge in any real estate subdivision which
would cause the aggregate total loss of waters of the United States in the subdivision to
NATIONWIDE PERMIT/CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/22 FEBRUARY 1997
exceed 3 acres is not authorized by this NWP; unless the District Engineer exempts a
particular subdivision or parcel by making a written determination that:
(1) The individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects would be minimal
and the property owner had, after October 5, 1984, but prior to February 11, 1997,
committed substantial resources in reliance on NWP 26 with regard to a subdivision,
in circumstances where it would be inequitable to frustrate the property owner's
investment-backed expectations, or
.;(2) The individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects would be minimal,
'high quality wetlands would not be adversely affected, and there would be an overall
benefit to the aquatic environment.
Once the exemption is established for a subdivision, subsequent lot development by
individual property owners may proceed using NWP 26. For purposes of NWP 26, the
term "real estate subdivision" shall be interpreted to include circumstances where a
landowner or developer divides a tract of land into smaller parcels for the purpose of
selling, conveying, transferring, leasing, or developing said parcels. This would include the
entire area of a residential, commercial or other real estate subdivision, including all parcels
and parts thereof.
Report: For discharges causing the loss of 1/3 acre or less of waters of the United
States the permittee must submit a report within 30 days of completion of the work,
containing the following information:
a. Name, address, and telephone number of the permittee;
b. Location of the work;
c. Description of the work; and,
d. Type and acreage (or square feet) of the loss of waters of the United States
(e.g., 1/10 acre of marsh and 50 square feet of a stream.) (Section 404)
NATIONWIDE PERMIT/CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/22 FEBRUARY 1997
I -
Notification Requirement -- Yes. For projects impacting 1/3 acre or less
a report must be submitted to the Corps per Report a - d above. For projects
impacting greater than 1/3 to 2 acres PCN is required to the Corps. See National.
General Condition 13 - Notification, for specific requirements, especially b.(3) and
(4). The notification period for NWP 26 is 45 days.
Regional Conditions --
1. The discharge of dredged or fill material which would cause the loss of
greater than 2 acres is not authorized by this NWP. An individual permit
application must be submitted for discharges greater than 2 acres.
2. The discharge is not authorized in documented habitat for State-listed
endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal species.
3. To avoid adverse impacts to water quality, fishery resources and other
aquatic life, this NWP is not applicable in wetlands within 100 feet of any
stream with a channel width at the Ordinary High Water Mark greater than two
feet at any point along the reach of the stream adjacent and parallel to the
proposed area of fill.
EPA and State 401 Certification -- Partially denied without
prejudice. An individual 401 Certification is required for the following:
1. Discharges affecting more than one acre of wetlands;
2. Discharges affecting greater. than 1/3 (one-third) acre to one acre of
wetlands that do not include a wetland:mitigation plan approved by the
certifying agency; or,
3. Discharges in wetlands within the 100-year floodplain unless the
proposed project: •
a. Is consistent with the local floodplain management comprehensive
plans and ordinances; and,
:1 a33 t
•
NATIONWIDE PERMIT/CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/22 FEBRUARY 1997
b. Through design and/or mitigation, results in no increase in water
levels and no loss in live storage during flood events up to and including the
100-year flood.
For proof of consistency, the applicant may provide copies of applicable local
permits or a letter from the local jurisdiction stating that the above two conditions will
be met. (Applies only to State 401 Certification)
The 100-year floodplain is defined as those areas identified as Zones A, A1-30,
AE, AH, AO, A99, V, V1-30, and VE on the most current Federal Emergency.
Management Agency Flood Rate Insurance Maps, or areas identified as within the
. 100-year floodplain on applicable local Flood Management Program maps. The
100-year flood is also known as the flood with a 100-year recurrence interval;= or as
the flood with an exceedance probability of 0.01.
Puyallup Tribe 401 Certification -- Denied without prejudice. An
individual 401 Certification is required for all Section 404 activities.
CZM Consistency Response -- Partially denied without prejudice
subject to the 401 Certification conditions. An individual CZM Consistency.
Response must be obtained for projects requiring individual 401 Certification
and located within counties in the coastal zone.
NOTE: PCN and individual 401 Certification is not required for fills
affecting 1/3 (one-third) acre or less provided all regional conditions are
complied with along with the national NWP conditions listed at the beginning of
this Public Notice. For fills impacting 1/3 acre or less, reporting the activity to
;the Seattle District is required. See discussion above at Report. Reporting is
to occur within 30 days of the completion of the discharge. Notification prior to
construction is required for fills affecting more than 1/3 (one-third) acre.
•
•
4
•
r •
EXCERPT FROM CORPS OF ENGINEERS' SPECIAL PUBLIC NOTICE
DATED MARCH 5, 1997
NATI'ONAL CONDITIONS FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS
The following general conditions must be followed in order for
any authorization by a NWP to be valid.
GENERAL CONDITIONS :
• 1 . Navigation. No activity may cause more than a minimal
adverse effect on navigation.
2 . Proper Maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized •
shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure
public safety.
3 . Erosion and Siltation Controls . Appropriate erosion and
siltation controls must be used and maintained in effective
operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and
other fills,. as well as any work below the ordinary high water
mark or high tide line, must be permanently stabilized at the
earliest practicable date .
4 Aquatic Life Movements . No activity may substantially
disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous
to the .waterbody, including those species which normally migrate
through the area, unless the activity' s primary purpose is to
impound water.
5 . Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be
placed on mats, or other measures must be taken to minimize soil
disturbance .
6 . Regional and Case-By-Case Conditions . The activity must
comply with any regional conditions which may have been added by
the Division Engineer (see 33. CFR 330 . 4 (e) ) and with any case
specific conditions added by the Corps [Seattle District] or by
the state or tribe in its Section 401 water quality
certification.
7 . Wild and Scenic Rivers . No activity may occur in a
component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; or in a
river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for
possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an
official study status; unless the appropriate Federal agency,
with direct management responsibility for such river, has
determined in writing that the proposed, activity will not
adversely effect the Wild and Scenic River designation, or study
status . Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained
from the appropriate Federal land management agency in the area
(e .g. , National Park Service, U.S . Forest Service, Bureau of Land.. :.
Management, U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service . )
8 . Tribal Rights . No activity or its operation may impair
reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved
water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights .
9 . Water Quality Certification. In certain states, an
individual Section 401 water quality certification must be
obtained or waived (see 33 CFR 330 . 4 (c) ) .
10 . Coastal Zone Management. In certain states, an
individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence
must be obtained or waived (see Section 330 .4 (d) ) .
11 . Endangered Species .
(a) No activity is authorized under any NWP which is •
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or
endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as
identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act, or which is
likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of
such species . Non-Federal permittees shall notify the District
Engineer if any listed species or critical habitat might be
affected or is in the vicinity of the project, and shall not
begin work on the activity until notified by the District
Engineer that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act have
been satisfied and that the activity is authorized.
(b) Authorization of an activity by a nationwide permit
does not authorize the "take" of a threatened or endangered
species as defined under the Federal Endangered Species Act . In
the absence of separate authorization (e .g. , a Federal Endangered
Species Act Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion with
"incidental take" provisions, etc. ) from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, both
lethal and non-lethal "takes" of protected species are in
violation of the Endangered Species Act . Information on the_..
location of threatened and endangered species and their critical
habitat can be obtained directly from the offices of the
U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries .
Service or their world wide web pages at
http: //www. fws .gov/-r9endspp/endspp.html and
http: //kingfish. ssp.mnfs .gov/tmcintyr/prot_res .html#ES and
Recovery, respectively.
[NOTE: See Regional General Conditions 6 and 7 for details on
regional conditions for threatened and endangered species . ]
12 . Historic Properties . No activity which may affect
historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the
National Register of Historic Places is authorized, until the
DE District Engineer] has complied with the provisions of
33 CFR Part 325, Appendix C. The prospective permittee must
2 ..
notify the District Engineer if the authorized activity may
affect any historic properties listed, determined to be eligible,
or which the prospective permittee has reason to believe may be
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,
and shall not begin the activity until notified by the District
Engineer that the requirements of the National Historic
Preservation Act have been satisfied and that the activity is
authorized. Information on the location and existence of
historic resources can be obtained from the State Historic
r Preservation Office and the National Register of Historic Places
(see 33 CFR 330 .4 (g) ) .
ti
13 . Notification.
(a) Tinting: Where required by the terms of the NWP, the .
prospective permittee must notify the District Engineer with a
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) as early as possible and
shall not begin the activity:
(1) Until notified by the District Engineer that
the activity may proceed under the NWP with any special
conditions imposed by the District or Division Engineer; or,
(2) If notified by the District or Division
Engineer that an individual permit is required; or,
(3) Unless 30 days (or 45 days for NWP 26 only)
have passed from the District Engineer' s receipt of the
notification and the prospective permittee has not received
notice from the District or Division Engineer. Subsequently, the
permittee' s right to proceed under the NWP may be modified,
suspended, or revoked only in accordance with the procedure set
forth in 33 CFR 330 . 5 (d) (2) .
(b) Contents of Notification: The..notification must be
in writing and include the following information:
(1) Name, address, and telephone numbers of the
prospective permittee;
(2) Location of the proposed project;
(3) Brief description of the proposed project; the
project' s purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental
effects the project would cause; any other NWP (s) , regional
general permit (s) or individual permit (s) used or intended to be
used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related
activity; and
(4) For NWPs 14, 18, 21, 26, 29, 34, and 38, the
PCN must also include a delineation of affected special aquatic
sites, including wetlands (see paragraph 13 .. (f) ) ;
3 8; j..
„i(e
Pa
•
•
(5) For NWP 21, Surface Coal MiningActivities,
v s, the
PCN must include an OSM [Department of the Interior, Office of
Surface Mining] or State approved mitigation plan.
(6) For NWP 29, Single-Family Housing, the PCN must
also include :
(i) Any past use of this NWP by the individual
permittee and/or the permittee' s spouse;
(ii) A statement that the single-family housing
activity is, for a personal residence of the permittee;
(iii) A description of the entire parcel, including
its size, and a delineation of wetlands . For the purpose of this •
NWP, parcels of land measuring 0 . 5 acre or less will not require
a formal on-site delineation. However, the applicant shall .-..
provide an indication of where the wetlands are and the amount of
wetlands that exists on the property. For parcels greater than
0 . 5 _acre in size, a formal wetland delineation must be prepared
in accordance with the current method required by the Corps .
(See paragraph 13 . (f) ) ;
(iv) A written description of all land (including,
if available, legal descriptions) owned by the prospective
permittee and/or the prospective permittee' s spouse, within a one
mile radius of the parcel, in any form of ownership (including
any land owned as a partner, corporation, joint tenant,
co-tenant, or as a tenant-by-the-entirety) and any land on which
a purchase and sale agreement or other contract for sale or
purchase has been executed;
(7) For NWP 31, Maintenance of Existing Flood
Control Projects, the prospective permittee must either notify
the District Engineer with a Pre-Construction Notification (PCN)
prior to each maintenance activity or submit a five year (or
less). maintenance plan. In addition, the PCN must include all of
the following:
(i) Sufficient baseline information so as to
identify the approved channel depths and configurations and
existing facilities . Minor deviations are authorized, provided
that the approved flood control protection or drainage is not
increased;
(ii) A delineation of any affected special aquatic
sites, including wetlands; and
(iii) The location of the dredged material disposal
site .
4
S
JJ
•
(8) For NWP 33 , Temporary Construction, Access, and
Dewatering, the PCN must also include a restoration plan of
reasonable measures to avoid and minimize adverse effects to
aquatic resources .
(c) Form of Notification: The standard individual
permit application form (Form ENG 4345) may be used as the
notification but must clearly indicate that it is a PCN and must
include all of the information required in (b) (1) - (7) [sic; (8)
also] of General Condition 13 . A letter may also be used.
[NOTE: The Seattle District Corps also accepts the completed
Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) form as
notification. ]
(d) District Engineer' s Decision: In reviewing the
pre-construction notification for the proposed activity, the . •
District Engineer will determine whether the activity authorized
by the NWP will result in more than minimal individual or
cumulative adverse environmental effects or may be contrary to
the public interest . The prospective permittee may, optionally,
submit a proposed mitigation plan with the pre-construction
notification to expedite the process and the District Engineer
will consider any optional mitigation the applicant has included
in the proposal in determining whether the net adverse
environmental effects of the proposed work are minimal . If the
District Engineer determines that the activity complies with the
terms and conditions of the NWP and that the adverse effects are
minimal, the District Engineer will notify the permittee and
include any conditions the DE deems necessary. .
Any mitigation proposal must be approved by the District Engineer
prior to commencing work. If the prospective permittee elects to
submit a mitigation plan, the District Engineer will
expeditiously review the proposed mitigation plan, but will not
commence a second 30-day (or 45-day for NWP 26) notification
procedure . If the net adverse effects of the project (with the
mitigation proposal). are determined by the District Engineer to
be minimal, the District Engineer will provide a timely written
response to the applicant stating that the project can proceed
under the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit .
If . the District Engineer determines that the adverse effects of
the proposed work are more than minimal, then he will notify the
applicant either:
(1) That the project does not qualify for
authorization under the NWP and instruct the applicant on the
procedures to seek authorization under an individual permit;
5
(2) That the project is authorized under the NWP
subject to the applicant' s submitting a mitigation proposal that
would. reduce the adverse effects to the minimal level; or
(3) That the project is authorized under the NWP
with specific modifications or conditions .
(e) Agency Coordination: The District Engineer will
consider any comments from Federal and State agencies concerning
the proposed activity' s compliance with the terms and conditions
of the NWPs and the need for mitigation to reduce the project' s
adverse environmental effects to a minimal level .
(i) For NWP 14, 21, 26 (between 1 and 3 acres of
impact) , 29, 33 , 37, and 38, the District Engineer will, upon •
receipt of a notification, provide immediately, e .g. , facsimile
transmission, overnight mail or other expeditious manner, a .copy
to the appropriate offices of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
State natural resource or water quality agency, EPA, State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) , and, if appropriate, the
National Marine Fisheries Service . With the exception of NWP 37,
these agencies will then have 5 calendar days from the date the
material is transmitted to telephone.. or fax the District Engineer
notice that they intend to provide substantive, site-specific
comments . If so contacted by an agency, the District Engineer
will wait an additional 10 calendar days (16 calendar days for .
NWP 26 PCNs) before making a decision on the notification. The
District Engineer will fully consider agency comments received
within the specified time frame, but will provide no response to
the resource agency. The District Engineer will indicate in the
administrative record associated with each notification that the
resource agencies' concerns were considered. Applicants are
encouraged to provide the Corps multiple copies of notifications
to expedite agency notification. [NOTE: The Corps Seattle
District requests one copy. ]
(ii) Optional Agency Coordination. For NWPs
12 , 13 , 17, 18, 27, 31, and 34 , where a Regional Administrator of
EPA, ',a Regional Director of USFWS, or a Regional Director of,NMFS
has formally requested general notification from the District
Engineer for the activities covered by any of these NWPs, the
Corps will provide the requesting agency with notification on the
particular NWPs . However, where the agencies have a record of
not generally submitting substantive comments on activities
covered by any of these NWPs, the Corps district may discontinue
providing notification to those regional agency offices . The
District Engineer will coordinate with the resources agencies to
identify which activities involving a PCN that the agencies will
provide substantive comments to the Corps . The District Engineer
may also request comments from the agencies on a case by case
basis when the District Engineer determines that such comments
6
would assist the Corps in reaching a decision whether effects are
more than minimal either individually or cumulatively.
(iii) Optional Agency Coordination, 401 Denial . For
NWP 26 only, where the state has denied its 401 water quality
certification for activities with less than 1 acre of wetland
impact, the EPA regional administrator may request agency
coordination of PCNs between 1/3 and 1 acre . The request may
only include acreage limitations within the 1/3 to 1 acre range
for which the state has denied water quality certification. In
cases where the EPA has requested coordination of projects as
described here, the Corps will forward the PCN to EPA only. The
PCN will then be forwarded to the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service by EPA under agreements
among those agencies . Any agency receiving the PCN will be bound .
by the EPA timeframes for providing comments to the Corps .
(f) Wetlands Delineations : Wetland delineations must be
prepared in accordance with the current method required by the
Corps . For NWP 29 see paragraph (b) (6) (iii) for parcels less
than 0 . 5 acres in size. The permittee may ask the Corps to
delineate the special aquatic site. There may be some delay if
the Corps does the delineation. Furthermore, the 30-day period
. (45 days for NWP 26) will not start until the wetland delineation
has been completed and submitted to the Corps, where appropriate .
(g) Mitigation: Factors that the District Engineer will
consider when determining the acceptability of appropriate and
practicable mitigation include, but are not limited to:
(i) To be practicable, the mitigation must be
available and capable of being done considering costs, existing
technology, and logistics in light of the overall project
purposes;
(ii) To the extent appropriate, permittees should
consider mitigation banking and other forms of mitigation
including contributions to wetland trust funds, "in lieu fees" to
organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, state or county
natural resource management agencies, where such fees contribute
to the restoration, creation, replacement, enhancement, or
preservation of wetlands .
Furthermore, examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and
practicable include but are not limited to:
o Reducing the size of the project;
o Establishing wetland or upland buffer zones to protect
aquatic resource values; and
7
i'_ ,� ,
o Replacing the loss of aquatic resource values by
creating, restoring, and enhancing similar functions and values . '
In addition, mitigation must address wetland impacts, such as
functions and values, and cannot be simply used to offset the
acreage of wetland losses that would occur in order to meet the
acreage limits of some of the NWPs (e.g. , for NWP 26, 5 acres of
wetlands cannot be created to change a 6-acre loss of wetlands to
a 1 acre loss; however, 2 created acres can be used to reduce the
impacts of a 3-acre loss) .
14 . Compliance Certification. Every permittee who has
received a Nationwide permit verification from the Corps will
submit a signed certification regarding the completed work and
any required mitigation. The certification will be forwarded by .
the Corps ' with the authorization letter and will include :
a. A statement that the authorized work was done in'.
accordance with the Corps authorization, including any general or
specific conditions;
b. A statement that any required mitigation was
completed in accordance with the permit conditions;
c. The signature of the permittee certifying the
completion of the work and mitigation.
15 . Multiple Use of Nationwide Permits . In any case where
any NWP number 12 through 40 is combined with any other NWP
number 12 through 40, as part of a single and complete project,
the permittee must notify the District Engineer in accordance
with paragraphs a, b, and c on the "Notification" General
Condition number 13 . Any NWP number 1 through 11 may be combined
with any other NWP without notification to the Corps, unless
notification is otherwise required by the terms of the NWPs ._., As
provided at 33 CFR 330 . 6 (c) two or more different NWPs can be
combined to authorize a single and complete project . However,
the same NWP cannot be used more than once for a single and 1.
complete project .
NATIONAL CONDITIONS FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS
SECTION 404 ONLY CONDITIONS :
In addition to the General Conditions, the following conditions
apply only to activities that involve the discharge of dredged or
8
'Ir,rr !-Th r, i�<
fill material into waters of the U.S . , and must be followed in
order for authorization by the NWPs to be valid:
1 . Water Supply Intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill
material may occur in the proximity of a public water supply
intake except where the discharge is for repair of the public
water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization.
2 . Shellfish Production. No discharge of dredged or fill
material may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production,
unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish
harvesting activity authorized by NWP 4 .
3 . Suitable Material . No discharge of dredged or fill)
material may consist of unsuitable material (e .g. , trash, debris, .
car bodies, asphalt, etc . , ) and material discharged must be free
from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section 307 of the
Clean Water Act) .
4 . Mitigation. Discharges of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States must be minimized or avoided to the
maximum extent practicable at the project site (i .e. , on-site) ,
unless the District Engineer approves a compensation plan that
the District Engineer determines is more beneficial to the
environment than on-site minimization or avoidance measures .
5 . Spawning Areas . Discharges in spawning areas during
spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent
practicable .
6 . Obstruction of High Flows . To the maximum extent
practicable, discharges must not permanently restrict or impede
the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the
relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill
is to impound. waters) .
7 . Adverse Effects from Impoundments . . If the discharge
creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects on the aquatic
system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the
restriction of its flow shall be minimized to the maximum extent
practicable .
8 . Waterfowl Breeding Areas . Discharges into breeding areas
for migratory waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent
practicable.
9 . Removal of Temporary Fills . Any temporary fills must be
removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to
their preexisting elevation.
i9 •
REGIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS
These conditions must be met for all projects authorized under
NWPs in the State.
1 . Mitigation or Restoration. Any activity or work
authorized under these NWPs shall not adversely impact previously
required Federal or State mitigation or restoration efforts .
2 . Bog Systems . The use of NWPs is specifically prohibited
in bog systems (as defined in the appendix of this public
notice) , except for projects provided coverage under NWP 34 --
Cranberry Production Activities .
3 . Revegetation. Upon completion of the work in a wetland
area, the site shall be replanted with native wetland vegetation
during the next appropriate planting season. The applicant shall
take -appropriate measures to ensure revegetation success, as
defined below.
The removal or destruction of existing shoreline (marine) or
riparian (freshwater) vegetation shall be held to the absolute
minimum needed for construction. Immediately following
construction, shorelines or riparian zones affected by
construction shall be replanted with native vegetation. The
applicant shall take appropriate measures to ensure the success
of the revegetation effort .
Success is defined as 80 percent of the planted area being
covered with native species 5 years after construction is
completed. If the percent of cover of native species does not
equal or exceed 80 percent at the end of this 5-year period,
remedial measures (e.g. , replanting, soil amendments, additional
monitoring, etc . ) may be required until success is achieved.
Measures such as hydroseeding with annual or non-invasive grasses
or groundcovers may be used for temporary erosion control .
4.. National Wild and Scenic Rivers and Study Areas . The
State- and the EPA have denied 401 Certification for all proposed
projects in National Wild and Scenic River and Study areas . An
individual 401 Certification must be obtained for all projects in
these areas, which currently include reaches of the following:
the Klickitat, Skagit, Sauk, Suiattle, and White Salmon Rivers,
and the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River.
10
5 . Commencement Bay. An individual permit is required for
activities in the Commencement Bay Study Area (CBSA) previously
authorized by the following NWPs :
NWP 13 -- Bank Stabilization.
NWP 14 -- Road Crossing.
-NWP 23 -- Approved categorical exclusions .
NWP 26 -- Headwaters and Isolated Waters Discharges .
All other NWPs are still applicable within the CBSA.
The 'CBSA is located near the southern end of Puget Sound' s main
basin at Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington. The CBSA extends
from Brown' s Point around the bay to Point Defiance and includes
the commercial waterways, wetlands, and any other jurisdictional •
waters . From Point Defiance, the line runs southeast to State
Route 7 (Pacific Avenue) , then south to the centerline of I-5;
then east . (northbound lanes) along I-5 to the Puyallup River.
The boundary extends 200 feet on either side of the Puyallup
River southeast to the Clark Creek Road .(Melroy) Bridge . From
- the Puyallup River, the boundary extends east along I-5 to
70th Avenue East . The line then returns to Brown's Point to the
northwest, following the 100-foot contour elevation above sea
level located east of Hylebos Creek and Marine View Drive .
6 . Prohibited Work Times for Fish Protection. For
compliance with National General Condition 11, in-water
construction activities are prohibited to protect three species
of salmon listed as threatened and endangered under the
Endangered Species Act as follows :
Columbia River
Mouth to Bonneville Dam March 1 - October 30
Bonneville Dam to John Day Dam March 15 - November 15
Upstream of John Day Dam April 1 - November 30
Snake River
Mouth to Hells Canyon Dam (ID) March 1 - December 15
Exceptions to these prohibited work times can be made by request
to the Corps and approved by the NMFS .
Until specific timing restrictions are developed to protect
salmonids and other fish species of concern in other river
systems, please refer to the timing restrictions in the HPA for
the project . Work outside the HPA timing restrictions must
specifically be approved by the WDFW and the NMFS for waters with
anadromous species or the WDFW and the USFWS for waters with
resident species of fish.
11 -j
7 . Prohibited Work Times for Bald Eagle Protection. For
compliance with National General Condition 11, the following
construction activity prohibitions apply to protect bald eagles,
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act : .
a. No construction activity authorized under a NWP shall
occur within 1/4 mile of an occupied bald eagle nest, nocturnal
roost site, or wintering concentration area, within the following
seasonal work prohibition times .
b. No construction activity authorized under a NWP shall
occur within 1/2 mile BY LINE OF SIGHT of an occupied bald eagle
nest or nocturnal roost site, within the following seasonal work
prohibition times .
Work prohibition times : Bald eagle nesting occurs between
January 1 and August 15 each year. Bald eagles are found at -
wintering areas between November 1 and March 31 each year. -
Exceptions to these prohibited work times can be made by request
to the Corps and approved by the U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) .
Contact the USFWS to determine. if a bald eagle nest, nocturnal
roost, or wintering concentration_ occurs..near your proposed
project :
West of Cascades, Olympia Office - (360) 753-9440
East of Cascades, Moses Lake - (509) 765-6125, or
Spokane - (509) 891-6839
Mainstem of the Columbia River
downstream from McNary Dam - (503) 231-6179
C:NWPSPN97 .ERT
12
• II 1
I
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
Permit Number: 97-4-00860
Name of Permittee : GOLDBERG,GOLDB. MARK
Date of Issuance :
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit, sign
this certification and return it to the following address :
•
Department of the Army
• U.S . Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District, Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 3755
Seattle Washington 98125-3755
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a
compliance inspection by a U.S . Army Corps of Engineers'
representative . If you fail to comply with your authorization,
' your project is subject to suspension, modification, or
revocation.
/ / The work authorized by the above referenced permit has been
completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of
your permit.
L/ The mitigation required (not including monitoring) , by the
above referenced permit has been completed in accordance
with the terms and conditions of your permit.
•
Signature of Permittee_.
it
eTh
11 February 1997
CLM7; B :CERTCOMP. 97
--I 40 s'
."..,s 70 -- . ,setuki 0 p-,k. 0
, o„,,..,,, d'efo r/-
it ME EilL-
4 Or /i::b
.;. .. D
,.. . • . _
....-------
7
*4/
II O(
c
,i
e
,
ej.11, 7 ----. ....,1
\ft
`c 3%
4t, • --
Str,_-----
--..„.......
4771L: 11
FM
EOM)
"Te
517-6°A
i( \I DC-VaOrPMeArr
Zi
\‘................-.....a. /0 . _..._-----.
7 .... ...
0 4-----;
.._....
`577 .- 57-/--Kwiwi TILL LANrez \AL.
, -
u\)
,.,
e_. c
!I
I
•
II,
1 111
11
'111
I I
1".
11
I !
I I
!
.11
,•••
I '
i
•
III
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
GOAL 1
Reldcate approximately 220 linear feet of stream channel along Lincoln. Avenue NE to
accommodate road improvements, and increase the stability of the stream channel.
OBJECTIVES
1. Widen the stream channel to reduce flow depths and decrease velocities.
2. Reduce bed load movement and channel erosion by placement of 2"-12" rough rock
within channel and along streamba.nks.
GOAL 2
Replace wildlife habitat lost due to stream relocation.
OBJECTIVES
Place large boulders in stream channel to create meanders and pools for aquatic habitat
enhancement.
2. Plant native riparian and buffer vegetation to increase plant species and structural
diversity.
3. Install habitat features (snags, down logs, nesting and roosting boxes) within the
riparian corridor (above 100-year storm level) to enhance habitat value.
GOAL. 3
Replace lost functions due to direct filling of 565 square feet and buffer encroachment of
847;square feet of forested wetland, for a total wetland impact of 1412 square feet.
OBJECTIVES
1. Create a larger wetland system by connecting two Class 3 isolated wetlands (A & B).
2. Simulate pre-construction wetland hydrology by supplying the existing and created
vetlands with treated stormwater.
3. Plant native wetland and buffer vegetation to increase plant species and structural
diversity.
4. Plant the biofiltration swale with shade tolerant emergent grasses and shrubs to provide
an enhanced wetland buffer.
5. Install habitat features (snags, down logs, nesting and roosting boxes) in the wetland
and buffer areas to enhance habitat value.
(#0
GENERAL NOTES
1. This plan is conceptual only and should not be used for construction.
2. For wetland mitigation area calculations, see Section 3.0 in the Conceptual
Wetland/Stream Mitigation Report.
3. Site plan information was supplied by Kussman Associates, Architects, Planners &
Consultants.
4. Topographic information was supplied by Baima & Holmberg Inc., Engineers &
Surveyors.
5. This drawing is an attachment to the Conceptual Wetland/Stream Mitigation
Report prepared by Talasaea Consultants.
6. Grading depicted on this plan is conceptual only and should not be used for
construction.
7. All trees and shrubs shall be the minimum height depicted in the plant list. All
shrubs shall have a minimum of 3 canes. Evergreen trees and shrubs shall be full
and bushy.
•
•
Lytt. -7
DEFLECTOR LOG �,
Armor bank interface -" ^'
/
with 2-3 person rock.
IIPW As.
Angle log up-stream-- CM& �/ //, —DeSPILLWAY LOG 60 degrees. ��lirigfe- /.-:",/
'b`O Der - i
18' x 18" Douglas Fir Log--� $ '�
/. �.
Armor bank interface Oj �" _ /"/ on expose
with 1 -2 person rock. Ork�! —\ r.i
Angle to be determined
by site conditions. / 0- -Bury end of log into
STUMP with ROOTWAD j/�� i
�,/ �\_ channel substrate.
Pl ce / 1 2 Person Rock
Place stump securely —Bury root ler 4.
into channel substrate. into bank. ,,;/ Z/�1.1tr+A�
'��` 31 3/4" x 4' Rebar
W404 '..:: L:7::'''\ \''\ k \ \ \
. ,,, , , , \
, \c,
\ ,\\ \ '
DEFLECTOR LOG
PLAN VIEW
'\,\.<, TypicalDETAIL 3 : Stream
SCALE: N.T.S.
e
v
: ... )
.„.
... I a .
, :. 4, •, . 14 iliii o
. •
•P. 0'
• #416,:,, ...1, '
,..- .
i • i lilt
....
.. ,
i
.. .
ri
. . v.
Ilk t , ••
qi •
. iv'419
.#1.°.-' •
_411pr ...........
„.....
4141. ........-
....
-
1
V 4". 4
...i.
11111461111\14 i
r.
IIP
710"
• ...
aria IlliL
• •,- ir-•
le° ,
4r- vie „
A ,,...... 4 4
fe 44
.mit,k
'API ... 6
4 r ai. . Ikt 4,1 TI.t. •60-1..i P P
i- -
4 .4; 4 4111:'1.1Ir 0 4IP
'1 40
. .9-,.„,, ..... -. * 4%- • 4 7 . •
. dio• , 41IP
I
il.41*1/4
44
"V O .. .. ..
4 4
I*II • il
- .4),.... .. , .
1ilir 4
,,, :ir .,..'
4111. . . 40
_
qt. .
411 e
„ilia '''t .' 0 • 4
.
. 10,.......7.46.;:.
I f&
41
1 .
V 0
•
. /at tor . 4: /..r
4, 0,, •
2 • -, -
0
Iv
•
lop
• t ii•
11/1111:se44.1 4 • . ,
p•,. •
. • . 111#
Ilt .461
Ilk -
... ..ft
- ItA,r4v. Alli
it
a •
11
r . %.
•
' 1
1 1,4 41 4 ie . t 1), • )
....„ 0. , .0 k Olb
b.P ri •s
,1. '1" , • • ' 4, %A 1ff . ,„" re, , r , i : le• , lik
, , 4'6 •tv., • .
• 404.41L1:10 . . ,, ..,
liA e,. oft •i„, .,, .1
•
s — -.) f,,10
ip
•
�� • •ffI }1 • • ��" +-. .fi r'►/ /�! •s AI.t _ ! •` • ' •♦
lf• ....- .. e si,. . if
•
„.,, ., .rii. ,,41. k. ., \.- 0,1, ,.4... ,4 1,,* .7 ! , • • ...
Ir..41p1NVI le.'. IV I I.V'. A it. 14-
I1 1 1 . -`'�
IIIy ,/ �� r •1
• liel iii -f .
. lkjek, 1 AN - .0 . ......
•
.EIV
r ,. 1 mot` .'-• ,,.� , '; " A 1 q.. ,•
r.
i4ri
tdi
t . .',/)•• 41;11
•.,„. illpi-. rt.It VIIIPIe.„, ,„_,.., „0, , 4„...,. w ...4, A. t 1
1 4 11.,.. 441444'.4..,‘i
,1.r- ,;..)•,0„P0‘„.4 1- •''I/,.4*; vJ•'•IT4'''•b ,•..A0 t45,„4,e,&r•_._,„p44t,4.,6, , :..,.:,I. ,
> tea. ► •' ..11`lS.. '1 0144.
:0 I P0'.0%5•.:•0.
, it•
1 . - • V' .4,,,- ...,, . /Or „al t.t. ,o4,, .^'4"1":"..." .
,ilk, I:_. ., , ,........y,, v. A 01.2,0i,,.4, - 11, t•t 1 .
rake
r �► +I AA.pt,. ,:s .!�"seitil4t iii , / ' , r '
4/ • 4. \lap W - 7- ... .doit•.'a? .' a
.414? lac.4", ' f._1 * \kr-
•
wF . . . a` v. ,j., f • r + ,' .r`
, i ,,,i 4, •• . .. • ..
'0 P , i it # 4114.:,- 4-iii ''• • ". . '"‘' i it ''• '. • s- t*
,r"' 4•••• _ A.-
is. _
. . . _ • pip...,, •
•
_,,..., 4, , . 1; , • • .
, ,.,4, 'V . 4,y4 .74'
' * I/ \ .f •9 ,, , ii- ' Ir.
• •: r isi, it. li,... ..
41••••41;*.'
. r . t • .
11 et.; 1, • •,,,, . _
if i - , . •.514ra%....;
I - AI • • • . , • *‘• )4, .' p . i ... nt„„ , lidirt:t ? . liV
.... . . ,i,fr p t'Itis eilk414 , • _
. , I AS. i 9,.. " ' '• 0 ttor .
• _ . 1 � •►w
A � '!i ' . Iva,/ f � ' , a • r � � -y'• � �f a� • \
• 4,f , * / -, .
t*4
..j.if,li .'*, -# • 4 le' r r
. s • --.i...er-4, ...v •,011.‘, 4 — .---- - I \ '
0
...v. ' , ' *If . A li.-A?, t,i ratr-7: .
1 t i * , ,
illirl •'", 9 115'*.ip '111 i 2
' '' 0 ,
• .ID jierir••• ., _ ask a
o
.fir % N. +. a ,� ' iliN t . "sr i
1414;111:41" /7174111.
Ati
s•• „.•• ,,•11111irt•'tip 111F4' t41. ' • .t ' ,.) il t• ' 1 4 7".' , 41114 -44/111:ki'
C. 44.6., V , .,,,,,: . '1/4 AA;t y. _,a•,‘ . ,-,,.:_-.:.:, ,- 7 , , 4..ciii.: A "A.
Ar
j Pair . .
• • %.. ir. \ - ..st s. #fr,.•:. xil, A .N., .41 #1) 64 4,11., + ...AL.. - 6 Ve: 4111.--' ...MA.
et ' ...'''.. I I SI:",,N r.: r -.4 -'
• s IA �� ` , ' C ! i?s��•
•
*A." . 11111A --••:ii.. --..!41iff - • • f.iie , 16. • •••!1. .:.. • 4
keltefor "
k.)
r Ii I .•. ti y v• s �( '' k
1i- •li,t1 :/ . ",mow •--..11 1•4
')/\.1 irt.-3. a.
•
li"11 • . 14. .44._
.- • A ' rio• _ 6.6.• ,,' atOr, •• '--qs,
1:11e:'
••• r1,1443'..i) • %. • 4 . .• • . '4 -,....:„.•1' •• { .
1 . ,/lpe..16. At .., laitai . . • ifflik 5-. -g , • !A 7. ,fitp
iiiii .0„,j
itt T.",
,. . t6t,t i \ N ki6 Iiiii., %
k.
' 4 •"' ' • elt • _,,,,c • fr. .. . Ie.... . 04
... • tc- * ‘ 0
-11 . .0 '4,, -
. 414''' 1 \ )
WNW*" ot 4 . .:. • .. t,1„, r r 2% z 4: -7. 4 . , .,',
..: A ,W. lwr 4/ . ‘;44- ' •• ) Aiiii ir '6 . 7.! 4/ ' . It ,eltif
4
, - ,, • — 1 . i#T , jAi
0
-....
•
iper11,..$ot iit„ ‘v• --S-
1 , 4 ,•0 pr.,- ..„ '. , ,. - .4. **,:e 't., ,S.,... 6 , "
, A 41 ,i*,. '• - ..4., 4, >,
,... -..... ,4.4.1-.....-." . . .. " 4. . i 7.ke . ,I"-: ,.,, ., ,.. iv .,,, ...1'.... '..,-t ,,•, 1..5; „. , I• .-•. .. ifit: . ,. ' .7 . ,,,,, ,n
,.14C.,• ,...„ ' .VoNiiii ' ...;....5. ,„ .'ll I ri. -1 . 49;.r..:4".Yr - K. .= '. la' ..'i:t..3.1'.. ' tp ' *1 • 4 4:4'4,,,,,, ,t , 4. . ' ' '7...
,,r':' A ? "'. V " ; • t 4; ... • "*"-tl. *-11:0 ) ,_.:,,,,*444'-•-: I +. , 7.-t.4*_ . lie-t. - , %.. ,,* ,r3-"4,4,, • , : ' w
41
e,- .4,... ,,, , - - - ;J.,:,. ...-j#14:ta....,,, . . se•r. -•, Y-- -,,,T,!!...!.. r :0,- • '',''.' iti.f.,..
M3
T: 1; '`' '-'-.- i ';',/• • ' ' ' ., '• ,,. - 4 • ....' 1 zi. tr
itk
- s. . ''' ''' '7 ' i.its# 4..‘ :
(...)
' 0
. .,„.
--otitis, 4* 1 IV ' *;.,t... k- . -..it,i)tlitii.' ,.iit. t , „-,et 1-,,lk -- ..t- • -, 16,,„legio
C , N i''
'''''' • -7# ':',i,,''-R .-e4 •_,,..'4' ' e It! ?-t.r.., -';' v( •*"...." T -1... 41 . ''""1,401tOrt I-A'"4.4: t'i'",,W‘14--./. ,,s- lAttik: •.S$1. ., •: #‘,41 -L-
' :'-'' 4 '. /0,"". -,5r4•••_ , -1.-. .-- =.k.7 litJ, ' *,. • ---•:;•A' ' '. ., ' 'I., ir,- 1'1'47 A i 1 Ili t , 'r*, ' ,,t ,, • "` . , 1%41
• ..L. . .- -0
,---:._...' ,,- , ...•..,,.-4t..,-4,, i .1... ., ., ,----- - - '' s.''' ' fi; _,1- , a, . ,:a .. , .- '*. .: - ,., . , . *.i4L-774c- .• '-,
tail „zit.
, of --,' 4.--z• -K't.,' '':' '''ioi. •. Nit • - , „,-7 ...i,1.4. ..:.,1 .'" -1.., . ^ ' Ir. ' .'''''''.0' '''.- '' * ---4 ' '''• ' 'p1- .f 0 _ • -:;mrt- , ,- ‘-.:-::. c
414
. , te. ...!. ..-- -ilkilit„,..k ,'•0..,..,,,,,, 14N
41 • Vt :-v- ' L " ,'i 4, .,' '-'" . ' 4 ,,(14 ' *.
44
, 4 .,4.,:44,.,4,4„.4,,,,.44,,f. ..,' t-,...,,,.. 4,,, -c . .,„ - . 4 .L.:s., ..,( ....1.4,:ri.. _ • ?:4,..... ,\411,44 4,11 ,_
I, . ..--:---, 44,,, ,, -. - .,,,,,-lif .* : ii. 10 '1: -' ''.':. ,''. ',I : -..1m ' . *- , .•4;11P-uvf i : i‘,..,„0;,,i, ,.,--;;ir 1)
i., "4 --' ' ' ' ' ' ' . ft,Itx-i- I ) '1,-"4 -- ' •' .1-Ifil%S.'C.r," ,er ,' " '.,-84 ' r''i i, '' ' .••41w, : ' ' il,s"*',•L'' . ',,r•.•4., —
.1.2-‘ 1 211..N..."..„ .‘:-:..4';1 Tjt::-.1: :,'fl . 4 ;;C:4:"..1'1:4 .. :W.+S" ,;71?-.1441:'*. '..tk.' '1'' ‘if. .1:" ....,..1.:,,iss.• ,,,,:,::.,..,.:.....,.,,,,,.. ::-.: . , :
ilcs.
. __..,,, . „. . „,,,.., ..,..., .., .....,.....
4*-11' , - ---':),-',--, , ,--. - - 4r: , .,,:4 .., - " " -.4t,.,..,-, - - t' — - t----. •:;..-• -...,,,.4.,•?..,g,,, ...It—i-.7,7%, ....---ir-.---15, , .y. -.
‘, ., le'10,;;. 1/4 titttrI t';:', ' '''''''''',' "ci ; ;-. •e. ' 4" . ' I ,''
lit
, .4. 4.,•., ii,,,., . _.,-
....I '
1 5 , . ?: 4, -*• - r; :-,c,$.4-1,4, .i= -t-' . . , -- r,
.« , *7. , •,.. -t•47*** • li•''',. 4 ,,?,I.,.47; •.. i' 4141k*' *
....,
../-.4%• J.,' ... -...4‘47' ,. • •
'.. r'.' - . tr-,-.. ' ' 'Ifloar' ..•-.1.,...: ..! ''Tzti.-.1., , 0 0
Ik17,Tr,,4
4,-
, ... • t, , . t. '. t -4. test*, 'A".-al ' '''' 4.4--''"-' *4••"i • jo. * iit,''''".?""'''. ...0
_ r •• "r't -At v , 'N*4.4•-f"' , ,! ", .• 4 ; 0 1 • 'Y ...,,,P -. . '.' . f ?.. , ., , 1. r ' -...,-* ,,AV..- :),f-'''', ° IP .1A, -ly 1
- 4.'''`‘‘' ' , , , ', m„.. ,., 4.014osii...10.4,........$ i.--,40 i. ,.`,1 ',.:1,- , I., ••• +• "' 44114 rt‘ ,lit n -- A- 14;41` 5'.0., .:.-i-ofit3.,
.„Ittlit,t ,i ,
):1' , i f&-',--;,,or 't-,,,, "<-. ,'-'' :., . ,r,,,`:., s,'?' ', . ....•..••' !/04-"),,,, I
-. ,. ••.,.i..:-...0,-.• < . , • .-n.,,,,.......... •N ',. z .., .,1;.; ' t _ ,,-j'.".:-,.
b,7-.._4, , lig.N.,t .
_
k 'Pf -"'r A, -•,.%-' • ,,;;. .;-$, '*,,,,y• ,,,-, „,;", . A'. .r.',-, - .
• ,:?,.`"' . l'Ik.:-c-,-5..7. • . . .. -•. . -,,,,,,. .,
, ,,,,._,..,,_Iti„s, .,,„.
- erf ;.-- °- ' ' ' '— , . , 1,,,',,,,,,
;,*.,0i* ' - ' - • .., • e .. ...'y . , ..,
v.", . ,Y f r' 44440e:•• fr .4 '.';$,A.1.,k,„,..4..
-
",- t 1 .'i ..tger. ,'..,. ., 1 t -. .,
la .
, . ..
0 r‘c
13 NJ
... .., , ...* '
' •10"..4.;* 'T..."'": - ...,. 4 4 4.1, .... •,!... - ....,-. '..•'•-.21` ...4.....'.1; 1.' C 4jrr,,
,,—,k,.0,g.',,,,V,,,,T4tX111.'74 'r.tl'4r •‘'.'‘ '.415.. S 4' ' - . .k.',- • ' - - 1 *4
.e. IS* • •*!....Sik 0 e 4 It• ' '
4 ...41---',t1-„, ; ....., -• , ,..
it
4.A ..-'
•
' s,.... ".., l''',,, -:.".....-.,,,,, 4 joc.," ,..:-- •.• ... , •, -,li- tr t .. .
''' ' ' ' alf,4,1 t,• .... C 0
' .•., 4.'40 .,'*. 4' .4* 40 N3,,.,1 .
111141•I ' . ''''- ' '''.. t-t...,. 4::,4 l' et f 4 1 ' .„
..t , .. t I t/ • - • ' 01 0 0
L.
vr,•• 17 v• - 4 - *2't. . 7,7 14V-,..., '-,, • •"7 .9. it 441 •;* 4t,, 1 E i
,,,
'* '1'1'7'•' ‘i' 1, , ''',..,jtj -44 n<
-
, ,. ., 404...., i --. '.4...t‘v A , .1,' * ~ 1 '4" 4 s.',i` .tt;49-' . ) )N g
, , .. jer - ..... 04, '- _i , „•21 ,,,4w.,*- f ,'t,', .-4'
'' •;,/tIt „;t • 41114t; - :1
$
/r _ " ,4•• .'" 4" ',,,,,,h„,'" " ,,, ., 4 ,,,.., ,i, , -; •
'i ,i,",,ti-' *.41*'la. . 74*-11,7-11*-•.4,47111,.,,,,,, i . it- .... ,"!". 4114 .4_10 .._=-(3 i..-)`-‘1 "g
........:,... ..411,,,'
.4.11067F.. r,t i A
•
• ,
.,i
-- t, r .. ,...., f.,:.., glik '.• "A,0 1 k. t:It • '';..4. )1 ' 1 t ..
i ''., -- i$ ,, j •( e ' / 40 ^ - , _.•"ik- , . .. ,,i a 14;-1-ao I'' 1+ _... tut.'- ("N
toe , e 1 ji ,,, 4, '', . • • IR ow,
. ,
:, r. .4 i • '1 I . i,.. , ,., f„ -- .. ,
Tli'v ' •
'''''•1/4-4-s' , • ki , ' "1 A ,1„.. fr. ... t
1 '"
.
„...1. _
)
. .. 'N,.... 4434' ' 7 _,
'.4 311 4' 1 i Li-
, '•`• ' ;):,:...—%Wit` ,t4t4i 11 ,.' 1 . ' ' • t V
" ` r • . . P r ""•---: ‘ '-illikr,'4' ; ' '
,...--.' 001t,„ ,:"; , t 1 , . fid al
.. I i •.4.',1,1(4,......4* 27g *4'_..
C3)
r, en, ,-t. ' tra• t , ._. .-—''‘'. , ,‘, , • .1 * , . - ,, ,~4ri .
tit .... .-.;•:.. .' ...,.;,,,, -- - ..,_ ..., k. ,.. rd 1 , 4 . \., , , . /14,.. .,. ,, ' J..- . '
, ,o, , • 4--
All ..*•" ' "gl: Ik iii7vs-Alt, -. ,in, ,c.,- ..
w,.4.)•,, _._. - ..fip , q r •,- - .:<- ,e
r ;
_
.;
1: Date:.:::":., Jul ;,-28-� �19-97 .. -- - ,
3 Pa es 2,- - .. -
4:`: Contact Phones: .`:':-: 20.6 52474846- >:::.
5:=Name:`--=Goldber `,=Mark=:--._:__--- `-------7--,-- - __— --- _ - - -- _ ---- ----7.----- - - -
6:•'Street: , 4739 University Way- NE- , Suite 1607 _
. .. -
7-_Clt .•.- Seattle= � - - - - . - - - - -
8 State: -. ..• . .. - -
•
9' Z1 9 8105'�
10 Control Number 00-D1423-03 '
11 WRIA::; :' 08.. 0282• :`.. . -
12 Water: Unnamed -
13 TribTo: Lake- Washington
14 Quarter Section:;:
15 Section: 32. =. .
16 Twnshp: 24N.;
17 Range:. 05E. ;P'� ,+ ,r-
1--'
18 County:` ,: King -; _ _- _ U LiL.'.n t-_'I
19 Project.-.Type:. Stream. Relocation . .,
20- Start Date: `Immediately ;. ,'t:*
21 End Date: .. October 31, 2002
22 SEPA: MDNS, July 8, 1997
23; Hab. Mgr. : Tony Oppermann (425) 379-2309
24' Patrol: . Nicks 193 [P3]
PROVISIONS
1. ADDITIONAL TIMING LIMITATIONS: This HPA is valid for a IVE- ear
;period. ending October 31, 2002 , which includes timing r
Irevegetation per Provision 6. Work below the OHWL sh ll ofily occur
lbetween May 1 and October 31 of calendar years 1997��rrtd� 2t02 .
2 . Work shall be accomplished per plans and speci ' c t`ions entitled
WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT-CONCEPTUAR' : TLAND/STREAM
MITIGATION REPORT and-DETAILED CONCEPTTyA�L MITIGATION PLANs (W1. 0,
W2 . 0) and dated May 27, 1997, submitt to WD , except as modified
.by this HPA. These plans reflect des n •crit .ia per chapter
220-110 WAC. A copy of these ianas sh be ,available onsite during
construction. � r�,
3 . 1The permanent new channel shalt , atja minimum, be similar in length,
(width, depth, floodplain configura ion, and gradient, as the old
channel. The new channel shaliir,corporate wildlife habitat
components, streambed materials,Lmeander configuration, and native
or other approved vegetation egivalent to or greater than that
which previously existed in the old channel.
4 . During construction, , the new channel shall be isolated from the
flowing stream by plugs at the upstream and downstream ends of the
new channel. These plugs shall 'be substantial enough to prevent
flood flows from entering the new channel during construction.
5. Before water is diverted into the permanent new, channel, approved .
aquatic habitat components, streambed materials and bank protection
to prevent erosion shall be in place. Aquatic habitat components
and bank protection material shall be installed to withstand the
100-.year_ peak_flows.
5. Within seven (7) calendar days of project completion, all disturbed
areas shall be protected from erosion using vegetation or other
means. Within one (1) year of project completion, all banks shall
be revegetated with native or other approved woody species.
Ex(,, II
_ tr
a
F : .
a
r-
7.?: w;The4an le,:'of;,.the .structure-::used' to•:divert;: the>istream"�`into;F,`the'.new'• _ .
„f _
`hannel: .shal�l-�,'al�low:°"�a. smooth`"transiton':'of°rs-treain�'.flow�`
C
—_ s•- - _of f low:_.i tO' t - - _ - - - _- --- --- -_ _
8 Diver ion; n he=new: chan'r 0,43; 'be: accom l sl 04-zp the'
,
_.:....__ ... ,_, ^_ , .. .,":, ..:;ram: :,•_ -
- ollowin _ - -
�f
-{ a First=remove": trie`:downstream`:` = = - ,.lu - -
P
b Partial'l °:removethe .u stre lu to:`
,
m� all"ow `to;:,�l`� he`
::flow; downVthe:new channel r at'fo least overnight The:.old.
channel<"shall::'not::be:''allowed todewater .E�. = . '
(c)- Remove-':the,`.rest:-of'',the :upstream:plug on ce;-.the''.new;charm e1.:has '
1 flow throughout its. entire length. :. -
a -
( ) Close the upstream end -of the old channel and.;securely armor
the entranceto:.the:old: channel to prevent` reentry:of any
flow. - Armor.-material shall consist of clean, angular rock and
shall- be installed to withstand the 100-year peak'. flow.
9. Filling, of :the old°.channel.'shall. begin from the,:uc,,,_, eam';closure and
the: fill..material, shall be compacted. Water. disc' rging..from the
-• ' fill' shall not' adversely impact- fish life. -
10: The .aquatic 'habitat .log structures shall •.of . fir' o cedar or other
approved coniferous species and shall .be„.laced' so .that they are
within the low flow channel. •yj
11. Erosion control methods shall be used to 1revent siltation from
enteringthe stream. These mayi ude, tilt are not limited to,
straw bales, filter fabric, temp r y sediment ponds, check dams of
pea gravel-filled burlap bags or beer material, and/or immediate
mulching of exposed area
12 . If high flow conditions .that may cause siltation are encountered
during this proje -0, woi4 s ha1 stop until the flow subsides.
13 . Extreme care sh 11 be ta ,e to ensure that no petroleum products,
hydraulic fluid, freshYcement, sediments, sediment laden water,
chemicals or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed
to enter or leach in -o the stream: •
LOCATION: West of Lincoln Avenue NE and south of NE 43rd Place, Renton.
cc: Talasaea Consultants
15020 Bear Creek Rd. NE. ATTN: Bill Shiels
Woodinville, Wa. 98072
Please FAX a copy to Bill Shiels at (425) 861-7549
• s
CANDIDATE PLANT LIST
DECIDUOUS TREES
• Scientific Name Common Name WL Status Min. Size
• J: Acer circinatum Vine Maple FAC- 6' ht.
Acer macrophyllum Big-leaf Maple FACU 10' ht.
• Corylus cornuta Hazelnut FACU 6' ht.
• Q Populus trichocarpa Black Cottonwood FAC 10' ht.
• Prunus emarginata Bitter Cherry FACU 10' ht.
' EVERGREEN TREES
- Scientific Name Common Name WL Status Min. Size
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir FACU 6' ht.
Thu,ja plicata Western Red Cedar FAC 6' ht.
SHRUBS
Scientific Name Common Name WL Status Min. Size
Cornus stolonifera Red-osier Dogwood FACW 24" ht.
Holodiscus discolor Ocean Spray NL 36" ht.
Mahonia aquifolium Shining Oregongrape NL 24" ht.
Physocarpus capitatus Pacific Ninebark FACW- 36" ht.
Polystichunr rnunitum Sword Fern FACU 1 gallon
Rosa nutkana Nootka Rose FAC 24" ht.
Salix scouleriana Scouler Willow FAC 24" ht.
Viburnum edule High-Bush Cranberry FACW 36" ht.
WETLAND MIX
Scientific Name Common Name WL Status
Carex obnupta Slough Sedge OBL
Juncus tennis Slender Rush FACW-
REGREEN" Sterile Wheat Hybrid NL
BIOFILTRATION SWALE MIX
Scientific Name Common Name WL Status
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bentgrass FAC
Carex obnupta Slough Sedge OBL
Festuca rubra Red Fescue FAC+
Poa trivialis Rough Bluegrass FACW
REGREEN* Sterile Wheat Hybrid NL
STREAM & WETLAND BUFFER MIX
Scientific Name Common Name WL Status
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bentgrass FAC
Festuca rubra Red Fescue FAC+
REGREEN* Sterile Wheat Hybrid NL
"Included in mix for initial erosion control and cover (non-persistent).
j2
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
County of King )
MARILYN MOSES ,being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes
and states:
That on the 21st day of August ,1997, affiant deposited in the mail of the
United States a sealed envelope(s)containing a decision or recommendation with postage
prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition.
Signature: ( aAsliA•- )44
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this p'tM- day of,&1/4.10(: 1997.
VO•ON -Vti'd71)1(0(
Notary Public 'n and the State of Washington,
residing at fo(�L Q ,therein.
Application,Petition, or Case No.: Williamsburg Condominium Appeal
LUA97-096,AAD
The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record
HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT
August 21, 1997
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANT: Monica Rosman LaFever
Appeal of Determination of Non-Significance re:
Williamsburg Condominiums
File No.: LUA97-096,AAD
LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE
SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance regarding
Mitigation of Impacts of Williamsburg Condominiums
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing
and examining the available information on file,the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the July 29, 1997 hearing.
The official record is recorded on tape.
The hearing opened on Tuesday,July 29, 1997, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the
Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal, Exhibit No.2: Land Use Application File No.LUA-
proof of posting and publication, and other 96-164,SA (by reference)
documentation pertinent to the appeal.
Exhibit No.3: Slides Exhibit No.4: Letter dated 7/2/97 from Army Corps
of Engineers
Exhibit No. 5: Site map Exhibit No. 6: Goals and Objectives dated 7/25/97
Exhibit No.7: General notes Exhibit No.8a and 8b: Detail segment of relocated
stream
Exhibit No.9: Photograph of northeast of site Exhibit No. 10: Aerial photograph
Exhibit No. 11 Draft copy of HPA dated 7/28/97 Exhibit No. 12a and 12b: Plant species list
Monica Rosman LaFever
File No.: LUA97-096,AAD
August 21, 1997
Page 2
Parties present: Appellant,Monica Rosman LaFever
3915 Lincoln Avenue NE
Renton,WA 98056
Representing the City of Renton
Zanetta Fontes
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton,WA 98055
Representing the Applicant
Jack McCullough
2025 1st Avenue#1130
Seattle,WA 98121
The Examiner explained that the hearing was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and
was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner
for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden
of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence
that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. The
applicant to this proceeding would also be given an opportunity to respond. He also stated that the appeal
issues would be limited to the issue of whether the City imposed sufficient mitigating conditions and not
whether the DNS-M was inappropriate.
Monica Rosman LaFever,appellant herein, stated that she resides on Lincoln Avenue,two doors away from the
proposed project. She believes there are unmitigated adverse impacts to the sensitive wetlands and stream in
the area of this project,and that the site has habitat that the City of Renton recognizes as valuable. The area
also has erosion and flooding problems. She stated that the maintenance on the bioswale in the buffer will
significantly impact buffer and wetland functions. She met with Steven Stanley in the State Department of
Ecology to review this proposal. It is recommended that the bioswale be built outside the buffer for Wetlands
A and B. Regarding access for fire and building maintenance along the north side, it appears that will have to
occur either in the wetland or in the buffer. Ms.LaFever reiterated that traffic from fire and building
maintenance is a known quantity and there should be a minimum 10 foot setback outside the wetland buffer.
To maintain the hydrology of Wetland C and as a mitigation for recharge to May Creek, appellant would
request that all the rooftop runoff be captured and infiltrated into Wetland C,not as has been proposed that it
flow into the existing detention system and then through Wetlands A and B.
As to the stream mitigation,appellant underscored the necessity of a clay liner to prevent dewatering of the
' stream. With regard to fish passage in the stream,Ms.LaFever requested that fish ladders or other such
structures be included to provide fish passage at the culvert under the emergency access road.
Bill Shiels, Talasaea Consultants, 15020 Bear Creek Road NE,Woodinville,Washington 98072,testified as a
wetland consultant for the applicant. He explained that the project site is typical of disturbed urban wetlands--
they are garbage dumps, and a couple trucks full of refuse could be removed. The site plan recognized the
sensitivity of Wetland C, and made an effort to completely avoid that; in fact,to actually pull back from the top
of the bank so that there was not any runoff in that direction. It has been determined that nearly all of the
Monica Rosman LaFever
File No.: LUA97-096,AAD
August 21, 1997
Page 3
precipitation that falls on the site runs to the north and feeds the two wetlands to the north. Only a small
portion of the site, about 5%,actually contributes to ground water flows to Wetland C. Applicant feels that the
project as it is designed now closely replicates what the pre-development conditions were. The suggestion of
adding substantial amounts of water to Wetland C probably violates City code for two reasons: number one,
drainage basins need to be maintained post-development; and number two, it would alter the hydrology of
Wetlands A and B.
When it was determined that the stream would need to be relocated,applicant examined what would have the
most minimal impact on the stream. As there are flooding problems in this area,riprap was placed to stabilize
the road bed. Because of the conditions of the stream channel being very steep and exhibiting instability,and
being informed this was not a fish bearing stream, the goal was to stabilize the stream channel after relocation
and provide more diversity of plant life so there would be some wildlife benefits. A mix of evergreen and
deciduous trees and shrubs has been proposed. Another objective was to produce more food for fish that occur
downstream. The relocated stream would undulate in a more natural course rather than run in the straight line
it now does. This will be designed to the 100 year flood. The existing gradient of the stream is about 8%and
redesigned it will be approximately 5%. It is proposed to elevate the outlet with a birdcage type structure at
the north end near the emergency access road. There would also be a high flow bypass culvert placed near the
emergency access road. To prevent infiltration of the stream channel,a bentonite clay liner is proposed, if
necessary. A geotechnical engineer would determine the soil permeability and if it appears that there would be
a question of significant loss of flow from a stream or a wetland,the liner would be installed. Applicant
prepared an HPA application and has been informed that it is being issued on this date.
The biofiltration swale is located where it will not compromise the storm water treatment and detention
facilities, and a portion of the bioswale or detention pond will be left in natural vegetation. A bioswale, if it is
designed and built correctly, should last for many years before any large equipment has to get into it. There is a
possibility that a backhoe may be needed in there once every 20 years or so. Normally it would just be cutting
the grass because effective biofiltration occurs with 4 inch stubble. In order to have a bioswale that does not
need much maintenance,the catch basins on site would need to be cleaned out. The detention vaults must have
the ability to remove sediments so they are not passed through into the bioswale. Then the bioswale can be
maintained just with a mower or weed whacker about once a year for many years.
Lyle Kussman,P.O.Box 1705,Bothell,Washington 98041, architect for the project, addressed the issue of
constructing a fish ladder, and stated that it would not be feasible to construct a fish ladder at the south side of
the emergency access road because of the restricted area of the new road construction and the elevations of the
existing earth in that area. If there was to be a fish ladder installed in this reach of the stream, it would be more
feasible to construct it on the north side of the emergency access road and utilize the bypass culvert as the
means of fish travel under the roadway itself. This bypass culvert would be approximately 36 to 42 inches in
size.
Regarding the biofiltration swale located north of building 9 and the comment in Mr. Stanley's letter,Mr.
Kussman stated that it is really not feasible from the standpoint of topography and the drainage of the existing
site to locate the bioswales along the eastern edge of the property.
Relating to recharging of Wetland C,based on a 5%factor or 7,000 to 8,000 square feet of the site draining in a
westerly direction and the balance of the site in a northerly direction to Wetlands A and B, if roof water was
captured from buildings 2 and 4,which are located along the western property line, and that clean water was
Monica Rosman LaFever Tile No.:No.: LUA97-096,AAD
August 21, 1997
Page 4
then diverted into Wetland C,the roof area of those two structures equates to 7,100 square feet. That water
could be diverted from those rooftop collection points into that wetland through re-infiltration trenches.
With regard to access for fire and building maintenance around the north side of building 9,Mr.Kussman
stated that at the garage level there is a 5-foot wide walkway that parallels the entire north face of that building.
It is there for the purposes of normal maintenance. The proposed siding on this building is vinyl which is low
maintenance and does not require repainting. For normal annual maintenance such as window washing and
trim painting,there is more than adequate space between the structure and the buffer line. The pedestrian
access points to building 9 are located on the east side and west end of the buildings. The south side of the
building is also accessible by pedestrians,but is also the vehicle access points for the understructure parking.
Mark Pywell, Senior Planner, City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton, Washington 98055, spoke as
project manager on behalf of the City. He reiterated that City code permits bioswales in wetland buffers. He
further stated that the Fire Department requires only 3 sides of a building be accessible for their purposes and
that this proposal met that requirement.
Closing arguments were given by the parties and their comments reiterated their previous statements.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The
hearing closed at 12:17 p.m.
FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION
Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The appellant,Monica Rosman LaFever(hereinafter appellant),filed an appeal of a Determination of
Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)issued for a proposed multiple family complex. The appeal
was filed in a timely manner on July 28, 1997. The subject proposal was originally subjected to the
City's ordinary SEPA review process. The City at that time similarly issued a Determination of Non-
Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M). At that time the appellant and another party filed an appeal of the
original DNS-M for the project. The appellant and co-party prevailed and the City was required to
review its determination in light of the appeal decision.
2. The City analyzed additional information regarding the wetlands and creek realignment and again
issued a DNS-M. The appellant objected to the Environment Review Committee's(ERC)failure to
impose sufficient conditions to mitigate the impacts related to the proposed complex.
3. In particular,the appellant noted:
a. The buffer and bioswale in the buffer would not protect the value and function of the wetland,
that the maintenance of the bioswale will impact the buffer and wetland functions. The
appellant suggested the bioswale be made separate from the buffer.
b. There was insufficient room between the buildings and the wetland to permit routine building
maintenance and fire access without affecting the wetland or buffer. The appellant suggested a
10 foot setback between the buildings and the buffer.
Monica Rosman LaFever
File No.: LUA97-096,AAD
August 21, 1997
Page 5
c. Wetland C's hydrology would be better maintained by directing all roof runoff to that wetland.
d. A clay liner should be placed in the stream to avoid de-watering into the underlying soils.
e. The regrading of the creek will create a large step or impasse making fish passage unlikely if
downstream improvements allowed such passage. The appellant suggested the culvert under
the emergency road be altered to allow fish passage.
4. The underlying proposal entails the construction of a 9-building, 62 unit multiple family complex. It
will be located on an approximately 3.3 acre site. Parking for 120 vehicles will be located within
garages in the nine buildings with an additional 16 open stalls located throughout the site.
5. Three separate wetlands and a small creek are located on or partially on the site. Wetland A is
approximately 3,079 square feet onsite. It is approximately 10,000 square feet in total area. It is
forested. The wetland is probably fed by rain for the most part,but there is an artesian well leaking
offsite. The wetland is a Category 3 wetland which requires a 25 foot buffer. The applicant proposes
filling approximately 1,248 square feet of it.
6. Approximately 1,094 square feet of Wetland B is located on the subject site. The wetland including
offsite portions totals approximately 5,000 square feet. It is forested and is also a Category 3 wetland.
Approximately 164 square feet of it would be filled.
7. Wetland B appears to flow in two directions,toward May Creek and toward the other stream.
8. Wetlands A and B are forested with cottonwood trees that are approximately 60 to 70 feet tall and are
estimated to be about 40 years old.
9. In total approximately 1,412 square feet of Wetlands A and B would be filled. In compensation,the
applicant will be excavating approximately 1,624 square feet in an attempt to consolidate Wetlands A
and B. The replacement ratio would be approximately 1.15:1 which is slightly more than the 1:1
required by the Renton Wetland Ordinance. That ordinance permits 1:1 replacement when two smaller
Category 3 wetlands are combined.
10. Category 3 wetlands require a buffer of 25 feet. The applicant proposes constructing the site's needed
biofiltration swale in the proposed wetland buffer. This is permitted by ordinance.
11. Wetland C straddles the boundary between the subject site and property to its west. Approximately
2,617 square feet is contained within the site. A large portion extends offsite. It is located at the toe of
a slope and contains black muck. It is a Category 2 which is higher in quality than the other two
wetland areas. It requires a 50 foot buffer. With City permission,the applicant proposes buffer
averaging which would reduce a portion of the required buffer below 50 feet but to not less than 40
feet. The total square feet of the buffer will be maintained.
12. A stream flows from south to north along the eastern edge of the southern half of the site. It crosses in
and out of City owned property both near the north and south ends of the site. It is located below ,
Lincoln Avenue NE. A 25 foot buffer from edge of high water is proposed along both sides of the
creek.
13. The record reflects that the stream bears fish downstream(north)from the subject site. A change in
topography at the lower end of a culvert north(offsite)of the subject site appears to prevent fish
passage upstream to the segment of the creek flowing beside and through the subject site.
Monica Rosman LaFever
File No.: LUA97-096,AAD
August 21, 1997
Page 6
14. The City proposes wideningLincoln in this area in order to serve both the site and the general
p P subjectg
traffic needs of the area. This widening would necessitate the relocation of the creek. Stream
relocation would require the removal of vegetation,as well as excavation,filling and grading on both
sides of the creek. To prevent erosion,riprap has already been installed along portions of the creek.
15. The stream would be moved to the west. Some meander would be accommodated and its gradient
(drop from south to north)would be lessened. It would be deeply incised and riprap would be part of
stabilization. The outlet would be raised approximately 6 feet. This would increase any obstacle to
fish migration that the existing two-foot drop already presents. The existing obstacle probably is
already too severe to accommodate fish migration upstream. The gradient change would.lower the
overall velocity of the creek. The increased plantings proposed along the creek and angle of the creek
vis a vis sun angle would minimize any temperature increase to the creek's waters.
16. The area north of the site is a mix of commercial and residential uses concentrated around and
generally east of the NE 44th Street interchange at I-405. South of that fairly developed node,the area
becomes more sparsely developed with scattered single family uses located on larger lots.
17. Lincoln Avenue NE which runs north to south east of the subject site is a narrow street developed to
older standards. Just north of NE 40th(unopened)Lincoln forms a"Y" intersection with Monterey
Place NE. Jones Avenue NE is located west of the subject site.
18. The subject site and property north and west of it are zoned CA(Commercial Arterial). East of the site,
across Lincoln Avenue is an R-10 zone(Residential/10 units per acre). Immediately south of the site is
an R-8 zone(Single family residential/8 units per acre).
19. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of commercial uses but does not mandate such development without
consideration of other policies of the Plan.
20. The CA zone permits the development of multiple family uses under certain conditions. One of those
conditions is that a single use/multiple family use be limited to 20 units per acre. The proposal
complies with the limitation.
21. City code requires detention which necessitates post-development flows leaving the site not exceed
predevelopment release rates. The code also requires that the existing drainage patterns be matched as
closely as possible so that water continues to be directed to the same general outlet or drainage basin, if
possible.
22. A draft hydraulic permit has been issued. (Subsequent to the close of the hearing the permit was
issued.)
23. The site had been a gravel extraction site and quarry. There are ridges along the east and west
boundaries of the site. There are sands which allow water to percolate into the site
24. May Creek studies indicate habitat problems and suggest restoration. A management plan is under
review at this time but has not been adopted.
25. Flooding occurs in the area upstream or south of the subject site. The City had responded and did
repair work on the drainageditch east of the site. The most recent heavy storm appears to have not
caused a recurrence of the flooding.
Monica Rosman LaFever
File No.: LUA97-096,AAD
August 21, 1997
Page 7
26. There is also flooding north of the subject site in the vicinity of Denny's Restaurant and at Jones and
43rd. Staff noted this is caused by a substandard culvert system under I-405. This flooding has closed
off access to the areas south of Jones Road just west of the subject site. Flooding has also occurred in
the vicinity of Ripley Lane.
27. The ERC did impose a condition that the applicant provide for a 100-year storm event either with
onsite detention or downstream improvements.
28. The record reflects that riparian environments are not easily replaced. Recovery can take a number of
years. The applicant now proposes introducing some faster growing species along the stream corridor.
29. The bioswale, depending on circumstances,will need to be maintained by the property owner. This
would necessitate entering into the wetland buffer area for mowing or manicuring the growth. The
estimate is that this would occur approximately once or twice per year.
30. The appellant will be providing a five(5)foot setback from the combined Wetland AB buffer in which
building maintenance can occur. It appears that the building design and size will permit emergency
access without having to intrude into the wetland buffer.
31. Infiltration or redirection will be used to direct clean rooftop water from some of the buildings to
Wetland C. The record demonstrates that storm water from the site currently flows in two general
directions and the applicant proposes maintaining those historic directions, if possible.
32. The appellant recommended a number of measures to reduce or eliminate the impacts this proposal
would have on the wetlands and creeks: that the bioswale not be developed within the wetland buffer
area;the culvert should be removed under the emergency road and the gradient altered to allow fish
passage; and straightening the channel would be inappropriate. The applicant's plans show a gentle
meandering stream course with a shallower gradient for the stream on the subject site. This will
increase the drop at the subject site's north end culvert. Proposed inclusion of woody debris and pools
would create a preferable stream profile and food source for downstream fish. The plans include
installing a clay liner in the creek if one proves necessary to prevent de-watering of the stream.
33. The ERC accepted the applicant's proposed mitigation measures imposing a requirement for 100 year
detention and requiring homeowners'covenants highlighting the importance of the wetlands and
buffers and the stream and containing potential penalties for violations which injure those features.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial
weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee,the City's responsible
official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination
was in error.
2. The Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will
not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v.
Port Townsend,93 Wn.2d 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and
Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267,274; 1976, stated: "A finding is'clearly
erroneous'when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is.
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."
Monica Rosman LaFever
File No.: LUA97-096,AAD
August 21, 1997
Page 8
Therefore,the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test.
For reasons enumerated below,the decision of the ERC is affirmed.
3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is
less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the
environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore,made it easier to reverse a DNS.
A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination of
significance(DS)is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision
clearly flies in the face of reason as a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the
preparation of a full disclosure document,an Environmental Impact Statement.
4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more
than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278).
Since the Court spoke in Norway,WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as
follows:
Significant. (1) "Significant"as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of
more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.
5. Significance involves context and intensity. . .Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an
impact. . . The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence.
An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great,but the resulting environmental
impact would be severe if it occurred.
6. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable."
Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ...Probable is used to
distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of
occurring,but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782)
7. Even given the relaxed standards cited above, a case can only be made with the submission of support
for the contentions of error.
8. Unlike the situation surrounding the first appeal,this second decision of the ERC is supported by
sufficient documentation prepared in a timely fashion. The appellant's genuine concern that the ERC
did not impose adequate conditions is in and of itself insufficient to reverse the ERC's determination.
In reviewing the facts,this office is not left with a firm conviction that an error was made. And clearly,
there is nothing to show that the most recent decision was arbitrary and capricious.
9. So while the appellant may disagree with the ERC's failure to impose additional conditions during
environmental review,merely having reasonable people disagree with a decision does not make the
decision clearly erroneous-the standard of review in environmental appeals where the decision below
is entitled to substantial weight.
10. In addition,the record reveals that some of the conditions suggested by the appellant are either
inappropriate, such as directing all roof runoff to Wetland C,or have been considered and may be
implemented as necessary, such as lining the stream with clay.
11. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the
matter,unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. It does not
appear that a mistake has been made. Therefore,the determination below must be affirmed.
Monica Rosman LaFever
File No.: LUA97-096,AAD
August 21, 1997
Page 9
DECISION:
The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is affirmed and the appeal is denied.
ORDERED THIS 21st day of August, 1997.
FRED J.KA N
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 21st day of August, 1997 to the parties of record:
Monica and Dave LaFever Zanetta Fontes Bob Zeigler
3915 Lincoln Avenue NE 200 Mill Avenue S 600 N Capitol Way
Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98055 Olympia,WA 98501-1091
Lyle Kussman Bill Shiels Larry Fisher
P.O.Box 1705 15020 Bear Creek Road NE 22516 SE 64th Place,#230
Bothell,WA 98041 Woodinville,WA 98072 Issaquah, WA 98027
Shupe Holmberg Neil Watts Mark Pywell
100 Front Street 200 Mill Avenue S 200 Mill Avenue S
Issaquah,WA 98027 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055
Kimberly Swanson Mark Goldberg Tri-Delt
1909 NE 36th 4739 University Way NE,#1607 6840 112th Avenue SE
Renton,WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98105 Renton,WA 98056
Edwin Stone Paul and Pam Miller Marty and Mike Roberts
744 Belmont Place NE 3623 Lincoln Avenue NE 3925 Lincoln Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98102 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056
Hal Brandt Pamela Mullen Peter Johnson
12727 SE 63rd Street 5320 242nd Place NE P.O.Box 744
Bellevue,WA 98006 Redmond,WA 98053 Kirkland,WA 98083
Blair Baummer Pat Dana Sheri Waddington
3636 Lincoln Avenue NE 5219 Ripley Lane N 2332 NE 31st Street
Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
Gordon Donnell Frank and Rose Falaniko Richard and Teri Brunory
P.O.Box 2576 2224 NE 31st Street 3866 Monterey Place NE
Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056
Monica Rosman LaFever
File No.: LUA97-096,AAD
August 21, 1997
Page 10
Margaret Nielsen Roger Urbaniak Susan Bollinger
3835 Lincoln Avenue NE 1020 108th Ave NE,#109 3812 Monterey Place NE
Renton,WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98004 Renton,WA 98056
D.Allen Bauman Nancy Crisp Gene Jackson
4030 Lk Washington Blvd.NE 2100 NE 31st 1909 NE 36th
Kirkland,WA 98033 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
Ralph Shaw Jim and Lynn Bisset Andy and Beth Alexander
3935 Monterey Place SE 3901 Lincoln Avenue NE 2336 NE 31st
Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056
Kenneth LaBeau Lisa Brick Judy Stoloff
115 East School House Road 4006 Lincoln Avenue NE 2019 Fairview East, Slip B
Wenatchee, WA 98801 Renton,WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98102
Kennydale Vista LLC Oldrich Fryc Jack McCullough
4030 Lk Washington Blvd,#208 21505 196th Avenue SE 2025 1st Avenue#1130
Kirkland,WA 98105 Renton,WA 98058 Seattle,WA 98121
Bernice Brown Helen E.Andrew
1725 Park Avenue,#304 NE 16221 North Shore Road
Bremerton,WA 98337 Tahuya,WA 98588
TRANSMITTED THIS 21st day of August, 1997 to the following:
Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator
Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director
Art Larson,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official
Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Mayor's Executive Assistant
Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
South County Journal
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must e filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,September 4, 1997. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
' Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written
request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This
request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may,
after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper.
Appeal of the Examiner's decision in consolidated appeals requires any appeal be filed with the City
Council.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may
occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not
Monica Rosman LaFever -
File No.: LUA97-096,AAD
August 21, 1997
Page 11
communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use
process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
1 7 / -? 5i 77
1 C- -r
ry \eh40Y\ '°.TYOFREMTOH
t-
d U i ��,J. 2 0 5 , 1997
i�o rt krA . 9 �� JUL 2 g
„.....,e,w.:.1 LAViSI®
au-L\ c(�,1,. Le ai 0K-A 1
!�
ilk 1c1f cf C 4 o s- - 1R �"•y i�Gi(Il Ct `� c1 e_I1 bZ t..c 1. r V f.v r:-/t/ ,
1 s‘(ie. ;--t-rhq \,. i.., ci c. -i, _t (iNct--( 100 c( vkNo,, ( t/ -e....._
'till., ft. <I pr 1 C-C+1 12.0- v, c.-_, -5 RcrrL C-6 ( 4 bc..kr cf f6 r cletiic_ kt me pit
i 4 `f ke- c C' VZ. . i3ro (ae_r1 y
, k( c. alJi- c___ Irrt ifcsi ® r5 ih
',r � � � Y � r Lo � dr cl rz �1 G� Ci �C
i
I
/' p � o C e �,04 S � f- o t�►� -s �c l�
Cc� Fevzc( � �=1 c���� e b
, cp u (1D c ir- I
S c.,(- N f 2 5- 17\a
( C cel st v P, 4U r ci ,
cr �--c-b r d _o 1 I 4‹., CI b3 d \i' (}0 fl'
rovii0v1_ a .0e c5 I ho S-ttoeviA --rb
f f( h7� t'6V •2� yt
� �� -L e YZ t cr1.� -to i
ii ff
'odd Pc� S' a Hid 1l L.cl! � c �
v a � S �+'- C c
ELEn E. ogrublzai
AV. E. 16221 dV. SIZo¢E toad
�aLya, W algin9 ton 98588
CITY OF RENTON
)2;,eJUL 2 8 1997
RECEIVED
!-e4. "-/ a)4 • 9�p3"S vITY CLERK'S OFFICE ret-o-4•,'
z
2441i S'417- 4
7. , d
e d o{ oZ( //. , Se 17 ��—®—•�-- #+mac JG
'741t-ler- F
9 JUL7 /9.-er-s"--e‘--)
iS Cl
C?t�
a
7.D 49`
‘
•
1III.-,I„bIt 111�}IiI1u+I.I..,III..hi•I�.II��.II...•.1111
i STATg
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206) 649-7000
July 24, 1997
DEVELOPMENT PLANNINIr
CITY OF RENTON'
JUL 2 81997
Mark Pywell, Project Manager
Planning&Development RECEWED
City of Renton
200 Mill Ave. South
Renton, WA. 98055
Dear Mr. Pywell:
Re: Williamsburg Condominium Development
Thank-you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Williamsburg Condominium
Development site located west of Lincoln Avenue NE and south of NE 43rd Plan in the V
City of Renton, Washington. Our concerns focus on the provision,of wetland buffers of
adequate width,maintenance of existing wetland hydrology,maintenance of stream
hydrology and fish passage. V
• The proposed buffer is 25 feet for Wetlands A and B and the proposed
mitigation wetland connecting these two wetlands. This 25 foot buffer will
include a bioswale. Because effective bioswales require clearing of vegetation
on a yearly basis, inclusion of the bioswale within the buffer will significantly
impact buffer and wetland functions,particularly the wildlife habitat function.
Additionally, a significant portion(565 square feet) of the total wetland fill •
impact of 1,412 square feet will occur from the construction of the bioswale.
As an alternative,the project could construct bioswales along east side of the
condominiums (swale like area is already proposed, see cross section B-B' on
mitigation plan)which would collect runoff from paved areas at appropriate
elevations. Further, additional bioswale area outside of the wetland buffer can
be provided adjacent to either side of the emergency access road in the
northeast corner of the site which is located at a low point on the property.
The applicant could also consider the use of a wetpond in this area which may
satisfy the water quality treatment standards set forth by the City of Renton.
• Fire and building maintenance access does not appear to have been provided
along the north side of the northern most building complex adjacent to
it
Mr. Max Pywell
July 24, 1997
Page 2
Wetlands A and B (see cross section A-A'). Most local zoning codes require
such access. This access should be provided outside of the wetland buffer.
• Surface and roof runoff will be directed into Wetlands A and B. Hydrological
studies of the site provided by the applicant demonstrate that a portion of the
site's surface hydrology infiltrates into its sandy soils and moves laterally
• westwards toward Wetland C. In order to maintain hydrology to Wetland C,
the project should incorporate shallow infiltration wells or trenches which
directs roof runoff, and treated runoff from pavement, into the site's sandy
soils. Infiltration is also the most preferred form of storm water control and
water quality treatment.
• The stream will be relocated to the west. Because the site soils are sandy,the
project specifications for the stream relocation should include the provision of
a clay layer in the streambed in order to prevent de-watering of the stream.
• Culverts to the north of south of the proposed stream restoration are
impassable by fish. The City is requiring the developer to relocate the stream
both on the project site and on adjacent City property, in order to protect the
adjacent public road. The stream restoration design will make this stream •
segment fish passable. Fish have been observed by the Department of Fish
and Wildlife, attempting to unsuccessfully pass the downstream culvert. To
spend so much time and money on relocating and restoring this stream reach
without installing a fish passable culvert is a mitigation effort wasted and an
restoration opportunity lost. Because so much anadromous fish habitat has
been lost within the Puget Sound, it is critical that restoration opportunities are
taken advantage of. Inexpensive fish ladder designs using"half-rounds" of
culverts, stepped down and bolted together have been successfully used for
stream drops of several feet.
If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact me at(206) 649-
4210.
Sincerely,
I � .
•
Stephen Stanley, Wetlands Specialist
Shorelands and Water Resources Program
•
cc: Ray Hellwig, Ecology
Erik Stockdale, Ecology
Monica LeFever
`+ ^ 6 6TA7'g 0
it..:4"
VEF
7599 0
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N•Olympia,WA 98501-1091 •(360)902-2200,TDD(360)902-2207
Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building•1111 Washington Street SE•Olympia,WA
July 23, 1997
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ,
CITY OF RENTON
JUL 2 61997
Mark R. Pywell
City of Renton
Planning/Building/Public Works Department RECEIVED
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055
SUBJECT: Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated -
Williamsburg Condominiums - LUA-96-164, ECF, SA, Gypsy
Subasin Drainage Creek, Tributary to Lake Washington,
King County, WRIA 08 .MISC
Dear Mr . Pywell :
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has
reviewed the above-referenced document and submits the following
comments.
Since this proposal is essentially exactly the same as the
earlier proposal which was successfully appealed by a local
' citizen to the City of Renton (City) Hearing Examiner, these
comments are in addition to those sent in the February 21, 1997
WDFW comment letter .
WDFW notes that the Hearing Examiner stated unequivocally in his
May 15, 1997 memorandum that an environmental impact statement
(EIS ) is required for the project . WDFW must question why, when
the same project (with a bit more detail, without the analysis of
the " . . . focused EIS . . . " required by the Hearing Examiner ) has
been submitted, another Determination of Non-Significance-
Mitigated (DNS-M) has been issued by the City Environmental
Review Committee (ERC) . It appears that the ERC has now
committed the same error already determined by the Hearing
Examiner in issuing the DNS-M. By copy of this letter, WDFW
requests that the City Hearing Examiner take further actions at
the Public Hearing to consider the site plan to ensure that the
wetlands, creek, and drainage issues raised at the earlier appeal
are addressed through the required EIS .
Mark Pywell
Page 2
July 23, 1997
The following WDFW comments pertain to the revised "WILLIAMSBURG
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION
RERPORT" (the report) , which notes on page one that work was
recently done at the upstream end of the site blocking fish
passage . WDFW notes that this work was done by the City without
a Hydraulic Project Approval, in violation of RCW 75 . 20 . 060 and
RCW 75 . 20 .100 . WDFW intends to ensure that the stream reach at
the site be treated as fish-bearing, since fish have been
observed attempting to access this stream reach and available
habitat exists there . Any stream crossing work for this site
needs to fully address the issue of fish passage per WAC 220-110-
070 . It is clearly evident that the project design has failed to
consider this . At such a time as ( or possibly before ) a project
is undertaken involving the impassable culvert just downstream of
the site, WDFW will pursue correction of that fish passage
problem.
It would be irresponsible for WDFW to consider approving the
proposed culvert, particularly with its radical gradient and
proposed catch basin and birdcage at its outlet. There exist
serious problems for the proposed relocation of a portion of the
stream channel in context of constructing a fish-passable stream
crossing, due to site topography. Again, WDFW recommends to the
lead SEPA agency that a suitable alternative for developing this
site be permitted which would not require relocating the creek,
due to the site constraints and high probability of significant
adverse impacts on the creek if it were relocated . (The City
could act responsibly by voluntarily restoring the damage to the
creek which was done by the ripraping last winter without WDFW
approval . ) The detail added to the design of the relocated
stream channel has only begun to address what I would recommend
WDFW require for approval . There are serious problems with what
is being proposed, though some of the design parameters are
desirable .
The issue of the stream and wetland buffering raises many
concerns . The buffers need to be a minimum 50 feet to maintain
the functions and values of the watercourses. An additional
building setback of 15 feet is needed to prevent damage during
construction and access for maintenance and fire protection.
Contrary to what was stated in the report about wetlands A and B
being isolated, these wetlands are hydrologically connected to
the creek, as WDFW observed during field investigations . Surface
flows were observed between the wetlands and stream system.
Mark Pywell
Page 3
July 23, 1997
Avoidance of wetland impacts can easily be attained for this site
and is the first option for mitigation sequencing. WDFW does not
see any justification for allowing the proposed wetland
encroachment; it is easily avoidable due to the location of the
wetlands on one end of the property. A replacement ratio of 2 : 1
for unavoidable wetland impacts is required by current WDFW
policy. Placement of the bioswale in the wetland buffer can also
be avoided .
Consideration of discharging stormwater through dispersion
trenches is recommended . WDFW believes that this site, due to
its close upstream proximity to significant flooding problems in
the drainage, warrants more restrictive stormwater release rates
to avoid exaccerbation of the flooding problems, especially if a
very dense development with a high percentage of impervious
surface such as is proposed is permitted.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment . If you have questions
or need additional information, please call me at ( 425 ) 392-9159 .
We appreciate your cooperation in our efforts to protect, perpet-
uate, and manage the fish resources of the state of Washington.
Sincerely,
Larry Fisher
Area Habitat Biologist
Habitat Management Program
if
cc : WDFW, Muller
WDFW, Banyard
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
July 25, 1977
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
200 Mill Ave. S
Renton,WA 98055
Subject: Appeal regarding insufficient conditions to mitigate impacts of Williamsburg Condominiums
Reference: Comment letter from Department of Ecology, Stephen Stanley,July 24, 1997
Dear Hearing Examiner:
I am challenging the decision of the ERC,believing that insufficient conditions are imposed to mitigate
impacts related to the project. Refer to the attached comment letter from the Department of Ecology.
I believe that there are unmitigated adverse impacts to the wetlands and stream in the area of this project.
The plans need to be changed to address these impacts.
The buffer and bioswale contained in the buffer along wetlands A and B are insufficient to protect the
value and function of those wetlands. The maintenance required in the buffer will significantly impact
buffer and wetland functions. The bioswale needs to come out of the wetland buffer. This avoids a
significant portion of wetland fill.
Fire and building maintenance access has been overlooked along the north side of the proposal. Any
maintenance of buildings or fire fighting that occurs behind the buildings along the bioswale will also
significantly impact buffer and wetland functions. It is necessary to include a minimum of a ten foot
setback from the bioswale for these functions and it needs to be outside the wetland buffer.
In order to maintain hydrology to wetland C,all roof runoff should be infiltrated into the soils of the site.
Project specifications for the stream relocation should include the provision of a clay layer in the stream
bed in order to prevent de-watering of the stream.
The culvert under the access road must be made passable by fish. The stream is being relocated and the
channel provided will provide a gentler slope. As a result,the culvert entrance is being raised several feet
above its present height. It is necessary to enlarge the culvert or insert a bigger half bottom culvert to
provide fish passage in the future. Other creative solutions like a mini fish ladder should also be
entertained.
In closing,I believe that there are unmitigated adverse impacts to the wetlands and stream in the area of
this project. The ERC failed to impose sufficient conditions to mitigate their impacts. This project will
have an adverse effect on the quality of the environment.
Sincerely,; � n
Monica C. man LaFever
3915 Lincoln Ave.NE
Renton,WA 98056
DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT
CITY OF RENTON
CITY TREASURER
REG/RCPT : 02-18301 C:07-28-1997
CASHIER ID : J 08:51:00 A:07-28-1997
5007 APPEALS & WAIVERS $75.00
000.000.00.345.81.00.000003
TOTAL DUE $75.00
RECEIVED FROM:
MONICA LAFEVER
CHECK $75.00
TOTAL TENDERED $75.00
CHANGE DUE $0.00
DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT
STATEo
ti:"
t t
oy
1889
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206) 649-7000
July 24, 1997
Mark Pywell, Project Manager
Planning &Development
City of Renton
200 Mill Ave. South
Renton, WA. 98055
Dear Mr. Pywell: -
Re: Williamsburg Condominium Development
Thank-you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Williamsburg Condominium
Development site located west of Lincoln Avenue NE and south of NE 43rd Plan in the
City of Renton, Washington. Our concerns focus on the provision of wetland buffers of
adequate width, maintenance of existing wetland hydrology, maintenance of stream
hydrology and fish passage.
• The proposed buffer is 25 feet for Wetlands A and B and the proposed
mitigation wetland connecting these two wetlands. This 25 foot buffer will
include a bioswale. Because effective bioswales require clearing of vegetation
on a yearly basis, inclusion of the bioswale within the buffer will significantly
impact buffer and wetland functions,particularly the wildlife habitat function.
Additionally, a significant portion(565 square feet) of the total wetland fill
impact of 1,412 square feet will occur from the construction of the bioswale.
As an alternative,the project could construct bioswales along east side of the
condominiums (swale like area is already proposed, see cross section B-B' on
mitigation plan) which would collect runoff from paved areas at appropriate
elevations. Further, additional bioswale area outside of the wetland buffer can
be provided adjacent to either side of the emergency access road in the
northeast corner of the site which is located at a low point on the property.
The applicant could also consider the use of a wetpond in this area which may
satisfy the water quality treatment standards set forth by the City of Renton.
• Fire and building maintenance access does not appear to have been provided
along the north side of the northern most building complex adjacent to
Mr. Max Pywell
July 24, 1997
Page 2
Wetlands A and B (see cross section A-A'). Most local zoning codes require
such access. This access should be provided outside of the wetland buffer.
• Surface and roof runoff will be directed into Wetlands A and B. Hydrological
studies of the site provided by the applicant demonstrate that a portion of the
site's surface hydrology infiltrates into its sandy soils and moves laterally
westwards toward Wetland C. In order to maintain hydrology to Wetland C,
the project should incorporate shallow infiltration wells or trenches which
directs roof runoff, and treated runoff from pavement, into the site's sandy
soils. Infiltration is also the most preferred form of storm water control and
water quality treatment.
• The stream will be relocated to the west. Because the site soils are sandy, the
project specifications for the stream relocation should include the provision of
a clay layer in the streambed in order to prevent de-watering of the stream.
• Culverts to the north of south of the proposed stream restoration are
impassable by fish. The City is requiring the developer to relocate the stream
both on the project site and on adjacent City property, in order to protect the
adjacent public road. The stream restoration design will make this stream
segment fish passable. Fish have been observed by the Department of Fish
and Wildlife, attempting to unsuccessfully pass the downstream culvert. To
spend so much time and money on relocating and restoring this stream reach
without installing a fish passable culvert is a mitigation effort wasted and an
restoration opportunity lost. Because so much anadromous fish habitat has
been lost within the Puget Sound, it is critical that restoration opportunities are
taken advantage of. Inexpensive fish ladder designs using"half-rounds" of
culverts, stepped down and bolted together have been successfully used for
stream drops of several feet.
If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact me at(206) 649-
4210.
Sincerely,
Stephen Stanley, Wetlands Specialist
Shorelands and Water Resources Program .
cc: Ray Hellwig, Ecology
Erik Stockdale, Ecology
Monica LeFever
I 0 V
At
-;_T. 1147
till 2 81997
�y'� ;eeea°y JUL
State of Washington ,t SON
•
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLI''_ s EXAMNER
Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N•Olympia,WA 98501-1091 •(360)902-2200,TDD(360)902-2207
Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building• 1111 Washington Street SE•Olympia,WA
July 23, 1997
•
Mark R . Pywell
City of Renton
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055
SUBJECT: Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated -
Williamsburg Condominiums - LUA-96-164, ECF, SA, Gypsy
Subasin Drainage Creek, Tributary to Lake Washington,
King County, WRIA 08 .MISC
Dear Mr . Pywell : •
The Washington Department of , Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has
reviewed the above-referenced document and submits the following
comments .
Since this proposal is essentially exactly the same as the
earlier proposal which was successfully appealed by a local
citizen to the City of Renton (City) Hearing Examiner, these
comments are in. addition to those sent in the February 21, 1997
WDFW comment letter .
WDFW notes that the Hearing Examiner stated unequivocally in his
May 15, 1997 memorandum that an environmental impact statement
(EIS ) is required for the project . WDFW must question why, when
the same project (with a bit more detail, without the analysis of
the " . . . focused EIS . . . " required by the Hearing Examiner ) has
been submitted, another Determination' of Non-Significance—
Mitigated (DNS-M) has been issued by the City Environmental
Review Committee (ERC) . It appears that the ERC has now
committed the same error already ,determined by the Hearing
Examiner in issuing the DNS-M. By copy of this letter, WDFW
requests that the City Hearing Examiner take further actions at
the Public Hearing to consider the site plan to ensure that the
wetlands, creek, and drainage issues raised at the earlier appeal
are addressed through the required EIS .
Mark Pywell
Page 2
July 23, 1997
The following WDFW comments pertain to the revised "WILLIAMSBURG
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION
RERPORT" (the report ) , which notes on page one that work was
recently done at the upstream end of the site blocking fish
passage . WDFW notes that this work was done by the City without
a Hydraulic Project Approval, in violation of RCW 75 . 20 . 060 and
RCW 75 . 20 . 100 . WDFW intends to ensure that the stream reach at
the site be treated as fish-bearing, since fish have been
observed attempting to access this stream reach and available
habitat exists there . Any stream crossing work for this site
needs to fully address the issue of fish passage per WAC 220-110-
070 . It is clearly evident that the project design has failed to
consider this . At such a time as ( or possibly before ) a project
is undertaken involving the impassable culvert just downstream of
the site, WDFW will pursue correction of that fish passage
problem.
It would be irresponsible for WDFW to consider approving the
proposed culvert, particularly with its radical gradient and
proposed catch basin and birdcage at its outlet . There exist
serious problems for the proposed relocation of a portion of the
stream channel in context of constructing a fish-passable stream
crossing, due to site topography. Again, WDFW recommends to the
lead SEPA agency that a suitable alternative for developing this •
site be permitted which would not require relocating the creek,
due to the site constraints and high probability of significant
adverse impacts on the creek if it were relocated . (The City
could act responsibly by voluntarily restoring the damage to the
creek which was done by the ripraping last winter without WDFW
approval . ) The detail added to the design of the relocated
stream channel has only begun to address what I would recommend
WDFW require for approval . There are serious problems with what
is being proposed, though some of the design parameters are
desirable .
The issue of the stream and wetland buffering raises many
concerns . The buffers need to be a minimum 50 feet to maintain
the functions and values of the watercourses . An additional
building setback of 15 feet is needed to prevent damage during
construction and access for maintenance and fire protection.
Contrary to what was stated in the report about wetlands A and B
being isolated, these wetlands are hydrologically connected to
the creek, as WDFW observed during field investigations . Surface
flows were observed between the wetlands and stream system.
Mark Pywell
Page 3
July 23, 1997
Avoidance of wetland impacts can easily be attained for this site
and is the first option for mitigation sequencing . WDFW does not
see any justification for allowing the proposed wetland
encroachment; it is easily avoidable due to the location of the
wetlands on one end of the property. A replacement ratio of 2 : 1
for unavoidable wetland impacts is required by current WDFW
policy. Placement of the bioswale in the wetland buffer can also
be avoided .
Consideration of discharging stormwater through dispersion
trenches is recommended . WDFW believes that this site, due to
its close upstream proximity to significant flooding problems in
the drainage, warrants more restrictive stormwater release rates
to avoid exaccerbation of the flooding problems, especially if a
very dense development with a high percentage of impervious
surface such as is proposed is permitted .
Thank you for the opportunity to comment . If you have questions
or need additional information, please call me at ( 425) 392-9159 .
We appreciate your cooperation in our efforts to protect, perpet-
uate, and manage the fish resources of the state of Washington.
Sincerely,
Larry Fisher
Area Habitat Biologist
Habitat Management Program
if
cc : WDFW, Muller
WDFW, . Banyard
tglItgo'f"rR e'n o n_E I'e°a`r ri: E x
E STATE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206) 649-7000
July 24, 1997
DEVELOPMENT PLANNINr
CITY OF RENTON
JUL, 2 81997
Mark Pywell, Project Manager
Planning&Development ECEI 'FD
City of Renton
200 Mill Ave. South
Renton, WA. 98055
Dear Mr. Pywell:
Re: Williamsburg Condominium Development
Thank-you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Williamsburg Condominium
Development site located west of Lincoln Avenue NE and south of NE 43rd Plan in the
City of Renton, Washington. Our concerns focus on the provision of wetland buffers of
adequate width,maintenance of existing wetland hydrology,maintenance of stream
hydrology and fish passage.
• The proposed buffer is 25 feet for Wetlands A and B and the proposed
mitigation wetland connecting these two wetlands. This 25 foot buffer will
include a bioswale. Because effective bioswales require clearing of vegetation
on a yearly basis, inclusion of the bioswale within the buffer will significantly
impact buffer and wetland functions,particularly the wildlife habitat function.
Additionally, a significant portion(565 square feet) of the total wetland fill
impact of 1,412 square feet will occur from the construction of the bioswale.
As an alternative,the project could construct-bioswales along east side of the
condominiums (swale like area is already proposed, see cross section B-B' on
mitigation plan)which would collect runoff from paved areas at appropriate
elevations. Further, additional bioswale area outside of the wetland buffer can
be provided adjacent to either side of the emergency access road in the
northeast corner of the site which.is located at a low point on the property.
The applicant could also consider the use of a wetpond in this area which may
satisfy the water quality treatment standards set forth by the City of Renton.
• Fire and building maintenance access does not appear to have been provided
along the north side of the northern most building complex adjacent to
-fie *
Mr. Max Pywell
July 24, 1997
Page 2
Wetlands A and B (see cross section A-A'). Most local zoning codes require
such access. This access should be provided outside of the wetland buffer.
• Surface and roof runoff will be directed into Wetlands A and B. Hydrological
studies of the site provided by the applicant demonstrate that a portion of the
site's surface hydrology infiltrates into its sandy soils and moves laterally
westwards toward Wetland C. In order to maintain hydrology to Wetland C,
the project should incorporate shallow infiltration wells or trenches which
directs roof runoff, and treated runoff from pavement, into the site's sandy
soils. Infiltration is also the most preferred form of storm water control and
water quality treatment.
• The stream will be relocated to the west. Because the site soils are sandy,the
project specifications for the stream relocation should include the provision of
a clay layer in the streambed in order to prevent de-watering of the stream.
• Culverts to the north of south of the proposed stream restoration are
impassable by fish. The City is requiring the developer to relocate the stream
both on the project site and on adjacent City property, in order to protect the
adjacent public road. The stream restoration design will make this stream
segment fish passable. Fish have been observed by the Department of Fish
and Wildlife, attempting to unsuccessfully pass the downstream culvert. To
spend so much time and money on relocating and restoring this stream reach
without installing a fish passable culvert is a mitigation effort wasted and an
restoration opportunity lost. Because so much anadromous fish habitat has
been lost within the Puget Sound, it is critical that restoration opportunities are
taken advantage of. Inexpensive fish ladder designs using"half-rounds" of
culverts, stepped down and bolted together have been successfully used for
stream drops of several feet.
If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact me at(206) 649-
4210.
Sincerely,
•
Stephen Stanley, Wetlands Specialist
Shorelands and Water Resources Program
•
cc: Ray Hellwig, Ecology
Erik Stockdale,Ecology
Monica LeFever
`rs fiTATw
iee®ao
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N•Olympia,WA 98501-1091 •(360)902-2200,TDD(360)902-2207
Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building•1111 Washington Street SE•Olympia,WA
July 23, 1997
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING .
CITY OF AENTON
JUL 2 C 1997
Mark R . Pywell
City of Renton ,
Planning/Building/Public Works Department t.liECEIVED
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055
SUBJECT: Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated -
Williamsburg Condominiums - LUA-96-164, ECF, SA, Gypsy
Subasin Drainage Creek, Tributary to Lake Washington,
King County, WRIA 08 .MISC
Dear Mr . Pywell :
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has
reviewed the above-referenced document and submits the following
comments .
Since this proposal is essentially exactly the same as the
earlier proposal which was successfully appealed by a local
citizen to the City of Renton (City) Hearing Examiner, these
comments are in addition to those sent in the February 21, 1997
WDFW comment letter .
WDFW notes that the Hearing Examiner stated unequivocally in his
May 15, 1997 memorandum that an environmental impact statement
(EIS ) is required for the project. WDFW must question why, when
the same project (with a bit more detail, without the analysis of
the " . . . focused EIS . . . " required by the Hearing Examiner ) has
been submitted, another Determination' of Non-Significance-
Mitigated (DNS-M) has been issued by the City Environmental
Review Committee (ERC) . It appears that the ERC has now
committed the same error already determined by the Hearing
Examiner in issuing the DNS-M. By copy of this letter, WDFW
requests that the City Hearing Examiner take further actions at .
the Public Hearing to consider the site plan to ensure that the
wetlands, creek, and drainage issues raised at the earlier appeal
are addressed through the required EIS .
Mark Pywell
Page 2
July 23, 1997
The following WDFW comments pertain to the revised "WILLIAMSBURG
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION
RERPORT" (the report ) , which notes on page one that work was
recently done at the upstream end of the site blocking fish
passage . WDFW notes that this work was done by the City without
a Hydraulic Project Approval, in violation of RCW 75 . 20 . 060 and
RCW 75 . 20 . 100 . WDFW intends to ensure that the stream reach at
the site be treated as fish-bearing, since fish have been
observed attempting to access this stream reach and available
habitat exists there . Any stream crossing work for this site
needs to fully address the issue of fish passage per WAC 220-110-
070 . It is clearly evident that the project design has failed to
consider this . At such a time as ( or possibly before ) a project
is undertaken involving the impassable culvert just downstream of
the site, WDFW will pursue correction of that fish passage
problem.
It would be irresponsible for WDFW to consider approving the
proposed culvert, particularly with its radical gradient and
proposed catch basin and birdcage at its outlet. There exist
serious problems for the proposed relocation of a portion of the
stream channel in context of constructing. a fish-passable stream
crossing, due to site topography. Again, WDFW recommends to the
lead SEPA agency that a suitable alternative for developing this
site be permitted which would not require relocating the creek,
due to the site constraints and high probability of significant
adverse impacts on the creek if it were relocated . (The City
could act responsibly by voluntarily restoring the damage to the
creek which was done by the ripraping last winter without WDFW
approval . ) The detail added to the design of the relocated
stream channel has only begun to address what I would recommend
WDFW require for approval . There are serious problems with what
is being proposed, though some of the design parameters are
desirable .
The issue of the stream and wetland buffering raises many
concerns . The buffers need to be a minimum 50 feet to maintain
the functions and values of the watercourses. An additional
building setback of 15 feet is needed to prevent damage during
construction and access for maintenance and fire protection.
Contrary to what was stated in the report about wetlands A and B
being isolated, these wetlands are hydrologically connected to
the creek, as WDFW observed during field investigations . Surface
flows were observed between the wetlands and stream system.
Mark Pywell
Page 3
July 23, 1997
Avoidance of wetland impacts can easily be attained for this site
and is the first option for mitigation sequencing. WDFW does not
see any justification for allowing the proposed wetland
encroachment; it is easily avoidable due to the location of the
wetlands on one end of the property. A replacement ratio of 2 : 1
for unavoidable wetland impacts is required by current WDFW
policy. Placement of the bioswale in the wetland buffer can also
be avoided .
Consideration of discharging stormwater through dispersion
trenches is recommended . WDFW believes that this site, due to
its close upstream proximity to significant flooding problems in
the drainage, warrants more restrictive stormwater release rates
to avoid exaccerbation of the flooding problems, especially if a
very dense development with a high percentage of impervious
surface such as is proposed is permitted.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment . If you have questions
or need additional information, please call me at ( 425) 392-9159 .
We appreciate your cooperation in our efforts to protect, perpet-
' uate, and manage the fish resources of the state of Washington.
Sincerely,
Larry Fisher
Area Habitat Biologist
Habitat Management Program
if
cc: WDFW, Muller
WDFW, Banyard
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
July 25, 1977
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
200 Mill Ave. S
Renton,WA 98055
Subject: Appeal regarding insufficient conditions to mitigate impacts of Williamsburg Condominiums
Reference: Comment letter from Department of Ecology, Stephen Stanley,July 24, 1997
Dear Hearing Examiner:
I am challenging the decision of the ERC,believing that insufficient Conditions are imposed to mitigate
impacts related to the project. Refer to the attached comment letter from the Department of Ecology.
I believe that there are unmitigated adverse impacts to the wetlands and stream in the area of this project.
The plans need to be changed to address these impacts.
The buffer and bioswale contained in the buffer along wetlands A and B are insufficient to protect the
value and function of those wetlands. The maintenance required in the buffer will significantly impact
buffer and wetland functions. The bioswale needs to come out of the wetland buffer. This avoids a
significant portion of wetland fill.
Fire and building maintenance access has been overlooked along the north side of the proposal. Any
maintenance of buildings or fire fighting that occurs behind the buildings along the bioswale will also
significantly impact buffer and wetland functions. It is necessary to include a minimum of a ten foot
setback from the bioswale for these functions and it needs to be outside the wetland buffer.
In order to maintain hydrology to wetland C,all roof runoff should be infiltrated into the soils of the site.
Project specifications for the stream relocation should include the provision of a clay layer in the stream
bed in order to prevent de-watering of the stream.
The culvert under the access road must be made passable by fish. The stream is being relocated and the
channel provided will provide a gentler slope. As a result,the culvert entrance is being raised several feet
above its present height. It is necessary to enlarge the culvert or insert a bigger half bottom culvert to
provide fish passage in the future. Other creative solutions like a mini fish ladder should also be
entertained
In closing,I believe that there are unmitigated adverse impacts to the wetlands and stream in the area of
this project. The ERC failed to impose sufficient conditions to mitigate their impacts. This project will
have an adverse effect on the quality of the environment.
Sincerely,] 1
Monica C. man LaFever
3915 Lincoln Ave.NE
Renton,WA 98056
DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT
CITY OF RENTON
CITY TREASURER
REG/RCPT : 02-18301 C:07-28-1997
CASHIER ID : J 08:51:00 A:07-28-1997
5007 APPEALS & WAIVERS $75.00
000.000.00.345.81.00.000003
TOTAL DUE $75.00
RECEIVED FROM:
MONICA LAFEVER
CHECK $75.00
TOTAL TENDERED $75.00
CHANGE DUE $0.00
DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT
• I f STATg
O�
▪ O
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.F. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206) 649-7000
July 24, 1997
Mark Pywell, Project Manager
Planning &Development
City of Renton
200 Mill Ave. South
Renton, WA. 98055
Dear Mr. Pywell: -
Re: Williamsburg Condominium Development
Thank-you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Williamsburg Condominium
Development site located west of Lincoln Avenue NE and south of NE 43rd Plan in the
City of Renton, Washington. Our concerns focus on the provision of wetland buffers of
adequate width,maintenance of existing wetland hydrology, maintenance of stream
hydrology and fish passage.
• The proposed buffer is 25 feet for Wetlands A and B and the proposed
mitigation wetland connecting these two wetlands. This 25 foot buffer will
include a bioswale. Because effective bioswales require clearing of vegetation
on a yearly basis, inclusion of the bioswale within the buffer will significantly
impact buffer and wetland functions,particularly the wildlife habitat function.
Additionally, a significant portion(565 square feet) of the total wetland fill
impact of 1,412 square feet will occur from the construction of the bioswale.
As an alternative, the project could construct bioswales along east side of the
condominiums (swale like area is already proposed, see cross section B-B' on
mitigation plan) which would collect runoff from paved areas at appropriate
elevations. Further, additional bioswale area outside of the wetland buffer can
be provided adjacent to either side of the emergency access road in the
northeast corner of the site which is located at a low point on the property.
The applicant could also consider the use of a wetpond in this area which may
satisfy the water quality treatment standards set forth by the City of Renton.
• Fire and building maintenance access does not appear to have been provided
along the north side of the northern most building complex adjacent to
• .
Mr. Max Pywell
July 24, 1997
Page 2
Wetlands A and B (see cross section A-A'). Most local zoning codes require
such access. This access should be provided outside of the wetland buffer.
• Surface and roof runoff will be directed into Wetlands A and B. Hydrological
studies of the site provided by the applicant demonstrate that a portion of the
site's surface hydrology infiltrates into its sandy soils and moves laterally
westwards toward Wetland C. In order to maintain hydrology to Wetland C,
the project should incorporate shallow infiltration wells or trenches which
directs roof runoff, and treated runoff from pavement, into the site's sandy
soils. Infiltration is also the most preferred form of storm water control and
water quality treatment.
• The stream will be relocated to the west. Because the site soils are sandy,the
project specifications for the stream relocation should include the provision of
a clay layer in the streambed in order to prevent de-watering of the stream.
• Culverts to the north of south of the proposed stream restoration are
impassable by fish. The City is requiring the developer to relocate the stream
both on the project site and on adjacent City property, in order to protect the
adjacent public road. The stream restoration design will make this stream
segment fish passable. Fish have been observed by the Department of Fish
and Wildlife, attempting to unsuccessfully pass the downstream culvert. To
spend so much time and money on relocating and restoring this stream reach
without installing a fish passable culvert is a mitigation effort wasted and an
restoration opportunity lost. Because so much anadromous fish habitat has
been lost within the Puget Sound, it is critical that restoration opportunities are
taken advantage of. Inexpensive fish ladder designs using "half-rounds" of
culverts, stepped down and bolted together have been successfully used for
stream drops of several feet.
If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact me at(206) 649-
4210.
Sincerely;
Stephen Stanley, Wetlands Specialist
Shorelands and Water Resources Program
cc: Ray Hellwig, Ecology
Erik Stockdale, Ecology
Monica LeFever
cf
2;mi11° II JUL 281997
State of Washington. oN
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLI' � } t eam NER
Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N•Olympia,WA 98501-1091 •(360)902-2200,TDD(360)902-2207
Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building• 1111 Washington Street SE•Olympia,WA
July 23, 1997 0
•
Mark R. Pywell
City of Renton
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055
SUBJECT: Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated -
Williamsburg Condominiums - LUA-96-164, ECF, SA, Gypsy
Subasin Drainage Creek, Tributary to Lake Washington,
King County, WRIA 08 .MISC
Dear Mr.. Pywell :
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has
reviewed the above-referenced document and submits the following
comments .
Since this proposal is essentially exactly the same as the
earlier proposal which was successfully appealed by a local
citizen to the City of Renton (City) Hearing Examiner, these
comments are in. addition to those sent in the February 21, 1997
WDFW comment letter .
WDFW notes that the Hearing Examiner stated unequivocally in his
May 15, 1997 memorandum that an environmental impact statement
(EIS ) is required for the project . WDFW must question why, when
the same project (with a bit more detail, without the analysis of
the " . . . focused EIS . . . " required by the Hearing Examiner ) has
been submitted, another Determination' of Non-Significance—
Mitigated (DNS-M) has been issued by the City Environmental
Review Committee (ERC) . It appears that the ERC has now
committed the same error already determined by the Hearing
Examiner in issuing the DNS-M. By copy of this letter, WDFW
requests that the City Hearing Examiner take further actions at
the Public Hearing to consider the site plan to ensure that the
wetlands, creek, and drainage issues raised at the earlier appeal
are addressed through the required EIS .
Mark Pywell
Page 2
July 23, 1997
The following WDFW comments pertain to the revised "WILLIAMSBURG
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION
RERPORT" (the report ) , which notes on page one that work was
recently done at the upstream end of the site blocking fish
passage . WDFW notes that this work was done by the City without
a Hydraulic Project Approval, in violation of RCW 75 . 20 . 060 and
RCW 75 . 20 . 100 . WDFW intends to ensure that the stream reach at
the site be treated as fish-bearing, since fish have been
observed attempting to access this stream reach and available
habitat exists there . Any stream crossing work for this site
needs to fully address the issue of fish passage per WAC 220-110 -
070 . It is clearly evident that the project design has failed to
consider this . At such a time as (or possibly before ) a project
is undertaken involving the impassable culvert just downstream of
the site, WDFW will pursue correction of that fish passage
problem.
It would be irresponsible for WDFW to consider approving the
proposed culvert, particularly with its radical gradient and
proposed catch basin and birdcage at its outlet . There exist
serious problems for the proposed relocation of a portion of the
stream channel in context of constructing a fish-passable stream
crossing, due to site topography. Again, WDFW recommends to the
lead SEPA agency that a suitable alternative for developing this •
site be permitted which would not require relocating the creek,
due to the site constraints and high probability of significant
adverse impacts on the creek if it were relocated . (The City
could act responsibly by voluntarily restoring the damage to the
creek which was done by the ripraping last winter without WDFW
approval . ) The detail added to the design of the relocated
stream channel has only begun to address what I would recommend
WDFW require for approval . There are serious problems with what
is being proposed, though some of the design parameters are
desirable .
The issue of the stream and wetland buffering raises many
concerns . The buffers need to be a minimum 50 feet to maintain
the functions and values of the watercourses . An additional
building setback of 15 feet is needed to prevent damage during
construction and access for maintenance and fire protection.
Contrary to what was stated in the report about wetlands A and B
being isolated, these wetlands are hydrologically connected to
the creek, as WDFW observed during field investigations . Surface
flows were observed between the wetlands and stream system.
Mark Pywell
Page 3
July 23, 1997
Avoidance of wetland impacts can easily be attained for this site
and is the first option for mitigation sequencing . WDFW does not
see any justification for allowing the proposed wetland
encroachment; it is easily avoidable due to the location of the
wetlands on one end of the property. A replacement ratio of 2 : 1
for unavoidable wetland impacts is required by current WDFW
policy. Placement of the bioswale in the wetland buffer can also
be avoided .
Consideration of discharging stormwater through dispersion
trenches is recommended . WDFW believes that this site, due to
its close upstream proximity to significant flooding problems in
the drainage, warrants more restrictive stormwater release rates
to avoid exaccerbation of the flooding problems, especially if a
very dense development with a high percentage of impervious
surface such as is proposed is permitted .
Thank you for the opportunity to comment . If you have questions
or need additional information, please call me at ( 425 ) 392-9159 .
We appreciate your cooperation in our efforts to protect, perpet-
uate, and manage the fish resources of the state of Washington .
Sincerely,
Lo !,4__
V
Larry Fisher
Area Habitat Biologist
Habitat Management Program
if
cc : WDFW, Muller
WDFW, Banyard
City of Renton Hearing Examiner