HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-06-172_Misc'
WE1LAND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
300 S. 160rn STREET
CEDAR. RIVER. COR.POR.ATE PARK
PARCEL#: 3340400285 & 3023059083
RENTO~, Vt"5HINGTON
PREP \RED FOR:
MURPHY ,'v\'CULLOUGH
TAR.R.A.GO"-! DEVELOPMENT N
y OF RENTO
OEVELO~';ENT SERVICEES 00\VISION JO(ll 1 :--JJ_ '--'"JL) .A. VENUE
~Ul l l. 3200
."'L\ I I LL, \Vi\ 98104
, ll )(, 2 l3-9600
PR.l::J'/\RED BY:
(] I .I > I t BOTHA
(206) 326-7775
wps(g)i.sp.com
.A.PRIL 16, 2007
APPROV '"" .
By -ff .LR '°'""Oe
oat 'f/a<a(C7 1
EXECUTIVE SUM1Y\AR Y
This report presents a mitigation plan for buffer impacts resulting from proposed
development of the 12.57-acre site. Parcels 3340400285 & 3023059083, is located
between Lind Avenue South and East Valley Road, south of SW 19th Street in Renton,
Washington. SW 21 51 Street is located to the north and SW 23rd Street to the south;
however, both of these street ROWs have been abandoned (Figure 1, Vicinity Map) ..
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is currently undeveloped. A fire station is located north of the northwest
property comer (Parcel #3340400425). a commercial development is located to the east
between the subject parcel and the East Valley Road; and a gas line is located on the
parcel to the south, within the abandoned SW 23rd Street ROW (Parcel # 3023059083).
The parcel is nearly rectangular, with a ··panhandle" at the northeast comer.
The site was filled prior to 1970 with from 7-to JO-feet of dense fill material. Scrubby
trees and shrubs have since become established on the site. The southeast comer and a
narrow band around the entire site are forested. The interior of the site is mostly scrubby;
tree species have generally not reached 20 feet or greater. Two mapped wetlands nearly
surround the site; a large wetland lies to the north and a smaller wetland wraps around the
east and south property boundary. These wetlands have been included m numerous
previous inventories, including the City of Renton's Rivers, Streams & Wetlands
inventory. An unnamed tributary ,Jf Springbrook Creek is located on the adjacent parcel
to the south, south of the abandoned SW 23'J Street ROW.
PROPOSED L\i\PACTS
No impacts are proposed to wetlands on the subject site. However, permanent impacts
will occur from construction of two bio-filtration swales within the buffers of Wetlands A
and B, as shown on the storm drain plans. In addition, temporary impacts will result from
the placement of an additional two to five feet of fill on the site. This will require some
clearing within the buffer because some of the fill material will spill onto the wetland
buffer along the south and east boundaries as well as north of the northern bio-filtration
swale. Finally, rain gardens will be constructed within the northern wetland buffer. All of
these areas are forested with deciduous trees averaging approximately 10 inch DBH.
Impacts are illustrated on Figure 2. next page. Area totals for each type of impact are also
shown below in Table l:
Table 1: Wetland Buffer Impacts
j Impact Type --Impact Area
-------
I
Permanent Impacts (Biofiltration Swales) 3.729 SF
I Temporary Buffer Impacts 11.358 SF
' , Rain Garden 12.307 SF
!
FINAL BUFFER MITIGATION PLA.N
The following mitigation plan is designed to mitigate for permanent impacts resulting
from the biofiltration swales and for temporary impacts due to clearing and placement of
additional fill material in wetland buffers. No mitigation is being required by the City of
Renton for construction of the rain gardens within the buffer.
PERMANENT IMPACTS
As described in the Conceptual Buffer Enhancement Plan prepared by WPS dated
December 21, 2006, to compensate for permanent impacts pursuant to the proposed bio-
filtration swales within the buffers, the applicant is proposing to plant 400 conifer
seedlings, i.e. 300 Douglas fir and I 00 western red cedar, within the 31,169 square feet of
onsite undisturbed buffer. The existing buffers are currently nearly devoid of coniferous
trees, so this proposal will result in a significant habitat improvement to the wetlands and
buffers. The seedlings will be distributed randomly throughout the undisturbed buffers.
Given the existing vegetation to remain, the density of trees that will be planted is
disproportionately great because attrition is expected due to the impracticability of
irrigation or other maintenance activities. No monitoring of the plantings is practicable
nor appropriate; it is anticipated that even if survivorship of as little as 30% of the total
trees planted occurs, these trees will ultimately compensate for the total 3,729 square feet
of permanent buffer impact area.
r· --:
I•·:. ,,
I
I I _'_ ','_ ;I I.) 1"-.0,---1: 1,,..., ~ ' ':. q-~-n-~ n ' ,-, -_______ ,, 11 i : ! , --_ ~,-,,~J.l..,,,,----~,.r--,..."-----
I
\.
' ' I ,_
I I -
I .
'· ;·
,'
'-,,,
I n·-, ',· ;.-_ -u
c;
=
---
l
. ,I
{I
-I' ,-1
'I
1, :,
:T
1,-
TE~POR.All Y IMPACTS
As noted above, temporary impacts will occur as a result of placement of additional fill
material spilling into the buffer. Because th is will bury the roots of existing trees and shrubs,
revegelation of these areas will be necessary.
CONSTR.UCTlON PLAN
The following measures will be implemented to enhance survivorship of newly planted
native species and to ensure that areas further down slope from the anticipated limits of
construction are not affected.
1. In order to ensure that the implementation activities occur as intended, a pre-
construction meeting will occur with the construction contractors and WPS prior to
initiation of all construction activities.
2. The limits of construction will be established and marked by surveyors.
3. The project biologist will verify the construction limits in the field.
4. Two parallel silt fences will be installed, one at the limit of buffer impacts shown on
the site plan and another 5 feet further down slope in the wetland buffer.
5. Following installation of the silt fences. the temporary impact areas will be cleared.
6. Grading of the bioswales and rain gardens will occur and the structural fill will be
applied within the temporary impact areas and mechanically compacted.
7. An 8-to 12-inch layer of topsoil will be placed on top of the structural fill and lightly
compacted prior to planting in temporary impact areas to enhance plant growth.
8. Planting will occur between the months of October and February per the attached
Wetland Buffer Mitigation Planting Plan prepared by AHBL.
9. Following planting, 3 to 4 inches of "Animal Friendly Hog Fuel" (wood chips)
obtained from Pacific Topsoils, or equivalent mulch will be applied throughout the
temporary impact area to protect plants from weeds and to maintain soil moisture.
Care will taken to keep the mulch three inches from the stems of the plants to protect
from insect and rodent damage.
10. Temporary drip irrigation capable of delivering at least I inch of water per week will
be installed.
11. Five monitoring plots (i.e. five areas planted according to the Typical Disturbed
Wetland Buffer Planting legend shown on the Wetland Buffer Mitigation Planting
Plan, attached) will be identified in the field with permanent markers and photographs
taken for comparison during monitoring events.
12. Permanent fencing will be installed and signs attached to fence posts at approximately
50-foot spacing along the buffer. Signs will be constructed of metal and state
"Sensitive Area: Please protect and care for this area. Alteration or Disturbance is
Prohibited by Law".
13. Mitigation measures will be implemented as needed to rectify any unauthorized
construction impacts.
14. The first silt fence will be removed after one year and then a year later, the other,
down slope silt fence, will be removed during the 3rd quarter maintenance visits.
PLANTING PLAN
Following clearing, native trees and shrubs will be planted according to the attached Wetland
Buffer Mitigation Planting Plan prepared by AHBL. Plant numbers, sizes and composition of
ground covers are shown in Table 2.
Plant spacing will be irregular and random per the planting plan. This will result in a total of
453 shrubs and 99 trees being planted within the temporary buffer impacts area. 704 hardy
ground covers will also be planted per the planting plan. In addition, 400 conifer tree
seedlings will be planted within the undisturbed buffer.
Table 2: Planting Schedule within Wetland Buffer Areas
"·•--•--r=~· ~--r·-··-----... ~-~---~.--S-••••-~••--·-·--·-Y
Temporary Impact Area
Common Name Botanical Name Number
Trees
Red alder A/nus rubra 15
Bitter cherry Prunus emarginata 41
Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menzeisii 20
Cascara Rhamnus pursh1ana 23
Shrubs
Vine maple Acer circ,natum 23
Tall Oregon grape Mahon/a aquifolium 68
Indian plum Oemleria cerasiformis 68
Red-flowering currant Ribes sanguineum 45
Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 68
Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa 68
Douglas spirea Spiraea douglasii 68
Snowberry Symphoncarpos a/bus 45
Ground Covers
Salal Gaultheria sha/lon 227
Low Oregon grape Mahonia nervosa 273
Swordfern Polystichum munitum 204
Permanent Impact Areas (within undisturbed buffer)
Trees
Douglas fir
Western red cedar
Pseudotsuga menzeisii
Thuja pilcata
PER.FOR.MANCE ST AN DAR.OS
300
100
Size
1 gal.
2 gal.
2 gal.
2 gal.
2 gal.
1 gal.
1 gal.
1 gal.
1 gal.
1 gal.
1 gal.
1 gal.
1 gal.
1 gal.
1 gal.
Seedlings
Seedlings
When evaluated against monitoring data, performance standards are used to determine the
relative success of the mitigation project. failure to meet these general minimum standards
throughout the monitoring period will result in implementation of contingency measures.
As noted above, because attrition is expected, planting density is exaggerated due to the
impracticability of irrigation or other maintenance activities within the undisturbed buffer
pursuant to mitigation for permanent bioswale impacts.
Performance standards for the temporary impacts buffer enhancement area are shown below
in Table 3. When evaluated against monitoring data, performance standards are used to
determine the relative success of the mitigation project. Failure to meet these general
minimum standards throughout the monitoring period will result in compulsory
implementation of contingency measures.
Table 3: Performance Standards
Criterion Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
----~~··-------------------~
Native plant cover(%) 10 -20 20 -30 30 -70
Native woody plant cover (%) (for forested or 10 -20 20 -30 40 -60
scrub-shrub areas)
Non-native, invasive plant cover(% )
Plant survivorship
Species diversity
SPECIES DIVERSITY
(see below)
(see below)
(see below)
70-90 100
60 -80 80 -85
The following minimum standards apply to species diversity of native plants, including both
planted and volunteer species, within the various strata:
• trees= 4 species, at least I of' which must be coniferous
• shrubs = 5 species
• ground cover= 2 species
PLANT SUR. VIVORSHIP
Plants are considered "dead" when more than 50% of the plant is decadent, with the
exception of cottonwood, willow and red osier dogwood, which will be considered live if any
part of the plant is living.
CONTROL OF NOXIOUS, INVASIVE /\"JD NATIVE SPECIES WITH A TENDENCY
TO OVER. WHELM
Noxious weeds (identified on state noxious weeds lists) including giant and Japanese
knotweeds (Polygonum sacha/inense, P. cuspidatum) must be entirely and properly
eliminated, and disposed of, from the site prior to installation, and throughout the monitoring
period.
Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae), Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), English ivy
(Hedera helix), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), and Himalayan and evergreen
blackberries (Rubus discolor, R. laciniatus), must be eliminated prior to planting and
thereafter strictly controlled and may not exceed 10% total cover per species (i.e., up to 10%
cover of each species may be allowed) throughout the monitoring period. (Note: exception
for reed canarygrass in areas with swTounding dense stands of reed canarygrass and dense
mats of English ivy and creeping buttercup. In such cases, the objective is to provide habitat
diversity with woody species by the end of the monitoring period; three foot diameter
planting holes will be cleared of all weeds prior to planting.
FENCES AND SIGNS
Fences and signs will be inspected during the maintenance visits and must be in good repair.
MONITOR.ING
No monitoring of the seedling tree plantings within the undisturbed buffer area is practicable
nor appropriate; it is anticipated that even if survivorship of as little as 30% of the total trees
planted occurs, these trees will ultimately compensate for the total 3,729 square feet of
permanent buffer impact area.
Within the temporary impact/mitigation area monitoring shall continue for a minimum period
of five years of successful monitoring. i.e. monitoring meeting the performance standards.
An as-built drawing showing five ( 5) randomly-selected areas planted according to the
"Typical Disturbed Wetland Buffer Planting·' (shown on the Planting Plan prepared by
AHBL) will be prepared within one month of completion of planting. Thereafter monitoring
will commence on the next quarter according to the schedule below. Monitoring will consist
of a direct plant count within these areas. Overview photos will be taken from the same
vantage points each year to document overall appearance of the mitigation area before,
during, and after construction, as well as of each of the sample plots. Photo points and
sample plots shall be marked with stakes to facilitate relocation from one monitoring event to
the next.
Specifically, the monitoring protocol will consist of the following:
• Evaluate plant cover and cover from undesirable species within the typical planting
areas;
• Evaluate survivorship through a direct plant count within typical planting areas;
• Visually assess and record wildlife use.
• Inspect all fences and signs
Maintenance, monitoring and reporting will occur per the following schedule:
Table 4: Maintenance & Monitoring Schedules
-----..
Year Maintenance Visits Monitorina Reaort due
1 Between January 1 and March 1 AND Between January 1 and March 1 AND March 30
Between April 1 and June 1 AND Between April 1 and June 1 AND June 30
Between July 1 and September 30 Between July 1 and September 30 October 30
Between October 15 and December 30 Between October 15 and December 30 January 31
2-5 Between April 1 and June 1 AND Between September 1 and October 15 December 30
Between July 1 and September 30
MAINTENANCE PLA"I
Over the monitoring period, a rigorous quarterly maintenance program will be implemented
as shown on Table 4 to eliminate undesirable plants and to protect shrubs and small trees
from competition from weeds, repair or replace any buffer signage, replace dead plants, etc.
Only organic fertilizers and chemicals will be used for maintenance purposes in the buffer.
Examples of these include: com gluten. Sluggo, Burnout Organic weed killer, Sharp Shooter
organic insect killer. Perfect Blend Organic Fertilizer, and Essential Biostimulant. Chemicals
will be applied by a licensed applicator. Fertilizer will be applied after the first year of
planting and each year thereafter in the fall.
CONTINGENCY PLAN
In order to provide for the contingency that perfonnance standards may not be met during the
five-year monitoring period, it may be necessary to provide supplemental plantings. Plant
attrition can be remedied by evaluating the cause, and replanting with the same or a more
appropriate and approved species. The landscaping contractor will guarantee 100 percent
survivorship for one year from initial planting for losses due to defects in materials or
workmanship. All plants that are used for replacement must meet the standards of the initial
plantings. The causes of any mortality will be evaluated, and based upon the results of this
evaluation, alternate species selection may occur. Replacement will be subject to the same
conditions and be made in the same manner as specified for the original planting.
,V\ITIGA TION SURETY
The City of Renton requires two surety devices: an installation device in the amount of 150%
of the contracted cost of installation. and a maintenance security device in the amount of
125% of the contracted cost for maintenance and monitoring. The contracts must clearly state
that structures, improvements and mitigation will perform satisfactorily for a minimum
period of five years. Signed contracts for these services and a maintenance security device
will be provided to the city prior to issuance of a fill and grade permit.
R_EPOR_T LIMITATIONS
Work for this project was performed, and this report prepared for, Tarragon Development, in
accordance with generally accepted professional practices. A Firm Qualifications Statement
for WPS is provided in Appendix l. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Al'PENDIX I:
FIR,rv\ QUALIFIC/\ rIONS ST A TErv\ENT
0
0 :-·,a
O C/~ ~·,;,,,., • .in,l .,g·,·;1•: ~·u<>T<.1·,c, w"r~ )>,<,.r,r;,HI•.,, ;_, ,I 'LIL •;1g -1)!,-( n:•Hl",,.,,,, •.IEt 0
L.rc~-J~ vr·J[sc·~:~i· ;r~•-1,1,,, pv..,·'<'! -,,,,t ?('-•~ i1.J,.eei 0
!".,,~-,-.,,,,, ,;n'.-,.n,rr'. -"•'''" d.ot•h{ ._,,,,,.1,·.h.l,.,:,, 0
1·~,.-rr· .. , .• , .. :<:.,_. ,.,,,' :""'"ll·,i: ,-,.,1,,l,t,.,,,,.,,J;' 0
•;v,-.r·.,n,J L1,;·,:-"r"r:"., 0
0 ''; .,;., '•'"••>'l~, .fc'f•''~;( !-'' ,'fH'',a[sc,,,
0 ]:,: ·!-'~-,, .. ,iee· ~'~-' ca«l .,:,__,,,,,._.r,,_··r,j{ V/'fTI A:-:·: ·:,·:-r)\/"T--·,Nc ~1FJB;~/rCFS
STATIEMIENT or QUALIJFICATIIONS
Wetland Permitting Services (WPS) is a firm that specializes in wetlands consulting and permitting
assistance. The finn was established by Celeste Botha as CBWE in February 1992. It has been awarded
Women Business Enterprise (WBE) certification in Washington State. In addition to wetlands studies, WPS
provides habitat and small streams consulting services. A description ofWPS's experience is outlined in the
following sections.
Wetlands Botha has been a full-time consultant since 1988, with major work emphasis on
wetlands ecology, identification, inventory, delineation, assessments, mitigation
and permitting. She has conducted well over 1,000 wetland delineations and
assessments, primarilv in Washington, but also in Oregon, California, Alaska and
New York, and has written at least 300 technical reports describing investigation
results. She is a US Army Corps of Engineers Certified Wetland Delineator. Ms.
Botha co-taught the Wetland Identification and Delineation course for the Wetland
Certification Program at the University of Washington for three years, from 1997
through 1999. Ms. Botha was Secretary of the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the
Society of Wetland Scientists. the nation's largest chapter, for three years from
1994 through 1996. Ms. Botha was on the Board of Directors of the Society for
Ecological Restoration Northwest from May 2004 through May 2006. Her
knowledge of wetlands parameters is detailed below.
Permitting
Assistance
Wetland
Delineation
Since I 988, assisted public and private clients to meet local,
state and federal wetlands, streams, and shorelands requirements
to develop properties. These have included SEPA
Determinations of Non-Significance (DNS) and Environmental
Impact Statements (EIS), NEPA (EIS), Section 404 general
authorizations and individual permits and Section 401 Water
Quality Ce1iifications, Shorelines Management Act (SMA)
pennits, Hydraulic Permit Approvals (HPA), King County
Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO), Pierce and Snohomish
County ordinance compliance, as weJI as numerous other state,
county and city wetlands and stream ordinances.
Delineated wetlands and prepared technical reports on hundreds
of acres in Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, and New
York. including many disturbed, atypical and problem area
evaluations.
:,-c.,~· uun Si.r"c<et
'.·•l_.,d 11-,·-'<J-'i\. y'h,-14
Vegetation
Soils
Hydrology
Peer Review
Environmental
Inspections
Functional
Assessments
Ecological
Restoration
Mitigation
Monitoring
Project
Management
GPS Training
Bachelor of Science in Botany from University of Washington, 1974.
Common and scientific names of over 300 plant species.
Academic and practical soils training, at Oregon State University and
while employed with the USDA Soil Conservation Service. Hydric
Soils Identification training. Twelve years experience with hydric
soils identification.
Established and conducted several water-table fluctuation studies,
including a 2-year study on 160 acres of sugar cane in the Everglades
Agricultural Area, Florida; a project monitoring 12 strategically-placed
wells on sites in Renton, Kent and Auburn for l O months; and a site in
Redmond with 8 wells for 3 months. Devised protocol for monitoring
and evaluated 2 years of well data for a site in Auburn.
Provided permit review assistance for compliance with sensitive area
regulations to Pierce County Planning and Land Services and King
County, Department of Development and Environmental Services; the
City of Newcastle; the City of Sammamish; the City of Duvall; and the
City of Federal Way, Washington.
Provided environmental inspection services during construction of a
$7.2 million transmission line upgrade in King County, to ensure
compliance with all permit requirements including Best Management
Practices and King County Surface Water Design Manual guidelines,
particularly during construction in wetlands; inspected construction of
roads projects for King County for compliance with clearing and
grading permit conditions.
Certified by CSFWS in Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) in
Anchorage in 1991; trained by Bob Hruby (principal author) in the
2004 Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system
February 2005.
Four years in the nursery and landscaping industry, Peace Corps
volunteer teaching agriculture, soil conservationist, and currently
wetlands consultant --these career elements have created a unique and
synergistic perspective on ecological restoration. As a wetlands
consultant. Ms. Botha has worked with landscape designers to develop
detailed mitigation plans for several major and many smaller projects
and has created several small mitigation plans in-house.
Monitored projects for compliance with performance standards,
including Clark Lake Buffer Enhancement project; numerous WSDOT
projects, dozens of projects for Pierce County, Washington, Mohawk
Plastics project. and Talbot-Berryda]e Transmission Line.
Project manager for wetlands component on more than 75 projects
involving management and direction of associates, including most of
those described in this qualifications statement. Fifteen years
professional-level work directing support personnel.
Certificated by Corvallis Microtechnology (CMT), May 2001.
Retrained November 2004 and utilized GPS on Midland Wetland
Inventory for Pierce County, WA.
REPRESENT A T!VE LOCAL PROJECTS
REGULA TORY PEER REVIEW
Regulatory Review, Cities of Kent, Duvall, l\ewcastle, Covington and Sammamish,
Washington. On-call peer review and permit assistance. Provided the City of Newcastle with peer
review and permit assistance as their on-call wetland specialist on all development proposals with
wetlands and/or streams issues since incorporation in 1995 and the City of Duvall since 1997.
Environmental Biologist, Pierce County, Washington. Acted as a staff biologist on a part-time,
temporary basis for Pierce County Planning & Land Services, March through May 2000,
September 2001 through January 2003, and July through September 2003.
King County Senior Ecologist; King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services; King County, Washington. As a Senior Ecologist on temporary contract from May
1994 through December 1995, responsible for wetlands regulatory review of Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) highway projects within the county, and King County
Public Works Roads projects. Verification of wetland delineations and impacts assessments,
participation in public hearings, coordination with WSDOT on permit review, assistance with
streams permitting issues, review and significant input to mitigation proposals, and permit
conditioning. King County Public Works projects included: Issaquah-Hobart Road at Tiger
Mountain Road, 68th Street, 241st Ave SE. Juanita/Woodinville Road, 140th to 148th, Avondale
Road Phase 2, 128th to 132nd Avenue NE, SE 208th Street, SE 240th Street, 272nd/277th Street.
WSDOT projects included: SR 169; SR I 8, 312th to 304th; SR 18, 304th to Hwy 516; SR 18, Hwy
516 to Hwy 169; SR 18, Green River to 312th: SR 18, Issaquah Hoban Road; SR 203 at 77th; SR
2 at Deception Pass; SR 900 at May Valley Road; SR 516 Mitigation; SR 405 at 160th; SR 520 at
Avondale Road.
WETLAND DELINEATION, MITIGATION PLANNING AND TECHNICAL
REPORTING; VARIOUS CLIENTS, WASHING TON ST ATE.
Delineated wetlands, prepared mitigation plans and prepared technical reports on hundreds of acres
in Washington, too numerous to list. Some examples are:
Cedar River Corporate Park, Renton, Washington. Delineated wetlands and prepared
conceptual mitigation plan on 12.57 acre site.
Wetland Inventory; Midland area of Pierce County. Evaluated 372 parcels and delineated
wetlands using GPS for inclusion on the County's GIS inventory. Entered data on each parcel into
the County's permitting database.
Whidbey Naval Air Station, Department of Defense, Whidbey Island, Washington. Base-
wide wetland delineations of complex, disturbed site.
Ross Island Sand and Gravel, Klickitat County, Eastern Washington. Delineated and
prepared technical report on an approximately 3 50-acre proposed gravel extraction site.
Mohawk Plastics Wetlands Studies & Permitting Assistance; Auburn, Washington.
Conducted detailed wetlands investigation on 7.5-acre site with relict hydric soils to delineate
wetlands. Coordinated with the city of Auburn and the Corps of Engineers to obtain a Section 404
individual permit to fill 0.3 acres of jurisdictionally adjacent wetlands. Performed an impact and
functional value analysis, and developed a mitigation plan to compensate for wetlands impacts.
. '
Mitigation constructed in March 2002. Completed Years I, II and Ill monitoring and prepared
monitoring reports.
PUGET SOUND ENERGY (LINEAR) PROJECTS
Snohomish 8-inch Gas Line Upgrade, Snohomish County 2003 -2004: Delineated wetlands
along 3-mile long, 150-foot wide corridor: coordinating with surveyors to map wetlands. Prepared
report for perm it submittal.
Bothell to Sammamish Transmission Linc Upgrade, Snohomish and King Counties,
numerous cities -ongoing: Delineated wetlands along a l 3+mile long, I 00-foot wide power
corridor; coordinating with surveyors to map wetlands. Assisted with permitting; provided
environmental compliance services during constrnction.
Talbot-Berrydale Transmission Line Upgrade, King County, Washington, 1996 -2003
EIS Wetlands Studies: Managed wetlands and wildlife studies along a 7.5 mile long, l 00-foot wide
transmission line right-of-way. Delineation, classification, evaluation of all wetlands along the route,
impact assessment of installation of new towers and lines, as well as removal of old poles and lines.
Preparation of detailed wetlands report and EIS text. Supervised staff biologists and administered
contractual issues. Coordinated with King County and Puget Power. Developed conceptual mitigation
plan for project impacts. Monitored mitigation.
Reports and Permitting Assistance: Developed final reports addressing vegetative screening for
aesthetic impacts; loss of forested wetland habitat: temporary access wetland and stream impacts and
mitigation from construction; and final wetland mitigation planning. Obtained King County grading
,permit, Corps Nationwide authorization, HPA and 401 Certifications.
Environmental Compliance: On-site inspections with oversight authority to enforce decisions related
to environmental compliance throughout construction of the project involving installation of 56 huge
steel monopole structures, 7 of which were placed within wetlands.
Mitigation Monitoring: Monitored areas for natural regeneration and, in areas replanted as mitigation,
monitored for compliance for 3 years.
Wetland Delineation, Permit Assistance, Mitigation Planning; Smaller Projects, Puget Sound Energy,
Washington. Delineated wetlands within Yakima River floodplain for Kittitas Natural Gas Pipeline,
Pickering Transmission Line, Blake Island Cable Replacement, Marysville 8" High Pressure pipeline,
Mount Si Substation, Sahalee 12" STW HP supply main, SR 525/Classic Road transmission line, White
River Substation, Union Hill Substation. Delineated wetlands, prepared technical report, assisted with
permit assistance and developed mitigation plans since 1992.
PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON STATE
Wetlands Specialist, Wetlands Study, Yukon Gold Ice Pad (LGL Alaska Research
Associates); Staines River Area, North Slope, Alaska. Conducted wetlands determination and
qualitative assessment of tundra surrounding an oil exploration and drilling ice platform, and wrote
technical report describing findings.
Wetland Delineation; Empire Pipeline, Upstate New York (Woodward-Clyde Consultants).
Delineated wetlands within 200-feet along the pipeline ROW.
Wetlands Studies, Main Bay Fish Hatchery Expansion, Main Bay, Alaska. Performed wetland
delineations and habitat characterizations, and prepared technical report for a proposed fish
hatchery expansion.
April 17, 2007
Bond Quantity Worksheet for Sensitive Area Mitigations
Proiect Name: Cedar River Corgorate Park Date: 4/16/2007
Project Number: Site development permit 060172
Location: 2000 block of Lind Avenue, Renton
Contact Name: Celeste Botha Address: Wetland Permitting Services, 202~t>J_orman St., Seattle, WA~98144
Aep_licant Name: Murphy McCulloug~ Address: Tarragon -Cedar River Corporate Park LLC, 1000 2nd Ave, #3200, Seattle, 98104
PLANT MATERIALS·
Plant Material prices include labor, installation, contractors' markup and sales tax, but don't. include delivery and are based on the King
County Bond Quantity Worksheet (some prices have been updated).
Scientific Name Common Name *Seedling Qty Unit Price Qty Unit Qty Unit Qty Total Cost
Unit Price 1 Qalion Price 2 Price 5
TREES
Abies grandis grand fir
Acer macrophylfum big leaf maole $ 13.54 $ -
A/nus rubra Red alder $ 13.22 15 $ 198.30
Arbutus menziesii Pacific madrone $ 14.50 $ -
Betufa papyrifera paper birch s 13.22 $
Fraxinus fatifo//a Oregon ash $ 13.22 $ 23.51 s -
Picca sitchensis Sitka spruce $ 13.54 S 24.15 $ -
Pin us contorta S~ore pine $ 13.54 $ 24.15 s -
f-----.--
Pinus montico/a Weste;n white oine IS 13.54 S 24.15 s -
f-------~
$ 24.15 $ Po put us tremuloide_s quaking aspen -
Popu/us trichocarpa black cottonwood $ 13.54 $ 23.51 $ -
Prunus virginfana bitter cherry $ 13.54 $ 23.51 41 s 963.91
Pseudotsuga menzicsii Douglas fir s 3.00 300 $ 13 54 $ 23.51 20 $ 15.36 $ 1,370.20
Taxus brevj{o/ia Pacific yew $ -
Thuja plicata western red cedar $ 3.00 100 $ 13.54 $ 23.51 $ 15.36 $ 300.00
Tsuga heterophylla western hemlock $ 13.54 S 23.82 $ 15.36 $ -
Camus nutalli western dogwood $ 20.00 s -
$ -
TOTAL TREES: $ 2,832.41
Most plant prices are from King County Bond Quantity Workshee~ · based on Washington Association of Conservation Districts@ 0.60 ea -t
Ced;,r River BQW 041607 (4).x!s Sensitive Areas Bond Quantity Worksheet
SHRUBS
/1.cer circinatum vine maple $ 13.54 $ 23.51 23 $ 540.73
Amelanchier alnifolia servicebeny $ 13.54 S 23.82 $ -
Berberis aquifofium tall Oregon grape $ 13.54 68 S 24.15 $ 920.72
Berberis nervosa short Oregon grape $ 13.86 273 $ 3,783.78
Camus stolonifera red-osier dogwood $ 13.22 $ 23.51 $ -
Cory/us cornuta hazelnut $ 13.54 $ 23.51 $ -
Crataegus doug/asii black hawthorn $ 13.22 $ 23.51 $ -
Gauftheria shal/on salal $ 1.89 $ 13.86 227 $ 3,146.22
Holodiscus discolor ocean spray $ 13.54 $ 23.51 $ -
Lonicera invo!ucrata black twinberry $ 13.54 $ 22.87 $ -
Myrica gale sweetga!e $ -
Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum $ 13.54 68 $ 23.51 $ 920.72
Op/opanax horridus Devil's club $ 13.86 $ 24.15 $ -
Phi/ade/phus /ewisii mock orange $ 13.54 $ 22.87 $ -
Physocarpus capita/us Pacific ninebark $ 13.22 $ 23.51 $ -
Prunus virginiana choke cherry $ -
Pyrus fusca western crabapple $ 13.22 $ 23.51 $ -
Rhamnus purshiana cascara $ 13.22 $ 23.51 23 $ 540.73
Rhododendron macrophyl!um Pacific rhododendron $ 14.19 $ -
Ribes bracteosum stink currant $ 13.22 $ -
Ribes Jacustre prickly currant $ 13.86 $ -
Ribes sanguine um red-flowering currant $ 13.86 45 $ 623.70
Ro,.,-a gymnocarpa VVood rose , ·s---13.54 $ 24 15 I$ -
Rosa nutkano Nootka rose $ 13.54 68 $ 23 51 1s 920 12 ~~---
Rosa pisocarpa clustered rose $ 13 54 $ 22.87 1$ -
Rubus /cucodcrmis black rasnbcrry I $ -
Rubus parv1fiorus lhimbleberry $
·--------
13.54 $ . ---Rubus spectabilis salmon berry $ 13.22 $ 23.51 $ -
Salix geyeriana Geyer willow $ 13.22 $ 22.87 $ -
Salix hookeriana Hooker's willow $ 12.91 $ 22.87 $
Salix /asiandra Pacific willow $ 2.00 $ 13.22 $ 22.87 $ -
Salix scouleriana Scouler willow $ 2.00 $ -
Salix sitchensis Sitka willow $ 13.22 $ 22.87 $ -
Sambucus racemosa red elderberry $ , 13.54 68 $ 23.51 $ 920.72
Spiraea douglassii Douglas spirea $ 13.54 68
Sorbus sitchensis Cascade mountain ash $ -
Symphoricarpos a/bus snowberrv $ 13.22 45 $ 23.51 $ 594.90
Vaccinium ovatum evergreen huckleberry $ 13.86 $ -
Vaccinium parvifolium red huckleberrv $ 2.91 $ 15.47 $ -
TOTAL SHRUBS: $ 12,912.94
Cedar River BQW 041607 {4).xls Sensitive Areas Bond Quantity Worksheet
GROUND COVERS
Alhyrium @x-temina lady fern $ 13.86 I $ -
B/echnum spicant deer fern $ 13.86 $ -
Oryopteris expansa shield fern $ 13.54 .$ -
Po/ysticf1um munitum western sword fern $ 13.86 204 $ 2,827.44
Arctostaphy/os uva-ursi Kinnikinnick s 2.27 $ -
Geum macrophyl/um Big-leaf avens $ 2.27 $ -
Lupinus po/yphyl/us Bia-leaf lupine $ -
Lysichiton americanum Skunk cabbage $ 13.36 $ -
Maianthemum difatatum Wild lily of the valley $ 2.27 $ -
Myosolis laxa Small forget-me-not $ -
Oenanthe sarmentosa Water parsley $ 12.58 $ -
Osmorhiza chiloensis Sweet cicely $ -
Oxalis oregana Wood-sorrel $ 2.27 $ -
Petasites frigidus Coltsfoot $ 13.22 $ -
Pofygonum persicaria Lady's thumb $ -
Potentil/a fruticosa Bush potentilla $ -
Smilacina stellata Solomon's Star $ 2.27 $ -
stachys coo/eyae Great betony $ -
Tellima grandif/ora Fringecup $ -
Tiarelfa trifoiiata Foamflower $ -
T o/miea menzie5ii Piagy-back plant $ 2.27 $ -
Viola glabe/la Stream violet $ 2.27 $ -
TOTAL GROUNDCOVERS: $ 2,827.44
···----:c.
DESIGN AND PLANNING COSTS·
Conceµlual report preµarati (project dependent)
!.Final recori preµaratlon (prowct dependent) i
Planting pl2.n (projecl dependent) I ·-
Peer review (project dependent) i
TOTAL DESIGN & PLANNING: I $ -
INSTALLATION COSTS I LABOR, EQUIPMENT OVERHEAD & PROFIT\:
Type Unit Price Unit
Mobilization $ 1,000.00
Compost, vegetable, delivered and spread $ 37.88 CY 140 $ 5,303.20
Decornpacting till/hardpan, medium, to 6" depth $ 1.57 CY $ -
Decompacting till/hardpan. medium. to 12" depth $ 1.57 CY s -
Fertilize, slow release tablets, 30gm/tree $ 3.21 Each s -
Hydroseeding $ 0.51 SY s -
Labor, general (landscaping) $ 25.00 HR (Planting labor costs inc!uC:ed above. See note pg 1)
Labor, general (construction) s 37.00 HR $ -
Labor: Consultant, ~upervising s 75.00 HR 16 $ 1,200.00
labor: Consultant. on-site re-design s 95.00 HR $ -
PLANTS: Potted, 4" diameter. medium $ 0.68 Each $ -
PLANTS: Container, 1 gallon, medium soil $ 10.02 Each $ -
Cedar River BQW 041607 (4).xls Sensitive Areas Bond Quantity Worksheet
PLANTS: Container, 2 gallon, medium soil $ 16.47 Each $ -
PLANTS: Container, 5 gallon, medium soil $ 29.38 Each $ -
PLANTS·. Seeding, by hand $ 0.44 SY $ -
PLANTS: Slips (willow, red-osier) $ 1.32 Each s -
PLANTS: Stakes (willow) $ 0.96 Each $ -
Rental of decompacting machinery & operator $ 70.65 Hour $ -
Sand, coarse builder's, delivered and spread $ 42.06 CY $ -
Staking material (set per tree) $ 7.00 Each $
Surveying, line & grade $ 605.44 DAY $ -
surveying, lot location & lines $ 1,353.60 ACRE $ -
Surveying, topographical $ 2,160.00 ACRE $ -
Clearing $ 25.00 HR s -
Herbicide application $ 25.00 HR $ -
Tiiring topsoil, disk harrow, 20hp tractor, 4"-6" deep $ 0.25 SY $ -
Fencing, chain link, 6' high $ 18.89 LF $ -
Fencing, chain link, corner posts $ 111.17 Each $ -
fencing, chain link, gate $ 277,63 Each $ -
Fencing, split rail, 3' high (2-rail) $ 10.54 LF 10881 $ 11,467.52
Fencing, temporary (NGPE) $ 1.20 LF . $ -
Signs, sensitive area boundary $ 2.50 Each 22 $ 55.00
Excavation and grading $ 1,000.00
TOTAL INSTALLATION COSTS: $ 20,025.72
--
EROSION CONTRQL
ITEMS Unit Cost Unit Quantity
Backfill anJ Cornpaction-ernbc:inkment $ 4.89 CY 5048 $ 24.684.72
Cru~twd surtacing, 1 1/4" minus $ 74.30 CY $ -
~----
U1tc.h\ng $ 7.03 CY I $ -
Excavation, bulk $ 1.30 CY $
Fence, silt $ 1.20 LF 3042 $ 3,650.40
Jute Mesh $ 1.26 SY $ -
Mulch, by hand, straw, 2" deep $ 1.27 SY $ -
Mulch, by hand, wood chips, 2" deep $ 3.25 SY $ -
Mulch, by machine, straw, 1" deep $ 0.32 SY $ -
Piping, temporary, CPP, 6" $ 9.30 LF $ -
Piping, temporary, CPP, 8" $ 14.00 LF $ -
Piping, temporary, CPP, 12" $ 18.00 LF $ -
Plastic covering, 6mm thick, sandbagged $ 2.00 SY $ -
Rip Rap, machine placed, slopes $ 33_98 CY $ -
Rock Constr_ Entrance 1OO'x15'x1' $ 2,546.68 Each $ -
Rock Constr. Entrance 50'x15'x1' $ 1,273.34 Each $ -
Sediment pond riser assembly $ 1,695.11 Each $ -
Sediment trap, 5' high berm $ 15.57 LF $ -
Cedar River BQW 041607 {4).xls Sensitive Areas Bond Quantity Worksheet
. I
Sediment trap, 5' high berm w/spillway incl. nprap $ 59.60 LF $ -
Sodding, 1" deep, level ground $ 5.24 SY $ -
Sodding, 1" deep, sloped ground $ 6.48 SY $ -
Straw bales, place and remove $ 432.00 TON $ -
Topsoil. delivered and spread $ 35.73 CY $
TOTAL EROSION CONTROL: $ 28,335.12
---·
OTHER COSTS THROUGHOUT MONITORING PERIOD
Type Unit Qty Rate No. of Yrs
City inspection, annual HR 6 $ 120.00 5 $ 3,600.00
City inspection, final HR 3 $ 120.00 1 $ 360.00
5-year Monitoring (per attached WPS contract)
Watering, 1" of water, 50' soaker hose MSF 3.62 $ -
Irrigation -temporary Acre $2,000.00 0.32 acre $ 640.00
Irrigation -buried Acre $4,500.00 $ .
TOTAL OTHER MONITORING PERIOD: $ 4,600.00
SUBTOTAL (SUM ALL PAGES): $ 71 533.63
30% CONTINGENCY & MOBILIZATION: $ 21,460.09
TOTAL: $ 92,993.72
Cedar River BQ 1,V 041607 {4).xls Sensitive Areas Bond Quantity Worksheet