The URL can be used to link to this page

LUTC PKT 03-16-1998 City of Federal Way City Council Land Userrransportation Committee COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE March 16, 1998 S:30 pm City Hall Council Chambers REVISED AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minute limit) 4. COMMISSION COMMENT S. BUSINESS ITEMS A. City Website Update B. Regional Needs Assessment Cost Sharing in the Green! Duwamish Watershed C. CTR Implementation D. S340th Street RSF 30% Design Report E. 1998 RFB for Vacuum/Jet Rodding Services F. Comprehensive Plan Change Request Jim Hamilton G. Comprehensive Plan Change Request Weyerhaeuser H. Comprehensive Plan Change Request America First Mortgage I. Sensitive Areas Code Amendment 6. ADJOURN Info Sadri/S min ActionlInfo Pratt/IS min Action Perez/lO min Action Pratt/S min Action Pratt/S min Action McClung/5 min Action McClung/lO min Action Clark/5 min Action Largen, McClung/90 min Committee Members: Phil Watkins, Chair Jeanne Burbidge Mary Gates City Staff: Greg Moore, Director, Community Development Services Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant 253.661.4116 City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee COMMITTEE OF TH:EWHOLE March 2, 1998 5:30pm .. CitYI:Ia11 Council Chambers SUMMARY In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Mary Gates and Jeanne Burbidge; Deputy Mayor Michael Park; Council Member Jack Dovey; Director of Community Development Services Greg Moore; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Street Systems Manager Ken Miller; Surface Water Manager Jeff Pratt; SWM Project Engineer Marwan Salloum; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle; Contracted Planning Consultants Don Largen and Diane Sheldon. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:35pm by Chairman Phil Watkins. 2. APPROV AL OF MINUTES The minutes of the February 2,1998, meeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Elaine Mansoor of SeaTac Mall commented about the unsafe condition created by the removal of the protected left turn lane at South 320th and 20th Avenue South in front of the SeaTac Mall. Donald Barovic spoke about his inability to use his property in the southern part of Federal Way due to lack of a sewer hookup. 4. COMMISSION COMMENT There was no additional comment from any of the City Commissions. 5. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Marta Foldi. Montessori School Si~ - Spring Valley Montessori School has a free-standing informational sign for the sole purpose of communication/reminders to parents dropping children off and picking them up. Even though the sign is technically in violation of the Sign Code, it is located 30 yards within the school grounds and is seen only by those on the school's property. The school proposed that the City amend its Sign Code to permit free-standing informational signs under conditions where they do not violate the spirit of the Sign Code to benefit Spring Valley and other organizations needing to convey information. The Committee mls/c addition of discussion of this item to a future meeting agenda. B. SeaTac Mall. Phase II Storm Drainal:e 85 % Desil:n - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to delay until 1999 the Phase II improvements of the SeaTac Mall Storm Drainage project. The reasons for the delay include additional costs of relocating a pipe, removal and disposal of contaminated soil within the existing retention/detention pond, and removal of subsurface soil and water on the east side of the mall at the location of a prior gas/service station. Additionally, staff has not yet been able to obtain the cooperation of the property owners to the north of South 320th Street and this portion of the project is not fully evaluated. C. Briefif\l: on City Center Street Desil:n Guidelines - The Committee for Downtown Revitalization continues to meet to discuss preparation of design standards for use in the City Center Core and Frame. These standards will be used to develop appropriate design themes for the City Center area regarding streetscapes and gateway treatments, street furniture, landscaping and illumination. Downtown changes my promote further code amendments. Efforts are expected to be completed in April 1998 with presentation to the Land Use/Transportation Committee on April 6, 1998, and to the City Council on April 21, 1998. D. 1998 Asphalt Overlay Prol:ram - Staff presented the preliminary Project List for the 1998 Asphalt Overlay Program. The total available budget is $2,298,423.00. Costs will be refined once the design of each schedule is completed The Committee mI s/ c recommendation of approval to Council at the March 17, 1998, meeting of the list of proposed streets for the 1998 Asphalt Overlay Program. E. Rezone R~est for NW Comer at First Avenue South and South 312th Street - The Committee denied a zone change request for the NW Comer of First Avenue South and South 312th Street to change the zoning from RS 7200 to RS5000. The Committee's recommendation was that the applicant go through Process V in order to better address the adjoining homeowner's concern. Bob Roper and Bill Murphy spoke against approving increased density for the property on the basis of increased runoff and increasingly high seasonal water levels in Mirror Lake. F. Sensitive Areas Code Amendment - Staff reported on recent work completed to amend the exisiting Environmentally Sensitive Areas code as provided for in the Growth Management Act. A tiered system of protecting wetlands by establishing buffers determined by the size of the wetland initiated comment from both Council and the public. Letters were received by the Committee and further letters and comment were invited. Bruce Harpham urged caution in making changes due to the impact on future generation, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. Susan Burgermeister wished to see stronger regulations and an upgrading of the classes of wetlands. Adele Freeland offered that it appears that small wetlands are valued less than larger ones. Jody Putman, Federal Way School District,stated that the proposed buffers are too large and will restrict future school district development. Mark Freeland thought the proposed ordinance offered a balanced approach but expressed concern that smaller wetlands were exempted from review. Paul Noyes was not pleased with government nationalizing private property for the common good. Ruth Enticknapp favored increased buffers in order to restore a ruined fish habitat. Len Schadt favored buffers that fit a site and are more flexible that those that apply to all cases. Marguerite Condon said that we do not appreciate wetlands enough. Elaine Mansoor spoke to the wetlands ordinance and stated that stormwater facilities should not be defined as wetlands. Bill Shields appreciated a new better ordinance but thought it to be the most restrictive of any sensitive area ordinance in all of twenty local municipalities. Dave Kaplan added that the City incorporated in order to have a better Federal Way, not to do what other places do. Peter Townsend thought the proposed ordinance was overkill and required more review. Jim Hamilton represented the Chamber's perspective that the proposed ordinance communicates to property owners what the requirements are and they can develop their property according to the requirements. Bob Scholes would support the proposed ordinance if this were a pristine forest we were trying to preserve and not a City. A proposed 200 foot buffer will keep people from owning single family homes. The Committee discussed the ordinance briefly and decided there was too much information and too much testimony to arrive at any conclusion. The Committee requested a comprehensive inventory of wetlands. They considered the impact the February 26, 1998, Endangered Species Act would have on Federal Way and decided that whatever decision was reached would be in harmony with it. Discussion and action was continued to the March 16, 1998, meeting. 6. FUTURE MEETINGS The next meeting will be held on March 16, 1998. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) code amendment discussion was continued. 7. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:50pm. I: \LU- TRANS\MAR2LUT.SUM - CITY OF - . --- El:J~ ~~~ Date: March 11, 1998 To: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use and Transportation comA:.~\r Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Manage~ King County Regional Needs Assessment - Proposed Green/Duwamish Watershed Forum Interlocal Agreement From: Subject: Back2round: The Regional Needs Assessment (RNA) was initiated in 1994. Its purpose was to define the needs, priorities, and responsibilities for surface water management (SWM) within the boundaries of King County. It has been a collaborative, inteIjurisdictional effort involving SWM staff from jurisdictions throughout King County, the Suburban Cities Association, the Regional Water Quality Council, the King Conservation District, elected officials, tribal governments, and many other stakeholders. The RNA examined the issues of surface water management relative to the following four issues: drainage and conveyance, major river flooding, water quality, and fish habitat. Consensus was reached on those issues that should be considered "local" in nature and those issues which transcend jurisdictional boundaries and should therefore considered "regional" in nature. Basically, the RNA participants felt that local drainage and conveyance issues would be best addressed on a local level, while it was felt that issues involving water quality, major river flooding, and fish habitat must somehow be addressed in a more global or regional context. To effectively address the larger regional issues of water quality, major river flooding, and fish habitat, RNA participants agreed that King County be divided into six watersheds. Forums for each watershed were convened consisting of elected officials and others - representing all of the disparate interests of the watershed. As the watersheds were delineated by King County, the City of Federal Way fell within two: the direct Puget Sound drainages, and the GreenlDuwamish drainages. The recommendation presented for your consideration within this memo applies only to the GreenlDuwamish drainages. An express mission of the GreenlDuwamish forum is to empower the community at large to take a strong role in managing the watershed. The forum attempts to accomplish this by setting goals and strategies for surface water management issues in the watershed, sorting out overlaps and conflicts, developing funding sources, obtaining consensus between the various stakeholders, and eventually making project recommendations on the more pressing problems. A process has been formulated in the Green/Duwamish forum which is designed to encapsulate the issues, progress to project construction, and hopefully result in overall watershed recovery and problem solution. The first step in this formulated process has been completed and was dubbed the "Reconnaissance Phase." This phase consisted of a preliminary identification, by the various watershed stakeholders, of all of the problems within the watershed which might be considered "regional" in nature. During the reconnaissance phase specific solutions for each of the problems were proposed and cost estimates were prepared for each problem solution. Total project costs for the watershed were then tallied, providing a snapshot of the magnitude of the water quality, major river flooding and fish habitat problems within the watershed. In the Green/Duwamish watershed this phase was initiated in 1995 and completed in 1997. The second step in the formulated process is now underway and is dubbed the "Feasibility Phase." The Feasibility Phase will be conducted in two stages - programmatic and site-specific. The programmatic stage will result in a NEPNSEPA environmental impact statement (EIS). The EIS will provide a broad environmental review of the program and expedite future site-specific projects. The site-specific stage will globally identifY preferred project alternatives and recommend sites for development. Projects that are studied in the feasibility phase and recommended for construction will be eligible for federal funding of as much as 75% of construction costs. The total cost of the two-year Feasibility Phase is about $1.2 million, half of which will be paid by the federal government - which brings this discussion to the point. King County has requested that the City enter into an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) to share the remaining costs of the Feasibility Phase. The ILA is attached for your consideration. As proposed in the agreement, the local cash share for the Feasibility Phase is $300,000.00 and is to be allocated among the various local governments within the watershed as indicated in the ILA - (see Section VI. AI. on page 7 and ILA "Exhibit Two"). The proposed cost allocation, attached as Exhibit Two to the ILA, suggests that the area of the City lying within the Green/Duwamish watershed be apportioned $1,838.00 of the $300,000.00 total-or approximately 0.61 % of the total. The remainder of the project budget will be provided through in-kind services by the local cosponsors, most of which are to be provided by King County. The in-kind setvices will consist of meeting attendance, project review, and permitting fees. As there are no projects proposed within the City of Federal Way, in-kind services will consist of meeting attendance only. Note that, agreeing to share in the costs associated with the Feasibility Phase in no way commits the City to sharing in the costs associated with implementation of the project solutions. There will be a future agreement presented to Council which outlines the expectations of all parties during the implementation phase(s). Attached to the proposed ILA, you will find "Exhibit 1" - an agreement between the Department of the Army and King County for the Green/Duwamish ecosystem. It details the Project Study Plan (PSP) of which both the "Reconnaissance" and "Feasibility" phases are a part. This agreement was signed in October, 1997 by the Corps of Engineers and King County, the lead local cosponsor. Continuation of the study outlined in the agreement requires the cost shares specified in the ILA that you have before you. As a final note, since our last update to the Committee, a watershed forum for the direct Puget Sound drainages has been formed. This forum includes participants representing Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, King County, SeaTac, Seattle, Shoreline, and Normandy Park. Operating guidelines have been drafted and the Puget Sound forum representatives to the Regional Task Force (RTF) have been elected. Recall that the RTF is composed of representatives of all the established watershed forums and that the RTF makes RNA related recommendations to the Regional Water Quality Committee. We will update the committee on Puget Sound forum issues as they develop. Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Committee place this item on the April 7, 1998 Council agenda with a recommendation to approve execution of the "Green/Duwamish Watershed ERS Feasibility Phase Cost Sharing Interlocal Agreement" as proposed and authorize expenditure of the requisite $1,838.00 from the SWM fund. Attachment ITP:jtp K:\SWM\RNA\RNAFFUND.MMO .. . GreenIDuwamish Watershed ERS Feasibility Phase Cost Sharing InterlocalJ\greeEnent . . 1 TillS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by the local governments signing 2 it, collectively known as the "Participants." The Participants are King County and a 3 subset of the city governments and tribes that have jurisdiction within the 4 GreenlDuwamish River watershed, which qualifies them for membership in the . 5 GreenlDuwamish Watershed Forum. This currently includes the Cities of Algona, 6 Auburn, Black Diamond, Covington, Des Moines, Enumc1aw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple 7 Valley, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, and Tukwi1a; and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. 8 WHEREAS, populations of salmon and other fish and wildlife species in the 9 GreenlDuwamish watershed have declined over time, and 10 WHEREAS, restoration of habitat is key to rebuilding populations of salmon and 11 other fish and wildlife in the watershed, and 12 WHEREAS, numerous studies and reports have identified urgent habitat 13 restoration needs in the Green/Duwamish watershed, and 14 WHEREAS, the Participants have pledged through the Green/Duw~sh 15 Watershed Forum to work cooperatively on habitat restoration within the watershed, and 16 WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) previously conducted the 17 reconnaissance phase of the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Study of the 18 GreenlDuwamish watershed pursuant to section 209 of public law 97-874, Puget Sound 19 and Adjacent Waters Study, and - 1 - r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 WHEREAS, the reconnaissance study identified 54 potential ecosystem and habitat restoration projects that are needed in the watershed, and WHEREAS, the COIpS has determined that a feasibility phase is required for the Ecosystem Restoration Study to evaluate the feasibility of implementing restoration projects, and has agreed to fund the cost of feasibility phase of the study in conjunction with a local government sponsor, and WHEREAS, the Participants wish to work cooperatively to share local sponsor responsibilities for funding and managing the feasibility phase, and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, the Participants are each authorized to enter into an agreement for cooperative action; NOW THEREFORE, the Participants mutually agree as follows: I. Purpose of Agreement This Agreement provides a means for the Participants to share local government responsibilities for the feasibility phase of the GreenlDuwamish Ecosystem Restoration Study, (hereinafter "Study"). In addition to this Agreement, tasks, management, products, and schedule for the study are specified in two documents: The Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement (FCSA) between the COIpS and King County, and the Project Study Plan (PSP). The FCSA and current version of the PSP are attached to this Agreeme~t as Exhibit One and incoIporated herein. -2- ,} 1 2 II. 3 4 5 .6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ID. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Effectiveness and Duration A. This Agreement is effective upon signature by at least the number of Participants to achieve seventy-five percent (75%) of the funding to be raised by the Participants for 1998, as outlined on "Local Cost Distributions for the GreenlDuwamish Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study," attached to this Agreement as Exhibit Two and incorporated herein. B. No cost share has yet been determined for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. At. the time this Agreement was prepared, it was not anticipated that the Tribe's participation is necessary to make this agreement effective. A cost share for the Tribe will be determined pursuant t.o Agreement Section VLA.3 and the Tribe may become a Participant pursuant to Agreement Section VII.B. C. This Agreement will remain in effect until December 31, 2000, u.i1less extended by written amendment by the Participants. Agreement Administration A. King County shall be the Administrator of this Agreement. The Administrator shall be responsible for: 1. necessary coordination among the Participants to fulfill the requirements of this Agreement; 2. the receipt, accounting, and management of funds made available by the Participants to contribute to the Study, as set out in Agreement Section VI.; - 3 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 IV. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . '. , 3. monitoring and tracking amounts ofin-kind services to be provided by the Participants, as called for in the FCSA and PSP, to fulfill in-kind work requirements for the local study sponsor; 4. preparing and providing updated versions of the PSP to reflect changes in study scope, schedule, and budget as decided upon by the Corps and the Participants through committee processes, as outlined inAgreement Section IV .B.; 5. . preparing and providing updated versions of Exhibit Two to this Agreement based on PSP revisions as described above. B. The Participants shall use consensus to resolve any conflicts arising in relation to complying with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Any conflicts which are not resolved with fifteen (15) days of the conflict arising shall be referred to the Director ofth~ King County Department of Natural Reso~ces and the appropriate city mayor or manager and/or tribal representative, who shall resolve the conflict. Ecosystem Restoration Study Performance and Direction A. The study will be performed and directed through four committees: the Executive Committee, the Steering Committee, the Project Study Team (also mow as the "Study Management Team" in the FCSA), and the Technical Review Team; 1. Executive Committee The role of the Executive Committee is to generally oversee the study consistent with the PSP. Functions, membership, meeting frequency, and -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 B. 21 22 decision-making mechanisms of the Executive Committee are as defined in Section lA.a. of the PSP. 2. Steering Committee The role of the Steering Committee is to provide study direction on a month-to-month basis, subject to decision-making authority of the Executive Committee and other decision-making authority as set out in the FCSA. Steering Committee functions, membership, meeting frequency, and decision-making mechanisms as defined in Section l.4.b. of the PSP. 3. Project Study Team The role of the Project Study Team is to manage and conduct the work of the study on a day-to-day basis. Project Study Team functions, membership, meeting frequency, and decision-making mechanisms are as defined in Section l.4.c. of the PSP. 4. Technical Review Team The role of the Technical Review Team is to ensure that study products are accurate and consistent with accepted scientific standards for ecosystem restoration. Technical Review Team functions, membership, meeting frequency, and decision-making mechanisms are as defined in Section l.4.d. of the PSP. The PSP may be updated to reflect changes in the scope; schedule, and budget for the study as agreed upon by the Corps and the Participants through Committee processes~ Revised versions of the PSP wJ;rich reflect agreed upon. - 5 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 VI. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1. provide representatives to serve on the Steering Committee and the Executive Committee, if selected for Executive Committee membership; 2. contribute to study costs in the amounts specific in Exhibit Two, and to contribute cost increases based on agreed-upon revisions to study scope, schedule, or budget. 3. subject to budget availability, provide in-kind services of staff and consultan~ equivalent to 0.1 FTE for the duration of the study, FCSAlPSP requirements; Financial Arrangements A. Project Costs and Cost Shares 1. C~ent1y, total estimated local costs associated with the Feasibility Ph~e of the Ecosystem Restoratj,on Study are $554,005, of which $299,005 is to be provided in cash and $255,571 is to be proyided in in-kind contributions. Current cash contpbutions required from each potential Participant, except for the Muckleshoot Tribe, are outlined in Exhibit Two. 2. If the Participants, acting as the Steering Committee, wish to revise the study scope, schedule, or budget such that study costs are increased, the Participants will increase their cost shares to cover the mcrease through the Steering Committee. Revisions to the study, scope, schedule, and budget which increase or decrease study costs are subj ect to the approval of the Executive Committee. As described in Agreement Section ill., - 7 - 1 King County will prepare and provide any revised versions of Exhibit 2 Two to reflect cost share increases. 3 3. If the Muckleshoot Tribe wishes to become a Participant, an appropriate 4 cost share will be determined by majority decision of the other 5 Participants working in conjunction with the Tribe. The Tribe may 6 become a Participant pursuant to Agreement Section VILB. 7 4. If some watershed jurisdictions opt not to participate in cost-sharing, the 8 Participants, acting as the Steering Committee, will recommend any -9 desired ch~ges to the scope of the study for Executive Committee 10 approval. The Participants may also decide to increase their cost shares if 11 some watershed jurisdictions do not participate in this Agreement. Any 12 study scope changes and/or cost share revisions will be reflected in a 13 revised PSP and/or Exhibit Two. 14 5. The distribution of in-kind services among the Participants shall be as 15 expressed in the Responsibilities section of this Agreement. 16 B. Billing and Payment 17 1. King County shall invoice the other Participants upon execution of this 18 Agreement for their 1998 cash shares and on December I, 1998, for their 19 1999 cash shares. Cash shares for 1998 shall be sixty percent (60%) of the 20 Participants} total cash shares, as outlined on Exhibit Two; the 1999 cash 21 shares shall be the remaining forty percent (40%). 22 2. The Participants shall remit"payment to King County within 60 days of · 23 receipt of invoice. Non-payment of invoices that are more that 45 days - 8 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 014 15 16 17 18 19 20, VII. 21 22 · 23 , - past due shall result in the suspension of all rights of the Participant under this Agreement until payment is made. 3. King County will remit all local cost shares, including its own, to the Corps according to schedules described in the FCSA. 4. Within 90 days after the conclusion of the study period or termination of the FCSA, the Corps will provide to King County a final accounting of actual study costs incurred as compared to study contributions provided by the local sponsor. King County will provide copies of this accounting to theother.Participants within 10 days of receiving it. The FCSA provides that within 30 days after the Corps submits the study cost accounting, it will reimburse the local sponsor for the excess of cash contributions given over its required share of study costs, or the sponsor shall provide the Corps any cash contributions required for the local Sponsor to meet its required share of study costs. King County will refund to the Participants, in the proportions that Participants provided study costs, any cost reimbursement received from the Corps. Any additional cash contributions required to meet actual study costs will be paid by the Participants in the proportions in which they provided study contributions, subject to their prior approval. Termination and Amendment A. Any Participant may terminate its role in this Agreement by providing 30 days' written notice to the Administrator. Past study contributions which have already been provided to King County and remitted to the Corps will not be - 9 - 1 reimbursed. King County will refund to the terminating Participant any cost 2 shares which have not yet been remitted to the Corps. 3 B. This Agreement may be amended or altered only by written agreement of the 4 Participants or as otherwise provided in this Agreement. Once the agreement 5 has been made effective pursuant to Agreement Section II., additional parties 6 as noted in the first paragraph of this Agreement may become Participants by 7 simple majority decision of the existing Participants. 8 C. The Participants represent that funds for the 1998 budget of this project have 9 been appropriated and are available. . J 0 . D. As previously described, the following may be appended to the agreement in 11 the future and incorporated herein: 12 1. Revised versions of the PSP which reflect agreed-upon revisions to the 13 study scope, schedule, and budget; 14 2. Revised versions of Exhibit Two that reflect adjustments in Participants' 15 cost shares. 16 3. Addenda to the PSP which describe pilot projects to be managed solely 17 between King County and the Corps. 18 E. This agreement is not assignable by any Participant, either in whole or in part. 19 F. This agreement is a complete expression of the terms heret~ and any oral or 20 written representations or understandings not incorporated herein are 21 excluded. Waiver of any default shall not be deemed to be waiver of any 22 subsequent default. Waiver of breach of any provision of this agreement. shall 23 not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not - 10 - I be construed to be a modification ofth~ terms of the Agreement unless stated 2 to be such through written approval by the Participants which shall be 3 attached to the original Agreement. 4. VIII. Counterparts This agreement may be executed in counterparts. Indemnification and Hold Harmless The Participants agree to the following: Each Participant shall protect, defend, indemnify, and save harmles the other Participants, their officers, officials, employees, and agents, while acting within . the scope of their employment as such, from any and all costs, claims judgments, and/or awards of damages, arising out of, or in any way resulting from, each . Participant's own negligence acts or omissions. Each Participant agrees that its obligations under this subparagraph extend to any claim, demand, and/or cause of action brought by, or on behalf of, any of-its employees or agents. For this purpose, each Participant, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the other Participants only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW. In the event that any Participant incurs any judgment, award, and/or cost arising therefrom, including attorneys' fees to enforce the provisions of this Artic1e~ all such fees, expenses, and costs s~al1 recoverable from the responsible Participant to the extent of that Participant's culpability. 5 6 IX. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 - 11 - .f IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE Participants hereto have executed this Agreement on the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 day of a98-1:02 - 12 - , 19 E=XH t lOt, I "'" AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIlEDEP ARTMENT OF TIlE ARMY AND KING COUNTY FOR THE DUW AMISH GREEN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY. TIllS AGREEMENT is entered into this 6lh day of October, ~9.97, by and between Department of the Arniy (hereinafter the "Government"), represented by the pi strict Engi~eer .executing this Agreement, and King County (hereinafter the "Sponsor'.'), - . . -~.I':., - .. . WITNESSETH, that WHEREAS, the Congress has authoriz~ the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers to conduct a study of Ecosystem Restoration in the DuwamishlGreen River Basin pursuant to section 209 of public Law 87-874, Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Study and WHEREAS, the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers has conducted a reconnaissance study of ecosystem restoration of the DuwamishlGreen River Basin pursuant to this authority, and has determined that further study in the nature of a "Feasibility Phase Study" (hereinafter the "Study") is required to fulfill the intent of the study authority and to assess the extent of the Federal interest in participating in a solution to the identified problem; and WHEREAS, Section 105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (public Law 99- 662, as amended) specifies the cost sharing requirements applicable to the Study; WHEREAS, the Sponsor has the authority and capability to furnish the cooperation hereinafter set forth and is willing to participate in study cost sharing and financing in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and . WHEREAS, the Sponsor and the Government understand tha~ entering into this Agreement in no way obligates either p.arty to implement a project and that whether the Government supports a project authorization and budgets it for implementation depends upon, among other things, the outcome of the Study and whether the proposed solution is consistent with the Economic and Environmental Principals and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies and with the budget priorities of the Administration; NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: . ARTICLE I - DEFOOTIONS For the purposes of this Agreement: 6 A The term "Study Costs"shall mean all disbursements by the Government pursuant to this Agreement, from Federal appropriations or from funds made available to the Government by the Sponsor, and all negotiated costs of work performed by the Sponsor pursuant to this . 1 ., ~... Agreement. Study Costs shall include, but not be limited to: labor charges; direct costs; overhead expenses; supervision and administration costs; the costs of participation in Study . Management and Coordination in accordance with Article IV of this Agreement; the costs of contracts with third parties, including termination or suspension charges; and any termination or suspension costs (ordinarily defined as those costs necessary to terminate ongoing contracts or obligations and to properly safeguard the work already accomplished) associated with this Agreement. B. The term "estimated Study Costs" shall mean the estimated cost of performing the Study as of the effective date of this Agreement, as specified in.Artic1e ill.A. of this Agreement. C. The term "excess Study Costs" shall mean Study Costs that exceed the estimated Study Costs and that do not result from mutual agreement of the parties, a change in Federal law that increases the cost of the S.tudy, o~ a change in the scope of the Study requested by the Sponsor. D. The term "stu~y period" shall mean the time period for conducting the Study, commencing with the release to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District of initial Federal feasibility funds following the execution of this Agreement and ending when the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) submits the feasibility report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review for consistency with the policies and programs of the President E. The term "PSP" shall mean the Project Study Plan, which is attached to this Agreement and which shall not be considered binding on either party and is subject to change by the Goveinment, in consultation with the Sponsor. F. The term "negotiated cOsts" shall mean the costs ofin-kind services to be providedby the Sponsor in accordance with the PSP. G. The term "fiscal year" shall mean one fiscal year of the Government. The Government. fiscal year begins o~ October 1 and ends on September 30. ARTICLE IT - OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES A The Government, using funds and in-kind services provided by the Sponsor. arid funds appropriated by the Congress of the United States, shall expeditiously prosecute and complete the Study, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. and Federal laws, regulations, and . policies. B. . In accordance with this Article and Article lllA, ill.B. and ill.C. of this Agreement, the Sponsor shall contrjbute cash and in-kind s~rvices equal t<:> fifty (50) percent of Study Costs other than excess Study Costs. The Sponsor may, consistent with applicable law and regulations, contribute up to 25 percent of Study Costs through the provision of in-kind services. The in-kind services to be provided by the Sponsor, the estimated negotiated costs for those services, .and the estimated schedule under which those services are to be provided are specified in the PSP. 2 .... Negotiated costs shall be subject to an audit by the Government to determine reasonableness, allocability, and allowability.' . C. The Sponsor shall p~y a fifty (50) percent share of excess Study Costs in accordance with Article m.D. of this Agreement. D. The Sponsor understands that the schedule of work may require the Sponsor to provide cash or in-kind services at a rate ~at may result in the Sponsor temporarily diverging from the obligations concerning cash and in-kind services specified in paragraph B. of this Article. Such temporary divergences shall be i4entified in the quarterly reports provided for in Article ill.A. of . this Agreement and shall not alter the obligations concerning costs and services specified in paragraph B. of this Article or the obligations concerning payment specified in Article ill of this Agreement. E. If: upon the award of any contract or the performance of any in-house work for the Study by the Government or the Sponsor, cumulative financial obligations of the Government and the Sponsor would result in excess Study Costs, the Government and the Sponsor agree to defer award of that and all subsequent contracts, and performance of that and all subsequent in-house work, for the Study until the Government and the Sponsor agree to proceed. Should the Government and the sponsor require time to arrive at a decision, the Agreement will be suspended in accordance with Article X, for a period of not to exceed six months. In the event the Government and the spons.or have not reached an agreement to proceed by the end of their 6 month period, the Agreement may be subject to termination in accordance with Article X. F. No Federal funds may be used to meet the Sponsor's share of Study Costs unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is expressly authorized by statute. G. The award and management of any contract with a third party in furtherance of this Agreement which 9bligates Federal appropriations shall be exclusively within the control of the Government. The award and management of any contract by the Sponsor With a third party in furtherance of this Agreement which obligates funds of the Sponsor and does not obligate Federal appropriations shall be exclusively within the control of the Sponsor, but shall be subject to applicable Federal laws and regulations. H. The Sponsor. shall be responsible for the total cost of developing a response plan for . addressing any hazardqus substances. regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767, (codified at 42 D.S.C. Sections 9601-9675), as amended, existing in, on, or under any lands, easements or rights-of-way that the Government detennines to be required for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. Such co~ts shall not be included in total study costs. I. The Sponsor's contributions to Study Costs and participation in the Study are subject to the Sponsor's annual budget allocation processes. The sponsor's budget allocations are approved 3 .~ in approximately November of each year for the following Sponsor fiscal year (January to December). In the case that budget approval for the Sponsor's participation is not granted. in any given year, this agreement may be subject to termination in acCordance with Article X. of this Agreement ARTICLE ill - :METHOD OF PATh1ENT A . The Government shall maintain Current records of contributions provided by the parties, current projections of Study Costs, current projections of each party's share of Study Costs, and current projections of the amount of Study Costs that will result in excess Study Costs. At least quarterly, the Government shall provide the Sponsor a report setting forth this information. As of the effective date of this Agreement, estimated Study Costs are $1,088,010 and the Sponsors share of estimated Study Costs is $554,005. In order to meet the Sponsor's cash payment requirements for its share of estimated Study Costs, the Sponsor must provide a cash contribution. . currently estimated to be $299,005. The dollar amounts set forth in this Article are based upon . . . the Government's. best estimates, which reflect the scope of the study described in the PSP, projected costs, price-level changes, and anticipated inflation. Such cost estimates are subject to adjustment by the Government and are not to be construed as the total financial responsibilities of the Government and the Sponsor. . B. The Sponsor shall provide its cash contribution required under Article II.B. of this Agreement in accordance with the following provisions: 1. No later than 30 calendar days prior to the scheduled date for the Government's issuance of the solicitation for the first contract for the Study or for the Government's anticipated first significant in-house expenditure for the Study, the Government shall notify the Sponsor in writing of the funds the Government determines to be required from the Sponsor to meet its required share of Study Costs for the first fiscal year of the Study (fiscal year 1997) and for the first quarter of second fiscal year (fiscal year 1998). No later than 15 calendar days thereafter, the Sponsor shall provide the Government the full amount of the required funds by delivering a check payable to "FAD, USAED, Portland,(Seattle)" to the District Engineer. 2. For the remaining three quarters offisca1 year 1998 and the first quarter offiscal year 1999, the Government shall, no later than December I, 1997, notify the Sponsor in Writing of the funds the Government determines to be required from the Sponsor to meet its required share of Study Costs for that.period, taking into account any temporary divergences identified under Article II.C. oftrus Agreement. No later than January 15, 1998 the Sponsor shall make the full amount oithe required funds available to the Government through the funding mechanism specified in paragraph B.2. of this Article. . 3. For the remaining tlu"ec quarters offisca1 year 1999, the Government shall, no later than December I, 1998, notify the Sponsor in writing of the funds the Government determines to be required from the Sponsor to meet its required share of Study Costs for that. period, taking into account any temporary divergences identified under Article II.C. of this Agreement. No later than 4 .... January 15, 1999 the Sponsor shall make the full amount of the required funds available to the Government through the funding mechanism specified in paragraph B.2. of this Article. 4. The Government shall d~aw from the funds provided by the Sponsor such sums as the Government deems necessary to cover the Sponsor's share of contractual and in-house fiscal obligations attributable to the Study as they are incurred. 5. In the event the Government detennines that the Sponsor must provide additional funds to meet its share of Study Costs, the Government shall so notify the Sponsor in writing. No later than 60 calendar days after receipt of such notice, the Sponsor shall make the full amount of the additional required funds available through the funding mechanism specified in paragraph B.2. of this Article. C. Within ninety (90) days after the conclusion of the Study Period or termination of this Agreement, the Government shall conduct a final accounting of Study Costs, including disbursements by the Government of Federal funds, cash contributions by the Sponsor, the amount of any excess Study Costs, and credits for the negotiated costs of the Sponsor, and shall furnish the Sponsor with the results of this accounting. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Government, subject to the availability of funds, shall reimburse the Sponsor for the excess, if any, of cash contributions and credits given over its required share of Study Costs, other than excess . Study Costs, or the Sponsor shall provide the Government any cash contributions required for the Sponsor to meet its required share of Study Costs other than excess Study Costs. D. The Sponsor shall provide its cash contribution for excess Study Costs as required under Article II. C. of this Agreement by delivering a check payable to "FAO, USAED, PORTLAND DISTRICT" to the District Engineer as follows: L After the project that is the subject of this Study has been authorized for construction, no . later than the date on which a Project Cooperation Agreement is entered into for the project; or 2. In the event the project that is the subject of this Study is not authorized for construction by a date that is no later than 5 years of the date of the final report of the Chief of Engineers concerning the project, or by a date that is no later than 2 years after the date of the termination of the study, the Sponsor shall pay its share of excess costs on that date (5 years after the date of the Chief of Engineers or 2 year after the date of the terminat~on of the study). ARTICLE IV - STUDY MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION A To provide for consistent and effective communication, the Sponsor and the Government shall appoint narnedsenior representatives to an Executive Committee. Thereafter, the Executive Committee shall meet regularly until the end of the Study Period. B. Until.the end of the Study Period, the Executive Committee shall generally oversee the Study consistently with the PSP. 5 .... C. The Executive Committee may make recommendations that it deems warranted to the District Engineer on matters that it oversees, including suggestions to avoid potential sources of dispute. The Government in good faith shall consider such recommendations. The Government has the discretion to accept, reject, or modify the Executive Committee's recommendations. D. The Executive Committee shall appoint representatives to serve on a Study Management Team. The Study Management Team shall keep the Executive Conunittee informed of the progress of the Study and of significant pending issues and actions, and shall prepare periodic reports on the progress of all work items identified in the PS~. . E. The costs of participation in the Executive Committee (including the cost to serve on the Study Management Team) shall be included in total project costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions ofthls Agreement. ARTICLE V - DISPUTES As a condition precedent to a p!UtY bringing any sl;lit for breach of this Agree:.1ent, that party must first notify the other party in writing of the nature of the purported breach and seek in good faith to resolve the dispute through negotiation. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute through negotiation, they may agree to a mutually acceptable method of non-binding alternative dispute resolution with a qualified third party acceptable to both parties. The parties shall each pay 50 percent of any costs for the services provided by such a third party as such costs are incurred. Such costs shall not be included in Study Costs. The existence of a dispute shall not excuse the parties from performance pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE VI - MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS A. Within 60 days of the effective ~ate of this Agreement, the Government and the Sponsor shall develop procedures for keeping books,. records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses incurred pursuant"to this Agreement to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total Study Costs. These procedures shall incorporate, and apply as appropriate, the standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to state and local governments at 32 . C.F.R. Section 33.20. The Government and the Sponsor shall maintain such books, records, documents, and other evidence in accordance with these procedures for a rhi~mum of three years after completion of the Study and resolution of all relevant claims arising therefrom. To the extent pennitted under applicable Federal laws and regulations, the Government and the Sponsor shall each allow the other to inspect such books, documents, records, and other evidence. B. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. Section 7503, the Government may conduct audits in addition to any audit that the Sponsor is required to conduct under the Single Audit Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. Sections 7501-7507. Any such Government audits shall be conducted in accordance 6 ~... with Government Auditing Standards and the cost principles in OMB Circular No. A-87 and other applicable cost principles and regulations. The costs of Government audits shall be included in total Study Costs and shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE VII - RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES The Government and the Sponsor act in independent capacities in the performance of their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement, and neither is to be considered the officer, agent, or employee of the other. . ARTICLE VIII - OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT No member of or delegate to the Congress, nor any r~sident commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom. ARTICLE IX - FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS In the exercise of the Sponsor's rights and obligations under this Agreement, the Sponsor agrees to comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (public Law 88-352) and Department of defense Directive 5500.11. issued pursuant thereto and published in 32 C.F.R. Part 195, as well as Army Regulations 600-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs .and Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army". ARTICLE X - TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION A. This Agreement shall terminate at the conclusion of the Study Period, and neither the Government nor the Sponsor shall have any further obligations hereunder, except as provided in Article ID. C.; provided, that prior to such time and upon thirty (30) days written notice, either party may terminate or suspend this Agreement. In addition, the Government shall terminate this Agreement imme~iately upon any failure of the parties to agree to extend the study under Article II.E. of this agreement, or upon the failure of the sponsor to fulfill its obligation under Article III. of this Agreement. In the event that either party elects to terminate this Agreement, both parties shall conclude their activities relating to the Study and proceed to a final accounting in accordance with Article ill.C. and ill.D. of this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, all data and information generated as part of the Study shall be made available to both parties. B. Any termination of this Agreement shall not relieve the parties ofliability for any obligations previously incurred, including the costs of closing out or transferring any existing contracts. . IN WITINESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, which shall become effective upon the date it is signed by the District Engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 7 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BY Col Attachment - Project Study Plan . G. .8 -... [SPONSOR] BY~~ County Executive King County PROJECT STUDY PLAN Duwamish/Green River Feasibility Study, Washington 1. SCOPE. 1.1 General. This Project Study Plan (PSP) is by reference hereby incorporated into the feasibility cost-sharing agreement entitled "Agreement between the Department of the Army and King County, Washington for the DuwamishlGreen River Ecosystem Restoration Shldy." The PSP defines the scope of: and documents the process for conducting, the feasibility phase study and is a means for all those involved in the study (i.e., Seattle District, King County, North Pacific Division, and Corps of Engineers Headquarters) to formally agree to the conduct of the study before it is initiated. The PSP does not attempt to repeat project-related details provided in the final reconnaissance report for this study; the reconnaissance report should be referred to for a detailed description of the reconnaissance studies and related investigations conducted before initiating the feasibility phase of project development. The feasibility report will be a complete decision document in sufficient detail to provide the basis for the Sponsor, Corps of Engineers, and ultimately the U.S. Congress, to consider approving authorization and construction of the recommended plan. .The feasibility report will provide a complete presentation of the study analyses and results, including those developed in the reconnaissance report. The feasibility report will also document compliance of the design with all applicable guidance, statutes, Executive Orders, and policies, and. provide a sound basis for decision makers to judge the recommended plan. The PSP has been developed to plan, define, and control the development and delivery of the products to be completed during the feasibility phase study. The PSP documents the work requirements and the level of detail that will be necessary to describe the without project and with project condition, formulate a range of alternatives and assess their effects, and present a clear rationale for the selection of a plan for implementation. With. clearly defined work tasks, the PSP will provide management with a basis for cost and schedule control of the feasibility phase study, and minimize communication and review problems. The PSP addresses the following: · Study tasks, as well as responsibility for their accomplishment. · The estimated cost of individual study tasks and total study cost, i~cluding the negotiated cost of work items to be accomplished by the Sponsor as in-kind services. 1 -' . . . Corps and other professional criteria to assess the adequacy of the completed work effort, including references to regulations and other guidance that will be followed in performing and evaluating the tasks. . The schedule of performance and milestones (i.e., key decision points, in-pr.ogress reviews, issue resolution meetings, etc.). . The specific coordination mechanism between the parties to this Agreement. · Procedures for reviewing and accepting the work of the parties to this Agreement. The work shall generally be performed in accordance with established criteria and guidance, including the following: a. . ER 1105-2-100, "Guidance for Conducting Civil Works PI8nning Studies," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, December 28, 1990. b. ER 1110-2-1150, ''Engineering and Design for Civil Works Projects," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, March 31, 1994. c. ER 5-7-1 (FR), "Project Management," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 30, 1992. d. ER 500-1-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 11 March 1991. Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources Natural Disasters Procedures. e. "Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies," U.S. Water Resources Council, March 10, 1983. f. ER 200-2-2, "Procedures for Implementing NEP A, " U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, March 4, 1~88. g. ER 405-1-12, Chapter 12, "Real Estate Handbook," U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. . 1.2 Reconnaissance Phase Study and Preliminary Proiect Plan. The Duwamishl Green River Ecosystem Restoration draft reconnwssance report, dated March 1997, indicated there is a Federal interest in pursuing a feasibility phase study to plan for the construction of a number ofFish and WIldlife restoration sites in the Duwamishl Green River Basin. The feasibility phase study will address an overall plan for the restoration of fish and wildlife habitat in the DuwanUshlGreen River Basin. The. significant degradation . of the ecosystem \\jthin the DuwamishlGreen River Basin has caused a significant reduction in anadromous fish runs with the basin which have local, nation~l, and international effects. There are also several endangered species within the basin that are effected by the reduction in habitat. 2 The reconnaissance report will be used as a base from which to continue the required planning studies. Infonnation in the reconnaissance report will be expanded and updated as required to: (a) reflect current problems and opportunities and the desires ofthe public; (b) to establish final planning criteria and planning objectives to be used to formulate plans; (c) to identify additional measures to meet the final planning objectives; and (d) to formulate alternative plans to be evaluated. 1.3 Study Soonsorshio and Cooperatin2: A2:encies. The King County is the study sponsor. The following agencies will also participate or will be coordinated with in the study: The Cities ofTukwila, Renton, Kent, Auburn, SeaTac, Seattle, AIgona, Black Diamond, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Maple Valley, and Covington The MuckIeshoot Indian Tribe The Suquamish Indian Tribe The City of Tacoma Water Department U.S. fish and Wildlife Agency Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife Washington State Department of Ecology (EcOlogy) Department of Natural Resources (DNR) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (EPA Region 10) King County anticipates entering into an interIocal agreement with watershed jurisdictions and tribes to support local sponsorship 1.4 Studv Committee Definitions. The following committees are integral to the feasibility phase study. Their function and membership are summarized below and discussed further in section 2.6 (Study Task Descriptions) and section 3.2 (Methodology) of this PSP. a. Executive Committee Membership: The Executive Committee will include one representative from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, one from King County, and one representing the city and tribal participants in the study ILA. The city/tribal representative will be selected by majority vote of the participating cities and tribes. Function: The Executive Committee will oversee the study consistent with PSP, including: · Providing general policy oversight and ensuring consistency with agency objectives. · Providing guidance to the Project Study Team and Steering Committee on financing strategies, project priorities, strategies for prOject implementation, and coordination with other agencies. 3 . Making final decisions on increases or decreases in the scope ofthe study, including the cost or duration of the entire study, based on recommendations from the Steering Committee. . Decision making: The Executive Committee will make decisions by consensus. Frequency of Meetings: Semiannually, or more frequently ifneeded.. . . b. Steerine Committee Membership: The Steering Committee will include representatives of all jurisdictions participating in the study ILA, each of which will appoint one member. Function: The Steering Committee win monitor study direction on a month-to- month basis and provide study direction where indicated, including: · Advising the Manager and Project Study Team on conduct of the study. · Making decisions on the number, location, and priority of sites to be studied based on the advice of the Project Study Team. · Making decisions on changes in the schedule and budget of study tasks within the overall scope of the study, and recommending changes outside the study scope to the Executive Committee. · Nominating a city/tribal representative to the Executive Committee. · Reviewing quarterly reports as provided by the Project Manager (pSP 2.7a- 2.Th.). Decision Making: The Steering Committee will make decisions by majority vote except for decisions on increases or decreases in the overall schedule and budget, which will require unanimous approval of participating jurisdiction and fin.al approval by the Executive Committee. Frequency of Meetings: Unless alternate arrangements are made, the Steering Committee will meet monthly during the regularly scheduled Watershed Staff Committee (the staffgroup of the GreenlDuwamish Watershed Forum) meetings. c. Proiect Study Team Membership: The Project Study Team (also known as the Study Management Team in the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement) will be composed of the Project Manager and staff members of the Corps of Engineers, King County, and, if they desire, of participating cities and tribes (see Table 2). Function: The Project Study Team will manage and conduct day-to-day design and compliance work for study, including: · Conducting field work, survey, environmental review (SEP AlNEP A), engineering, design, biological analysis, real estate analysis, and coordination with other interested parties. · Recommending changes in study schedule and budget to the Steering Committee. · Assisting the Project Manager to prepare quarterly study progress reports for submittal to the Executive Cominittee and the Steering Committee (see 2.7b). Decision Making: The Project Manager will make final decisions within the Project Study Team. 4 Frequency of Meetings: Every two weeks. d. Technical Review Team Membership: The Technical Review Team will include technical and scientific experts of the Corps of Engineers and King County, with " tribal and city staff members involved as they wish (see Table 3). Function: The Technical Review Team will review study products and decisions for consistency with accepted scientific standards and agency protocols .for ecosystem restoration. Decision Making: The Technical Review Team will make decisions by majority vote. Frequency of Meetings: As needed to review study products and decisions. 2. REQUIREMENTS. 2.1 Basic Requirements. The work to be performed shall consist of the development of alternative plans which will include, as a minimum, the selection of a recommended plan based on the requirements of EC 1105-2-210; the detailed design of the recommended " plan; identifying the concerns and needs of the public; preparing construction and OMRR&R cost estimates for the recommended plan; determining the hydraulic design for the different alternatives; computing nonmonetary benefits for the recommended plan; evaluating engineering and economic feasibility for the recommended. plan; assessing environmental and so~ial impacts for all alternative plans, including impacts on biological resources, socioeconomic resources, cultural resources, and recreation; determining nonmonetary benefits for the restoration alternatives; providing a real estate gross appraisal report;. performing geotechnical and HTR W investigations and analyses; and preparing the required documentation to present the studies, findings, and recommendations. Extensive public involvement and coordination will be conducted throughout the study, including public workshops, public meetings, interagency coordination meetings, newsletters, and public notices to ensure opportunity to exchange information and views with local, state, tribal, and federal government agencies, special interest groups, and the general public. The end products will be a programmatic NEP AlSEP A environmental impact statement (EIS) and a feasibility report. The feasibility report will describe, in detail, problems and opportunities identified, plans formulated, engineering and economic feasibility and public acceptability of each ecosystem restoration alternative, the social and environmental constraints and impacts and nonmonetary benefits for each alternative, and the identification of the recommended plan. . 2.2 Specific Requirements. The goal of the study is to provide a plan that can be . implemented, has federal and nonfederal support, and will provide nonmonetary benefits at a reasonable and affordable cost. The PSP will limit the work to the minimum necessary 5 to meet the requirements for a complete feasibility report in the most effective manner, with continuous coordination betWeen the Corps of Engineers and King County. The preparation of the feasibility report will.consist of writing the main body and appendices. A programmatic EIS will also be prepared. During the feasibility phase, a feasibility review conference will be held, as will at least one in-progress review (IPR) conference. HQUSACE, North Pacific Division, Seattle District, and King County staff member-s will attend these conferences. A public meeting will be held after the feasibility review conference to inform the public that the study has been completed, the results of the study, and the next step for this project. . The feasibility report will then begin the Washington-level review process. This process consists of submitting the report for public review, changes (based on public input) made to the report, signing of the final feasibility report by the District Engineer, submitting the report to North Pacific Division for approval, issuing the Division Engineer's Notice, and submitting the report to the Washington level for review, approval, and further processing to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Ciyil Works), the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congress. 2.3 Feasibility Study StaldOi~. The feasibility study will be conducted in two stages-programmatic and site-specific-as Summarized below. This approach, which has been concurred in the Sponsor, cooperating agencies, and the Corps of Engineers, is designed to increase the likelihood of public acceptance of a plan that recommends development of ecosystem restoration sites throughout the basin. The strategy calls for a phased environmental review, with a programmatic EIS, followed by site-specific EAs developed as the sites are implemented over a 10-year period. The exact number of sites to be analyzed will be determined at th~ beginning of the study by the Steering Committee, based on the Project Study Team's recommendations. The proposed cost share 'assumes 40 sites will be analyzed; should the Steering Committee decide to add sites to the . analysis, additional cost assessment may be required. a. Prol!rammatic Stal!e. The programmatic stage will result in preparing a programmatic NEP NSEP A environmental impact statement (EIS). The purpose of the programmatic, or nonproject, EIS is to provide an initial broad environmental review of the program or action, .and to expedite the process of future site-specific projects. The programmatic EIS will address the following: · Goals, objectives, needs, and purpose. · Programmatic restoration alternatives. · Areas of interest within the DuwamishlGreen River Basin for fish and wildlife siting criteria. · Zones of siting feasibility withi~ each area of the basins where restoration sites are needed and could be located. · Preferred (i.e., publicly acceptable) siting process. · Process and requirements for volunteer entity to develop restoration sites. 6 b. Site-Specific Sta2e. The feasibility report will identify a plan recommending sites for development. The proposed cost share assumes 40 sites will be analyzed; should the Steering Committee decide to add sites to the analysis, additional cost assessment may be required. In the reconnaissance report, 54 sites are presented. The Steering Committee will review the sites identified in the reconnaissance report, and other potential sites, and, based on Project Study Team recommendations, will determine which sites need site-specific review. This site selection will be completed before proceeding with the site-specific stage.ofthe study. Projects from the reconnaissance ~st of 54 may be dropped from the feasibility analysis either because they do not fit the ecosystem restoration requirement or they are being developed by other agencies, cities, or private citizens. Additionally~ some sites, which will ultimately be proposed for construction, win not require any additional designor environmental compliance, and thus will not be included in the site-specific review. Cost implications for increases in programmatic review or site-specific review will be evaluated in light of the budgeted cost share amount; further cost share assessments may be made at the unanimous recommendation of the Steering Committee members and with Executive Committee approval. As the study p~ogresses, additional sites may be added to the study under this same cost evaluation and assessment process. For the selected study sites, engineering, economic, environmental, real estate, and institutional issues will be addressed in the feasibility report in sufficient detail to support the recommendation. Once specific projects have been identified, and during the plans and specifications phase, site-specific NEP NSEP A compliance will occur. Typically, this will involve developing site specific Environmental Assessments that will tier off of the work developed in the programmatic EIS. The feasibility report will address the following: . Application of the siting process and ~election of restoration sites. Site-specific nonmonetary benefit analyses and selection of a preferred candidate site(s). Conceptual site design, cost estimating, economic evaluation, and real estate studies necessary to support the recommended plan for development. . . 2.4 Work Breakdown Structure. Work breakdown structure (WBS) is a representation of the study scope broken down into a hierarchy of activities. This structure provides a means for organizing the project study activities in a. logical sequence and identifying products or deliverab1es thfough the various stages of the study. The WBS was prepared according to guidance contained inER 5-7-1 (FR), "Project Management," dated September 30, 1992, and is illustrated in Figure 1. The subproducts indicated on WBS Levels 5 and 6 (subproducts of the feasibility report and technical effort 7 required for each subproduct, respectively) form the basis for the feasibility phase study work item descriptions and study cost estimate detailed in the foilowing pages. A . summary of the study cost estimate, by study work item, is shown below in Table 1 2.5 Schedule of Fiscal Year Fundin!!:. The study period is scheduled to start in Government fiscal year (FY) 1997 and finish in FY 1999. The amount of funds required in each FY by the Government and the Sponsor are shown in Table 1. FIGURE 1 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for Feasibility Phase of Project LEVEL 1 (Proiect): :!~~~~~~~I~ij~ri:~I~~I~I~~~~~~~ffi[i~" "ii":"Qt:. : '~.~~~.~;~~~~~~~~~~~m~;~~~~~~MIIII!IIIl!!~ LEVEL 2 (Maior phases of the proiect): 2. Reconnaissance phase , Ii! !~!~~1~~fm~~1n~:iH;~~~~~1~i;~Feasibility;~p Has~;~~f~~~~~i~~~!i1i;~~j~i~~~iiiiii~~~~ii11j~il~~~m~;;j~~~~i~~1~1~lj~ii~H~il~11~~~i;~11i~j\j~~ :1j~mimm;;1 4. Pre-construction engineering and design (PED) phase 5. Construction phase 6. Operation and maintenance phase LEVEL 3 (Principal product of the feasibility phase): tl[j)~~!; ;iH~~~~;m1;E!~;~ ;:~;1mrF easlbifj'iY.repDa~l~~iil~1~11imnmmm~miil11!1~11j~iim~!~;~1~:~;~ ~~;:~;~:~ ~~~~!~~ii~!~!!:1j1~j1~j1i~11~~mi1mil~ LEVEL 4 (Features of the feasibility report): LEVEL 5 (Sub-products of Level 3) and LEVEL 6 (Technical effort reauired for each sub-product): ~.'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''-'''''''''''''''''''''a''''''''''''k1''tl. .........................................................~.............. ".........................~ ."'::::::::::::::::::I.:li.""::"':::R..c..fie..(:..'.t'o..".s..fij.... Yi:'t"a"s" ..,. -e's...c...n..p.ft.o...n...s..'ln....P.ar.....a..:gr..a...p ":'~"b"e'~'o' ..w.....:::::''''::::::::::. ..........~~.......... . ......u~.... .~. .... . . " ..................... :::::,::::::::::m::: . m:::::m:. ~: . .: :: ":, ,,~ ',"', . :.. :~ .:::::::m::::::::::" o 8 2.6 Study Task Descriptions. Below is a narrative description of the individual study work items, organized by WBS subaccounts, for the feasibility stlldy. The detailed cost- estimate breakdown for individual study work items is shown on Table 1 at the end of the PSP. The study work sequence diagram, including key study and technical review milestones, is also shown at the end of the PSP as Figure 2. As suggested in section 2.3, . the task descriptions and their associated costs are based on a total of 40 projects. Should the number of projects, or their scope, be changed (section 2.3 b), the cost estimates for these tasks may need to be revised. . 22A - Public Involvement. The DuwamishlGreen River Ecosystem Restoration Study will be presenting, for public consideration, new concepts on a complex subject. Numerous stakeholders are potentially affected but may not be aware of this potential project. Therefore, education, increased awareness, and exchange of viewpoints are vital to the interagency development of acceptable and successful recommendations to site the restoration alternatives. The public involvement/outreach strategy will consist of: (I) a series of workshops and public hearings (public hearings will be conducted as part of the NEPAlSEPA review of the draft programmatic EIS); (2) workshop and hearing notices/news releases; and (3) developing a "pool" of citizen and scientific advisors.from which expertise and knowledge from outside the Government and Sponsor agencies can be incorporated into planning and design. Coordinating with Native American tribes is an important component of the public involvement program. The Sponsor will provide the majority of the day-to-day public.. involvement effort. . The Sponsor will provide the meeting facilities and develop public notices/news releases for workshops and public hearings. The Government and Sponsor will jointly conduct workshops and NEP AlSEP A public hearings. Reference: ER 1105-2-100. 22D - Cultural Resource Studies. This subaccount includes inventory and assessment required to determine the impacts of restoration alternatives on historic and cultural resources. Cultural. resources information will be considered in evaluating different restoration sites. The work will consist of inventory and assessment of archeological and cultural resources, and preparation of required supporting documentation for the preferred restoration alternative. The Government, in consultation with the Washington State Historical Preservation Office will perform this work. References: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Executive Order 11593 (protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment), Native American Religious Freedom Act. 22E - Environmental Studies. This subaccount includes environmental data collection and the determination of environmental impacts and nonmonetary benefits of all alternative plans. A number of discrete tasks have been identified, as described below. Work will lead 9 to preparing a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS). plus an appropriate written narrative for the feasibility report. The GovenUnent, its contracting agents. and the Sponsor will perform the work. Reference: ER 1105-2-100, ER 200-2-2. 1. Information Management.. Geographical.Information System (GIS) technology will be used to manage the large volume of diverse Geospatial datafmformation that will be used to screen the basin and identify geographic areas . of interest. Tasks include: identifying/finding/gathering environmental data; preparing digitized data layers (where they do not already exist) for use of GIS in site identification/screening/selection; data quality verification; and GIS system operation and management. Use of GIS will provide a structured approach for systematically considering information critical to the alternative selection process.. It is understood that the Government and Sponsor will have free access"to.the most recent versions of all data throughout the study. The Assessment Methodology for Proposed Projects will also need to be adjusted to better facilitate the incremental cost assessment. 2. Environmental Data Compilation... Includes literature search and data gathering to acquire information for the determination of environmental benefits of the ecosystem restoration alternatives. Specific data win include geology and hydrology, biological resources,.fish and wildlife habitat, endangered species, . natural resources, cultuIlli resources, Native American treaty rights, recreation, and land. and water use. These data will be incorporated as data layers for evaluation using GIS. 3. Field Studies of Alternative Restoration Sites. Site-specific environmental field studies are anticipated for the candidate restoration sites throughout the basin. Field studies will be conducted for at least one sampling season. 4. Site-Specific Field Studies for Restoration Sites. Site-specific environmental field studies are anticipated for the candidate restoration sites. Field studies will be conducted for at least one sampling season, and will include the following: field coordination with the design team; assess baselin~ conditions; field check for evaluation methodology; and field coordination with resource agencies. G 5. Programmatic NEP A1SEP A EIS. The principal output of this effort will include: evaluating programmatic alternatives; determining geographic areas of interest and restoration site feasibility; and defining siting criteria impact analysis, endangered species, and developing a project monitoring protocol. The work includes scoping, preparing a draft programmatic EIS, conduc~ing the EIS review process and related environmental coordination, contract management, and 10 producing the final NEP NSEP A programmatic EIS. During the plans and specification phase, site-specific Envirorunental Assessments will be tiered off of the programmatic EIS. 22F - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. This includes coordination with, and studies conducted by, USFWS, as required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). USFWS activities will include interagency and tribal coordination, planning and evaluating the benefits of different alternatives on fish and wildlife resources, and preparing a draft and a .final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report for the feasibility report. Related act~vities by the Government will include preparing and coordinating statements of work and related fund transfer documents for planning activities by USFWS, plus reviewing the draft and final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report by the Government and Sponsor: Reference: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (pL 85-624, as amended). 226 - Economic AnalvsislA1JfJendix. This subaccount includes studies and evaluations pertinent to an economic evaluation of all monetary and nonmonetary benefits and costs of the proposed plan and various alternatives. The methodology to quantity nonmonetary benefits that was developed as part of the Reconnaissance Phase will be simplified and revised for use in the feasibility evaluation. Both the outputs from this methodology and the costs developed as part of the design and cost effort will be used as input into the Cost Effectiveness AnalysislIncremental Cost Analysis. The CEAlICA will be an important tool in evaluating the different sites and plans that will be analyzed as part of the feasibility study. Any potential positive or negative impacts to NED accounts will also be evaluated under this subaccount. A narrative economic report will be included as part of the FR. A financial analysis in support of the construction recommendation will also be prepared and will include a statement of financial capability, a financial capability assessment, and a financing plan. The financing plan will provide detail as to the anticipated funding available to the Sponsor. The Government will perform the economic and financial analyses, with input provided by the Sponsor. The Spo~~or will develop the financing plan. Reference: ER 1105-2-100, Draft EC 1165-2-200, Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (March 10, 1983). 22" - Real Estate Studies/Appendix. This subaccount includes a gross appraisal of land costs (including relocations) required for. economic evaluation and construction of alternative plans developed during the site-specific stage of the study. Work includes detailed determination of cost oflands, easements, and rights-of-way for the recommended plan. A real estate appendix will be prepared that will describe the real estate requirements for the proposed project, and sponsor's administrative and acquisition costs. This information will be summarized in the FR. In addition, Rights-of-Entry will be obtained were needed 11 wherever ground distruction activities take place and in cases were present owners will not give verbal approval, even though no ground disturbance will take place. The Government or the Sponsor may perform this Work. Reference: ER 405-1-12, Chapter 12. .,- 221 - Hvdrolo1!V Studies/Appendix. This subaccount includes hydrologic studies to support hydraulic and design studies. Were hydraulic modeling is required to evaluate a given site or series of sites, hydrologic flow duration data will be. . required for the modeling efforts. Hydraulic tidal input will also be required for the estuary sites that have tidal effects. Hydrologic input to the feasibility report will be prepared along with a Hydrology Appendix. Reference: ER 1105-2-100, ER 1110-2-1150. 22J - Hvdraulic Studies/Appendix. This subaccount includes hydraulic design studies for the candidate sites throughout the basin. Some of the proposed projects, i.e. side, channels and stream rehab will require hydraulic modeling utilizing a one-dimensional, steady state HEC-RAS numerical model. The hydraulic study plan to evaluate bioengineering bank stabilization or habitat placement features is based on the County and the Corps selecting habitat sites in reaches that have excess freeboard that will allow habitat features being placed with no loss of the existing level of flood protection thus eliminating the need for extensive computer or physical modeling. However if extensive numbers of bioengineering bank stabilization projects are proposed for the Middle Green River area, a 2-dimensional hydrodynamic model and a physical model will be required to determine the effect on the water surface and localized velocity regime of placing a significant number of habitat structures in this critical reach. The hydraulic study plan also includes input for the OMRR&R estimate, the preparation of a hydraulic appendix and a summary for the FR. Reference: ER 1105-2-100, ER 1110-2-1150 22K - Geotechnical Studies/Appendix. This subaccount includes the investigation, exploration, and analysis of foundations and materials conditions related to the selection and design of the selected restoration alternatives It also includes review of existing data for use in identifying zones of siting feasibility and the screening and selection of candidate restoration sites. The criteria guiding geotechnical investigation and analyses will is that they will be performed in support of project alternatives, at the minimum level necessary to support engineering and design studies needed to establish conceptual designs for project features and elements and to form an appropriate basis for further preconstruction engineering and design (PED) design efforts. The majority of the sites will require a field visit along with the rest of the design and evaluation team. The sites that include moving an existing levee and those sites in the iower . estuary will require subsurface investigation. A geotechnical appendix to the feasibility report will be prepared and a summary for the FR. Reference: ER 1110- 2-1150 12 G 13 22L - Hazardous, Toxic. and Radiololrical Waste (HTRW) Studies. The objective ofHTRW studies is to determine the presence and character of contamination identified in an initial screening of the preferred restoration sites. estimate the volume and level of any contamination and conduct a site investigation of any selected restoration sites that have a potential for HTRW contamination. The extent ofHTRW studies beyond the initial screening. that will be required in support of the site-specific stage of the study, cannot be predetermined; therefore. the cost of the latter portion of this work item is a gross estimate and work is not to be performed until a preliminary screening is accomplished. If screening shows significant contaminants then additional investigation and testing will be required to develop program of site rehabilitation during construction. The Government will perform all work. Reference: ER 1165-2-132. An HTRW appendix will be prepared and a summary statement will be prepared for the FR. 22N - Survev and Mappin1!. This subaccount includes all surveying, aerial photography, mapping and related tasks necessary to support engineering and design studies for the basin wide restoration study. The Government or its contracting agents will perform all work. Reference: ER 1105-2-100 220 - Cost Estimates. This subaccount includes all cost estimating for the candidate restoration sites and preparation of construction cost estimates for the selected plan. Estimates will be in work breakdown structure format, and the detailed estimate of cost for the recommended plan and NED plan. if different. will be prepared using the M- CASES software. The amount of cost estimates that will be required in support of the site-specific stage of the study cannot be predetermined; therefore. the cost of this work item is a gross estimate and work is not to be perfonned until after a . scope has been approved by th~ Executive Committee. The Government will perfonn all work. Input to the Engineering Appendix will be prepared along with a cost table and narrative for the FR. Reference: ER 1110-2-1150. EM 111O~2- . 1302. G 22P - Enlrineerin1! and Desi1!n StudieslEnlrineerin1! Appendix. This account includes engineering and design studies of alternative restoration sites and preparation of an engineering .appendix to the feasibility report. Engineering and design studies will be perfonned at the minimum level needed to establish conceptual designs for project features and elements and for development of construction cost estimates, and estimates of operation, maintenance, repair, replace and restoration. (OMRR&R) and surveillance. At the same time these studies will establish an appropriate basis for further preconstruction engineering and design (PED) design efforts, and project construction schedules. The Engineering Appendix will consist of all design data analyses, a written description of the design features of the recommended plan, plates, and cost estimates. The 14 Governmerit will perform all work. Reference: ER 1110-2-1150, ER 1105-2-100, EM 1110-2-5027, EM 1110-2-5025. 220 - StudvlProiect Mana1!ement. This effort will include all activities related to management if the feasibility phase. Activities include: overall coordination with local, state, tribal and federal governmental agencies, ports, industry, interest groups, and the general public; oversight management ofin-house, Sponsor, and contracted efforts; coordination of the public involvement program; coordination with the Sponsor; attending meetings and conducting briefings throughout the course of the study; responding to congressional and other inquiries; preparation of budgetary documents and upward reporting; programming, managing and tracking study obligations, and expenditures; and accounting for in-kind services. Management of various reviews of the programmatic EIS and the draft and final feasibility reports is included; this will involve Project Study Team review, coordination with the Technical Review Team, Technical Review Team review, and public review ofthe draft documents. The Government, the Sponsor, and the city and tribal participants in the study ILA will pefform study management activities. This subaccount does not include plan formulation, report preparation, or Washington level review support activities, which are separately described below. Reference: ER 1105-2-100, ER 5-7-1. 22R - Plan Formulation. This subaccount includes the evaluation of alternative plans and selection of the recommended plan, plus general plan formulation activities that are not properly costed against other accounts. Plan formulation is the process whereby project alternatives are conceived arid developed to satisfy specific objectives and then combinations of measures are coordinated to develop alternative disposal site plans. Alternative plans will be formulated in consideration offour criteria: completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. The Government and the Sponsor willjointIy conduct plan formulation. Reference: ER 1105-2-100. 22S - Report Preparation. This subaccount includes preparation of text and graphics for both the draft and final feasibility report, and EIS. Specific activities include assembling, writing, editing, reviewing, revising and responding to review comments, reproducing, and distributing the draft and final feasibility report. Reference: ER 1105-2-100. 22T - Technical Review. This subaccount includes costs for technical review ofthe draft feasibility report by the Technical Review Team, as shown on Table 3. Independent technical review of the feasibility report will be conducted independent of the technical production . of the report, as described in the Quality Control Plan of this PSP. The study will also have extensive review throughout the plan formulation and EIS process by agencies at the federal, state, local and tribal governmental level, and by the local 15 cities, special interest groups, and the general public. Those entities most directly involved in plan fonnulation will include Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, the cities in the basin, Native American tnoes, and interest groups. Reference: Draft EC-1165-2, Implementation ofTechnicaI and Policy Compliance Review. 22U - Executive Committee. This subaccount includes costs incurred by the study Executive Committee members who will generally oversee the study consistency with the PSP, as prescribed in Article IV of the FCSA The Executive Committee will have three members, including a representative from each of these three entities: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, King County, and the cities and tribes participating in the ILA. Table 1 reflects an estimate of costs that will be incurred by the Seattle District Planning Branch Chief and his counterparts from the Sponsor. Costs incurred by the District Engineer and his counterparts from the Sponsor will not be separately. chargeable to the study but, instead, will be charged to General and Administrative overhead and the Sponsor's equivalent overhead account. 22Y - Washinf!ton Level Review Support. This subaccount inCludes reasonable costs of those activities by the Seattle District and King County, which may be necessary to support the review and processing of the feasibility report, from the signing of the final report by the Seattle District Engineer through the request of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) to the Office of Management and Budget for the views of the Administration. These items could include answering comments, attending Washington-level meetings and other necessary travel, and making minor report revisions as a result of review by higher authority. This item will be five percent of the total study cost, or $50,000, whichever is less, and will be shared equally. Any costs relating to the feasibility report that are incurred following completion of the feasibility phase and subsequent termination of the FCSA will be 100 percent federal costs. The amount of work that will be required during this review cannot be predetermined; therefore, this work item is considered.a contingency. Reference: ER 1105-2-100 (Chapter 8), EC 1105-2-208. 2.7 Study Manaf!'ement and Coordination Study management and coordination are generally described in Article IV of the Agreement. The specific coordination mechanism between the Government, King County, and the city and tribal participants in the study ILA is described below: Coordination Mechanism a. The Corps of Engineers Project Manager will be responsible for day-to-day management of the study. He/she will maintain close coordination with the entire ~roject Study Team to ensure timely prosecution of the study and compliance with this Agreement. The Corps of Engineers Project Manager will meet and confer with the Sponsor's Project Managers on a regular basis throughout the study to 16 discuss study prosecution and progress. The Corps of Engineers Project Manager will maintain a written record of such meetings, with a copy provided to the Sponsor's Project Manager. b. The Corps of Engineers Study Manager will prepare quarterly study progress reports, with appropriate input from the Project Study Team. Following review and approval by the Project Study Team, the quarterly study progress reports will be submitted to the Executive Committee and the Steering Committee. Th~ reports will identifY pr9gress of all work ite.as during the period, as well as document unresolved conflicts or policy issues requiring action by the Executive Committee. c. Executive Committee meetings will be scheduled on a semiannual basis. More frequent meetings will be scheduled, as required, to resolve conflicts.or policy issues. 2.8 Review and Acceptance of Work. The Project Study Team, under the direction of the Corps of Engineers Project Manager, will monitor and review all work. Project Study Team review and acceptance of work items, including contracts, will be documented in the quarterly study progress reports submitted to the Executive Committee and the Steering Committee. Any disagreements about the acceptability of completed work will immediately be brought to the attention of the Executive Committee by the Project Manager, acting through the Project Study Team. 3. QUALITY CONTROL PLAN. 3.1 Purpose. This Quality Control (QC) Plan presents the process that assures quality products for the DuwamishlGreen Ecosystem Restoration Study. This QC Plan defines the responsibilities and roles of each member on the study and Technical Review Team. The primary product to be reviewed by the Technical Review Team is th~ feasibility report. Under current procedures, technical review is a district function, and policy compliance review is a HQUSACE function. Technical review will be conducted for all decision documents and will be independent of the technical production of the product/project. This QC Plan is, by reference, a part of the Project Study Plan (PSP) for the feasibility study. 3.2 Methodolo2V. The Project Study Team is comprised of qualified personnel from within the Seattle District, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, King County (the study sponsor), and the city and tribal participants in the study ll.-A. Project Study Team members are identified in Table 2. The Technical Review Team has been selected on the basis of having the proper knowledge, skiIls, and experience necessary to perform the task, as well as their lack of affiliation with the development of the feasibility report. The Technical Review Team is primarily drawn from Seattle Distri.ct personnel, to ensure that the technical work and 17 products from economics, engineering, environmental, cost estimating, real estate, and other essential disciplines, achieve a quality product. Technical Review Team members are identified in Table 3. Technical review of the programmatic EIS will be accomplished through the formal NEP NSEP A process. Technical review will use appropriate analytical methods for each technical area. Technical review will rely on periodic Technical Review Team meetings to discuss critical plan formulation or other project decisions, and on the review of the written feasibility report documentation and files. A technical review will ensure and confirm that: . a. the document is consistent with established criteria, procedures, and policy; b. clearly justified and valid assumptions that are in accordance with established guidance and policy have been utilized, with any deviations clearly identified and properly approved; c. the concepts, features, analytical methods, analyses, and details are appropriate, fully coordinated, and correct; d. the problems/issues are properly defined and scoped; and the conclusions and recommendations are reasonable. 3.3 Ouality Control ResDonsibilities. a. General. Technical Review Team continuity will be maintained through the life of the project, to the maximum extent possible. The size and composition of the Technical Review Team shall be based on the complexity of the project; this composition may change as the project progresses and specific project features are better defined. The Technical Review Team leader will normally be a project manager. The technical review will be funded by project funds. b. Project Manal!:er. The feasibility study project manager shall be responsible for coordinating the review effort with the Technical Review Team leader and shall: 1. ensure that the schedule contains sufficient time to perform reviews of completed products; 2. insure that the team leader is notified of significant Project Study Team meetings and review conferences so that he/she can assemble the Technical Review Team for in-progress reviews; and . 3. manage responses to review memorandums and resolve technical issues with the Technical Review Team leader, consult with North Pacific Division as appropriate, and forward all unresolved technical issues to the appropriate Functional Chief for resolution. c. Functional Section Chiefs. Each Functional Section Chief is responsible for ensuring that all work prepared by or for hislher Section has received any 18 necessary internal QC checks prior to the feasibility report being furnished to the Teclwjca! Review Team for final review. d. Technical Review Team Member. Each Technical Review Team member is responsible for performing an independent technical review ~ will: 1. attend all major Project Study Team meetings. 2. assemble all review memorandums and/or other review-related correspondence, and maintain a reading file for the use of the Technical Review Team. e. Technical Review Team Member. Each Technical Review Team member is responsible for performing an independent technical review of the assigned study product or portion thereof. The reviewer shall seek assistance from hislher Functional Section Chief whenever the review calls for a level of specialized experience or training not possessed by the reviewer. 3~4 Quality Control Process. a. Technical Coordination. Generally, product development shall be performed in accordance with established criteria and guidance and with policy. Meetings with the appropriate Technical Review Team members during the planning process will be held at key decision-making points. Meetings will also be held to discuss and resolve technical and/or policy issues that may arise du.ring the course of product development. Technical issues and concerns raised during the technical review process will be documented, as will the resolution of these issues and concerns. Telephone and personal contacts with appropriate Technical Review Team members will be used to informally discuss study issues throughout the process. G b. Product Quality Control. Product QualitY Control is the independent technical review of a completed product. The feasibilitY study Project Manager will provide completed documents to the Technical Review Team leader who will distribute them to the Technical Review Team members for review. During the review, Technical Review Team meetings will be scheduled as required to ensure that all components have been coordinated, there is consistency throughout the document, and there is a CONSENSUS on proposed revisions. Any issues on which a Technical Review Team position cannot be reached will be referred through the project manager to the District Functional Chief for resolution. The Technical Review Team leader will record the significant team comments in a written review memorandum that will be provided to the project manager for appropriate action. Comments that cannot be resolved between reviewers and Project Study Team will be taken by the Technical Review Team leader and project manager to the. appropriate Functional Chief for final disposition; the assistance of North Pacific Division and HQUSACE will be requested as needed. 19 3.5 Consultant Products. Consultants are an extension ofthe Project Study Team and any designs, reports, etc., prepared by them shall have an independent review by the Technical Review Team just as if they had been prepared by the Project Study Team. 3.6 Policv Review. Questions or problems regarding policy concerns will be elevated directly to HQUSACE (CECW-A) for resolution, as the issues develop. Legal and real estate policy issues will be elevated to the Chief Counsel and Director of Real Estate, respectively. 3.7 Technical Review Documentation. All significant review comments will be provided to the Project Study Team in written fonnat. The Project Manager will assure that all significant comments are resolved and their final disposition is identified in Writing. The feasibility report submitted to higher authority shall be accompanied by technical review documentation. This documentation shall be a separate item not to be included as part of the feasibility report. A page indicating the names of the Project Study Team members and Technical Review Team members shall be included. 3.8 Schedule. Technical review milestones are scheduled as indicated in Figure,2 of the Project Study Plan, work sequence diagram, and are shown on Table 4 at the end of this plan. 20 TABLE 1 . FEASIBILllY STUDY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY Subaccount - Studv Work Item FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 Total 22A -PUBUC INVOLVEMENT Government Effort $0 $2,000 S2,OOO $4,000 Sponsor In-kind ServiCC$ $2,000 $10,000 $10,000 $22,000 220 - CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES Government Effort . $10,000 $15,000 $0 $25,000 Sponsor In-kind Services . $0 $0 $0 SO 22E - ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES . Environmental Data Compilation . Government Effort S10,OOO $25,000 SO S35,OOO . Sponsor In-kind Services $5,000 S10,OOO $0 $15,000 Environmental Coorclina~on - Government Effort S5,OOO $15,000 S12,OOO $32,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $0 S10,OOO $3,000 $13,000 Proararnrnatic NEPAlSEPA Government Effort $145,000 $5,000 $150,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $0 $0 $0 $0 Site-specific EIS Review Process. Govemment Effort $0 $14,000 $14,000 Sponsor In-kind Services SO $0 $0 22F - FISH & WlLDUFE COORD. ACT REPORT Government Effort $15,000 $5,000 $20,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $0 $0 $0 22G - ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Govemment Effort $0 S35,OOO $10,000 $45,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $0 $0 $0 22H - REAL ESTATE STUDIES , Government Effort S5,OOO . $50,000 $0 $55,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $0 $5,000 $5,000 221- HYDROLOGIC STUDIES Government Effort S5,OOO . S10,OOO $0 $15,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $5,000 S10,OOO $15,000 22J - HYDRAUUC STUDIES Government Effort S10,OOO $46,300 $0 $56,300 Sponsor In-kind Services - S5,OOO . S20,OOO $0 $25,000 Subaccount - Study Work Item FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 Total. 22K - GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES Government Effort $10,000 $15,300 $3,000 $28,300 Sponsor In-kind Services $0 $0 $0 $0 1 TABLE 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY 22L. HTRW STUDIES Government Effort $5,000 $23,000 $5,000 $33,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $0 $0 $0 $0 22N . SURVEY AND MAPPING GovemmentEffort $5,000 $6,000 $3,000 $14,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $5,000 $0 "$0 $5,000 , 220 . COST ENGINEERING Govemment Effort $10,000 $1,000 $11,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $0 $0 . $0 . 22P . ENGINEERING AND DESIGN STUDIES Enaineerina Government Effort $10,000 $55,000 $5,000 $70,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $10,000 $30,000 $5,000 $45,000 , Environmental Support Government Effort . $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 . $20,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $10,000 $15,000 $5,000 $30,000 22Q . STUDY MANAGEMENT Government Effort $3,000 $4,500 $40,000 $47,500 Sponsor In-kind Services $3,000 $20,000 $10,000 $33,000 22R . PLAN FORMULA nON Govemment Effort $2,000 $7,000 $0 $9,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 22S. REPORT PREPARAnON Govemment Effort $0 $10,000 23,000 $33,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 22T . TECHNICAL REVIEW Govemment Effort $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 22U . EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Government Effort $0 $1,000 $1 ;000 $2,000 Sponsor In-kind Services $0 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 .. FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 Total . 22Y . WASHINGTON LEVEL REVIEW SUPPORT Government Effort $0 $0 $0 $0 Sponsor In-kind Services $0 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $135,000 $641 ,1 00 $213,000 $989,100 Contingency (10.0 Percent) $13,500 $64,110 $21,300 $9.8,910 TOTAL ESTIMATE (IN 1997 DOLLARS) $148,500 $705,210 $234,300 $1,088,010 2 TABLE 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY Government Cost Share $74,250 $352,605 $117,150 $544,005 Sponsor Cost Share (Cash Contribution) $24,250 $211,605 $63,150 $299,005 (In-kind Services) $50,000 $141,000 $54,000 $245,000 TOTAL ESTIMATE (IN 1997 DOLlARS) $148,500 $705,210 $234,300 $1,088,010 OMS INFLATION FACTORS . 1 1.042 1.086 FULLY FUNDED ESTIMATE: Government Cost Share $74,250 $367,414 $127.225 $568,889 Sponsor Cost Share (Cash Contnbution) $24,250 $220,492 $68,581 $313,323 (In-kind Services) $50,000 $146,922 $58,644 $255,566 .. FUU Y FUNDED ESTIMATE $148,500 $734,829 $254,450 $1,137,779 NOTE: This is a fuO funcfang total which involves multip6cation of the base year 1997 estimated studY cost by Office of ManaQement and BudQet (OMB) inflation factors for work to be Derformed in FY 1988 and 1999 I I . 3 TABLE 2 Duwamish - Green River Fish and Wildlife Restoration Feasibility Study . Project Study Team Discipline Project Manager Assistant.Project Manager Environmental Coordinator Environmental Resources Cultural Resources Geospatial Data & Systems Environmental Engrg/HfRW Geothechnical Hydraulic Engineer Hydrological Engineer Survey & Mapping Fish & Wildlife Civil Design Economic Evaluation Cost Engineering Cost Engineering Real Estate Sponsor Sponsor Sponsor City Representatives Tribal Representatives Contractors Name Noel Gilbrough Tim Shaw Pat Cagney Merri Martz Dr. David Rice . Dave Gustafson Travis Shaw Monte Kaiser Tun Lencioni Bill Cronin Kurt Noble Gwil Ging Brad Brandt Patty Cardinal Bill Garrott Stephen Pierce Wanda Gentry Dennis Canty Bob Furstenburg Clint Loper (to be determined) 21 Office SymboV Agency CENPS-EN-PL-CP CENPS-EN-PL-CP CENPS-EN-PL-ER CENPS-EN-PL-ER CENPS-EN-PL-ER CENPS-IM-PI CENPS-EN-GT -ET CENPS-EN-GT -GE CENPS-EN-H&H CENPS-EN-H&H CENPS-EN-SY U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service CENPS-EN-DB-CD CENPS-EN-PL-CP CENPS-EN-CE CENPS-EN-CE CENPS-RE-AQ King County King County King County TABLE 3 Duwamish - Green River Fish and Wildlife Restoration Feasibility Study Technical Review Team Discipline Name Technical Review Team Leader Environmental Coordinator Cultural Resources Geospatial Data & Systems Environmental EngrglHTRW Geothechnical Hydraulic Engineer Hydrological Engineer Fish & WIldlife. Civil Design EconorrricEvaluation Cost Engineering Real Estate Sponsor Sponsor Sponsor City Representatives Tribal Representatives Mike McNeely Jeff Dillon Lawr Salo Dave Gustafson Sandy Lemlich Jim McBane Ron Malmgren Loren Jangaard Gwi1 Ging Pam Y orozu Jeff Mendenhall Mel Bonicillo David A Garton Dennis Canty Bob Furstenburg Clint Loper 22 Office SyrnboV Agency CENPS-EN-PL-ERS CENPS-EN-PL-ER CENPS-EN-PL-ER CENPS-IM-PI CENPS-EN-GT -ET CENPS-EN-GT -GE CENPS-EN-H&H CENPS-EN-H&H U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service CENPS-EN-DB-CD CENPS-EN-PL-CP CENPS-EN-CE CENPS-RE-AQ. King County King County King County TABLE 4 Duwamish - Green River Fish and Wildlife Restoration Feasibility Study Study Milestones Milestone Date Initiate Feasibility Study September 1997 Technical Review Conference September 1998 Submit Report to HQUSACE for January 1999 . reVIew Feasibility Review Conference April 1999 Public and Agency Review May 1999 Submit Final District Report to July 1999 NWD Divis~on Engineers Public Notice September 1999 23 Addendum # 1 to the PSP 13 January 1998 DUW AMISH/GREEN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORA nON STUDY ADDENDUM #1 TO THE PSP 1. The purpose of this addendum is to outline the scope and cost of adding an additional project to those being studied under the existing PSP. This additional project is being managed solely by the U.s. Army Corps of Engineers and King County and is called the West Seattle Near Shore Habitat Restoration Project. The overall plan for this project includes spreading several acres of habitat with a combination of shell, gravel and rock to develop a co~dition that will attracted bottom growing plants, organisms and fis~ This project has been proposed by the Elliot Bay panel, a group that has been instrumental in proposing and funding several habitat restoration sites in the Elliot Bay and Duwamish waterway area. The proposed project meets with the overall criteria of the study and expands the basm wide ecosystem approach of the study. 2. This addendum consists of: a scope of work for this additional effort, a schedule and list of deliverab1es, and a cost estimate for funding this effort. Dgadcn.doc Addendum #1 to the PSP ELLIOT BAY NEAR SHORE PROJECT This package is a proposal for the Seattle District of the Corps of Engineer to assist in the study and construction of the Elliot Bay Near Shore Project. This proposal includes adding this project to the series of projects being investigated under the Duwamish Green River Feasibility Study that is sponsored by King County. The overall schedule calls for this project to meld in with the other projects being investigated in an overall Feasibility Study that is currently scheduled to be submitted to the Corps higher authority in November of 1999. Construction would be done, at the earliest 2 years and the report is submitted. The funding advantage is that the Corps will pay 50% of the cost of the study and 65% of the cost of the project. Scope of Work Elliot Bay Near Shore Project This scope of work is for adding the Elliot Bay Near Shore project to the Duwamish Green Ecosystem Restoration Study that is sponsored by King County and being conducted in partnership with Seattle District Corps of Engineers. Engineering Design This effort would include the design of a small pilot project that would be used to test materials and locations that would be used in the larger project. Any permit input that would be necessary for the pilot. Sponsor will provide the permits. These small projects would be designed for very simple construction techniques and to be easily located for monitoring. This effort would also include the acquisition of materials and the construction of the pilot project This effort would also include the design of the full size project in the four locations as described in the map provided by King County. The project design would include 3 alternatives, one small alternative (no federal funding) and a small and large federal alternative. The materials and placement methods would be determined during the design studies. Modifications could be made to the final feasibility design based on input from the monitoring of the prototype projects. Modifications would also be made during Plans and Specifications based on Monitoring Environmental Studies This effort would include developing the SEP NNEP A documentation necessary for the prototype pr.oject e.g. existing conditions, toxicity .etc. a literature review for the project,. . . assistance in developing a monitoring plan for the prototype and in developing input for a programmatic EIS that is part of the overall feasibility study. This effort would also include an . investigation of eelgrass, and a benthic community characterization and any other green slimy things that live down below. Addendum # 1 to the PSP Mapping This include both a bathometric SUlVey and map of the project area. The bathometric map will have enough detail to be able to tie the four project sites back to pilings and other landforms. This format will make an excellent base to show project features and location. HTRW Analysis This effort will include a literature review to deterinine the history of hazardous substances in the area and working with the study team on the project area. It does not include any testing of materials. Ifit is determined that there is a possibility of hast ox material in the project site then a cost estimate for sampling will be provided. . . Report Input Prepare a write up and plates for this project for inclusion i,nto the feasibility report. Project Management Manage the overall effort and studies for the study and prototype project. Write work requests and contracts dealing with this efforts) keep track of funding and funds management system.. Environmental Coordination Coordinate with other resource agencies, attend meeting, and prepare environmental contracts. Supervise all environmental funding and effort dealing with this study. Dgebscope.doc , . . Addendum # 1 to the PSP ATTACHMENT DeliverableS Pilot Project Design/specifications NEP AfEA requirements (Nationwide pennit) 401,404 approval . Local pennits/HP A/SEP A checldist . Property Right of Entry Substrates obtained and put in place according to design Monitoring /Report Date USACE Responsible Unless Indicated Dec. 1997 Nov. 1997 Nov. 1997 Feb 1998 Jan. 1998 Mar. 1998 King County King County & USACE Sept. 1998 King County Engineering and Design. Dec. 1998 for full project within 4 areas as specified Bathometric & topographic surveyslMaps tied to land features Literature Review of similar projects in Central Puget Sound Feasibility report including necessary information to achieve project goals, e.g. Existing conditions Stability of slope & substrate Optim~m patch size Substrates that meet project objectives Specific locations within specified areas Environmental impacts Project Design with cost analysis of3 options Environmental Review HTRW Analysis/report NEP A/SEP A Approvals Programmatic EIS docu- mentation,' e.g.: existing conditions . potential impacts EA approval Local Pennits/SEP A checklist . Monitoring plan Jun. 1999 Dec. 1999 Jun. 2000 King County Feb. 1999 KC and USACE AJ,J,..Jfll4A. If( it .f1e- psp Elliott Bay Near Shore Project Tasks/budget breakdown by cashlin-kind and agency TASKS CASH KC In-Kind COE $40,000 KC $20,000 KC $20,000 Pilot Project 2000 Specifications MonitorlReport 3000 Construct 5000 ,. Project Specifications Literature Review 2500 Bathometric Survey .9000 Topographic SurveylMap 5000 Proiect Design 4000 Feasibility Report Input 2500 Site AnalysisIDesign 7000 Environmental Review DMMOIHTRW 5000 NEPA process/approval 5000 input 2500 Pennits 5000 Study Management 5000 Env. Coordination 4000 Project Management 5000 Contingency 8500 TOTAL 60000 20000 80,000 Prepared byJllOY Bevington 2/5/98 Page 1 Proposed Local Cost Distributions for Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study f1..Jt I &rr 1W D Local Cost Share Required': $300,000 ALLOCATION FACTORS3 PROPOSED % Watershed % Watershed % Watershed % Watershed COST Area Population Assessed Impervious JURISDICTION ALLOCATION 2 Value Surface Algona $600 0.06% 021% 0.24% 0.29% Auburn $18,885 2.51% 7.62% 6.35% 8.70% Black Diamond $1,650 0.74% 0.45% 0.32% 0.69% Covington $5,445 1.32% 1.32% 1.32% 3.30% Des Moines $210 0.02% 0.11% 0.07% 0.08% Enumclaw $3,255 0.48% 1.54% 1.09% 1.23% Federal Way $1,838 0.18% 0.93% 0.71% 0.63% Kent $32,565 3.83% 11.00% 13.10% 15.49% King County $139,009;50 8129% 38.62% 26.62% 38.82% Maple Valley $3,363 1.18% 1.18% 0.94% 1.18% Renton $11,963 123% 4.81% 5.25% 4.66% SeaTac $8,453 0.75% 3.36% 4.40% 2.76% Seattle $55,883 4.57% 24.n% 31.43% 13.74% Tukwila $16,898 1.85% 4.08%. 8.16% 8.44% Totals": $300,015 100.01% 100.00% 100.00% 100.01% NOTES: 1) Costs are for cash share only. Requirements for in-kind match will be met through project coordination and local government design and pennitting work. More than 70% of in-kind share is expected to be borne by King County. Participants will pay 60% of cash contributions in 1998 and 40% in 1999. 2) Proposed cost allocation = $300,000 multiplied by the average of the 4 allocation factors for the jurisdiction. Cost estimates are based on full participation by all jurisdictions; . actual costs may be different. 3) Area, population and assessed value data is from RNA re$earch in 1994; it does not include effects of annexations and incorporations. ImpeNious surface data is from 1992, but is based on current jurisdiction.al boundaries. 4) Totals greater than 100% or $300,000 are due to rounding. ". GRNALOC5.)(js CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: March 11, 1998 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use / Transportation Committee FROM: Richard A. Perez, City Traffic Engineer /If SUBJECT: 1) Revisions to the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Ordinance 2) Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Incentive Program 3) Interlocal Agreement and CTR Professional Services Agreement Background: Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law was adopted by the 1991 legislature and incorporated into the Washington Clean Air Act as RCW 70.94.527. Its intent is to improve air quality, reduce gasoline consumption and traffic congestion through employer-based programs by encouraging the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicle (SOV) for the commute trip. The law requires major employers public or private that employs one hundred (100) or more full time employees to develop and implement a commute trip reduction plan. In 1997, the legislature passed amendments to the law which changed the SOY and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction goals from 25 percent to 20 percent in 1997, 35 percent to 25 percent in 1999, and extended the program and established a 35 percent reduction goal in 2005. Additionally, the amendments: · Specify that employers are required to make good faith effort to implement CTR at their worksites; and · Clarify that failure to achieve the SOY and VMT reductions is not a violation. , In addition to the amendments above, the CTR Task Force Guidelines which provide local jurisdictions and employers with direction to implement their program were also revised. These revised guidelines supersede the Task Force guidelines issued in 1992. CTR Ordinance Revisions: State law requires that the CTR ordinance of local jurisdiction be consistent with the eTR law and guidelines. The purpose of the ordinance revisions is to incorporate the changes in CTR law and Task Force guidelines into the City existing CTR ordinance. Staff is requesting direction to incorporate the revisions to the CTR Ordinance for full council review on April 7, 1998. CTR Incentive Program: The City of Federal Way 1997 survey results (see Table 1) indicated that 7% SOY reduction progress was made from 1995. This SOY reduction was due largely to the $30,000 incentive program approved by the council in 1996 for the City affected sites. Currently, the incentive. program is funded via the City's CTR "reserve" funds (state allocated CTR funds that remain after the Metro contract) and a matching grant from Metro. These funds are allocated to each affected worksite based on the number of affected employees. Employers are allowed to select the Incentive Programs that they determine would best help them reach their CTR goals. . Table 1. City of Federal Way Site I Survey I I Met Goal I % from I I SOVGoal I I Progress I I SOV (Credit) goal from I I I I I results previous year I I I : : : 19 : 64 : Yes : : : : (Yes) : -------------------------------r----------T----------T-----------+----------T------------ . I I I I I Weyerhaeuser Techmcal Center : 66 : 64 : No : 3% : -15% -------------------------------r----------T----------T-----------T----------T------------ I I I I I WeyerhaeuserCampus Center : 70 : 64 : No : 9% : -16% - - - - - ---- - - - - -- ------ - -- - ---- - - r - - ------ - - T - - ------ - - T --- - --- ---- T--- -- - - ---T-------- ---- I I I I I Weyerhaeuser Park Center II : 72 : 64 : No : 13% : -16% -------------------------------r----------T----------T-----------T----------T------------ I I I I I USAA : 72 : 64 : No : 13% : 4% - - -------- - - - -- ---- -- - - - -------r -------- - - T - - ------- - T --- - - - - ----T------- -- -T ----- -- - ---- . I I I I I Weyerhaeuser West Campus : 75 : 64 : No : 17% : -9% - - - -- ----- - - - - - ----- --- - - ---- - -r -- ----- - - - T----------T-----------T------ - - --T------------ , I I I I I Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarter: 76 : 64 : No : 19% : -10% -------------------------------r----------T----------T-----------T----------T------------ World Vision : 80 : 72 : No : 1]% : Istmeas I I I I I . - - - --- --- - -- - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - -- - - -- - T - - - - - - ---- T-- - - - - --- - - T ---- - - - - - -T -- -- - - - - - - -- S. F . H . I I I I I I amt ranClS osplta : 82 : 64 : No : 28% : -7% - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - --r - - -- -- - - - - T - - - - ------T--- -- --.- --- T ---- --- - - - T- - -- ---- - - -- .. I I. I I. I (]ltyofFederalWlly :88: .64. L NQ:. 3~%...l 1% - -.--- - --- - -- - --- -- -- - - - - - - -- - - - r - - - ---- - - - T -- - -- - ----.,.. ----- - -----'1'" - --- -- - - - -.,.. -- - ---- - - --- United State Government Postal : 9] : 64 : No : 42% : 14% I I I I I ServIces :: i : : -------------------------------,----------,----------,-----------,----------,------------ . I I I I I Reliance Insurance Company I 92 I 64 I No I 44% I 8% - I ! I I ! Orion Industnes -27% I Averages Totals: 74 -7% Note: negative percentages indicate a decrease in SOV use The City of Federal Way current drive alone rate is 88% which falls short of its 1997 goal of 64%. As required by state law, the City will be required to take additional actions to reduce its employee's drive alone commuting. Staff will be proposing an enhanced incentive program to meet this requirement at a future date. Some employers such as Weyerhaeuser and Orion Industries have already exhausted their portion of the $30,000 incentive program allocation. The other affected worksites including City of Federal Way are expected to use up the remaining $3,500 by the end of March of this year. To further enhance SOV reduction in the City of Federal Way, staff recommends continuing using CTR "reserve" funds for incentive programs to all affected employers in Federal Way. Interlocal Agreement and Professional Services Agreement: The CTR Program requires an interlocal agreement (ILA) with King County Metro. The purpose of the agreement is to allocate to the City its proportionate share of the State technical assistance funding for implementing commute trip reduction plans. The City of Federal Way currently has twelve (12) employers affected by the CTR law (City of Federal Way, Orion Industrial, Reliance Insurance Company, Saint Francis Hospital, United State Government Postal Services, USAA, World Vision, and Weyerhaeuser Company sites). In order to comply with the state CTR law and ensure consistency and fairness in its administration, the City entered into an Interlocal Agreement and a professional services agreement with King County Metro. Staff recommends renewal of these agreements as the existing agreements have expired. The purpose of the professional services agreement with Metro is to delegate implementation of the Commute Trip Reduction act. The delegated tasks include the following: I. Work Activities Required Under Local Ordinances A Notification of new sites B. Survey (Goal measurement sites) C. Implementation monitoring D. Program Review E. Records Maintenance F. Exemptions & Modifications II. Work Activities Not Required Under Local Ordinance A Program Development B. Program implementation 1. Assist sites with new program elements 2. Assist network groups with joint CTR promotion and ride matching C. Provide training to new Employees Transportation Coordinator (ETC) and conduct ETC orientation D. Respond to employer requests and troubleshoot site problems The professional services agreement is totally funded by state CTR grants, and the amounts vary based upon the number of affected employers within the City. Based on the 12 affected sites, the City of Federal Way will receive a total 0[$26,193 in 1998, of which $23,669 would be contracted with Metro. Recommendation: Staff is requesting the Land Use/ Transportation Committee (LUTC) authorize revisions to the city's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Ordinance to be consistent with state laws. In addition, staff recommends approval of the Interlocal Agreement and professional services agreement with King County Metro and forward to the April 7, 1998 City Council agenda. Date: March 9, 1998 To: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use and Transportation Committee Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Manager'~ SW340th Regional Storm Water Storage Facility - 30% Design Status Report From: Subject: Background: As you may recall, both the Committee and the Council endorsed the proposal to accelerate this project. The acceleration was suggested by an opportunity to coordinate with other scheduled construction projects in the immediate area. Currently, design and construction are both scheduled for 1998. The project design has reached the 30% completion point and is therefore submitted for your consideration. The proposed drainage facility will be located in the vicinity of SW340th street and Hoyt Road and will service a drainage basin about 94 acres of developed, primarily residential area. The drainage basin lies in both Pierce County (about 65 percent) and in the corporate city limits(about 35 percent). The project's purpose is to reduce the frequency of flooding in homes, on property, and within the right-of-way of SW340th Street and 35th Avenue South West. The following provides a brief synopsis of the progress on the project to date: . The topographic and property boundary surveys . The Sensitive Area delineations, surveys, and reports. . The Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) - Levels I . Preliminary Facility design and Siting Ongoing tasks include: . Facility design for both the storage facility and the connecting conveyance systems. . Property negotiations . SEP A preparation and project permitting Attached for your reference is a location map with the project alignment and footprints. The owner of the parcel on which the facility is currently sited has offered the parcel to the City in exchange for detention credits on the property that he owns adjacent to the proposed facility. Because the project as proposed is regional in nature and is therefore sized to accommodate the entire drainage basin, the owner's offer can be considered. SWM is currently negotiating the terms of a purchase and sale agreement with the owner and hopes to present it to Council during its March 17,1998 meeting. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the committee authorize staff to proceed with design and return to the committee at the 85 % design completion stage for further reports and authorizations. JTP/MS:jg Attachments K:\LUTC\1998\SW340DBT .3096 't ~ //. J x.-/'/., . /- o~ .... ., ~ .~-. ---- "b :L.. ..A ~ --- o .~, ."2:. ~ "- - - ~.A ~ / -------./ Control Structure '. Outlet Micropool , . . , ,--=.- . . i -. ==--:. o - ,'''::;=--- -- ,- ! - --- I o I , j---= 3i en w ~ I ?- m C'? 11.3 Acre- Foot Storage Low-Flow Meandering Channel I Sedimentation: Pond S. W. 342ND ST. :01 ----. w z w ~ I I- 0) '<t" /- N ~ o SO' 100' 1 SO' 200' 250. 1...-.----......... KCM 1917First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 ---- --------'::'--- ----- . ---- --- ----.- -::>" " " " ~ "---' - en _ uj--- > .----- <C_ I::- :...- I- - r-- - C'? .-_ ---' :i; I i1' i I' I I ,- .j I: .~ ./ , -. '" . --"" - ~ en W ~ /I l- I.() M ........., ----......... ......... . '------ .../.- /' ; 1 o . -==; J" J. . " -'-': --.; . --- ~ .- '---" '""'--' :J U - ; ....~ 24'" RCP Trunk - i Replacement -~ ./ --- .- ~~~ ~ -- ....-- .--~ ~ - -./ ;---; r-- .--/ --r ....--- ./ -------- ---- / -, ...--:. ---- ~ - :.,-: : -=, Intercept Drainage' == _= - Along 35th Ave. SW -' 24" RCP ~atera'- _.~ City of Federal Way SW 340TH STREET REGIONAL STORAGE FACILITY ------ --........" / /----- - - .- "" . ,. /,- -- ---- -::::::::- -<:::/ -~ , - _: --- ....----,---./ ~~~- Figure 1. VICINITY AND LOCATION OF PROJECT CITY OF - . - - - - - ECERRl... ~~ FlY" Date: March 9, 1998 To: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use and Transportation Committee Jeff PIatt, Surface Water Manager ~ 1998 Vacuum/Jet Rodding Services Contract From: Subject: Back~ound: Since 1993 the Surface Water Management Division has contracted with the same vendor for the provision of vacuum/jet rodding services to clean the City's storm sewer system. A clause in the original contract allowed the City the discretion to extend its agreement with the vendor for additional periods of time based upon their satisfactory performance and their containment of costs. The appropriated budget for this purpose is $178,500.00 in 1998. Considering that there are now a number of additional vendors in the marketplace that provide this service, and the additional information and experience with the system gained over the last few years, staff recommends rebidding the vacuum/jet radding contract. Recommendations: Staff recommends forwarding the following to the April 7, 1998 City Council meeting: 1. Authorize staff to bid the Vacuum/Jet Rodding contract; 2. If bids are received within budget, present results directly to the City Council for award. ITP:jg k\lldc'\I99I\'4dDI'." MEMO To: Land Use/Transportation Committee Phil Watkins, Chair Jeanne Burbidge Mary Gates Kathy McClung, Deputy CDS Director ~ Request for a comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Change by Jim Hamilton on behalf of the Federal Way Fire Department March 9, 1998 From: Subject: Date: A. REQUEST Jim Hamilton has requested that the fire station site located at 3700 S 320th be added to the annexation, zoning and comprehensive plan change request from Quadrant for adjacent property. (Exhibit A -- correspondence dated March 6, ~998). B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Parcel No./Legal Description: 551560-0037 2. Size: 1.14 acres 3 . Existing Comprehensive Plan: unknown 4. Existing Zoning: RM 2400p 5. Requested Comprehensive Plan Multifamily 6. Requested Zoning: Multifamily C. DISCUSSION The staff are in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan. The update originally was to include an update of utilities information~ a revision of the transportation chapter and one individual parcel request. Because this project has been delayed it has been revised to now include seven individual parcel requests including pre-annexation zoning for Applewood and two parcels of Quadrant land. A consultant has been secured to review the individual requests, A SEPA checklist has been completed for the entire update and a Determination will be issued within the next two weeks. The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the update starting April 15th. This request would be an extension of the work already being Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 March 9, 1998 done on the Quadrant parcels (See attached map). Adding this parcel to the annexation request will even out the boundary fronting 320th. This will not impact the timing for the Comprehensive Plan update. D. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that this parcel be added to the Quadrant parcels for annexation, and pre-annexation zoning and comprehensive plan designation. I:\MESSAGES\FIRE.WPO/March 9, 1998 ,,-.,"- "~-.""-"'~-""'."'''''''''''-''''~~~'"'I',,..... ,.......-:-..., ....... FROM:KING COUNTY FIRE ~39 ADM TO: 2536614129 MAR 6. 1998 2:07PM P.02 KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 39 F~DERAL WAY FIRE D~PARTMENT 31617 -1ST AVENUE SOUTH FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98003-5299 Greg Moore, Director Conununity Development Services City of Federal Way March 6, 1998 Dear Mr. Moore, I wanted to take this opporlllnity to clarify our position on the potential annexation of our property, parcel # 91-0788146 located at 3700 S. 320tb into the City of Federal Way. Per our earlier request, we are asking that we be included ill a proposed annexation of Weyerhaeuser property that is adjacent to our property. In an effort to be consistent Witll that annexation, we would ask that our property zoning be classified consistent with the Weyerhaeuser annexation property. Weare seeking inclusion of our property atUlexation into the update to the Comprehensive Plan. Since the annexation process is new to me, I would appreciate any information on what I need to do in this process, it would be much appreciated. SinCerelY~/ /' f2b ~ Hamilton, Administrator n~~_t____....L._.... _ ... __________ _ 03/06/98 FRI 13:17 [TX/RX NO 7999] ,."",."''l~''''''l:'''''1 C c: 0 'I- ~ ?:- 0 ~ Q) <<I <1z --- .c !! u as ...... ~<<S E c -:z +-' ~ :I Q) as. ::J S >. 0 Q) :!::S 0 eI ~ U. .- .?d- eI ?; eI ....... >< Z 0 I> ~ 0 C 0- >. ~ ~ ~f3 ~ c I> C "0 Q) <D~ ...... 0 I> 0 EXHIBff c: "" LL "" (J) "Oi eI ~ \l) me Ci )( '0 C I> I> tl! ..c:: Q) ~ c i!;- c I .nF +-' .....0 c ~ - PAGE LL <( (3 l\- 0 C +--0 ~.- as..... 0 (J) :]0 -g. T"" Q) 0-<( . I Ix . .&:, o~ I> . . ~o 1-lJ.. !I . .., c: . 0- . en T"" 0 ... en .r. a5 ~ en Land Use/Transportation Committee Phil Watkins, Chair Jeanne Burbidge Mary Gates Kathy McClung, Deputy CDS Director ~ Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zoning Map Change by W & H Pacific on behalf of the Quadrant Corporation March 9, 1998 MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: A. REQUEST Steve Calhoon from W & H Pacific has requested a change in the comprehensive plan for property owned by the Quadrant Corporation located on the east side of Pacific Highway, south of 336th and west of the freeway to allow high density single family and multifamily. (Exhibit A -- Correspondence an map dated March 5, 1998). B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Parcel No.jLegal Description: 2 . Size: 3 . Existing Comprehensive Plan: 4 . Existing zoning: 5. Requested Comprehensive Plan Designation: 6. Requested Zoning: 2121049069- 5.01 acres 2121049067- 2.32 acres 2121049066- 4.91 acres 2121049004- 4.91 acres 2121049065- 4.92 acres 2121049064- 4.94 acres 2121049063- 5 acres 2121049026- 1.7 acres 2121049084- 1.34 acres 2121049016- 5 acres 2121049051- 5 acres 2121049003- 5 acres 50.05 acres Parcel 2121049026- Community Business, All Others- Business Park Parcel 2121049026- Community Business All Others-Business Park Multifamily & High Density Single Family Multifamily and High Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 March 9, 1998 Density Single Family C. DISCUSSION The staff are in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan. The update originally was to include an update of utilities information, a revision of the transportation chapter and one individual parcel request. Because this project has been delayed it has been revised to now include seven individual parcel requests including pre-annexation zoning for Applewood and two parcels of Quadrant land. A consultant has been secured to review the individual requests, A SEPA checklist has been completed for the entire update and a Determination will be issued within the next two weeks. The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the update starting April 15th. This particular request is a substantial departure from the previous adopted plan and will require an analysis of how this will impact our housing and business projections. D. RECOMMENDATION If the Council wishes to proceed with this request, the staff recommends that it be delayed until the next annual update in 1999. I:\MESSAGES\QUADRANT.WPD/March 9, 1998 [OS6L ON lalXI] ~t:Cl llBl S6/S0/CO .' e~~]BC p.o. Box C-97304 Bellevue, WA 98009-9304 March 5, 1998 E1-. h.\ b( + A Mr. Greg Moore ('ih~ ",,,, - #If '~1 Director, Community Development Serviee City of Federal Way 33530 First Way South Federal Way, Washington 98003-6210 Re: Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Update W&HP File No. 3.1998.2163 Dear Mr. Moore: On behalf of the Quadrant Corporation and Weyerhaeuser Company, we would appreciate inclusion of certain property owned by Weyerhaeuscr Company in the City's Comprehensive Plan updated for 1998. The properly, as shown on the attached map, is within the City's jurisdiction. This property is comprehensively planned by the City of Federal Way as Business Park. The Quadrant Corporation, on behalf of Weyerhaeuser Company, is plalU1ing to develop the property and would like to amend the Comprehensive Plan to designate the property as Single Family High Density Residential and Multi-Family ResidentiaL If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 828-2827. Sincerely, W &H PACIFIC, INC. ~~b, Steve Calhoon Project Manager Attachment: Map Showing Referenced Property cc: Margaret Clark, City of Federal Way - Fax (253) 661-4024 Peter Orser, Quadrant Corporation - Fax (425) 646-8300 soc:cy.a ':'fROPOSAL\I99f\:! I 63.dCIc (206) 827-0220 Fax (206) 822-5341 Planning. Engineering. SUTveying. Landscape Design. Environmental Services * ?~/T~'~ b21v1998~21 01 Iv8~ 228 902 JI~IJ~d H ~ M ~~ 1~:81 86,~0 ~~w [086L ON XH/X~] 6t:Cl ilHl 86/S0/CO ** 200'38~d I~~O~ ** .' . ;rr~""[. - . - . .:,~'" -... T-- f~1 ~ i,' ~t E i . , : ~ !OJ @ ~. , --------- -----. HE 20-21-4 .--.----~~. (~) " . ".e'~ie "_Yo '0 ~..s.. @.' I cc,. .too "",e. ~ C II @ 00 i =~ p. 1- , ~ ~ ~ Cll C - CJ:l ""CCll ., t ""'t ""'t i o ""C '0 a ~-g ~~g @ ,.8 ~~~ .. ~ - ~ g- =-' 'I~~ .. :-< ,. ---- .. ~ .. It -- -------!!'''C( C --__~Oo.o,h lO\o CraJe ,. !.~,,& oS..... ---- L"-roSCA.1 ' -- ""'.4e7 .;;;;;---~~~ ..... .... .;------------==- ---~ z ~ N ...---- I N ~ o ~ -------- . ---- -....- ---...... .... "11 .... lilt .-'T+-.TC'lClC"'C--:;JT f"'ll Thf.""C: ??r.:l qlA? '''IT-lT'''lHrI H 'l3 1'1 ~.::l l!;;;:Cl 86.!;0 ~~w MEMO Date: Land Use/Transportation Committee Phil Watkins, Chair Jeanne Burbidge Mary Gates Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner \~ Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Change by Mark Kinder, America First Mortgage March 11,1998 To: From: Subject: A. REQUEST On behalf of the property owner, Ms. Armstrong, Mr. Kinder has requested a change in the comprehensive plan designation for approximately four acres of Parcel No. 3021049163, an 11.01 acre parcel from Parks/Open Space to either Community Business or Business Park (Exhibit A -- Correspondence dated March 5, 1998). Ms. Armstrong owns three parcels in this location totaling 14.54 acres (Exhibit B -- Vicinity Map and Exhibit C -- Map with acreage, existing zoning and comprehensive plan designations). The site is located under the Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) power lines, south of South 356th Street between 15th Ave SW to the east and 18th Ave SW.to the west (Exhibit C). Specially the request is for a comprehensive plan designation and subsequent rezoning for the four acres located closest to South 356th Street to either Community Business or Business Park. The applicant is willing to either donate the remaining 10.54 acres to the Parks Department or leave it in open space. B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Parcel No.lLegal Description: 3021049163 2. Size: 11.01 acres 3. Existing Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Open Space 4. Existing Zoning: Single Family Residential (RS 7.2) 5. Requested Comprehensive Plan: Community Business or Business Park 6. Requested Zoning: Community Business or Business Park Land Use/Transportation committee Page 2 March 11, 1998 C. DISCUSSION The city is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan. The update originally was to include housekeeping changes, an update of utilities information, a revision of the transportation chapter, and one individual parcel request. The scope has since been revised to include seven individual parcel requests, including pre-annexation zoning for the Applewood annexation and two parcels of Quadrant land located east ofI-5. A consultant has been secured to review the individual requests, a SEP A checklist has been completed for the entire update and a SEP A Determination will be issued within the next two weeks. The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the update starting April 15, 1998. If included within the on-going comprehensive plan update process, this request would require additional analysis for a SEP A determination, potentially delaying the timing of the issuance of a SEP A determination and subsequent public hearing by the Planning Commission. D. RECOMMENDATION If the council wishes to proceed with this request, staff recommends that it be delayed until the next annual update in 1999. I:\COMPAMND\WILSON. I/March I L 1998 . RECEIVED BY , COMMUNITY f)FVtLnPi~lENT DEPARTMENT (MAR 'i f.~ ~998 March 5, 1998 Gregory Moore Director of Community Develop Services City of Federal Way 33530 1 st Way South Tacoma, W A 98003 EXHIBIT -A PAG'E--LOF 2. Dear WIT. Moore, I am a local business man interested in purchasing (parcel #'s 3021049000907, 302104916309,218000139103, 218000129005)located within the city limits of Federal Way. I am currently involved in two similar projects in Snohomish County, I am requesting that 4 of the 19 acres be re-zoned for either Community Business or Business Park. I would like this to take effect within this year's comprehensive plan. I will donate the remaining 15 acres to the City Park's Department or I will dedicate this area to remain an open area. I need to utilize the 4 acres along 356th Street. Due to residential housing on 21 st Street I wi111eave a buffer between the my project and these residential homes with beautiful landscaping. The access road will be from 356th Street which currently is an arterial street. This access was chosen to minimize additional traffic on the residential street (21 5t Street & 15th Street). Bonneville Power will not allow anymore residential homes to be built on this site, The current owner does not wish to donate this property to the City of Federal Way Park's Department because she can not afford to do such a grand gesture. Her financial situation can not afford to give away such income at this time in her life. She is a widow and needs this income to meet all her financial responsibilities. By allowing this re-zoning the city will increase tax revenue on this improved land, have dedicated open area or park, and an opportunity to help a citizen sell her land. The local residents also gain from this re-zoning by having a landscaped buffer and an open area or a park, and local business support. \019 Pacific Avenue Suite 1115 Tacoma WA 98402 Office 253-274-8000 Fax 253-274-1041 I am creating new jobs and improving the neighborhood. I need your assistance and cooperation in this matter. Please contact Sharon Wilson, Associate Real Estate Broker, with Windermere/Paragon Company at 253-565-1121 for full legal description, plat map, and any other information you might need. Thank you for your attention on this matter. EXHIB~l A PAG E."",2..._ ()F_L I 0 1 9 Pac i fi c A v en u e S II i tel I I 5 T a com a W A 984- 0 2 0 ffi c e 25 3 - 274- - 8 0 0 0 Fax 253 - 2 74-- I 04- I .~ RS7.2 !LJ ~ .:-"' I , : ...... . .....~ ~,\.', ........~;,'~ 'o~..f... ::rA,II:x~~ ~..~o) ,~;*""",,: ...:,,~ i I " ,'~ '~', ~~:'~'~I~~r'~ ','':'. ".'~~~~.,~~:,:~ l ( RS7.2 RS9.6 RS9.n f~s9,1~~ RS9,6 f~~JI HS2.tl F~S~~,!~' RS9.6 RSH.6 ~"~" :::"", /.... ,"", f'~~ti<O MAP WITH ACREAGE, EXISTING ZONING & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS + . PARCEL # COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA nON ZONING ACREAGE 3021049163 Parks/Open Space RS7.2 11.01 Acres 2180001290 Parks/Open Space RS 9.6 2.72 Acres 2180001391 Single Family High Density RS 9.6 0.81 Acres Federal Way CityMap EXHIBIT C PAGE_,.._..I._oF I SCALE 1 :5679 Note: This map is intented for use as a graphical representation only The Oty of Federal Way makes no warranty as ra Its accuracy MEMO To: Land Use/Transportation Committee Phil Watkins, Chair Jeanne Burbidge Mary Gates Kathy McClung, Deputy CDS Director(\~ Sensitive Areas March la, 1998 From: Subject: Date: Attached are some follow up items requested from the last LUTC meeting: 1. A copy of the map entitled, "Areas Susceptible to Ground Water contamination". This map was provided to us when we adopted the Comprehensive Plan from Lakehaven Water and Sewer District. They do not have any other maps that show where aquifer recharge areas are. 2. A summary provided by Don Largen of Pierce County setbacks and tiered systems. For other jurisdictional information regarding setbacks and tiers see "supplementary information" in your notebook, and/or attachment to letter by Talasea Consultants dated March 5th entitled, "Wetland and Stream Regulations by Agencies and Local Municipalities". 3. Letters. Barbara Peterson 3/2/98 Bruce Harpham 3/2/98 Peter Townsend 3/2/98 Liz Marshall 3/2/98 Mayetta Tiffany 3/2/98 Ted Enticknap 3/2/98 Seatac Mall 3/2/98 Federal Way School District 1/26/98 ESM (Bob Scholes) 3/5/98 Talasea (Bill Shiels) 3/5/98 B-twelve Associates, Inc (Sue Burgemeister) 3/4/98 4. Wetland Inventory- Dyanne Sheldon estimates that an inventory can be completed for under $20,000. The products of the inventory would be a map of wetlands with the wetland rating based on the adopted classifications. This inventory would not catch every wetland in the city, but would be based on data the city already has. Wetland boundaries would not be identified. An applicant would still need to delineate the wetlands on site. I am still getting additional information from Dyanne and will provide it to you at the meeting. Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 March 10, 1998 5. Information regarding aquifer recharge is forthcoming. Dyanne is preparing an issue paper which she will provide to me this Friday. I will put copies in your boxes once I have it and will bring copies to the meeting on Monday night. 6. Bob Sterbank will provide you information about the endangered species changes at the meeting on Monday. Dyanne has also been following this issue. 7. Councilmember Dovey asked for a map showing undeveloped and underdeveloped parcels. The GIS Division is working on this and I will have for you on Monday night. I:\MESSAGES\SENS.WPD/March 10, 1998 ~. s COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREAS SUSCEPTIBLE TO GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT PUCET SOUND LEGEND 1'" .Ii \/~ I ""', "'""'-"\ .. ~,>... .: "I ! ~ - ,.: I i I~' { I (~.; . j"1; ~m-'I , , ,I ,I I I lilililli q , ~ _._,-,-,-,-,-,- FEDERAL YAY CITY LIMlTS - - - - - POTENTIAL ANNEXATlON AREA - ' -. - . - LAKEHAVEN DISTRICT BOUNDARY ____n____ 'WATER SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY - AREAS OF HIGH SUSCEPTABIU1Y TO GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AREAS OF I.1EDIUI.1 SUSCEPTABIUTY TO GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AREAS OF LOW SUSCEPTABILlT'I' TO GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION 1""""1 o ~ ThiS nnp COMpaes eXisting geol.oglc, snas. o.nd depth 'to ground wo.ter inFornntion to estinnte the IOCo.tion of o.reG.:5 where contoMlno:tlon r'IOy reo.dly e-nter gl""'Ound wo:te-r. Its purpose is to COMMUniCo.:te 'the- o.pproxh..o.1;Q loco. tlcn o.nd o.rvo. Qxtvn't of gvologlc conditions In the greo.'ter Federo.l I,/o.y o.reo. FQvOro.ble ~o ~hQ ntrodvct~n of contQ~nQht5 to ground wotQr. ThIS; r'aOp dOQ-s; not diC?plct aqulfor rechQrgo QrVC5. This MOP IS Intended for plo.......ng purposes only and IS not guoro..ntvC?d to E"Xhlbl't Qcc:uro.tv Inf'or..-atlon. Land use deciSions SholJ.d be be sed upon Site-speCifiC do to.. SOu....ce. Seo.ttle/King Co......ty Heo.lth Deportrlent. King County Dept, of DevelopMent 0.00 Envlr"onMentQI ~rvlce5. Ground "'Q..t~r Mo.no.g~nen-t Areoa TecMlccl R"ports;, _01' ~ _._~ GIS DMSION MAP IX-l SCALE: I" :: 5,000' DATE: DECEMBER 1995 MAR- 6-98 FRI 12:52 p, 02 Summary of Pierce County jurisdictions' required buffer widths for wetlands. PIERCE COUNTY Four wetland categories: Category I Category II Category III Category IV 150 feet 100 feet 50 feet 25 feet EDGEWOOD (adopted Pierce County code by reference) FIFE (will soon be updating) Four wetland categories: Category I Category II Category III Category IV 1 SO feet 100 [eel 50 feet 25 feet PUY AJ...LUP Four wetland categories: Category I Category II Category 111 Category IV 100 feet 75 feet 35 feet 10 feet 75 feet w/buffer enhHncernCI1l 50 feet" 25 feet " 5 feet " MILTON Milton does not have a tiered system or standard buffers. Instead, each wetland is Lrcated on a case-by-case basis. An applicant must get a qualified wetland biologist Lo determine lhe w~t1~Uld f;1~8S (e,g. forested wetland, :ihrub - ticrub) and establish appropriute buffer~ for [11m wetland and site, 03/06/98 FRI 12:54 [TX/RX NO 7997] Barbara Petersen 30902 5th Way So. Federal Way, W A 98003 Mar. 2, 1998 Dear Committee Members, My name is Barbara Petersen. I've lived in Federal Way since 1984. I have enjoyed my past participation in Federal Way's CityShape events in '92 and '93, and in public hearings conducted by the Parks and Recreation Commission in '94 and '95. My motivation for getting involved has been my concern for land use decisions made by our city. I am calling upon your wisdom and far-sightedness to make the right decision about the buffer zone around wetlands and streams. Please maintain the current requirement of 100 feet. Please do not change the sensitive area ordinance by lessening protection for wetlands and streams. Such a decision may satisfy the needs of developers today, but it endangers the future quality oflife for Federal Way citizens and their children! It is time to preserve, not destroy. Sincerely, 13~~ Barbara Petersen cc: Federal Way City Council ~ ~/-?/7F 9; RECEIVED PY COMMUNITf r:r:'J;:"?-iJ:';E~,~' J':=' ~Ti':ENT ~~~ "\ L.~ 1'1/<.\\ ,: 1998 City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee 33530 First Way South Federal Way, W A. 98003 Subject: Sensitive Areas Code Amendments Dear Committee Members, T would like to take this opportunity to comment on the City of Federal Way Sensitive Areas Code Amendment. The future of Federal Way is important not only to me and people like me, but to our children and future generations. We must move with caution when dealing with issues like this because natural systems once lost are often lost forever, Sadly very few people understand the complexities of the natural biological world in which we live and depend on for life. It is incumbent on us to protect and preserve the integrity of the natural world around us, One of the most important elements of which biological processes depend is water, One of the most important positive influences on water is wetlands. They help to provide clean drinking water and other water uses for us, They provide critical life support for the majority of our fish and non-fish wildlife. The list is long and sadly most people do not know or appreciate how critically important wetlands are to their daily lives, Here in Federal Way, as in most places, adequate hydrogeomorphic studies have not been made so as to understand the individual importance of each of our wetlands, large or small, Based on this fact it could be argued that all of our wetlands deserve Category T protection. For this reason alone it would be prudent to move cautiously when dealing with these issues. Throwing a bunch of numbers at a city code without fully understanding their long term effects is not a "good policy making process', For these reasons I do not feel it is wise to proceed with some of these proposed amendments at this time. Some of my biggest concerns are in regard to the reduced buffer sizes for the proposed Category III wetlands. Problem one, in jurisdictions using tiered wetland classifications up to 80% have been found to be placed in a category below their true category. Problem two, in research done and reported on by the Washington State Deportment of Ecology wetland buffers of less than 50 feet are inadequate to protect the water quality, Problem three, buffers are also in and of themselves helpful conduits of water recharge for our aquifers of which we depend on for our water supply, These reduced buffers would have a very negative impact on the quality and quantity of our ground and surface water. This could help to place our drinking water in jeopardy and could place further stress on our dwindling fish populations. As the representative of the Rainier Audubon Society T would ask that you would proceed with extreme caution when dealing with issues regarding complex natural systems, This would help to protect the long term health and will being of our people and the creatures we share this community with. It would also help to secure the long term economic well being of the area, Thank you for your considerations on these matters; Respectfully, ~1~ Bruce F. Harpham President, Rainier Audubon Society Cc: Federal City Council THE STATUS OF WILD SALMON IN PUGET SOUND; CHINOOK TO BE LISTED? In 1991, the Endangered Species Committee of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) published an article reviewing the status of Pacific Salmon stocks from California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington in Fisheries magazine!. The article was later corroborated independently by the National Research CounciP. The AFS committee found that: . More than 75% of Pacific salmon populations were seve~ely depleted and at some risk of extinction; . Eighteen ofthe 214 stocks reviewed appeared to be extinct; 101 were found to be at high risk of extinction; and . Salmon had disappeared from more than 40% of their historic range. Generally speaking, the health of salmon stocks worsened the further south they were found along the Pacific Coast, with the trend being even ~orse in areas heavily influenced by ~ and urban deve~opment. The healthiest stocks were in Alaska and northern British Columbia. These fmdings led the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to initiate a coast-wide assessment of sea- going salmon and trout in 1992, consistent with its responsibility under the Endangered Species Act; NMFS is now completing this assessment. In Puget Sound, NMFS has focused its concerns on coho and Chinook populations and on chum populations in Hood Canal. Virtually all Puget Sound populations of Chinook salmon are far below what are believed to be their historic numbers; most have declined from 18% to more than 90010 since the 1960s. NMFS has determined that for Chinook-and possibly coho-the populations that inhabit the various rivers of the Sound are genetically related and thus share a common destiny; for chum~ two population segments in Hood canal are closely related. Such related populations are termed Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) and are the biological unit for listing salmon species under the ESA. NMFS is expected to propose to list Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal chum under the ESA in February 1998; Puget Sound coho might soon fonow. The ESU for Puget Sound Chinook includes stocks from aU rivers in Puget Sound and Hood Canal, including the Elwba and Dungeness rivers on the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In 1992, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife conducted a status survey of salmon and steelhead in Washington waters. Published in 1993, the Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI) reviewed 148 stocks in Puget Sound. The review found 11 stocks that were "critical"-that is, subject to permanent harm or extinction; these included stocks of Chinook, chum and steelhead. It found 44 that were "depressed"-that is, whose production was below expected levels; these included stocks of coho and, in Hood Canal, pink salmon. It found 93 stocks to be "healthy"-though even these did not distinguish between fish of hatchery or natural origin, only that they returned to spawn in the wild. The best available information suggests that freshwater habitat loss and modification has been the most significant cause of decline for stocks in Puget Sound, particularly for Chinook and coho. Poor ocean condi- tions and a failure to curtail fishing pressure have accelerated the decline. 1. Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads...Fisheries: (16):2. March 1991 2. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the PNW. NRC, 1996 299508 12th Ave SW Federal Way, Wa 98023 253 8392947 March 2, 1998 Land Use Committee City of Federal Way City Hall S.336th/lst Ave S Federal Way, Wa 98003 SENSITIVE AREAS HEARING TODAY Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to give testimony on the above item on the draft produced by the City staff and Planning Commission. l.Since 1972, my wife and I have owned approximately 2 and 12 acres ofland next to Puget Sound 110 feet above sea level at SW 295th and 12th Ave SW. This has an approx 6000 sq ft wetland area and a minor stream including marshy area of say 8,000 sq ft, for a total of 14,000 sq ft or approx l/3rd of an acre. 2.There is an existing large house within approx 30 feet of the edge of the wetland area to the east and to the west, along the bluff, there are houses on 60ft to 70 ft wide waterfront lots, 3.Under your proposed regulations I believe that I will be required to provide a buffer area of 101,100 square feet (approx 2 and Y:z acres} for the 14,000 sq feet of wetland. This is a ratio of 7.34545 to I! Also, I would have no land to use as it would all be buffer. I think you will agree that this is a case of overkill. 4. I am in a Category II wetland because of the contiguous stream provision (even though there are no fish as we are 100 feet above sea level), and because we may have more than two types of vegetation on that wetland. I am told that three types of vegetation are very frequent in Federal Way and so all of such properties would be put into Category II, even if there are only tiny wetland areas like mine. 5. At the Planning Commission, the Chairman said that they would be pleased to include some kind of formula limitation in the Ordinance language if it could be shown mathematically. However, he said that none of them were mathematicians. Nor am I. However, it is very easy to set up an Excel spreadsheet to ascertain whether the buffer to wetland ration is reasonable or preposterous as in my case. I set one up and used it to calculate the above 7 times coverage ratio. 6.At the Planning Commission, staff showed a chart showing Federal Way in the middle of the local jurisdiction pack for setbacks, More than one Commissioner said that as Federal Way was in the middle of the chart, then they would be very comfortable voting for it! This chart comparison failed to take into account the provisions on contiguous streams and on more than 2 types of wetland vegetation which pushes very small wetlands automatically into large 100 foot setbacks as Category II wetlands. 7. Specific changes requested to redress the above problems are: ~ a. Sec 22-1221 Division 1. Fax page 8 000. 2nd line, after word "degradation" add the phrase: "at the same time realizing the reasonable ownership rights of the property owner." b. Sec 22-1223 same page para (6) after" 100 feet" add the words "for a Class II wetland and 50 feet for a Class III wetland edge. This splits large and small wetlands as 3 and 4 above split major and minor streams. c. Sec 22-1244 Reasonable use, Page 10 Of30 Page 3?: paras (I) and (2) insert "reasonably" before "profitable.".New para (6) add "The expectations of the applicant for the property when it was bought and any extenuating circumstances."New para (7) "The need to balance the reasonable rights of the applicant are to be balanced with the need for environmental protection." New para (8)"The status of existing improvements on adjacent property. The above points will make this provision fairer to the environment and to the applicant - this balance is what the Courts are looking for. Federal Way should be a leader in this type of balanced approach, instead of taking the "guilty till proven innocent" approach of the present ordinance language. Reasonable use does not equate to no use. 2nd line of next page, page 4, should delete" ~(l) and be replaced with "(a) and (c)(lthru 8)" d. Streams - these categories are far more restrictive than surrounding jurisdictions, per attached schedule and minor stream setbacks should be cut back to 35 feet. e. Division 7 Regulated Wetlands Page 15 3rd line after "100 feet" add "for Category I and II wetlands, and 50 feet for Class III wetlands." f. Sec 22 - 1357.Wetland classifications and standard buffers. (2)line 2 delete "one" and substitute "all". (2)a after end of third line add ", excluding wetlands under 1 acre," (2)b change "two" to "three". (2)c change "two" to "three", g, After 5th line on page 19 {3} after "area" insert ", but in no case shall the coverage of buffer to wetland be more than 2 : I." i. fJ~0 J h. March 1, 1998 To the Land Use and Transportation Committee: Following is a quote from the Wildlife Preservation Trust Fact Sheet: What is Happening to the World's Wildlife? Weare in the midst of a wave of animal and plant extinctions unprecedented on Earth -- species are disappearing at a rate much greater than occurred during the great dinosaur die-off. Current extinctions are caused by humans and their livestock -- through overharvesting, habitat destruction, inappropriate land use, and competition for land and resources. Attached is a copy of a letter I wrote to three City notables about protecting a sensitive area on January 17, 1997. I wish I would have received a reply, especially from Mr. Moore, and my concerns about protecting buffers still remain. Buffers should be substantial because we need the life-preserving ecosystems for plants and animals including homo sapiens. Substantial buffers should be preserved and protected rigorously and steadily on into the future. Sincerely, ~ Liz Marshall 416 S. 32lst Place, #J6 Federal Way, WA 98003 '1/ t, S. ~21 51'- P0 76 ~~ tu~ 9 K'CJo3 ~,,/ -- :2 99' {~:. ~ :lr, /197 ..%~'~~I ~~I ~ft~ cf't*nt:.~ ~ ~;~~~ad~ .j~.tk _ ~'~~~d-~~~ . ~/9?0~~a~ un, IV ~)..,v ~~~ IfL ~ _ .jr.ut~~. ~~~ .1 /76 ~ ~ ~ tflG- ~ /r7'1 @,u # fit.- ~ ~ AL ~ ..~4~.~~~d0V~ .~. ..k ~J ~ ~J k<- ~~/~ .~~~~~~~ ~ A:ru-t;~Iv ~ ~ ~ Jf~~~~~. f _~ S20-d- ~ ~ ~ /9g0,'J ~ ,.~~~ ~ a ~/Vf;~/;~ "~ IA '~~~j }~JJ 'h ::'.7-~ .# I-------~ T~ ~ {~~? .~ . ,~.' ~ ~ .~~~~F'~-frd: .;t .~ a. ~ ~ tU-~a..u ._~ ~~.7 .J~~ ~~~ ~~h~ez-J~~ ..~(~}.~~~ . .~).~~tM-..}~. ~ __aJU- ~~ifAu-~--tt~ .1.1'1:b ~M~~~~~- ,-~~, J~~t/tL~~~~ .~/tIL ~M-b- l' pi;; ~. .dk~-fuu~~, . JL ~ t &iu-- ~ t771/ .5-4 ~ S Pv~ ,.J~~ ~1~J~k.M~' .7JlA;. ~ ~ .~ /llU. /J.. ~ ;te ~ -~, ~;trU~~i~ .~~a-~~ uM-, H~I ~'tJt.J y! ~ ~~ ..~~ /-tt,~.~ ~ t;~~. ..~~~~~% ./aX .. 93~~~3J~~ ~ ~S-~~, /.J ~ 7J1h - ~ + J ~ 1hv 9/30/9' ;Ju ~ ..~ (/411~~ ~~ ~. ~~~/...;1~~~~/ ~ r~~;6 ~. _~aAe.- '~~_~ p hlN~!/ - ~~~, ..~~~ tL~t~ /I~~ q~ r:hV~ ?O~. ~~~ ..~ J M7V ~ ~ tJ-Yl/ ~~~~~ ~ .A.vu-~ ~ ~~;tn. 'J~-r::~)~Ih~ra- ~) o/1.e- ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~C-Mv~~~, ~'f~' , /- tv.L~ J-h~~ / . - v / / / //l / / // / / i / / / , ,/ ----... / ///...-- -.. ....,--_.._,--_._~ Hyt..--Uos TRl\SU~lf 601 Y 6 ! Lt1L ~)- ~ ~ t/~#.. / ~:2-D * \J-- // ." ",' '. '_.",..l."-\.\..,.l.l....<.-..,..,.,.:u."_,,:,,J-,:.h.,fIUli " ~) . 'lI:CE1Veo ! CI HAR.O' 19QR To Land use and Transportation Committee CI;rCl.ERI{Sul=~ eI Federal Way City Council '.. OF FED9RAL :~'Y I understand that there will be a meeting tonight to discuss tl1e sens'ative Area~ Code revisions. I will be unable to attend as I have to work, however I am sending this letter to let you know my feelings on the matter. I feel that the present Sensative Area Code maintains high standards of protection for water quality and area watersheds. We dont want to decrease this in any way, it is important to not give in to development for a small gain today and big losses of water quality, flood control, and aquifer recharge in the future. / Our area wetlands are important to the future generations of our city. Our area also contains several salmon bea,ring stream systems that we must protect to help protect the wild salmon and aid in the Governors Salmon Recovery Program. I have lived most of my life in the Sate of Washington and the puget Sound area, I did spend a few years on the east coast and can still remeber the horror of the Newark, Orange, Elizabeth New Jersey area. I do not want our city to come anywhere near what that place is like. Please think very carefully before you decrease any of the standards of our Sensative Areas Code. Thank you for your consideration, Mayetta E. Tiffany 1231 So 308th St. Federal Way, Wa 98003 -. ~\ (!: ~ {J/J( /:6cm i?hz~ dear, .~ ....._.~_.>--.-o-__"-...~....~...;'""'-................ -"'q 36817-12th Ave. So. Federal Way, WA 98003 March 2, 1998 ~ To: City Council, City of Federal Way Land Use/Transportation Committee Re: Sensitive Areas Code Revision Members of the Federal Way City Council: Often overlooked today is the fact that Federal Way was and is the home of Chinook, Coho, Chum, and Sockeye salmon, plus Steelhead, Rainbow, Brown and Cutthroat trout. Four streams entering puget Sound on Federal Way's northern border are listed as anadromous waters. Lakota Creek received considerable attention recently when the Lakehaven Water and Sewer District enlarged the Lakota treatment plant. The Lakota Creek relocation project was completed and restocked with the cooperation of the Muckleshoot Tribe. The southern portion of Federal Way is home to the Hylebos Creek system which eventually flows into Commencement Bay in Tacoma. All three forks of the Hylebos Creek have origins in Federal Way and all three support salmon runs. The Hylebos creek has been stocked and serviced by the Puyallup Tribe. Rapid development and lax land use regulations in the 1970s and 1980s led to excessive runoff. The resulting flooding virtually destroyed the once bount- iful runs of salmon and the habitat that is vital to their survival. Immense damage occurred to properties in the southern portion of the city and Federal Way runoff had a devastating effect on private and commercial properties of lower Milton, Fife and the Port of Tacoma. When the City of Federal Way formed in 1989 it adopted a far sighted com- prehensive plan that gave its wetlands and streams respectable buffers for good reason. . The accompanying map will illustrate that virtually all of Federal Way's wetlands lie above the Redondo-Milton Channel aquifer. without belaboring that point it is obvious that our water supply is of the utmost .;importance and that our existing wetland buffers aid in recharging that aquifer. Perhaps not so obvious is that the water for our various creek systems originates from that same aquifer. And water rights of downstream entities and tribes guarantee that they will receive their share of water. And the Chinook salmon will receive their share of water! The Federal Government's decision on February 26, 1998 to place the Chinook or King salmon on the endangered list will give Washington State, the western counties and cities one year to formulate a recovery plan. Federal Way's conservative city code crafted back in 1989, plus an innovative surface water management staff, may just save it from extreme federal restrictions a year down the line. This is certainly not the time to amend the city code. Yours truly, <r~~ ,> Federal Way Water & S~wer P.O. Box 4249. 31627 -1st Avenue South · Federal Way, Washington 98063 Seattle: 941-1516. Tacoma: 927-2922. Engineering: 941-2288. Fax: 839-9310 FEDERAL WAY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND USE AND GROUNDWATER PROTECTION " , It is a p~imary goal of the District to protecZ th~ q~antity quality of groundwater beneath the Federal Way community. The can assist in achieving this goal by effective land use~control. District provides the following recommendations regard~ng land policy for consideration by the City. . and City T.he use The following recommendations are based in part on the enclosed map.'. The map shows the location of important aquifers. Although the entire land area is important for effective groundwater recharge, the map shows four types of infiltration areas that warrant special land use consideration. .."... . - ~. Parks, Open Space and Wetlands Preserving open space in the form of parks, wetlanas, and/or lower density development is preferred a~ it maintains tbe recharge characteristics of the land as much as possible. When identifying sites for parks/open space, the City should give priority to the areas with high infiltration rates. Zoning The District recommends that urban activities involving large paved surfaces and/or the potential for chemical spills not .be located within areas with high infiltration rates. It is impor- tant that land within high infiltration rates be zoned for low- density residentials and open space/parks. Commercial and industrial uses should be located in areas with low infiltration rates. Development Standards The City should establish a goal of no net reduction in ground- water recharge. Development standards can achieve this goal by a variety of means such as french drains, landscaping, and porous pavement. Stormwater can be infiltrated rather than discharged to the nearest stream or road ditch. The stormwater should be treaten where appropriate. Individual developments should provide mitigation where it is not possible to recharge storm- water at the same rate after land conversion. Where possible, the City should provide incentives to enhance infiltration rates above predevelopment conditions. Donald L.P. Miller Commissioner Robert A. Piquette Commissioner Leonard A. Thompson Commissioner Beverly J. Tweddle Commissioner ~ ~~ \j . -, ,-,. , : ,. ... - - ,- '... ,~ - ~. - ,- . .\ '.' ..,-. .,'\ .'- ,'" '."'., ; -'~S.." . . -= :""~. ", 1;":1n:r > .~~. "~I~~C:"t~~..,::;':Y-"- - ... . .... " :.. ~ ,:~-':~CE~:~:~~"F~~"'~x:'. ~~'::~:"~~':'~,~'.~ -'>:. .-:: .::';' ~-.~ -'" 1-. .......... ......... ;;;...- " - 7.q'~_" REDONDO-MILTON '~/ ~;:'';'v~.;..,..l --'. .~~' . ~:;:-__:':{!:;~: I . . .~ ~-..i: J 111'1\ '" ,~. - IV. Wetlands, Anadromous Fish-bearing Waters~ . -..! Do- ,.. ~ ........ 'IonN" - ~ ;....,. J9l:06.......,-..d .--. --1,-: ..__-...... Drained, grazed or plowed hYdric salls. which are not shown on this map, may revert to wetlands if agricultural activities cease. r--~ Shallow Water [i'ft\;:::m Deep Water .J ;~ Wetlands may not be numbered sequentially within each basin. ;... t. .~....." _ \'~ __ 5150 SW 326th PI Federal Way, WA 9802 February 24, 1998 FW Land Use and Transportation Corn 33530 First Way S Federal Way, WA 98003 Subject: Sensitive Area Ordinance Amendments Dear Committee Members, I am writing to comment on proposed changes to the Federal Way Sensitive Area Code. It is extremely important that this code maintain a high standard of protection for water quality and area watersheds! Federal Way has unique conditions that warrant these standards. Our city is dependent on local aquifers as a main water source. Area wetlands are vital systems for our aquifer recharge and local flood control. The South Sound is growing rapidly and the city has no guarantee that our future water needs will be filled by neighboring communities, especially at reasonable cost! Our community also has several major salmon bearing stream systems. Steep slopes and seismic hazard areas require special attention. Federal Way needs to protect its local resources! I am bothered by several aspects of the Three Tiered Wetland Rating System. The first being in Sec. 22-1357, wetlands less than 2,500 sq. feet are not regulated at all. Smaller wetlands in all classes should fall under these regulations and be evaluated on a case by case basis. The Lower Puget Sound and Hylebos Creek Watersheds are complex systems. The wetlands within these basins are interconnected, their value cannot be placed on size alone! Often, pocket wetlands in a localized area function as one providing, valued ground water recharge, flood control and wildlife habitat. Please remember that when part of the system is changed the water is redirected, potentially causing a problem somewhere else. Wetland buffers, See.22.1375.5, are extremely important in maintaining the health and function of a wetland. I agree with the buffer widths associated with category I and II wetlands. However I feel the standard buffer for category III should be increased to 50ft. It has been documented that at a minimum buffer of 50 ft is required to adequately protect a wetlands function. The buffer averaging allowances in Sec:22.1357.5 could in some cases greatly compromise the protection of water quality, especially in Category III wetlands. In See 22-1356-C of the ordinance drainage facilities have been defined and excluded from regulation as wetlands. However, these areas should be regulated in some way to ensure the preservation of water quality. Many of these facilities feed major streams and are ground water recharge sites. Guidelines should be in place before excluding these facilities from wetland regulations. Again I stress the Sensitive Areas Ordinance should be held to a high standard. The city should not compromise when it comes to water quality. ~~r~~2~!~~C~7~X,(,jJif( ~ (H ~ SEATAC M~A~L~L March 2, 1998 Members Land Use Transportation Committee 33530 151 Way South Federal Way, W A 98003 Dear LUTC Members: We have reviewed the Environmental Sensitive Area Ordinance. Language has been added to the definition of stream to exclude stonnlsurface water facilities from being classified as sensitive areas. We recommend the following language, which is utilized in the definition of stream, to exclude stonnlsurface water facilities from the definition of wetlands. Please add the following: Section 22-1 Definitions - Regulated wetlands - "This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, surface water runoff facilities or other artificial watercourses unless used by a local or migratory fish population or was constructed to convey streams which existed prior to construction of the watercourse. " Recommend a grandfather clause be added to Section 22-1356 (c.)(2) A detention facility should not be considered a wetland simply due to installation on a lowland previously not defined as a sensitive area. The ordinance has been reviewed by our architect. The above two items are the two main concerns. Other provisions of the ordinance have been defined as unfriendly to the development community. A listing of these concerns can be made available to the Committee. Sincerely, G~~~ Elaine C. Mansoor General Manager cc: Ken Nyberg Greg Moore 1928 South SeaTac Mall .. federal Way, WA 98003 .. fax (253) 946.1413 Management Office (253) 839.6156" Marketing Office (253) 941.9238 (~~L~~~ :V&Y] 31405 18th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 945-2000 Web Site: http://www,fwsd.wednel.edu Superintendent Thomas J, Vander Ark January 26, 1998 Board of Education Linda Hendrickson Holly Isaman Joel Marks Ann Murphy Jim Storvick Land Use and Transportation Committee Federal Way City Council City of Federal Way P. 0, Box 8057 Federal Way, WA 98003 Re: Sensitive Areas Regulations Amendment Dear Council Members: This letter provides the Federal Way School District's comments on the City's draft Sensitive Areas Regulations. As discussed below in further detail, the proposed amendments to the wetlands classification 'nd wetland buffers restrict the use of school sites to a much greater extent than other jurisdictions within .vhich our District operates. For example, buffer widths are four times greater for some wetlands in Federal Way than in other jurisdictions. This results in the loss of considerable buildable land to buffers when buffer area is calculated. We, therefore, request that the Council carefully review both the proposed wetland classifications and buffers and adopt measures more comparable to other jurisdictions. A. Wetland Buffer Widths Table 1 compares the wetland buffer widths proposed for Federal Way with those from other jurisdictions in King County. Table 1 Jurisdiction Rating Setbacks Des Moines 2 Tier 100,35 Kent 3 Tier 100,50,25 Renton 3 Tier 100,50,25 King County 3 Tier 100,50,25 Federal Way 3 Tier 200,100,50,25 While the table suggests that Federal Way's proposed buffers are twice those of other jurisdictions, the iifference for some types of wetlands is even greater because the proposed amendments classify certain letlands in higher categories than in other jurisdictions. r _.1 ~r_r _ r .rr Land Use Committee Federal Way City Council 01/26/98 Page 2 For example, the proposed Federal Way regulations define Class II wetlands to include wetlands of less than 1 acre with two or more classes of vegetation. The draft regulations would require a 100 ft, buffer for these wetlands. In contrast, the King County system classifies such wetlands as Class 3 wetlands subject to a 25 ft, buffer, Similarly, Federal Way designates wetlands, regardless of size, that have three or more wetland classes, one of which is open water, as a Class I wetland, In contrast, other jurisdictions classify such wetlands as Class 2 wetlands. Again, because of the difference in buffers for Class 1 and Class 2 wetland in these respective jurisdictions, the difference is a buffer of 200 feet versus 50 feet for the same wetland type. The difference in buffer widths can have dramatic impacts on usable property, For example, a wetland measuring 100 ft. by 200 ft. (less than 1/2 an acre) would require 15,000 square feet in buffers if the buffer width was 25 ft, With buffer widths of 100 ft., the total amount of required buffers jumps to 60,000 square feet. Thus, a property owner would lose the use of almost 1 1/2 acre of usable land to buffer less than 1/2 an acre of wetland. The School District owns several properties with wetlands that will lose much, and in some cases all buildable land, as a result. Most of the potential future school sites the District has examined in the City have some wetlands. The proposed buffers will force the District to acquire considerably more land to buffer wetlands than would otherwise be necessary for new schools and could significantly increase the costs of suitable sites. The discussions before the Planning Commission did not establish why such dramatically larger buffers were necessary in Federal Way compared to neighboring jurisdictions. For example, most of the material on buffers provided to the Planning Commission suggest that large buffers are primarily important where the wetland is important wildlife habitat. Federal Way defines a number of Class II and III wetland categories using vegetation types. The materials suggest that extensive buffers may not be necessary for wetland classes based on vegetative types, such as some of the proposed Class II and Class III Wetlands, Given the dramatic impact that the proposed classification system and buffers will have on the School District and other property owners and the lack of clear justification for such buffers for certain wetland categories, we encourage you to consider using the size of buffers and types of wetland classifications used in surrounding jurisdictions. Sincerely, TPC:jr c:\lundslcapilal"eal estale~elter council regarding weiland buffe~ bee: Grace Yuan, Eric Laschever ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, L.L.C. A CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND SURVEY, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTING FIRM (I March 5, 1998 Land Use and Transportation Committee Federal Way City Council 33530 First Way South Federal Way, W A 98003 Re: Sensitive Areas Code Amendment At your meeting on March 2, 1998 you received considerable comment from people with a wide spectrum of ideas with regard to the proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance. While the City has become less stringent on some 3rd Class wetlands, the overall tenor of the proposal is substantially more restrictive than the existing Code. Some of the language gives one pause. For instance, on page 17 relating to discussion of Category II wetlands, it must meet one of the following criteria: "Are contiguous with water bodies or tributaries to water bodies... ..". I would suggest to you that 99% of all wetlands either are tributary or tributary to a tributary to water bodies that support a fish population. Thus, one could take the position that all are Class II.. Under Category III wetlands, I note that if they are less than 2,500 square feet they are exempt. If they are 2,500 to 10,000 square feet they require a 25-foot buffer. From 10,000 square feet to one acre, they require a 50-foot buffer, If they are over one acre they require a 100-foot buffer even though the function and value have not changed. As you know, Class III wetlands are the least valuable as far as wetlands are concerned. It seems to me that there is no justification for this type of a land taking. If it is a Class III wetland, it is a Class III wetland regardless of its size. The sum total of this is that nearly every wetland in the City is going to be either a Class II or a Class I wetland even though the functions and values would tell you that it is a low class wetland, i,e" Class III with no justification for restrictions which are being imposed. 720 South 348th Street · Federal Way, Washington 98003 Federal Way (253) 838-6113 . Tacoma (253) 927-0619 . Seattle (206) 623-5911 . Fax: (253) 838-7104 Land Use and Transportation Committee March 5, 1998 Page Two This proposal appears to me as being a classic case of government confiscation of private property. As I stated during the hearing, you still have requirements under Growth Management to provide housing for the citizens of the City. By the time you deduct roads, open space, drainage and increased wetland buffers, you are probably going to have 50% less developable area available than you think you have under your existing zonmg. I would like to suggest that since there is a clear disagreement between the private, public, and scientific consultants, it might be appropriate to refer this to a committee to see if a rational compromise might be arrived at. Representatives of the environmental community, the development community, the business community (including schools), the wetland consultant community that work on the private side and a City wetland consultant could work this out. Again, I do not think that there is justification for the buffers proposed which are in some cases double or triple what is the generally accepted practice in the Puget Sound area. Very truly yours, ESMCO~SULTING E ~.. ROBERT D. SCHOLES, P.E. President I] TALASAEA CONSULTANTS 5 March 1998 T AL-299 Federal Way City Council Land Userrransportation Committee c/o Ms. Kathy McClung, Senior Planner 33530 - 1st Way South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Reference: Subject: City of Federal Way Sensitive Areas Code Amendment Suggestions for Revision Dear Ms. McClung: I appreciated the opportunity to present my opinions and suggestions at the public meeting earlier this week regarding proposed revisions to the sensitive areas ordinance, At the request of the Committee Chairman, I am following up with written comments. Revisions to the ordinance have been in the works for several years, and I am pleased to see that they are now close to finalization. The revisions proposed are a great improvement over the existing ordinance, but I believe that there are still some areas which should be further revised. My suggestions are presented below. Policy NEP32 states that "the City will protect its wetlands with an objective of no overall net loss of functions or values.". This policy does not say that there should be no net loss of area. The proposed ordinance at Sec. 22-1358(e)(2) (Structures, Improvements and Land Surface Modifications within Regulated Wetlands) states that "Mitigation of wetland impacts shall be restricted to on-site restoration, creation or enhancement of in-kind wetland type which results in no net loss of wetland area, function or value." (emphasis added). The proposed ordinance and the policy are not the same with regard to the no net loss policy. The proposed ordinance states that wetland restoration or wetland enhancement is allowed as a means to mitigate for wetland fill. Obviously, the no-net-Ioss of wetland area is not appropriate since neither of these mitigation approaches results in the creation of new wetland area. 299Post-mtng.doc 315198 Resourcl' '(Q Environmentc11 Pldnning 1/j020 [)eC1r Creek ROdd !\:orthedst · Woodinvilll', \Vdshington 98072 · Bus: (20{1) iWl-7;);)O . FdX (20{)) 8Hl-7;)4H Ms. Kathy McClung 5 March 1998 Page 2 I believe that the objective should always be to protect wetland functions and values, and this does not necessarily mean that 100% or more of the area filled or otherwise impacted should always be replaced. I suggest deletion of the word "area" from this section of the proposed ordinance. The mitigation ratios could remain, but would relate to the area treated. Sec. 22-1. Definitions In the definition for Stream, ".. . local or migratory fish population.,,", should read ".., resident or migratory salmonid population",". Local fish might be three-spined sticklebacks or small-mouthed bass, neither of which is considered as important as trout or salmon. In fact, bass are predaceous on juvenile salmonids, and their presence in salmonid bearing waters is generally indicative of poor water quality (Le., above optimal water temperatures). In the definition for Maior Stream, the wording"." and the tributaries to any stream... " means that any stream that does not flow to an isolated depression would be considered a major stream, even if, for example, the subject stream were tributary to a tributary of a tributary to a stream containing salmonids. This seems inappropriate. A Minor Stream might simply be classified as a stream without salmon ids fishes, and a Maior Stream one in which salmonids do occur. King County requires a 1 DO-foot buffer on streams containing salmon ids, and a 50-foot buffer on stream without salmonids. I suggest the same apply to the Federal Way Code, Sec. 22-1313. Additional Requirements for Land Surface Modification This section states, in part, that "All fill material used must be non-dissolving and non- decomposing." This would preclude the use of compost additives in topsoil for purposes of establishing native plant material in a stream setback area. A distinction should be made between placement of fill and the placement of tOPsoil for landscaping. I doubt the authors intended that stream setback areas not have topsoil used in landscaping. Sec. 22-1357. Wetland Classification and Standard Buffers Under Category I wetlands, the use of a 200-foot buffer might only be appropriate if the system is four-tiered. (Note: We have not found a city that uses a 200-foot buffer in a three-tier system). I doubt there are any wetlands in the City of Federal Way that would rate a Category I in a four-tiered system. In general, I do not believe that a 1 DO-foot buffer for Category II wetlands is appropriate. Wetland buffers should be established on the basis of the resource at risk, The distance from a wetland is not as important as the physical, biological, and human environment adjacent to that wetland. For example, a forested, steep slope adjacent to a wetland provides less water quality protection for a given buffer width 299Post-mtng.doc 3/5198 Ms. Kathy McClung 5 March 1998 Page 3 than a pasture on a flat topography. In the latter case, it may be that a buffer width of only 25 feet would afford adequate protection of a wetland's water quality rather than a 50-foot forested hillside buffer. Under Category II wetlands, Part a should be modified so that the phrase ".,. contain or support a fish population, "." is replaced with "... contain salmonids, ...". Under Category II wetlands, Part c should be modified so that the phrase, "...... and have two or more wetland classes, with neither class... ...", reads "Are less than or equal to one acre in size in their entirety and have two or more wetland classes, neither of which is a monotvpic plant community, and with neither class dominated by non- native invasive species. The 1 DO-foot buffer width for a Category II wetland is excessive. For example, if a 2,600 sq ft wetland contained two wetland classes -- one the shrub Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii) and the other the soft rush (Juncus effusus) -- the code would require a 1DO-foot buffer width. Such a wetland would be considered to have relatively low functional yalues, and a 1 DO-foot buffer would be inappropriate. The tiered rating system for wetland classification is a good idea, A three-tiered system is certainly workable. since it is used by several other cities and by King County. The buffer widths proposed by the City, however, appear to be excessive and unnecessary. I suggest the City adopt buffer widths of 100 feet, 50 feet, and 25 feet for Category I, II, and III wetlands, respectively, For one of our recent projects north of Seattle, our staff prepared a table showing stream and wetland elements of several city and county sensitive areas ordinances. I have enclosed this table for your review. Please note that this table is not complete, Buffer Ranges. Adequate protection of wetland functions may require buffer widths that vary with the intensity of land use adjacent to the wetland. For low intensity uses, the standard buffer for a Category II wetland might be 50 feet, whereas a high intensity land use adjacent to the wetland would have a 1 DO-foot buffer. Sec. 22-1248. Exemptions. I believe that another exemption should be included in this section. That exemption would be for unintentionally created wetlands. This would include wetland areas that developed as a result of blocked culverts, heavy equipment use on wet soils resulting in deep wheel ruts, failed septic systems, road construction, development on adjacent lands that blocked drainage, and wetlands that have developed in fill areas, The City of Redmond has an exemption for unintentionally created wetlands developed within the previous 20 years, The Corps of Engineers exempts wetlands that have developed in fill areas, 299Post-mtng.doc 3/5198 Ms. Kathy McClung 5 March 1998 Page 4 The burden of proof should be with the applicant (Le" land owner or developer) to prove or demonstrate that the wetland was man-made, This can be done by review of aerial photographs, engineering records, statements from neighbors or other witnesses, etc. I recommend that the City of Federal Way include an exemption in the revised code for unintentionally created wetlands, I appreciate the opportunity to provide this input to the City on the proposed revised ordinance, and would suggest that the City might consider involving members of the consulting and development communities - along with City staff -- to review and discuss these and possibly other issues before drafting the final proposed revision. would be more than pleased to participate in such a workshop. Please contact me should you have any questions in regard to my comments and recommendations, or whether I could be of assistance in further reviewing the proposed code revisions. Sincerely, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS William E. Shiels Principal Enclosure cc: Susan Heikkala 299Post-mtng.doc 3/5198 t: td:: C~ o >- 0:: <C Z - :E - ....J I.I.J c:: a... I: -0 11I'- G) l!! -G) j> III I: o :;:; a. E G) >< w C/) W I- ....I <( a.. () z :::J ~ ....I <( () o ....I o Z <( C/) W () Z w <.9 <( >- III C/) Z o I- <( ....I :::J <.9 w ll:: ~ <( w ll:: I- C/) o z <( C/) o z <( ....I I- W ~ Cl..ll: I: U .- III :2.c .S a; IXIcn I: .2 U ::l "C G) a::: ~ ::l IXI Cl I: '61 l! G) ~ ~ ::l IXI <0 0) N !!l Cll "C o Z !!l Cll "C o Z ~ o 10 N .9 a. ::l VI Q) >- VI Q) >- >- .c~ l!! 0 ~g' ::liG IXIO "C"C I: I: III III ~~ O. ~g~ ';":NM >- .c l!! ~8. ::l>- IXII- E E III III e ! -- cncn VI VI:2 "CI: .- 0 6 E Ern -VI m'5 =0 .~ :e . . ~ 00. . 00010 'lr"'""'C""'"1.OC\I ,... ~ ,... !!l Cll "C o Z 00 VI Q) >- !!l Cll "C o Z 00. . 100010 "C"""~U')C\I ';":NM~ 000. _ 10100010 "'C""'".....,...Lt')C\I <0 ~ o (') :;j: "Coq- f6 a~ (')~ 5r0 0-0 -g 8<3 o. Cll.ol:~ N v Cll v ~VI'I:VI O"CCll"C Cl I: .g. I: Q) CU I (tJ ....+:3c:;:i ctlQ)oQ) ()~I:~ !!l Cll "C o Z . '0.5 ~~= Ng:2 o v ~ ~Q)"E cO :::1 .0 (tJ e ui"~ -g ~ ~<3~f6 uiluQ)iO~ I:le.l::N- o:::1-~co :!11.c'Oo~ >Q) o.l::Cl e..c::~~ (/) a.:: ~ .~ 0;: =ov"C~ '-1:: Q)Gl ~. ~il'5-6 VI I: 0"'- ~~~~j 00 0) N !!l Cll "C o Z . 0 00 ON Ii II -.I:: !!l Cll "C o Z !!l Cll "C o Z I: Cll =Gl VI E gj lJl -VI o..!~~.~ ~~g~'3: iJo !!.l!.l!.t~a~oo. ...! CllcDag~8 ~g~~Q)Q)~oo~ III1I1V.c.;:~ooo ::l::l::l::l f6:- ~N""'IO ';"':"ic'.;.;t.u~.9:! ';"':NM o .I:: ~ ~~ II l;:::' rn . -g ....2. "C 1:' 8~Cll80io .. ,...CO.......Il)C\I 81!.~51!.1!.1!. Ii. . ~ f6880 €lili'f? ::l ::l ::l ::l ';":C\i M';"':NM..tLC'i';"':NM I: o n '6 III 'C ::l .., ~ I: ::l Cl o .5 O~ ~ lu c: .I:: VI 'E o .I:: o I: en ioo N.....OOO. . 1111000010 ::Ii:::JT"'""'C""'""-Lt')C'\I .;t.c;';"':NM..tLC'i I: .9 l!? ::l .I:: I- <0 0) ..... ~ I: C ~ ]j .~ .~ gj.... .... E cD 0- Q) .a CI) ~ > oE~"': 2 Cll .!!l 1ii~ui-g OVl"C::l!!l zo~o~ c:i. Qj. 0 zg~~z !!l Cll "C o Z o Z o z c ~g~~'E ';"':NM.;t~ '0 o c 10' 0 I:~'O:;:; ~Cllio-m .~ ~ N 5r VI VI.5 > ~"C!!l"C .a~I:Gl o.!!1'(ij€ ;J::lE::l!!l ~~(;)~~ o':::::J-go Zrn~::lZ I: o C, ~.5 ._ 't: 0<( 10 0) ..... ~ !!l Cll "C o Z !!l Cll "C o Z !!l Cll "C o Z E gj Cll .5 .I:: 0 E g>~ .E:VI ::l Q) Gl <(coo 10 0) N ..... ,... 0) CD ..... (') !!l Cll "C o Z VI "Cui ~6~ Qj:!!i 0 ~~8 (').... . ~ a. 00 ~-.I:: V 0::::: 5r~~ ro~ ~ ()8& ~'V~ >-~() o ..... .!!l Cll "C o Z o ..... ~ o .1::- g~ai o ~ E ;..~ ~ :) t) r::: .::l Cll gj"C-E >-~Gl .9 a. ::l VI Gl >- !!l Cll "C o Z *- o 'Va ~ .8~ ~ ~'3: .Cl B "E ~ 0: '5~ffi~ .cc=Gl ui~VI~ ~'O~j O. 0_ . . 010010010 ,...('l'),...,....,LON ';":N';":NM~ Q) .5 Q) Ci;o_ "C.l::E g~ l!! ~og> ~.~ a: 8ing~~bLob T"'"('t)"'C""'"t/J0Lt)N..... '1: Cll .;...: N .;...: .2, ~ N M .;t .l!l c !!l :; VI C o () Cll Gloo CllO) VI , CllOO -N Cll , I-N :t:l ~ Gl > W ~- b,l._ ~.: G:: C~'::j ~~;,:._.. c". c::~" -=--~,~ ll.i.:;" 0&::: -- , ~~ L!.,} c.:. C,. s 1-- .....S"E 1/1.- 0 .!f!!IJ~ j~&!~e:. 1/1 c:: o :s. E CD l( W :s ('(I 'tI ~ CI"" c:: IJ .- ('(I :2.0 ,- - :I CD 1Dl/) ~ o 0' ..... c:: o ~ :I 'tI CD a:: ~ :I ID *~ ~V S~ - g.i:: - 5 CD Ul_j CD :I . >-.0 CI c:: '61 III ... CD ~ ~ :I ID ~ >. .o~ f!! 0 !j :I III IDO 'tI'tI c:: c:: III III ;; CD CD ~~ ~'8~ gl1ll!) ~~,~ CNo- i\'5.... II ('(I ('(I 88.5.5 N.....15~ ~Nit) >. .0 f!! !8. :I>. IDl- E E III III t! t! iiiiii !I ~ o z c:: o ;; IJ :c 1/1 .;: :I "") f l! CD 'tI ~ . <D 0) ~ It) 0) N !I nl '0 o Z .!9 ('(I '0 o Z in ..... .!9 nl '0 o Z .!9 nl '0 o Z ~ :> '0 ~ ~ it in c:N nl V uS .!9 nl '0 o Z :5 0'0 S'i :I'E 'Onl CD '0 ... c: :-o.!9 c:: Ul- nl_~ U 0 v ui~.9 al LO .... >- v 0 .!9 nl '0 o Z b_ 0'0'- .....LO~ ';";NM I/) 1/):2 :26 6 E E'iij -I/) m"5 .eo =:::.c .!~ .!9 0' 0' - . nl ~~g~'O o ~N it)z .e nl :I g 'E I/) al .!!l ~ It) 0) ~ .!9 nl '0 o Z .!9 nl '0 o Z nl ro '0 o Z .!9 nl '0 o Z al Ul al :> I/) '0 :>bo_ 5'00'0'0' .lJ!C:MNC o.!!!~~'ilg nlo .ell o.nl .e E 0.- - '-E88bin .r:.._C'\IT'""Lt)C'\I .21 ~ II II II II .co---- ~:TI:~Nc:._;.;t .!9 nl '0 o Z '0 ffi >. :g ~ :;2~ to- O) ~ .... 8~.E III '0 ~ NffiDl OM I/) ~~~ :>oal - C)~ ~ -Sl .;;; ~~ -g I/) .- ...... rtIi U) c: 0 ;:i SQ ~'=~~ in ..... _Cl o .5 c: 0 o :> ~~ al....,o E & c: o ::J ::J Z.o.E 1/)'0 I/) .... al nl - '0 CD c: .o.!9 :-01/) c:_ r3 0 _cf!. ::JC .0 LO . uic:5 ~:5~ c:: -Sl .5 ~ "- -c. . Z.~~gb 'Uj II II II II c:.e.e.e.e -Sl .5 b. . .eCLOLO. .21 II 'i? )II 'ii' .c---- II .. .. .. .. .cT'""N('t)~ E ~ g in C? T'"" 'C"'"in;..:.. gjN:y ~.ni5 al .... I _ c: E-:;<D"E nlalal2 ~ a.a.c Ci5~~~ Ul c: al > -Sl en al "" nl ...J to- O) ~ Ul I/) .Q CD-c c:: ~ ~.Q 'iij -01/) c: c:: ::J 0 0:.;:::; -0 al c:: c::,a ~ .5 .!9 nl '0 o Z }"5~ ;:;l!..c: 'i L() 'E .. NalLO ,SE'\fl o.~CD ::Jc::.o -nl- Ul .e -c:: ~5ir3 :5 .!!1 0'0 .... - .- Q) ~ ~ ~ ::J'E-E '0 ~__ ~c:.c. :-O.!9~ ffi ~ iti U<6'\fl.Si . ~ 0 nl ~~::~ >-VOCl CD ~ 5l '0 :> _ _ ~-gg8bin tJ.!!!'jj"i1'f?1t C'Ot).c..c.c.c ~l1 b ~.~f!?g~6 .21 ~ II II II II .eo---- ~:TI:~Nc:._;.;t .!9 nl '0 o Z :>gCD"" :> -CD CD =CD '> ~ iJi .... g>2~~ o:>,nl.- ...J...J::!:::!: <D 0) N .!9 nl '0 o Z .!9 nl '0 o Z ~ o="E 'g'i ~ ~.~ ~ :Joe: .::J nl gj~-E >-....CD 1/)'0 I/) .... CD nl - '0 CD c:: .o.!9 :-OUl c::_ ~ 0 _?fl. ::JC .0 LO . urc:5 ~:5~ nl ro '0 o Z .!9 nl '0 o Z .l!l c: .!9 'S I/) c:: o U nl CD co nlO) Ul , nlCO -N nl , f-N c:: o c:: Q; > ec c:: ::J o 0 ::!:::!: c: o -6'E Ul .- 0 GI ~ U -GIGI ~>Il!: "","-.-." . .",,"\ '.. I.~,: Ul c: o a E GI >< W ~< .......,""-, Cl~ c: u .- I'll :E.c .- - :I GI lOCI) CL .,-.' ("".. c: o ~ ::l "C ~ ~ :I 10 Cl c: '61 f! GI ~ :i ::l 10 >- .c~ I!! 0 ~J :I I'll 100 "C"C c: c: I'll I'll ~~ >- .c I!! ~GI :Ie. 1D~ E E III III e e -- CI)CI) c: o n :c Ul 'i: :I .., CD ~ .l!l III "C o Z III ro "C o Z .l!l III "C o Z '#- ~.... '- v 0 S Q) = III .c"C .... ~.~..~ f3 'E ~ .~ '5.g:~~ .cC:.c:Q) uitj-;;;:Q ~oll~ 10 ~ ..- ..- .l!l III "C o Z .l!l III "C o Z ~ N .9 c. :J Ul Q) >- .l!l III "C o Z C Q) Q) UlQ) cE. :Jen Q)Q)8ioioo "C ::loo. E 0..-1'-1")..- ~-gg~8 ~~~~~~ t).!!!l!:l!:"0~-2~~~~ lilt) .c:'f?.c:~ ~~.. .c: 5i giooio. .- EOo. . ==I'-IONIO "5 .- ~ ~ :5 ~ .~ .~ 11, 11, 11, 11, :c~.!!..!!..!!..!!.nn~~~~ l!::rr';":NM"t~~';":NM"t 00 ._ 0010010 T"'"T""'''''''Il)C\I ';":NM..t.o Q) ~ .!!! ~.~ ClllE g ~ ~ :::EI-O 00. . 100010 T"'"......LON ';":NM..t e. .= ro >. :J 0.. .l!l III "C o Z .l!l III "C o Z .l!l III "C o Z .l!l III "C o Z .l!l III "C o Z O. 0010 ..-ION ';":NM .l!l III "C o Z "C c: o E "C Q) a:: c: .9 c: Q) a:: CD m ~ N ~ .l!l III "C o Z .l!l III "C o Z .l!l III "C o Z .l!l III "C o Z .l!l III "C o Z ~'5~ '#- ~ .~ :5~io .9E\)' c.SQ) :JC:.c - co ~ en .c: c: ~5if3 .l!l III "C o Z en ~ o 10 00 . 00010 N..-ION ';":NM..t Q) en Q) :J en "C::l ~-g 0 n.!!! ~ lllt)o.. II ~~:::E .c: '-ECI)..o oio"5'- al881Oio ION:c~en"-"-.!!.N ';":Nl!::rr';":NM"t.o Q) E III Q) CI) III E 8 III I- .!!! .~ ~ :J I- .l!l c: .l!l 'S en c: o () III Q)co lllm en , lllCO -N III , I-N 1103 W. Meeker St. Suite C Kent, WA 98032-5751 Gvu~'1 C'^"-IOClM ~.M.~' B-twelve Associates Inc. (v) 253-859-0515 (t) 253-852-4732 (e) bI2assoc@compuserve.com March 4, 1998 RECEIVED , MAR 0 6 1~98 CITY CLERKS OFFICE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Mr. Philip Watkins Land/Use/Transportation Committee Federal Way City Hall Federal Way, WA RE; Sensitive Areas Code Amendment Dear Mr. Watkins and Committee Members, Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you Monday evening regarding the proposed revisions to the SAO. This letter restates the issues I raised in my testimony. 1. Proposed Section 22-1357 (Page 17) Wetland classifications and standard buffers Paragraph (2) Category II Wetlands, Item (a) states, in part, that Category II wetlands "Are contiguous with water bodies or tributaries to water bodies which under normal circumstances contain or support a fish population including streams where flow is intermittent:" My staff and I understand this to mean that if a wetland is 'small enough to be a Category III wetland (with either a 25-foot or 50-foot buffer) it would automatically be bumped up to a Category II wetland with a 100-foot buffer, if a stream runs out of it or through it. This would happen because ~drainage in Federal Way that meets the criteria of a stream is either contiguous to or tributary to "water bodies which under normal circumstances contain or support a fish population......" Thus, every wetland larger than 2500 sq. ft. which has a stream outlet (i.e. is not an isolated depression) will be bumped up to a Category II wetland. If this interpretation is accurate, we believe it conflicts with the proposed criteria for Major and Minor Streams which states in part: (Attach. A Article I, Section 22-1) Major Stream, proposed language addition states; "If there exists a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes the upstream movement of anadromous fish. then that portion of the stream which is downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a major stream. " We interpret this to mean that streams above permanent blockages would be regulated as Minor streams and would therefore include a 50 foot buffer. Thus, if a Minor Stream has a very small wetland along its riparian edge, even though the stream would have a 50 foot buffer, the language of the proposed wetland criteria 2-a would require a 100- foot buffer landward from the edge of the wetland. -- ' ". . We agree that the wetlands adjacent to streams should be protected with appropriate buffers. We also believe that the language and criteria for wetlands associated with streams should match the intent of the stream protection RE: Federal Way SAC B-twelve Assoc, Inc. March 3, 1998 Page 2 criteria. Therefore we suggest the following modifications to the Sec. 22-1357 Wetland classifications, Item (2) Category II wetlands Item (2) a. Delete all of current language, then add to Section 22-1357 Paragraph (b): "If a Category II or III wetland larger than 2500 square feet is located adjacent to a stream, the width of the wetland buffer shall be determined by the classification of the stream. The buffer shall be measured from the upland edge of the wetland or the top of the bank of the stream, whichever results in the larger buffer. " In addition, to re-enforce this concept, the following language should be added to the stream buffers:Division 5 Streams Sec. 22-1306.Setbacks (a) (3) New Item; If a stream lies within or adjacent to a Category II or III wetland, the buffer of the stream shall be measured from the upland edge of the wetland or the top of the bank of the stream, whichever results in the larger buffer. 2. We strongly encourage you to specifically identify those Category I wetland that have already been identified by the City, with the flexibility to include other areas as they may be identified. As you can see from the attached table, a 200 foot buffer is a much larger buffer than is currently being used by any other local jurisdiction. Although we support this width, the economic impact to the owner can be staggering. For example, based on our field observation of several properties along the east side of Hylebos Park, we believe that the 200 foot buffer will extend all the way across the lots to Pacific Highway South. This would render these lots totally unbuildable. Surely, identifying this limitation in the code would assist staff in coping with the Reasonable Use process that will no doubt be required. 3. Finally, although I did not specifically address the issue, I completely agree with Mr, Shields' suggestion that you consider addition of a provision for reducing buffers if enhancement or restoration is provided. Again using Pacific Highway South as the example, many of the wetlands along the east site of the highway have fill up to the wetland edge. Many of these lots do not have adequate width to enable buffer averaging and, more significantly, do not include buffers that have any value. By allowing buffer reduction with enhancement, a buffer can be restored to protect the wetland, while allowing the owner relief from a broad buffer width on a small lot. There are many good samples of buffer reduction criteria which I am certain Ms. Sheldon would be able to provide. Alternatively, we would be happy to provide examples should you wish to pursue this alternative. Thank you again for your time on these very complex topics. After 14 years in wetland science I greatly appreciate the complexity of the issues you are trying to balance. I believe this proposed ordinance is a great improvement over the current code and will still provide protection to the valuable stream and wetland resources in Federal Way. Sincerely, B-tweLve Associates, Inc. Sb&t~~~ Susan L. Burgemeister President Wetland Ratings and Buffers Jurisdiction Rating Criteria Buffer Width Federal Way Category 1 Exceptional resource value 200' (proposed) 3 classes, one being open water Category 2 Contiguous (or tributary) wI fisheries resources or 100' Greater than 1 acre or Less than 1 acre w I 2 classes Category 3 Not #1 or 2, greater than 10,000 sf 50' Not #1 or 2, greater than 2500 & less than 10,000 25' King County Class 1 Exceptional or unique resource value 100' 40 %-60% open water & 2 or more classes or 1 0 acres wI 3 classes, one submerged vegetation in open water Class 2 Greater than 1 acre, 50' less than 1 acre wI 3 classes, or are forested greater than 2500 sf Class 3 1 acre, wI 2 classes 25' Greater: than 2500 sf and have 2 or fewer classes Normandy Significant King County 1 or 2 100' Park Greater than 1 acre wI 3 or more classes or forested larger than 2500 sf Important King County #3 35' Less than 1 acre, 2 classes, none forested Des Moines Significant King County 1 or 2 or 100' Within stream corridor when wetlands are greater than 1 acre and have 3 classes Important King County 3 or 35' within stream stream corridor when wetlands less than 1 acre and have 2 classes Kent Category 1 Same as King County wI minor changes 100' 10 acres wI 3 classes, one open water Category 2 Greater than 1 acre or 50' 3 wetland classes or forested Category 3 1 acre or less, w/2 classes 25' Pierce 4-tier, Uses point rating form; County Category 1 Exceptional resource value 150' A Category 2 Significant resource value 100' Category 3 Important resource value 50' Category 4 Ordinary resource value, monotypic vegetation & 25' isolated from other aquatic resources