Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-17-2021 HE 2.17.21 Packet
HEARING EXAMINER February 17, 2021 5:30 p.m. The meeting of the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner scheduled for February 17, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. will be held virtually and telephonically. To attend the meeting virtually please click the link or enter the meeting ID into the Zoom app or call into the meeting at the phone number listed below. Per Governor Inslee’s Healthy Washington - Roadmap to Recovery plan, the location for Hearing Examiner meetings will be virtual until the Governor of Washington State authorizes local governments to conduct in-person meetings. Per the Governor’s Emergency Proclamation 20-28, the City of Auburn is prohibited from holding an in-person meeting at this time. The link to the Virtual Meeting or Phone number to listen to the Hearing Examiner is: Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/91724427232 Meeting ID: 917 2442 7232 One tap mobile 1 (253) 215-8782 Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device. I. Case No: CAO20-0004 Applicant(s): Brent Parrish, Development Manager Inland Development Group 120 W Cataldo, Ste 100 Spokane, WA 99201 Agent: Jennifer Marriot, Owner/Senior Scientist Wet.Land, LLC 15803 Bear Creek Parkway, Unit E513 Redmond, WA 98052 Request: Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) variance pursuant to City Code Section 16.10.160 to allow for the reduction of a Category II stream buffer (fish bearing) (vested buffer standard). The reduction is related to the future construction of public street improvements, I ST NE, associated with the Copper Gate Apartments as part of the Auburn Gateway Project. Mitigation for the buffer reduction is proposed. Project Location: 4750 Auburn Way N, the site being developed is within the Section 31, T 22 N, R 5E, WM. Parcel Number(s): King Co. Parcel Nos. 9360600305, 9360600320, 9360600325, 9360600330, & 9360600271. AGENDA BILL FORM HEARING EXAMINER CRITICAL AREAS VARIANCE Inland Group, Copper Gate and Auburn Gateway Project CAO20-0004 I. GENERAL INFORMATION Application Date: December 1, 2020 Applicant/Owner: Brent Parrish, Development Manager Inland Development Group 120 W Cataldo, Ste 100 Spokane, WA 99201 Agent Jennifer Marriot, Owner/Senior Scientist Wet.Land, LLC 15803 Bear Creek Parkway, Unit E513, Redmond, WA 98052 Proposal: Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) variance pursuant to City Code Section 16.10.160 to allow for the reduction of a Category II stream buffer (fish bearing) (vested buffer standard). The reduction is related to the future construction of public street improvements, I ST NE, associated with the Copper Gate Apartments as part of the Auburn Gateway Project. Mitigation for the buffer reduction is proposed. Location: 4750 Auburn Way N, the site being developed is within the Section 31, T 22 N, R 5E, WM. Parcel Number: King Co. Parcel Numbers: 9360600305, 9360600320, 9360600325, 9360600330, & 9360600271. Administrative Recommendation: Hearing Examiner to conduct a public hearing and approve the Critical Area Variance request with conditions. Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 2 of 30 Subject Property and Adjacent Property Comprehensive Plan Designation, Zoning Classification and Current Land Use: Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning Classification Current Land Use Project Site Heavy Commercial C4, Mixed Use Commercial Copper Gate Apartments under Construction North Unincorporated King County Unincorporated King County Agricultural land and single-family home South Heavy Commercial C3, Heavy Commercial & R-20 Residential Professional offices and apartments East Multiple Family Residential R20, Residential Vacant West Heavy Commercial C3, Heavy Commercial Various commercial service and retail along Auburn Way North Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 3 of 30 Excerpted Comprehensive Plan Designation Map: Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 4 of 30 Excerpted Zoning Classification Map: Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 5 of 30 2019 Aerial Vicinity Map: Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 6 of 30 II. SEPA STATUS: The proposed project, referred to as the Auburn Gateway Project, is part of a larger, related project in the Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area. The Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area was originally analyzed in a 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement (2004 Final EIS), as well as a 2011 and 2019 Addenda to the Final EIS. This 2019 EIS Addendum (Exhibit 13), addresses minor changes to the Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan proposed by the buyer of the majority of the properties in the planning area, Inland Washington LLC (Inland). Inland purchased the properties within this area that were owned by Robertson Properties Group (RPG) (also doing business as ‘Auburn Properties Inc.’). As the project applicant, Inland proposes multi-family housing and mixed commercial development in a configuration that requires modifications to zoning regulations and to the Development Agreement established by RPG. Inland’s proposal is referred as the Inland Development Plan, to distinguish it from the previous plans by RPG. The project history is summarized below. In July 2004, the Final EIS was issued for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan (City of Auburn 2004). The Special Area Plan was developed to address a designated ‘special planning area’ as a subarea of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and to establish policies governing the redevelopment and uses of the area in the Auburn Comprehensive Plan (City of Auburn 2005). The 2004 Final EIS also evaluated an application to redevelop the property located within the area designated as the “Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area.” The Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan was adopted in June 2008 (Ordinance No. 6183) along with a Development Agreement (Resolution No. 4756, adopted 2011) and a “planned action” ordinance (Ordinance No. 6382) as authorized under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.21C.031 (a more detailed description of the early planning history, including the rezone action that was part of previous land use approvals, can be found in the 2004 Final EIS). The Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan covers approximately 90 acres of land (referred to in the 2004 Final EIS as the “planning area”). The planning area is bordered by Auburn Way N, S 277th Street, 45th Street NE, and the undeveloped right-of-way of I Street NE (Figure 1) as it existed within Parcel 0004200006 in 2004. A portion of the I Street NE right-of-way has been vacated as part of the implementation of the plan. The 2004 Final EIS evaluated the impacts associated with the implementation of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan and the Auburn Gateway project. In addition to the retail, office, and multi-family residential uses, development in this area would include new roads and utilities, surface parking, and stormwater detention and water quality facilities. The former Valley 6 Drive-In theater and other structures that occupied the RPG properties have been demolished pursuant to permits issued by the City in 2013. Alternatives evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS of the Auburn Gateway project involved building up to 720,000 square feet of retail development, 1,600,000 square feet of office, 500 multi- family residences, and 6,133 parking spaces. All alternatives evaluated the area outside the Auburn Gateway project area (the remaining portions of the planning area) as developing in Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 7 of 30 accordance with existing zoning. This would include multi-family residential development to the south and east, and heavy commercial development to the west. The focus of this 2019 EIS Addendum is the proposed changes to the configuration of uses in the Auburn Gateway project area under the Inland Development Plan. The Inland Development Plan includes a multi-family residential area referred to in reports submitted by Inland as the Copper Gate Apartments. Changes in phasing are also proposed. The previous phasing was just two phases: north and south. Now the “Heart” (central private park/open space) would be developed along with the south portion. The infrastructure to support commercial development is also proposed and is closely associated with multi-family residential development. There are also road improvements, grading, and changes in floodplains within other portions of the site. The prepared EIS’s and EIS addenda have been adopted by the City as a “planned action” ordinance (Ordinance No. 6382) as authorized under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.21C.031 (SEPA Rules). The requirements and process of the Northeast Auburn Planned action are codified at Chapter 18.08 ACC, “Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan and Auburn Gateway Planned Action”. Subsection ACC 18.08.060, “Effect of planned action designation” generally provides that if the project qualifies as a planned action, the project will not be subject to a SEPA threshold determination, an environmental impact statement (EIS), or any further review under SEPA. The project must be found to be consistent with the development parameters and environmental analysis included in the EIS documents and EIS addenda. However, projects may be subject to conditions designed to mitigate any environmental impacts which may result from the project proposal, and projects will be subject to whatever permit requirements are deemed appropriate by the City under state and city laws and ordinances. The planned action designation does not excuse a project from meeting the city’s code and ordinance requirements apart from the SEPA process. Also pursuant to ACC 18.08.070, “Planned action permit process”, if a project is determined to not qualify as a planned action, the Applicant shall be notified, and the City shall prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent with the city’s SEPA regulations and the requirements of state law. III. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Brent Parrish, Development Manager, Inland Group, applied on December 1, 2020 for a Critical Area Variance to allow for the reduction of a Category II stream buffer (fish bearing) (the vested buffer standard). The reduction is related to the future construction of public street improvements for I ST NE, associated with the Copper Gate Apartments as part of the larger Auburn Gateway Project by Inland Group. The Applicant seeks to reduce the City standard required buffer for a Category II stream (city classification) from a minimum of 75- feet to 10 feet on the west side of the relocated stream channel (Watercourse K). Mitigation is also proposed in compensation. 2. The proposed project removes an existing culvert, daylighting a portion of Watercourse K, replaces another existing culvert with a fish passable structure, relocates the channel of Watercourse K slightly to the east (to accommodate the right-of-way (ROW) alignment of I Street NE necessary by road standards), and proposes stream buffer plantings where feasible. To complete I ST NE, the Applicant must relocate an existing stream, Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 8 of 30 Watercourse K, that is currently located what is the northern stub of I Street right-of-way just north of 45th ST NE and located off-site to the east. Approximately 438 lineal feet of Watercourse K is proposed to be shifted in alignment eastward and replaced by approximately 467 lineal feet of relocated stream channel including removal of one culvert and upgrade of a second culvert to a fish-friendly box culvert. This relocation will result in a stream buffer minimum width of 10 feet between the stream and the edge of the new constructed I St NE. 3. More specifically, a description of the proposal is contained in the “Critical Areas Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report, I Street (NE) Extension Project Auburn Washington, prepared by Jennifer Marriot, Wet.Land LLC, June 17, 2020 (Exhibit 5). Page 22 provides the following: “6.2.1 Watercourse K Watercourse K, as currently configured, is partially piped in 24-inch steel culverts at two locations: a 157-foot segment and a 65-foot segment. The stream channel will be realigned within the designated ROW as part of the restoration effort in conjunction with road construction. Watercourse K is proposed to be impacted directly through the removal of the 157-foot culvert, upgrade of another culvert, realignment and recontouring of the stream channel, addition of a wall that will be associated with the I Street NE construction, and temporary impacts as necessary to facilitate the restoration effort and connecting the new stream elements to the existing stream channel. The I Street NE Alignment has been identified in the City Comprehensive Plan and is based in part on the location of existing ROW previously designated to accommodate the City’s future plans for the I Street NE arterial through this area. “ “6.2.1.1 Direct Impacts – Stream Fill (Temporary) The relocation of Watercourse K will require 438 LF (722 cubic yards of fill, 7,544 square feet) of existing stream channel to be filled as part of the relocation process to accommodate the proposed road alignment. This fill is considered temporary in nature as the stream channel will be realigned to a new location, not placed into a culvert, that will accommodate the proposed road. The stream segments to be filled were previously constructed as a linear farm ditch with steep sides. The OHWM of this watercourse at this location is upwards of 10 feet across because of the steep side walls, and the OHWM being called at the top of the banks. This condition is not reflective of a “natural” condition for the reach of stream in this area. Compensation for this stream fill is provided by constructing a new stream channel east of the proposed fill.” Site and Surrounding Characteristics 4. The critical areas variance application lists five tax parcels as being directly involved in the variance application. These five parcels are highlighted in the preceding maps. The critical areas report makes clear that more parcels and a few unlabeled rights-of-way are also relevant. Inland Group as the party to the development agreement contractually has responsibility for development of the entirety of the Auburn Gateway Project. The requirements associated with the early phases of development are necessary precursors to, and therefor are related to, the entire Auburn Gateway Project site and its parcels. All Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 9 of 30 phases will be interconnected by roads, walkways, utilities, and coordinated design of development. 5. The majority of the Auburn Gateway site and properties were previously developed and operated as the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater. The theater operated from approximately 1968 to 2012 and consisted of two square-shaped bays, each with a central snack bar building and three movie screens at different orientations. The site was relatively flat and had gradual terraced graveled slopes oriented to each screen. The site was served by one main vehicle entrance that aligned with 49th ST NE and an emergency exit to the north. The theater ceased operations in 2012 and the site structures were removed pursuant to city demolition permits in 2013. It has remained fallow and unused since that time. 6. The properties adjacent to the former drive-in site consist predominantly of undeveloped or vacant lands as former agricultural lands that where they remain undisturbed are naturally revegetating. To the west, across D ST NE are properties, some of which are owned by Inland and some by others. Those owned by Inland were originally unused and in more recent years have been used for agriculture. There are also properties not owned by Inland, that include single family homes and businesses such as auto service and a plumbing contractor. To the east, are parcels owned by the Port of Seattle (Port). The Port properties are vacant and were acquired to gain access to the approximately 70-acre constructed wetland mitigation site, located further to the SE, next to the Green River. This Port-owned wetland mitigation site was constructed for compensation for impacts associated with construction of the third runway at SeaTac airport. To the north, across S 277th Street and outside the city are agricultural lands in the King County farmland program. Located to the south is a small office park and an apartment complex. 7. The Applicant has provided a critical area report; “Critical Areas Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report, I Street (NE) Extension Project Auburn Washington, prepared by Jennifer Marriot, Wet.Land LLC, June 17, 2020. Page 2 of this Report provides the following history of site investigations: “Previously prepared reports that are either referenced directly within this report or have served as background information include the following: 1. Wetland & Stream Reports by Talasaea Consultants for the I Street NE Extension Project and the Copper Gate Apartments Project: a. Existing Conditions Report for Copper Gate Apartments and I Street Extension, Talasaea Consultants, 6 November 2019. b. Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Critical Areas Report for Copper Gate Apartments, Talasaea Consultants, Revised 5 November 2019. i. Mitigation Plan sheets were revised on 22 May 2020 (Appendix B); c. Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Assessment Report for I Street Extension, Talasaea Consultants, 6 November 2019; NOTE: This Report, dated 29 May 2020 as prepared by Wet.land, LLC, will replace the above Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Assessment Report for I Street previously prepared by Talasaea Consultants. The mitigation has substantially changed from the 2019 Talasaea report.” Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 10 of 30 The note appears to be referring to the report dated June 17, 2020, rather than the 29 May 2020, as cited. Also, on Page 7, the Report identifies that wetland and streams were evaluated by several different consultants in the past 10 years and that previous delineations for streams and wetlands: “are assumed to be accurate and a re-assessment of those boundaries has not been conducted as part of this report.” It should be noted that although the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) was updated in November 2019 by Ordinance No. 6733, the Inland project is vested to earlier standards by the development agreement. 8. The referenced Report: “Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report Copper Gate Apartments, Auburn Washington”, Talasaea Consultant, Inc. October 30, 2019, Revised November 5, 2019, (Exhibit 6) on Page 11, provides the following description of Watercourse K: “4.1.2 Watercourses” “Both watercourse, Watercourse K and Watercourse L, are located off-site but in close proximity of the Project Site that buffers and/or Riparian Habitat Zones (RHZ) extend onto the Project Site. The Riparian Habitat Zone is defined by ACC Chapter 15.68.060.FF as: … the water body and adjacent land areas that are likely to support aquatic and riparian habitat as detailed in this chapter. The size and location of the riparian habitat zone is dependent on the type of water body. The riparian habitat zone includes the water body and adjacent lands, measured perpendicularly from ordinary high water on both sides of the water body: A. Marine and lake shorelines and Type S streams that are designated “shorelines of the state”: 250 feet. B. Type F (fish bearing) streams greater than five feet wide and marine shorelines: 200 feet. C. Type F streams less than five feet wide and lakes: 150 feet. D. Type N (non-salmonid-bearing) perennial and seasonal streams with unstable slopes: 225 feet. E. All other Type N (non-salmonid-bearing) perennial and seasonal streams: 150 feet. In addition, the riparian habitat zone may include additional land areas that the floodplain administrator determines are likely to support aquatic and riparian habitat. Standard buffers are based on ACC Chapter 16.10.090, while the RHZ width is established in ACC Chapter 15.68.060(FF). Both watercourses have a standard minimum buffer of 75 feet measured landward from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) that is modifiable under certain circumstances. In addition to the standard buffers, the RHZ extends 200 feet from the OHWM for both Watercourse K and L as these are both recognized as fish-bearing watercourses. Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 11 of 30 A summary of the watercourses can be found below on Table 5. Sheet W1.0 of Appendix A shows the RHZ and standard buffers overlaid with the native vegetation mapped for the Site to visually show how little native vegetation occurs on the site, in general, and none of the native vegetation mapped occurs within the RHZ on the Project Site.” “Table 5. Summary of Watercourses on or adjacent to the Project.” Critical Area ID Type1 Standard Minimum Buffer (feet) Reduced by Averaging Watercourse K II, F 75 Up to 35% Watercourse L II, F 75 Up to 35% Watercourse M II, F 752 Up to 35% Watercourse N (off-site) II, F 75 Up to 35% Watercourse O (off-site) II, F 75 Up to 35% Watercourse P (off-site) II, F 75' Up to 35% 1Stream typings for these linear features was reviewed and approved by WDFW based on previous meetings and discussions coordinated by other consultants, and are assumed to be the most accurate. Stream typings are based on the current ACC 2A reduced buffer was documented on the mitigation plans for the S. 277th Street Widening Project.” The Category II identified in this Table 5 is the City’s stream classification of Watercourse K that was in effect at the time of the development agreements and to which the project is considered vested by the City. The City’s classification system was subsequently changed by Ordinance No. 6733 on November 4, 2019 to be consistent with the stream typing used by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFD). 9. Watercourse K is located “off-site” in that it is located within previously established public right-of-way for I ST NE near the southeast corner of the Copper Gate Apartment site. Also, this Report appropriately notes the City’s stream buffer standards as minimum width standards. 10. The need for the eastward relocation of a segment of the stream, Watercourse K, and the critical areas variance is a result of required public improvements necessary to serve the Copper Gate project and ultimately the Auburn Gateway development. More specifically, Watercourse K occurs within the existing north terminus of undeveloped right-of-way of I ST NE that was conveyed to the City by the Port of Seattle and was not known at the time to contain the channel. A description of I ST NE alignment alternatives is contained in the “Critical Areas Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report, I Street (NE) Extension Project Auburn Washington”, prepared by Jennifer Marriot, Wet.Land LLC, June 17, 2020, Page 14, which states: “5.3.4 I Street Alignment Alternatives The new alignment of I Street is in the current City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan (December 2015) as a proposed five (5) lane arterial road. Right-of-way (ROW) at the intersection of I Street NE and 45th Street NE was previously purchased by the City and set the location of the I Street NE and 45th Street NE Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 12 of 30 interchange. Watercourse K existed on this parcel when it was purchased by the City for a road ROW. Existing development in the southwest quadrant of this intersection prevented moving the interchange west away from the existing stream (Watercourse K). Given that Watercourse K is aligned in a north-south direction generally parallel to the existing segment of I Street NE, moving the interchange north or south would have no affect (sic) on stream impacts.” “From the established interchange, the new road alignment for I Street NE curves away from Watercourse K as quickly as road standards would allow, before the road curves back north again towards the interchange with South 277th Street. This alignment is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan.” Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 13 of 30 “This alignment will result in no permanent impacts to wetlands or streams, but will require temporary impacts to Watercourses N and K that will be fully restored and modify wetland and stream buffers slightly. This alignment does require the relocation of a segment of Watercourse K from its current condition in a steep sided farm ditch to a new alignment within the designated ROW with gentler slopes.” 11. Watercourse K is mapped by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as a fish bearing stream. Watercourse K continues north and across S 277th ST, continues north and discharges into Auburn Creek, which in turn flows into the Green River approximately 4,000 feet to the north. However, some type of flood control flap gate is present at the mouth of Auburn Creek and mostly prevents fish from entering the Auburn Creek system from the Green River. Watercourse K is seasonal in nature and typically does not contain any flowing water during the dry summer months. The importance of the fish Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 14 of 30 resources of Watercourse K and relation to the Green River is discussed in the report: “Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report Copper Gate Apartments, Auburn Washington”, Talasaea Consultant, Inc. October 30, 2019, Revised November 5, 2019, starting on Page 9, it states: “No habitat occurs on the site that would support federally listed salmonids. The nearest mapped stream for salmonids, including federally listed salmonid species, is the Green River, located some 2,400 feet to the east and over 4,000 feet to the north. Flows from the Site continue off-site through Auburn Creek to the Green River. A flood gate has been noted as occurring on Auburn Creek off-site to the north at its confluence with the Green River that could restrict fish passage. It is possible fish could get around this flood gate at elevated water levels within the river, but details and functionality of this flood gate are unknown at this time. While federally listed salmonids are not documented as occurring in the nearby watercourses, the potential occurs as fish habitat has been determined to be present within these watercourses, and non-listed salmonid species (Coho salmon) were documented as occurring south of South 277th Street. It is assumed that listed salmonids have at least the potential of occurring in the watercourses adjacent to the Site. Regardless of proximity of nearest documented occurrence of listed salmonids, the actions within the Project Site do have the potential to affect federally listed salmonids as the site stormwater would ultimately reach waterbodies that are known to contain federally listed salmonids. Essential fish habitat (EFH) is defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as “…those waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding…” For salmonid species in the Puget Sound region, the concept of EFH and Critical Habitat at the federal level tend to overlap and include those waterways with the potential to support those listed species. No Essential Fish Habitat or Critical Habitat has been mapped or identified on the Project Site. However, linear features with the potential to support listed salmonids do occur in proximity to the Project Site. In addition, the stormwater for the proposed Project would ultimately discharge to the Green River, which has documented salmonid presence, including those federally listed salmonids. 3.5.2 State-Listed Species and Priority Habitats The federally listed salmonid species are also identified as state listed. No additional salmonid species are identified as being listed as either threatened or endangered at the State level. No salmonid species identified as federally or und region have been identified as occurring on or near the site. This information was updated and revised by the report: “Critical Areas Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report, I Street (NE) Extension Project Auburn Washington, prepared by Jennifer Marriot, Wet.Land LLC, June 17, 2020, Page 8, which says: “3.3.2 Federally Listed Species A full discussion on Federally listed species potentially occurring on the Site is provided in the Existing Conditions Report (ECR). That said, since the ECR report date, new information was identified that expands the known range of Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 15 of 30 federally listed species to include Auburn Creek, to which Watercourse M drains within ½ mile.” “The ECR noted that no habitat occurs on-site that would support federally listed salmonids. However, a study recently conducted by King County (2019) concluded otherwise. Details are provided in the Biological Evaluation (BE) prepared by Wet.land, LLC (2020).” “3.3.3 State Listed Species State priority habitats on the Site include wetlands, riparian buffer zones, and snags that were identified in the 2019 EIS Report. It is expected that wildlife and state listed species that typically use these habitats have the potential to use the Site, however degraded onsite conditions may be. No state listed species are known to use the Site.” Background and History 12. The amended and re-stated development agreement between the city and Inland Development Group (Resolution No. 5442, adopted June 24, 2019), which supersedes the original development agreement between the City and former property owner, Robertson Properties Group (RPG) (also known as Auburn Properties Inc.), in Section 3, Page 79, requires that prior to issuance of building permits for the Copper Gate Apartments structures, Inland Group must submit civil construction plans for completion of I St NE from 45th St NE (to the south) to S 277th ST (to the North). The road improvements shall consist of a 14-foot through lane in each direction, a center 11-foot turn lane and a shared use path on the east side and 10-foot sidewalk on the west side and traffic signal at S 277th ST. And the Copper Gate Apartments are proposed as the first phase of the Auburn Gateway Project. Subsequently, if right-of-way is not dedicated and the street improvements are not completed prior to requesting certificate of occupancy of the final apartment building, the Applicant must provide financial guarantees to the City for the unfinished portions, including stormwater management and environmental mitigation in accordance with the development agreement. Relationship to the Critical Area Ordinance 13. Streams and other environmentally sensitive areas are regulated by the City under ACC 16.10, “Critical Areas”. The proposed development is subject to the requirements of ACC 16.10. 14. The City’s critical area regulations provide the following general purpose and intent and purpose specific to stream critical areas: “16.10.010 Purpose and intent. A. The city of Auburn contains numerous areas that can be identified and characterized as critical or environmentally sensitive. Such areas within the city include wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, significant trees, geologic hazards, ground water protection areas, and flood hazards. B. The city finds that these critical areas perform a variety of valuable and beneficial biological and physical functions that benefit the city and its residents. Alteration of certain critical areas may also pose a threat to public safety or to public and private Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 16 of 30 property or the environment. The city therefore finds that identification, regulation and protection of critical areas are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The city further finds that the functions of critical areas and the purpose of these regulations include the following:” (Emphasis added) Also: “2. Streams. Streams and their associated riparian corridors provide important fish and wildlife habitat; help to maintain water quality; store and convey storm water and flood water; recharge ground water; and serve as areas for recreation, education and scientific study and aesthetic appreciation. Stream buffers serve to moderate runoff volume and flow rates; reduce sediment, chemical nutrient and toxic pollutants; provide shading to maintain desirable water temperatures; provide habitat for wildlife; and protect stream resources from harmful intrusion.” “The primary goals of stream regulation are to avoid adverse effects to streams and associated riparian corridors; to achieve no net loss of functions and values of the larger ecosystem in which the stream is located; to protect fish and wildlife resources; to protect water quality through appropriate management techniques; and, where possible, to provide for stream enhancement and rehabilitation.” (Emphasis added) 15. The City’s critical area regulations provide the following mitigation standards when stream critical areas are proposed to be altered: “16.10.100 Alteration or development of critical areas – Standards and criteria. Alteration of specific critical areas and/or their buffers may be allowed by the director subject to the criteria of this section. Alteration shall implement the mitigation standards as identified in ACC 16.10.110, and the performance standards of ACC 16.10.120 and the monitoring requirements of ACC 16.10.130.” (Emphasis added) 16. The Project is vested to previous City critical area code standards. By City Ordinance No. 6733 adopted on November 4, 2019 the city amended its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) to change the classification scheme applicable to streams to be consistent with Washington State stream typing and to change the minimum steam buffer widths from a minimum of 75 feet applicable to Category II (fish bearing streams), to a minimum of 100 feet based on Type F classification (the comparable classification of fish bearing stream, under the state classification system used by Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife). The changes were recommended by the Department of Ecology. The project is considered vested to this former standard based on the development agreements. 17. In accordance with the vested standard of ACC 16.10.090(E)(2), Category II streams have a minimum buffer width requirement of 75 feet. With the variance request, the Applicant seeks to reduce this to 10 feet for a portion of the west side. 18. Buffer is defined in ACC 16.10.020, “Definitions” as: "Buffer or buffer area, critical area" means a naturally vegetated, undisturbed, enhanced or revegetated zone surrounding a critical area that protects the critical area from adverse impacts to its integrity and value and is an integral part of the resource' s ecosystem.” Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 17 of 30 19. The vested standard of ACC 16.10.090(E)(2)(b) provides the circumstances under which the city may increase the stream buffer, as follows: “b. The buffer widths required in this section may be increased by the director up to a maximum of 50 percent for Class I, II add IV streams and up to 100 percent for Class III streams in response to site-specific conditions and based on the report information submitted to characterize the functions and values of the stream. This includes, but is not limited to, situations where the critical area serves as habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. The applicant may propose to implement one or more enhancement measures, listed in order of preference below, which will be considered in establishing buffer requirements: i Removal of fish barriers to restore accessibility to anadromous fish. ii. Enhancement of fish habitat using log structures incorporated as part of a fish habitat enhancement plan. iii . Enhancement of wildlife habitat by adding structures that are likely to be used by wildlife, including wood duck houses, bat boxes, nesting platforms, snags, root wads /stumps, birdhouses, and heron nesting areas. iv. Additional mitigating measures may include but are not limited to: (A) Landscaping outside the buffer area with native vegetation or a reduction in the amount of clearing outside the buffer area; (B) Planting native vegetation within the buffer area, especially vegetation that would increase value for fish and wildlife, increase stream bank or slope stability, improve water qua li ty, or provide aesthetic/recreational value; (C) Creating a surface channel where a stream was previously culverted or piped; (D) Removing or modifying existing stream culverts (such as at road crossings) to improve fish passage and flow capabilities which are not detrimental to fish; (E) Upgrading retention/detention facilities or other drainage facilities beyond required levels; or (F) Similar measures determined applicable by the director.” 20. The vested standard of ACC 16.10.090(E)(2)(d) provides the circumstances under which the City may authorize the averaging of the stream buffer, as follows: “d. Buffer width averaging may be allowed for Class-II and Class III streams only; provided, that all of the following are demonstrated by the applicant:” Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 18 of 30 i. One or more of the enhancement measures identified in subsection (E)(2)(b)(i) through (iv) of this section is implemented; ii. The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less in area than contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging; iii. The buffer width averaging will result in stream functions and values equal or greater than before averaging; and iv. The buffer width is not reduced by more than 35 percent in any location than the buffer widths established by this chapter.” The buffer width proposed is 13.3 percent of the standard which is less than 35 percent and therefore does not qualify for buffer averaging. 21. The vested standard of ACC 16.10.090(E)(2)(e) provides the circumstances under which the City may authorize an administrative reduction of the stream buffer, as follows: “e. Stream buffer widths may be reduced by the director on a case-by-case basis by up to 35 percent if an applicant demonstrates that a reduction will not result in any adverse impact to the stream. Further, if an existing buffer is vegetated, a buffer enhancement plan may be required to demonstrate how the function and values of the buffer and stream will be improved. If the existing buffer has been disturbed and/or is not vegetated, an enhancement plan shall be required that identifies measures to enhance the buffer functions and values and provide additional protection for the stream function and values. Enhancement plans are subject to approval by the planning director.” The buffer width proposed is 13.3 percent of the standard which is less than 35 percent and therefore does not qualify for an administrative buffer reduction. 22. The vested standard of ACC 16.10.170(A) provides the circumstances under which the city may authorize a “special exception for public agencies and utilities”, as follows. “A. If the application of this chapter would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency or public utility, the agency or utility may apply for an exception pursuant to this section.” The need for the critical area variance is to facilitate a private development proposal and is not proposed by a public agency or utility. Comprehensive Plan Policy GMA-01 provides that private development is responsible for infrastructure improvements needed to support the development concurrent with the development. 23. Due to strict application of the requirements contained within ACC 16.10, a critical area variance to the minimum stream buffer width standards is requested. As noted in ACC 16.10.160, “Variances”: Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 19 of 30 “Applications for variances to the strict application of the terms of this chapter to a property may be submitted to the city. Minor variances, defined as up to and including 10 percent of the requirement, may be granted by the director as a Type II decision as defined by Chapter 14.03 ACC. Variance requests which exceed 10 percent may be granted by the hearing examiner as a Type III decision, pursuant to ACC 14.03.030 and Chapter 2.46 ACC. Approval of variances from the strict application of the critical area requirements shall conform to the following criteria: A. There are unique physical conditions peculiar and inherent to the affected property which make it difficult or infeasible to strictly comply with the provisions of this section; B. The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the building footprint and access; C. The proposed variance would preserve the functions and values of the critical area, and/or the proposal does not create or increase a risk to the public health, safety and general welfare, or to public or private property; D. The proposed variance would not adversely affect surrounding properties adjoining; E. Adverse impacts to critical areas resulting from the proposal are minimized; and F. The special circumstances or conditions affecting the property are not a result of the actions of the applicant or previous owner.” Based on the above, the proposed buffer variance is being processed as a Type III decision to the Hearing Examiner, because the buffer reduction request exceeds the 10 percent threshold allowed for critical area variances to be administratively decided. 24. The City’s critical area variance code section (ACC 16.10.160) does not contain a time limit for implementation of the variance. For comparison the City zoning code section provides a time limit at ACC 18.70.110(C) (Variances) as follows: “C. A variance so authorized shall become void after the expiration of one year, or longer period if specified at the time of issuance, if no building permit, occupancy permit or business registration has been issued in accordance with the plans for which such variance was authorized. The planning director may extend the period of variance authorization for one additional year upon a finding that there has been no basic change in pertinent conditions surrounding the property at the time of the original application.” Public Notice, Comments, and Procedures 25. The City issued a combined Notice of Application (NOA) and Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) on February 2, 2021 with an associated 15-day comment period (File #CAO20- 0004). The notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site, published in the newspaper, posted on site, posted on the City’s website, and emailed to various agencies that may have jurisdiction related to stream and wetland permitting (Exhibit 17). Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 20 of 30 26. No public comments were received in response to the combined Notice of Application and Notice of Public Hearing, as of the time of writing of this report. 27. The contents of the case file for this project (CAO20-0004) are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of the record of this hearing. 28. Per City records, the site is also located within a Type II Aquifer Recharge Area. Specifically, the site is located within Groundwater Protection Zone 4, as defined in ACC 16.10.080(F) the least restrictive zone and requiring the use of best management practices. IV. CONCLUSIONS: What follows is the specific critical area variance decision criteria contained in ACC 16.10.160, “Variances” (in bold), followed by the Applicant’s response (in italics). The Applicant’s responses to the six criteria as repeated, below are included as Exhibit 4. This is followed by a City staff analysis of the Project’s consistency with the decision criteria. “A. There are unique physical conditions peculiar and inherent to the affected property which make it difficult or infeasible to strictly comply with the provisions of this section;” Applicant’s Response: “The Site does contain a unique physical condition. Watercourse K was present at this location when the City designated ROW for a future extension of I Street as part of the City’s comprehensive plan. Portions of the stream were piped at/near this location, which may or may not have been a permitting challenge at the time of ROW designation. Despite this, based on current federal, state, and local environmental regulations, constructing the new alignment of I Street within its designated ROW requires that Watercourse K is relocated, and that the existing 2 culverts be addressed in some fashion consistent with the current regulations. This has resulted in the current stream relocation and the concurrent culvert removal and replacement.” Staff Analysis: The unique circumstances are the constraints of the existing location of the Watercourse K centered within the undeveloped right-of-way of I ST NE. The right- of-way location was established by a land exchange many years ago and this factor combined with the developed location of the existing northern terminus of I ST NE as a connection point at 45th ST NE complicates provision of the full width buffer. It was not possible to redesign the I Street NE alignment to start the westward transition farther south of the intersection with 45th ST NE due to adjacent existing development of the Mallard Pointe Apartments on the west side. Also, it was not possible to move the vacant right-of-way westward and onto Inland’s property ownership, north of the intersection of 45th ST NE since the City had previously accommodated Inland’s urgency to get underway with permitting and construction of the Copper Gate Apartments due to state financial grant deadlines for the Project. This is why the on-site dedication of right- of-way for the northern extension of I ST NE submitted with the variance application is dated November 20, 2019 and recorded March 6, 2020 and has been provided by the Applicant. Realignment to the west, was also precluded by City Engineering Design Standards for the angle of approach of the road at intersection and for the curvature of the road based on the roadway classification and design speed. Another challenge Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 21 of 30 limiting consideration of other location alternatives for Watercourse K alignment arises from variance Criteria D related to minimizing impacts on adjacent properties. See analysis, below. Contrary to the statement provided, the City’s designation of the general alignment of I ST NE was shown in the Draft and Final EIS issued for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan (City of Auburn 2004) and the transportation element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and both documents predate the city’s critical area regulations which were adopted by Ordinance No. 5894 in 2005. Staff finds the request meets the criterion. “B. The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the building footprint and access.” Applicant’s Response: The stream realignment is the minimum necessary to accommodate the new road alignment, while also providing a stream corridor that is an improvement over the existing condition that also meets the applicable federal and state requirements while reducing impacts to adjacent properties. Staff Analysis: It is not completely clear that the proposal for relocation of Watercourse K represents the minimum impact to the buffer that is necessary since the Applicant has previously provided the City conceptual plans for alternatives with a lesser extent of buffer reduction. The Applicant indicates the stream realignment is an improvement over the existing condition that “also meets the applicable federal and state requirements”. And while the City recognizes the challenge of meeting the requirements of multiple federal, state, and local agencies with different jurisdiction for streams, other agencies do not have authority for stream buffers. Stream buffers are the authority of local jurisdictions. On January 8, 2020 Inland representatives requested a joint agency pre-application meeting on site and received agency input to an earlier and more extensive Watercourse K mitigation proposal. In addition to Inland representatives, this was attended by representatives of the following agencies: • Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe • WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife • WA Dept of Ecology • City of Auburn The result of that meeting was the Tribe and US Army Corps of Engineers were not in favor of certain design elements specifically related to the culvert design and sought requirements to meet stream simulation design. Inland modified the Watercourse K design and developed two new options for alignment (Option 1 & Option 2) and spoke with Kristin McDermott (USACE) and Martin Fox of the Muckleshoot Tribe to verify that Inland had addressed the comments from the January 8th meeting. Inland states they received conceptual approval of the revised mitigation options and then scheduled a meeting with the Port of Seattle for February 26, 2020. Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 22 of 30 The submitted materials indicate at the February 26, 2020 meeting, Inland presented both options to the Port of Seattle representatives, and as a result of that meeting, the Port responded (See email from Al Royal, Property Manager submitted with application). The City was not invited to this meeting. The Port preferred the option with the least amount of impact to their property, which is Option 1. Subsequently on May 20, 2020, Inland E-mailed to the city two conceptual options for the relocation of Watercourse K (See Exhibit 10). There was no indication of any preference of an option. Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 23 of 30 The City evaluated both options and indicated that Option 2 was preferred since it did not include a retaining wall to support the road and walkway and that requires maintenance. Also, this proposal is more in conformance with the critical areas regulations as it minimizes the amount of buffer reduction and therefore more likely to meet the criteria for approval of a critical area variance. Since the City questioned the ability to recommend approval of the critical area variance for Option 1, the Applicant requested city assistance in approaching the Port of Seattle on their behalf. The e-mail dated May 20, 2020 from Inland says: “Please let us know how your conversation goes with the Port.“ On June 1, 2020 the city contacted Al Royal’s supervisor, James Jennings, the Director of Aviation Business and Properties. Outlining the options. Al Royal had retired. Option 1 has the least impact on Port of Seattle property but includes shorter buffer slopes and a retaining wall within the buffer. Option 2 has a slightly greater impact on Port–owned property with gentler slopes but include a minor amount of fence relocation and grading on the Port’s site. To be clear, neither option includes moving the watercourse onto the Port’s property, only shifting it closer, with a corresponding different amount of buffer overlapping the Port’s property. The amount of buffer extending on the Port’s property varies from 11,600 sq. ft. (Option 1) to 14,000 sq. ft. (Option 2); a difference of roughly 2,400 square feet of easement area for riparian planting and restoration. On June 2, 2020, the city received an e-mail reply from James Jennings stating that with Al Royal’s departure, he has been working on getting some alternative team members Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 24 of 30 up to speed to assist in their response back to the City. An internal meeting was scheduled for 6/10/2020 and a response will be sent soon thereafter. On June 11, 2020 the city received a follow up e-mail from James Jennings (See Exhibit 11) saying: “… the Port would indeed prefer the lesser encumbrance to our property as reflected in Option #1, but the Port would not be completely adverse (sic) to Option #2 based on the merits referenced in your email. If Option #2 were to ultimately be selected, we would expect any costs associated with fence line adjustments be borne by others, and the Port would need to be appropriately compensated for the full encumbrance. Regardless of the final option, we will begin to work through what level of Port approval is required, and what legal vehicle should be utilized. Hopefully this provides you with the general feedback you were looking for. Happy to participate in an additional call or meeting if desired.” These e-mail results were shared with the Applicant and the city urged Inland to make further contacts to advance the necessary easement negotiations with the Port of Seattle. The City has not been informed if Inland has had any further efforts or attempts at discussion with the Port of Seattle representatives. Around January 1, 2021, the City learned that the Port of Seattle has filed a prospectus (preliminary application) with the Army Corps of Engineers to use their adjacent 34-acre property as a wetland mitigation bank receiving site. See the: Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus, Anchor Environmental for the Port of Seattle, July 2020 (See Exhibit 16). With this pursuit of the wetland mitigation bank proposal, the city is hopeful that it will be approved and future ecological restoration of the adjacent Port site through the excavation of 84,700 cubic yards of upland soil to create emergent, shrub-scrub, and forested wetlands could also include realignment of Watercourse K further east to provide a source of hydrology to support the newly created wetland and have a greater benefit on for potential fish habitat and water quality in Watercourse K. While consistency with this criterion is not completely clear, staff is hopeful that the request will meet the criterion in the future based on proposals in the works. C. The proposed variance would preserve the functions and values of the critical area, and/or the proposal does not create or increase the risk to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or to public or private property; Applicant’s Response: “The proposed variance significant (sic) increases the functions and values of the critical area (Watercourse K) over its existing condition by laying back the slopes compared to the current steep sided farm ditch configuration, removing the dense gravel and invasive species from within the buffer, implementing a modern stormwater facility that will ensure property attenuation and treatment of all stormwater prior to discharge into the stream, as well as adding large woody debris into the stream and corridor, which is currently lacking. The combination of mitigation elements is a Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 25 of 30 significant improvement as it stands while also minimizing impacts to adjacent private properties. While the current proposed stream alignment does propose a wall along the edge of the road, the wall is as low as feasible and a fence will be installed to prevent any human/pet intrusion from the proposed sidewalk into the stream corridor. Given the presence of homeless encampments at other locations in this site, the slope, wall, and fence will hopefully be a deterrent to future intrusions by homeless encampments in the future. The design of the road will also ensure that any road runoff would be routed through the stormwater facility prior to entering the stream proper.” Staff Analysis: The impacts to the Watercourse K and to its buffer are described in Section 6.2, “Watercourse Impacts”, starting at Page 22 of the Report: “Critical Areas Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report, I Street (NE) Extension Project Auburn Washington, prepared by Jennifer Marriot, Wet.Land LLC, June 17, 2020. The impacts to Watercourse K and the corresponding mitigation are described starting at Page 22 and provide: “6.2.1 Watercourse K Watercourse K, as currently configured, is partially piped in 24-inch steel culverts at two locations: a 157-foot segment and a 65-foot segment. The stream channel will be realigned within the designated ROW as part of the restoration effort in conjunction with road construction. Watercourse K is proposed to be impacted directly through the removal of the 157-foot culvert, upgrade of another culvert, realignment and recontouring of the stream channel, addition of a wall that will be associated with the I Street NE construction, and temporary impacts as necessary to facilitate the restoration effort and connecting the new stream elements to the existing stream channel.” “The I Street NE Alignment has been identified in the City Comprehensive Plan and is based in part on the location of existing ROW previously designated to accommodate the City’s future plans for the I Street NE arterial through this area.” It goes on to provide: “6.2.1.4 Stream Relocation A segment of Watercourse K will be relocated to accommodate the proposed road alignment into a new 467-foot-long stream channel in the southeast corner of the Site. The new stream segment is intended to replace the functions of 438- linear feet of filled stream channel, and results in a net increase of 29 linear feet of stream. While no stream (or wetland) impacts will result from the new stream channel, as the new channel will be built in uplands, 1,429 square feet (63 linear feet) of temporary impacts to Watercourse K will occur where the new channel and upgraded box culvert will need to tie back into the existing channel. Every effort was taken to avoid extending the new channel onto the adjacent property where a new stream channel would encumber land that is currently unencumbered by any critical areas. The adjacent parcel is heavily encumbered currently by wetlands and their buffers. Impacting one of the few unencumbered Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 26 of 30 portions of this parcel would increase the unintended consequences of this project on the adjacent parcel, which is not under common ownership.” “The new open channel is designed to have maximum 3:1 slope on the western bank near the proposed wall and 3:1 slopes on the eastern bank near the Port of Seattle property. A wall is necessary on the western edge of the new segment of Watercourse K to accommodate the stream design to contain the new segment within the existing ROW easement. The wall will be constructed of concrete and will not be able to be planted. Dense plantings will occur at the base of the wall and across the remainder of the designated riparian corridor. The wall design will be no higher than 5 feet at its highest point. A pedestrian fence will be installed at the top of the wall on the western side. Detailed wall construction documents will be included with the civil plans provided by BCRA (Sheet C2.07).” The impacts to the buffer of Watercourse K and the corresponding mitigation are described starting at Page 29 of the Report, and include: “The buffer for Watercourse K has been modified to accommodate the proposed road alignment and new stream channel. Where possible, additional buffer was provided between the existing buffer and the stormwater ponds. The standard buffer for Watercourse K is 75 feet to either side of the OHWM. However, given the location of the project boundaries and existing road ROW, a narrower buffer than what is typically allowed per ACC regulations is proposed. The standard 75- foot buffer for WC-K around the new channel is proposed to be reduced by 8,497 square feet to accommodate the road. New buffer will be added totaling 9,182 square feet to the existing WC-K standard buffer as compensation for this buffer reduction. The remainder of the standard buffer for this new channel alignment within the ROW totals 12,876 square feet. These areas of the WC-K buffer will be fully restored with suitable soils and densely planted native vegetation along with the remainder of the WC-K buffer on the Site for a total of 56,493 square feet of buffer restoration for Watercourse K.” “Watercourse K will have a net increase of buffer area as a result of the mitigation proposed, as well as a net increase to buffer function as a result of the extensive habitat restoration proposed.” Based on the analysis provided and as reviewed by the City, the proposal will yield a net increase in the functions and values of Watercourse K through the removal of existing culverts and daylighting portions of the stream and replacing other portions with a fish Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 27 of 30 passable culvert of a recognized standard and through an increase in the overall area established as formal buffer with long term protection. Also, the proposal is not expected to result in or create an increase risk to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or to public or private property. It should be noted that, while the Applicant indicates the buffer width reduction proposed is 10 feet, the construction of a retaining wall to support the street and walkway at the edge of the buffer will require periodic maintenance access to the wall by the City and thus effectively reduces the buffer width, even greater. The periodic maintenance access could require disturbance through cutting or removal of adjacent vegetation in a width to allow access. The exact nature of maintenance access and need cannot be predicted. Also, the Applicant indicates that the buffer will be improved by the removal of dense compacted gravel associated with the original drive-in theater. However, this is only accurate for approximately the northern half of the 467-foot-long stream channel being relocated near the southeast corner of the Site. The southern half of the relocated stream segment was behind the drive-in movie screen and was not graveled surface. Also, south of this screen there was a separate triangular outparcel containing a single- family residence that was not part of the original theater ownership and operation. This separate parcel is described in the 2011 EIS addendum. With the purchase of this parcel and removal of this residence, natural establishment of native vegetation can be more rapid. As mentioned above, the City is applying the minimum stream buffer standard of 75 feet based on the legal vested standards. The current standard subsequently adopted by the City for Category II or Type F streams is a 100-foot minimum. The City adopted the increased standards on November 4, 2019 by Ordinance No. 6733 based on Washington State Dept of Ecology guidance. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFD) confirms this guidance in the recently published document: “Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations. 2020.” Amy Windrope, Terra Rentz, Keith Folkerts, and Jeff Azerrad. A Priority Habitats and Species Document of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington (See Exhibit 15). Crudely applied, this guidance suggests that to create and maintain riparian and aquatic habitat in support of fish and wildlife, the stream buffer standards should be based on the site-potential tree height (SPTH) measured from the edge of the active channel, or more simply, the height of the tree that could be expected in the buffer or about 100 feet. For these reasons, the benefit of net increase in the functions and values of Watercourse K mitigation proposal have likely been overstated. Staff finds the request meets the criterion. D. The proposed variance would not adversely affect surrounding properties adjoining the development site; Applicant’s Response: “The proposed variance would contain the relocated stream within the City’s ROW and would minimize the effects of the stream and shifted buffer on Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 28 of 30 the adjacent private property while also ensuring that the proposed stream and corridor is a significant improvement over the existing conditions for both the stream and its buffer. During discussions with the Port of Seattle in February and March 2020, Port staff made clear their preference for the option that reduced impacts to their property (email, attached).” Staff Analysis: The re-alignment of the approximately 467-foot-long portion of the Watercourse K stream channel eastward and closer to the property line with the Port of Seattle property is not expected to adversely affect the adjacent property. See the staff analysis under Criteria B, above. Staff finds the request meets the criterion under Option 1 or Option 2. E. Adverse impacts to critical areas resulting from the proposal are minimized; Applicant’s Response: “Adverse impacts to the stream have been minimized. The proposed mitigation plan will result in a significant improvement to the habitat of the stream and its corridor.” Staff Analysis: The re-alignment of the approximately 467-foot-long portion of Watercourse K, will be a net benefit over existing conditions. Staff finds the request meets the criterion. F. The special circumstances or conditions affecting the property are not a result of the action of the applicant or previous owner. Applicant’s Response: The special circumstances are a result of the previous development on the Site prior to the Applicant, and the City’s comprehensive planning that identified an extension of I Street at this location, including the City acquiring ROW that is being used by this Project. Staff Analysis: The circumstances or conditions affecting the property are not a result of the action of the applicant or previous owner. Staff finds the request meets the criterion. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the application materials, findings, and conclusions of the Staff report, Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the Critical Area Variance (CAO20-0004) to reduce the Category II stream buffer applicable to Watercourse K, as generally depicted on the mitigation plans contained in the Report: “Critical Areas Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report, I Street (NE) Extension Project Auburn Washington, prepared by Jennifer Marriot, Wet.Land LLC, June 17, 2020. The resulting configuration results in the reduction of the 75-foot minimum Category II stream buffer to 10 feet. Also, the 75-foot buffer for Watercourse K around Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 29 of 30 the new channel is proposed to be reduced by approximately 8,497 square feet and new buffer totaling approximately 9,182 square feet will be added as compensation for this buffer reduction subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval of the critical area variance is based upon compliance with the project description and accompanying exhibits generally as provided in the application (File No. CAO20-0004). Any deviations from the project description, exhibits, timing, or conditions must be reviewed and approved by the City of Auburn for conformity with this approval. Any change from these may require administrative or Hearing Examiner approval of changes to the approval and/or environmental review. 2. The mitigation plans contained in Critical Areas Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report and appendices, I Street Extension Project, Wet.Land, LLC; June 17, 2020 (Exhibit 5) must be consistent with the applicable City’s critical area regulations of ACC 16.10.110, -120, and -130, related to Mitigation standards, mitigation construction performance standards, and monitoring and as may be amended. 3. The Applicant will be required to record a conservation easement or comparable encumbrance acceptable to the city, to protect the critical areas and their respective buffers. The easement(s) or other shall be prepared in accordance with the applicable requirements outlined in ACC 16.10.110(D) and recorded prior to final inspection of the mitigation construction by the City as “complete”. 4. The critical area variance shall become void after the expiration of two years from the date of the approval, if construction is not authorized in accordance with the plans for which such variance was requested. 5. In light of the diminished buffer width, there is the need to monitor and assess the success of the mitigation construction and ensure no loss of buffer function and values. The Critical Areas Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report and Appendices, I Street Extension Project, Wet.Land, LLC; June 17, 2020 proposes a five-year monitoring program for the City. The proposed duration of the City monitoring program of five years shall be increased to match the duration of monitoring program for the Army Corps of Engineer of ten years to be carried out by the Applicant. Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised subsequent to the writing of this report. EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 Staff Report Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map (2019 aerial photo) Exhibit 3 Completed Land Use Application Form, received December 1, 2020. Exhibit 4 I St NE Extension NE Critical Areas Ordinance Variance Request (Letter), Wet.Land, LLC, November 18, 2020. Exhibit 5 Critical Areas Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report and Appendices, I Street (NE) Extension Project, Wet.Land, LLC; June 17, 2020. Staff Member: Dixon Date: January 7, 2021 Page 30 of 30 Exhibit 6 Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report Copper Gate Apartments, Auburn Washington, Talasaea Consultants, Inc. October 30, 2019, Revised November 5, 2019 Exhibit 7 I St Realignment Variance Request & Mitigation Discussion (Memo), Wet.Land, LLC, October 29, 2020 and version with City Comments. Exhibit 8 Auburn Code Review- I St NE (Watercourse K) Stream Relocation (narrative), Wet.Land, LLC, and city edit comments, undated. Exhibit 9 E-mail from Brent Parrish, Inland to Jennifer Marriot, Wet.land LLC, Alternatives for Stream Mitigation, October 22, 2020. Exhibit 10 E-mail from Brent Parrish, Inland to Jeff Dixon, I ST Ditch K Relocation, May 20, 2020 with Option #1 diagram and Option #2 diagram as attachments. Exhibit 11 E-mail from James Jennings, Port of Seattle to Jeff Dixon, request for conversation on Port Property in North Auburn, August 5, 2020 and earlier string of e-mail from June 11, 2020. Exhibit 12 ROW dedication deed for I ST NE for Copper Gate Apartments located within Inland property ownership, Signed November 20, 2019, Recorded March 6, 2020, Recording Number 2200306000966. Exhibit 13 NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum #3, City of Auburn, October 21, 2019 (cover page) Exhibit 14 Resolution No. 5442, Development Agreement between Inland Group (a.k.a. Capital Acquisitions LLC) and the City of Auburn. Exhibit 15 “Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations. 2020.” Amy Windrope, Terra Rentz, Keith Folkerts, and Jeff Azerrad. A Priority Habitats and Species Document of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Exhibit 16 Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus, Anchor Environmental for the Port of Seattle, July 2020. Exhibit 17 Combined Notice of Application and Notice of Public Hearing, February 2, 2021 Exhibit 18 Public Notice Affidavits 1,333.3 NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet Feet1,333.3666.70 eGIS CDPW 1/30/2021Printed Date: Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS Imagery Date: May 2015 Information shown is for general reference purposes only and does not necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no warranty as to its accuracy. Form Updated: June 2019 MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION FORM Date Received: Physical Address: Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor 1 E Main St Mailing Address: 25 W Main St Auburn, WA 98001 Webpage & Application Submittal: www.auburnwa.gov applications@auburnwa.gov Phone and Email: 253-931-3090 permitcenter@auburnwa.gov Project Name: Parcel Number(s): APPLICANT Check Box if Primary Contact OWNER Check Box if Primary Contact Name: Name: Title: Title: Company: Company: Email: Email: Address: Address: City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip: Phone: Phone: Signature: Signature: (Signature Required) (Signature Required) AGENT Check Box if Primary Contact ARCHITECT / ENGINEER Check Box if Primary Contact Name: Name: Title: Title: Company: Company: Email: Email: Address: Address: City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip: Phone: Phone: Signature: Signature: (Signature Required) (Signature Required) Brief Description: LAND USE APPROVALS BEING APPLIED FOR UNDER THIS APPLICATION (Check all That Apply) Administrative Appeal Director’s Interpretation Short Plat (Subdivision 9 Lots or Less) Administrative Use Permit Landscape Plan Alteration / Tree Removal Preliminary Administrative Variance Master Sign Plan (New or Adjustment) Final Architectural and Site Design Review Plat (Subdivision Greater Than 9 Lots) Site Plan Approval (Outlet Collection) Multi-Family / Mixed-Use Preliminary Site Plan Approval (Lakeland PUD) DUC Design Review Final Sign Area Deviation Binding Site Plan Adjustment (Major) Special Exception Preliminary Adjustment (Minor) Special Home Occupation Final Extension Temporary Use Permit (See Checklist) Boundary Line Adjustment Real Estate Tax Exemption Type I Boundary Line Elimination SEPA Environmental Review Type II Comp. Plan Map Amendment Special Event Comp. Plan Text Amendment Exemption Variance Conditional Use Permit Substantial Development Zoning Code Text Amendment Critical Areas Variance Zoning Map Amendment (Rezone) Exemption Reasonable Use Variance Shoreline I Street NE Improvements 9360600305,9360600320,9360600325,9360600330,9360600271 ✔ Brent Parrish Brent Parrish Development Manager Development Manager Inland Group Inland Group brentp@inlandconstruction.com brentp@inlandconstruction.com 120 W Cataldo, Ste 100 120 W Cataldo, Ste 100 Spokane WA 99201 Spokane WA 99201 509-321-3228 509-321-3228 Brent Parrish Digitally signed by Brent Parrish DN: C=US, E=brentp@inlandconstruction.com, CN=Brent Parrish Date: 2020.11.17 07:59:55-08'00'Brent Parrish Digitally signed by Brent Parrish DN: C=US, E=brentp@inlandconstruction.com, CN=Brent Parrish Date: 2020.11.17 19:03:55-08'00' Ben Dort Associate Principal BCRA bdort@bcradesign.com 2106 Pacific Ave, Ste. 300 Tacoma WA 98402 253-627-4367 Ben Dort Digitally signed by Ben Dort Date: 2020.11.18 08:00:40-08'00' Road improvements adding approximately 2,000 linear feet of new road connecting I Street NE between 45th Street NE and South 277th Street. ✔ ✔ Wet.land, LLC 15803 Bear Creek Parkway, Unit E513, Redmond, WA 98052 jen@wet.land (813) 846-1684 18 November 2020 Jeff Tate City of Auburn Planning and Development Department 1 East Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 REFERENCE: I-Street NE Extension SUBJECT: Critical Areas Ordinance Variance Request Dear Jeff Tate: The below and attached information is provided to request a variance to the Critical Areas Regulations for the NE I Street Extension Project with regards to stream buffer widths. The I Street NE Extension Project proposes approximately 2,000 linear feet of new road that will connect the existing I Street NE from its intersection with 45th Street NE north to a new interchange with South 277th Street. The Project will require relocation of a short segment of Watercourse K to accommodate the new road alignment. This stream relocation will require a reduced buffer between the stream and road right-of-way beyond the standard stream buffer modifications allowed per code. As required by the City, the following information has been provided as Attachments to this letter: A. Master Land Use Application Form B. Letter of Authorization C. Critical Area Information (See below and Attachment G) 1. Details on the critical areas impacted by the Project are outlined in the Critical Areas Report prepared by Wet.land, LLC, dated 17 June 2020. 2. Specific to the variance, 438 linear feet of Watercourse K (WC-K) will be replaced by 467 linear feet of new stream channel, including removal of one culvert and upgrade of a second culvert to a fish-friendly box culvert. This relocation will result in a stream buffer minimum width of 10 feet between the stream and the edge of the sidewalk of the new road right-of-way. Assuming a standard 75-foot buffer for this project along WC-K, 8,497 square feet of buffer would be lost due to the new road alignment to be replaced with 9,182 square feet of new buffer added around the 18 November 2020 Page 2 Wet.land, LLC 15803 Bear Creek Parkway, Unit E513, Redmond, WA 98052 jen@wet.land (813) 846-1684 stormwater ponds adjacent to the existing 75-foot buffer. This results in no net loss of stream buffer area. While the current standard stream buffer width for the City is 100-feet, this Project was previously authorized to use a 75-foot stream buffer width, which is what the calculations have been based upon. 3. Information previously provided to the City is attached for completeness. D. Legal Description E. Written Statement addressing how the proposed Critical Areas Variance complies with the following criteria (see below and Attachment E) [Note: this information was previously provided to the City, and is provided as Attachment E]: 1. There are unique physical conditions peculiar and inherent to the affected property which makes it difficult or infeasible to strictly comply with the provisions of this section; The Site does contain a unique physical condition. Watercourse K was present at this location when the City designated ROW for a future extension of I Street as part of the City’s comprehensive plan. Portions of the stream were piped at/near this location, which may or may not have been a permitting challenge at the time of ROW designation. Despite this, based on current federal, state, and local environmental regulations, constructing the new alignment of I Street within its designated ROW requires that Watercourse K is relocated and that the existing 2 culverts be addressed in some fashion consistent with the current regulations. This has resulted in the current stream relocation and the concurrent culvert removal and replacement. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the building footprint and access; The stream realignment is the minimum necessary to accommodate the new road alignment, while also providing a stream corridor that is an improvement over the existing condition that also meets the applicable federal and state requirements while reducing impacts to adjacent properties. 3. The proposed variance would preserve the functions and values of the critical area, and/or the proposal does not create or increase the risk to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or to public or private property; The proposed variance significant increases the functions and values of the critical area (Watercourse K) over its existing condition by laying back the slopes compared to the current steep sided farm ditch configuration, removing the dense gravel and invasive species from within the buffer, implementing a modern stormwater facility that will ensure property attenuation and treatment of all stormwater prior to discharge into the stream, as well as adding large woody debris into the stream and 18 November 2020 Page 3 Wet.land, LLC 15803 Bear Creek Parkway, Unit E513, Redmond, WA 98052 jen@wet.land (813) 846-1684 corridor, which is currently lacking. The combination of mitigation elements is a significant improvement as it stands while also minimizing impacts to adjacent private properties. While the current proposed stream alignment does propose a wall along the edge of the road, the wall is as low as feasible and a fence will be installed to prevent any human/pet intrusion from the proposed sidewalk into the stream corridor. Given the presence of homeless encampments at other locations in this site, the slope, wall, and fence will hopefully be a deterrent to future intrusions by homeless encampments in the future. The design of the road will also ensure that any road runoff would be routed through the stormwater facility prior to entering the stream proper. 4. The proposed variance would not adversely affect surrounding properties adjoining the development site; The proposed variance would contain the relocated stream within the City’s ROW and would minimize the effects of the stream and shifted buffer on the adjacent private property while also ensuring that the proposed stream and corridor is a significant improvement over the existing conditions for both the stream and its buffer. During discussions with the Port of Seattle in February and March 2020, Port staff made clear their preference for the option that reduced impacts to their property (email, attached). 5. Adverse impacts to critical areas resulting from the proposal are minimized; and Adverse impacts to the stream have been minimized. The proposed mitigation plan will result in a significant improvement to the habitat of the stream and its corridor. 6. The special circumstances or conditions affecting the property are not a result of the action of the applicant or previous owner. The special circumstances are a result of the previous development on the Site prior to the Applicant, and the City’s comprehensive planning that identified an extension of I Street at this location, including the City acquiring ROW that is being used by this Project. F. SEPA Environmental Checklist 1. A separate environmental checklist has not been prepared for this Project, as the Project is addressed under the Environmental Impact Statement and addendum prepared ESA for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan. The addendum to the EIS is dated 19 October 2019. These documents are not included in this package as the City already possesses copies. 18 November 2020 Page 4 Wet.land, LLC 15803 Bear Creek Parkway, Unit E513, Redmond, WA 98052 jen@wet.land (813) 846-1684 G. Critical Areas Reports (Listed below, previously provided to City) – Only the main CAR is provided as an attachment to this request as prepared by Wet.land, LLC that has been conceptually approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1. Wetland & Stream Reports by Talasaea Consultants for the I Street NE Extension Project and the Copper Gate Apartments Project: i. Existing Conditions Report for Copper Gate Apartments and I Street Extension, Talasaea Consultants, 6 November 2019; ii. Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Critical Areas Report for Copper Gate Apartments, Talasaea Consultants, Revised 5 November 2019; 1. Mitigation Plan sheets were revised on 22 May 2020 (Appendix B); iii. Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Assessment Report for I Street Extension, Talasaea Consultants, 6 November 2019; 1. NOTE: This Report, dated 17 June 2020 as prepared by Wet.land, LLC, will replace the above Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Assessment Report for I Street previously prepared by Talasaea Consultants. The mitigation has substantially changed from the 2019 Talasaea report. T his report is attached to this variance request. 2. Other Reports by Project Consulting Team: i. Existing Hydrology Memo, Auburn Gateway – S. 277th St. Widening, BCRA, October 2014 ii. Stormwater Site Plan, 2nd Submittal, BCRA, June 2020 (updated) iii. Compensatory Storage Design Memo, BCRA, December 2019 (updated) iv. Copper Gate Apartments Site Plan, BCRA, As approved by City, 2020 1. 19-0013 (onsite) approved 11/18/19, revised 02/02/20, revised 07/20/20 2. 19-0016 (offsite) approved 02/02/20, revised 07/29/20 3. Supplemental Reports by Others: i. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, July 2004; ii. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Addendum, ESA, June 2019; iii. Wetland Assessment of the RPG-Valley 6 Theater Site, J.S. Jones & Associates, Inc., 12 September 2008; iv. Wetlands and Streams Discipline Report, South 277th Street Corridor Capacity and Non-Motorized Trail Improvements, Parametrix, Inc., May 2015; v. South 277th Street Corridor Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site, Wetland and Delineation Report, The Watershed Company, 31 May 2018 (Appendix C of Existing Conditions Report, 6 November 2019, Talasaea Consultants); vi. Port of Seattle Auburn Mitigation Site Perimeter Fence Extension, Critical Areas and Habitat 18 November 2020 Page 5 Wet.land, LLC 15803 Bear Creek Parkway, Unit E513, Redmond, WA 98052 jen@wet.land (813) 846-1684 vii. Geotechnical Engineer Study – Proposed Commercial Development Copper at Auburn, Earth Solutions NW LLC, 7 May 2019; I believe the above provides the information necessary for the variance request. However, if you have any additional questions or comments, please don’t hesitate to contact me at jen@wet.land or via cell phone (813-846-1684). Sincerely, Jennifer Marriott Owner/Senior Scientist Wet.land, LLC Critical Areas & Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report PREPARED FOR: Inland Group PREPARED BY: Jennifer Marriott, PWS Wet.land, LLC 813-846-1684 Wet.land jen@wet.land I Street Extension Project Auburn, Washington 17 June 2020 I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | i DISCLAIMER This consulting report has been prepared by Wet.land, LLC based on our best professional judgment. Any delineations, wetland ratings, stream typings, or general characterizations were completed in accordance with the applicable regulations at the time field work was completed. Where information was provided by Others and not collected directly by Wet.land, LLC, such is stated within the report. Conclusions presented within this report are based on the information available at the time of report preparation, and are accurate and true to the best of our knowledge. The opinions and conclusions contained within this report are a reflection of our interpretation of applicable regulations and are not final until concurrence is provided by the appropriate agencies. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | ii Table of Contents 1 Report Purpose ..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Name and Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Applicant ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Report Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.4 Preparer/Qualifications ................................................................................................................ 3 2 Project Site Location and Details .................................................................................................4 2.1 Project Site History........................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Project Site Description ................................................................................................................. 6 3 Existing Site Conditions ...............................................................................................................6 3.1 Database Review Summary .......................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Field Investigation Results ............................................................................................................ 7 3.2.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2 Streams ................................................................................................................................. 7 3.2.3 Native Vegetation (City Wildlife Habitat Classification) ....................................................... 7 3.3 Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................... 8 3.3.1 General Wildlife Usage .......................................................................................................... 8 3.3.2 Federally Listed Species ........................................................................................................ 8 3.3.3 State Listed Species ............................................................................................................... 8 3.3.4 Local Species ......................................................................................................................... 8 4 Regulatory Review (Constraints Analysis) ....................................................................................8 4.1 Federal Regulations....................................................................................................................... 8 4.2 State Regulations .......................................................................................................................... 9 4.2.1 DOE ....................................................................................................................................... 9 4.2.2 WDFW ................................................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Local Regulations .......................................................................................................................... 9 4.3.1 Shoreline Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................ 9 4.3.2 Non-Shoreline Jurisdiction .................................................................................................... 9 4.3.3 Flood Hazard Areas ............................................................................................................. 10 5 Proposed Project ...................................................................................................................... 12 5.1 Proposed Project ......................................................................................................................... 12 5.2 Stormwater Management .......................................................................................................... 12 5.3 Site Development Alternatives ................................................................................................... 13 5.3.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................ 14 5.3.2 Apartment Site Plan Alternatives ........................................................................................ 14 5.3.3 Flood Channel Alternatives ................................................................................................. 14 5.3.4 I Street Alignment Alternatives ........................................................................................... 14 6 Critical Areas Impacts ............................................................................................................... 16 6.1 Assessment of Development Impacts ......................................................................................... 16 6.2 Watercourse Impacts .................................................................................................................. 22 6.2.1 Watercourse K ..................................................................................................................... 22 6.2.2 Watercourse L ..................................................................................................................... 26 6.2.3 Watercourse N .................................................................................................................... 26 I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | iii 6.3 Wetland Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 27 6.3.1 Wetland A (Auburn) ............................................................................................................ 27 6.3.2 Wetland A (Port) ................................................................................................................. 28 6.3.3 Wetland C ............................................................................................................................ 28 6.3.4 Wetland E (Port) .................................................................................................................. 28 6.4 Wetland and Watercourse Buffer Impacts ................................................................................. 28 6.4.1 Watercourse K ..................................................................................................................... 29 6.4.2 Watercourse L ..................................................................................................................... 32 6.4.3 Watercourse M ................................................................................................................... 32 6.4.4 Watercourse N .................................................................................................................... 32 6.4.5 Wetland A (Auburn) ............................................................................................................ 32 6.4.6 Wetland A (Port) ................................................................................................................. 33 6.4.7 Wetland C ............................................................................................................................ 33 6.4.8 Wetland E (Port) .................................................................................................................. 33 6.5 Assessment of Listed Species Impacts ........................................................................................ 33 7 Floodplain Impacts ................................................................................................................... 34 7.1 Flood Storage Compensation ...................................................................................................... 34 7.2 Riparian Habitat Zones and Native Vegetation ........................................................................... 34 7.3 Habitat Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................ 35 8 Proposed Mitigation Plan.......................................................................................................... 37 8.1 Agency Policies and Guidance..................................................................................................... 37 8.2 Mitigation Sequencing ................................................................................................................ 38 8.3 Proposed Mitigation Components .............................................................................................. 38 8.3.1 Culvert Removal and Replacement ..................................................................................... 40 8.3.2 Watercourse Relocation and Restoration ........................................................................... 40 8.3.3 Wetland Restoration -- Wetland E (Port) ............................................................................ 41 8.3.4 Wetland and Watercourse Buffer Replacement ................................................................. 41 8.3.5 Wetland and Watercourse Buffer Restoration and Enhancement ..................................... 41 8.4 Mitigation Design Elements ........................................................................................................ 42 8.4.1 Irrigation System ................................................................................................................. 42 8.4.2 Planting Plan ....................................................................................................................... 42 8.5 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards ........................................................ 42 9 Construction Sequencing .......................................................................................................... 44 9.1 Mitigation Construction Sequencing .......................................................................................... 44 9.2 Post-Construction Approval ........................................................................................................ 45 9.3 Post-Construction Assessment ................................................................................................... 46 10 Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................................ 46 10.1 Monitoring Reports ..................................................................................................................... 47 10.2 Monitoring Methods ................................................................................................................... 47 10.2.1 Methods for Monitoring Vegetation Establishment ........................................................... 47 10.3 Photo Documentation ................................................................................................................. 47 10.4 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................ 48 10.5 Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 48 10.6 Site Stability ................................................................................................................................ 48 11 Maintenance Plan and Contingency Measures ........................................................................... 48 I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | iv 12 Long-Term and Adaptive Management Plans ............................................................................. 49 13 Financial Guarantees ................................................................................................................ 49 14 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 50 15 References ............................................................................................................................... 51 TABLES Table 1. Parcel Summary Data for Study Area and Project Site. .................................................................. 5 Table 2. Summary of Wetlands on the Project Site. ..................................................................................... 9 Table 3. Summary of Watercourses on or adjacent to the Site. ................................................................ 10 Table 4. Summary of Watercourse Impacts. .............................................................................................. 18 Table 5. Summary of Watercourse Buffer Impacts. ................................................................................... 19 Table 6. Summary of Wetland Impacts. ..................................................................................................... 20 Table 7. Summary of Wetland Buffer Impacts. .......................................................................................... 21 Table 8. Mitigation Summary (Bold numbers are subtotals) ..................................................................... 39 Table 9. Projected Schedule for Performance Monitoring & Maintenance Events. .................................. 46 PHOTOS Photo 1. I Street NE & 45th Street NE Interchange (blue arrows are WC-K) (Google Earth, 2019 Aerial) . 15 Photo 2. 2019 Aerial of Site showing approximate I Street NE alignment, red arrows (Google Earth) ..... 16 Photo 3. Box Culvert Cross Section (Civil Plans, Sheet C5.05, BCRA, 27 May 2020) .................................. 23 Photo 4. Snip from Mitigation Plans, Sheet W2.0 (Wet.land, 17 June 2020) ............................................. 24 Photo 5. New Channel Cross Section (Civil Plans, Sheet C5.05, BCRA, 27 May 2020) ............................... 24 Photo 6. Confluence of WC-N and WC-K for Flood Channel (Civil Plans, Sheet C2.06, BCRA, 27 May 2020) .................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Photo 7. WC-K Cross Section - Flood Channel (Civil Plans, Sheet C2.06, BCRA, 27 May 2020) .................. 25 Photo 8. Flood Conveyance Cross Section, red area is soil removed (Civil Plans, Sheet C2.06, BCRA, 27 May 2020) ................................................................................................................................................... 26 I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | v APPENDICES Appendix A: Detailed Mitigation Plans for I Street NE (large format) Sheet W1.0: Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.1: Proposed Impacts & Mitigation Overview Plan Sheet W2.0: Grading Plan Sheet W2.1: Grading Specifications Sheet W3.0: Planting Plan Sheet W3.1: Planting Plan Sheet W3.2: Planting Plan Sheet W3.3: Planting Plan, Plant Schedule, Notes & Details Sheet W4.0: Planting Specifications Appendix B: Mitigation Plans for Copper Gate Apartments (large format) Appendix C: Select Maps from BCRA Reports: 1. Copper Gate Apartments, Developed Condition Basin Map, BCRA, 09.2019 2. Compensatory Storage Exhibit, BCRA, 10.2019 3. Civil Plan Set, 27 May 2020 (Select Sheets) Appendix D: Culvert Design for Fish Passage memo, BCRA, dated 6 November 2019 I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 1 1 REPORT PURPOSE 1.1 PROJECT NAME AND PURPOSE The I Street NE Extension Project proposes approximately 2,000 linear feet of new road that will connect the existing I Street NE from its intersection with 45th Street NE north to a new interchange with South 277th Street. This new road is proposed as an arterial roadway to help manage existing and anticipated traffic in this area, particularly in light of the Copper Gate Apartment Project. A roundabout was proposed for the new intersection of 49th Street NE and I Street NE that was included under the Copper Gate Apartments Project application with the City of Auburn. This Project shares infrastructure and an applicant with the Copper Gate Apartments project. The Projects occur at least partially over lands under common ownership except where existing road rights- of-way occur. Therefore, the Copper Gate Apartment Project has been included within the discussion for the I Street NE Extension project, as appropriate, as we have considered these two (2) projects combined as a single and complete project for the purposes of Federal permitting. We request that a review of the floodplain and potential impacts to the floodplain be reviewed concurrently with the project elements occurring within Waters of the US. The Copper Gate Apartment Project proposes the construction of 500 units of multifamily housing on approximately 32 acres between 49th Street NE and 45th Street NE with the associated infrastructure including utilities and stormwater management. This Project also requires road improvements to a portion of D Street NE as well as to 49th Street NE and the extension of I Street NE, as outlined above. The Apartment project has been permitted separately from the I Street NE Extension project for the City of Auburn. No direct or indirect impacts to wetlands or streams are necessary for the Copper Gate Apartment project, though minor buffer modifications were necessary for Wetland C for the Apartment Project consistent with the City of Auburn regulations. The I Street NE extension improvements will require in-stream work as well as temporary impacts to wetlands and buffers for the proposed restoration activities. Work for both Copper Gate Apartments and associated road improvements, including I Street NE, will require fill within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100- year floodplain that is triggering additional steps, including the preparation of a Floodplain Habitat Assessment. 1.2 APPLICANT The Applicant for the I Street NE Extension Project as well as for the Copper Gate Apartment Project is the Inland Group, represented by Brent Parrish. 1.3 REPORT PURPOSE This report has been prepared with the intent of using one set of reports for all local, State, and Federal agencies through which permits are required. Permitting Agencies: • US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 2 • Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) (through the USACE permitting process); • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW); and • City of Auburn (City). The I Street NE Extension (I Street) and Copper Gate Apartments (Apartments) Projects are both components of the larger Auburn Gateway Special Area Plan. For clarity sake, the summary information provided within Chapter 2, Project Site Location and Details (below), of this report introduces the larger project area for which previous studies were completed that includes both Copper Gate Apartments and the I Street NE extension. Beyond the initial introduction of the location of both the Study Area (Auburn Gateway project) and Project Site (I Street NE Extension), this report will focus on those areas that comprise the I Street NE Extension Project Site only, which includes some overlap to the previously prepared Apartment Floodplain Habitat Assessment prepared for the City, specifically for work around Watercourses L and K and Wetland A (Auburn). Previously prepared reports that are either referenced directly within this report or have served as background information include the following: 1. Wetland & Stream Reports by Talasaea Consultants for the I Street NE Extension Project and the Copper Gate Apartments Project: a. Existing Conditions Report for Copper Gate Apartments and I Street Extension, Talasaea Consultants, 6 November 2019; b. Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Critical Areas Report for Copper Gate Apartments, Talasaea Consultants, Revised 5 November 2019; i. Mitigation Plan sheets were revised on 22 May 2020 (Appendix B); c. Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Assessment Report for I Street Extension, Talasaea Consultants, 6 November 2019; i. NOTE: This Report, dated 29 May 2020 as prepared by Wet.land, LLC, will replace the above Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Assessment Report for I Street previously prepared by Talasaea Consultants. The mitigation has substantially changed from the 2019 Talasaea report. 2. Other Reports by Project Consulting Team: a. Existing Hydrology Memo, Auburn Gateway – S. 277th St. Widening, BCRA, October 2014 b. Stormwater Site Plan, 2nd Submittal, BCRA, September 2019 c. Compensatory Storage Design Memo, BCRA, October 2019 d. Copper Gate Apartments Site Plan, BCRA, 6 November 2019 3. Supplemental Reports by Others: a. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, July 2004; b. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Addendum, ESA, June 2019; c. Wetland Assessment of the RPG-Valley 6 Theater Site, J.S. Jones & Associates, Inc., 12 September 2008; d. Wetlands and Streams Discipline Report, South 277th Street Corridor Capacity and Non- Motorized Trail Improvements, Parametrix, Inc., May 2015; I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 3 e. South 277th Street Corridor Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site, Wetland and Delineation Report, The Watershed Company, 31 May 2018 (Appendix C of Existing Conditions Report, 6 November 2019, Talasaea Consultants); f. Port of Seattle Auburn Mitigation Site Perimeter Fence Extension, Critical Areas and Habitat g. Geotechnical Engineer Study – Proposed Commercial Development Copper at Auburn, Earth Solutions NW LLC, 7 May 2019; Existing conditions for both the Apartments and I Street Projects have previously been discussed in reports prepared by others. An Existing Conditions Report (ECR) has been prepared to summarize the findings of others, Existing Conditions Report for Copper Gate Apartments and I Street NE Extension, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, dated 6 November 2019, and, therefore, detailed existing conditions have not been included with this report. Details on the buffer modification and restoration proposed around Wetland C for the Apartment Project is detailed in the Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Critical Areas Report for Copper Gate Apartments, revision date 5 November 2019, prepared by Talasaea Consultants. Graphics accompanying the November 2019 Talasaea report for the Apartment Project were updated as of 22 May 2020 (Appendix B of this report), but the report content remains the same. The graphics were revised for minor consistency issues, but no substantial content of the graphics changed from the version that accompanied the November 2019 report. Numbers in the revised graphics remain the most accurate where a discrepancy occurs. This below report is intended to serve as a Critical Areas Report for the extension of the I Street NE Project that will discuss the proposed Project impacts to wetlands, streams, listed species, and wildlife habitat; mitigation to compensate for critical area impacts; and a Floodplain Habitat Assessment report to address the project elements considering the mapped floodplain on this Site. This report has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines outlined within the Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin (FEMA Region X, 2013) and the requirements of the Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 15.68 Flood Hazard Areas and Chapter 16.10 Critical Areas. This report has also been prepared in light of applicable State and Federal regulations. 1.4 PREPARER/QUALIFICATIONS Field investigations were previously completed by other consultants, and the results of their work are presented within this and other referenced reports. No field delineations were completed by Wet.land, LLC staff. The existing conditions and critical areas present within the Site were verified by Jennifer Marriott, PWS, Senior Ecologist, while an employee of Talasaea Consultants. Ms. Marriott has continued her role as the environmental consultant for this Project after leaving Talasaea Consultants and shifting direction to her own company, Wet.land, LLC. Jennifer Marriott has a Bachelor’s Degree and a Master’s Degree in Biology from University of Central Florida, and a second Master’s Degree in Soil and Environmental Science from the University of Florida. She has over 15 years of experience in wetland delineations and environmental permitting. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 4 2 PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND DETAILS 2.1 PROJECT SITE HISTORY The I Street NE Extension Project was triggered by the development of the adjacent Copper Gate Apartments. The Site for both the I Street NE Extension and Copper Gate Apartments is a component of the larger Auburn Gateway Study Area, which is a component of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan. This larger study area for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan includes land east of Auburn Way North, west of the Existing I Street NE right-of-way (ROW), south of South 277th Street, and north of 45th Street NE. This area is comprised of approximately 120 acres that was targeted for future development, of which approximately 59.2 acres was designated as the Auburn Gateway Study Area. A number of previous studies have been prepared over this larger area, and have been identified under Chapter 3, Existing Site Conditions (below), and outlined in more detail in the ECR, Existing Conditions Report for Copper Gate Apartments and I Street NE Extension, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, dated 6 November 2019. 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The Project Site is located in Auburn, Washington (Figure 1, ECR). The latitude/longitude coordinate for the central I Street NE roundabout is 47.350031, -122.222114. The Public Land Survey System location is Section 31, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian (W.M.). The ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey for Copper Gate (North and South Parcels) as prepared by Duryea & Associates, last revision date 18 September 2019, is included as Appendix A of the Existing Conditions Report for Copper Gate Apartments and I Street NE Extension, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, dated 6 November 2019. The Study Area is comprised of 14 parcels, of which five (5) are targeted primarily for the Copper Gate Apartment Site, road improvements will occur over seven (7) parcels, and portions of five (5) parcels are associated with the mitigation plan in some fashion (Figure 2, ECR). A summary of the parcels is below in Table 1. Parcel Summary Data for Study Area and Project Site. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 5 Table 1. Parcel Summary Data for Study Area and Project Site. Tax Parcels (Key from Figure 2)1 Acres2 Parcel Owner3 Proposed Project Element4 9360600270 (N) 5.4 Auburn Properties, Inc. Copper Gate Apartments6 9360600271 (O) 0.35 93606002805 (K) 93606002815 (K) 0.72 0.35 (1.07) 9360600300 (J) 3.38 9360600305 (M) 21.99 9360600320 (H) 1.86 Auburn Properties, Inc. City Mitigation for 277th Street7 9360600323 (G) 1.86 9360600325 (I) 4.21 9360600330 (F) 9.11 Auburn Properties, Inc. Future Commercial Development8 9360600340 (E) 9.35 9360600350 (C) 2.63 9360000200 (A) 3.09 0002200001 (B) 4.34 0002200007 (D) 0.50 0004200006 (P) 16.56 Port of Seattle Location of Future Mitigation for I-Street9 Unlabeled ROWs10 N/A City of Auburn Road Improvements Shaded parcel numbers indicate parcels within the Project Area for the I Street NE Extension Project. 1Reference letters in () after the parcel number match the legend from Figure 2. 2Acres provided are surveyed acreage, where available. 3Parcel Owner based on King County Property Assessor’s Database 4This column identifies the Project element of each parcel as it pertains to the greater Auburn Gateway Project Site, of which Copper Gate and associated road improvements are a component. 5As part of BLA19-0008, parcels K and L are considered a single parcel with two separate parcel numbers. 6These 6 parcels are the core of the I Street Extension Project. 7These parcels contain a stormwater pond and previous watercourse mitigation for 277th Street road improvements completed by the City of Auburn. 8Portions of these parcels will be used for road improvements, while the remainder have been targeted for future commercial development. The road improvements associated with Copper Gate Apartments are included within this Report (and the current permit applications), while the commercial development components are not, and will be addressed by others in future permit applications. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 6 9Port of Seattle property is the potential location of a portion of the mitigation for the future I-Street road improvements. This parcel is not part of the Copper Gate Apartment Project. 10Several areas are included within the Copper Gate Apartment Project that do not have parcel numbers and are associated with existing or future road rights-of-way. This includes a parcel for the proposed I-Street in the southeast corner of the broad study area; the G Street ROW between parcel 9360600330 and parcels 9360600325 and 9360600323; and the existing ROWs for D Street and 49th Street NE. 2.3 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION The Project Site is generally surrounded by agricultural fields to the north, residential and undeveloped lands to the east, and mixed commercial and residential to the south and west. The Project Site itself is currently undeveloped, though remnants of past developments or other human activities remain where the old drive-in movie theater occurred. Very little native vegetation exists on these associated parcels due to the managed history of these parcels. More detail on the existing conditions of these parcels is provided below in Chapter 3 and in Table 2 (Chapter 4). 3 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS In-depth analysis of existing conditions within the Study Area and Project Site has already been completed in previous studies. For the sake of limiting redundancy, a brief summary is described below with a more in-depth assessment of previous work provided in the ECR, which is under separate cover. The previous reports prepared as provided as either part of the ECR or Attachments 5a-5g of the original USACE Application Submittal, submitted 6 November 2019. The Project Site consists mainly of the former Auburn Valley Six Drive-In Theater. The Site is almost entirely graded gravel and compacted rock where vehicles historically parked. The Site currently has no structures other than several preexisting concrete slabs within the project parcels (Appendix A, Sheet W1.0). The general condition is heavily degraded and manipulated to a point where native vegetation is unable to reestablish on its own over these previously developed areas. A brief discussion of critical areas, native vegetation, general vegetation communities, and listed species present within the Project Site is provided below, along with a general discussion of wetlands and streams occurring within a 300- foot vicinity of the Site. Please see the ECR for more detailed information. 3.1 DATABASE REVIEW SUMMARY A brief review of Agency database results for this Project Site follows: • The Natural Resource Conservation service (NRCS) Web Soil Service database maps four (4) soil series across the Project Site: Urban land (Ur), Briscot silt loam (Br), Renton silt loam (Re), and Woodinville silt loam (Wo). • The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapper does not identify any wetlands or streams on or immediately adjacent to the Project Site. • Several stream databases were reviewed, including: SalmonScape (WDFW), Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool (FPAMT) (Washington Department of Natural Resources, WDNR), and the Statewide Integrated Fish Distribution (SWIFD) database maintained by WDFW and the Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. None of the streams on or adjacent to the Site were marked or typed as streams, and if present, were represented as agricultural ditches. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 7 3.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION RESULTS Wetlands and watercourses were evaluated by several different consultants in the past 10 or more years. Existing native vegetation on the Site was also reviewed. A summary of these findings is provided below, while a more in-depth assessment is provided under separate cover in the ECR prepared by Talasaea Consultants, dated November 2019. 3.2.1 Wetlands The previous wetland delineations are assumed to be accurate and a reassessment of those boundaries has not been conducted as part of this Report. The general location of the wetland boundaries was assessed and determined to accurate to the level possibly for the cursory review completed. Wetlands that occur within the work limits for the Project include Wetland A (Auburn) and Wetland C (Apartment Site). Several other wetlands occur within the 300-foot vicinity of the Project Site, though none of the associated buffers extend onto the Project Site (Appendix A, Sheet W1.0). 3.2.2 Streams Four (4) watercourses (Watercourses K, L, M and N) occur in the Project Site (Appendix A, Sheet W1.0). The previous stream delineations are assumed to be accurate and a reassessment of those boundaries has not been conducted as part of this Report. The general location of the previously delineated streams appeared accurate and consistent with field conditions. Stream typings for these linear features were reviewed and approved by WDFW based on previous meetings and discussions coordinated by other consultants and are assumed to be the most accurate. The watercourses south of South 277th Street associated with the Project Site combine with Watercourse M to a single culvert crossing under South 277th Street. These flows ultimately feed Auburn Creek (aka Auburn Drain) before discharging into the Green River approximately 0.7-mile north of the Site. The presence of a flood gate on the Auburn Creek discharge point into the Green River was documented previously by others and noted as a known hindrance to fish passage between the on-site watercourses and the Green River. This flood gate has the potential to restrict fish movement into this stream system from the Green River. At this time, the functionality and details of this flood gate are limited. Please see the Biological Evaluation (BE) prepared by Wet.land, LLC dated 29 May 2020 for a more in-depth discussion on fish usage in these streams. Watercourse K occurs entirely on the Port of Seattle Property east of the Site. A large fence now exists along the east side of the Watercourse K bank that was permitted and constructed by the Port of Seattle through the USACE and City of Auburn. This feature originates approximately 850 feet south of the southern end of the Project Site at a stormwater pond for a residential development, and flows through a series of channels and culverts before reaching the stretch on the Port of Seattle’s property east of the Site. Approximately 221 linear feet of Watercourse K is currently piped on the Site, within the designated I Street NE ROW in the southwest corner of the Site. Watercourse K contains two (2) 90- degree bends where it connects to Watercourse N, flows west a short stretch, then turns north to converge with Watercourse M and flow under South 277th Street. 3.2.3 Native Vegetation (City Wildlife Habitat Classification) Very little native vegetation occurs on the Site due to its history as an old drive-in movie theater except for within or immediately adjacent to the wetlands and watercourses. Much of the Site is gravel underlain by a drain system that generally precludes the growth of most plants, even the weedier I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 8 species. A handful of trees occur near old roads, but not as part of a native assemblage. Invasive species are prevalent within and adjacent to the wetlands and watercourses, including reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). 3.3 WILDLIFE A more in-depth assessment of general wildlife usage and listed species known or expected to occur within or near the Site is provided under separate cover in the ECR. Additional details specific to listed salmonids is provided in the BE prepared by Wet.land, LLC dated 29 May 2020. 3.3.1 General Wildlife Usage Common urban wildlife such as small to medium mammals and birds are expected to use the Site, though connectivity for land-based wildlife is poor given the large tracts of gravel that separates pockets of unmanaged vegetation within the Study Area. However, opportunities for listed species is very limited given the available habitat on the Site. 3.3.2 Federally Listed Species A full discussion on Federally listed species potentially occurring on the Site is provided in the ECR. That said, since the ECR report date, new information was identified that expands the known range of federally listed species to include Auburn Creek, to which Watercourse M drains within ½ mile. The ECR noted that no habitat occurs onsite that would support federally listed salmonids. However, a study recently conducted by King County (2019) concluded otherwise. Details are provided in the BE prepared by Wet.land, LLC (2020). 3.3.3 State Listed Species State priority habitats on the Site include wetlands, riparian buffer zones, and snags that were identified in the 2019 EIS Report. It is expected that wildlife and state listed species that typically use these habitats have the potential to use the Site, however degraded onsite conditions may be. No state listed species are known to use the Site. 3.3.4 Local Species Common urban wildlife are expected to use the Site, though the City of Auburn does not have its own list of local species of importance. 4 REGULATORY REVIEW (CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS) The Site falls under the jurisdiction of the City of Auburn, State of Washington, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. A more detailed discussion on applicable regulations relative to the Site is provided in the ECR prepared by Talasaea Consultants, dated 9 November 2019. The below is a short summary of the relevant regulations. 4.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS Waters of the US, including the wetlands and watercourses, occur on the Site and are subject to applicable Federal regulations. Wetland and stream (watercourse) impacts are regulated at the Federal I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 9 level by Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for administering compliance with Section 404 via the issuance of Nationwide or Individual Permits for any fill or dredging activities within wetlands under Corps jurisdiction. Any coordination required with other Federal agencies or entities will be addressed through the USACE permitting process. This includes coordination for potential impacts to Federally listed species. 4.2 STATE REGULATIONS Wetlands on the Site are subject to applicable State regulations. 4.2.1 DOE Any project that is subject to Section 404 permitting is also required to comply with Section 401 Water Quality Certification, which is administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). Coordination for Section 401 concurrence will occur through the USACE permitting process. 4.2.2 WDFW The Project will apply for a Hydraulic Project Application (HPA) permit through the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife once the mitigation design has been confirmed by the other Agencies. 4.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS The Site falls within the City of Auburn limits and is subject to the regulations of ACC Chapter 16.10 – Critical Areas. 4.3.1 Shoreline Jurisdiction The nearest Shoreline of the State is the Green River, which occurs more than 2,400 feet from the Site at its nearest point. No portion of the Project Site falls within shoreline jurisdiction of the City of Auburn. 4.3.2 Non-Shoreline Jurisdiction Critical areas on the Site are subject to the regulations of Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 16.10 – Critical Areas. 4.3.2.1 Wetlands Four (4) wetlands were identified on or adjacent to the Site (Table 2). Table 2. Summary of Wetlands on the Project Site. Critical Area ID1 Category Standard Minimum Buffer (feet) Allowable Reduction through Averaging A – Auburn (North)2 [Wetland A (Auburn)] III (2018) Low Habitat Score 50 Up to 35% A – Port of Seattle (East) [Wetland A (Port)] III (2018) Low Habitat Score 50 Up to 35% C3 (Apartment Site) III (2018) Low Habitat Score 353 N/A3 I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 10 E – Port of Seattle [E (Port)] III (2018) Low Habitat Score 50 Up to 35% 1The label in [] is wetland name used throughout this report. 2This label is intended to differentiate this wetland from Wetland A (Port/East) that occurs east of Watercourse K and will apply a buffer onto the Project Site for the I-Street development. 3This wetland with its previously approved 35-foot buffer has been recorded by the City of Auburn Conservation Easement 200503240000886. Per current code, ACC 16.10.090.E.1 notes the minimum buffer of a Category III wetland as 25 feet, maximum buffer of 50 feet. 4.3.2.2 Watercourses (Streams) Four (4) watercourses, Watercourses K, L, M, and N, are located on the Project Site and extend buffers and/or Riparian Habitat Zones (RHZ) onto the Project Site (Appendix A, Sheet W1.0). Standard buffers are based on ACC Chapter 16.10.090, while the RHZ width is established in ACC Chapter 15.68.060.FF. All four (4) watercourses have a standard minimum buffer of 75 feet measured landward from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) that is modifiable under certain circumstances. In addition to the standard buffers, the RHZ extends 200 feet from the OHWM for both Watercourse K and L as these are both recognized as fish-bearing watercourses. A summary of the watercourses can be found below on Table 3. According to the EIS prepared by ESA, the ditches along the south side of South 277th Street are not regulated as streams under the City’s critical areas ordinance, but are regulated by the City’s Flood Hazard Area regulations as typed waters using the DNR water typing system. This is the reason for labeling them as watercourses rather than streams that the City typically regulates. Table 3. Summary of Watercourses on or adjacent to the Site. Critical Area ID Type1 Standard Minimum Buffer (feet) Allowable Reduction through Averaging Watercourse K II, F 75 Up to 35% Watercourse L II, F 75 Up to 35% Watercourse M II, F 752 Up to 35% Watercourse N (off- site) II, F 75 Up to 35% 1Stream typings for these linear features was reviewed and approved by WDFW based during previous meetings and discussions coordinated by other consultants, and are assumed to be the most accurate. Stream typings are based on the current ACC. 2A reduced buffer width of 48.75 feet was documented on the mitigation plans for the 277th Street Widening Project, and is contained within a conservation easement for the USACE (NWS-2015-755) and WDFW (HPA Permit Number 2016-4-121+01). 4.3.3 Flood Hazard Areas The City of Auburn has identified the regulatory floodplain as the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), which includes the FEMA 100 Year Floodplain, as well as additional protected areas, including the Green River floodway, Riparian Habitat Zone (RHZ) and the Channel Migration Area. None of the Site is mapped as either Floodway or as a Channel Migration Area, though portions of the Site are mapped as the SFHA and as RHZ (Appendix A, Sheet W1.0). The 100-Year FEMA Floodplain (SFHA) as mapped by I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 11 King County iMap is generally consistent with the 100-year floodplain as mapped by FEMA in Firmette (Flood Map #530033C1251F, Panel 1251 of 1725 for King County, Washington). This Habitat Impact Assessment pursuant to ACC 15.68.135.J has been prepared to document the proposed Project’s impacts to water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat. The Habitat Impact Assessment follows the guidelines outlined in the Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin (FEMA Region X, 2013) as required under ACC 15.68.135.J.4 to evaluate the Project for potential adverse impacts to relevant listed species and habitats. ACC 15.68.135.J.4 requires an assessment of the Project for potential adverse effects to the following key elements. A discussion of the Project’s effects on each of these elements is provided below in Chapter 7.3. a. The primary constituent elements identified when a species is listed as threatened or endangered; b. Essential fish habitat designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service; c. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; d. Vegetation communities and habitat structures; e. Water quality; f. Water quantity, including flood and low flow depths, volumes and velocities; g. The channel’s natural planform pattern and migration processes; h. Spawning substrate, if applicable; and/or i. Floodplain refugia, if applicable. As noted above, this assessment is required to be prepared in accordance with the FEMA Regional Guidance document. This document notes that not all terminology used within this guidance document has the same definition as in the local jurisdictions’ regulatory documents, and as such, care must be taken when using terms that may have different meanings within this guidance document relative to the specific local jurisdiction. The terms that have potentially differing meanings include: Special Flood Hazard Area, Regulatory Floodplain, Protected Area, and development. The Regulatory Floodplain is comprised of the Special Flood Hazard Area (defined as the area subject to flooding by the base flood) and the Protected Area. The Protected Area is comprised of “those lands that lie within the outermost boundary of the total area comprised by the floodway, and the riparian habitat zone (RBZ) and the channel migration zone (CMZ).” This guidance document also uses the term riparian buffer zone (RBZ) to designate a similar concept to the City of Auburn’s Riparian Habitat Zone (RHZ), which appear to be the same width of 200 feet for Type F streams greater than five (5) feet wide. The RBZ is noted as an overlay zone that is intended to encompass all of the stream buffer, Channel Migration Zone, and mapped Floodway. As the Project Site lacks both a mapped Floodway and Channel Migration Zone, only the 200- foot RHZ (which also meets the intended definition of the FEMA RBZ) is shown on the attached figures. Future discussions will only address the City’s RHZ under the assumption that this concurrently addresses FEMA’s RBZ. 4.3.3.1 Riparian Habitat Zones (RHZ) A RHZ width of 200 feet has been applied to Watercourses K, L, M, and N as these are all Type F streams. While portions of Riparian Habitat Zones (RHZ) associated with Watercourses K and L occur within the Site, no native vegetation occurs within the RHZs on the Site. The Riparian Habitat Zone is defined by ACC Chapter 15.68.060.FF as: I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 12 … the water body and adjacent land areas that are likely to support aquatic and riparian habitat as detailed in this chapter. The size and location of the riparian habitat zone is dependent on the type of water body. The riparian habitat zone includes the water body and adjacent lands, measured perpendicularly from ordinary high water on both sides of the water body: 1. Marine and lake shorelines and Type S streams that are designated “shorelines of the state”: 250 feet. 2. Type F (fish bearing) streams greater than five feet wide and marine shorelines: 200 feet. 3. Type F streams less than five feet wide and lakes: 150 feet. 4. Type N (non-salmonid-bearing) perennial and seasonal streams with unstable slopes: 225 feet. 5. All other Type N (non-salmonid-bearing) perennial and seasonal streams: 150 feet. In addition, the riparian habitat zone may include additional land areas that the floodplain administrator determines are likely to support aquatic and riparian habitat. 5 PROPOSED PROJECT 5.1 PROPOSED PROJECT The Copper Gate Apartment Project proposes the construction of 500 units of multifamily housing on approximately 32 acres between 49th Street NE and 45th Street NE, a minimum of 822 parking spaces, and associated infrastructure including utilities and stormwater management (Appendix A). This Project also requires road improvements to a portion of D Street NE as well as to 49th Street NE and an extension of I Street NE. A roundabout is proposed for the new intersection of 49th Street NE and I Street NE that was included under the Copper Gate Apartments Project application with the City of Auburn. The I Street NE extension Project proposes approximately 2,000 linear feet of new road that will connect the existing I Street NE from its intersection with 45th Street NE north to a new interchange with South 277th Street. This new road is proposed as an arterial roadway to help manage existing and anticipated traffic in this area, particularly in light of the Copper Gate Apartment Project. 5.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater facilities for the Project have been outlined in detail by BCRA under separate cover in the Stormwater Site Plan (2nd Submittal, September 2019) for the Copper Gate Apartment Project. The stormwater facilities for both the I Street NE Extension and the Copper Gate Apartment projects have been designed in coordination and there is an overlap of facilities between these two (2) projects. The Apartment Project appears to meet the definition of a single and complete project for the purposes of review for the USACE with all the associated roadway improvements, including I Street NE. For that reason, the details for the Copper Gate Apartment Project have been included in this Project assessment for the USACE, despite no wetland or stream fill being proposed for the Copper Gate Apartment Project. The report prepared for the City is attached for review and reference, in light of these projects combined being considered together as a single project for USACE review (Attachment 3c of the USACE Submittal package submitted on 6 November 2019). I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 13 Both the Copper Gate Apartment and I Street NE Extension Projects have been designed to demonstrate compliance with the minimum requirements of the City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual (SWMM). The City has adopted the 2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2014 SWMMWW), including the 2018 Supplemental SWMMWW, and the City of Auburn Supplemental Manual (COA SM) as the SWMM. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required for this Project, as well as the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction. The stormwater management facility for the Copper Gate Apartment and I Street NE Extension Projects have been separated into five (5) separate facilities (Appendix C, Proposed Condition Basin Plan): 1. Proposed Basin 1 – Includes the onsite area that will drain to Wetland C, including proposed roof drains to be routed to Wetland C through dispersion trenches; 2. Proposed Basin 2 - Includes onsite areas that will be collected and conveyed to below grade infiltration areas in the western portion of the Apartment Site; 3. Proposed Basin 3 – Includes those areas onsite that will be collected and conveyed to a detention pond that will ultimately discharge to Watercourse L; 4. Proposed Basin 4 – Includes portions of the east end of 49th Street and I Street NE that will be collected and conveyed to a detention pond that will ultimately discharge to Watercourse L; and 5. Proposed Basin 5 – Includes the new portions of the west end of 49th Street and D Street that will be collected and conveyed to a detention pond that will discharge to the existing conveyance system in D Street. Ultimately, these facilities will all discharge into Auburn Creek, and ultimately the Green River. The stormwater ponds on the Site Plan have been arbitrarily given labels for discussion purposes for this Report (Appendix A, Sheet W1.1). A summary follows of each pond and its purpose, with more detailed discussions on these ponds provided in the following sections. • Stormwater Pond 1(a) – This pond will capture the water from those portions of the Site not routed into Wetland C and not being infiltrated into the ground at the west end of the Apartment Site; • Stormwater Pond 1(b) – This pond is also part of the facility for those portions of the Site not routed into Wetland C or being infiltrated into the ground; • Stormwater Pond 2 – This pond will be used to handle stormwater from 49th Street NE and the roundabout, as well as I Street NE; • Stormwater Pond 3 – This pond is intended to capture runoff from portions of the newly proposed 49th Street and D Street. 5.3 SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES The Copper Gate Apartment Project requires fill within the 100-year floodplain to complete the required road improvements and infrastructure for the Apartment project, which includes the extension of I Street NE between 45th Street NE and South 277th Street. The I Street NE Extension requires the relocation of a short segment of stream to accommodate the road alignment within a previously I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 14 designated right-of-way easement, the slight modification of a stream to build a flood channel to connect the Site to additional areas of flood storage, and minor buffer modifications. 5.3.1 No Build Alternative The No Build alternative would mean no broad site improvements to either the stormwater or road infrastructure, and would leave the Site, including almost all onsite buffers, in its currently abandoned, unimproved condition. The wetland and stream buffers would remain heavily graveled and unvegetated. The stream connection to the north would remain contained within two (2) undersized culverts. The No Build alternative would result in no environmental improvements to the wetlands, streams, or buffers on or adjacent to this Site. While this would reduce the impacts to wetlands and streams from the proposed alternative, the No Build alternative would leave the wetlands and streams onsite in a significantly degraded condition compared to the mitigation proposed through the proposed alternative with no opportunity for natural recruitment or processes to improve on this degraded condition. 5.3.2 Apartment Site Plan Alternatives The Apartment Project was designed within an area framed by the existing road rights-of-way and Wetland C and its designated buffer. The layout for the Apartment Site was guided by the anticipated alignment of I Street NE given the existing road rights-of-way and designated intersections with existing roads to the north and south. The Apartment Project site plan did not impact any wetlands or streams, and only required minor buffer modifications to accommodate this development. Undeveloped areas north of the Apartment site were not feasible for the apartment site as these areas occur within the 100-year floodplain, and would have required more fill within the 100-year floodplain than currently proposed. The floodplain fill was minimized as much as was reasonably possible for the development proposed in light of the available flood storage compensation available from the City. 5.3.3 Flood Channel Alternatives Watercourse N will be expanded slightly and the adjacent areas expanded into a wide flood channel to allow connectivity of flood waters from this area to a large mitigation area east of the Site as compensation for 100-year floodplain impacts from this Site, as confirmed allowable by the City. Alternatives to widening this watercourse include the above outlined No-Build Alternative for the entire project, as well as building a large flood storage compensation pond in the open land between South 277th Street and the Apartment Site. Expanding Watercourse N was determined to be the better solution long-term by the City through a series of meetings and discussions between the Applicant and the City. Expanding Watercourse N into the flood channel only temporarily impacts Watercourse N during construction, and will provide a net long-term improvement to flood water management in this area broadly (beyond this specific project). 5.3.4 I Street Alignment Alternatives The new alignment of I Street is in the current City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan (December 2015) as a proposed five (5) lane arterial road. Right-of-way (ROW) at the intersection of I Street NE and 45th Street NE was previously purchased by the City and set the location of the I Street NE and 45th Street NE interchange. Watercourse K existed on this parcel when it was purchased by the City for a road ROW. Existing development in the southwest quadrant of this intersection prevented moving the interchange west away from the existing stream (Watercourse K). Given that Watercourse K is aligned in a north- I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 15 south direction generally parallel to the existing segment of I Street NE, moving the interchange north or south would have no affect on stream impacts. Photo 1. I Street NE & 45th Street NE Interchange (blue arrows are WC-K) (Google Earth, 2019 Aerial) From the established interchange, the new road alignment for I Street NE curves away from Watercourse K as quickly as road standards would allow, before the road curves back north again towards the interchange with South 277th Street. This alignment is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 16 Photo 2. 2019 Aerial of Site showing approximate I Street NE alignment, red arrows (Google Earth) This alignment will result in no permanent impacts to wetlands or streams, but will require temporary impacts to Watercourses N and K that will be fully restored and modify wetland and stream buffers slightly. This alignment does require the relocation of a segment of Watercourse K from its current condition in a steep sided farm ditch to a new alignment within the designated ROW with gentler slopes. 6 CRITICAL AREAS IMPACTS 6.1 ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS No direct, permanent impacts to any wetlands or streams (watercourses) will result from the Apartment Project, though minor buffer modifications were necessary to Wetlands A (Auburn) and C, as well as for Watercourses K and L, to accommodate the Apartment Project. The discussion for the buffer impacts to Wetland C is provided in the Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Critical Areas Report for Copper Gate Apartments, revised date 5 November 2019, prepared by Talasaea Consultants. While that report does I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 17 discuss buffer modifications affecting Wetland A (Auburn) and Watercourses K and L, this report will expand on those proposed buffer modifications in light of the I Street NE extension project. The I Street NE Extension proposes to relocate Watercourse K as required by the City of Auburn within the previously designated ROW. The relocation will involve daylighting the existing 221 linear feet of piped segment of stream, removing one (1) culvert, and upgrading another culvert at 45th Street NE with a 3-foot x 12-foot box culvert where a Port of Seattle access road to their property east of the Site is located. Additional temporary impacts are required to wetlands and watercourses (streams) to facilitate the restoration plan proposed for this area to compensate for the anticipated watercourse impacts. Each impact is discussed in more detail below. A summary of impacts to the wetlands and watercourses on the Project Site are identified below in Tables 5-8. The buffers for many of the wetlands and watercourses overlap, so a clear feature by feature accounting was difficult. In addition to wetlands and streams, construction of the Copper Gate Apartments and I Street NE Projects will also require filling within the FEMA 100-year floodplain. Compensation for floodplain fill will be provided by expanding Watercourse N into a 16-foot wide flood channel with a low flow channel retained in order to provide surface water connection from the Apartment Site and new roads to a large mitigation site to the east that has floodplain credits through the City. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 18 Table 4. Summary of Watercourse Impacts. Waterbody Name1 Stream Type Drainage Basin Proposed In- Stream Impact In-Stream Impact Area (square feet/linear feet/cubic yards) Proposed Mitigation Type Stream Mitigation (square feet/linear feet/cubic yards) Permanent Temporary Watercourse K Fish-bearing Trib to Auburn Creek (Green River) Fill 0 7,544 SF 438 LF 722 CY Stream creation (realignment) 467 LF Grading 0 1,429 SF 63 LF Restoration 1,429 SF 63 LF Culvert Removal (157 LF - 24" steel) 157 LF 0 See stream realignment N/A Culvert Replacement (65 LF - 24" steel) 0 65 LF Upgrade Culvert 60 LF 3’ x 12’ Box culvert Watercourse L Fish-bearing Trib to Auburn Creek (Green River) None 0 0 N/A N/A Watercourse N Fish-bearing Trib to Auburn Creek (Green River) Grading 0 446 LF 0 CY Restoration 446 LF 0 CY Watercourse M Fish-bearing Trib to Auburn Creek (Green River) None 0 0 N/A N/A 1 Name of features consistent with those used in Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report prepared by Wet.land, LLC as well as on the site plan documents prepared by BCRA. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 19 Table 5. Summary of Watercourse Buffer Impacts. Waterbody Name1 Waterbody Buffer Width (feet, Standard) Stream Buffer Width Modification Proposed? Wetland Buffer Disturbance Proposed? Buffer Disturbance Type (Cause) Buffer Impact Area square feet (acres) Buffer Added Mitigation Activity in Buffer Area of Mitigation Action Permanent Temporary Watercourse K 75 Yes Yes Reduction2 126 SF 0 SF 177 SF Replacement/ Restoration 798 SF Grading/ Gravel Removal 0 34,435 SF (0.79-ac) 12,876 SF (0.3-ac) Restoration 47,311 SF (1.09 ac) Buffer Change 8,497 SF (0.2-ac) 0 9,182 SF (0.21-ac) Replacement/ Restoration 9,182 SF (0.21-ac) Watercourse L 75 Yes Yes Reduction (35%, minimum 48.75 feet)2 1,396 SF 0 SF 1,400 SF Replacement/ Restoration 1,400 SF Grading/ Gravel Removal3 0 See Wetland A (Auburn) Buffer Impacts (Table 8) Watercourse N 75 No Yes Grading4 0 16,532 SF (0.38-ac) 0 Restoration 16,532 SF (0.38-ac) Watercourse M 75 No Yes Grading (WC-N)5 0 1,127 SF (0.03-ac) 0 Restoration 1,127 SF (0.03-ac) Grading (WC-N)6 0 25,089 SF (0.58-ac) 0 25,089 SF (0.58-ac) 1 Name of features consistent with those used in Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report prepared by Wet.land, LLC as well as on the site plan documents prepared by BCRA. 2Buffer modifications to Watercourses L and K and associated mitigation is summarized here, but details are provided in the Critical Areas Report prepared by Talasaea for the Copper Gate Apartment Project. 3Buffer modifications for Watercourse L for this Project completely overlaps with the more expansive Wetland A (Auburn) buffer modifications. 4Buffer modifications for Watercourse N partially overlap with Wetland E (Port). The above numbers reflect both the stream buffer inside and outside of the wetland. 5This impact is resulting from the Watercourse N widening, and include some portion of buffer for the north end of WC-K as well. 6B This grading within the buffer is necessary for the removal of existing gravel and unsuitable soil as part of the restoration of these areas. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 20 Table 6. Summary of Wetland Impacts. Wetland Name1 Cowardin Classification Wetland type and rating category2 Impact Type Impact area square feet (acres) Proposed mitigation type Wetland mitigation area (square feet/acres) Permanent Temporary Wetland A (Port) PFO/EM III None 0 0 N/A N/A Wetland A (Auburn) PFO/EM III None 0 0 N/A N/A Wetland C PFO/EM III None 0 0 N/A N/A Wetland E (Port) PFO/EM III Grading 0 5,637 SF (0.13-ac) Restoration 5,637 SF (0.13-ac) 1 Name of features consistent with those used in Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report prepared by Wet.land, LLC as well as on the site plan documents prepared by BCRA. 2 Wetland category is based on current Western Washington Wetland Rating System. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 21 Table 7. Summary of Wetland Buffer Impacts. Wetland Name1 Wetland Buffer Width (feet, Standard) Wetland Buffer Width Modification Proposed? Wetland Buffer Disturbance Proposed? Buffer Disturbance Type (Cause) Buffer Impact Area2 square feet (acres) Buffer Added Mitigation Activity in Buffer Area of Mitigation Action2 Permanent Temporary Wetland A (Port) 50 No Yes Grading/ Gravel Removal 0 **3 0 SF Restoration **3 Wetland A (Auburn) 50 Yes Yes Reduction 786 SF 0 SF 798 SF Replacement 798 SF Grading/ Gravel Removal 0 47,556 SF (1.09 ac) 4,585 SF (0.1-ac) + 15,964 SF (0.37-ac) TOTAL: [20,549 SF 0.47-acre]4 Restoration 47,556 SF (1.09 ac) Enhancement 4,924 SF (0.11-ac) Wetland C5 35 No Yes Enhancement 141 SF (0.003-ac) 0 0 SF Enhancement 1,813 SF Wetland E (Port) 50 No Yes Grading 0 **3 0 SF Restoration **3 1 Name of features consistent with those used in Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report prepared by Wet.land, LLC as well as on the site plan documents prepared by BCRA. 2 Wetland buffer impacts and mitigation summarized in this table should not be added together for cumulative buffer totals, as some areas overlap between features. 3 Buffers for Wetlands A (Port) and E (Port) will be temporarily impacted at designated locations and subsequently restored where these buffers overlap Watercourses K, N, and M and their buffers. 4 Wetland A (Auburn) buffer enhancement and restoration overlaps with buffers for Watercourses L and M. 5 Wetland C buffer modification and mitigation is summarized here, but details are provided in the report prepared by Talasaea for the Copper Gate Apartment Project. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 22 6.2 WATERCOURSE IMPACTS In-stream impacts to watercourses are restricted to Watercourse K to accommodate the road alignment and to Watercourse N for a City-required flood channel. No in-stream impacts are proposed to Watercourses L or M. 6.2.1 Watercourse K Watercourse K, as currently configured, is partially piped in 24-inch steel culverts at two locations: a 157-foot segment and a 65-foot segment. The stream channel will be realigned within the designated ROW as part of the restoration effort in conjunction with road construction. Watercourse K is proposed to be impacted directly through the removal of the 157-foot culvert, upgrade of another culvert, realignment and recontouring of the stream channel, addition of a wall that will be associated with the I Street NE construction, and temporary impacts as necessary to facilitate the restoration effort and connecting the new stream elements to the existing stream channel. The I Street NE Alignment has been identified in the City Comprehensive Plan, and is based in part on the location of existing ROW previously designated to accommodate the City’s future plans for the I Street NE arterial through this area. 6.2.1.1 Direct Impacts – Stream Fill (Temporary) The relocation of Watercourse K will require 438 LF (722 cubic yards of fill, 7,544 square feet) of existing stream channel to be filled as part of the relocation process to accommodate the proposed road alignment. This fill is considered temporary in nature as the stream channel will be realigned to a new location, not placed into a culvert, that will accommodate the proposed road. The stream segments to be filled were previously constructed as a linear farm ditch with steep sides. The OHWM of this watercourse at this location is upwards of 10 feet across because of the steep side walls, and the OHWM being called at the top of the banks. This condition is not reflective of a “natural” condition for the reach of stream in this area. Compensation for this stream fill is provided by constructing a new stream channel east of the proposed fill. Little to no water is present within this feature during the dry summer months. However, temporary sandbag dams will be constructed up and downstream of the work limits to isolate the work area. The area will be evaluated by a Biologist for the presence of any water and fish prior to commencement of fill placement within this stretch of channel. If any fish are found, unlikely as that is, they will be relocated downstream to another stretch of channel with water present. 6.2.1.2 Culvert Removal A 157-foot segment of 24” steel pipe will be fully removed. This will occur in conjunction with the stream fill outlined above. 6.2.1.3 Culvert Replacement An existing 65-foot long 24-inch steel culvert under the Port of Seattle access road at the southeast corner of the Site will be upgraded to a 3-foot tall by 12-foot wide by 60-foot long box culvert that is StreamSim-compliant. The new culvert will be realigned slightly from the existing culvert to be removed as the stream alignment is shifting as part of road construction. The new culvert has been designed to meet the guidelines outlined in WDFW’s Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage (2003), as outlined in a I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 23 Culvert Design for Fish Passage memo, prepared by BCRA, dated 6 November 2019 (Appendix D). The modeling used to determine culvert size took into account weather data for this area as well as the design of the upstream stormwater facility that discharges into this watercourse. The intent was to determine an appropriate OHWM width for this stream that was more consistent with what might be expected for a natural stream at this location. This modeling concluded that the designed OHWM should be 8.26 feet, which translated into a 12-foot wide box culvert. While this stream has low to no flow for portions of the year, this box culvert as well as the new channel were designed to ensure they could convey the existing stormwater discharges and any natural surface flow from upstream. Photo 3. Box Culvert Cross Section (Civil Plans, Sheet C5.05, BCRA, 27 May 2020) Suitable stream substrate consistent with the Washington State Department of Transportation guidelines (WSDOT, Standard Specifications, 2020, Section 9-03.11 (1), Streambed Sediment, Sheet W3.3, Appendix A) will be provided within the culvert to enhance fish passability. Details of this culvert are provided in the civil plan set prepared by BCRA, Sheets C2.01 and C2.07 (New stream channel and grading), C5.05 (Detail 5, box culvert detail; Detail 6, stream cross section), and C5.06 (Detail 10, culvert headwalls detail) (Appendix B3). 6.2.1.4 Stream Relocation A segment of Watercourse K will be relocated to accommodate the proposed road alignment into a new 467-foot long stream channel in the southeast corner of the Site. The new stream segment is intended to replace the functions of 438-linear feet of filled stream channel, and results in a net increase of 29 linear feet of stream. While no stream (or wetland) impacts will result from the new stream channel, as the new channel will be built in uplands, 1,429 square feet (63 linear feet) of temporary impacts to I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 24 Watercourse K will occur where the new channel and upgraded box culvert will need to tie back in to the existing channel. Every effort was taken to avoid extending the new channel onto the adjacent property where a new stream channel would encumber land that is currently unencumbered by any critical areas. The adjacent parcel is heavily encumbered currently by wetlands and their buffers. Impacting one of the few unencumbered portions of this parcel would increase the unintended consequences of this project on the adjacent parcel, which is not under common ownership. Photo 4. Snip from Mitigation Plans, Sheet W2.0 (Wet.land, 17 June 2020) The new open channel is designed to have maximum 3:1 slopes on the western bank near the proposed wall and 3:1 slopes on the eastern bank near the Port of Seattle property. A wall is necessary on the western edge of the new segment of Watercourse K to accommodate the stream design to contain the new segment within the existing ROW easement. The wall will be constructed of concrete and will not be able to be planted. Dense plantings will occur at the base of the wall and across the remainder of the designated riparian corridor. The wall design will be no higher than 5 feet at its highest point. A pedestrian fence will be installed at the top of the wall on the western side. Detailed wall construction documents will be included with the civil plans provided by BCRA (Sheet C2.07). Photo 5. New Channel Cross Section (Civil Plans, Sheet C5.05, BCRA, 27 May 2020) All areas disturbed during the regrading process will be replanted with native vegetation. The project limits for restoration will stop at the Port of Seattle property line on the eastern edge of the site where a large perimeter fence occurs. However, additional stream buffer restoration is proposed directly north of the stream relocation, on property owned by the Applicant, to ensure all functions and values are maintained, if not improved over the current condition. All work will be performed during the dry summer months when little to no water is present in the stream channel. No dewatering impacts are expected as part of this project. However, temporary I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 25 sandbag dams will be constructed up and downstream of the work limits to isolate the work area while both the old culverts are removed, the new culvert installed, and the new channel constructed. 6.2.1.5 Watercourse K Confluence with Watercourse N Minor impacts to the areas adjacent to Watercourse K at its confluence with Watercourse N are anticipated as part of the flood channel construction. The banks of WC-K at this location will be lowered, though no changes within the channel are proposed. All areas of disturbance will be restored to pre-construction conditions. Photo 6. Confluence of WC-N and WC-K for Flood Channel (Civil Plans, Sheet C2.06, BCRA, 27 May 2020) Photo 7. WC-K Cross Section - Flood Channel (Civil Plans, Sheet C2.06, BCRA, 27 May 2020) I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 26 6.2.2 Watercourse L No direct impacts are proposed to Watercourse L. Stormwater will be released after advanced treatment into a swale that discharges to Watercourse L. This condition will not be substantially different from current conditions as a large network of drainage pipes currently collects stormwater from a large area of the graveled areas of the Site that is released into the west end of Watercourse L under the existing conditions. Two (2) culverts were identified discharging into Watercourse L with additional surface pipes also observed. Stormwater discharges will meet the current City standards, and will provide advanced water quality treatment prior to stormwater release. Stormwater will then be released into a swale that occurs in the Watercourse L and Wetland A (Auburn) buffer for additional treatment prior to physically entering Watercourse L. This swale and the adjacent buffer will be planted with dense, native, woody vegetation. 6.2.3 Watercourse N Temporary impacts are proposed along approximately 446 linear feet of Watercourse N as part of the effort to expand this watercourse into a 16-foot wide flood conveyance channel, as required by the City of Auburn. A low flow channel will be constructed to contain normal flows to reduce the possibility of fish stranding when the flood waters rise and recede through this area. Only the low flow channel is expected to retain stream characteristics, which will be consistent with the current configuration of Watercourse N, if a slight bit wider and lower in elevation. Watercourse N is generally a v-shaped channel that occurs at the toe of the road prism for South 277th Street. This channel will be rebuilt with a two (2)-foot wide streambed (OHWM), and the adjacent terrace will occur at a slightly lower elevation. Photo 8. Flood Conveyance Cross Section, red area is soil removed (Civil Plans, Sheet C2.06, BCRA, 27 May 2020) Photo 6 above shows the proposed area for excavation of existing soils and vegetation, a total of 683 cubic yards of material from adjacent to the stream, Wetland E (Port), and the adjacent uplands. The bottom elevation of the stream is proposed to be lowered by expanding the feature down and to the I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 27 south (red hatch in Photo 6). Where this red hatch area occurs within the limits of Wetland E (Port), this has been considered a temporary wetland impact. Elsewhere the red hatched area proposes impacts within the adjacent uplands and has not be calculated as a wetland, stream, or buffer impact. The terraces within the flood channel above the low flow channel are expected to take on wetland characteristics, and proposed plantings in these areas will reflect that. Where the proposed work to construct this flood conveyance channel overlaps Wetland E (Port), the area will be restored as wetland, just at a lower elevation. The other portions of the expanded flood conveyance channel will be restored post-construction as either wetland (below the toe of slope) or buffer restoration (along the slopes) where the expanded channel overlaps the buffers for either Wetland E (Port) or another flood conveyance channel located on the Port property east of Wetland E (Port). There will be no fill associated with the work performed in Watercourse N. All material will be dredged and removed from the channel. All areas disturbed through the construction of this flood conveyance channel will be restored with plantings of native, woody vegetation and replacement of stream substrate. Little to no water is present within this feature during the dry summer months. However, temporary sandbag dams will be constructed up and downstream of the work limits to isolate the work area. The area will be evaluated by a Biologist for the presence of any water and fish prior to commencement of fill placement within this stretch of channel. If any fish are found, unlikely as that is, they will be relocated downstream to another stretch of channel with water present. 6.3 WETLAND IMPACTS No permanent wetland impacts are proposed for this project. A temporary impact is proposed to Wetland E (Port) for the regrading and subsequent restoration of this wetland as a result of the widening of Watercourse N into a City-required flood conveyance channel. Buffer modifications are discussed in more detail below (Chapter 6.4). 6.3.1 Wetland A (Auburn) No direct impacts to Wetland A (Auburn) are proposed. Stormwater is being released near the wetland. Stormwater from both the Apartment and roads will be discharged through a swale after advanced water quality treatment into the beginning (west end) of Watercourse L. This watercourse flows through, and thus will provide additional hydrology to, the southern portions of Wetland A (Auburn). No discharges from the Site will enter Wetland A (Auburn) directly, nor will the interaction of Watercourse L with Wetland A (Auburn) change from its current condition as a result of the Project. While additional hydrology will enter this wetland system, given the current topography, no additional ponding within this wetland will occur as a result of the additional hydrologic inputs as Watercourse L provides a continuous discharge point for Wetland A (Auburn). No impacts are expected to the northern portion of the wetland as no work is proposed in that area except for minor buffer enhancement and restoration along the northwest side of this wetland. An existing network of swales prevent much area runoff from entering the north end of Wetland A (Auburn) in the current condition. Existing runoff generally is routed into other swales into Watercourse L or M, rather than into this wetland. Work on the northern reach of I Street NE will create new curb, gutter, sidewalk, and contain the stormwater consistent with applicable stormwater regulations, and all I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 28 road runoff will be collected and treated before being discharged to Watercourse L. This will result in no net change from the current condition for the north end of Wetland A (Auburn). The buffer improvements proposed (discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.4 below) will allow for more natural rainfall infiltration into the ground, which should reflect a net improvement to Wetland A (Auburn). Again, none of the work proposed will affect the natural topography of Wetland A (Auburn), and this wetland will continue to drain generally south towards Watercourse L, which provides for a continuous discharge for any surface water. The ability of this wetland to impound water is limited in its current condition, and this condition will not change as a result of this Project. 6.3.2 Wetland A (Port) No direct or indirect impacts are proposed to Wetland A (Port). 6.3.3 Wetland C No direct or indirect impacts are proposed to Wetland C. Buffer modifications were discussed in the Copper Gate Apartment report and summarized below in Chapter 6.4. 6.3.4 Wetland E (Port) Minor temporary impacts are proposed to a small area (5,637 square feet) of Wetland E (Port) that occurs within the ROW for South 277th Street. Watercourse N is required to get upgraded to a 16-foot wide flood conveyance channel for the City of Auburn. The majority of this wetland occurs on Port of Seattle property, but a small area extends into the ROW. The proposed expansion of Watercourse N will occur solely within the public road ROW. This portion of the wetland will be temporary disturbed during the excavation work while this area is lowered in elevation. Once the elevations of the wetland in this area have been lowered, the entire area of disturbance will remain as wetland and be restored as such post-construction. The restored wetland areas will then fall within the new flood conveyance channel, above the OHWM of Watercourse N, and will continue to function as wetland. The temporarily disturbed portions of Wetland E (Port) will continue to reflect wetland hydrology, hydric soil indicators, and hydrophytic vegetation. Any flood waters that extend into this channel will likely do so during the winter months when most wetland vegetation is dormant, thus the hydrology of this system is unlikely to change from its current condition. The proposed reduction in elevation is unlikely to have any additional impact on water levels within the wetland. Watercourses N and K already function as rim-ditches to this wetland to the north and west. This area proposed to be temporarily impacted is currently wetland, and will continue to function as wetland after the construction of the flood channel. 6.4 WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE BUFFER IMPACTS Buffer modifications are proposed at several locations to accommodate the proposed roundabout and a slight encroachment by the stormwater ponds (both addressed as part of the Apartment project documents), and for Watercourse K around the new stream segment. The buffer width was reduced for the roundabout, but all reduced buffer was replaced adjacent to the existing standard buffer for no net loss of buffer area. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 29 Additional temporary buffer disturbances are proposed at several locations as part of buffer restoration as heavy machinery will be necessary to remove the existing gravel and disturbed substrate to restore the soils in these areas for proposed supplemental plantings. These temporary disturbances are purely as part of the restoration project, and will not result in a narrower buffer. Buffer modifications for Wetland A (Port) and Wetland E (Port) are not tallied in the above tables because work is proposed in areas that overlap other features or buffers. No reduction in the standard buffer is proposed for either Wetland A (Port) or Wetland E (Port). Proposed buffer modifications and disturbances are discussed below in more detail. 6.4.1 Watercourse K The Watercourse K buffer impacts are anticipated at several locations: • 126 square feet of buffer reduction to accommodate the stormwater pond configuration – compensated through addition of 177 square feet of new buffer (Apartment Site). • 8,497 square feet of impacted standard buffer due to new watercourse channel alignment within ROW – compensated through 9,182 square feet of additional buffer adjacent to existing WC-K buffer. • 34,435 square feet of temporary buffer impacts for removing gravel and decompacting and amending soils in order to restore these areas as fully vegetated buffer. • 12,876 square feet of buffer around the new channel will be restored. The small buffer reduction and replacement associated with the stormwater ponds was previously discussed in the Apartment Site reports. These minor modifications have been accounted for in the current site plan documents for the I Street Project. The buffer for Watercourse K has been modified to accommodate the proposed road alignment and new stream channel. Where possible, additional buffer was provided between the existing buffer and the stormwater ponds. The standard buffer for Watercourse K is 75 feet to either side of the OHWM. However, given the location of the project boundaries and existing road ROW, a narrower buffer than what is typically allowed per ACC regulations is proposed. The standard 75-foot buffer for WC-K around the new channel is proposed to be reduced by 8,497 square feet to accommodate the road. New buffer will be added totaling 9,182 square feet to the existing WC-K standard buffer as compensation for this buffer reduction. The remainder of the standard buffer for this new channel alignment within the ROW totals 12,876 square feet. These areas of the WC-K buffer will be fully restored with suitable soils and densely planted native vegetation along with the remainder of the WC-K buffer on the Site for a total of 56,493 square feet of buffer restoration for Watercourse K. Watercourse K will have a net increase of buffer area as a result of the mitigation proposed, as well as a net increase to buffer function as a result of the extensive habitat restoration proposed. ACC 16.10.090.E.2.b outlines stream buffer enhancement measures that can be considered when determining buffer requirements and allowable alterations to stream buffers, which are addressed in line below. While the guidance is for Applicant’s to consider implementing one or more of these measures, the Project proposes to implement all of the below measures for a net increase to stream and stream buffer habitat and water quality. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 30 b. …The applicant may propose to implement one or more enhancement measures, listed in order of preference below, which will be considered in establishing buffer requirements: i. Removal of fish barriers to restore accessibility to anadromous fish. Two fish barriers will be removed as part of this Project to restore accessibility to anadromous fish. The Project proposes to remove one culvert fully and upgrade a second culvert to current standards for fish passibility. ii. Enhancement of fish habitat using log structures incorporated as part of a fish habitat enhancement plan. The new segment of stream channel will be restored consistent with current guidelines to create suitable fish habitat. This is a substantial improvement from the culverted stretch in place now. Logs will be incorporated into the design of the new channel. iii. Enhancement of wildlife habitat by adding structures that are likely to be used by wildlife, including wood duck houses, bat boxes, nesting platforms, snags, root wads/stumps, birdhouses, and heron nesting areas. A large area of stream buffer for Watercourse K will be enhanced by removing gravel and densely planting native trees and shrubs. Additional structures and elements to improve wildlife habitat are also proposed including snags, root wads and stumps, and bat boxes. iv. Additional mitigating measures may include but are not limited to: (A) Landscaping outside the buffer area with native vegetation or a reduction in the amount of clearing outside the buffer area; Project landscaping outside of the stream buffers will use native vegetation, where possible. Very little native vegetation currently occurs on the Site, so the proposed Project between the mitigation plan proposed and general site landscaping will create a significant increase in native vegetation across the Site for usage by a wide variety of species, both common, urban species as well as potentially listed species. More traditional landscape plant species will be used for street trees and landscaping adjacent to the road or within islands. A sidewalk is proposed between the street trees and natural areas that will act as a visual and physical barrier between traditional landscape plantings and the areas vegetated with native species, both within and adjacent to the mitigation areas. A total of 109,824 square feet (2.5 acres) of wetland or watercourse buffer and adjacent areas will be planted as part of the Landscape Plans for the I Street NE Project. This includes: • 25,809 square feet (0.58-acre) of Watercourse M buffer that partially overlaps the Wetland A (Auburn) buffer north of the wetland); I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 31 • 15,964 square feet (0.37-acre) of land west of Wetland A (Auburn) and contiguous with the wetland buffer; and • 68,771 square feet (1.58 acres) of adjacent disturbed uplands. These designated areas will have their soils decompacted, gravel removed as necessary, and soils generally improved so that these areas can support native plant species. These areas will be seeded with one of two specialty seed blends based on their hydrologic regime. An upland grass mix was created for the larger field north of Watercourse M, east of I Street NE, while a moist soil mix was prepared for the areas closer to Watercourse M and Wetland A (Auburn). These areas are proposed to be planted with native species that will enhance the proposed buffer restoration work included on the mitigation plans for this Site. These areas have been excluded from the mitigation plans because these are targeted as herbaceous fields that will not contain woody vegetation. These fields will be managed in conjunction with the site landscaping for invasive species removal, but will be targeted for mowing only as necessary as part of a management plan. These areas will be allowed to colonize with native species. Proposed seed blends are as follows: (B) Planting native vegetation within the buffer area, especially vegetation that would increase value for fish and wildlife, increase stream bank or slope stability, improve water quality, or provide aesthetic/recreational value; All of the stream buffers that occur on the Site will be planted densely with native plant species with a focus on woody trees and shrubs to increase wildlife value, structure, site stability, and water quality. (C) Creating a surface channel where a stream was previously culverted or piped; A 157-foot long culvert will be removed from within Watercourse K and replaced with a new open channel segment of stream. (D) Removing or modifying existing stream culverts (such as at road crossings) to improve fish passage and flow capabilities which are not detrimental to fish; A 65-foot 24” culvert that is not sized consistent with current guidance will be upgraded to a StreamSim-compliant box culvert that will greatly improve fish passage and stream flow. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 32 (E) Upgrading retention/detention facilities or other drainage facilities beyond required levels; or The stormwater facilities will meet or exceed current standards required by the City. (F) Similar measures determined applicable by the director. No additional comment. 6.4.2 Watercourse L A small area of buffer for Watercourse L was averaged to accommodate the roundabout, which was discussed in the Copper Gate Apartment project documents. That buffer modification has been included in the I Street NE drawings. A total of 4,585 square feet of new buffer will be added around Watercourse L and Wetland A (Auburn) near the roundabout, which includes the 1,400 square feet added for the Apartment Site to offset the buffer impact from the roundabout. Much of the Watercourse L buffer overlaps Wetland A (Auburn) and its buffer. A large area of the Watercourse L buffer that overlaps with the Wetland A (Auburn) buffer will be temporarily impacted as part of the mitigation plan for removal of the dense gravel substrate that is currently restricting plant growth. These areas will be restored with native vegetation after soil restoration is complete. Watercourse L will have a net increase of buffer area as a result of the mitigation proposed, as well as a net increase to buffer function as a result of the extensive habitat restoration proposed. 6.4.3 Watercourse M Two (2) small areas of the Watercourse M buffer will be temporarily disturbed and subsequently restored where designated for no net loss of buffer area where this buffer overlaps the proposed work and mitigation. This includes a small area of 1,127 square feet for the construction of the flood conveyance channel, as well as a 25,089 square foot area that’s being restored through the landscape plans for I Street NE with a native herbaceous species. Watercourse M will have a net increase to buffer function as a result of the habitat restoration proposed. 6.4.4 Watercourse N Watercourse N lacks a buffer to the north except for a narrow strip on the road prism due to this feature’s location. The buffer south of Watercourse N will be temporarily disturbed through the flood channel construction and subsequently restored where designated for no net loss of buffer area. Temporary buffer impacts totally 16,532 square feet, which includes the 5,637 square feet within Wetland E (Port). 6.4.5 Wetland A (Auburn) The buffer for Wetland A (Auburn) was modified to accommodate Stormwater Ponds 1 and 2 and the roundabout (which overlapped the Watercourse L buffer) that was discussed in the Copper Gate Apartment project documents. That buffer modification has been included in the I Street NE drawings. A portion of the Wetland A (Auburn) buffer to the south and west will be temporarily impacted as part of the mitigation plan for removal of the dense gravel substrate that is currently restricting plant I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 33 growth. A smaller area of buffer west of the wetland will be enhanced only through the addition of supplemental plantings of native species. Buffer modifications to Wetland A (Auburn) include: • 786 square feet of buffer reduced to accommodate stormwater ponds – compensated for through the addition of 798 square feet of new buffer. • Temporary impacts to 47,556 square feet (1.09 acres) of existing standard buffer for grading and gravel removal as part of the habitat restoration proposed. • New buffer added totaling 4,585 square feet (0.1-acre), which includes the 798 square feet from the Apartment Project buffer averaging as well as the 1,400 square feet of buffer placement for Watercourse L buffer impacts from the Apartment Project. This is an additional 2,387 square feet of new buffer beyond what was provided in the Apartment Project. • Additional 15,964 square feet of additional buffer provided between the sidewalk and Wetland A (Auburn) existing buffer limit that will be planted with native grasses and herbaceous plants as part of the Landscape Plans for I Street NE. • 4,924 square feet (0.11-acre) of existing wetland buffer between the wetland boundary and edge of gravel will be enhanced with native vegetation. This area lacks the dense gravel that requires extensive soil restoration, but does require removal of invasive species and subsequent supplemental plantings of native species. Wetland A (Auburn) will have a net increase of buffer area as a result of the mitigation proposed, as well as a significant increase in buffer function. 6.4.6 Wetland A (Port) A small area of the Wetland A (Port) buffer will be temporarily disturbed and subsequently restored where designated for no net loss of buffer area where this buffer overlaps the proposed work and mitigation. The areas of impact were not specifically tallied for Wetland A (Port) as they were accounted for during the discussions for Watercourse K. 6.4.7 Wetland C The minor buffer modification proposed to Wetland C was discussed at length in the Copper Gate Apartments critical areas report. The buffer was reduced by 141 square feet with over 1,800 square feet of buffer enhancement proposed as compensation to remove an existing man-made disturbance from within the buffer. 6.4.8 Wetland E (Port) A small portion of the Wetland E (Port) buffer will be temporarily disturbed through the flood channel construction and subsequently restored where designated for no net loss of buffer area. 6.5 ASSESSMENT OF LISTED SPECIES IMPACTS A detailed assessment of potential impacts to Federally-listed species, including Chinook Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and Bull Trout, is provided in the BE prepared by Wet.land, LLC (2020). The project is expected to have a net positive impact to other state and federally listed species that have the potential to occur on the Site given the mitigation entails no net loss of wetland or stream, removal of a stream culvert, upgrade of another culvert to a StreamSim-compliant box culvert, and substantial habitat restoration and enhancement proposed. The impacts to wetlands and streams are generally only I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 34 temporary in nature, and the mitigation will result in a substantial net improvement to the riparian corridors around Watercourses K and L, which includes several wetlands. The Project is not likely to adversely affect listed species. 7 FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS 7.1 FLOOD STORAGE COMPENSATION The proposed Project will result in the displacement of flood storage volume which has been analyzed by BCRA. This includes areas that are below the base flood elevation as well as within the FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplain, which are addressed separately by BCRA within their Floodplain reporting (Compensatory Storage Design Memo, October 2019, Attachment 4c of the USACE Application Submittal). This memo notes that the preliminary Draft Federal Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) issued by FEMA in 2017 was used for the Project design, but that no static 1% annual chance (100-year) flood Base Flood Elevation (BFE) was defined for the Project Site. This memo also documents how the Project results in no loss of flood storage. 7.2 RIPARIAN HABITAT ZONES AND NATIVE VEGETATION A separate discussion of native vegetation for the Copper Gate Apartment Site, including Wetland C, was provided in that report, and has not been repeated here. While portions of Riparian Habitat Zones (RHZ) associated with Watercourses K and L occur within the Site, no native vegetation occurs within the RHZs on the Site except for a small area discussed in more detail in Comment 1 below. ACC 15.68.161.D provides the regulations guiding native vegetation within RHZs and the floodplain. Native Vegetation. The site plan required for development in the regulatory floodplain shall show existing native vegetation. 1. In the riparian habitat zone, native vegetation shall be left undisturbed, except if in connection with an activity allowed in the regulatory floodplain without a permit, and except for activities with the sole purpose of creating, restoring or enhancing natural functions associated with floodplains, streams, lakes, estuaries, marine areas, habitat, and riparian areas that meet federal and state standards, provided the activities do not include structures, grading, fill, or impervious surfaces. Native vegetation is generally lacking on the Site. The only area of native vegetation that occurs within the RHZ onsite is a line of trees west of Wetland A (Port) that appear to have been planted along an old gravel road adjacent to Conveyance Ditch 1. These trees lack understory vegetation, but are native trees themselves, and thus were counted despite this area not meeting the intent of the native vegetation preservation goal of this regulation. These trees will be disturbed as part of the grading for the new alignment of I Street NE, but extensive areas of buffer restoration are proposed that will result in a significant net gain of native vegetation within the RHZs onsite. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 35 2. Outside the riparian habitat zone, removal of native vegetation shall not exceed 35 percent of the surface area of the portion of the site in the regulatory floodplain. Native vegetation in the riparian habitat zone portion of the property can be counted toward this requirement. Only 4% (17,390 square feet, 0. 4-acre) of the Project Site for I Street NE contains native vegetation or elements of a native vegetation community within the 100-year floodplain. The remainder of the Project Site within and outside of the floodplain is either non-native vegetation, gravel or other disturbed areas. Of the native vegetation that occurs within the 100-year floodplain on the Site, none of it will be retained in the post-development condition. All vegetation will be removed from within the Project Site as part of the Project, which exceeds the 35% retention threshold provided by this regulation. However, the Mitigation Plan for this Project will result in approximately 117,000 square feet (2.69 acres) of native plantings, or roughly 25% of the Site. This is a significant increase over the existing conditions. 3. If the proposed project does not meet the criteria of this chapter, a habitat impact assessment shall be conducted pursuant to ACC 15.68.135(J) and, if indicated by that assessment, a habitat mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented pursuant to ACC 15.68.135(K). (Ord. 6295 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6161 § 1, 2008.) A Habitat Impact Assessment has been prepared and is provided below in Section 7.3. 7.3 HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT An analysis of project impacts pursuant to ACC 15.68.135.J.4 is provided below to evaluate whether the Project would adversely affect any of the following: a. The primary constituent elements identified when a species is listed as threatened or endangered; No Federal or State listed species have been identified as occurring within the Project Site. However, Chinook salmon were documented downstream in Auburn Creek near the flapgate with the Green River, which is approximately 0.7-miles from the Site. The possibility, therefore, exists for State and Federally listed salmonids to use the on-site watercourses. Modifications to Watercourse K are proposed, but the impacts are temporary in nature as the stream is relocated in conjunction with removing one culvert and upgrading another culvert. The Project will result in a net improvement to fish habitat and accessibility within Watercourse K. No impacts to Watercourse L are proposed except to modify its buffer consistent with the current ACC, including restoration of a portion of the Watercourse L buffer. Stormwater facilities that meet all current standards as adopted by the City of Auburn will greatly reduce the likelihood of downstream impacts due to water quality concerns. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 36 The Project is not likely to adversely affect listed species. b. Essential fish habitat designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service; No Essential Fish Habitat has been designated on the Project Site by NMFS. The Project will not adversely affect essential fish habitat. c. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas typically include waters of the state, habitat for listed species, and natural area preserves. Wetlands and streams regulated by the USACE as Waters of the US do occur on and adjacent to the Site that are proposed to be temporarily impacted for the construction of the Project with full mitigation provided to compensate for those impacts. Ultimately, there will be a net improvement of fish and wildlife habitat through implementation of the Project’s mitigation plan due to the extensive existing disturbances on the Site. The Project is not likely to adversely affect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. d. Vegetation communities and habitat structures; Little native vegetation occurs on the Site except within the wetlands themselves and limited portions of their buffers. All wetlands and streams will be retained in the developed condition with their buffers to be retained and either restored or enhanced. While vegetation is being removed from the Site, it is primarily isolated trees or pockets of trees that are not functional habitat except for a very limited selection of wildlife. Therefore, we conclude that the Project is not likely to adversely affect existing vegetation communities or habitat structures on the Site. e. Water quality; Water quality will be addressed through the construction of the Project’s designed stormwater management facilities which was designed to meet the current water quality standards required by the City of Auburn based on guidance provided by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Discharges from the Project’s stormwater ponds will enter a swale prior to entering Watercourse L before ultimately discharging into Watercourse K, then Watercourse M, Auburn Drain, and finally the Green River roughly 0.6-mile downstream. Best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to prevent any unintended discharges into wetlands or streams that could have an impact downstream. Work is proposed to be done in the dry season to the greatest practicable. Therefore, the Project not likely to adversely affect water quality either onsite or to downstream waters. f. Water quantity, including flood and low flow depths, volumes and velocities; The stormwater standards being followed for this Project require flow control guidelines modeling a forested pre-development condition. Given the highly disturbed nature of the majority of the Site in the current condition, applying the current stormwater regulations I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 37 should provide a significant improvement over existing conditions due to the nature of the model used to design the flow control standards for the Project’s stormwater management facilities. The Project not likely to adversely affect water quantity either onsite or to downstream waters. g. The channel’s natural planform pattern and migration processes; The proposed work will modify the Watercourse K channel, but for a net improvement through the removal of one culvert, upgrading another culvert to a larger StreamSim- compliant box culvert, and creating an open channel where culverts used to be present. The Project will have a net improvement to migration processes due to the culvert modifications proposed. The Project is not likely to adversely affect channel form or migration processes. h. Spawning substrate, if applicable; and/or No spawning has been documented within the reach of stream within or adjacent to the Site, though juvenile salmon were identified roughly ½ mile downstream, just upstream of the flapgate at the Green River. The current substrate present in the existing conditions are primarily fine sediments, and not gravel or cobble. Appropriately-sized stream substrate will be added to the new stream segment consistent with the WSDOT and WDFW guidelines. The Project is not likely to adversely affect channel form or migration processes. i. Floodplain refugia, if applicable. The Site is connected to the greater Green River floodplain. While displacement of flood storage is proposed for this Project, mitigation is being provided that will result in no net loss of flood storage. The improvements on the Site will ensure that the critical areas associated with this Project will continue to be connected to the greater Green River floodplain so this area can continue to function as a potential location of floodplain refugia. There, the Project will not adversely affect floodplain refugia. 8 PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN 8.1 AGENCY POLICIES AND GUIDANCE The proposed mitigation plan was designed in accordance with the policies and guidance provided in the following documents: • Auburn City Code, Chapter 16.10 -- Critical Areas; • The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) Publication #06-06-011a, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, and Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1), dated March 2006 (Washington State Department I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 38 of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 2006a, 2006b); and • The Federal Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources Final Rule (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332, April 10, 2008), effective June 9, 2008 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 2008). All proposed mitigation shall be based on best available science and shall demonstrate no net loss of critical area functions and values. 8.2 MITIGATION SEQUENCING Mitigation sequencing has been applied to the proposed project pursuant to the mitigation definition and preferred sequence definition outlined in ACC 16.10.020, and as required by the USACE. The City mitigation sequencing requirements are as follows, and are consistent with the USACE requirements: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of actions. 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. All direct, permanent impacts to wetlands and watercourses have been avoided with the current Site Plan. Temporary impacts are proposed for the construction of a new stream channel segment for WC-K, removal and upgrade of culverts, modification of WC-N into a flood conveyance channel, and modifications to a small area of Wetland E (Port) for the same flood conveyance channel. Impacts to the floodplain, areas of native vegetation, and buffer impacts are unavoidable, but have been minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Extensive habitat restoration of buffers is proposed to compensate for the proposed critical area impacts. Floodplain impacts are unavoidable given the extensive coverage within the Project Site, but have been minimized to the greatest extent possible given the road improvement requirements in this area. In light of the previously prepared EIS outlining the development goals for this broad area, the floodplain impacts proposed are the least possible while determining a feasible project. Compensation for flood plain impacts is being provided through the construction of the flood conveyance channel to connect the Site to a large mitigation area east of the Site where the City has flood compensation credits available. 8.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION COMPONENTS The mitigation plan includes the following elements to compensate for the project impacts to critical areas, as summarized above in Tables 4-7 and below in Table 8: I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 39 Table 8. Mitigation Summary (Bold numbers are subtotals) Feature Name1 Mitigation Activity in Buffer Stream Mitigation Wetland Mitigation Buffer Mitigation linear feet square feet square feet Watercourse K Culvert Removal 157 Culvert Replacement 60 Channel Construction 467 Channel Restoration 63 Buffer Replacement 9,1822 Buffer Restoration 34,435 12,8763 Subtotal 56,493 Watercourse L Buffer Replacement *See Wetland A (Auburn) below Watercourse M Buffer Restoration 1,1275 25,0894 Watercourse N Channel Restoration 446 Buffer Restoration 10,8955 Wetland A (Auburn) Buffer Replacement 4,5852 Restoration 47,556 Enhancement 4,924 15,9644 Subtotal 57,065 Wetland A (Port) Buffer Enhancement 0 Wetland C Buffer Enhancement 1,813 Wetland E (Port) Wetland Restoration 5,637 Buffer Enhancement 0 TOTALS 5,637 124,453 1 Name of features consistent with those used in Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report prepared by Wet.land, LLC as well as on the site plan documents prepared by BCRA. 2 Area includes buffer additions from Apartment Site Project. 3 Area is the buffer around the new WC-K channel that was located within the former standard buffer for WC-K. 4These areas are included on the Landscape Plans prepared by Whipple Consulting, and will be planted with a native seed mix after soil restoration efforts are complete. These values have been excluded from the total calculations as they are not included in the Mitigation Plan, but will be adjacent areas planted with native species that can be pulled into a conservation easement, but excluded from performance monitoring. 5This area excludes the 5,637 SF from Wetland E (Port), which is the difference between this value and the 16,532 SF listed in Table 5. The 1,127 SF for WC-M is also included in the 10,895 SF of buffer restoration for WC-N. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 40 8.3.1 Culvert Removal and Replacement An existing 157-linear-foot 24” steel culvert will be removed from within Watercourse K as part of the watercourse relocation process. This culvert segment will not be replaced, and the portion of the channel that was within the culvert will become an open channel as part of the watercourse restoration process. The 65-foot 24” steel culvert located within Watercourse K at NE 45th Street under the Port of Seattle access driveway will be upgraded to a StreamSim compliant 12-foot wide box culvert. Watercourse K will be modified slightly to accommodate the culvert upgrade and tie this new culvert into the existing and proposed channels. The new box culvert will be 3 feet deep by 12 feet wide and approximately 60 feet long at this crossing. The culvert upgrade will include the following measures and will be completed in conjunction with the stream relocation work: 1) Installing and removing BMP measures, fish exclusionary devices, and upstream and downstream dams to isolate the work area; 2) Dewatering and handling fish removal, as determined necessary, depending on water levels at the time of construction (construction is expected to be conducted in the dry summer months when there is no water within these features); 3) Prepping the work areas, including within Watercourse K to expose the existing culverts to be removed and open new culvert location for box culvert installation; 4) Grading per the provided grading plan to prepare the targeted area; 5) Installing new box culvert; 6) Completing site work as needed to tie existing and relocated stream channel to the new box culvert; and 7) Restore stream elements, such as substrate, large woody material, and adding new plantings. 8.3.2 Watercourse Relocation and Restoration A total of 467 linear feet of watercourse will be realigned for Watercourse K to accommodate the road alignment. Proposed grading and plantings for the new channel is provided in Appendix A. Watercourse restoration is proposed in conjunction with the relocation where necessary to tie the new channel into the existing channel at the north and south ends of the proposed work area. Stream relocation and restoration will include the following measures: 1) Installing and removing BMP measures, fish exclusionary devices, and upstream and downstream dams to isolate the work area; 2) Dewatering and handling fish removal, as determined necessary, depending on water levels at the time of construction (construction is expected to be conducted in the dry summer months when there is no water within these features); 3) Prepping work areas, including clearing and grubbing, as needed,; 4) Grading completed per the approved grading plan; 5) Placing stream aggregate in new channel per WDFW guidance and specifications. 6) Installing habitat features such as rootwads, down logs, and stumps; 7) Planting a variety of native plant species; I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 41 8) Installing 3 inches of bark mulch in all bare soil areas, where appropriate; and 9) Installing critical area fencing and signs at buffer boundaries where required. 8.3.3 Wetland Restoration -- Wetland E (Port) Wetland restoration is proposed for 5,637 square feet of Wetland E (Port) to restore areas of temporary disturbance for grading around Watercourse N from the flood channel construction. A conceptual planting plan is provided in Appendix A. Proposed measures will occur after the flood channel has been installed, and include: 1) Complete Watercourse N and adjacent flood channel grading per civil plans; 2) Decompacting soils, as needed, after grading work is complete; 3) Adding soil amendments, as determined necessary; 4) Installing large woody debris for habitat; and 5) Planting a variety of native wet-adapted coniferous trees, shrubs, and emergent species. 8.3.4 Wetland and Watercourse Buffer Replacement Additional buffer was added initially as part of the Copper Gate Apartment project to accommodate buffer averaging for the roundabout at the I Street NE and 49th Street NE interchange. These buffer additions are reflected in this plan. Ultimately, the Watercourse K buffer at its widest was expanded from the standard 75-foot buffer to 102 feet. Additional buffer was added adjacent to the proposed development to the riparian complex that includes Wetland A (Auburn), Wetland A (Port), and Watercourses K and L. A total of 13,768 square feet of additional buffer was provided outside of the standard buffers for these critical areas, which is then proposed for restoration to remove the gravel and restore native vegetation. 8.3.5 Wetland and Watercourse Buffer Restoration and Enhancement Buffer restoration or enhancement of 110,686 square feet of combined buffer for Wetland A (Auburn), Wetland E (Port), Watercourse K, Watercourse L, and Watercourse N is proposed as part of this mitigation plan. Buffer restoration is proposed where existing gravel prevents vegetation from establishing or where proposed grading will remove any existing vegetation. Full removal of the gravel, where present, will be required and new soil imported to restore these areas with functional soil that will sustain native plants. Buffer enhancement is proposed where soil exists at the surface that can support native plants, but where invasive species are present that will require removal and/or subsequent supplemental plantings of native plant species are necessary to achieve typical plant densities expected in a critical area buffer. A planting plan is provided in Appendix A. Proposed buffer restoration measures include: 1) Clearing and grubbing all invasive, non-native weedy species in the wetland restoration areas (reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry); 2) Decompacting soils, scarify and amend with topsoil or compost; 3) Adding soil amendments, as determined necessary; 4) Installing habitat features, such as rootwads, down logs, or stumps with bird nesting and bat roosting boxes; and 5) Installing 3 inches of bark mulch in all bare soil areas; 6) Planting a variety of native deciduous and evergreen tree and shrub species; and I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 42 7) Installing critical area fencing and signs at buffer boundaries where required. 8.4 MITIGATION DESIGN ELEMENTS 8.4.1 Irrigation System A permanent landscape irrigation system is proposed for the Site that will also cover all proposed mitigation areas. The proposed irrigation system will be capable of full head to head coverage of all planted areas for the mitigation areas. The irrigation system will be installed based on the landscape plans submitted by Whipple Consulting Engineers, as detailed on the Irrigation Plan, Sheet L2.2 of the Site Plan, dated 6 November 2019, prepared and compiled by the Project Engineer, BCRA. 8.4.2 Planting Plan All plantings will only be native species typical for the region that have been site located based on that species’ tolerances for light, water, and soil type. A variety of tree, shrub, and herbaceous species were chosen with the intent to provide structural and species diversity within the mitigation areas. A detailed planting plan, notes, and specifications are provided on Sheets W3.0 – W4.0, Appendix A. It is expected that natural recruitment of species occurring in the area will also occur and contribute to the species diversity and cover in the mitigation area. Performance standard C3 limits the percent cover of recruited species for woody plant coverage. If a single native species becomes too prolific, its coverage may be reduced if required by the performance standards. 8.5 MITIGATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The primary goal of the mitigation is to compensate for permanent impacts to Watercourse K and restore the temporarily impacted streams, wetlands, and buffers. To accomplish these goals, the proposed project will: • Wetland Restoration 5,637 square feet • Buffer Restoration 124,453 square feet • Realigned Stream Channels 467 linear feet (WC-K) 446 linear feet (WC-N) Mitigation actions will be evaluated through the following objectives and performance standards. See Chapter 10 for a full description of the monitoring methods that will be used to evaluate the approved performance standards. Mitigation monitoring will be performed by a qualified biologist. Objective A: Create 467 linear feet of functioning stream channel for Watercourse K and 446 linear feet of functioning stream channel for Watercourse N. Performance Standard A1: Stream banks will be monitored annually for bed and bank stability to ensure no major erosion events have occurred beyond what would be considered normal for a stream of this size. Objective B: Following construction, the restored wetland (Wetland E (Port)) must exhibit wetland hydrology. Wetland conditions will be verified by the presence of hydrologic indicators. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 43 Performance Standard B1: After construction, the created wetland areas shall exhibit 14 or more consecutive days of ponding or a water table 12 inches or less below the soil surface during the growing season in each year of normal rainfall. Evidence of wetland hydrology may include evidence of saturated soil conditions (i.e., signs of ponding, a water table near the surface, water marks, water-stained leaves, or oxidized rhizospheres). In addition, a combination of native or naturalized woody and herbaceous vegetation that is predominantly FAC or wetter will cover the wetland areas. Hydrology shall be monitored, at a minimum, during years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10. Objective C: Create structural and plant species diversity in all of the mitigation areas. Performance Standard C1: Percent survival of all installed species must be at least 100% at the end of Year 1 (per contactor warranty), and at least 80% at the end of Years 2 and 3. Performance Standard C2: At least 8 species of desirable native plant species will be present in the wetland restoration, buffer restoration, and buffer enhancement areas. Species may be comprised of both planted and naturally colonized vegetation. Performance Standard C3: Native woody species (planted or volunteer) will achieve an average stem density of at least 3 stems per 100 square feet by the end of Year 1 and an average of at least 4 stems per 100 square feet by the end of Year 3. Total percent areal woody plant coverage must be at least 35% by the end of Year 4 and 50% by the end of Year 5. Woody plant coverage may be comprised of both planted and recolonized native species; however, at no time during the monitoring period shall a recolonized native species (e.g., red alder) comprise more than 35% of the total woody plant cover in this community. Objective D: Increase the overall habitat functions of the mitigation area by incorporating habitat features in the buffer restoration areas (e.g., swallow nest boxes, bat roosting boxes, rootwads, down logs, stumps, and boulder piles, as appropriate). Performance Standard D: After construction and for the entirety of the monitoring period, the mitigation areas will contain at least 20 habitat features, including down woody material (logs, rootwads, stumps, etc.) and swallow nest or bat boxes. Objective E: Remove and control invasive plants to less than 10% cover in mitigation areas. Performance Standard E1: After construction and throughout the 10-year Corps monitoring period, areal coverage by non-native invasive plant species shall be maintained at 10% or less throughout the mitigation site. These standards apply to ditch, riparian, and upland buffer areas combined. These species include, but are not limited to: Scot’s broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, and bittersweet nightshade. Performance Standard E2: Per Corps requirements, after construction and throughout the 10- year Corps monitoring period, non-native invasive knotweed species (such as Polygonum cuspidatum, P. polystachyum, P. sachalinense, and P. bohemicum) will be eradicated throughout the mitigation areas (including buffer areas) for a total cover of 0%. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 44 9 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING 9.1 MITIGATION CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING The following provides the general sequence of activities anticipated to construct this mitigation project. Some of these activities may be conducted concurrently as the project progresses. 1. Conduct a site meeting between the Contractor, Talasaea Consultants, and the Owner's Representative to review the project plans, staging/stockpile areas, and material disposal areas. 2. A pre-construction meeting with City staff will be required in advance of beginning any construction activities. 3. Survey clearing limits. 4. The project Biologist or Ecologist shall review clearing limits and shall flag trees and other existing vegetation to remain within the work area. They shall also flag any woody material to be saved and stockpiled for later use as habitat features (stumps, snags, down logs), as well as salvaged boulders. 5. Install silt fence and any other erosion and sedimentation control BMPs necessary for work in the project areas. 6. Watercourse K: a. Install fish exclusion devices in Watercourse K at either end of the in-stream work area, if needed, pending presence of water within Watercourse K (which may run dry in the summer months). b. Install dam at upstream end of Project Area. c. Install dam at downstream end of Project Area. d. Divert stream flows around the Project Area. e. Use seine nets or electro-fisher device to capture and remove fish from the Project Area, if water is present. f. Dewater Project Area. g. Survey earthwork areas and set grade stakes as required. h. Fill designated stream segments per civil plans. i. Excavate new stream channel per design specifications. j. Install new box culvert and tie adjacent grades to new culvert. k. Install coir fabric in new stream channel to cover disturbed soils. l. Place stream aggregate in new channel per WDFW guidance and specifications. m. Plant per the planting typicals/plans. n. Slowly reintroduce water into the new stream channel until water level within the new channel is roughly equal to the water levels immediately downstream of the Project Area. If no water in stream, then skip to next step. o. Remove the lower dam. p. Remove the upper dam. q. Remove the stream diversion system. r. Remove fish exclusion devices. 7. Watercourse N/Wetland E (Port): I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 45 a. Install fish exclusion devices in Watercourse N at either end of the in-stream work area, if needed, pending presence of water within watercourse. b. Install dam at upstream end of Project Area. c. Install dam at downstream end of Project Area. d. Divert stream flows around the Project Area. e. Use seine nets or electro-fisher device to capture and remove fish from the Project Area, if water is present. f. Dewater Project Area. g. Survey earthwork areas and set grade stakes as required. h. Excavate new stream channel per design specifications. i. Install coir fabric in new stream channel to cover disturbed soils. j. Place stream aggregate in new channel per WDFW guidance and specifications. k. Plant per the planting typicals/plans. l. Slowly reintroduce water into the new stream channel until water level within the new channel is roughly equal to the water levels immediately downstream of the Project Area. If no water in stream, then skip to next step. m. Remove the lower dam. n. Remove the upper dam. o. Remove the stream diversion system. p. Remove fish exclusion devices. q. Mulch all planted areas and provide a three-inch-deep mulch ring around all container- planted material outside of OHWM and wetlands. 8. Wetland and Watercourse Buffers: a. Clear and grub designated buffers to remove non-native, invasive species and gravel. b. Ensure a minimum of 12” of suitable soil is present within areas where gravel was removed. Import appropriate soil, as needed. c. Plant cleared and grubbed areas per the planting typicals/plans. d. Mulch all grubbed and cleared areas and provide a three-inch-deep mulch ring around all container-planted material outside of OHWM and wetlands. 9. Install irrigation system. Ensure that the system is capable of head-to-head coverage. See Civil Plans prepared by BCRA. 10. Install critical area fencing and signs where designated. 11. Complete site cleanup. 9.2 POST-CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL Once construction is approved, a qualified wetland ecologist shall conduct a post-construction assessment. The purpose of this assessment will be to establish baseline conditions at Year 0 of the required monitoring period. A Baseline Assessment report including “as-built” drawings will be submitted to all of the required agencies. The as-built plan set will identify and describe any changes in grading, planting, or other constructed features in relation to the original approved plan. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 46 9.3 POST-CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT The Permittee or representative shall notify the permitting agencies (City, USACE, WDFW) when the mitigation plan has been fully installed and is ready for a final site inspection and subsequent final approval. Once final approval is obtained in writing, and “as-built” plans are approved, the monitoring period will begin. 10 MONITORING PLAN Performance monitoring of the mitigation areas will be conducted according to all applicable code/regulatory requirements and permit conditions. Monitoring will be conducted according to ACC 16.10.130 for a minimum of five years for the City and ten years for the USACE. Monitoring will be conducted according to the schedule presented in Table 5 below, and will be performed by a qualified biologist or ecologist. The performance monitoring period will be complete when the mitigation site meets all performance standards, at which point one can conclude that the goals and objectives for the mitigation site have been met. Table 9. Projected Schedule for Performance Monitoring & Maintenance Events. Year Date Maintenance Review Performance Monitoring Report Due to Agencies Year 0 As-built and Baseline Assessment Fall X X X 1 Spring X X Fall X X X 2 Spring X X Fall X X X 3 Spring X Fall X X X 4 Spring X Fall X X X 5 Spring X Fall X X X* 6 Spring X Fall 7 Spring X Fall X X* 8 Spring X Fall 9 Spring X Fall 10 Spring X Fall X X X** *Final approvals from the City may be requested to facilitate release of any financial guarantees assuming performance criteria are met. **Final approval from the USACE may be requested assuming performance criteria are met. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 47 10.1 MONITORING REPORTS Each monitoring report will adhere to the requirements of ACC 16.10.130.C. The reports will include: 1) Project Overview, 2) Requirements, 3) Summary Data, 4) Maps and Plans, and 5) Conclusions. Monitoring reports will be submitted to the City of Auburn Planning Director by December 1st and by year end for the USACE during the years in which monitoring is conducted. 10.2 MONITORING METHODS The following monitoring methods will be used to evaluate the mitigation site for compliance with the approved performance standards. 10.2.1 Methods for Monitoring Vegetation Establishment Vegetation monitoring methods may include counts; photo-points; random sampling; sampling plots, quadrats, or transects; stem density; visual inspection; and/or other methods deemed appropriate by the permitting agencies. Vegetation monitoring components shall include general appearance, health, mortality, colonization rates, percent cover, percent survival, volunteer plant species, and invasive weed cover. Permanent vegetation sampling plots, quadrats, and/or transects will be established at selected locations to adequately sample and represent all of the plant communities within the mitigation project areas. The number, exact size, and location of transects, sampling plots, and quadrats will be determined at the time of the baseline assessment and shown on a map for use in the baseline assessment report, as well as future annual monitoring reports. Percent aerial cover of woody vegetation will be evaluated through the use of point-intercept sampling methodology. Using this methodology, a tape will be extended between two permanent markers at each end of an established transect. Trees and shrubs intercepted by the tape will be identified, and the intercept distance recorded. Percent cover by species will then be calculated by adding the intercept distances and expressing them as a total proportion of the tape length. The established vegetation sampling locations will be monitored and compared to the baseline data during each performance monitoring event to aid in determining the success of plant establishment. Percent survival of shrubs and trees will be evaluated in a 10-foot-wide strip along each established transect. The species and location of all shrubs and trees within this area will be recorded at the time of the baseline assessment and will be evaluated during each monitoring event to determine percent survival. 10.3 PHOTO DOCUMENTATION Permanent photo stations will be established at a minimum of four (4) locations within the mitigation site from which panoramic photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. Photo-point locations will be shown on a map and submitted with the baseline assessment report and yearly performance monitoring reports. These photographs will document general appearance and relative changes within the plant community. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi-quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 48 10.4 WILDLIFE Direct and indirect observations of wildlife usage will be recorded during scheduled monitoring events. Direct observations entail actual sightings of the animal, while indirect observations include noticing tracks, scat, nests, or other indications of a species using the area. 10.5 WATER QUALITY Water quality will be visually observed during scheduled monitoring events for a qualitative assessment that is only intended to notice obvious discrepancies from expected conditions. No water quality sampling is proposed in conjunction with this parameter. Qualitative water quality assessment parameters include oil sheens (or other surface films); abnormal color or odor of water; stressed or dead vegetation or aquatic fauna, if present; or obvious turbidity. 10.6 SITE STABILITY General observations of slope stability on the stream banks in the mitigation site will be made during each scheduled monitoring event. Any observations of unexpected erosion will be recorded and discussed with appropriate Team members or Agency staff to determine any necessary corrective measures. 11 MAINTENANCE PLAN AND CONTINGENCY MEASURES Regular maintenance reviews will be performed according to schedule presented in Table 9 as part of the performance monitoring program to address any conditions that could jeopardize the success of the mitigation project. Required maintenance on the site will be implemented within ten (10) business days of submission of a maintenance memo to the maintenance contractor and permittee. The established performance standards identified in Section 8.5 (above) will be compared to the yearly monitoring results to evaluate the success of the mitigation. Adjustments to the mitigation will be made as needed based on these regular evaluations to bring the mitigation back on track for success. The following list includes examples of maintenance (M) actions that may be implemented during the course of the monitoring period. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and other actions may be implemented as deemed necessary. • Replace all dead woody plant material during Year One (M). • Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants in a manner consistent with current Agency guidelines and recommendations. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful and would require prior agency approval. All non-native vegetation must be removed and disposed of off-site (M). • Weed all trees and shrubs to the dripline and provide 3-inch deep mulch rings 24 inches in diameter for shrubs and 36 inches in diameter for trees (M). • Remove trash and other debris from the mitigation areas twice a year (M). I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 49 • Selectively prune woody plants at the direction of Talasaea Consultants to meet the mitigation plan's goal and objectives (e.g., thinning and removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs) (M). • Repair or replace damaged structures including signs, or bat/bird boxes (M). If, during the course of the monitoring period, there appears to be a significant problem with achieving the performance standards, the permittee shall work with the City and other permitting agencies to develop a Contingency Plan in order to get the project back into compliance with the performance standards. Contingency plans can include, but are not limited to, the following actions: additional plant installation, erosion control, bank stabilization, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity, and/or location. If required, a Contingency Plan shall be submitted to the City by December 1st of any year when deficiencies are discovered. The following list includes examples of contingency (C) actions that may be implemented during the course of the monitoring period. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and other actions may be implemented as deemed necessary. • Replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute that meets mitigation plan goals and objectives, subject to Talasaea and agency approval (C). • Re-plant area after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C). • After consulting with City staff and other permitting agencies, minor excavations, if deemed to be more beneficial to the existing conditions than currently exists, will be made to correct surface drainage patterns (C). 12 LONG-TERM AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLANS Long-term maintenance of the Site will be handled in conjunction with the Site landscape management, as determined appropriate. It is anticipated that minimal hands-on maintenance will be required of these natural areas after the 10-year performance monitoring period. However, the mitigation areas will be evaluated periodically for unnatural or non-native disturbances, including, but not limited to, invasive species and human impacts, such as trash. The maintenance, contingency action, long term- and adaptive management plans are all intended to be adaptive in nature to respond to the changing conditions of the mitigation site. These elements are intended to be broad in nature and allow a wide variety of action depending on what is best for the mitigation site based on the issues at that time. Any action that requires more than minor modifications to the mitigation site would be discussed with appropriate Agency staff prior to action being taken. 13 FINANCIAL GUARANTEES Per ACC 16.10.130.C.7, the mitigation plan, separate from other aspects of the project on the Site, shall include financial guarantees, to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented. Per ACC 16.10.130.B, a performance and maintenance security (bond) shall be required “to ensure the applicat’s I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 50 compliance with the terms of the approved mitigation plan.” The security (bond) should be 125 percent of the estimated cost of the mitigation project for the length of the monitoring period, but this amount may be reduced over time as elements of the mitigation plan are completed, as approved by the City. Financial guarantees will also be posted for the USACE consistent with Section 33 CFR 332.3(n). 14 SUMMARY The I Street NE Extension Project proposes approximately 2,000 linear feet of new road that will connect the existing I Street NE from its intersection with 45th Street NE north to a new interchange with South 277th Street. This new road is proposed as an arterial roadway to help manage existing and anticipated traffic in this area. A roundabout was proposed for the new intersection of 49th Street NE and I Street NE that was included under the Copper Gate Apartments Project application with the City of Auburn. The Apartment project has been permitted separately from the I Street NE Extension project for the City of Auburn. No direct or indirect impacts to wetlands or streams are necessary for the Copper Gate Apartment project, though minor buffer modifications were necessary for Wetland C for the Apartment Project consistent with the City of Auburn regulations. Work for both Copper Gate Apartments and associated road improvements, including I Street NE, will require fill within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. The I Street NE Extension proposes to relocate Watercourse K as required by the City of Auburn within the previously designated ROW. The relocation will involve daylighting the existing 221 linear feet of piped segment of stream, removing one (1) culvert, and upgrading another culvert at 45th Street NE with a 3-foot x 12-foot box culvert where a Port of Seattle access road to their property east of the Site is located. Temporary critical area impacts are anticipated as follows: • 63 linear feet of WC-K will be temporarily impacted for grading to tie the new channel to the existing channel; • 5,627 square feet of Wetland E (Port) for construction of the flood conveyance channel; and • 105,877 square feet of wetland and watercourse buffer for gravel removal, soil restoration and supplemental plantings; Compensation for floodplain fill will be provided by expanding Watercourse N into a 16-foot wide flood channel with a low flow channel retained in order to provide surface water connection from the Apartment Site and new roads to a large mitigation site to the east that has floodplain credits through the City. Compensation for critical area impacts will be provided as follows: • 467 linear feet of new channel for WC-K; and • Restoration of all temporary impacts (130,090 square feet). In addition to the mitigation plan outlined above, an additional 109,824 square feet of landscaping will be installed adjacent to the mitigation areas that will also restore the soils in these areas and only use native plant species. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Page | 51 Performance monitoring of all mitigation plan elements will continue for a minimum of 5 years for the City, and 10 years for the USACE. 15 REFERENCES 1. Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 15.68 Flood Hazard Areas and Chapter 16.10 Critical Areas (accessed 12 June 2020) 2. Compensatory Storage Design Memo, BCRA, October 2019 3. Comprehensive Transportation Plan, City of Auburn, Ordinance No. 6584, 14 December 2015. 4. Copper Gate Apartments Site Plan, BCRA, 6 November 2019 5. Existing Conditions Report for Copper Gate Apartments and I Street NE Extension, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, dated 6 November 2019 6. Existing Hydrology Memo, Auburn Gateway – S. 277th St. Widening, BCRA, October 2014 7. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, July 2004 8. Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Critical Areas Report for Copper Gate Apartments, revision date 5 November 2019, prepared by Talasaea Consultants (Mitigation Plan sheets were revised on 22 May 2020) 9. Geotechnical Engineer Study – Proposed Commercial Development Copper at Auburn, Earth Solutions NW LLC, 7 May 2019; 10. King County. 2019. Juvenile Chinook Use of Non-natal Tributaries in the Lower Green River. Prepared by Chris Gregersen, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington. https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/science/seminar-2018/S1-3-juvenile- chinook-green-river-gregersen.pdf 11. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Addendum, ESA, June 2019 12. Port of Seattle Auburn Mitigation Site Perimeter Fence Extension, Critical Areas and Habitat 13. Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin (FEMA Region X, 2013) 14. Stormwater Site Plan, 2nd Submittal, BCRA, September 2019 15. South 277th Street Corridor Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site, Wetland and Delineation Report, The Watershed Company, 31 May 2018 (Appendix C of Existing Conditions Report, 6 November 2019, Talasaea Consultants); 16. Wetland Assessment of the RPG-Valley 6 Theater Site, J.S. Jones & Associates, Inc., 12 September 2008; 17. Wetlands and Streams Discipline Report, South 277th Street Corridor Capacity and Non- Motorized Trail Improvements, Parametrix, Inc., May 2015; I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Appendix A Appendix A Detailed Mitigation Plans for I Street NE (large format) Sheet W1.0: Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.1: Proposed Impacts & Mitigation Overview Plan Sheet W2.0: Grading Plan Sheet W2.1: Grading Specifications Sheet W3.0: Planting Plan Sheet W3.1: Planting Plan Sheet W3.2: Planting Plan Sheet W3.3: Planting Plan, Plant Schedule, Notes & Details Sheet W4.0: Planting Specifications PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROJECT LIMITS EXISTING WETLAND (BOUNDARY DELINEATED) APPROXIMATE WETLAND BOUNDARY (NOT DELINEATED) STREAM CENTERLINE (WHITE) EXISTING CRITICAL AREAS BUFFER DITCH CENTERLINE EXISTING TREES (SURVEY BY OTHERS)\A1;{\H80x;200' RHZ}\A1;{\H80x;200' RHZ} \A1;{\H80x;48.75'} \A1;{\H80x;200' RHZ}S 277TH ST49TH ST NE45TH ST NENORTHVICINITY MAP NTS CONTACTS {\LAPPLICANT/OWNER} NAME:INLAND GROUP ADDRESS:120 W CATALDO AVENUE, SUITE 100 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201 PHONE:(509) 891-5162 CONTACT:BRENT PARRISH EMAIL:BRENTP@INLANDCONSTRUCTION.COM {\LENGINEER} NAME:BCRA ENGINEERS ADDRESS:{\C256;2106 PACIFIC AVE. SUITE 300 TACOMA, WA } PHONE:{\C256;(253) 627-4367} CONTACT:BEN DORT, ASSOCIATE PRINCIPAL EMAIL:BDORT@BCRADESIGN.COM {\LENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT} NAME:WET.LAND PHONE:(813) 846-1684 CONTACT:JENNIFER MARRIOTT, PWS EMAIL:JEN@WET.LAND SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE W1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN W1.1 PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION OVERVIEW PLAN W2.0 GRADING PLAN W2.1 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS W3.0 PLANTING PLAN W3.1 PLANTING PLAN W3.2 PLANTING PLAN W3.3 PLANTING PLAN, PLANT SCHEDULE, NOTES & DETAILS W4.0 PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS; WWW.MAPS.GOOGLE.COM (ACCESSED 9-19-2019) 0 ( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH SCALE: 40 80 160 1"=80'HIGHWAY 167S 277TH ST GREEN RIVERVEGETATION SUMMARY {\L\C7;PROJECT AREA }{\C2;IN FLOODPLAIN} FEMA FLOODPLAIN NATIVE VEGETATION 17,390 SF NON-NATIVE INVASIVE VEGETATION 6,060 SF (474,975 SF) NOTE: FLOODPLAIN VEGETATION SQUARE FOOTAGES FROM WITHINPROJECT LIMITS ONLY. VEGETATION SUMMARY WAS CALCULATED ONLY FOR AREAS WITHINTHE FLOODPLAIN AND THE PROJECT LIMITS. THESE VALUES DID NOTTALLY VEGETATED AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE PROJECT LIMITS NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (I St).dwg6/17/2020 11:39 AMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.ΒΘΗΣΗΒ≅Κ ≅Θ∆≅ ΛΗΣΗΦ≅ΣΗΝΜ ΟΚ≅ΜΡΗ ΡΣΘ∆∆Σ ≅Σ ΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W1.0 6/17/2020 ς0−/ 1.. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702 N.PERRY STREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106PACIFIC ACE SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY ESMCONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE CRITICALAREAS MITIGATION PLAN CONTAINED WITHIN THECRITICAL AREAS AND FLOODPLAIN HABITAT IMPACTASSESSMENT REPORT PREPARED BY WET.LAND, LLC. NOTES APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS.Know what's below. before you dig.Call R PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROJECT LIMITS EXISTING WETLAND (BOUNDARY DELINEATED) APPROXIMATE WETLAND BOUNDARY (NOT DELINEATED) STREAM CENTERLINE (WHITE) EXISTING CRITICAL AREAS BUFFER DITCH CENTERLINE EXISTING TREES (SURVEY BY OTHERS) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X{PROPOSED DAYLIGHTEDWATERCOURSE K(SEE SHEET W2.0)} PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PSPS PS PS PS PSPSPS PS PS PS PS PS PS PSPS CXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD D D D D D D D I STREET NES 277TH ST45TH ST NEG STREET NE \A1;{\H80x;48.75'}\A1;{\H80x;50.5'}\A1;{\H80x;102.73'} CRITICAL AREA MITIGATION {\LWETLAND & STREAM BUFFER} ENHANCED WETLAND & STREAM BUFFER 4,924 SF RESTORED GRADED BUFFER 42,625 SF RESTORED GRAVEL BUFFER 63,252 SF TOTAL RESTORED BUFFERS ΡΕ BUFFER CREATION 11,395 SF {\LWETLAND} RESTORED WETLAND 5,637 SF 130,090 SF CRITICAL AREA SIGN (APPROXIMATE LOCATION; TO BE VERIFIED ON SITE) POST CONSTRUCTION BUFFER/ CRITICAL AREA FENCE MITIGATION LEGEND {\C7;PRESERVED STREAM CHANNEL} EXISTING OPEN CHANNEL TO BE PRESERVED RELOCATED STREAM CHANNEL {\C2;NEW OPEN CHANNEL}{\C2;467 LF} IMPACTS LEGEND LENTH OF FLOW SQUARE FEET CUBIC YARDS {\C2;FILLED OPEN STREAM CHANNEL}438 LF 7,544 SF 722 CY CULVERT TO BE REMOVED 157 LF TEMPORARY STREAM GRADING IMPACTS 63 1,429 TEMPORARY WETLAND GRADING IMPACTS 5,637 TEMPORARY BUFFER GRADING IMPACTS 105,877 PERMANENT BUFFER IMPACTS 8497 OVERALL CUT MATERIAL VOLUME FOR TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACTS TO WATERCOURSE N 683 PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION OVERVIEW PLAN 0 ( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH SCALE: 15'30'60' 1"=30' NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (I St).dwg6/17/2020 11:39 AMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.ΒΘΗΣΗΒ≅Κ ≅Θ∆≅ ΛΗΣΗΦ≅ΣΗΝΜ ΟΚ≅ΜΡΗ ΡΣΘ∆∆Σ ≅Σ ΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION OVERVIEW PLANWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W1.1 6/17/2020 ς0−0APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS. Know what's below. before you dig.Call R 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA &ASSOCIATES, 2702 N. PERRY STREET,SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRAENGINEERS, 2106 PACIFIC ACE SUITE 300,TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY ESMCONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR VISUALENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THECRITICAL AREAS MITIGATION PLANCONTAINED WITHIN THE CRITICAL AREAS ANDFLOODPLAIN HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENTREPORT PREPARED BY WET.LAND, LLC. NOTESIMPACTS & MITIGATION PLAN FROM COPPER GATE APARTMENTS \pxql,t5;AREA TO BE PLANTED AS PART OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR I STREET NE \pxql,t5;BUFFER IMPACT FROM COPPER GATE APARTMENT PLAN 109,824 13,767 110,686 38,771 66,991 GRADING LEGEND PROPOSED 1-FT CONTOUR SANDBAG DAM FOR TEMPORARY STREAM FLOW BY PASS DOWN LOGS / ROOTWAD STUMP STREAMBED AGGREGATES CRITICAL AREA 2-BOARD FENCE 100 PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROJECT LIMITS EXISTING STREAM CENTERLINE EXISTING DITCH CENTERLINE NEW STREAM CHANNEL EXISTING 1-FT CONTOUR 45TH ST NEXXXXXXXD PPPPPPPPPPPI STREET NE DDD D D D D T W W W GG J * PP E W CXXXXXXXXXXTC J J J J J J GRADING PLAN - VIEWPORT 1 GRADING PLAN KEY SCALE: 1" = 350' 0 ( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH SCALE: 15 30 60 1"=30'S 277TH STGRADING PLAN - VIEWPORT 2 SCALE: 1"=30' NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (I St).dwg6/17/2020 11:40 AMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.ΒΘΗΣΗΒ≅Κ ≅Θ∆≅ ΛΗΣΗΦ≅ΣΗΝΜ ΟΚ≅ΜΡΗ ΡΣΘ∆∆Σ ≅Σ ΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆GRADING PLANWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W2.0 6/17/2020 ς1−/APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS.Know what's below. before you dig.Call R 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702 N.PERRY STREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106PACIFIC ACE SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY ESMCONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE CRITICALAREAS MITIGATION PLAN CONTAINED WITHIN THECRITICAL AREAS AND FLOODPLAIN HABITAT IMPACTASSESSMENT REPORT PREPARED BY WET.LAND, LLC. NOTES EXISTING CHANNEL BED SECTION NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE BYPASS ROUTE TO GUARANTEE POSITIVE GRAVITY FLOW AROUND CONSTRUCTION AREA {TEMPORARY BYPASS INSTALLATION GUIDELINES: 1. ALL WORK WITHIN THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE (OHWL) OF THE STREAM SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL (HPA).2. FOR WORK LOCATED WITHIN THE OHWL OF THE STREAM CHANNEL, THE WORK AREA SHALL BEISOLATED FROM THE WETTED PERIMETER BY A TEMPORARY BYPASS TO DIVERT FLOWS AROUND THE WORKAREA AND TO PREVENT SEDIMENTS FROM ENTERING THE STREAM.3. THE TEMPORARY BYPASS SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO INITIATION OF WORK WITHIN THE OHWL OFTHE STREAM.4. A SANDBAG DAM SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE BYPASS INLET. THE DAM SHALL BE LOCATED AMINIMUM OF 20 FEET UPSTREAM OF WORK AREA.5. ONCE THE BYPASS IS IN PLACE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A SUMP PUMP TO DIVERT THEENTIRE FLOW THROUGH THE BYPASS, AROUND THE WORK AREA, FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION.6. THE UPSTREAM BYPASS SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PASS ALL FLOWS AND DEBRIS FOR THEDURATION OF EXCAVATION IN THE STREAM CHANNEL.7. A SECOND SANDBAG DAM SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE BYPASS TOPREVENT BACKWATER FROM ENTERING THE WORK AREA.8. PRIOR TO RELEASING THE STREAM FLOW THROUGH THE COMPLETED PROJECT AREA, THE BANKSAND STREAMBED SHALL BE STABILIZED, (I.E. STREAM BANKS PLANTED AND ROCK MIX PLACED INREGRADED CHANNEL). WDFW AREA HABITAT BIOLOGIST AND PROJECT BIOLOGIST MUST APPROVE ALL WORKSWITHIN THE STREAM CORRIDOR PRIOR TO REMOVING TEMPORARY BYPASS.9. IF THERE IS A DELAY IN COMPLETING WORK IN MITIGATION AREA, INCLUDING PLANTING WORK INBUFFER AREAS BEYOND THE HPA WORK WINDOW, BUFFERS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM EROSIONUNTIL THE NEXT HPA WORK WINDOW OPENS PRIOR TO REMOVING THE TEMPORARY BYPASS. THE TEMPORARYBYPASS MAY ONLY BE REMOVED DURING THE HPA WORK WINDOW.10. UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, ALL MATERIAL USED IN THE TEMPORARY BYPASS SHALL BEREMOVED Σ∆ΛΟΝΘ≅ΘΞ ΑΞΟ≅ΡΡ , Ρ≅ΜΧΑ≅Φ Χ≅Λ Χ∆Σ≅ΗΚ NOT TO SCALE CEDAR OR FIR LOG,15" DIA. MIN.NOTCH 1" DUCKBILL ANCHOR NOTES:1. LOG TO BE 15" DIA. MIN., CONIFER (CEDAR OR FIR SPECIES), 20' LENGTH MIN.2. PLACEMENT OF HABITAT LOG TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY PROJECTBIOLOGIST3. ANCHOR LOG WITH DUCKBILL ANCHOR4. DRIVE DUCKBILL ANCHOR A MINIMUM OF 4' IN THE GROUND WITH A HAMMERAND DRIVE STEEL. ONCE THE ANCHOR IS AT THE PROPER DEPTH, REMOVE THEDRIVE STEEL.5. WRAP THE STEEL CABLE AROUND THE DRIVE STEEL AND PULL UPWARD ADISTANCE SLIGHTLY LONGER THAN THE LENGTH OF THE ANCHOR BODY.6.THIS WILL ROTATE THE ANCHOR INTO A PERPENDICULAR POSITION.7. NOTCH THE BARK OF THE LOG A MINIMUM OF 1" AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCEOF THE LOG SHOWN.8.WRAP THE STEEL CABLE OF THE DUCKBILL ANCHOR INTO THE NOTCH IN SUCH AWAY THAT THE CABLE IS HIDDEN. ΚΝΦ ≅ΜΒΓΝΘΗΜΦ Χ∆Σ≅ΗΚ NOT TO SCALE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS PART 1: GENERAL1.1 SEQUENCINGA. {GENERAL CONSTRUCTION:}1. CONTRACTOR SHALL GIVE THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST A MINIMUM OF TEN (10) DAYS NOTICE PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.2. NO CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL COMMENCE UNTIL THERE IS A MEETING BETWEEN THE CLIENT, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST, GENERAL, CLEARING, AND/OR EARTHWORK CONTRACTORS, AND THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE REVIEWED TO ENSURE THAT ALL PARTIES INVOLVED UNDERSTAND THE INTENT AND THE SPECIFICDETAILS RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, SPECIFICATIONS AND SITE CONSTRAINTS.3. LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY FIELD SURVEY OR OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO: (1) INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF UTILITY LOCATIONS AND (2) DISCOVER AND AVOID ANY UTILITIES WITHIN THEMITIGATION PLAN AREA(S) THAT ARE NOT SHOWN, BUT WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN. SUCH AREA(S) ARE TO BE CLEARLY MARKED IN THE FIELD. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL REVIEW ANY CONFLICTS WITH THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION.4. A COPY OF THE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS, AND SHALL REMAIN ON SITE UNTIL PROJECT COMPLETION.5. CONSTRUCTION MUST BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL AGENCY STANDARDS, RULES, CODES, PERMIT CONDITIONS, AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE ORDINANCES AND POLICIES.6. WORK BELOW THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE SHALL OCCUR WITHIN THE AUTHORIZED WINDOW OF THE HPA AND OTHER PERMITS.7. THE PROJECT OWNER/APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY OTHER RELATED OR REQUIRED PERMITS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.8. A QUALIFIED WETLAND CONSULTANT SHALL BE ON SITE, AS NECESSARY, TO MONITOR CONSTRUCTION AND APPROVE MINOR REVISIONS TO THE PLAN.9. TOPOGRAPHIC ELEVATIONS REPRESENTED ON MITIGATION PLANS ARE BASED UPON TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS SUPPLIED BY THE SURVEYOR. FINAL ELEVATIONS MAY VARY DEPENDING ON SITE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PRE-CONSTRUCTION TOPOGRAPHIC ELEVATIONS FOR ACCURACY PRIOR TO GRADING. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THEPROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST IMMEDIATELY IF ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANS MAY BE NECESSARY DUE TO INACCURACIES OF THE ORIGINAL SURVEY.10. DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR MUST USE MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS THAT PREVENT TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND OTHER POLLUTANTS FROM ENTERING MITIGATION AREAS OR OTHER NATURAL WATERS OF THE STATE.11. PREVENTATIVE MEASURES SHALL BE USED TO PROTECT EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, EXISTING UTILITIES, AND ROADS.12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROLS AROUND THE PROJECT AREA PRIOR TO SOIL DISTURBANCE FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.B. {MITIGATION CONSTRUCTION:} THE FOLLOWING PROVIDES THE GENERAL SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES ANTICIPATED TO BE NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THIS MITIGATION PROJECT. SOME OF THESE ACTIVITIES MAY BE CONDUCTED CONCURRENTLY AS THE PROJECT PROGRESSES.1. CONDUCT A SITE MEETING BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST, AND THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO REVIEW THE PROJECT PLANS, WORK AREAS, STAGING/STOCKPILE AREAS, MATERIAL DISPOSAL AREAS, AND EXISTING VEGETATION TO BE RETAINED.2. SURVEY CLEARING/GRADING LIMITS.3. PROJECT BIOLOGIST AND/OR ECOLOGIST SHALL REVIEW CLEARING LIMITS AND SHALL FLAG TREES AND OTHER EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN WITHIN THE WORK AREA. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL ALSO FLAG ANY WOODY MATERIAL TO BE SAVED AND STOCKPILED FOR LATER USE AS HABITAT FEATURES (STUMPS, SNAGS, DOWN LOGS, & BOULDERS)4. INSTALL SILT FENCE AND ANY OTHER EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL BMPS NECESSARY FOR WORK IN THE PROJECT AREAS.5. WITHIN HPA WINDOWS PER CITY OF AUBURN AND KING COUNTY, INSTALL TEMPORARY STREAM BYPASS AND SANDBAG DAMS.6. INSTALL TREE PROTECTION FENCING AROUND EXISTING TREES AND VEGETATION TO REMAIN (SEE CIVIL PLANS).7. CLEAR AND GRUB GRADING AREAS.8. GRUB OUT ALL INVASIVE SPECIES FROM BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREAS SHOWN ON PLANS.9. SURVEY EARTHWORK AREAS AND SET GRADE STAKES AS REQUIRED.10. COMPLETE EXCAVATION OF MITIGATION AREAS TO SUBGRADE PER GRADING PLAN.11. INSTALL FISH MIX.12. DECOMPACT SUBGRADE AS NECESSARY AND PLACE TOPSOIL.{13. PLACE WOODY DEBRIS (LONG & SHORT DOWN LOGS, ROOTWADS, STUMPS).14. MULCH ALL CLEARED/GRADED BUFFER AREAS.15. COMPLETE SITE CLEANUP AND INSTALL PLANT MATERIAL AS INDICATED ON THE MITIGATION PLAN.16. INSTALL TEMPORARY IRRIGATION.17. INSTALL CRITICAL AREA FENCE & SIGNS.}1.2 PROJECT CONDITIONSA. {PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF OFF-SITE AREAS:} CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITIES DO NOT DAMAGE OFF-SITE FEATURES OR ADJACENT VEGETATION. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY IF ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE OCCURS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT ADJACENT ROADS ARE MAINTAINED AND KEPT CLEAROF SOIL AND/OR OTHER DEBRIS AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE GOVERNING JURISDICTION'S CODES REGARDING STREET MAINTENANCE/CLEANING DURING CONSTRUCTION.B. {PLAN CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS:} ANY CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE MITIGATION PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS MUST RECEIVE PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST, AND APPLICABLE AGENCIES.1.3 WARRANTYA. {WARRANTY TERMS AND CONDITIONS:} A CONTRACTOR-PROVIDED WARRANTY SHALL EXTEND FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PHYSICAL COMPLETION. PHYSICAL COMPLETION FOR THE WORK OF THIS SECTION IS THE DATE WHEN ALL GRADING, PLANTING, IRRIGATION, AND RELATED PHASES OF SUCH WORK HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND ARE ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER'SREPRESENTATIVE, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST, AND APPLICABLE AGENCIES. CONTRACTOR'S WARRANTY SHALL INCLUDE GRADING CORRECTIONS. PART 2: PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS2.1 HABITAT FEATURESA. {DOWN LOGS:} DOWN LOGS SHALL BE CEDAR OR FIR SPECIES, HAVE A 12 FOOT MINIMUM LENGTH, WITH OR WITHOUT ROOTS, AND A MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 15 INCHES. BARK SHALL BE KEPT INTACT. ENDS THAT HAVE BEEN CUT SHALL BE DISTRESSED AND NOT BLUNT.B. {ROOTWADS:} ROOTWADS SHALL HAVE TEN FEET OF TRUNK WITH ROOTS.C. {STUMPS}: STUMPS SHALL BE EITHER PART-DECAYED, RELOCATED STUMPS, OR CUT LIVE ROOTWADS WITH A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET OF TRUNK 15 INCHES IN DIAMETER MINIMUM. ENDS THAT HAVE BEEN CUT SHALL BE DISTRESSED AND NOT BLUNT.D. {BOULDERS:}1. USE BOULDERS UNCOVERED FROM ON-SITE GRADING OPERATIONS, IF AVAILABLE.2. ONE OR TWO-PERSON MINIMUM SIZE WITH TWELVE INCHES MINIMUM DIAMETER.2.2 IN-STREAM STRUCTURESA. {FISH MIX / STREAMBED AGGREGATE:} FISH MIX SHALL BE STREAMBED "STREAMBED SEDIMENT" PER WSS 903.11(1)PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL APPROVE ROCK MIX PLACEMENT.AGGREGATES AVAILABLE FROM THE FOLLOWING SUPPLIERS:CADMAN {1-425-867-1234}WASHINGTON ROCK QUARRIES, INC. {1-253-252-5612 } 2.3 TEMPORARY BYPASS AND SANDBAG DAMA. {TEMPORARY BYPASS:} THE TEMPORARY BYPASS SHALL BE A FLEXIBLE PIPE COMPOSED OF PVC OR ADS N 12. THE PIPE SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PASS ALL FLOWS AND DEBRIS, THIS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR. TEMPORARY BYPASS SHALL BE IN PLACE UNTIL ALL WORK IN THE MITIGATION AREAS, INCLUDING IRRIGATION, PLANTING, AND MULCHING ARE COMPLETE.2.4 TOPSOILA. {TOPSOIL:} TOPSOIL THAT HAS BEEN STOCKPILED ON-SITE FOR REUSE IN PROJECT AREA(S) OR IMPORTED FROM OFF-SITE SOURCES SHALL BE FERTILE, FRIABLE, SANDY LOAM SURFACE SOIL, FREE OF SUBSOIL, CLAY LUMPS, BRUSH, WEEDS, ROOTS, STUMPS, STONES LARGER THAN 1 INCH IN ANY DIMENSION, LITTER, OR ANY OTHER EXTRANEOUS OR TOXIC MATTER HARMFUL TO PLANT GROWTH.B. {ORGANIC CONTENT:} IMPORTED TOPSOIL SHALL CONSIST OF ORGANIC MATERIALS AMENDED AS NECESSARY TO PRODUCE A BULK ORGANIC CONTENT OF AT LEAST 10 PERCENT AND NOT GREATER THAN 20 PERCENT, AS DETERMINED BY AASHTO-T-194.2.5 MULCHA. BARK OR WOODCHIP MULCH SHALL BE DERIVED FROM DOUGLAS FIR, PINE, OR HEMLOCK SPECIES. THE MULCH SHALL NOT CONTAIN RESIN, TANNIN, OR OTHER COMPOUNDS IN QUANTITIES THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO ANIMAL, PLANT LIFE, OR WATER QUALITY. SAWDUST SHALL NOT BE USED AS MULCH.B. MULCH SHALL BE MEDIUM-COARSE GROUND WITH AN APPROXIMATELY 3-INCH MINUS PARTICLE SIZE. FINE PARTICLES SHALL BE MINIMIZED SO THAT NOT MORE THAN 30%, BY LOOSE VOLUME, WILL PASS THROUGH A US NO. 4 SIEVE. PART 3: EXECUTIONA. {SURVEY/STAKE/FLAG LIMITS OF CLEARING:}1. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION, A LICENSED SURVEYOR SHALL SURVEY, STAKE, AND FLAG CLEARING LIMITS. CLEARING LIMITS ARE DEPICTED ON THE MITIGATION PLANS. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL REVIEW AND APPROVE FLAGGING OF CLEARING LIMITS PRIOR TO ANY VEGETATION REMOVAL. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ACTUAL LOCATIONS OFVEGETATION TO BE SAVED AND REQUEST THAT THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST MODIFY THE GRADING PLAN AS NECESSARY TO AVOID ALL SIGNIFICANT NATIVE VEGETATION.B. {FLAG AND PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN:}1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AVOIDING DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING VEGETATION LOCATED OUTSIDE THE CLEARING LIMITS. NO REMOVAL OF ANY VEGETATION SHALL OCCUR WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST.2. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL FLAG EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA(S). PRIOR TO GRADING, CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ORANGE BARRIER FENCING 2 FEET BEYOND THE DRIPLINE OF FLAGGED EXISTING VEGETATION. FLAGGED VEGETATION SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED, UNLESS APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST ORECOLOGIST. FENCING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF EARTHWORK.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE TO PREVENT INJURY TO THE TRUNK, ROOTS, AND BRANCHES OF TREES AND SHRUBS TO REMAIN. ANY WOODY PLANT TO REMAIN THAT IS DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE TREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER DAMAGE OCCURS, AND THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF INCIDENT. DAMAGE TREATMENT SHALL INCLUDEEVENLY CUTTING BROKEN BRANCHES, BROKEN ROOTS, AND DAMAGED TREE BARK. INJURED PLANTS SHALL BE THOROUGHLY WATERED AND ADDITIONAL MEASURES SHALL BE TAKEN, AS APPROPRIATE, TO AID IN PLANT SURVIVAL.C. {FLAG VEGETATION & WOODY MATERIAL FOR FUTURE USE AS HABITAT FEATURES:}1. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL FLAG EXISTING VEGETATION AND WOODY MATERIAL (ROOTWADS, STUMPS, DOWN LOGS, AND BOULDERS), IF AVAILABLE, TO BE RELOCATED BY THE CONTRACTOR FROM WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT FOR USE AS HABITAT FEATURES IN THE MITIGATION AREA(S). WHENEVER POSSIBLE, HABITAT FEATURES SHALL BE MOVED DIRECTLY TOPERMANENT LOCATIONS. IF NECESSARY, HABITAT FEATURES SHALL BE PLACED IN STOCKPILE AREAS AS NEAR TO PERMANENT LOCATIONS AS POSSIBLE. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL DESIGNATE STOCKPILE AREAS.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE WHEN MOVING HABITAT FEATURES TO AVOID BREAKING BRANCHES, SCUFFING BARK, OR BREAKING ROOTS. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO BREAK PIECES INTO USABLE SIZES.3. IF HABITAT FEATURES ARE NOT AVAILABLE FROM ANY PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT, THEN FEATURES SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR.D. {PLACE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES:}1. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SILT FENCING DOWNSLOPE OF THE CLEARING LIMITS DEPICTED ON THE MITIGATION GRADING PLANS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES UNTIL COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL VERIFY AND APPROVE LOCATIONS OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURESPRIOR TO SITE GRADING.2. SITE AREAS EXPOSED DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION MUST BE COVERED WITH STRAW (MAXIMUM DEPTH 3 INCHES), EROSION CONTROL NETTING, PLASTIC SHEETING, OR PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL WITHIN 48 HOURS OF DISTURBANCE, OR AS REQUIRED FOR NPDES OR LOCAL JURISDICTION COMPLIANCE.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. THESE MEASURES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST FOR REMOVAL OR LOCATION ADJUSTMENT. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREASWHEN AUTHORIZED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST.4. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND SEASONAL CONDITIONS DICTATE, EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND/OR ALTERED AS REQUIRED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST TO ENSURE CONTINUED EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL.5. WHERE POSSIBLE, NATURAL GROUND COVER VEGETATION SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR SILT CONTROL.E. {INSTALL TEMPORARY BYPASS AND SANDBAG DAM:} SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY DURING THE HPA WINDOW (CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH CITY OF REDMOND){}1. PRIOR TO ANY EARTHWORK ACTIVITY FOR THE NEW STREAM CHANNEL, A TEMPORARY STREAM BYPASS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO CONNECT BETWEEN THE SANDBAG DAM LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. CONTRACTOR MAY CONSTRUCT THE BYPASS ANYWHERE BETWEEN THE TWO LOCATIONS WHERE THE BYPASS WILL BE MINIMALLY DISTURBED. PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGISTSHALL VERIFY POINTS OF BYPASS LOCATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. FOR ALL AREAS CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE CARE TO MAXIMIZE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING THE STREAM CHANNEL.F. {CLEAR AND GRUB SITE:}1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR AND GRUB AREAS WITHIN THE CLEARING LIMITS SHOWN ON THE MITIGATION PLANS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FLAGGED EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN. IN AREAS OF EXISTING VEGETATION, CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE BLACKBERRY AND OTHER INVASIVE SPECIES BY HAND, WITH MINIMAL DISTURBANCE TO THE EXISTING VEGETATION. ALL ROOTS SHALL BEREMOVED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE. CLEARED AND GRUBBED VEGETATION SHALL BE EXPORTED FROM THE SITE. INVASIVE/EXOTIC PLANT SPECIES TO BE REMOVED AND TREATED IN THE MITIGATION AREA(S) INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: SCOT'S BROOM, ENGLISH IVY, HIMALAYAN AND EVERGREEN BLACKBERRY, REED CANARYGRASS, PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE, HEDGE BINDWEED(MORNING GLORY), JAPANESE KNOTWEED, THISTLE, AND CREEPING NIGHTSHADE. FOR REED CANARYGRASS, ROOTS SHALL BE REMOVED DOWN TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES.2. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL DESIGNATE ANY ADDITIONAL PLANT SPECIES TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.G. {SURVEY/STAKE/FLAG PROPOSED GRADES:} A LICENSED SURVEYOR SHALL SURVEY, STAKE, AND FLAG PROPOSED GRADES WITHIN THE MITIGATION AREA(S). GRADES SHALL BE STAKED AND FLAGGED AT 25' INTERVALS AND AT ALL HIGH AND LOW POINTS. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL APPROVE GRADE STAKING PRIOR TO EXCAVATION AND SHALL MONITOR DURINGCONSTRUCTION.H. {STOCKPILE TOPSOIL:}1. CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL AT APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS ADJACENT TO MITIGATION AREAS.2. IF TOPSOIL CONTAINS DEBRIS, OR IS DETERMINED UNSUITABLE BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST, CONTRACTOR SHALL DISPOSE OF MATERIAL OFF SITE AND IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIAL.I. {EXCAVATE MITIGATION AREAS:}1. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE GRADED AREAS PER GRADING PLAN WITHOUT REMOVING GRADE STAKES. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST TO MAKE MINOR FIELD ADJUSTMENTS TO GRADING PLAN, AS NECESSARY, TO ENSURE PROPER FUNCTION OF THE MITIGATION AREA(S).2. IN THE MITIGATION AREA(S), OVER-EXCAVATE 9 INCHES BELOW FINISHED GRADES SHOWN ON PLANS TO ALLOW FOR PLACEMENT OF 9 INCHES OF STOCKPILED OR IMPORTED TOPSOIL. EXCAVATED SOILS SHALL BE USED ON-SITE, IF POSSIBLE, OTHERWISE THEY SHALL BE EXPORTED OFF-SITE.3. FILL SOILS PROPOSED FOR USE WITHIN THE MITIGATION AREA(S) SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO USE, AND SHALL MEET ALL APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS FOR FILL SOILS PER THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. IN AREAS OF FILL PLACEMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPACT SOIL IN LIFTS ACCORDING TO GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL APPROVE ALL AREAS OF FILL PLACEMENT TO ENSURE ADEQUACY OF COMPACTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE NOTIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AS TO WHO THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER WILL BE.4. UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL REVIEW AND APPROVE SUBGRADE IN RELATION TO ORIGINAL GRADE STAKES. IF GRADE STAKES ARE REMOVED PRIOR TO APPROVAL BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST, AN AS-BUILT SURVEY WILL BE REQUIRED. THE AS-BUILT SURVEY, BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR, WILL INCLUDE ONE-FOOT CONTOURINTERVALS WITH SPOT ELEVATIONS OF HIGH AND LOW POINTS, POND SURFACE ELEVATIONS, AND THE CREATED WETLAND BOUNDARIES.5. AFTER SUBGRADE APPROVAL, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE GRADE STAKES AND PROCEED WITH TOPSOIL AND HABITAT FEATURE PLACEMENT.I. {PLACE FISH MIX IN PRIMARY CHANNEL}:1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE ROCK MIX IN CHANNEL PER STREAM PROFILES ON MITIGATION PLANS. PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL APPROVE ROCK MIX PLACEMENT.K. {PLACE TOPSOIL: SEE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS}1. IN ALL GRADED PROJECT AREAS, 9 INCHES OF STOCKPILED OR IMPORTED TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED OVER SUBGRADE. {NOTE:} PRIOR TO PLACING TOPSOIL, SUBGRADE SHALL BE DECOMPACTED OR SCARIFIED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6 INCHES IF SUBSOIL IS EXCESSIVELY COMPACTED AND UNSUITABLE FOR PLANT GROWTH.L. {PLACE HABITAT FEATURES:} PLACE HABITAT FEATURES UPON COMPLETION OF TOPSOIL PLACEMENT, AS DEPICTED ON THE MITIGATION PLANS AND DETAILS. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL APPROVE LOCATIONS PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. {}1. {DOWN LOGS:} TO CUT/BREAK DOWN LOGS, FIRST SCORE THE LOG AT THE DESIRED LENGTH BY MECHANICAL MEANS, THEN SNAP THE LOG AT THE SCORED LOCATION TO CREATE A NATURAL LOOK TO THE BREAK. TWIST BROKEN ENDS TO DISGUISE SAW CUTS. HABITAT FEATURES THAT HAVE BEEN CUT SHALL HAVE NO BLUNT ENDS.2. {ROOTWADS:} THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL APPROVE LOCATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.3. {STUMPS:} STUMPS SHALL BE SET UPRIGHT.4. {BOULDERS:} IF AVAILABLE, BOULDERS SHALL BE PLACED IN PILES AT LEAST 2 ROCKS DEEP (5 ROCK MIN. PER PILE), IN A MANNER THAT PROVIDES BOTH PHYSICAL STABILITY AND LARGE INTERNAL VOIDS.M. {MULCH GRADED BUFFERS}: THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL BE PROVIDED A MULCH SAMPLE PRIOR TO IT BEING DELIVERED TO THE SITE. NO BUFFER AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED.1. CONTRACTOR SHALL SPREAD MULCH OVER ALL GRADED BUFFER AREAS TO ACHIEVE A UNIFORM DEPTH OF 3 INCHES. NOTE: 3-INCH DEPTH IS THE MINIMUM AFTER SETTLING. IF MULCH IS INSTALLED BY BLOWER TRUCK IT SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A 4-INCH DEPTH TO ENSURE A MINIMUM 3-INCH DEPTH AFTER SETTLING.N. {GRADING INSPECTIONS:} PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL APPROVE ALL GRADING WORK, AND ALL STRUCTURE AND HABITAT FEATURE PLACEMENT. IF ITEMS ARE TO BE CORRECTED, A PUNCH LIST SHALL BE PREPARED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST AND SUBMITTED TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR COMPLETION. AFTER PUNCH LIST ITEMSHAVE BEEN COMPLETED, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL REVIEW THE PROJECT FOR FINAL INTERNAL ACCEPTANCE OF GRADING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, AND PLANTING MAY THEN PROCEED.O. {SOIL STABILIZATION:} IF THERE IS A DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION FOR ANY REASON, CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, DRAINAGE, AND TEMPORARY IRRIGATION DURING CONSTRUCTION DELAY PERIOD, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING.P. {WDFW APPROVAL OF NEW STREAM CORRIDOR}1. THE AREA HABITAT BIOLOGIST SHALL BE CONTACTED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF THE COMPLETEION OF THE NEW CHANNEL TO ARRANGE FOR COMPLIANCE INSPECTION. UPON REVIEW AND APPROVAL, PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST WILL NOTIFY THE CITY OF SAID APPROVAL FROM WDFW. NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (I St).dwg6/17/2020 11:40 AMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.ΒΘΗΣΗΒ≅Κ ≅Θ∆≅ ΛΗΣΗΦ≅ΣΗΝΜ ΟΚ≅ΜΡΗ ΡΣΘ∆∆Σ ≅Σ ΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆GRADING SPECIFICATIONSWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W2.1 6/17/2020 ς1−0APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS.Know what's below. before you dig.Call R 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702 N.PERRY STREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106PACIFIC ACE SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY ESMCONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE CRITICALAREAS MITIGATION PLAN CONTAINED WITHIN THECRITICAL AREAS AND FLOODPLAIN HABITAT IMPACTASSESSMENT REPORT PREPARED BY WET.LAND, LLC. NOTES PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROJECT LIMITS WETLAND BOUNDARY STREAM CENTERLINE POST CONSTRUCTION CRITICAL AREA BUFFER PROPOSED 1-FT CONTOUR EXISTING 1-FT CONTOUR S 277TH STXXXXXXXXTC J J J J CS 277TH STJ J 0 ( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH SCALE: 10 20 40 1"=20' PLANTING PLAN KEY SCALE: 1" = 200' MATCHLINE TO RIGHT MATCHLINE TO LEFT PLANTING PLAN: VIEWPORT 1 PLANTING PLAN: VIEWPORT 2 NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (I St).dwg6/17/2020 11:40 AMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.ΒΘΗΣΗΒ≅Κ ≅Θ∆≅ ΛΗΣΗΦ≅ΣΗΝΜ ΟΚ≅ΜΡΗ ΡΣΘ∆∆Σ ≅Σ ΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆PLANTING PLANWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W3.0 6/17/2020 ς2−/APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS.Know what's below. before you dig.Call R 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702 N.PERRY STREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106PACIFIC ACE SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY ESMCONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE CRITICALAREAS MITIGATION PLAN CONTAINED WITHIN THECRITICAL AREAS AND FLOODPLAIN HABITAT IMPACTASSESSMENT REPORT PREPARED BY WET.LAND, LLC. NOTES 4/ 34 3/ 44 4/ 34 3/ 44 ⅊℄ 2 9 0 1−/∃ 2 9 0 \A1;S 277TH STREET \A1;1'\A1;2'NOT TO SCALE ΕΚΝΝΧ ΒΓ≅ΜΜ∆Κ ΣΞΟΗΒ≅Κ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ 4/ 34 3/ 44 4/ 34 3/ 44 ⅊℄ 2 9 0 1−/∃ 2 9 0 \A1;S 277TH STREET \A1;1'\A1;2'NOT TO SCALE ΕΚΝΝΧ ΒΓ≅ΜΜ∆Κ ΣΞΟΗΒ≅Κ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROJECT LIMITS WETLAND BOUNDARY STREAM CENTERLINE POST CONSTRUCTION CRITICAL AREA BUFFER PROPOSED 1-FT CONTOUR EXISTING 1-FT CONTOUR XXXX X X X X XX X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX X X X X XX X X XXXXIRD D D DDDW PP MATCHLINE TO VIEWPORT 4 0 ( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH SCALE: 10 20 40 1"=20' PLANTING PLAN: VIEWPORT 3 MATCHLINE TO ABOVEMATCHLINE TO BELOWPLANTING PLAN: VIEWPORT 3 SCALE: 1"=20' NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (I St).dwg6/17/2020 11:40 AMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.ΒΘΗΣΗΒ≅Κ ≅Θ∆≅ ΛΗΣΗΦ≅ΣΗΝΜ ΟΚ≅ΜΡΗ ΡΣΘ∆∆Σ ≅Σ ΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆PLANTING PLANWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W3.1 6/17/2020 ς2−0APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS.Know what's below. before you dig.Call R 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702 N.PERRY STREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106PACIFIC ACE SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY ESMCONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE CRITICALAREAS MITIGATION PLAN CONTAINED WITHIN THECRITICAL AREAS AND FLOODPLAIN HABITAT IMPACTASSESSMENT REPORT PREPARED BY WET.LAND, LLC. NOTES \pxql,t5;AREA TO BE PLANTED AS PART OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR I STREET NE STORMWATER POND XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X XXXXXXXXXI STREET NE PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROJECT LIMITS WETLAND BOUNDARY STREAM CENTERLINE POST CONSTRUCTION CRITICAL AREA BUFFER PROPOSED 1-FT CONTOUR EXISTING 1-FT CONTOUR PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPI STREET NE RDRDRDRDRDRDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDD D D D D TW W MATCHLINE TO VIEWPORT 4 (W3.1)MATCHLINE TO ABOVEMATCHLINE TO BELOW0 ( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH SCALE: 10 20 40 1"=20' PLANTING PLAN: VIEWPORT 7 PLANTING PLAN - VIEWPORT 6 SCALE: 1"=20' NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (I St).dwg6/17/2020 11:41 AMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.ΒΘΗΣΗΒ≅Κ ≅Θ∆≅ ΛΗΣΗΦ≅ΣΗΝΜ ΟΚ≅ΜΡΗ ΡΣΘ∆∆Σ ≅Σ ΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆PLANTING PLANWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W3.2 6/17/2020 ς2−1APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS.Know what's below. before you dig.Call R 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702 N.PERRY STREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106 PACIFIC ACESUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY ESM CONSULTINGENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE CRITICAL AREASMITIGATION PLAN CONTAINED WITHIN THE CRITICAL AREAS ANDFLOODPLAIN HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT PREPAREDBY WET.LAND, LLC. NOTES 1. PLANT TREES AND/OR SHRUBS 1" HIGHER THAN DEPTH GROWN AT NURSERY.2. FOR CONTAINER TREES AND/OR SHRUBS, SCORE FOUR SIDES OF ROOTBALL PRIOR TO PLANTING. BUTTERFLY ROOTBALL IF ROOT CIRCLING ISEVIDENT.3. STAKE DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN TREES 4 FEET AND OVER IN HEIGHT WITH ONE (1) STAKE PER TREE. STAKE TREES IMMEDIATELY AFTERPLANTING. PLACE STAKE AT THE OUTER EDGE OF THE ROOTS OR ROOTBALL, IN LINE WITH THE PREVAILING WIND. STAKES SHALL BE LOOSELYATTACHED USING CHAIN-LOCK TREE TIES TO ALLOW FOR SOME TRUNK MOVEMENT. STAKES TO BE VERTICAL, PARALLEL, EVEN-TOPPED,UNSCARRED AND DRIVEN INTO UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE. REMOVE AFTER ONE YEAR.4. WATER PLANTS IMMEDIATELY UPON PLANTING, THEN PROVIDE MANUAL WATERING OR A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO PREVENT PLANTMORTALITY AND ENSURE PROPER PLANT ESTABLISHMENT. PLANTS SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF APPROXIMATELY ONE INCH OF WATER EVERYWEEK DURING THE DRY SEASON (GENERALLY JUNE 15TH - OCTOBER 15TH, OR EARLIER OR LATER IF CONDITIONS WARRANT) FOR THE FIRSTSEASON AFTER PLANTING. IRRIGATION AMOUNTS MAY NEED TO BE INCREASED DURING PROLONGED PERIODS OF HOT, DRY WEATHER.{5. IN THE BUFFER AREAS ONLY, FERTILIZE ALL TREES AND SHRUBS WITH A SLOW-RELEASE GENERAL PURPOSE GRANULAR FERTILIZER ORSLOW-RELEASE TABLETS AT MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFIED RATE. NO FERTILIZER SHALL BE APPLIED WITHIN WETLAND AREAS.6. IN THE BUFFER AREAS ONLY. A SOIL MOISTURE RETENTION AGENT, SUCH AS "SOILMOIST" OR EQUAL, SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THEBACKFILL OF EACH PLANTING PIT, PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. NO MOISTURE RETENTION AGENT SHALL BE APPLIED WITHIN WETLANDAREAS. } GENERAL PLANT INSTALLATION NOTES NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (I St).dwg6/17/2020 11:41 AMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.ΒΘΗΣΗΒ≅Κ ≅Θ∆≅ ΛΗΣΗΦ≅ΣΗΝΜ ΟΚ≅ΜΡΗ ΡΣΘ∆∆Σ ≅Σ ΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆PLANT SCHEDULE, NOTES, & DETAILSWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W3.3 6/17/2020 ς2−2APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS.Know what's below. before you dig.Call R CONTAINER STOCK SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL 2x ROOTBALL WIDTH 6" NOT TO SCALE FINISH GRADE ~{\W0.9;MULCH RING 3" SETTLED DEPTH FINE BLEND BARK MULCH X 2' DIAMETER, TO WITHIN 3" OF SHRUB STEM. DO NOT MOUND MULCH AGAINST SHRUB STEM} {\W0.9;BACKFILL PLANTING HOLE HALF-FULL WITH NATIVE SOIL AND TAMP TO STABILIZE ROOTBALL. DO NOT DISTURB ROOTBALL. BACKFILL REMAINING HOLE WITH AMENDMENT AS NOTED IN THE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS AND/ OR INSTALLATION NOTES. WATER THOROUGHLY.} {\W0.9;SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE, ENSURE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE} {\W0.9;EXISTING NATIVE SOIL} {\W0.9;SET PLANT STRAIGHT AND PLANT ROOTBALL ON SOLID GROUND OR ON COMPACTED BACKFILL} NOT TO SCALE ~ ~ 2x ROOTBALL WIDTH TREE PLANTING DETAIL UNDISTURBED GROUND {\W0.9;2x2 HEM/FIR TREE STAKES LOCTATED OUTSIDE OF ROOTBALL. FASTEN WITH CHAINLOCK TREE TIES. LOOP EACH TIE AROUND TREE LOOSELY TO PROVIDE 1" SLACK FOR TRUNK GROWTH. STAKE HEIGHT MUST BE AT LEAST 5' ABOVE FINISHED GRADE}{\W0.9;MULCH RING 3" SETTLED DEPTH FINE BLEND BARK MULCH X 3' DIAMETER, TO WITHIN 3" OF TREE TRUNK. DO NOT MOUND MULCH AGAINST TREE TRUNK}{\W0.9;FORM TEMPORARY 5" HIGH SOIL DAM AROUND TREE TO HOLD WATER}{BACKFILL PLANTING HOLE HALF-FULL WITHNATIVE SOIL AND TAMP TO STABILIZEROOTBALL. BACKFILL REMAINING HOLE WITHAMENDMENT AS NOTED IN THE PLANTINGSPECIFICATIONS AND/ OR INSTALLATIONNOTES. {\W0.9;SET TREE STRAIGHT AND PLACE ROOTBALL ON SOLID GROUND OR ON COMPACTED BACKFILL} {\W0.9;EXCAVATE HOLE 2 TIMES WIDER THAN ROOTBALL. SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE. MAKE SURE HOLE HAS GOOD DRAINAGE} FINISHED GRADE 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702 N. PERRYSTREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106 PACIFIC ACESUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY ESM CONSULTINGENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE CRITICAL AREASMITIGATION PLAN CONTAINED WITHIN THE CRITICAL AREAS ANDFLOODPLAIN HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT PREPAREDBY WET.LAND, LLC. NOTES 2-RAIL FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE2'-0"CONCRETE FOOTING (TYP)3'-0"PITCH SURFACE TO DRAIN (TYP) C 8'-0" O.C. (TYP) 1'-0"1'-6"6" 6" DIAM. ROUGH CEDAR POST (TYP) 2" x 6" SPLIT CEDAR RAIL (TYP)ON CENTERFINISHED GRADE COMPACTED GRANULAR SUB-BASE \pxql,t8;{\W0.9;* NOTE: IF APPLICABLE, FENCE SHALL BE LOCATED 6" INSIDE THE BACK EDGE OF SIDEWALK-TYPICAL} {NOTES:1. SPLIT CEDAR RAILSTO BE SNUG FIT INTOPOST CHANNELS2. BUTT ENDS OF RAILSTO MEET CENTERED IN {NOTES:}1. CUTTINGS SHALL BE SPECIES AS NOTED IN THE PLANT SCHEDULE. 2. CUTTINGS SHALL BE AT LEAST {}" IN DIA. AND 4' IN LENGTH. 3. CUTTINGS MUST BE MADE FROM LIVE AND VIGOROUS WOODY MATERIAL WITH SIDE BRANCHES REMOVED AND BARK INTACT. 4. THE BUTT ENDS SHALL BE CLEANLY CUT AT AN ANGLE FOR EASY INSERTION INTO THE SOIL. 5. THE TOP SHALL BE CUT SQUARE OR BLUNT.6. CUTTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF CUTTING AND MUST BE KEPT MOIST AT ALL TIMES PRIOR TO PLANTING. 7. BOTTOM OF CUTTINGS SHALL BE TREATED WITH ROOTING HORMONE PRIOR TO PLANTING. INSERT CUTTINGS MANUALLYINTO PILOT HOLE TO A DEPTHOF AT LEAST 18". LEAVE AMIN. OF 30" OF CUTTINGABOVE GROUND SURFACE TOALLOW FOR SUCCESSFULSPROUTING OF LEAVES ΒΤΣΣΗΜΦ ΗΜΡΣ≅ΚΚ≅ΣΗΝΜ Χ∆Σ≅ΗΚ NOT TO SCALE Habitat Conservation Area12" x 18" ALUMINUM SIGN WITH WHITE REFLECTIVE BACKGROUND INSTALL WITH A MINIMUM OF TWO GALVANIZED OR STAINLESS STEEL CARRIAGE BOLTS TO FIRMLY SECURE SIGN 4' X 4' PERFORATED TUBULAR STEEL POST, GALVANIZED QUICK-SET CONCRETE COMPACTED NATIVE MATERIAL\A1;5'\A1;2'\A1;6"{NOTES:}1. NGPA SIGN SHALL BE PLACED NO GREATER THAN 50FEET APART AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE NATIVEGROWTH PROTECTION AREA AND AT LEAST ONE SIGNSHALL BE PLACED IN ANY LOT THAT BORDERS THE NATIVEGROWTH PROTECTION AREA. 2. SIGN PLACEMENT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVALOF THE CITY OF AUBURN. ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS MAY BESUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN FOR APPROVAL. ΒΗΣΞ ΝΕ ≅ΤΑΤΘΜ ΜΦΟ≅ ΡΗΦΜ Χ∆Σ≅ΗΚ NOT TO SCALE THIS UPLAND BUFFER AND CRITICAL AREA IS PROTECTED TO PROVIDE WILDLIFE HABITAT AND MAINTAIN WATER QUALITY PLEASE DO NOT DISTURB THIS VALUABLE RESOURCE CONTACT THE CITY OF AUBURN PLANNING DEPARTMENT REGARDING USES AND RESTRICTIONS \A1;8.26' OHWM UPLAND PLANTINGWIDTH VARIES TOBACK OF WALK /PROJECT LIMITS \A1;%%P6.5' BETWEEN CONTOUR ELEVATION EL48-EL49 RIPARIAN WETLAND UPLAND PLANTING WIDTH VARIES TOBACK OF WALK / \A1;3' STREAM BED AGGREGATE UPLANDS THROUGH OUT PLAN WILL BE PLANTED PER PLANTING TYPICAL \A1;%%P6.5' BETWEEN CONTOUR ELEVATION EL48-EL49 RIPARIAN WETLAND (934 SF - 2 CY) Total Planted Area - 130,090 SF +2,923 SF In-Stream = 133,013 SF ½ ½ ½ ” ½ ¾ ¾ ½ PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (I St).dwg6/17/2020 11:41 AMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.ΒΘΗΣΗΒ≅Κ ≅Θ∆≅ ΛΗΣΗΦ≅ΣΗΝΜ ΟΚ≅ΜΡΗ ΡΣΘ∆∆Σ ≅Σ ΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆PLANTING SPECIFICATIONSWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W4.0 6/17/2020 ς3−/APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS.Know what's below. before you dig.Call R 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702 N.PERRY STREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106PACIFIC ACE SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY ESMCONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE CRITICALAREAS MITIGATION PLAN CONTAINED WITHIN THECRITICAL AREAS AND FLOODPLAIN HABITAT IMPACTASSESSMENT REPORT PREPARED BY WET.LAND, LLC. NOTES I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Appendix B Appendix B Mitigation Plans for Copper Gate Apartments (large format) Wet.land, LLC 15803 Bear Creek Parkway, Unit E513, Redmond, WA 98052 jen@wet.land (813) 846-1684 22 May 2020 Steve Sturza, P.E., CFM Development Engineer Manager | City of Auburn Department of Community Development 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 REFERENCE: FAC19-0013 Copper Gate Apartments SUBJECT: Mitigation Plan Comments Dear Steve: Comments to the Critical Areas Mitigation Plan were provided by the City to Inland Group on 8 April 2020 via email. Those comments have been addressed in the revised plan set attached. However, since the last round of revised documents were provided to the City, I left Talasaea Consultants and started my own company, Wet.land, LLC. I coordinated with Talasaea for a smooth transition of files in order to continue my work on this project. The most recent report that accompanies these graphics remains the Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report, revision date of 5 November 2019, prepared by me while working for Talasaea Consultants. Since that report date, the graphics have been revised for minor corrections to ensure accuracy of the critical areas mitigation plan. Buffer modification values in the plan sheets are the most up to date and should be referenced where any discrepancy occurs. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, Jennifer Marriott Principal Wet.land, LLC Enclosure: Revised Mitigation Plan to accompany the Habitat Impact Assessment Report, Copper Gate Apartments, plan sheets dated 21 May 2020 PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROJECT LIMITS (WHITE) EXISTING WETLAND WETLAND BUFFER STREAM CENTERLINE STREAM BUFFER RIPARIAN HABITAT ZONE (RHZ) DITCH CENTERLINE EDGE OF PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY FEMA 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN (SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA) T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T TT T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T TT T T T T T T T T T T W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW W W W W W W W W W WW WW W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W GG G G G G G G G G G G G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GG G G G GG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GGG G G G E E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/T E/T B.S.L.B.S.L. B.S.L. B.S.L. B.S.L. B.S.L. T E/T E/TE/TE/TE E/TE/TE/TE/TTE/TE/TE/TE/TT E E T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E TT E/TE/TE/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/TE/T E/T VARIABLE WIDTH SLOPE &DRAINAGE EASEMENT(NO. 20160317000762)20 G ST NE S 277TH STD ST NE AUBURN WAY N 45TH ST NE49TH ST NE\A1;{\H150x;RHZ 200'}\A1;{\H150x;RHZ 200'}NORTHVICINITY MAP NTS CONTACTS {\LAPPLICANT/OWNER} NAME:INLAND GROUP ADDRESS:120 W CATALDO AVENUE, SUITE 100 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201 PHONE:(509) 891-5162 CONTACT:BRENT PARRISH EMAIL:BRENTP@INLANDCONSTRUCTION.COM {\LSURVEYOR} NAME:DURYEA & ASSOCIATES ADDRESS:{\C256;2702 NORTH PERRY STREET SPOKANE, WA 99207} PHONE:{\C256;(509) 465-8007} CONTACT:MITCH DURYEA EMAIL:MITCH@DURRYEA-ASSOCIATES.COM {\LENGINEER} NAME:BCRA ENGINEERS ADDRESS:{\C256;2106 PACIFIC AVE. SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA} PHONE:{\C256;(253) 627-4367} CONTACT:BEN DORT, ASSOCIATE PRINCIPAL EMAIL:BDORT@BCRADESIGN.COM {\LENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT} NAME:WET.LAND PHONE:(813) 846-1684 CONTACT:JENNIFER MARRIOTT EMAIL:JEN@WET.LAND SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE W1.0 EXISTING CONDITION PLAN W1.1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN, IMPACTS & MITIGATION PLAN W1.2 IMPACTS & MITIGATION PLAN W1.3 NATIVE VEGETATION IMPACT PLAN W2.0 PLANTING PLAN, PLANT SCHEDULE, NOTES & DETAILS. W2.1 CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN & CANDIDATE PLANT LIST W3.0 PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS W4.0 PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS;WWW.MAPS.GOOGLE.COM(ACCESSED 9-19-2019) 0 ( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH SCALE: 60 120 240 1"=120'HIGHWAY 167S 277TH ST GREEN RIVERVEGETATION SUMMARY {\L\C7;STUDY AREA}{\C2;IN FLOODPLAIN}{\C2;NOT IN FLOODPLAIN} NATIVE VEGETATION 281,901 SF (9%)20,951 SF (0.7%) NON-NATIVE VEGETATION 446,390 SF (15%)279,931 SF (9%) NON-NATIVE INVASIVE VEGETATION 70,143 SF (2%)0 SF (0%) {\L\C7;PROJECT AREA }{\C2;IN FLOODPLAIN}{\C2;NOT IN FLOODPLAIN} NATIVE VEGETATION 80,425 SF (5%)20,951 SF (1%) NON-NATIVE VEGETATION 446,390 SF (29%)229,437 SF (15%) NON-NATIVE INVASIVE VEGETATION 0 SF (0%)0 SF (0%)Know what's below. before you dig.Call R NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (COPPER GATE) 2019-12.dwg5/22/2020 2:35 PMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.Γ≅ΑΗΣ≅Σ ΗΛΟ≅ΒΣ ≅ΡΡ∆ΡΡΛ∆ΜΣ Θ∆ΟΝΘΣΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆ ≅Ο≅ΘΣΛ∆ΜΣΡEXISTING CONDITIONS PLANWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W1.3 5/21/2020 ς0−/ (1,529,894 SF)(3,035,553 SF) N NN INV N NN INV NN NNNN NN N N N INV N N 1.. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702N. PERRY STREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106PACIFIC ACE SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY TALASEACONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE MITIGATIONPLAN PREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS INOCTOBER 2019. NOTES APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS. PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROJECT LIMITS (WHITE) EXISTING WETLAND WETLAND BUFFER STREAM CENTERLINE STREAM BUFFER RIPARIAN HABITAT ZONE (RHZ) DITCH CENTERLINE EDGE OF PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY FEMA 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN (SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA) 2" SS F.M.2" SS F.M.2" SS F.M.2" SS F.M.2" SS F.M.2" SS F.M.2" SS F.M. T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T TT T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW W W W W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W GG G G G G G G G G G G G 6"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS12"SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS 10"SS10"SS10"SS10"SS10"SS10"SS4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 12"SS12"SS12"SS 12"SS 12"SS12"SS 12"SS 12"SS12"SS12"SS 12"SS12"SS 8"SS 8"SS8"SS8"SSGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GG G G G GG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GGG G G G SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSS SS E E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/T E/T B.S.L.B.S.L. B.S.L. B.S.L. B.S.L. B.S.L. T E/T E/TE/T E/T E E/TE/TE/TE/TTE/TE/TE/TE/TT E E T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E T T E/TE/TE/T E/T E/T E/TE/T E/T G PP PP PP S G * G G S PP PPPP G T PP S *PP J J G * S G G PP PP PP PP PP G GG D T * J D D J J J J J J S J J J J S J PP S J J PP J PP S C E E E P E E E S PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PPPP S S S S S S D D D G G G G T T E PP PP * J J * PP PP * J T PP W D S D E * J J J J S PP C C C C C C C * PP E * CO J VARIABLE WIDTH SLOPE &DRAINAGE EASEMENT(NO. 20160317000762)20 D J J J D E * G E G CO CO T S XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX X X XX X XXX XX XX XXXX X X XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXX X X XXXXXXXXXXXX XX CXSTORMWATERPOND- 3 STORMWATERPOND- 1 (AUBURN)FFFWFFFFFFFFFF F FFD D D D D D D D D D D D D DDDI STREET NE S 277TH STD ST NE AUBURN WAY N 45TH ST NE49TH ST NE\A1;{\H150x;RHZ 200'}\A1;{\H150x;RHZ 200'}\A1;{\H150x;RHZ 200'}RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDRDRDRDRDRDRDE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/T PP PP D D D DDDDDDDDDDDPROPOSED SITE PLAN, IMPACTS & MITIGATION PLAN 0 ( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH SCALE: 60 120 240 1"=120' IMPACTS LEGEND (WETLAND C) BUFFER IMPACT 1,537 SF WETLAND C 141 SF BUFFER RESTORATION 1,813 SF 2-RAIL FENCE CRITICAL AREA SIGN VIEWPORT 1: Know what's below. before you dig.Call R NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (COPPER GATE) 2019-12.dwg5/22/2020 2:36 PMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.Γ≅ΑΗΣ≅Σ ΗΛΟ≅ΒΣ ≅ΡΡ∆ΡΡΛ∆ΜΣ Θ∆ΟΝΘΣΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆ ≅Ο≅ΘΣΛ∆ΜΣΡPROPOSED SITE PLAN, IMPACTS & MITIGATION PLANWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W1.3 5/21/2020 ς0−0 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702N. PERRY STREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106PACIFIC ACE SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY TALASEACONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE MITIGATIONPLAN PREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS INOCTOBER 2019. NOTES APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS. {\C7;WATERCOURSE L} W PP XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X XXXX X XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXX X XXXXX XXSTORMWATER POND -1 STORMWATER POND -2 (AUBURN)\A1;{\H30x;48.75'}P FFWWFFIRD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D I STREET NE PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROJECT LIMITS EXISTING WETLAND WETLAND BUFFER STREAM CENTERLINE STREAM BUFFER- ADMINISTRATIVE REDUCTION 35% STREAM BUFFER- STANDARD RIPARIAN HABITAT ZONE (RHZ) DITCH CENTERLINE EDGE OF PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING TREES (SURVEY BY OTHERS)CRITICAL AREA SIGN IMPACTS & MITIGATION PLAN 0 ( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH SCALE: 10 30 60 1"=30' IMPACTS LEGEND BUFFER IMPACT 2,308 SF WATERCOURSE K 126 SF WATERCOURSE L 1,396 SF WETLAND A 786 SF BUFFER REPLACEMENT 2,375 SF WATERCOURSE K 177 SF WATERCOURSE L 1,400 SF WETLAND A 798 SF BUFFER RESTORATION 16,289 SF 2-RAIL FENCE Know what's below. before you dig.Call R NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (COPPER GATE) 2019-12.dwg5/22/2020 2:36 PMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.Γ≅ΑΗΣ≅Σ ΗΛΟ≅ΒΣ ≅ΡΡ∆ΡΡΛ∆ΜΣ Θ∆ΟΝΘΣΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆ ≅Ο≅ΘΣΛ∆ΜΣΡIMPACTS & MITIGATION PLANWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W1.3 5/21/2020 ς0−1 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702N. PERRY STREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106PACIFIC ACE SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY TALASEACONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE MITIGATIONPLAN PREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS INOCTOBER 2019. NOTES APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS. PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROJECT LIMITS (WHITE) EXISTING WETLAND WETLAND BUFFER STREAM CENTERLINE STREAM BUFFER RIPARIAN HABITAT ZONE (RHZ) DITCH CENTERLINE EDGE OF PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY FEMA 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN (SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA) EXISTING TREES (SURVEY BY OTHERS) RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RD RD RDRD RD RD RDRDRDRDRD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDDDDDDD DDFD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFD FD FDFD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FDFD FDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFD FD FD FD FD FDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFD FD FD FD FDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FDFD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFD FD F D FDFDFDFDFDF D FD FD FD FD FDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FD FDFD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FDFD FD FD FDFD FDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFD FDFDFDFD FDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FD FDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFD FD FDFD FD FD FDFD FDFD RD DRDRDRDDDDRDRD RD RD RD RDRDRD RD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDRDRDDD D DDRD DD2" SS F.M.2" SS F.M.2" SS F.M.2" SS F.M.2" SS F.M.2" SS F.M.2" SS F.M. T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T TT T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW W W W W W W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W GG G G G G G G G G G G G 6"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS12"SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS12"SS 10"SS10"SS10"SS10"SS10"SS10"SS4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 4"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 6"G 12"SS12"SS12"SS 12"SS 12"SS12"SS 12"SS 12"SS12"SS12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 12"SS 8"SS 8"SS8"SS8"SSGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GG G G G GG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GGG G G G SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSS SS E E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/T E/T B.S.L.B.S.L. B.S.L. B.S.L. B.S.L. B.S.L. T E/T E/TE/T E/T E E/TE/TE/TE/TTE/TE/TE/TE/TT E E T E/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E T T E/TE/TE/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/TE/T E/T G PP PP PP S G * G G S PP PPPP G T PP S *PP J J G * S G G PP PP PP PP PP G GG D T * J D D J J J J J J S J J J J J PP S J J PP J PP S C E E E P E E E S PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PPPP S S S S S S D D D G G G G T T E PP PP * J J * PP PP * J T PP E W D S D E PP* J J J J S PP C C C C C C C * PP E * CO J VARIABLE WIDTH SLOPE &DRAINAGE EASEMENT(NO. 20160317000762)20 6' UTILITY EASEMENT(NO. 20011126001334)15 D J J J D E * G E G CO CO T S XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX X X XXX XXX XX XX XXXX X X XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXX X X XXXXXXXXXXXX XX CXSTORMWATERPOND- 3 STORMWATERPOND- 1 (AUBURN)PPPPPPP P PP PPPPPPPPP P P PPPPPP PPFFFWFFFFFFFFFF F FFD D D D D D D D D D D D D DDDI STREET NE S 277TH STD ST NE AUBURN WAY N 45TH ST NE49TH ST NE\A1;{\H150x;RHZ 200'}\A1;{\H150x;RHZ 200'}\A1;{\H150x;RHZ 200'} 0 ( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH SCALE: 25 50 100 1"=50' NATIVE VEGETATION IMPACTS NATIVE VEGETATION SUMMARY WETLAND C {\L\C7;PROJECT AREA} RETAINED NATIVE VEGETATION 57,114 SF 71% IMPACTED NATIVE VEGETATION 23,311 SF 29% TOTAL:80,425 SF 100%Know what's below. before you dig.Call R NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (COPPER GATE) 2019-12.dwg5/22/2020 2:36 PMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.Γ≅ΑΗΣ≅Σ ΗΛΟ≅ΒΣ ≅ΡΡ∆ΡΡΛ∆ΜΣ Θ∆ΟΝΘΣΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆ ≅Ο≅ΘΣΛ∆ΜΣΡNATIVE VEGETATION IMPACTSWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W1.3 5/21/2020 ς0−2 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702N. PERRY STREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106PACIFIC ACE SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY TALASEACONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE MITIGATIONPLAN PREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS INOCTOBER 2019. NOTES APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS. RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDFD FD FDFDFDFD FD FDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDRDRD RD DD DD E/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/T PPTPACSRRSTPTPTPTPTPTPACACSRSRSRSRRSRSRSRSRSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSRSRSRSRSRSRSRSRSRSRSRSRSRSRSRSD D D D DDDDDDDDDDDPLAN LEGEND PARCEL LINE EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY PLANTING PLAN 0 ( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH SCALE: 10 20 40 1"=20' LARGE TREES SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME WL STATUS QTY SPACING SIZE (MIN.)NOTES THUJA PLICATA WESTERN RED CEDAR FAC 7 AS SHOWN 4-5' HT.B&B, FULL & BUSHY {\C7;SMALL TREES/LARGE SHRUBS} SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME WL STATUS QTY SPACING SIZE (MIN.)NOTES ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE FAC 3 AS SHOWN 4' HT.SINGLE TRUNK, WELL BRANCHED SALIX SCOULERIANA SCOULER WILLOW FAC 12 3/SYMBOL 4' CUTTING \A1;{\H0.7x;\S1/2;}" DIA. MIN., BARK INTACT SAMBUCUS RACEMOSA RED ELDERBERRY FACU 5 5' O.C.24" HT.MULTI-CANE (3 MIN.) {\C7;MASSING SHRUBS} SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME WL STATUS QTY SPACING SIZE (MIN.)NOTES RUBUS SPECTABILIS SALMONBERRY FAC 21 4' O.C.1 GAL.FULL & BUSHY {\C7;GROUND COVER} SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME WL STATUS QTY SPACING SIZE (MIN.)NOTES POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM SWORD FERN FACU 105 36" O.C.1 GAL.FULL & BUSHY PLANT SCHEDULE TPACSRSSRS1. PLANT TREE AND/OR SHRUB 1/2" HIGHER THAN DEPTH GROWN AT NURSERY.2. FOR CONTAINER TREES AND/OR SHRUBS, SCORE FOUR SIDES OF ROOTBALLPRIOR TO PLANTING. BUTTERFLY ROOTBALL IF ROOT CIRCLING IS EVIDENT.3. AFTER PLANTING, STAKE TREES ONLY IF NECESSARY (E.G. IF THEY ARELEANING OR DROOPING OR ARE LOCATED IN EXPOSED AREAS).4. TREE STAKES TO BE VERTICAL, PARALLEL, EVEN-TOPPED, UNSCARRED ANDDRIVEN INTO UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE. REMOVE AFTER ONE YEAR.5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AND THOROUGHLY, HEAVIER AT FIRST, 2 OR 3 TIMESPER WEEK THROUGH THE DRY SEASON, THEN LESS UNTIL ESTABLISHED.6. FERTILIZE ALL TREES AND SHRUBS WITH AN APPROVED SLOW RELEASEFERTILIZER APPLIED AT MANUFACTURER'S SUGGESTED RATES. WETLAND C 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702 N. PERRYSTREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106 PACIFIC ACESUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY TALASEA CONSULTANTS FORVISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE MITIGATION PLANPREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS IN OCTOBER 2019. NOTES Know what's below. before you dig.Call R NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (COPPER GATE) 2019-12.dwg5/22/2020 2:36 PMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.Γ≅ΑΗΣ≅Σ ΗΛΟ≅ΒΣ ≅ΡΡ∆ΡΡΛ∆ΜΣ Θ∆ΟΝΘΣΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆ ≅Ο≅ΘΣΛ∆ΜΣΡPLANTING PLANWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W1.3 5/21/2020 ς1−/ CONTAINER STOCK SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL FIRM NATIVE SOIL MOUND 2x ROOTBALL WIDTH 6" NOT TO SCALE BROKEN BRANCHES PRUNE DISEASED AND FINISH GRADE ~{\W0.9;MULCH RING 3" SETTLED DEPTH FINE BLEND BARK MULCH X 2' DIAMETER, TO WITHIN 3" OF SHRUB STEM. DO NOT MOUND MULCH AGAINST SHRUB STEM} {\W0.9;BACKFILL PLANTING HOLE HALF-FULL WITH NATIVE SOIL AND TAMP TO STABILIZE ROOTBALL. DO NOT DISTURB ROOTBALL. BACKFILL REMAINING HOLE WITH AMENDMENT AS NOTED IN THE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS AND/ OR INSTALLATION NOTES. WATER THOROUGHLY.} {\W0.9;SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE, ENSURE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE} {\W0.9;EXISTING NATIVE SOIL} \W0.9000;PLANT 1" HIGHER THAN IN NURSERY NOT TO SCALE ~ ~ SCARIFY PLANTING PIT SIDES AND BOTTOM 6" DEEP, FIRM, NATIVE SOIL MOUND 2x ROOTBALL WIDTH 2" MAX.5' MINIMUMSTAKE HEIGHTDECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING & STAKING DETAIL UNDISTURBED GROUND {\W0.9;2x2 HEM/FIR TREE STAKES LOCTATED OUTSIDE OF ROOTBALL. FASTEN WITH CHAINLOCK TREE TIES. LOOP EACH TIE AROUND TREE LOOSELY TO PROVIDE 1" SLACK FOR TRUNK GROWTH. SET STAKES PERPENDICULAR TO PREVAILING WIND}{\W0.9;MULCH RING 3" SETTLED DEPTH FINE BLEND BARK MULCH X 3' DIAMETER, TO WITHIN 3" OF TREE TRUNK. DO NOT MOUND MULCH AGAINST TREE TRUNK}{\W0.9;FORM TEMPORARY 5" HIGH SOIL DAM AROUND TREE TO HOLD WATER}{BACKFILL PLANTING HOLE HALF-FULL WITHNATIVE SOIL AND TAMP TO STABILIZEROOTBALL. BACKFILL REMAINING HOLE WITHAMENDMENT AS NOTED IN THE PLANTINGSPECIFICATIONS AND/ OR INSTALLATIONNOTES. {\W0.9;PLANT TREE 1"-2" HIGHER THAN IN NURSERY} {\W0.9;INSTALL "TREE BOOT" OR "ARBORGARD" IN LAWN AREAS} CHAINLOCK TREE TIES {\W0.9;12" MIN. } {\W0.9;REMOVE BINDING TWINE AND TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP} \W0.9000;PRUNE DISEASED AND BROKEN BRANCHES EQUAL SPACING SPACING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE DRAWING SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER 1/2 DIA. OF PLANT OR AS SHOWN ON EQUAL SPACINGELEVATION PLAN {\W0.9;TOPSOIL DEPTH AND TYPE AS SPECIFIED} {\W0.9;BARK MULCH DEPTH AS SPECIFIED} {\W0.9;GROUNDCOVER PLANTS, SEE PLANT LIST} {\W0.9;EXISTING SUBGRADE} {\W0.9;GROUNDCOVER PLANT SPACING AS INDICATED ON PLANT LIST}\W0.9000;EDGE OF PAVING OR PLANTING BED GENERAL PLANT INSTALLATION NOTES APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS. DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D D DDDDDDDDD D D D D D D D D D D D D D DDW PP XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXX X XXXXX XXSTORMWATER POND -1 STORMWATER POND -2 (AUBURN)\A1;{\H30x;48.75'}D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D I STREET NE PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROJECT LIMITS EXISTING WETLAND WETLAND BUFFER STREAM CENTERLINE STREAM BUFFER RIPARIAN HABITAT ZONE (RHZ) DITCH CENTERLINE EDGE OF PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY PMTP PM AM AM AM TP AA AA AA AA AA AA MA MA MA MA MA MA MASA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD MA MA MA MA MA MA MA SR SR SR SR TP SASA SA SA SA HD HD HD HD HD SA SASA SA SA SA SA SA PM PM AM AM AM AM AM AM TP TP TP TP TP PM PM PM PM MA MA MA MA MA SASA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SR SR SR SR SR SR AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD MA MAMA MA MA MA MAMA MA MA MAMA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA SA SA SA SA SASA SA LARGE TREES SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME WL STATUS QTY SPACING SIZE (MIN.)NOTES ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE FACU 54 AS SHOWN 5-6' HT.SINGLE TRUNK, WELL BRANCHED PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS FIR FACU 48 AS SHOWN 4-5' HT.B&B, FULL & BUSHY THUJA PLICATA WESTERN RED CEDAR FAC 48 AS SHOWN 4-5' HT.B&B, FULL & BUSHY {\C7;SMALL TREES/LARGE SHRUBS} SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME WL STATUS QTY SPACING SIZE (MIN.)NOTES AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA SERVICEBERRY FACU 5' O.C.24" HT.MULTI-CANE (3 MIN.) HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR OCEAN SPRAY FACU 132 5' O.C.24" HT.MULTI-CANE (3 MIN.) SAMBUCUS RACEMOSA RED ELDERBERRY FACU 60 5' O.C.24" HT.MULTI-CANE (3 MIN.) {\C7;MASSING SHRUBS} SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME WL STATUS QTY SPACING SIZE (MIN.)NOTES GAULTHERIA SHALLON SALAL FACU 240 2' O.C.1 GAL.FULL & BUSHY MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM OREGONGRAPE FACU 240 4' O.C.1 GAL.FULL & BUSHY POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM SWORD FERN FACU 234 3' O.C.1 GAL.FULL & BUSHY SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS COMMON SNOWBERRY FACU 288 4' O.C.1 GAL.MULTI-CANE (3 MIN.) CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN 0 ( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH SCALE: 10 20 40 1"=20' PLANT SCHEDULE AMTPPMSRHDAAPMMASA PLANTING TYPICAL {\C2;PLANTING AREA 18,394 SF} {\C2;100' X 30'} PLANTING AREA (18,664 SF)Know what's below. before you dig.Call R THESE BUFFER AREAS FOR WC-L, WC-K, AND WETLAND A FALL OUTSIDE OF THE LIMITS FOR THE COPPER GATE APARTMENT PROJECT. HOWEVER, THESE AREAS ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA FOR THE I STREET EXTENSION AND WILL BE RESTORED TO FULLY VEGETATED, NATIVE BUFFERS AS PART OF THE I STREET EXTENSION PROJECT MITIGATION PLANS. NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (COPPER GATE) 2019-12.dwg5/22/2020 2:36 PMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.Γ≅ΑΗΣ≅Σ ΗΛΟ≅ΒΣ ≅ΡΡ∆ΡΡΛ∆ΜΣ Θ∆ΟΝΘΣΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆ ≅Ο≅ΘΣΛ∆ΜΣΡPLANTING PLANWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W1.3 5/21/2020 ς1−0 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702N. PERRY STREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106PACIFIC ACE SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY TALASEACONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE MITIGATIONPLAN PREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS INOCTOBER 2019. NOTES APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS. PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS Know what's below. before you dig.Call R NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (COPPER GATE) 2019-12.dwg5/22/2020 2:37 PMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.Γ≅ΑΗΣ≅Σ ΗΛΟ≅ΒΣ ≅ΡΡ∆ΡΡΛ∆ΜΣ Θ∆ΟΝΘΣΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆ ≅Ο≅ΘΣΛ∆ΜΣΡPLANTING SPECIFICATIONSWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W1.3 5/21/2020 ς2−/ PART 1: GENERAL1.1 SEQUENCINGA. {GENERAL CONSTRUCTION}1. CONTRACTOR SHALL GIVE THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST A MINIMUM OF TEN (10) DAYS NOTICE PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION.2. NO CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL COMMENCE UNTIL THERE IS A MEETING BETWEEN THE CLIENT, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST, THE GENERAL, CLEARING, AND/OR EARTHWORK CONTRACTORS, AND THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. THEAPPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE REVIEWED TO ENSURE THAT ALL PARTIES INVOLVED UNDERSTAND THE INTENT AND THE SPECIFIC DETAILS RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND SITE CONSTRAINTS.3. LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY FIELD SURVEY OR OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OFTHE CONTRACTOR TO: (1) INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF UTILITY LOCATIONS, AND (2) DISCOVER AND AVOID ANY UTILITIES WITHIN THE MITIGATION AREA(S) THAT ARE NOT SHOWN, BUT WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY IMPLEMENTATION OFTHE PLAN. SUCH AREA(S) ARE TO BE CLEARLY MARKED IN THE FIELD. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL RESOLVE ANY CONFLICTS WITH THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION.4. A COPY OF THE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS, AND SHALL REMAIN ON SITE UNTIL PROJECT COMPLETION.5. CONSTRUCTION MUST BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL AGENCY STANDARDS, RULES, CODES, PERMIT CONDITIONS, AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE ORDINANCES AND POLICIES.6. THE PROJECT OWNER/APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY OTHER RELATED OR REQUIRED PERMITS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.7. A QUALIFIED WETLAND CONSULTANT SHALL BE ON SITE, AS NECESSARY, TO MONITOR CONSTRUCTION AND APPROVE MINOR REVISIONS TO THE PLAN.8. DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR MUST USE MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS THAT PREVENT TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND OTHER POLLUTANTS FROM ENTERING MITIGATION AREAS OR OTHER NATURAL WATERS OF THE STATE.9. PREVENTATIVE MEASURES SHALL BE USED TO PROTECT EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, EXISTING UTILITIES, AND ROADS.10. PROVIDE SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROLS AROUND THE PROJECT AREA PRIOR TO SOIL DISTURBANCE FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.B. {MITIGATION CONSTRUCTION}: THE FOLLOWING PROVIDES THE GENERAL SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES ANTICIPATED TO BE NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PLANTING PORTION OF THE MITIGATION PROJECT. SOME OF THESE ACTIVITIES MAY BECONDUCTED CONCURRENTLY AS THE PROJECT PROGRESSES.1. CONDUCT A SITE MEETING BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST, AND THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO REVIEW THE PROJECT PLANS, STAGING/STOCKPILE AREAS, AND MATERIAL DISPOSAL AREAS.2. PLANT TREES AND SHRUBS AS INDICATED ON MITIGATION PLANS.3. PLANT WETLAND EMERGENTS AND STAKES (CUTTINGS).4. MULCH PLANTS INSTALLED IN NON-GRADED BUFFER AREAS.5. INSTALL FENCING AND CRITICAL AREA PROTECTION SIGNS.1.2 SUBMITTALSA. {PRODUCT DATA:} FURNISH THE FOLLOWING WITH EACH PLANT MATERIAL DELIVERY:1. INVOICES INDICATING SIZES AND VARIETY OF PLANT MATERIAL.2. CERTIFICATES OF INSPECTION REQUIRED BY STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES.B. {QUALITY CONTROL SUBMITTALS:}1. PRIOR TO DELIVERY OF MATERIALS, CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE ATTESTING THAT MATERIALS MEET THE SPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE FURNISHED FOR THE FOLLOWING: PLANTS, TOPSOIL, FERTILIZER, AND ORGANIC MULCH. CERTIFIEDCOPIES OF THE MATERIAL CERTIFICATES SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:a. PLANT MATERIALS: BOTANICAL NAME, COMMON NAME, SIZE, QUANTITY BY SPECIES, AND LOCATION WHERE GROWN.b. IMPORTED TOPSOIL: PARTICLE SIZE, PH, ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT, TEXTURAL CLASS, SOLUBLE SALTS, CHEMICAL AND MECHANICAL ANALYSES.c. FERTILIZER: CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND PERCENT COMPOSITION.d. IMPORTED MULCH: COMPOSITION AND SOURCE.1.3 REFERENCESA. {SIZE AND GRADING STANDARDS:} SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN NURSERY AND LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION.1.4 QUALITY ASSURANCEA. {WORKER'S QUALIFICATIONS:} THE PERSONS PERFORMING THE PLANTING AND THEIR SUPERVISOR(S) SHALL BE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED WITH PLANTING AND CARING FOR PLANT MATERIAL, AND SHALL HAVE BEEN REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY ACOMPANY ENGAGED IN PLANTING AND CARING FOR PLANT MATERIAL FOR A MINIMUM OF 2 YEARS.B. {PLANT MATERIAL:} ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE LOCALLY GROWN OR REGIONALLY ACCLIMATIZED TO THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST.1.5 DELIVERY, INSPECTION, STORAGE AND HANDLINGA. {DELIVERY:} A DELIVERY SCHEDULE SHALL BE PROVIDED AT LEAST 10 CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE FIRST DAY OF DELIVERY. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE JOB SITE NOT MORE THAN 7 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THEIRRESPECTIVE PLANTING DATES.B. {PROTECTION DURING DELIVERY:} PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE PROTECTED DURING DELIVERY TO PREVENT DESICCATION AND DAMAGE TO THE BRANCHES, TRUNK, ROOT SYSTEM, OR EARTH BALL. BRANCHES SHALL BE PROTECTED BY TYING-IN.EXPOSED BRANCHES SHALL BE COVERED DURING TRANSPORT.C. {FERTILIZER:} FERTILIZER SHALL BE DELIVERED IN MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD SIZED BAGS SHOWING WEIGHT, ANALYSIS, AND MANUFACTURER'S NAME. STORE UNDER A WATERPROOF COVER OR IN A DRY PLACE AS DESIGNATED BY THEOWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.D. {INSPECTION:} ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE INSPECTED UPON ARRIVAL AT THE JOB SITE BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR CONFORMITY TO TYPE AND QUANTITY WITH REGARD TO THEIR RESPECTIVE SPECIFICATIONS.E. {MULCH:} A MULCH SAMPLE SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST PRIOR TO THE MULCH BEING DELIVERED TO THE SITE.F. {STORAGE}:1. PLANT MATERIAL NOT INSTALLED ON THE DAY OF ARRIVAL AT THE SITE SHALL BE STORED AND PROTECTED IN DESIGNATED AREAS. PLANTS STORED ON THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS BYINSULATING THE ROOTS, ROOT BALLS OR CONTAINERS WITH SAWDUST, SOIL, COMPOST, BARK OR WOODCHIPS. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM DIRECT EXPOSURE TO WIND AND SUN. BARE-ROOT PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE HEELED-IN.CUTTINGS AND EMERGENT PLANTS MUST BE PROTECTED FROM DRYING AT ALL TIMES AND SHALL BE HEELED-IN WITH MOIST SOIL OR OTHER INSULATING MATERIAL. ALL PLANT MATERIAL STORED ON-SITE SHALL BE WATERED DAILY UNTIL INSTALLED.2. STORAGE OF OTHER MATERIALS SHALL BE IN DESIGNATED AREAS.1.6 SCHEDULINGA. {PLANTING SEASON:} INSTALL WOODY PLANTS BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND FEBRUARY 15 WHENEVER THE TEMPERATURE IS ABOVE 32 DEGREES F AND THE SOIL IS IN A WORKABLE CONDITION, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED IN WRITING. CUTTINGSSHALL ONLY BE USED IF PLANTING OCCURS BETWEEN DECEMBER 1ST AND APRIL 1ST.B. {PLANT INSTALLATION:} EXCEPT FOR CONTAINER-GROWN PLANT MATERIAL, THE MAXIMUM TIME BETWEEN THE DIGGING AND INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE 21 DAYS. THE MAXIMUM TIME BETWEEN PLANT INSTALLATION AND MULCHPLACEMENT SHALL BE 72 HOURS.1.7 WARRANTYA. {WARRANTY PERIOD:} THE CONTRACTOR-PROVIDED WARRANTY SHALL EXTEND FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PHYSICAL COMPLETION. PHYSICAL COMPLETION FOR THE WORK OF THIS SECTION IS THE DATE WHEN ALL GRADING,PLANTING, IRRIGATION, AND RELATED WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND IS ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST, AND APPLICABLE AGENCIES.B. {WARRANTY TERMS:} CONTRACTOR'S WARRANTY SHALL INCLUDE REPLACEMENT OF PLANTS DUE TO MORTALITY (SAME SIZE AND SPECIES SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS). PLANTS REPLACED UNDER THIS WARRANTY SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ANADDITIONAL YEAR AFTER REPLACEMENT.C. {EXCEPTIONS:} LOSS DUE TO EXCESSIVELY SEVERE CLIMATOLOGICAL CONDITIONS (SUBSTANTIATED BY 10-YEAR RECORDED WEATHER CHARTS), OR CASES OF NEGLECT BY OWNER, OR CASES OF ABUSE/DAMAGE BY OTHERS. PART 2: PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS2.1 PLANTSA. {GENERAL:} ALL PLANT MATERIAL WILL CONFORM TO THE VARIETIES SPECIFIED OR SHOWN IN THE PLANT LIST(S) INDICATED ON THE MITIGATION PLANS AND BE TRUE TO BOTANICAL NAME AS LISTED IN: HITCHCOCK, C.L., AND A. CRONQUIST. 1973.FLORA OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PRESS.B. {SHRUBS AND TREES:}1. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL EXAMINE PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO PLANTING. ANY MATERIAL NOT MEETING THE REQUIRED SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND REPLACED WITH LIKE MATERIALTHAT MEETS THE REQUIRED STANDARDS. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS WITH RESPECT TO PLANT DISEASE AND INFESTATIONS. INSPECTION CERTIFICATES, REQUIRED BY LAW, SHALL ACCOMPANYEACH AND EVERY SHIPMENT AND SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST UPON CONTRACTOR'S RECEIPT OF PLANT MATERIAL.2. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE LOCALLY GROWN (WESTERN WASHINGTON, WESTERN OREGON, OR WESTERN BC), HEALTHY, BUSHY, IN VIGOROUS GROWING CONDITION, AND GUARANTEED TO BE TRUE TO SIZE, NAME, AND VARIETY. IF REPLACEMENTOF PLANT MATERIAL IS NECESSARY DUE TO CONSTRUCTION DAMAGE OR PLANT FAILURE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF INSTALLATION, THE SIZES, SPECIES, AND QUANTITIES SHALL BE EQUAL TO SPECIFIED PLANTS, AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS.3. PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN, WELL-ROOTED, OF NORMAL GROWTH AND CHARACTER, AND FREE FROM DISEASE OR INFESTATION. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE REPLACEMENT ORSUBSTITUTION OF ANY PLANTS DEEMED UNSUITABLE.4. TREES SHALL HAVE UNIFORM BRANCHING, SINGLE STRAIGHT TRUNKS (UNLESS SPECIFIED AS MULTI-STEM, MULTI-CANE, OR MULTI-TRUNK), AND AN INTACT AND UNDAMAGED CENTRAL LEADER. CONTAINER STOCK SHALL HAVE BEEN GROWN IN ACONTAINER FOR AT LEAST ONE FULL GROWING SEASON AND SHALL HAVE A WELL DEVELOPED ROOT SYSTEM. PLANT MATERIAL THAT IS ROOT-BOUND OR HAS DAMAGED ROOT ZONES OR BROKEN ROOT BALLS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.5. CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN, FULL AND BUSHY, WITH UNIFORM BRANCHING AND A NATURAL, NON-SHEARED FORM. ORIGINAL CENTRAL LEADER MUST BE HEALTHY AND UNDAMAGED. MAXIMUM GAP BETWEEN BRANCHING SHALLNOT EXCEED 9 INCHES, AND LENGTH OF TOP LEADER SHALL NOT EXCEED 12 INCHES.6. SHRUBS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF THREE STEMS AND SHALL BE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 18 INCHES.7. TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL HAVE DEVELOPED ROOT AND BRANCH SYSTEMS. DO NOT PRUNE BRANCHES BEFORE DELIVERY.8. NATIVE PLANT CUTTINGS SHALL BE GROWN AND COLLECTED IN THE MARITIME PACIFIC NORTHWEST. CUTTINGS SHALL BE OF ONE TO TWO-YEAR-OLD WOOD, {½} INCH DIAMETER MINIMUM. CUTTINGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4 FEET IN LENGTH WITH 4LATERAL BUDS EXPOSED ABOVE GROUND AFTER PLANTING. THE TOP OF EACH CUTTING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 1 INCH ABOVE A LEAF BUD, THE BOTTOM CUT 2 INCHES BELOW A BUD. THE BASAL ENDS OF THE CUTTINGS SHALL BE CUT AT A 45 DEGREEANGLE AND MARKED CLEARLY SO THAT THE ROOTING END IS PLANTED IN THE SOIL. CUTTINGS MUST BE KEPT COVERED AND MOIST DURING STORAGE AND TRANSPORT, AND NO CUTTINGS SHALL BE STORED MORE THAN THREE DAYS FROM DATE OFCUTTING. CUTTINGS SHALL ONLY BE USED IF PLANTING OCCURS BETWEEN DECEMBER 1ST AND APRIL 1ST. FOR PLANTING BETWEEN APRIL 1ST AND DECEMBER 1ST, CONTAINER PLANTS SHALL BE USED.9. PLANTS SHALL BE FREE OF SPLITS AND CHECKS, BARK ABRASIONS, AND DISFIGURING KNOTS.10. FOR DECIDUOUS PLANTS, BUDS SHALL BE INTACT AND REASONABLY CLOSED AT TIME OF PLANTING, IF DORMANT.11. BALLED AND BURLAPPED PLANTS SHALL HOLD A NATURAL BALL. MANUFACTURED ROOT BALLS ARE UNACCEPTABLE.12. PLANTS SHALL CONFORM TO SIZES INDICATED ON THE PLANT SCHEDULE. PLANTS MAY BE LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM SIZES SPECIFIED.C. {WETLAND EMERGENT PLANTS:}1. SPECIES OF EMERGENT PLANTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS DESCRIBED ON THE MITIGATION PLANS.2. HERBACEOUS PLANTS SPECIFIED AS CLUMP DIVISIONS SHALL BE WELL-ROOTED PORTIONS OF MATURE PLANTS WITH A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 6 INCHES OF VIGOROUS, VEGETATIVE GROWTH ABOVE THE GROUND SURFACE. OTHER HERBACEOUSPLANTS, OTHER THAN CLUMP DIVISIONS, SHALL BE DORMANT PROPAGULES SUCH AS RHIZOMES, TUBERS, CORMS, AND BULBS. PROPAGULE SHOOTS SHALL EXHIBIT TURGOR AND BE LIGHT IN COLOR, AND PROPAGULE BODIES SHALL BE RIGID TO THETOUCH. IF THE BODIES OF THE PROPAGULES ARE SOFT AND MUSHY AND THE SHOOTS LACK TURGOR AND ARE DARK IN COLOR, THE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE REJECTED.3. RHIZOMES, TUBERS, CORMS, AND BULBS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 1{½} INCHES.D. {NOXIOUS SPECIES:} ALL PLANT STOCK AND OTHER RE-VEGETATION MATERIALS SHALL BE FREE FROM THE SEED OR OTHER PLANT COMPONENTS OF ANY NOXIOUS OR INVASIVE SPECIES, AS IDENTIFIED BY THE KING COUNTY NOXIOUS WEEDCONTROL BOARD.E. {SUBSTITUTIONS:} SUBSTITUTIONS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHOUT A WRITTEN REQUEST AND APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST, AND APPLICABLE AGENCIES.2.2 PLANTING SOILA. {TOPSOIL:} IF SUITABLE STOCKPILED NATIVE TOPSOIL IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR MITIGATION PLANTINGS, TOPSOIL SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES. STOCKPILED OR IMPORTED TOPSOIL SHALL BE FERTILE, FRIABLE, SANDY LOAMSURFACE SOIL, FREE OF SUBSOIL, CLAY LUMPS, BRUSH, WEEDS, ROOTS, STUMPS, STONES LARGER THAN 1 INCH IN ANY DIMENSION, LITTER, OR ANY OTHER EXTRANEOUS OR TOXIC MATTER HARMFUL TO PLANT GROWTH.B. {ORGANIC CONTENT:} IMPORTED TOPSOIL SHALL CONSIST OF ORGANIC MATERIALS AMENDED AS NECESSARY TO PRODUCE A BULK ORGANIC CONTENT OF AT LEAST 10 PERCENT AND NOT GREATER THAN 20 PERCENT, AS DETERMINED BYAASHTO-T-194.C. {COMPOST:} COMPOST SHALL MEET THE DEFINITION FOR COMPOSTED MATERIALS AS DEFINED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY.D. {SOIL AMENDMENTS (BUFFER AREAS ONLY):}D.A. FERTILIZER: WOODY PLANTINGS SHALL BE FERTILIZED WITH A SLOW-RELEASE GENERAL GRANULAR FERTILIZER (16-16-16), WITH APPLICATION RATES AS SPECIFIED BY MANUFACTURER. FERTILIZER SHALL BE APPLIED AFTER PLANTING PIT ISBACKFILLED, AND PRIOR TO APPLICATION OF MULCH. FERTILIZER SHALL NOT BE APPLIED BETWEEN NOVEMBER AND MARCH. NO FERTILIZER SHALL BE APPLIED WITHIN WETLAND AREAS.D.B. SOIL MOISTURE RETENTION AGENT: A SOIL MOISTURE RETENTION AGENT, SUCH AS "SOILMOIST" OR EQUAL, SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE BACKFILL OF EACH PLANTING PIT, PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. NO MOISTURE RETENTIONAGENT SHALL BE APPLIED WITHIN WETLAND AREAS.2.3 MULCHA. BARK OR WOODCHIP MULCH SHALL BE DERIVED FROM DOUGLAS FIR, PINE, OR HEMLOCK SPECIES. THE MULCH SHALL NOT CONTAIN RESIN, TANNIN, OR OTHER COMPOUNDS IN QUANTITIES THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO ANIMAL, PLANT LIFE, ORWATER QUALITY. SAWDUST SHALL NOT BE USED AS MULCH.B. MULCH SHALL BE MEDIUM-COARSE GROUND WITH AN APPROXIMATELY 3-INCH MINUS PARTICLE SIZE. FINE PARTICLES SHALL BE MINIMIZED SO THAT NOT MORE THAN 30%, BY LOOSE VOLUME, WILL PASS THROUGH A US NO. 4 SIEVE.2.4 MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALSA. {STAKES, DEADMEN AND GUY STAKES:} SOUND, DURABLE, WESTERN RED CEDAR, OR OTHER APPROVED WOOD, FREE OF INSECT OR FUNGUS INFESTATION.B. {CHAIN-LOCK TREE TIES:} {½}-INCH WIDE, PLASTIC. PART 3: EXECUTION3.1 SOIL PREPARATIONA. {PLANTING AREA CONDITIONS:} CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT PLANT INSTALLATION CONDITIONS ARE SUITABLE WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA(S). ANY UNSATISFACTORY CONDITIONS SHALL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO START OF WORK. WHENCONDITIONS DETRIMENTAL TO PLANT GROWTH ARE ENCOUNTERED, SUCH AS RUBBLE FILL, POOR DRAINAGE, COMPACTED SOILS, SIGNIFICANT EXISTING OR INVASIVE VEGETATION, OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS, CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THEPROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST PRIOR TO PLANTING. THE BEGINNING OF WORK BY THE CONTRACTOR CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS AS SATISFACTORY.B. {PLANTING IN UNDISTURBED, NON-GRADED AREAS:} PLANTS INSTALLED IN UNDISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE INTEGRATED WITH EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION AND PLANTED IN A RANDOM, NATURALISTIC PATTERN. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OFPLANTINGS, ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, TRASH, AND NON-NATIVE INVASIVE PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE PROJECT AREA. IN NON-GRADED AREAS, TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE PIT PLANTED AS SHOWN IN TYPICAL PLANTINGDETAILS. PLANTING PITS SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH A 50/50 MIXTURE OF IMPORTED, WEED-FREE TOPSOIL AND THE SOIL FROM THE PLANTING PIT.C. {PLANTING IN GRADED AREAS:} IN GRADED PLANTING AREAS PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY PLACED TOPSOIL.D. {SOIL DECOMPACTION/SCARIFICATION:} SOILS IN GRADED/DISTURBED AREAS THAT ARE COMPACTED AND UNSUITABLE FOR PROPER PLANT GROWTH SHALL BE DECOMPACTED AND/OR SCARIFIED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6-INCH {PRIOR} TOTOPSOIL INSTALLATION.3.2 PLANTINGA. {PLANT LAYOUT:} PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE STAKED AND IDENTIFIED WITH AN APPROVED CODING SYSTEM OR BY PLACEMENT OF THE ACTUAL PLANT MATERIAL. FOR LARGE GROUPINGS OF A SINGLE SPECIES OFSHRUB, LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR MAY STAKE THE PLANTING BOUNDARIES.B. {OBTAIN LAYOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST PRIOR TO EXCAVATION OF PLANTING PITS.}C. {PLANTING PIT DIMENSIONS:}1. PIT DEPTH: NOT TO EXCEED THE ROOT BALL OR CONTAINER DEPTH.2. PIT WIDTH: MEASURED AT THE GROUND SURFACE, 2 TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE ROOT BALL OR CONTAINER, AS INDICATED IN TYPICAL PLANTING DETAILS.a. BARE-ROOT PLANTS: DIAMETER EQUAL TO THE WIDTH OF THE ROOT SPREAD.D. {SETTING PLANTS:}1. BALLED PLANTS: SET PLANTS IN POSITION AND BACKFILL 1/2 DEPTH OF BALL. COMPLETELY REMOVE CAGE AND TWINE FROM PLANT AND PULL BURLAP DOWN AS FAR AS POSSIBLE. COMPLETE BACKFILL AND SETTLE WITH WATER. ROOT COLLARSHALL REMAIN 1 INCH ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE.2. BARE-ROOT PLANTS: PRUNE BRUISED OR BROKEN ROOTS. SET PLANT IN POSITION AND PLACE WETLAND PLANTING SOIL AROUND ROOTS. USE CARE TO AVOID BRUISING OR BREAKING ROOTS WHEN FIRMING SOIL. SETTLE WITH WATER.3. SHRUB/TREE PLANTING: SHRUB AND TREE STOCK SHALL BE PLANTED IN HAND-DUG HOLES ACCORDING TO PLANTING DETAILS SHOWN ON THE MITIGATION PLANS. SHRUB AND TREE ROOT BALLS SHALL BE SET SO THAT ROOT COLLARS ARE 1 INCHABOVE ADJACENT GRADE. ALL BACKFILL SHALL BE GENTLY TAMPED IN PLACE.4. SURFACE FINISH: FORM A SAUCER AS INDICATED ON TYPICAL PLANTING DETAILS, OR AS DIRECTED. GRADE SOIL TO FORM A BASIN ON THE LOWER SIDE OF SLOPE PLANTINGS TO CATCH AND RETAIN WATER.5. IN FORESTED AREAS, CONTRACTOR SHALL LOOSELY TIE A 2 FOOT PIECE OF BIODEGRADABLE FLAGGING TO THE TOP PORTION OF ALL PLANTED VEGETATION, BUT NOT ON A CENTRAL LEADER, TO FACILITATE POST-CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCEAND MAINTENANCE REVIEW BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST AND REGULATORY AGENCIES.6. ACTUAL PLANT SYMBOL QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLANS SHALL PREVAIL OVER QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLANT SCHEDULE IN THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY.E. {MULCHING:}1. GRADED BUFFER AREAS: ARE MULCHED PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION AS DIRECTED IN THE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS.2. NON-GRADED BUFFER AREAS: PROVIDE A 36-INCH DIAMETER, 3-INCH DEEP MULCH RING AROUND THE BASE OF EACH TREE, AND A 24-INCH DIAMETER, 3-INCH DEEP MULCH RING AROUND THE BASE OF EACH SHRUB.3. WATER PLANTS THOROUGHLY AFTER MULCHING.F. {PRUNING:} PRUNE IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLANTING ONLY AS DIRECTED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST.G. TR{EE STAKES AND TIES:} STAKE DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN TREES 4 FEET OR OVER IN HEIGHT WITH ONE (1) STAKE PER TREE. STAKE TREES IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLANTING. PLACE STAKE AT THE OUTER EDGE OF THE ROOTS OR BALL, IN LINEWITH THE PREVAILING WIND, AND AT A 10 DEGREE ANGLE FROM THE TREE TRUNK. LOOSELY ATTACH STAKE TO TREE USING CHAIN-LOCK TIES; TREE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SWAY.H. {INSTALLING IRRIGATION}1. {GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:} REFER TO WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS COPPER GATE APARTMENTS IRRIGATION PLAN.J. {CRITICAL AREAS FENCE AND SIGNS:} INSTALL CRITICAL AREAS FENCE AND CRITICAL AREAS SIGNS WHERE SHOWN ON PLANS. SEE SHEET W1.1, W1.2, AND W3.0 DETAIL 2.K. {RESTORE EXISTING NATURAL OR LANDSCAPED AREAS:}1. EXISTING NATURAL OR LANDSCAPED AREAS THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RESTORED TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION, UNLESS IMPROVEMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS ARE SPECIFIED FOR THOSE AREAS.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE TO PREVENT INJURY TO THE TRUNK, ROOTS, OR BRANCHES OF ANY TREES OR SHRUBS THAT ARE TO REMAIN. ANY LIVING, WOODY PLANT THAT IS DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE TREATED WITHIN24 HOURS OF OCCURRENCE, AND THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF THE INCIDENT. DAMAGE TREATMENT SHALL INCLUDE EVENLY CUTTING BROKEN BRANCHES, BROKEN ROOTS, AND DAMAGED TREE BARK.INJURED PLANTS SHALL BE THOROUGHLY WATERED AND ADDITIONAL MEASURES SHALL BE TAKEN, AS APPROPRIATE, TO AID IN PLANT SURVIVAL.L. {FINAL INSPECTION AND APPROVAL:} THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST IN WRITING AT LEAST TEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE REQUESTED DATE OF A PROJECT COMPLETION INSPECTION. IF ITEMS ARE TO BECORRECTED, A PUNCH LIST SHALL BE PREPARED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST AND SUBMITTED TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR COMPLETION. AFTER PUNCH LIST ITEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGISTSHALL REVIEW THE PROJECT AGAIN FOR FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION. IF PUNCH LIST ITEMS REQUIRE PLANT REPLACEMENT, AND THE INSPECTION OCCURS OUTSIDE OF A SUITABLE PLANTING SEASON, PLANTS SHALL BE REPLACEDDURING THE NEXT PLANTING SEASON.M. {AS-BUILT PLAN:} CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING PLANT LOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES ON THE PLANT SCHEDULE WITH THOSE REPRESENTED AS SYMBOLS ON THE MITIGATION PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP A COMPLETE SET OFPRINTS AT THE JOB SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECORDING IN-THE-FIELD CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPROVED PLANS. THIS INFORMATION SHALL BE UPDATED ON A DAILY BASIS AS NECESSARY. PART 4: ONE YEAR CONTRACTOR WARRANTY{ NOTE:} THESE MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS APPLY TO THE ONE-YEAR CONTRACTOR WARRANTY PERIOD ONLY. IF THIS MITIGATION PROJECT REQUIRES LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE MONITORING, AS DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNING JURISDICTION,THE MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDELINES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERFORMANCE MONITORING STANDARDS ARE INCLUDED IN THE MITIGATION REPORT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PLAN SET, AND MAY ALSO BE INCLUDED ON A SEPARATE PLANSHEET IF REQUIRED.A. {REVIEW OF MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS:} CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH A QUALIFIED WETLAND BIOLOGIST FROM THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH THESTATED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT PLAN.B. {MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES:} CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TREES AND SHRUBS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN HEALTHY GROWTH AND HABITAT DIVERSITY. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIESSHALL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: (A) REPLACING PLANTS DUE TO MORTALITY, (B) TIGHTENING AND REPAIRING TREE STAKES, (C) RESETTING PLANTS TO PROPER GRADES AND UPRIGHT POSITIONS, AND (D) CORRECTING DRAINAGE PROBLEMSAS REQUIRED.D. {STAKE AND TIE REMOVAL:} CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE TREE STAKES AND TIES ONE YEAR AFTER INSTALLATION, UNLESS RECEIVING WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST TO DELAY REMOVAL OF STAKES ANDTIESE. {EROSION AND DRAINAGE:} CONTRACTOR SHALL CORRECT EROSION AND DRAINAGE PROBLEMS AS REQUIRED.F. {IRRIGATION SYSTEM REMOVAL:} CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE IRRIGATION SYSTEM APPROXIMATELY 2 YEARS AFTER PLANTING, OR AS APPROVED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST.G. FI{NAL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND APPROVAL:} UPON COMPLETION OF THE ONE-YEAR MAINTENANCE PERIOD, AN INSPECTION BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST SHALL BE CONDUCTED TO CONFIRM THAT THE PROJECT AREA WAS ½ ½ ½ 1,Θ≅ΗΚ Ε∆ΜΒ∆ Χ∆Σ≅ΗΚ NOT TO SCALE2'-0"CONCRETE FOOTING (TYP)3'-0"PITCH SURFACE TO DRAIN (TYP) C 8'-0" O.C. (TYP) 1'-0"1'-6"6" 6" DIAM. ROUGH CEDAR POST (TYP) 2" x 6" SPLIT CEDAR RAIL (TYP)ON CENTERFINISHED GRADE COMPACTED GRANULAR SUB-BASE \pxql,t8;{\W0.9;* NOTE: IF APPLICABLE, FENCE SHALL BE LOCATED 6" INSIDE THE BACK EDGE OF SIDEWALK-TYPICAL} L {NOTES:1. SPLIT CEDAR RAILS TO BESNUG FIT INTO POSTCHANNELS2. BUTT ENDS OF RAILS TOMEET CENTERED IN POSTCHANNEL.} 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702N. PERRY STREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106PACIFIC ACE SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY TALASEACONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE MITIGATIONPLAN PREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS INOCTOBER 2019. NOTES ∂ ∂ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN {\C2;TABLE 7. PROJECTED SCHEDULE FOR PERFORMANCE MONITORING} YEAR DATE MAINTEANCE REVIEW PERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORT DUE TO AGENCY YEAR 0, AS-BUILT AND BASELINE ASSESSMENT FALL X X X SPRING X X FALL X X X 2 SPRING X X X FALL X X 3 SPRING X X FALL X X 4 SPRING X FALL X X 5 SPRING X FALL X X X* *OBTAIN FINAL APPROVAL TO FACILITATE BOND RELEASE FROM THE CITY (PRESUMES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ARE MET) Know what's below. before you dig.Call R NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JOB NO.: PRINT: DATE OF \\\\esm8\\ENGR\\ESM-JOBS\\2140\\001\\020\\Survey Plots\\TAL-1835 WP (COPPER GATE) 2019-12.dwg5/22/2020 2:37 PMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Raeline Garciaιδµ?ϖδσ−κµχ∋702( 735,0573SECT. 31 TWNSP. 22N., RANGE 05E. W.M.Γ≅ΑΗΣ≅Σ ΗΛΟ≅ΒΣ ≅ΡΡ∆ΡΡΛ∆ΜΣ Θ∆ΟΝΘΣΒΝΟΟ∆Θ Φ≅Σ∆ ≅Ο≅ΘΣΛ∆ΜΣΡPERFORMANCE MONITORIG PLANWASHINGTONCITY OF AUBURN2140-001-020 W1.3 5/21/2020 ς3−/ 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY DURYEA & ASSOCIATES, 2702N. PERRY STREET, SPOKANE, WA (509) 465-8007.2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BCRA ENGINEERS, 2106PACIFIC ACE SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA.3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY TALASEACONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS.4. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE MITIGATIONPLAN PREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS INOCTOBER 2019. NOTES APPROVED BY:DATE APPROVED: PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN ENGINENERING DIVISION'S REQUIREMENTS. I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Appendix C Appendix C Select Maps from BCRA Reports 1. Copper Gate Apartments, Developed Condition Basin Map, BCRA, 09.2019 2. Compensatory Storage Exhibit, BCRA, 10.2019 3. Civil Plan Set, 27 May 2020 (Select Sheets) I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Appendix C1 Appendix C1 Copper Gate Apartments, Developed Condition Basin Map, BCRA, 09.2019 79+00 80+00 81+00 82+00 83+00 84+00 85+00 86+00 87+00 88+00 89+00 90+00 91+00 92+00 93+00 94+00 95+00 96+00 97+00 98+00 99+00 99+49 BUILDING D TYPE 3A BUILDING F TYPE 2 BUILDING G TYPE 1 GARAGE 12BUILDING ETYPE 2GARAGE 10 GARAGE 9BUILDING C TYPE 3GARAGE 13GARAGE 14BUILDING ABUILDING BTYPE 4BUILDI N G H TYPE 1 GARAGE 1GARAGE 8BUILDING JTYPE 4BUILDING KTYPE 3SPLASHPADPOOLBUILDING LCLUBHOUSEGARAGE 2BUILDING MTYPE 4GARAGE 3GARAGE 4 BUILDING PTYPE 1GARAGE 7BUILDING N TYPE 3A BUILDING QTYPE 3BUILDING RTYPE 3GARAGE 6BIKE STORAGE BUILDING TTYPE 4MAINT.BUILDING STYPE 1AGARAGE 5 GARAGE 11PICNICHORSE SHOESBOCCE BALL HORSE S H O E S PICNICBIKESTORAGEBIKE STORAGE COMM U N I T Y GARDE N PICNIC PICN IC X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXX X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DS DS DS DSDS DS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DSDS DS DS DS DSDS DS DS DSDS DS DS DS DS DSDSDSDSDSDS DS DS DSDS DSDS DSDS DSDS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DS DSDS DS DS DS DSDSDSDSDSDS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DS DS DS DSDS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DS DSDS DSDSDS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DSDS DSDSDSDS DSDS DSDS DSDS DSDSDSDSDSDSDS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DSDS DSDSDS DS DSDS DSDS DS DS DS DS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSFDFDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FD FD FD FD FD FDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDF D FD FDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFD FDFD FDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FD FDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FD FD FD FDFD FD FD FD FDFD FD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDF D FDFD FD FD FD FDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFFE:54.08ZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE XZONE XZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE AEZONE XZONE XZONE AEZONE X ZONE A E ZONE AEZONE XXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXXN09.2019 / COPPER GATE APARTMENTSDEVELOPED CONDITION BASIN MAPSCALE: 1"=00200 100200200'PROPOSEDBASIN 1PROPOSEDBASIN 2PROPOSEDBASIN 3WETLAND CPROPOSEDBASIN 1FUTURE I STREET ALIGNMENTPROPOSEDBASIN 4PROPOSEDBASIN 5WATERCOURSE/DITCH LINTERMITTENT FISH-BEARINGWDFW TYPE FAUBURN CLASS II75' STANDARD BUFFER25' REDUCED BUFFER W/ MITIGATIONWATERCOURSE/DITCH KINTERMITTENT FISH-BEARINGWDFW TYPE FAUBURN CLASS II75' STANDARD BUFFERWETLAND A EAST, OFFSITE(PORT OF SEATTLE PROPERTY)HIGH POINT IN DITCHCONVEYANCE DITCH INOT A WATERCOURSENO BUFFERCONVEYANCE DITCH HNOT A WATERCOURSENO BUFFERWETLAND A NORTH(LANDS OF AUBURN)STORM PONDHIGH POINT IN DITCHFUTURE I STREET ALIGNMENT I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Appendix C2 Appendix C2 Compensatory Storage Exhibit, BCRA, 10.2019 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXX X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXZONE XZONE AEZONE X ZONE A E ZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE XZONE XZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE X5151 5 1 515252 5252 52525352525252 5252535 3 525351525251 52 52 52 52 5252525252515252525152 NSCALE: 1"=00200 100200200'CONVEYANCE RUN 218" PIPE @ 0.5% SLOPECONVEYS AREA 310.2019 / COPPER GATE APARTMENTSCOMPENSATORY STORAGE EXHIBITMATCH LINE SEE NEXT PAGEFUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGRADING SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLYNO CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS AREPROVIDED FOR THIS AREA AT THIS TIMEAREA 1AREA 2AREA 3AREA 4AREA 5IMPROVED FLOODCONVEYANCE CHANNELCONVEYS AREA 6EXISTING 36" PIPELOCATED IN D STREETCONVEYS AREA 2EXISTING DITCHCONVEYS AREA 5CONVEYANCE RUN 130" PIPE @ 0.2% SLOPECONVEYS AREA 1-5I STREET NEAUBURN WAY N49TH STREET NED STREET NE S 277TH STREET45TH STREET NE 4542 43 44464745 42 43 44 454344 4650 4748495046474849 4748 495050 55 494951515252 52 53 54 56 N10.2019 / COPPER GATE APARTMENTSCOMPENSATORY STORAGE EXHIBITSCALE: 1"=00200 100200200'MATCH LINE SEE PREVIOUS PAGEAREA 6GREEN RIVER I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Appendix C3 Appendix C3 Civil Plan Set, 27 May 2020 (Select Sheets) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX X XXX XXXXX X X X X X XXXXXXX X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X XXCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC X XXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXXXXXXX XXX X X X XXXXXXXXXXXZONE X ZONE AE ZONE XZONE AEZONE AE ZONE X ZONE AE ZONE X ZONE AE ZONE X ZONE X ZONE A E ZONE X ZONE AE Z O N E A E Z O N E X ZONE AE ZONE X ZONE AE ZONE X N SCALE: 1"= 00200100 200 200' THE BEARING OF SOUTH 35°20'08" EAST, ALONG THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF AUBURN WAY NORTH FROM COA MON 109-001 AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY OF AUBURN WAY NORTH TO COA MON 209-002 AT THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF AUBURN WAY NORTH, WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN UPON THIS SURVEY. CITY OF AUBURN BENCHMARKS COA MON 209-002 ELEV=53.61' (NAVD88) 2 1/2" SURFACE BRASS CAP WITH PUNCH STAMPED "CITY OF AUBURN 1980" VISITED 12/13/2018 ON-SITE TEMPORARY BENCHMARK NO. 1 CHISELED "X" IN THE SOUTHEAST HEADBOLT ON FIRE HYDRANT HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 55.15' (NAVD88) ON-SITE TEMPORARY BENCHMARK NO. 2 RAILROAD SPIKE IN SW SIDE OF POWER POLE HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 52.86' (NAVD88) PROJECT TEAM DEVELOPER INLAND GROUP 120 W CATALDO, SUITE 100 SPOKANE, WA 99201 PHONE 509.321.3228 CONTACT BRENT PARRISH EMAIL BRENTP@INLANDCONSTRUCTION.COM CIVIL ENGINEER BCRA 2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300 TACOMA, WA 98402 CONTACT BEN DORT, PE PHONE 253.627.4367 EMAIL BDORT@BCRADESIGN.COM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 21 S PINES ROAD SPOKANE, WA 99204 CONTACT SUSAN MOSS, ASLA PHONE 509.893.2617 EMAIL SMOSS@WHIPPLECE.COM SURVEYOR DURYEA AND ASSOCIATES PO BOX 7400 SPOKANE, WA 99207 CONTACT MITCH DURYEA PHONE 509.465.8007 EMAIL MITCH@DURYEA-ASSOCIATES.COM GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC 1805 136TH PL NE, SUITE 201 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 CONTACT ADAM Z. SHIER, L.G. PHONE 425.449.4704 EMAIL ADAMS@ESNW.COM BIOLOGIST TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. 15020 BEAR CREEK ROAD NE WOODENVILLE, WA 98077 CONTACT JENNIFER MARRIOTT, PWS PHONE 425.861.7550 EMAIL JMARRIOTT@TALASAEA.COM I STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WA BASIS OF BEARING VERTICAL DATUM N A PORTION OF SEC. 31, TWP 22 N., R5E W.M. SITE PROJECTBCRA NO. DATE REVISIONS SHEET TITLE SEAL T 253.627.4367 F 253.627.4395 WWW.BCRADESIGN.COM2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA 98402DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: IF SHEET MEASURES LESS THAN 24"X36", IT IS A REDUCED PRINT. REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLYDATE PLOTTED: 5/27/2020 4:18:50 PM FILENAME: 18208C-001-003.DWG BY: ----DESIGNED BY: SHEET © COPYRIGHT 2019 - BCRA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OWNER PROJECT REF: FAC19-0018 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN'S ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS. APPROVED BY: Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. INLAND GROUP PERMIT SET C0.01 COVER SHEET 18208 05.27.2020 JBD ACCRJBAUBURN, WA 98002 I STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS4750 AUBURN WAY NORTH FAC19-0018ZONE R20 ZONE R20 ZONE R20 ZONE R20 REFER TO SURVEY PLANS PREPARED BY "DURYEA & ASSOCIATES SURVEYING AND MAPPING" AND PERFORMED ON DECEMBER 11-13, 2018, MARCH 11-13, 2019, MARCH 20, 2019, AND APRIL 25-26, 2019. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONE C3 ZONE C4 PARCELS ZONING STORM PERMIT EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ·GRA19-0041 - GRADING ·STM20-XXXX - LEVEL 3 STORM ·FDP19-0017 - LEVEL 3 FLOODPLAIN VICINITY MAP (BY OTHERS) NOT TO SCALE COA MON 109-001 N=131425.2 E=1294813.55 2 1/2" SURFACE BRASS CAP WITH PUNCH STAMPED "CITY OF AUBURN 1980" VISITED 12/13/2018 COA MON 209-002 N=129949.1 E=1295860.07 2 1/2" SURFACE BRASS CAP WITH PUNCH STAMPED "CITY OF AUBURN 1980" VISITED 12/13/2018 ASSOCIATED REQUIRED PERMITS THE STANDARD DETAILS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE PLACE HOLDERS AND IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY AND COMPLY WITH THE LATEST DETAIL(S) ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF AUBURN AND THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. STANDARD DETAIL NOTE NAD83(1991), WASHINGTON STATE PLANE COORDINATES (WSPC), NORTH ZONE. HORIZONTAL DATUM PRIVATE: 9360600258, 9360600280, 9360600300, 9360600305, 9360600323, 9360600325, 9360600330 PUBLIC: 9360600271 CURRENT LAND USE ZONE DESIGNATION: C-4 - MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL PROPOSED LAND USE: MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 218,000 SF TOTAL NEW AND REPLACED HARD SURFACE = 126,100 SF TOTAL NEW HARD SURFACE = 120,800 SF CUT* = 500 CY FILL* = 23,000 CY NET IMPORT/EXPORT* = 22,500 CY IMPORT TOTAL EARTHWORK* = 23,500 CY *THESE VALUES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR BIDDING PURPOSES. SHEET INDEX SHEET NO. TITLE GENERAL C0.01 COVER SHEET C0.02 LEGENDS AND ABBREVIATIONS C0.03 STANDARD NOTES C0.04 SURVEY CONTROL PLAN OFFSITE C1.01 SITE PREPARATION PLAN C1.02 SITE PREPARATION PLAN C1.03 SITE PREPARATION PLAN C1.04 SITE PREPARATION PLAN C1.05 SITE PREPARATION PLAN C2.01 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE C2.02 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE C2.03 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE C2.04 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE C2.05 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE C2.06 FLOOD CONVEYANCE CHANNEL C2.07 WALL PLAN AND PROFILE C3.01 PAVEMENT MARKING AND SIGNAGE PLAN C3.02 PAVEMENT MARKING AND SIGNAGE PLAN C3.03 PAVEMENT MARKING AND SIGNAGE PLAN C3.04 PAVEMENT MARKING AND SIGNAGE PLAN C4.01 45TH ST AND I STREET NB & SB SIGHT DISTANCE PLAN C4.02 277TH ST AND I STREET EB SIGHT DISTANCE PLAN DETAILS C5.01 ROAD SECTIONS C5.02 TESC DETAILS C5.03 SITE AND SURFACING DETAILS C5.04 SITE AND SURFACING DETAILS C5.05 STORM DRAINAGE DETAILS C5.06 GRADING DETAILS C5.07 COA STANDARD DETAILS C5.08 COA STANDARD DETAILS ILLUMINATION IL01 ILLUMINATION PLAN IL02 ILLUMINATION PLAN IL03 ILLUMINATION PLAN TS01 TRAFFIC SIGNAL NOTES S 277TH ST & I ST NE TS02 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN S 277TH ST & I ST NE TS03 TRAFFIC SIGNAL DETAILS S 277TH ST & I ST NE TS04 TRAFFIC SIGNAL DETAILS S 277TH ST & I ST NE TS05 TRAFFIC SIGNAL DETAILS S 277TH ST & I ST NE LANDSCAPE L1.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.2 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2.0 IRRIGATION PLAN L2.1 IRRIGATION PLAN CRITICAL AREAS MITIGATION W1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN W1.1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN W1.2 IMPACTS & MITIGATION OVERVIEW PLAN W2.0 GRADING PLAN W2.1 CLEARING, GRUBBING, & HABITAT FEATURE INSTALLATION NOTES W2.2 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS W3.0 PLANTING PLAN W3.1 PLANTING PLAN, PLANT SCHEDULE, NOTES, & DETAILS W4.0 PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS I S T R E E T N E (M I N O R A R T E R I A L ) A U B U R N W A Y N ( P R I N C I P A L A R T E R I A L ) 49TH STREET NE (NON-RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR)D STREET NE(NON RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR)S 277TH STREET (PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL)45TH ST REET NE (RESI DE NTIAL C OLLE CT O R) ZONE C3 ZONE C3 ZONE C3 ZONE C3 ZONE C3 CITY OF AUBURN APPROVALS THIS PLAN SET FOR PROJECT GRA19-0047, SHEETS C0.01 TO W4.0 ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION BY: JACOB SWEETING, P.E., CITY ENGINEER: STEVEN STURZA, P.E., DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENGINEER: JEFF DIXON, PLANNING SERVICE MANAGER: 100+00 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+0 0 79+00 80+00 81+00 82+00 83+00 84+00510+00510+34X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XPPWWWWWWWWWWWDDD 5055 4951525354//////// / / / / ////////////////////////////////////////////XXXX******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 109+00 84 + 0 0 X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSSSSSSSSSWW W D D D D D D D DDDD50 51 52 52 53 53 54 54ZONE AEZONE X************************************************ INSTALL SILT CONTROL FENCE PER COA DETAIL E-02.1 INSTALL CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION PER COA DETAIL E-03.1 INSTALL STRAW WATTLE PER DETAIL INSTALL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EXIT PER COA DETAIL E-01.1 OFFSITE TESC NOTES 1 2 3 4 PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING GAS LINE AND ASSOCIATEDAPPURTENANCES9 REMOVE EXISTING CEMENT CONCRETE REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVE EXISTING TREE REMOVE EXISTING FENCE REMOVE EXISTING CULVERT PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING SIDEWALK PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING WATER MAIN AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES OFFSITE DEMOLITION NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING TREE PER DETAIL REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER SAW CUT A NEAT UNIFORM LINE FULL DEPTH OF EXISTING ASPHALT PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER REMOVE EXISTING STRIPING 11 12 13 14 15 REMOVE BLOW OFF ASSEMBLY AND BLIND FLANGE FORCONTINUATION OF WATER LINE AS SHOWN ON SHEET C2.01.24 C-CURB, NO GRINDING OF S 277TH ST IS ALLOWED. REMOVE EXISTING SIGN AND PROVIDE EXISTING SIGNS TO CITY OFAUBURN STAFF FOR REUSE. REMOVE EXISTING STREET LIGHT. REFER TO ILLUMINATION PLANS FORLOCATION OF PROPOSED LIGHT. 30 31 N SCALE: 1"= 20 10 0 20 20' C1.01 SITE PREPARATION PLAN 18208 05.27.2020 JBD ACCRJBAUBURN, WA 98002 I STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS4750 AUBURN WAY NORTH PROJECTBCRA NO. DATE REVISIONS SHEET TITLE SEAL T 253.627.4367 F 253.627.4395 WWW.BCRADESIGN.COM2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA 98402DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: IF SHEET MEASURES LESS THAN 24"X36", IT IS A REDUCED PRINT. REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLYDATE PLOTTED: 5/27/2020 4:23:05 PM FILENAME: 18208C-101-103.DWG BY: ----DESIGNED BY: SHEET © COPYRIGHT 2019 - BCRA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OWNER PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN'S ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS. DEV. REVIEW ENGINEER: APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. INLAND GROUP PERMIT SETMATCH LINE SEE SHEET C1.02MATCH L INE SEE BELOWMATCH LINE SEE ABOVEN 1 1 2 2 1 2 213 2 3 4 5 1 6 7 5 5 9 12 14 2 7 I STREET NE (MINOR ARTERIAL)45TH STREET NE(RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR)11 I STREET NE (MINOR ARTERIAL) 6 2 2 6 C5.02 1 4 24 15 30 30 C5.02 2 31 3 3 109+00110+0 0 111+00 112+00 113+00 114+ 0 0 213+00214+00215+00XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXP P WDDDDDDDDD52 53 XX***************114+00 115+00 116+00 117+00 118+00 215+00WP WWWWWW51 5252 5253 53 505152 53 5049 51 5250 51 52 52 52XXX*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************50' WETLANDBUFFERINSTALL SILT CONTROL FENCE PER COA DETAIL E-02.1 INSTALL CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION PER COA DETAIL E-03.1 INSTALL STRAW WATTLE PER DETAIL INSTALL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EXIT PER COA DETAIL E-01.1 OFFSITE TESC NOTES 1 2 3 PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING WETLAND. PROTECT WETLAND FROM CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AND SEDIMENT LADEN STORMWATER RUNOFF. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING TREE PER DETAIL 10 11 OFFSITE DEMOLITION NOTES PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING SIDEWALK PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING WATER MAIN AND ASSOCIATEDAPPURTENANCES 6 7 SAW CUT A NEAT UNIFORM LINE FULL DEPTH OF EXISTING ASPHALT PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 13 14 REMOVE EXISTING CURB PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING STORM DRAIN AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES 16 17 PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENT REMOVE TEMPORARY BARRICADE AND SIGN19 REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT2 PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING WATER METER, SERVICE LINE, AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES. REMOVE SURFACE MOUNTED FLEXIBLE GUIDE POST. 22 23 CONTINUATION OF WATER LINE AS SHOWN ON SHEET C2.01. REMOVE GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD. RELOCATE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT. REFER TO SHEET C6.04 FOR 25 C1.02 SITE PREPARATION PLAN 18208 05.27.2020 JBD ACCRJBAUBURN, WA 98002 I STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS4750 AUBURN WAY NORTH PROJECTBCRA NO. DATE REVISIONS SHEET TITLE SEAL T 253.627.4367 F 253.627.4395 WWW.BCRADESIGN.COM2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA 98402DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: IF SHEET MEASURES LESS THAN 24"X36", IT IS A REDUCED PRINT. REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLYDATE PLOTTED: 5/27/2020 4:24:17 PM FILENAME: 18208C-101-103.DWG BY: ----DESIGNED BY: SHEET © COPYRIGHT 2019 - BCRA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OWNER PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN'S ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS. DEV. REVIEW ENGINEER: APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. INLAND GROUP PERMIT SETMATCH LINE SEE ABOVEMATCH LINE SEE SHEET C1.03MA TCH L IN E S E E SH E E T C1 . 0 1 MATCH LINE SEE BELOWN SCALE: 1"= 20 10 0 20 20' N 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 6 13 7 6 14I STREET NE (MINOR ARTERIAL) I STREET NE (MINOR ARTERIAL)45TH STREET NE(RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR)2 2 16 17 17 17 17 19 19 19 19 16 C5.02 1 2 17 14 11 11 10 19 13 2 13 2 3 22 22 23 1 23 2 25 14 REFER TO FAC19-0016 PLANS FOR ROUNDABOUT AND 49TH STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS C5.02 2 119+00 120+00 121+00 122+00 123+00909+00910+00XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************INSTALL SILT CONTROL FENCE PER COA DETAIL E-02.1 INSTALL CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION PER COA DETAIL E-03.1 INSTALL STRAW WATTLE PER DETAIL INSTALL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EXIT PER COA DETAIL E-01.1 OFFSITE TESC NOTES 1 2 3 PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING TREE PER DETAIL REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER SAW CUT A NEAT UNIFORM LINE FULL DEPTH OF EXISTING ASPHALT PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER REMOVE EXISTING STRIPING 11 12 13 14 15 OFFSITE DEMOLITION NOTES REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVE EXISTING TREE 2 3 PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING WATER MAIN AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES7 PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING GAS LINE AND ASSOCIATEDAPPURTENANCES9 PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING STORM DRAIN AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES17 REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT TRAIL PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING POWER INFRASTRUCTURE ANDASSOCIATED LINES PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING WATER METER, SERVICE LINE, 20 21 REMOVE EXISTING STRIPING VIA WATER BLASTING, NO GRINDING OF S277TH ST IS ALLOWED.27 REMOVE SURFACE MOUNTED FLEXIBLE GUIDEPOSTS, NO GRINDING OF S 277TH ST IS ALLOWED. 28 INSTALL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EXIT PER COA DETAIL E-01.1 TEMPORARY CONTRACTOR PARKING AREA, EXACT LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEEDS OF THESITE AND THE PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION. TEMPORARY STORAGE AREA, EXACT LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEEDS OF THE SITE AND THEPHASE OF CONSTRUCTION. 5 6 C1.03 SITE PREPARATION PLAN 18208 05.27.2020 JBD ACCRJBAUBURN, WA 98002 I STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS4750 AUBURN WAY NORTH PROJECTBCRA NO. DATE REVISIONS SHEET TITLE SEAL T 253.627.4367 F 253.627.4395 WWW.BCRADESIGN.COM2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA 98402DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: IF SHEET MEASURES LESS THAN 24"X36", IT IS A REDUCED PRINT. REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLYDATE PLOTTED: 5/27/2020 4:25:28 PM FILENAME: 18208C-101-103.DWG BY: ----DESIGNED BY: SHEET © COPYRIGHT 2019 - BCRA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OWNER PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN'S ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS. DEV. REVIEW ENGINEER: APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. INLAND GROUP PERMIT SETMATCH LINE SEE SHEET C1.02SCALE: 1"= 20 10 0 20 20' 1 1 2 2 3 13 13 12 2 27 N311 I STREET NE (MINOR ARTERIAL)S 277TH STREET(PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL)20 2 21 21 C5.02 1 3 3 13 1314 7 9 14 17 2 REFER TO SHEET C1.04 FOR CONTINUATION REFER TO SHEET C1.04 FOR CONTINUATION 27 28 2 5 6 98+0099+00XXXXXXXXXX914+00 915+00 916+00 917+00 918+00 919+00 *************************************************************************************************************************************************************OFFSITE TESC NOTES INSTALL STRAW WATTLE PER DETAIL INSTALL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EXIT PER COA DETAIL E-01.1 3 C1.05 SITE PREPARATION PLAN 18208 05.27.2020 JBD ACCRJBAUBURN, WA 98002 I STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS4750 AUBURN WAY NORTH PROJECTBCRA NO. DATE REVISIONS SHEET TITLE SEAL T 253.627.4367 F 253.627.4395 WWW.BCRADESIGN.COM2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA 98402DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: IF SHEET MEASURES LESS THAN 24"X36", IT IS A REDUCED PRINT. REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLYDATE PLOTTED: 5/27/2020 4:32:08 PM FILENAME: 18208C-105.DWG BY: ----DESIGNED BY: SHEET © COPYRIGHT 2019 - BCRA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OWNER PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN'S ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS. DEV. REVIEW ENGINEER: APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. INLAND GROUP PERMIT SET N SCALE: 1"= 20 10 0 20 20' S 277TH STREET (PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL) MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C1.04 3 C5.02 1 98+0099+00XXXXXXXXXX914+00 915+00 916+00 917+00 918+00 919+00914+00 915+00 916+00 917+00 918+00 919+00 45 45 50 46 4647 47 48 49 2.0%2.0%3.0:13.0:145 45 46 4647 47 4849 40 45 50 55 40 45 50 55 0+00EGCL:FGCL:0+20EGCL:46.3FGCL:44.700+40EGCL:44.6FGCL:0+60EGCL:50.0FGCL:0+80EGCL:FGCL:1+00EGCL:FGCL:1+20EGCL:FGCL:1+40EGCL:FGCL:S 277TH STREET⅊℄ 2' 19.9'1'FINISH GRADE ELEV. EXISTING GRADE ELEV. BASE FLOOD ELEV. FINISH GRADE ELEV. EXISTING GRADE ELEV. BASE FLOOD ELEV.BFE:51.04BFE:51.04BFE:51.04BFE:51.05BFE:51.05BFE:51.05BFE:51.05BFE:51.05-2.0% - 3 . 0 : 1 - 3 . 0 : 1 40 45 50 55 40 45 50 55 0+00EGCL:FGCL:43.820+20EGCL:46.4FGCL:43.860+40EGCL:42.8FGCL:42.750+60EGCL:45.6FGCL:44.030+80EGCL:45.7FGCL:44.13BFE:51.04BFE:51.04BFE:51.04BFE:51.04BFE:51.04FINISH GRADE ELEV. EXISTING GRADE ELEV. BASE FLOOD ELEV. FINISH GRADE ELEV. EXISTING GRADE ELEV. BASE FLOOD ELEV. C2.06 FLOOD CONVEYANCE CHANNEL 18208 05.27.2020 JBD ACCRJBAUBURN, WA 98002 I STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS4750 AUBURN WAY NORTH PROJECTBCRA NO. DATE REVISIONS SHEET TITLE SEAL T 253.627.4367 F 253.627.4395 WWW.BCRADESIGN.COM2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA 98402DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: IF SHEET MEASURES LESS THAN 24"X36", IT IS A REDUCED PRINT. REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLYDATE PLOTTED: 5/27/2020 4:48:55 PM FILENAME: 18208C-206.DWG BY: ----DESIGNED BY: SHEET © COPYRIGHT 2019 - BCRA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OWNER PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN'S ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS. DEV. REVIEW ENGINEER: APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. INLAND GROUP PERMIT SET N SCALE: 1"= 20 10 0 20 20' S 277TH STREET (PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL) 1 C2.06 SCALE:1FLOOD CONVEYANCE CHANNEL SECTION NTS 2 C2.06 SCALE:2WATERCOURSE K SECTION NTS 100+00 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+0 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XPPWWWWWWWWWWWDDDP P P P P P P P P P P P P P P W W W W W 52 53 53 5454 50 50 47 47 48 48 49 49 51525354 50 50484849 49 5152535350525354R610'BW:53.61 BW:52.83 BW:52.04 BW:51.26 BW:50.53 BW:49.92 TW:54.99 TW:54.62 TW:54.14 TW:53.67 TW:53.33 TW:54.50 TW:54.73 TW:54.97TW:55.17 TW:55.19 BW:49.84BW:49.99 BW:50.13BW:50.27 BW:50.42 BW:49.82 STA:101+05.47, 40.00'RELEV: 53.21 STA:103+55.00, 40.00'RELEV: 54.27 PC STA:102+21.54, 40.00'RELEV: 55.07 45 50 55 60 45 50 55 60 100+00EGCL:52.0FGCL:100+20EGCL:52.1FGCL:100+40EGCL:52.4FGCL:100+60EGCL:52.6FGCL:52.62100+80EGCL:52.8FGCL:52.76101+00EGCL:52.8FGCL:52.84101+20EGCL:53.3FGCL:53.06101+40EGCL:53.6FGCL:53.26101+60EGCL:53.5FGCL:53.46101+80EGCL:53.4FGCL:53.66102+00EGCL:53.5FGCL:53.82102+20EGCL:53.2FGCL:53.89102+40EGCL:52.8FGCL:53.88102+60EGCL:52.2FGCL:53.77102+80EGCL:51.3FGCL:53.59103+00EGCL:51.1FGCL:53.39103+20EGCL:50.9FGCL:53.19103+40EGCL:50.3FGCL:52.99103+60EGCL:47.6FGCL:52.79103+80EGCL:50.0FGCL:52.59104+00EGCL:50.0FGCL:52.39104+20EGCL:50.1FGCL:52.26104+40EGCL:50.1FGCL:52.18104+60EGCL:50.1FGCL:52.17104+80EGCL:50.1FGCL:52.22FINISH GRADE ELEV.AT I STREET ℄ EXISTING GRADE ELEV. AT I STREET ℄FINISH GRADE AT BOTTOM OF WALL ELEV. 100+00 BW:TW:100+20 BW:TW:100+40 BW:TW:100+60 BW:TW:100+80 BW:TW:101+00 BW:TW:101+20 BW:50.35TW:53.40101+40 BW:50.24TW:53.67101+60 BW:50.12TW:54.05101+80 BW:50.01TW:54.44102+00 BW:49.89TW:54.79102+20 BW:49.79TW:55.05102+40 BW:49.93TW:55.20102+60 BW:50.45TW:55.18102+80 BW:51.06TW:55.02103+00 BW:51.74TW:54.82103+20 BW:52.41TW:54.62103+40 BW:53.08TW:54.42103+60 BW:TW:103+80 BW:TW:104+00 BW:TW:104+20 BW:TW:104+40 BW:TW:104+60 BW:TW:104+80TW:FINISH GRADE AT TOPOF WALL ELEV. FINISH GRADE AT BOTTOM OF WALL ELEV. FINISH GRADE AT TOP OF WALL ELEV.FINISH GRADE ELEV.AT I STREET ℄ EXISTING GRADE ELEV. AT I STREET ℄ C2.07 WALL PLAN AND PROFILE 18208 05.27.2020 JBD ACCACCAUBURN, WA 98002 I STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS4750 AUBURN WAY NORTH PROJECTBCRA NO. DATE REVISIONS SHEET TITLE SEAL T 253.627.4367 F 253.627.4395 WWW.BCRADESIGN.COM2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA 98402DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: IF SHEET MEASURES LESS THAN 24"X36", IT IS A REDUCED PRINT. REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLYDATE PLOTTED: 5/27/2020 4:52:30 PM FILENAME: 18208C-207.DWG BY: ----DESIGNED BY: SHEET © COPYRIGHT 2019 - BCRA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OWNER PROJECT REF: FAC19-0018 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN'S ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS. APPROVED BY: Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. INLAND GROUP PERMIT SET 0 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"= VERTICAL SCALE: 1"= 5' 5 52.5 20' 20 2010 N SCALE: 1"= 20 10 0 20 20' I STREET NE (MINOR ARTERIAL)45TH STREET NE(RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR)EXISTING CHAINLINK PORT OF SEATTLE FENCE PROJECTBCRA NO. DATE REVISIONS SHEET TITLE SEAL T 253.627.4367 F 253.627.4395 WWW.BCRADESIGN.COM2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA 98402DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: IF SHEET MEASURES LESS THAN 24"X36", IT IS A REDUCED PRINT. REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLYDATE PLOTTED: 5/27/2020 4:56:27 PM FILENAME: 18208C-502-505.DWG BY: ----DESIGNED BY: SHEET © COPYRIGHT 2019 - BCRA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OWNER PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN'S ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS. DEV. REVIEW ENGINEER: APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. INLAND GROUP PERMIT SET C5.02 TESC DETAILS 18208 05.27.2020 JBD ACCRJBAUBURN, WA 98002 I STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS4750 AUBURN WAY NORTH SCALE:1STRAW WATTLE NTS PLAN 48"ORANGE CONSTRUCTION FENCE METAL 'T' POST @ 8' O.C., DRIVE (MIN 24") FIRMLY INTO SUBGRADE NOMINAL 2"X4" CONTINUOUS AROUND TREE TRUNK PLASTIC STRAPPING PULLED TIGHT TO SECURE AND MINIMIZE BOWING TREE DRIP LINE FENCE TO DRIP LINE TREE TRUNK NOMINAL 2" X 4" CONTINUOUS AROUND TREE TRUNK SCALE:2EXISTING TREE PROTECTION NTS PROJECTBCRA NO. DATE REVISIONS SHEET TITLE SEAL T 253.627.4367 F 253.627.4395 WWW.BCRADESIGN.COM2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA 98402DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: IF SHEET MEASURES LESS THAN 24"X36", IT IS A REDUCED PRINT. REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLYDATE PLOTTED: 5/27/2020 4:56:37 PM FILENAME: 18208C-502-505.DWG BY: ----DESIGNED BY: SHEET © COPYRIGHT 2019 - BCRA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OWNER PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN'S ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS. DEV. REVIEW ENGINEER: APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. INLAND GROUP PERMIT SET C5.05 STORM DRAINAGE DETAILS 18208 05.27.2020 JBD ACCRJBAUBURN, WA 98002 I STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS4750 AUBURN WAY NORTH SCALE:1CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 NTS SCALE:2CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 NTS 4 X PIPE DIAMETER MIN. 1' DEPTH QUARRY SPALLS, 100% PASSING 8-IN SQUARE SIEVE, 40-60% MAX. PASSING 3-IN SQUARE SIEVE, 0-10% MAX. PASSING 3/4-IN SQUARE SIEVE WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FOR SEPARATION PER WSDOT SPEC 9-33.2(1) TABLE 3 TRASH RACK PER DETAIL OUTLET PLAN VIEW 6 X PIPE DIAMETER3 X PIPE DIAMETER0.4'PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW END VIEW 3/4" DIA. BAR-FRAME PIPE COUPLING 3"-5"1' MIN.4" O.C. MAX.BAR SPACINGBEVELED PIPE END SECTION 3/4" DIA. SMOOTH BARS WITH ENDS WELDED TO BAR-FRAME 2'X5' ANCHOR STRIPS WELDED TO 3/4" DIA. BAR-FRAME 4 PLCS. SPACED UNIFORMLY FASTEN WITHIN 1/2" BOLTS AND NUTS. NOTES: 1. BEVELED END SLOPE SHALL MATCH POND SIDE SLOPE. 2. ALL PARTS MUST BE ALUMINUM OR STAINLESS STEEL. SCALE:3ENERGY DISSIPATER NTS SCALE:4TRASH RACK NTS C5.05 4 SCALE:5CULVERT NTS3'12'6"6"6"6"6" DEEP STREAMBED MIX PRECAST REINFORCED CEMENT CONCRETE BOX CULVERT 6"INVERT ELEV. PER PLANS 6.2"ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) 2'12.5"8.26' BOTTOM OF STREAM ELEVATION PER PLANS 3H:1V3H:1V SCALE:6STREAM SECTION NTS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 101+00 STA:100+71.67, 19.50'R 53.39 18' 52.81 52.62 53.19 52.5652.87 53.44 53.59 53.54 53.34 53.14 TC 53.06 53.29 53.6553.71 TC 53.37 -10.4%-1.5%-0.9%-0.5%-10.4%-1.5%-1.1% -1.1%-1.1% - 4 . 0%-1.1%-1.1% -1.1%-1.5%-1.5%53.65 53.04 53.01 -10.1%-7.9% -1.1% -1.1%-1.5%-1.5%-1.1% STA:100+53.67, 19.50'R 5'5'5'10'5.5'- 4 0 . 1%-33.0% 1 0 '5.6'X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 101+00 53.44 53.59 52.78 -6.6% -1.4%-1.5%-1.0%-7.1%-1.0%52.88 PTSTA:101+36.28, 19.50'R STA:101+11.27, 19.50'R TC 53.24 TC 53.24 52.77 52.67 TC 53.17 53.10 53.25 52.62 TC 53.11 TC 53.28 52.73 -1.4% -1.4% -6.8% -6.1%-1.5%TC 53.34 TC 53.45 TC 53.58-1.0%-1.0%7'8'10'10'5.5'- 4 0 . 1%-33.0% 1 0 '5.6'5253R35'TC 53.02 52.54-7.6%TC 52.14 52.29 51.64 52.15 MATCH EX 52.18 MATCH EX -0.5%-1.0%-0.1%-1.5% PC BEGIN CURB AND GUTTER(MATCH EX) STA:101+01.50, 58.38'L PTSTA:101+36.28, 19.50'L10'STA:101+11.85, 56.36'L STA:101+30.80, 30.62'L STA:101+17.45, 40.64'L 52.41 52.34 52.98 52.91 52.98 53.06 52.20 TC 52.70 52.14 TC 52.61 52.00 51.93 52.50 52.57 52.65 52.5751.80 TC 52.30 52.32 -7.6%-1. 5 % -1. 5 % -1. 5 %-1.5%-1.5%-9.4 % -5 . 4 % - 9 .4%-1.5%-1.6%-1.6%-1.5% -1.5% -7.5% -7.6% 52.82-5.5%5' 6' 6'5'6'6' STA:101+13.32, 28.08'L STA:101+02.55, 45.13'L 7.5'5'113+00 52528.4'7.5' 7'10'5.5'10'5.5'-7.2% -6.4%-1.5%-1.5%-1.5%-1.5%-1.5%-6.9% -7.7%-1.5%52.06 51.46 51.52 52.07 52.20 51.66 52.21 51.37 51.44 -0.6% -0.8% -0.6% STA:112+64.52, 19.68'R STA:112+74.85, 22.15'R 51.60 TC 52.11 TC 52.17 STA:112+61.81, 35.00'R STA:112+52.50, 25.00'R STA:112+81.35, 30.00'R TC 51.87 TC 51.96 TC 51.96 TC 51.92 51.44 51.48 51.30 51.69 51.83 52.08 51.9451.34 51.22 51.25 -7.5%-1.5%-7.3% -0.3%-1.5%-5.4% -5.6%-1.5%-0.4%-1.5%-1.5%-1.5%0.3% 9.6'7' 7'10'10'5.5' 51 52 STA:114+61.67, 32.43'R STA:114+71.31, 29.80'R TC 51.95 TC 51.98 TC 51.75 TC 51.71 TC 51.83 TC 51.80 STA:114+56.18, 39.85'R STA:114+80.76, 33.18'R 10.5'4748495010'1.9' 10' 10.4'23.5'10'-2.7%-2.7%-2.2%-1.5%-1. 5 % -1.5%-1.5%-0.5%-0.5%-1.2%-0.5%50.86 50.11 50.72 TC 50.69 50.19 50.00 50.26 50.12 50.12MATCH EX 50.07 MATCH EX 49.93 49.82 TC 50.43 49.56MATCH EX TC 50.06 -1.3%END CURB AND GUTTER(MATCH EX) STA:121+93.61, 76.47'L PC STA:121+43.97, 19.50'L STA:121+80.88, 35.77'L STA:121+89.96, 49.87'L65.5'TC 50.22 16.9'-1.1%50.00 50.15 -1.8% 31'R50'23.5'PT STA:121+93.86, 72.85'L TC 50.66 TC 50.62 45 50 46 47 48 49 50.75 50.30 50.27 50.20 50.45 50.77 50.26 50.78 50.64 50.53 51.04 50.90-2.2%-2.3%-1.1%-1.4%-1.5%-1.7% -1.5% -1.6 %-1.5%-1.5%-1.5%-0. 4 % -1.5% -1.5%-0.2%10'11.4'10'STA:121+90.96, 39.77'R STA:122+01.51,47.60'RR50'PCSTA:121+66.71, 33.50'R END CURB AND GUTTER(MATCH EX) STA:122+16.17, 76.17'R 4 9 . 1 ' PT STA:121+66.71, 48.50'R TC 50.69 TC 50.79 TC 50.76 PC STA:122+01.33, 78.37'R 25.3'32.7 ' 13 . 2 ' TC 50.95 -0 . 6 % -0 . 8 % TC 51.04 50.39 50.35 TC 50.85 -1 .4% 51.05 MATCH EX 50.96 MATCH EX-1.1%-1.5%-0.8%-1.5%-1.5%-1.5%-7 . 8 % -1 . 2 %-10.5%-5. 2 %-9.9%-1 . 3 % -1 . 2 % 51.73 51.67 TC 52.17 52.25 52.28 52.39 52.40 52.18 52.10 51.91 52.06 TC 51.84 51.36 51.51 5. 2 ' 1 6 . 7 ' 5.1 '10'5'STA:113+14.04, 43.67'R STA:113+27.26, 55.93'R 0. 6 % -0 . 1% -1. 3 % -3. 0 %-10.5%50.44 STA:120+57.49, 33.50'R -1.0%-1.5%-8.3% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0%-1.5%-1.5%-1.0%-10.5%-9.0%-1.5%-1.5%-1.0% -1.0%-1.5%STA:120+95.49, 33.50'R5' 38' 5' TC 50.94 51.06 51.01 51.16 51.21 50.49 51.00 50.92 TC 51.42 51.4451.49 51.59 51.64 STA:100+36.99, 30.30'RBW: 50.98 STA:100+43.16, 38.17'RBW: 47.60 STA:100+41.71, 50.09'RBW: 47.60 STA:100+33.83, 56.25'RBW: 51.82 STA:101+01.26, 57.35'RBW: 47.43 STA:101+07.43, 65.22'RBW: 51.44 STA:101+02.72, 45.44'RBW: 47.43 STA:101+07.09, 42.00'RBW: 49.27 TW: 51.77 TW: 53.26 TW: 53.26 TW: 53.19 TW: 52.24 TW: 52.60 TW: 52.60 TW: 51.42 50 48 49 51 52 50 48 49 51 - 4 0 . 1%-33.0%-42.3% - 3 3 . 9%10'1 0 ' 1 0 '5.6'C5.06 GRADING DETAILS 18208 05.27.2020 JBD ACCRJBAUBURN, WA 98002 I STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS4750 AUBURN WAY NORTH PROJECTBCRA NO. DATE REVISIONS SHEET TITLE SEAL T 253.627.4367 F 253.627.4395 WWW.BCRADESIGN.COM2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA 98402DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: IF SHEET MEASURES LESS THAN 24"X36", IT IS A REDUCED PRINT. REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLYDATE PLOTTED: 5/27/2020 4:57:58 PM FILENAME: 18208C-506.DWG BY: ----DESIGNED BY: SHEET © COPYRIGHT 2019 - BCRA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OWNER PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN'S ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS. DEV. REVIEW ENGINEER: APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. INLAND GROUP PERMIT SET SCALE: 1"= 10 5 0 10 10' SCALE:545TH ST NE & I ST NE DRIVEWAY 1"=10' SCALE:145TH ST NE AND I ST NE NW RAMPS 1"=10'SCALE:4S 277TH ST & I ST NE SW RAMP 1"=10' SCALE:645TH ST NE & I ST NE NE RAMP NTS SCALE:249TH ST NE & I ST NE SE RAMP 1"=10' SCALE:8S 277TH ST & I ST NE SE RAMP 1"=10' SCALE:749TH ST NE & I ST NE NE RAMP 1"=10' N SCALE:3POND ACCESS DRIVEWAY S NTS SCALE:9POND ACCESS DRIVEWAY N NTS NOTE: 1. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR SCALE:10CULVERT HEADWALLS NTS I Street NE Extension Critical Areas and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report 17 June 2020 Wet.land, LLC Appendix D Appendix D Culvert Design for Fish Passage memo, BCRA, dated 6 November 2019 CULVERT DESIGN FOR FISH PASSAGE PROJECT: Copper Gate Apartments (FAC19-0018) PREPARED BY: Brenna Harrington, EIT REVIEWED BY: Ben Dort, PE DATE: November 6, 2019 ___________________________________________________________________________________ The following memo addresses the proposed culvert for Watercourse K at 45th Street NE in the full build out condition of I Street. Analysis has been completed according to the guidelines presented in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife “Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage” document, 2003 edition. EXISTING CONDITION An existing 24” culvert routes flow from a swale on the south side of 45th Street NE to the north and discharges into existing Watercourse K. In the full buildout condition of I Street, this culvert will be replaced to reroute flows around the proposed road prism for I Street. The total length of existing 24” culvert is approximately 65 feet. CULVERT DESIGN PROCESS According to “Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage” culvert design for fish passage is completed using one of three design processes: No Slope Design, Hydraulic Design, or Stream Simulation. For this project, the No Slope Design and Stream Simulation options were infeasible because the prescriptive widths and depths from these options are not available within the project area. The prescribed widths of 10 to 14 feet are not achievable within the proposed road prism. Attempting to move the stream outside of the roadway would impact adjacent properties. Therefore, the Hydraulic Design Option was used for analysis as described below. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OPTION The following sequence for the Hydraulic Design Option per “Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage” was used for fish passage analysis of the proposed culvert. The proposed culvert is a 4-foot diameter pipe that is countersunk 2 feet deep with rock and earth material. Length of culvert The proposed culvert is 500 feet long. Fish-passage requirements Per Talasaea Consultants, Inc., the target species for Watercourse K is adult Coho. Per Table 5-1 in “Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage” the adult Coho fish-passage requirements for a culvert greater than 200 feet are maximum velocity of 3 feet per second and minimum water depth is 1 foot. Hydrology The flows that enter the culvert from the south side of 45th Street are from a detention pond within a residential development south of the project site. To analyze the proposed culvert, the 10-year peak discharge from the detention pond was used as the high fish-passage design flow. Per the drainage report for this detention pond, the peak flow is 14.98 cubic feet per second, including an upstream basin area of approximately 50.95 acres that bypasses the pond and flows to Watercourse K. Page 2 of 2 Velocity and Depth Manning’s equation was used to confirm the proposed culvert meets the fish-passage requirements in the peak flow condition. The proposed culvert is a 4-foot diameter pipe that is countersunk to 2 feet with earth and rock material. A composite Manning’s ‘n’ value was calculated using the following values for each surface material: Composite Manning’s ‘n’ value for countersunk pipe Horton-Einstein’s equation for composite roughness: Pside 3.709 ft nculvert 0.013 (Pipe) Pbottom 4.000 ft nbottom 0.030 (Earth channel) The composite ‘n’ value for the proposed culvert is 0.023. Manning’s equation Manning’s equation for open channel flow: Input Values d = diameter of pipe 4.00 ft Hsunk = height of belly 2.00 ft h = height of flow 1.60 ft S = longitudinal slope 0.25% n = roughness coefficient 0.023 Calculated Variables V = Velocity 2.67 fps WA = Wetted Area 5.629 ft2 WP = Wetted Perimeter 7.709 ft R = Hydraulic Radius 0.730 ft Q = Quantity of flow 15.01 cfs CONCLUSION As shown in the Manning’s analysis above, the proposed culvert conveying the high fish-passage design flow meets the fish-passage requirements with more than 1 foot of flow depth and a velocity less than 3 feet per second. FLOODPLAIN HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND CRITICAL AREAS REPORT COPPER GATE APARTMENTS AUBURN, WASHINGTON Prepared For: Inland Group Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. 30 October 2019 (Revised 5 November 2019) Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report Copper Gate Apartments Auburn, Washington Prepared For: Inland Group c/o Brent Parrish, Development Manager 120 W Cataldo Avenue, Suite 100 Spokane, Washington 99201 Prepared By: Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, Washington 98077 (425) 861-7550 30 October 2019 (Revised 5 November 2019) Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT NAME: Copper Gate Apartments CLIENT: Inland Group c/o Brent Parrish, Development Manager SITE LOCATION: The Project Site for Copper Gate Apartments is located at 401 49th Street NE in Auburn, Washington. The Site is an assemblage of portions of nine (9) parcels. Five parcels (6 parcel numbers) are directly associated with the Copper Gate Apartments. Four additional parcels are associated with a stormwater pond and the 49th Street NE improvements. The Public Land Survey System location is Section 31, Township 22, Range 5, Willamette Meridian (W.M.). PROJECT STAFF: Jennifer Marriott, PWS, Senior Ecologist and Project Manager; Eva Parker, RLA, Senior Project Manager; Aaron Ellig, Ecologist. FIELD SURVEY: A field survey was conducted 5 September 2019 to assess Site conditions. DETERMINATION: Two (2) wetlands (Wetland A (Auburn) and Wetland C) occur on the Site, and two (2) watercourses (Watercourses K and L) are located adjacent to the Site such that buffers project onto the Site. These features were identified in previously prepared critical areas reports. Both watercourses are classified as Type F waters in the City of Auburn with a standard minimum buffer width of 75 feet measured landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Wetland A (Auburn) has a standard 50- foot minimum buffer per ACC 16.10.090. Wetland C is contained within an existing conservation easement. PROPOSED PROJECT: The Copper Gate Apartment Project proposes the construction of 500 units of multifamily housing on approximately 32 acres between 49th Street NE and 45th Street NE, a minimum of 822 parking spaces, and associated infrastructure typical of multifamily projects. This Project also requires road improvements to a portion of D Street NE as well as to 49th Street NE. The improvements for 49th Street NE propose a roundabout near the northeast corner of the Project Site that the future I Street NE will tie into. The required road improvements for I Street NE itself are not included in this assessment and will be evaluated under separate future permit applications. ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION: The Project proposes a minor intrusion into the buffer for Wetland C to accommodate a pedestrian trail with buffer restoration at a 10:1 ratio proposed as compensation. Restoration activities will include the removal of the non-native substrate, decompaction with soil and/or soil amendments added, and native vegetation planted. Performance monitoring is proposed for a minimum of 5 years through the City of Auburn. Buffer modifications to Wetland A (Auburn), Watercourse K, and Watercourse L to accommodate the proposed development. These buffer impacts will be fully replaced for no net loss of buffer area, and these areas will be restored or enhanced post-construction. Proposed mitigation includes the restoration of approximately 14,655 square feet of wetland and watercourse buffer through the removal of the non- native substrate, decompacted with compost added, and native vegetation planted. Invasive species will be removed where applicable. Final mitigation plans for the buffer restoration and enhancement work for Wetland A (Auburn), Watercourse K, and Watercourse L will be provided as part of the I Street Mitigation Plan to be submitted in the near future. FLOODPLAIN & NATIVE VEGETATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT: No net loss of floodplain compensatory storage is proposed as part of this Project. Native vegetation within the 100-year floodplain is only 5% of the Project Site, with 71% of that proposed to be retained. For this Project, 29% of the native vegetation within the floodplain is proposed for removal. This falls within the 35% threshold allowed in ACC 15.68.161(D)(2). Despite meeting the requirement, a Habitat Impact Analysis (HIA) was prepared to assess the potential impacts to native habitats within the 100-year floodplain. The HIA concluded that the project determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) is appropriate for wetlands, streams, water quality or flow, floodplain refugia, or any type of wildlife habitat for listed or non-listed species. PERFORMANCE MONITORING: All mitigation areas will be monitored and maintained for a minimum of 5 years to ensure all goals, objectives, and performance standards are met. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures, Tables, and Appendices .................................................................................... iv Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Report Purpose .................................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of Accuracy ......................................................................... 1 1.3 Qualifications ........................................................................................ 1 Chapter 2. General Property Description and Land Use ............................................. 2 2.1 Site History ........................................................................................... 2 2.2 Site Location ......................................................................................... 2 2.3 Site Description .................................................................................... 3 Chapter 3. Existing conditions ..................................................................................... 5 3.1 Database Review Summary ................................................................. 6 3.2 Wetlands .............................................................................................. 7 3.3 Watercourses (Streams) ....................................................................... 7 3.4 Native Vegetation ................................................................................. 7 3.5 Listed Species ...................................................................................... 8 3.5.1 Federally Listed Species ...................................................................... 8 3.5.2 State-Listed Species and Priority Habitats ......................................... 10 3.6 City Wildlife Habitat Classification ...................................................... 10 Chapter 4. Regulatory Review ................................................................................... 10 4.1 Critical Areas ...................................................................................... 10 4.1.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................ 11 4.1.2 Watercourses ..................................................................................... 11 4.2 Shoreline Master Program .................................................................. 12 4.3 Flood Hazard Areas ............................................................................ 12 Chapter 5. Proposed Project ..................................................................................... 14 5.1 Project Description ............................................................................. 14 5.1.1 Proposed Project ................................................................................ 14 5.1.2 Stormwater Management ................................................................... 14 5.2 Assessment of Development Impacts ................................................ 15 5.2.1 Wetland A (Auburn) Buffer Modifications ............................................ 16 5.2.2 Wetland C Buffer Modifications .......................................................... 16 5.2.3 Watercourse K Buffer Modifications ................................................... 17 5.2.4 Watercourse L Buffer Modifications .................................................... 18 5.2.5 Assessment of Critical Habitats and Species ..................................... 19 5.3 Flood Storage Compensation ............................................................. 19 5.4 Riparian Habitat Zones and Native Vegetation ................................... 20 5.5 Habitat Impact Assessment ................................................................ 20 Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page iv Chapter 6. Proposed Mitigation ................................................................................. 22 6.1 Agency Policies and Guidance ........................................................... 22 6.2 Mitigation Sequencing ........................................................................ 22 6.3 Proposed Mitigation Plan .................................................................... 23 6.4 Mitigation Design Elements ................................................................ 23 6.4.1 Planting Plan ...................................................................................... 24 Chapter 7. Construction Sequencing ......................................................................... 25 7.1 Mitigation Construction Sequencing ................................................... 25 7.2 Post-Construction Assessment .......................................................... 25 7.3 Post-Construction Approval ................................................................ 25 Chapter 8. Monitoring plan ........................................................................................ 25 8.1 Monitoring Reports ............................................................................. 26 8.2 Monitoring Methods ............................................................................ 26 8.2.1 Methods for Monitoring Vegetation Establishment ............................. 26 8.3 Photo Documentation ......................................................................... 27 8.4 Wildlife ................................................................................................ 27 8.5 Water Quality ...................................................................................... 27 8.6 Site Stability ........................................................................................ 27 Chapter 9. Maintenance and Contingency ................................................................ 27 Chapter 10. Financial Guarantees ............................................................................... 28 Chapter 11. Summary ................................................................................................. 28 Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Figure 2 – Parcels Map Figure 3 – Aerial View – 300’ Radius Note: Figures are located at the end of the report immediately before the appendices. LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Parcel Summary Data for Auburn Gateway and Copper Gate Apartments ................... 2 Table 2. Summary of Existing Uses by Parcel. ........................................................................... 4 Table 3. Summary of Listed Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Site. ................... 9 Table 4. Summary of wetlands on or adjacent to the Project. ...................................................11 Table 5. Summary of Watercourses on or adjacent to the Project. ...........................................12 Table 6. Summary of Wetland and Stream/Watercourse Impacts. ............................................15 Table 7. Projected Schedule for Performance Monitoring and Maintenance Events .................26 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Detailed Mitigation Plans (large format) Sheet W1.0: Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.1: Proposed Site Plan, Impacts & Mitigation Plan Sheet W1.2: Impacts & Mitigation Plan Sheet W1.3: Native Vegetation Impact Plan Sheet W2.0: Planting Plan, Plant Schedule, Notes & Details Sheet W2.1: Conceptual Planting Plan & Candidate Plant List Sheet W3.0: Planting Specifications Appendix B: Select Maps from BCRA Reports: 1. Copper Gate Apartments, Developed Condition Basin Map, BCRA, 09.2019 2. Compensatory Storage Exhibit, BCRA, 10.2019 Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Report Purpose This Floodplain Habitat Assessment Report has been prepared to support the permitting efforts for the Copper Gate Apartments Project and associated road improvements, which are a component of the larger Auburn Gateway Special Area Plan. This report has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines outlined within the Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin (FEMA Region X, 2013) and the requirements of the Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 15.68 Flood Hazard Areas and Chapter 16.10 Critical Areas. Existing conditions have previously been discussed in reports prepared by others, and, therefore, have not been included with this report. This report will provide and describe the following information: • Project Location; • General Property Description; • Brief Summary of Existing Conditions; • Regulatory Review; • Project Description; • Assessment of Development Impacts; • Proposed Mitigation; and • Summary. 1.2 Statement of Accuracy The information contained in this report was conducted by trained professionals at Talasaea Consultants, Inc., and adhered to the protocols, guidelines, and generally accepted industry standards available at the time work was performed. The conclusions in this report are based on the results of analyses performed by Talasaea Consultants and represent our best professional judgment. To that extent, and within the limitations of project scope and budget, we believe the information provided herein is accurate and true to the best of our knowledge. Talasaea Consultants does not warrant any assumptions or conclusions not expressly made in this report or based on information or analyses other than what is included herein. 1.3 Qualifications Field investigations and evaluations were conducted by Talasaea staff Jennifer Marriott, PWS, Senior Ecologist; and Aaron Ellig, Ecologist. Jennifer Marriott has a Bachelor’s Degree and a Master’s Degree in Biology from University of Central Florida, and a second Master’s Degree in Soil and Environmental Science from the University of Florida. She has over 15 years of experience in wetland delineations and environmental permitting. Aaron Ellig has a Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Science from Western Washington University. He has 5 years of experience in vegetation management and restoration ecology. He has 3 years of experience working with wetland mitigation and monitoring. Eva Parker has over 25 years of experience in the field of landscape design and construction. She received her Bachelor’s Degree in Landscape Architecture from the University of British Columbia, and is a licensed Professional Landscape Architect in British Columbia and Washington State. Eva’s professional experience includes public park and nature trail design, forest mitigation, and service as a professional representative on various design review boards. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 2 CHAPTER 2. GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE 2.1 Site History The Copper Gate Apartments Project Site is a component of the larger Auburn Gateway Study Area, which is a component of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan. This larger study area for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan includes land east of Auburn Way North, west of the Existing I Street NE right-of-way (ROW), south of South 277th Street, and north of 45th Street NE. This area is comprised of approximately 120 acres that was targeted for future development, of which approximately 59.2 acres was designated as the Auburn Gateway Study Area. A number of previous studies have been prepared over this larger area, and have been identified under Chapter 3, Existing Conditions (below). The Copper Gate Apartment project is comprised of approximately 32.2 acres of that previously identified 59.2 acres of the Auburn Gateway Study Area as well as road improvements for I Street, D Street, and 49th Street NE. I Street road improvements are not part of the Copper Gate Apartment permitting and will be addressed under separate future permit applications. The work proposed for Copper Gate Apartments and associated road improvements will require fill within the FEMA 100-year floodplain that is triggering additional steps, including the preparation of this report. For clarity sake, the summary information provided within Chapter 2 (below) of this report introduces the larger project area that includes the future I Street improvements as well as the future commercial properties. Beyond the initial introduction of the location of both the Study Area (Auburn Gateway project) and Project Site (for Copper Gate Apartments), this report will focus on those areas that comprise the Copper Gate Apartments Project Site only. 2.2 Site Location The Project Site address is 401 49th Street NE in Auburn, Washington (Figure 1). The central latitude/longitude coordinate for the Site is 47.350031, -122.222114. The Project Site is comprised of five parcels (6 parcel numbers) are directly associated with the Copper Gate Apartments. Four additional parcels are associated with a stormwater pond and required road improvements, including the 49th Street NE roundabout. The Study Area is more expansive (Figure 2). The Public Land Survey System location is Section 31, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian (W.M.). A summary of the parcels is below in Table 1. Table 1. Parcel Summary Data for Auburn Gateway and Copper Gate Apartments Tax Parcels Acres1 Parcel Owner2 Proposed Project Element3 9360600270 5.4 Auburn Properties, Inc. Copper Gate Apartments4 9360600271 0.35 9360600280* 0.72 9360600281* 0.35 9360600300 3.38 9360600305 21.99 9360600320 1.86 Auburn Properties, Inc. City Mitigation for 277th Street5 9360600323 1.86 Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 3 Tax Parcels Acres1 Parcel Owner2 Proposed Project Element3 9360600325 4.21 9360600330 9.11 9360600340 9.35 9360600350 2.63 Auburn Properties, Inc. Future Commercial Development6 9360000200 3.09 0002200001 4.34 0002200007 0.50 0004200006 16.56 Port of Seattle Location of Future Mitigation for I-Street 0004200005 65.4 Flood Compensation7 Unlabeled ROWs8 N/A City of Auburn Road Improvements 1Acres provided are surveyed acreage, where available. 2Parcel Owner based on King County Property Assessor Database 3This column identifies the Project element of each parcel as it pertains to the greater Auburn Gateway Project Site, of which Copper Gate and associated road improvements are a component. 4These 5 parcels (6 parcel numbers) are the core of the Copper Gate Apartments Project, except for the associated road improvements which extend beyond these parcels for 49th Street NE and D Street NE. I-Street NE improvements are not included in this assessment. 5These parcels contain a stormwater pond and previous watercourse mitigation for South 277th Street road improvements completed by the City of Auburn. 6Portions of these parcels will be used for road improvements, while the remainder have been targeted for future commercial development. The road improvements associated with Copper Gate Apartments are included within this Report (and the current permit applications), while the commercial development components are not, and will be addressed by others in future permit applications. 7Port of Seattle property is the potential location of a portion of the floodplain volume mitigation for the future I-Street road improvements that will be permitted under separate cover, and are not part of the Copper Gate Apartment Project. 8Several areas are included within the Copper Gate Apartment Project that do not have parcel numbers and are associated with existing or future road rights-of-way. This includes a parcel 9360600271 for the proposed I Street NE in the southeast corner of the broad study area; the G Street ROW between parcel 9360600330 and parcels 9360600325 and 9360600323; and the existing ROWs for D Street NE and 49th Street NE. *As part of BLA19-0008, parcels K and L are considered a single parcel with two separate parcel numbers. 2.3 Site Description The Project Site is generally surrounded by agricultural fields to the north, residential and undeveloped lands to the east, and mixed commercial and residential to the south and west. The Project Site itself is currently undeveloped, though remnants of past developments or other human activities remain where the old drive-in movie theater occurred. Very little native vegetation is on these associated parcels due to the managed history of these parcels. More detail on the existing conditions of these parcels is provided below in Table 2 and Chapter 3. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 4 Table 2. Summary of Existing Uses by Parcel. Tax Parcels Proposed Project Element Native Vegetation Present1 Condition2 9360600270 Copper Gate Apartments Yes – existing NGPA present (Wetland C and buffer) Remainder of parcel is maintained as a mixed grass field. 9360600271 Yes – several trees occur on this parcel though no native habitat assemblage exists. A concrete slab covers a large portion of this parcel. The remainder of the parcel is disturbed grassy areas. 9360600280* No native vegetation present on this parcel. No structures currently present 9360600281* No native vegetation present on this parcel. No structures currently present, though a house occurred on the property in the 2012 aerial imagery. 9360600300 Yes – several native trees remain along the south side of the existing 49th Street ROW (north side of parcel); no native habitats present. Mowed field, no existing structures 9360600305 Yes – only a small area of reed canarygrass dominated wetland (Wetland A), and several isolated trees. Remains of drive-in movie theater remain on this parcel. 9360600320 City Mitigation for 277th Street Yes – stream mitigation site was planted on this parcel. An existing mitigation site for the City and a stormwater pond occur on this parcel. 9360600323 Yes – the north end of a forested wetland occurs on a small piece of this parcel. A portion of a stream/drainage and a stormwater pond occur on this parcel. 9360600325 Yes – Wetland A, Watercourse L, and Watercourse M occur on this parcel. No structures occur on this parcel, only vegetation – both native and invasive. 9360600330 Future Commercial No native vegetation present on this parcel. Remains of drive-in movie theater remain on this parcel. 9360600340 No native vegetation present on this parcel. Remains of drive-in movie theater remain on this parcel. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 5 Tax Parcels Proposed Project Element Native Vegetation Present1 Condition2 9360600350 No native vegetation present on this parcel. Agricultural fields occupy this parcel. 9360000200 No native vegetation present on this parcel. Agricultural fields occupy this parcel. 0002200001 Yes – a few large shrubs/small trees occur on this parcel. Agricultural fields occupy this parcel, though a barren area occurs at the south end adjacent to 49th Street NE. 0002200007 No native vegetation present on this parcel. This is a disturbed parcel with no structures and no vegetation onsite. 0004200006 Location of Future Mitigation for I- Street Yes – native trees occur across this parcel, though invasive species are dominant. No structures occur on this parcel. Unlabeled ROWs Road Improvements Generally, none, except for the future I Street area in the southeast corner of the Project Site. Portions of roads occur already, either gravel, dirt or paved, with some means of drainage present. 1Native vegetation, pursuant to ACC 15.68.060, means “plant species that are indigenous to the community’s area and that reasonably could be expected to naturally occur on the site. A decision was made to exclude the mixed assemblage of herbaceous species comprising typical farm fields as native vegetation, despite some of the species present being native, because the combined assemblage is not typical for this region. A more detailed discussion of native vegetation on the parcels associated with the Copper Gate Apartments Project is provided in Chapter 3 below. 2Condition is intended to summarize the condition of the site independently of the vegetation present, including recording human uses on the site. *As part of BLA19-0008, parcels K and L are considered a single parcel with two separate parcel numbers. CHAPTER 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS In-depth analysis of existing conditions within the Study Area and Project Site has already been completed in previous studies. For the sake of limiting redundancy, a summary is described below. No new background information or existing site condition data will be presented in this report. Relevant site studies of the greater Study Area as well as targeting the Project Site directly include: • Final Environmental Impact Statement, Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, July 2004; • Northeast Auburn / Robertson Properties Special Area Plan – Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Addendum, ESA, June 2019; • Wetland Assessment of the RPG-Valley 6 Theater Site, J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc., 12 September 2008; • Existing Hydrology Memo, Auburn Gateway – S. 277th St. Widening, BCRA, October 2014; Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 6 • Wetlands and Streams Discipline Report, South 277th Street Corridor Capacity and Non- Motorized Trail Improvements, Parametrix, Inc., May 2015; • Port of Seattle Auburn Mitigation Site Perimeter Fence Extension, Critical Areas and Habitat Mitigation Report, ESA, March 2019 (Revised June 2019); • (Draft) Combined Critical Areas Report with Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment, EnCo, 27 June 2019; • Geotechnical Engineer Study – Proposed Commercial Development Copper at Auburn, Earth Solutions NW LLC, 7 May 2019; • Stormwater Site Plan, 2nd Submittal, BCRA, September 2019; • Compensatory Storage Design Memo, BCRA, October 2019; and • Copper Gate Apartments Site Plans, BCRA, 23 October 2019. The Project Site consists mainly of the former Auburn Valley Six Drive-In Theater. The Site is almost entirely graded gravel and compacted rock where vehicles historically parked. The Site currently has no structures other than several preexisting concrete slabs (Sheet W1.0, Appendix A). The general condition is heavily degraded and manipulated to a point where native vegetation is unable to reestablish on its own. Some pockets of native vegetation remain on the Site, but other than Wetland C, native vegetation is restricted to the native trees scattered sporadically across the Site. A discussion of critical areas, native vegetation, general vegetation communities, and listed species present within the Project Site is provided below, along with a general discussion of wetlands and streams occurring within a 300-foot vicinity of the Site (Figure 3). 3.1 Database Review Summary A brief review of Agency database results for this Project Site follows: • The Natural Resource Conservation service (NRCS) Web Soil Service database maps three (3) soil series across the Project Site: Urban land (Ur), Briscot silt loam (Br), and Woodinville silt loam (Wo). Briscot silt loam has been identified as a hydric soil due to the typical presence of a high water table. • The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapper does not identify any wetlands or streams on or immediately adjacent to the Project Site, though features are mapped at approximately 300 feet southeast of the Project Site and over 1,000 feet east of the Project Site. • Several stream databases were reviewed, including: SalmonScape (Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, WDFW), Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool (FPAMT) (Washington Department of Natural Resources, WDNR), and the Statewide Integrated Fish Distribution (SWIFD) database maintained by WDFW and the Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. o The FPAMT database mapped no streams or ditches on or adjacent to the Project Site. o The SWIFD and SalmonScape mapped some of the ditches on and adjacent to the Project Site, but these features were not noted as streams and no stream typings were noted. o Despite the lack of database data, a series of discussions with WDFW staff as well as the previous projects in the general vicinity of the Project Site have worked through the linear surface water features potentially affected by the proposed Project to determine appropriate stream typings and to determine which regulations applied to those features. A more detailed discussion is provided below in Chapter 3.3 below. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 7 • A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is mapped over the Project Site by both the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the City of Auburn. 3.2 Wetlands Wetlands within the Study Area were evaluated by several different consultants in the past 10 or more years. The previous delineations are assumed to be accurate and a reassessment of those boundaries has not been conducted as part of this Report. Only one (1) wetland, Wetland C, occurs within the Project Site. Wetland A (Auburn) occurs adjacent to the Site and extends a buffer onto the Site. Several other wetlands occur within the 300-foot vicinity of the Project Site, though none of the associated buffers extend into the Project Site (Figure 3 and Sheet W1.0, Appendix A). Wetland A (Auburn) is a forested/emergent wetland that is located between Watercourses L and M. This wetland is dominated by black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) and red alder (Alnus rubra) at the north end, and reed canarygrass at the south end. The southernmost portion partially extends onto the Project Site on parcel number 9360600305. Wetland C would be an isolated wetland connected only at 100-year flood events except for a structure located above the ground elevation that connects this wetland to an unknown location. It is assumed this structure served to protect the adjacent theaters from flooding. 3.3 Watercourses (Streams) Watercourses were evaluated by several different consultants in the past 10 or more years. No watercourses occur within the Project Site. Two (2) watercourses (Watercourses K and L) occur adjacent to the Project Site that would apply buffers onto the Site (Figure 3 and Sheet W1.0, Appendix A). The previous delineations are assumed to be accurate and a reassessment of those boundaries has not been conducted as part of this Report. Stream typings for these linear features were reviewed and approved by WDFW based on a field meeting between WDFW, the City of Auburn, and the Consulting Team during a field meeting on 12 June 2019, which are assumed to be accurate. The watercourses south of South 277th Street associated with the Project Site combine with Watercourse M to a single culvert crossing under South 277th Street. These flows ultimately feed Auburn Creek before discharging into the Green River approximately one (1) mile north. The presence of a flood gate on the Auburn Creek discharge point into the Green River was documented previously by others and noted as a known hindrance to fish passage between the on-site watercourses and the Green River. This flood gate has the potential to restrict fish movement into this stream system from the Green River. At this time, the functionality and details of this flood gate are unknown. Coho salmon were identified within the watercourses near the Site, and so it is assumed that other species have at least the potential to occur within the onsite watercourses. 3.4 Native Vegetation Native vegetation is defined by the City of Auburn (ACC 15.68.060.Y) as “…plant species that are indigenous to the community’s area and that reasonably could be expected to naturally occur on the site.” The Project Site is devoid of native vegetation across a large portion of the site where the former drive-in movie theater occurs. Native vegetation and broad vegetation communities were mapped across the Site, separated into those areas that occur within and outside of the floodplain, as well as separated between the full Study Area versus the Project Site (Sheet W1.0, Appendix A). Very few species have managed to grow where portions of a built environment persist. There are several areas where vegetation is present within the Project Site as well as the Study Area but these are not native species typical of this area. Large areas of former agricultural fields exist that are dominated by a blend of overseeded Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 8 native and non-native grasses with common seral herbaceous species such as dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and English plantain (Plantago lanceolata) present. Other portions of the Study Area and Project Site are dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) or Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), neither of which are native species. Areas dominated by nonnative, seral, or invasive species were not included as having native vegetation. Native trees occur periodically across the Project Site along old roads, or near parcel corners where management activities did not affect them. These trees are not occurring as part of a native assemblage of plants, but rather are isolated elements in the landscape separated from where the majority of native vegetation occurs. However, areas where native trees were observed were considered as having native vegetation regardless of complexity or size of the associated vegetative community. Wetland C, on-site, is vegetated with mostly native species, as is the associated forested buffer, though reed canarygrass occurs within the wetland and is a persistent invasive species that is hard to eradicate. The entirety of Wetland C, its buffer, and surrounding areas where a native canopy occurs were considered as native vegetation despite the presence of the reed canarygrass as other native species appear to be interspersed in this area. Wetland A occurs partially on the Project Site east of the I Street/49th Street roundabout and contains native vegetation as well as the invasive reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. The southern portion of Wetland A through which Watercourse L flows is almost 100% reed canarygrass, and this area was not considered as native vegetation. The portion of the Wetland A and associated buffer that extends near the Project Site lacks native vegetation and is dominated by an old gravel road (labeled as G Street) with reed canarygrass along either side. The portions of the Watercourses K and L buffers that extend onto the Project Site are either not vegetated at all or dominated by reed canarygrass or Himalayan blackberry, none of which meet the definition of native vegetation. 3.5 Listed Species Common urban wildlife such as small to medium mammals and birds are expected to use the Project Site, though connectivity for land-based wildlife is poor given the large tracts of gravel that separates pockets of unmanaged vegetation within the Project Site or adjacent areas. However, opportunities for listed species is very limited given the available habitat on the site. The USFWS and NMFS websites depict Federally-listed and proposed endangered and threatened species along with their associated critical habitat in Western Washington. These websites also indicate the presence of candidate species and species of concern. Also, the WDFW and StreamNet.org maintain databases of fish presence in rivers and streams in the Pacific Northwest. The 2019 EIS Report (by ESA) stated that there are no known federal or state listed wildlife species or critical area habitat present on the Project Site. However, state priority habitats on the site include wetlands, riparian buffer zones, and snags that were identified in the 2019 EIS Report. 3.5.1 Federally Listed Species While there are Federally listed species documented as occurring in the Puget Sound region, only a small number have the potential to use the Project Site or be affected by activities on the site (Table 3). Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 9 Table 3. Summary of Listed Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Site. Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status (Jurisdiction) State Status BIRDS Bald Eagle1 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Species of Concern Not Listed FISH Puget Sound Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened (NMFS) Candidate Puget Sound Steelhead trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened (NMFS) Not Listed Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened (USFWS) Candidate 1Protected under the Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act. No federally listed mammals or amphibians are known or expected to occur within the Project Site due to a lack of suitable habitat. Bald eagles were removed from the federal endangered species list in 2007, and no longer are protected under the Endangered Species Act. However, bald eagles continue to be protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. These Acts prohibit the “taking” of a bald eagle through direct or indirect actions that may disturb the birds enough to disrupt their breeding, foraging, or nesting behaviors. The possibility exists for bald eagles to flyover the Project Site, or the use the open fields and gravel areas for hunting, there are no documented nesting or roosting sites on or adjacent to the site. The nearest large water body would be the Green River, located over 2,400 feet to the east. No habitat occurs on the site that would support federally listed salmonids. The nearest mapped stream for salmonids, including federally listed salmonid species, is the Green River, located some 2,400 feet to the east and over 4,000 feet to the north. Flows from the Site continue off-site through Auburn Creek to the Green River. A flood gate has been noted as occurring on Auburn Creek off-site to the north at its confluence with the Green River that could restrict fish passage. It is possible fish could get around this flood gate at elevated water levels within the river, but details and functionality of this flood gate are unknown at this time. While federally listed salmonids are not documented as occurring in the nearby watercourses, the potential occurs as fish habitat has been determined to be present within these watercourses, and non-listed salmonid species (Coho salmon) were documented as occurring south of South 277th Street. It is assumed that listed salmonids have at least the potential of occurring in the watercourses adjacent to the Site. Regardless of proximity of nearest documented occurrence of listed salmonids, the actions within the Project Site do have the potential to affect federally listed salmonids as the site stormwater would ultimately reach waterbodies that are known to contain federally listed salmonids. Essential fish habitat (EFH) is defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as “…those waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding…” For salmonid species in the Puget Sound region, the concept of EFH and Critical Habitat at the federal level tend to overlap and include those waterways documented as having those listed species, and can be extended to include those waterways with the potential to support those listed species. No Essential Fish Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 10 Habitat or Critical Habitat has been mapped or identified on the Project Site. However, linear features with the potential to support listed salmonids do occur in proximity to the Project Site. In addition, the stormwater for the proposed Project would ultimately discharge to the Green River, which has documented salmonid presence, including those federally listed salmonids. 3.5.2 State-Listed Species and Priority Habitats The federally listed salmonid species are also identified as state listed. No additional salmonid species are identified as being listed as either threatened or endangered at the State level. No salmonid species identified as federally or state listed for the Puget Sound region have been identified as occurring on or near the site. Two (2) Priority Habitats are mapped on the site, including a wetland and snags and logs. Riparian and instream Priority Habitats are mapped as occurring in the vicinity of the site. The Puget Sound region generally falls within the boundaries of the Pacific Flyway, which is a broadly defined migratory bird migration zone. However, very little habitat is available for any migratory bird species on-site in the current condition. 3.6 City Wildlife Habitat Classification ACC Chapter 16.10 defines specific types of protected wildlife habitat that might occur on a Site, noted as Critical Habitat, Secondary Habitat, and Tertiary Habitat (ACC 16.10.080.E). Definitions are as follows: “Critical habitat” or “critical wildlife habitat” means habitat areas associated with threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of plants or wildlife (pursuant to WAC 232- 12-297(2.4), (2.5) and (2.6)) and which, if altered, could reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. “Secondary habitat” means areas that offer less diversity of animal and plant species than critical habitat but are important for performing the essential functions of habitat. “Tertiary habitat” means habitat that supports some wildlife but does not satisfy the definition of secondary or critical habitat. Based on the definitions outlined in the ACC 15.68.135(J)(4)(c), Critical habitat does not occur on the site. The wetlands and adjacent buffers that contain native vegetation, such as Wetlands A and C, may qualify as Secondary Habitat. The watercourses adjacent to the Site may qualify as secondary habitat based on the documented presence of Coho salmon south of South 277th Street though the quality of the habitat present is low. The remainder of the Site would unlikely meet the definition of any of the above habitat types as the disturbed areas where vegetation is lacking would not support any wildlife. CHAPTER 4. REGULATORY REVIEW 4.1 Critical Areas Critical areas on the Project Site are subject to the regulations of ACC Chapter 16.10 – Critical Areas. This section contains regulations regarding standards and procedures for development associated with critical areas and defines permissible uses. Two (2) wetlands occurs on the Site, and two (2) watercourses were identified adjacent to the property that would project a buffer onto the Site (Sheets W1.1-1.3, Appendix A). Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 11 According to the EIS prepared by ESA, the ditches along the south side of South 277th Street are not regulated as streams under the City’s critical areas ordinance, but are regulated by the City’s Flood Hazard Area regulations as typed waters using the DNR water typing system. This is the reason for labeling them as watercourses rather than streams that the city typically regulates. 4.1.1 Wetlands Two (2) wetlands, Wetland A (Auburn) and Wetland C, were identified on the Project Site. Other wetlands occur within the vicinity of the site that do not project buffers onto the site. A summary of the wetlands can be found below on Table 4. Table 4. Summary of wetlands on or adjacent to the Project. Critical Area ID Category Standard Minimum Buffer (feet) Reduced by Averaging A – Auburn (North)1 III (2018) Low Habitat Score 50 Up to 35% C (on-site) III (2018) Low Habitat Score 351 N/A2 1This label is intended to differentiate this wetland from Wetland A (Port/East) that occurs east of Watercourse K and will apply a buffer onto the Project Site for the future I-Street development, to be permitted in the near future. 2This wetland with its previously approved 35-foot buffer has been recorded by the City of Auburn Conservation Easement 200503240000886. Per current code, ACC 16.10.090.E.1 notes the minimum buffer of a Category III wetland as 25 feet, maximum buffer of 50 feet. 4.1.2 Watercourses Both watercourses, Watercourse K and Watercourse L, are located off-site but in close proximity of the Project Site that buffers and/or Riparian Habitat Zones (RHZ) extend onto the Project Site. The Riparian Habitat Zone is defined by ACC Chapter 15.68.060.FF as: … the water body and adjacent land areas that are likely to support aquatic and riparian habitat as detailed in this chapter. The size and location of the riparian habitat zone is dependent on the type of water body. The riparian habitat zone includes the water body and adjacent lands, measured perpendicularly from ordinary high water on both sides of the water body: 1. Marine and lake shorelines and Type S streams that are designated “shorelines of the state”: 250 feet. 2. Type F (fish bearing) streams greater than five feet wide and marine shorelines: 200 feet. 3. Type F streams less than five feet wide and lakes: 150 feet. 4. Type N (non-salmonid-bearing) perennial and seasonal streams with unstable slopes: 225 feet. 5. All other Type N (non-salmonid-bearing) perennial and seasonal streams: 150 feet. In addition, the riparian habitat zone may include additional land areas that the floodplain administrator determines are likely to support aquatic and riparian habitat. Standard buffers are based on ACC Chapter 16.10.090, while the RHZ width is established in ACC Chapter 15.68.060.FF. Both watercourses have a standard minimum buffer of 75 feet measured landward from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) that is modifiable under certain circumstances. In addition to the standard buffers, the RHZ extends 200 feet from the OHWM Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 12 for both Watercourse K and L as these are both recognized as fish-bearing watercourses. A summary of the watercourses can be found below on Table 5. Sheet W1.0 of Appendix A shows the RHZ and standard buffers overlaid with the native vegetation mapped for the Site to visually show how little native vegetation occurs on the site, in general, and none of the native vegetation mapped occurs within the RHZ on the Project Site. Table 5. Summary of Watercourses on or adjacent to the Project. Critical Area ID Type1 Standard Minimum Buffer (feet) Reduced by Averaging Watercourse K II, F 75 Up to 35% Watercourse L II, F 75 Up to 35% Watercourse M II, F 752 Up to 35% Watercourse N (off-site) II, F 75 Up to 35% Watercourse O (off-site) II, F 75 Up to 35% Watercourse P (off-site) II, F 75' Up to 35% 1Stream typings for these linear features was reviewed and approved by WDFW based on previous meetings and discussions coordinated by other consultants, and are assumed to be the most accurate. Stream typings are based on the current ACC. 2A reduced buffer was documented on the mitigation plans for the 277th Street Widening Project. 4.2 Shoreline Master Program The Auburn Shoreline Master Program applies to areas that are 200 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark of the Green River; Shorelands and associated uplands extending 200 feet in all directions from the OHWM; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas (landward 200 feet from such floodways); and associated wetlands and river deltas. While the Site ultimately discharges to the Green River, the river channel occurs more than 2,400 feet from the Site at its nearest point. None of the associated wetlands, floodplains, floodways, etc. to the river occur on or adjacent to the Project Site that would trigger shoreline jurisdiction. Thus, no portion of the Project Site falls within shoreline jurisdiction. 4.3 Flood Hazard Areas The City of Auburn has identified the regulatory floodplain as the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), which includes the FEMA 100 Year Floodplain, as well as additional protected areas, including the Green River floodway, Riparian Habitat Zone (RHZ) and the Channel Migration Area. None of the Site is mapped as either Floodway or as a Channel Migration Area, though portions of the Site are mapped as the SFHA and as RHZ (Appendix A, Sheet W1.0). The 100-Year FEMA Floodplain (SFHA) as mapped by King County iMap is shown in Photo 1 below. This is generally consistent with the 100-year floodplain as mapped by FEMA in Firmette (Flood Map #530033C1251F, Panel 1251 of 1725 for King County, Washington). Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 13 Photo 1. Mapped 100-year FEMA floodplain over the Site (City Map, Left, 2015; King County iMap, Right, 2019). This Habitat Impact Assessment pursuant to ACC 15.68.135.J has been prepared to document the proposed Project’s impacts to water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat. The Habitat Impact Assessment follows the guidelines outlined in the Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin (FEMA Region X, 2013) as required under ACC 15.68.135.J.4 to evaluate the Project for potential adverse impacts to relevant listed species and habitats. ACC 15.68.135.J.4 requires an assessment of the Project for potential adverse effects to the following key elements. A discussion of the Project’s effects on each of these elements is provided below in Chapter 5.5. a. The primary constituent elements identified when a species is listed as threatened or endangered; b. Essential fish habitat designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service; c. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; d. Vegetation communities and habitat structures; e. Water quality; f. Water quantity, including flood and low flow depths, volumes and velocities; g. The channel’s natural planform pattern and migration processes; h. Spawning substrate, if applicable; and/or i. Floodplain refugia, if applicable. As noted above, this assessment is required to be prepared in accordance with the FEMA Regional Guidance document. This document notes that not all terminology used within this guidance document has the same definition as in the local jurisdictions’ regulatory documents, and as such, care must be taken when using terms that may have different meanings within this guidance document relative to the specific local jurisdiction. The terms that have potentially differing meanings include: Special Flood Hazard Area, Regulatory Floodplain, Protected Area, and development. The Regulatory Floodplain is comprised of the Special Flood Hazard Area (defined as the area subject to flooding by the base flood) and the Protected Area. The Protected Area is comprised of “those lands that lie within the outermost boundary of the total area comprised by the floodway, and the riparian habitat zone (RBZ) and the channel migration zone (CMZ).” This guidance document also uses the term riparian buffer zone (RBZ) to designate a similar concept to the City of Auburn’s Riparian Habitat Zone (RHZ), which appear to be the same width of 200 feet for Type F streams greater than five (5) feet wide. The RBZ is noted as an overlay zone that is intended to encompass all of the stream buffer, Channel Migration Zone, and mapped Floodway. As the Project Site lacks both a mapped Floodway and Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 14 Channel Migration Zone, only the 200-foot RHZ (which also meets the intended definition of the FEMA RBZ) is shown on the attached figures. Future discussions will only address the City’s RHZ under the assumption that this concurrently addresses FEMA’s RBZ. CHAPTER 5. PROPOSED PROJECT 5.1 Project Description 5.1.1 Proposed Project The Copper Gate Apartment Project proposes the construction of 500 units of multifamily housing on approximately 32 acres between 49th Street NE and 45th Street NE, a minimum of 822 parking spaces, and associated infrastructure including utilities and stormwater management (Appendix A, Sheets W1.1-1.3). This Project also requires road improvements to a portion of D Street NE as well as to 49th Street NE. The improvements for 49th Street NE propose a roundabout near the northeast corner of the Project Site that the future I Street NE will tie into. The required road improvements for I Street NE north and south of the roundabout are not included in this assessment and will be evaluated under separate future permit applications. To build the roundabout at 49th Street NE, it is necessary to reduce the standard buffer from 75 feet down to 50 feet as allowed through buffer averaging under specific circumstances per ACC 16.10.090. Detailed impacts and mitigation are described in the following sections. 5.1.2 Stormwater Management Stormwater facilities for the Project have been outlined in detail by BCRA under separate cover in the Stormwater Site Plan (2nd Submittal, September 2019) for the Copper Gate Apartment Project. The stormwater facility has been designed to demonstrate compliance with the minimum requirements of the City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual (SWMM). The City has adopted the 2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2014 SWMMWW), including the 2018 Supplemental SWMMWW, and the City of Auburn Supplemental Manual (COA SM) as the SWMM. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required for this Project, as well as the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction. The stormwater management facility for the Copper Gate Apartment Project has been separated into five (5) separate facilities (Appendix B, Proposed Condition Basin Plan): 1. Proposed Basin 1 – Includes the onsite area that will drain to Wetland C, including proposed roof drains to be routed to Wetland C through dispersion trenches; 2. Proposed Basin 2 - Includes onsite areas that will be collected and conveyed to below grade infiltration areas in the western portion of the Apartment Site; 3. Proposed Basin 3 – Includes those areas onsite that will be collected and conveyed to a detention pond that will ultimately discharge to Watercourse L; 4. Proposed Basin 4 – Includes portions of the east end of 49th Street and the future I Street construction that will be collected and conveyed to a detention pond that will ultimately discharge to Watercourse L; and 5. Proposed Basin 5 – Includes the new portions of the west end of 49th Street and D Street that will be collected and conveyed to a detention pond that will discharge to the existing conveyance system in D Street. Ultimately, these facilities will all discharge into Auburn Creek, and ultimately the Green River. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 15 The stormwater ponds on the Site Plan have been arbitrarily given labels for discussion purposes for this Report (Appendix A, Sheet W1.1). A summary follows of each pond and its purpose, with more detailed discussions on these ponds provided in the following sections. • Stormwater Pond 1 – This pond will be used to handle stormwater from 49th Street NE and the roundabout, as well as the future I Street; • Stormwater Pond 2 – This pond will capture the water from those portions of the Site not routed into Wetland C and not being infiltrated into the ground at the west end of the Apartment Site; • Stormwater Pond 3 – This pond is also part of the facility for those portions of the Site not routed into Wetland C or being infiltrated into the ground; • Stormwater Pond 4 – This pond is intended to capture runoff from portions of the newly proposed 49th Street and D Street. 5.2 Assessment of Development Impacts No direct impacts to any wetlands or streams (watercourses) will result from this development, nor are any indirect impacts anticipated except as discussed below. Construction of the Copper Gate Apartments and associated road improvements will require modification of the buffers for Watercourses L and K and Wetlands A (Auburn) and C. A summary of impacts to the wetlands and watercourses on the Project Site are identified below in Table 6. In addition to wetlands and streams, construction of the Copper Gate Apartments project will also require filling within the FEMA 100-year floodplain. Table 6. Summary of Wetland and Stream/Watercourse Impacts. Critical Area ID Standard Minimum Buffer (feet) Direct Impacts Buffer Modifications Proposed Reduced Buffer Proposed Mitigation Provided WETLANDS Wetland A – Auburn (North) 50 No Yes 786 SF 786 SF Wetland C (on- site) 35 No Yes 141 SF 1,400 SF (Restoration) STREAMS (WATERCOURSES) Watercourse K 75 No Yes 126 SF 126 SF Watercourse L 75 No Yes 1,396 SF (48.75-ft min. buffer) 1,813 SF (Replacement) Watercourse M 75 No No N/A N/A Watercourse N (off-site) 75 No No N/A N/A Watercourse O (off-site) 75 No No N/A N/A Watercourse P (off-site) 75 No No N/A N/A Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 16 5.2.1 Wetland A (Auburn) Buffer Modifications The buffer for Wetland A (Auburn) extends onto the Project Site near Stormwater Ponds 1 and 2. A chain link fence will be installed at the top of the berms around these two (2) ponds to clearly demarcate the edge of the pond management and maintenance area. Where the standard minimum 50-foot buffer for Wetland A (Auburn) extends inside this chain link fence, those areas were considered permanent buffer impacts (Appendix A, Sheet W1.2). Minor permanent buffer impacts totaling 786 square feet are proposed to accommodate the construction of the necessary stormwater ponds for the Site. An area of at least 786 square feet is being given back elsewhere adjacent to the Wetland A (Auburn) buffer for no net loss of buffer area. The replacement buffer is at least equal to the lost buffer in terms of habitat and vegetation, or lack thereof. Wetland buffer reductions are allowed by buffer averaging under specific circumstances allowed under ACC 16.10.090 Buffer Areas and Setbacks. In addition to the permanent buffer loss and replacement, another 14,655 square feet of Wetland A (Auburn) and Watercourse K buffer combined will be temporarily impacted to accommodate the grading required to construct the stormwater ponds. The area of grading is currently densely compacted gravel with sparse weedy species present. No native vegetation will be lost as a result of these permanent or temporary buffer impacts. The areas of temporary disturbance for grading will be restored post-development by decompacting the underlying soils, addition of soil amendments, and then followed by dense plantings of native woody species of trees and shrubs. A conceptual planting plan is provided on Sheet W2.1, Appendix A. However, because the location of the proposed restoration work at this location overlaps the buffers that are part of the I Street NE Mitigation Plan that will be provided in the near future to the City, detailed planting details will be provided as part of the I Street NE Mitigation Plan where the restoration effort will tie these areas of disturbed buffer into the greater restoration plan around Watercourses K and L and Wetland A (Auburn). None of the proposed work will impact the hydrologic inputs to Wetland A (Auburn). The Project’s stormwater will be released into Watercourse L, which will contribute towards the hydrology of Wetland A (Auburn) at the southern end. No discharges from the Site will enter Wetland A (Auburn) directly, nor will the interaction of Watercourse L with Wetland A (Auburn) change from its current condition as a result of the Project. 5.2.2 Wetland C Buffer Modifications Wetland C is already contained within a conservation easement with a previously approved 35- foot standard buffer. Wetland C and its buffer are one of the only areas within the Project Site that contain native vegetation. Wetland C and its buffer, including all of the native vegetation contained within, will be retained with the Project Site except for a small area. A 141-square- foot area of the buffer contained within the conservation easement will be impacted for the construction of a pedestrian trail that will meander through the Project Site. This proposed buffer impact is necessary to encircle the wetland with the trail to keep the trail within the property boundaries. Mitigation to offset this buffer loss is the restoration of 1,400 square feet of Wetland C buffer at the north end of the wetland where native vegetation is currently lacking. This is an almost 10:1 mitigation ratio of restoration to buffer impact. An area at the north end of the conservation easement/wetland buffer where asphalt and gravel currently exists that is a remnant of the old drive-in movie theater that used to be at this Site. The asphalt and compacted gravel will be removed, the underlying soils decompacted with soil amendments added, followed by dense plantings of native woody species of trees and shrubs (Appendix A, Sheet W2.0). Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 17 Hydrology to Wetland C will be maintained by retaining undeveloped areas beyond the buffer of Wetland C, as well as by releasing roof runoff from 10 buildings across the Site into dispersion trenches outside of the wetland buffer. The open space areas outside of the Wetland C buffer will be planted generally with lawn/sod. A band of woody vegetation will be planted around the perimeter of the buffer to serve as a buffer between the active lawn areas and the wetland buffer. This will serve to protect the wetland and its buffer against light and noise impacts from the nearby recreational spaces north of the wetland. These plantings will also provide denser plantings for water released from the dispersion trenches to flow through prior to entering the wetland buffer and then wetland itself. Additional plantings will also be used along the proposed trail to provide additional buffer along the pedestrian trail to reduce the potential for impacts into the wetland. These planting details are provided on the Copper Gate Landscape Plans prepared by Whipple Consulting Engineers, October 2019. Wetland C in its current condition has an outfall structure at the north end of the wetland with an invert elevation roughly one (1) foot above the ground surface elevation. This structure enters into a culvert system with a currently unknown outlet. It is assumed that this outfall structure and culvert system serve to provide a connection between Wetland C and the rest of the floodplain to the north and east while protecting the movie theater parking areas from flood events from the Green River, which can inundate this whole valley. A new conveyance pipe will be installed that will tie into the culvert exiting the outfall structure within Wetland C, with the tie- in point occurring outside of the conservation easement, and connect this drainage path to Watercourse L (Appendix B, Compensatory Storage Exhibit, BCRA, 10.2019). This pipe will connect to the discharge pipes for Ponds 1, 2 and 3 prior to their connection to Watercourse L. The designed elevations within this culvert system will ensure that only high flood waters will be allowed to pass through this culvert system between Watercourse L and Wetland C. This upgraded system will ensure that the floodplain around Wetland C remains connected to the remainder of the floodplain so that no unanticipated impacts result from the proposed Project. 5.2.3 Watercourse K Buffer Modifications The buffer for Watercourse K extends onto the Project Site near Stormwater Pond 1. A chain link fence will be installed at the top of the berms around these two (2) ponds to clearly demarcate the edge of the pond management and maintenance area. Where the standard 75- foot minimum buffer for Watercourse K extends inside this chain link fence, this area was considered a permanent buffer impact (Appendix A, Sheet W1.2). Minor permanent buffer impacts totaling 126 square feet are proposed to accommodate the construction of the necessary stormwater ponds for the Site. An area of at least 126 square feet is being given back elsewhere adjacent to the Watercourse K buffer for no net loss of buffer area. A combined total of 912 square feet of buffer replacement will be provided for the buffer lost to Wetland A (Auburn) and Watercourse K. The buffer replacement area for both of these features overlaps in a small corner of the northeast corner of the stormwater ponds. The replacement buffer is at least equal to the lost buffer in terms of habitat and vegetation, or lack thereof. In addition to the permanent buffer loss and replacement, another 14,655 square feet of Wetland A (Auburn) and Watercourse K buffer combined will be temporarily impacted to accommodate the grading required to construct the stormwater ponds. The area of grading is currently densely compacted gravel with sparse weedy species present. No native vegetation will be lost as a result of these permanent or temporary buffer impacts. The areas of temporary disturbance for grading will be restored post-development by decompacting the underlying soils, addition of soil amendments, and then followed by dense plantings of native woody species of trees and shrubs. A conceptual planting plan is provided on Sheet W2.1, Appendix A. However, because the location of the proposed restoration work at this location overlaps the Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 18 buffers that are part of the I Street NE Mitigation Plan that will be provided in the near future to the City, detailed planting details will be provided as part of the I Street NE Mitigation Plan where the restoration effort will tie these areas of disturbed buffer into the greater restoration plan around Watercourses K and L and Wetland A (Auburn). None of the proposed work will impact the hydrologic inputs to Watercourse K. The Project’s stormwater will be released into Watercourse L, which will join with Watercourse K north and east of the Project Site. No discharges from the Site will enter Watercourse K directly. Additionally, despite a good portion of the Site’s stormwater being released into Watercourse L, which could potentially affect Watercourse K, the required flow control requirements of the Stormwater Management Plan for the Site models based on a pre-development forested condition is expected to improve flows into this system from its current condition as a result of the Project. 5.2.4 Watercourse L Buffer Modifications The proposed roundabout at the new interchange of 49th Street NE and the future I Street NE will require minor encroachments into the buffer for Watercourse L. This watercourse buffer will be reduced from the standard 75 feet by 35% to 48.75 feet (1,396 square feet) consistent with ACC 16.10.090.E.2.d through buffer averaging. ACC 16.10.090.E.2.d allows buffer width averaging if the following are demonstrated: i. One or more of the enhancement measures identified in subsection (E)(2)(b)(i) through (iv) of this section is implemented; Many of the proposed enhancement measures in ACC 16.10.090.E.2.b are not appropriate for this location and situation. The stormwater management facility is being proposed to meet the required standards, but has not been designed to exceed those standards. A number of these enhancement measures will be addressed through the future I Street NE Plans that are not discussed in this Report. For the purpose of justifying the requested buffer modification of the Watercourse L buffer, enhancement measure ACC 16.10.090.E.2.b.iv.A is being proposed, which states “Landscaping outside the buffer area with native vegetation or a reduction in the amount of clearing outside the buffer area.” Large areas of gravel will be removed as part of the Project with select plantings of native vegetation included as part of the landscaping plan provided where appropriate. The Project will result in a net improvement as stormwater management is provided as well as the proposed non-mitigation plantings outside of the buffer for Watercourse L. Additional plantings along with a more substantial restoration of Watercourse L as proposed in conjunction with the future I Street Plans that are not addressed as part of this Project. While buffer plantings could be proposed at this point in time, the preference is to delay those buffer plantings to the I Street NE Plans for simplicity in the future design and plans. ii. The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less in area than contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging; The width reduction requested is the full 35% of the 75-foot standard buffer width, which is 1,396 square feet. Replacement buffer proposed is 1,813 square feet located adjacent to the existing buffer to the north of the impact location, which will result in a net gain of 417 square feet of buffer for Watercourse L. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 19 iii. The buffer width averaging will result in stream functions and values equal or greater than before averaging; and The buffer averaging proposed will not result in any loss of stream functions or values, and will ensure at least equal functions and values. The replacement buffer is consistent in type and quality as the buffer lost except where a drainage ditch is located in this area. No native vegetation is present within the portion of the buffer to be reduced, and some vegetation is present in the area designated for replacement. While no buffer enhancement is proposed in conjunction with this Project, buffer enhancement of this area is anticipated to be included with the future I Street development. iv. The buffer width is not reduced by more than 35 percent in any location than the buffer widths established by this chapter. The Watercourse L buffer will not be reduced by more than 35% at the roundabout, and that reduction is only proposed along a very short segment of the buffer. No modifications to the adjacent wetland buffers are necessary at this location as all proposed work remains outside of the standard wetland buffer. Hydrologic support for Watercourse L will be maintained through the release of controlled stormwater from the Apartment Site project. The outlets for three (3) of the Project stormwater ponds will enter into Watercourse L, while this location will also serve as the floodplain connection for Wetland C. Watercourse L flows into Watercourse K before merging with Watercourse M prior to entering the culvert under South 277th Street. No blockages or restrictions occur that would prevent water from moving through this drainage network. Flow control measures are required for all discharges into Watercourse L and have been outlined in the Stormwater Site Plan prepared by BCRA (September 2019). 5.2.5 Assessment of Critical Habitats and Species No in-stream work is proposed as part of this Project. Standard erosion and sediment control measures will be used during construction to prevent any unintended impacts to the nearby streams. The project design and construction is unlikely to impact Watercourse L due to the best management practices (BMPs) that will be followed during construction. Post-construction conditions are expected to maintain the current conditions of the stream and improve the adjacent restored buffer habitat to the greatest extent possible given the physical constraints of the site location. Wetland C will be retained in its current vegetated condition with only a minor buffer impact proposed, which will be compensated for through the restoration of additional buffer at an almost 10:1 ratio. No impacts to listed species are anticipated as a result of this Project. Ultimately a net gain to water quality is anticipated through the proposed surface water management systems that will be constructed, which will have a net benefit to downstream waters and the fish present. 5.3 Flood Storage Compensation The proposed Project will result in the displacement of flood storage volume which has been analyzed by BCRA. This includes areas that are below the base flood elevation as well as within the FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplain, which are addressed separately by BCRA within their Floodplain reporting (Compensatory Storage Design Memo, October 2019). This memo Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 20 notes that the preliminary Draft Federal Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) issued by FEMA in 2017 was used for the Project design, but that no static 1% annual chance (100-year) flood Base Flood Elevation (BFE) was defined for the Project Site. This memo also documents how the Project results in no loss of flood storage. 5.4 Riparian Habitat Zones and Native Vegetation While portions of Riparian Habitat Zones (RHZ) associated with Watercourses K and L occur within the Site, no native vegetation occurs within the RHZs on the Site. ACC 15.68.161.D provides the regulations guiding native vegetation within RHZs and the floodplain. Native Vegetation. The site plan required for development in the regulatory floodplain shall show existing native vegetation. 1. In the riparian habitat zone, native vegetation shall be left undisturbed, except if in connection with an activity allowed in the regulatory floodplain without a permit, and except for activities with the sole purpose of creating, restoring or enhancing natural functions associated with floodplains, streams, lakes, estuaries, marine areas, habitat, and riparian areas that meet federal and state standards, provided the activities do not include structures, grading, fill, or impervious surfaces. This regulation does not apply to this Site since no native vegetation occurs within the RHZ on this Site. 2. Outside the riparian habitat zone, removal of native vegetation shall not exceed 35 percent of the surface area of the portion of the site in the regulatory floodplain. Native vegetation in the riparian habitat zone portion of the property can be counted toward this requirement. Only 5% (80,389 square feet) of the Project Site contains native vegetation or elements of a native vegetation community within the 100-year floodplain. Much of this vegetation is primarily in and around Wetland C and its buffer. The remainder of the Project Site within and outside of the floodplain is either non-native vegetation or gravel or other disturbed areas. Of the native vegetation that occurs within the 100-year floodplain on the Site, approximately 71% of the native vegetation will be retained in the post- development condition (57,001 square feet). The preserved native vegetation includes Wetland C, its buffer, and additional uplands outside of Wetland C beyond the limits of its buffer. The remainder of the native vegetation within the 100-year floodplain (the remaining 29%) will be removed, which does not exceed the 35% threshold provided by this regulation. 3. If the proposed project does not meet the criteria of this chapter, a habitat impact assessment shall be conducted pursuant to ACC 15.68.135(J) and, if indicated by that assessment, a habitat mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented pursuant to ACC 15.68.135(K). (Ord. 6295 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6161 § 1, 2008.) A Habitat Impact Assessment has been prepared and is provided below in Section 5.5. 5.5 Habitat Impact Assessment An analysis of project impacts in light of the required Habitat Impact Assessment pursuant to ACC 15.68.135.J.4 is provided below, despite technically not exceeding the native vegetation removal threshold, to evaluate whether the Project would adversely affect any of the following: Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 21 a. The primary constituent elements identified when a species is listed as threatened or endangered; No federal or State listed species have been identified as occurring within the Project Site. No impacts to Watercourse L are proposed except to modify its buffer consistent with the current ACC, including restoration of a small area of the Watercourse L buffer. Stormwater facilities that meet all current standards as adopted by the City of Auburn will greatly reduce the likelihood of downstream impacts due to water quality concerns. The Project will not adversely affect listed species. b. Essential fish habitat designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service; No Essential Fish Habitat has been designated on the Project Site by NMFS. The Project will not adversely affect essential fish habitat. c. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas typically include waters of the state, habitat for listed species, and natural area preserves. None of the above occurs on the Project Site, except for Wetland C which is not directly tied to any other critical area or habitat area. Wetland C will maintain its connection hydrologically to Watercourse L, though habitat connectivity will remain poor, consistent with the current condition. The Watercourse L buffer will be modified per ACC to reduce the buffer by the roundabout by restoring a small area of buffer in compensation for no net loss of buffer area. The Project will not adversely affect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. d. Vegetation communities and habitat structures; The only native vegetation community that occurs on the Site is Wetland C and its associated uplands, part of which occur within its buffer. This feature, including its previously approved buffer plus additional areas of existing native vegetation will be retained in the developed condition. While vegetation is being removed from the Site, it is primarily isolated trees or pockets of trees that are not functional habitat except for a very limited selection of wildlife. The large tracts of urban land between these islands of trees to the nearest vegetation community are substantial deterrents to most wildlife species that are likely to use this area. Therefore, we conclude that the Project will not adversely affect existing vegetation communities or habitat structures on the Site. e. Water quality; Water quality will be addressed through the construction of the Project’s designed stormwater management facilities which was designed to meet the current water quality standards required by the City of Auburn based on guidance provided by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Therefore, the Project will not adversely affect water quality either onsite or to downstream waters. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 22 f. Water quantity, including flood and low flow depths, volumes and velocities; The stormwater standards being followed for this Project require flow control guidelines modeling a forested pre-development condition. Given the highly disturbed nature of the majority of the Site in the current condition, applying the current stormwater regulations should provide a significant improvement due to the nature of the model used to design the flow control standards for the Project’s stormwater management facilities. The Project will not adversely affect water quantity either onsite or to downstream waters. g. The channel’s natural planform pattern and migration processes; No channels occur within this Project Site, therefore this Project will not adversely affect the natural processes of any channel. h. Spawning substrate, if applicable; and/or No watercourses occur on the Site, therefore the Project will not adversely affect spawning gravel. i. Floodplain refugia, if applicable. The Site is connected to the greater Green River floodplain. While displacement of flood storage is proposed for this Project, mitigation is being provided that will result in no net loss of flood storage. Additionally, an upgraded pipe will be provided to ensure that Wetland C remains connected to the greater Green River floodplain so this area can continue to function as a potential location of floodplain refugia. There, the Project will not adversely affect floodplain refugia. CHAPTER 6. PROPOSED MITIGATION Mitigation for the minor buffer intrusions proposed consistent with the Code is outlined below. 6.1 Agency Policies and Guidance The proposed mitigation plan was designed in accordance with the policies and guidance provided in the following documents: • Auburn City Code, Chapter 16.10 -- Critical Areas; • The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) Publication #06-06-011a, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, and Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1), dated March 2006 (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 2006a, 2006b); and Pursuant to the City’s intent of developing critical area regulations as outlined in ACC 16.10.010.E, all proposed mitigation shall be based on best available science and shall demonstrate no net loss of critical area functions and values. 6.2 Mitigation Sequencing Mitigation sequencing has been applied to the proposed project pursuant to the mitigation definition and preferred sequence definition outlined in ACC 16.10.020. The mitigation sequencing requirements are: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of actions. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 23 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. All direct impacts to wetlands and streams have been avoided with the current Site Plan. Impacts to the floodplain, areas of native vegetation, and buffer impacts are unavoidable, but have been minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Buffer modifications proposed to Wetland C and Watercourse L are incredibly minor and are needed for a public trail and a public road corridor, respectively. The trail width is the smallest impact possible without encroaching onto adjacent properties while achieving the net goal of a pedestrian trail that circumnavigates the Project Site and will provide a public benefit in this area. The road roundabout alignment has been adjusted several times to determine the best fit location given the critical areas east of the proposed location. Floodplain impacts are unavoidable given the extensive coverage within the Project Site, but have been minimized to the greatest extent possible given the road improvement requirements in this area. In light of the previously prepared EIS outlining the development goals for this broad area, the floodplain impacts proposed are the least possible while determining a feasible project. Compensation is being provided for both the buffer impacts as well as the floodplain impacts. 6.3 Proposed Mitigation Plan The mitigation areas proposed for the project impacts listed in the section above, are illustrated in Appendix A, Sheets W2.0 and 2.1. The items below describe how the impacts are effectively mitigated and meet the intentions of the sequencing process listed in Section 6.2. Wetland A (Auburn)/Watercourse K/Watercourse L Buffer Restoration and Enhancement The areas of temporary disturbance for grading will be restored post-development by decompacting the underlying soils, addition of soil amendments, and then followed by dense plantings of native woody species of trees and shrubs. A conceptual planting plan is provided on Sheet W2.1, Appendix A. However, because the location of the proposed restoration work at this location overlaps the buffers that are part of the I Street Mitigation Plan that will be provided in the near future to the City, detailed planting details will be provided as part of the I Street Mitigation Plan where the restoration effort will tie these areas of disturbed buffer into the greater restoration plan around Watercourses K and L and Wetland A (Auburn). Wetland C Buffer Restoration Proposed mitigation includes the restoration of approximately 1,400 square feet of buffer through the removal of the non-native substrate, decompacted with compost added, and native vegetation planted. Invasive species will be removed where applicable. A detailed planting plan and plantings specifications are provided on Sheets W2.0 and W3.0, Appendix A. The intent of the Wetland C buffer restoration effort is a forested upland buffer consistent with the existing forested buffer around Wetland C. This forested buffer will help to distance the wetland from the adjacent common areas of the Apartment Project. 6.4 Mitigation Design Elements The goal of the mitigation design is to restore critical area function. Below is a description of how this will be accomplished, while meeting the design concepts described in Section 6.3 above. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 24 6.4.1 Planting Plan Plant species were chosen for a variety of qualities, including: adaptation to specific water regimes, value to wildlife, value as a physical or visual barrier, pattern of growth (structural diversity), shading of stream channel, and aesthetic values. Native tree, shrub, and herbaceous species were chosen to increase both the structural and species diversity of the mitigation areas, thereby increasing the value of the area to wildlife for food and cover. See Sheets W2.0 and W3.0, Appendix A for a detailed planting plan and planting notes and specifications. We expect that seeds and berries from adjacent native species will be recruited by natural forces (wind, rain, birds) into the mitigation areas and will assist in achieving the performance standards for species diversity and cover. The performance standards limit the percentage cover of any single species of tree or shrub in the mitigation area. If a single native species becomes too prolific in naturally establishing itself in the mitigation area, its coverage will be reduced as required by the performance standards. 6.4.2 Temporary Irrigation System A permanent landscape irrigation system is proposed for the Site that will also cover all proposed mitigation areas. The proposed irrigation system will be capable of full head to head coverage of all planted areas for the mitigation areas. The irrigation system will be installed based on the landscape plans submitted by Whipple Consulting Engineers, as detailed on the Irrigation Plan, Sheet L2.2 of the Site Plan, dated 6 November 2019, prepared and compiled by the Project Engineer, BCRA. 6.5 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The primary goal of the mitigation is to restore the temporarily and permanently impacted buffers associated with surface waters. To accomplish these goals, the proposed project will: • Restore 1,400 sf of wetland buffer; and • Restore 14,655 sf of watercourse buffer. Mitigation actions will be evaluated through the following objectives and performance standards. See Section 8.2 for a full description of the monitoring methods that will be used to evaluate the approved performance standards. Mitigation monitoring will be performed by a qualified biologist. The below performance standards are intended to apply only to the Wetland C buffer restoration. The I Street NE Mitigation Plans that will be submitted to the City in the future will outline all appropriate/applicable performance standards for the Wetland A (Auburn) and Watercourse buffer restoration efforts as the scale of that mitigation work is distinctly different than what is proposed for the Wetland C buffer. Objective A: Restore structural and plant species diversity in the mitigation areas. Performance Standard A1: At least 5 species of desirable native plants will be present in the mitigation areas during the monitoring period. Percent survival of planted woody species must be at least 100% at the end of Year 1 (per contactor warranty), and at least 80% for each subsequent year of the monitoring period. Performance Standard A2: Total percent aerial woody plant coverage in the mitigation buffer areas must be at least 35% by Year 4 and 50% by Year 5. Woody coverage may be comprised of both planted and recolonized native species; however, to maintain species diversity and plant structural diversity, at no time shall a recolonized species (i.e., red alder) comprise more than 35% of the total woody coverage. Objective B: Limit the amount of invasive and exotic species within the mitigation area. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 25 Performance Standard B1: After construction and following every monitoring event for a period of five years, exotic and invasive plant species will be maintained at levels below 20% total cover throughout the mitigation area. These species include Scot’s broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, and creeping nightshade. Performance Standard B2: After construction and following every monitoring event for a period of five years, Japanese knotweed will be completely removed from the mitigation area, if found. There will be 0% total cover of this species within the performance monitoring period. CHAPTER 7. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING 7.1 Mitigation Construction Sequencing The following provides the general sequence of activities anticipated to be necessary to complete this mitigation project. Some of these activities may be conducted concurrently as the project progresses. 1. Conduct a site meeting between the Contractor, Talasaea Consultants, and the Owner's Representative to review the project plans, staging/stockpile areas, and material disposal areas. 2. Survey clearing limits. 3. Install silt fence and any other erosion and sedimentation control BMPs necessary for work in the project areas. 4. Survey earthwork areas and set grade stakes as required. 5. Clear and grub designated areas within the Project Site containing non-native, invasive species or areas of gravel and/or asphalt. 6. Plant designated areas per the planting typicals/plans. 7. Mulch all grubbed and cleared areas and provide a three-inch-deep mulch ring around all container-planted material. 8. Install irrigation system. Ensure that the system is capable of head-to-head coverage. 9. Install critical area signs. 10. Complete site cleanup. 7.2 Post-Construction Assessment Once construction is approved, a qualified wetland ecologist from Talasaea Consultants shall conduct a post-construction assessment. The purpose of this assessment will be to establish baseline conditions at Year 0 of the required monitoring period. A Baseline Assessment report including “as-built” drawings will be submitted to all of the required agencies. The as-built plan set will identify and describe any changes in grading, planting, or other constructed features in relation to the original approved plan. 7.3 Post-Construction Approval Talasaea Consultants shall notify the permitting agencies (City of Auburn) when the mitigation planting is completed for a final site inspection and subsequent final approval. Once final approval is obtained in writing, and “as-built” plans are approved, the monitoring period will begin. CHAPTER 8. MONITORING PLAN Performance monitoring of the mitigation areas will be conducted according to all applicable code/regulatory requirements and permit conditions. Monitoring will be conducted according to ACC 16.10.130 for a minimum of five years for the City of Auburn (City). Monitoring will be conducted according to the schedule presented in Table 6 below, and will be performed by a qualified biologist or ecologist from Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 26 Table 7. Projected Schedule for Performance Monitoring and Maintenance Events Year Date Maintenance Review Performance Monitoring Report Due to Agencies Year 0, As-built and Baseline Assessment Fall X X X 1 Spring X X Fall X X X 2 Spring X X Fall X X X 3 Spring X Fall X X X 4 Spring X Fall X X 5 Spring X Fall X X X* *Obtain final approval to facilitate bond release from the City (presumes performance criteria are met). 8.1 Monitoring Reports Each monitoring report will adhere to the requirements of ACC 16.10.130.C. The reports will include: 1) Project Overview, 2) Requirements, 3) Summary Data, 4) Maps and Plans, and 5) Conclusions. If the performance criteria are met, monitoring for the City will cease at the end of year five and for the Corps at the end of year ten, unless objectives are met at an earlier date and the agencies accept the mitigation project as successfully completed. Monitoring reports will be submitted to the City of Auburn Planning Director by December 1st of the year in which monitoring is conducted. 8.2 Monitoring Methods The following monitoring methods will be used to evaluate the approved performance standards. 8.2.1 Methods for Monitoring Vegetation Establishment Vegetation monitoring methods may include counts; photo-points; random sampling; sampling plots, quadrats, or transects; stem density; visual inspection; and/or other methods deemed appropriate by the permitting agencies. Vegetation monitoring components shall include general appearance, health, mortality, colonization rates, percent cover, percent survival, volunteer plant species, and invasive weed cover. Permanent vegetation sampling plots, quadrats, and/or transects will be established at selected locations to adequately sample and represent all of the plant communities within the mitigation project areas. The number, exact size, and location of transects, sampling plots, and quadrats will be determined at the time of the baseline assessment. Percent aerial cover of woody vegetation (forested and/or scrub-shrub plant communities) will be evaluated through the use of point-intercept sampling methodology. Using this methodology, a tape will be extended between two permanent markers at each end of an established transect. Trees and shrubs intercepted by the tape will be identified, and the intercept distance recorded. Percent cover by species will then be calculated by adding the intercept distances and expressing them as a total proportion of the tape length. The established vegetation sampling locations will be monitored and compared to the baseline data during each performance monitoring event to aid in determining the success of plant establishment. Percent survival of shrubs and trees will be evaluated in a 10-foot-wide strip along each established transect. The species and location of all shrubs and trees within this Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 27 area will be recorded at the time of the baseline assessment and will be evaluated during each monitoring event to determine percent survival. 8.3 Photo Documentation Locations will be established within the mitigation area from which panoramic photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. These photographs will document general appearance and relative changes within the plant community. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi-quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. Vegetation sampling transect/plot/quadrat and photo-point locations will be shown on a map and submitted with the baseline assessment report and yearly performance monitoring reports. 8.4 Wildlife Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates observed in the stream and stream buffer areas (either by direct or indirect means) will be identified and recorded during scheduled monitoring events, and at any other times observations are made. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The kinds and locations of the habitat with greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting activities. 8.5 Water Quality Water quality will be assessed qualitatively; unless it is evident there is a serious problem. In such an event, water quality samples will be taken and analyzed in a laboratory for suspected parameters. Qualitative assessments of water quality include: • oil sheen or other surface films, • abnormal color or odor of water, • stressed or dead vegetation or aquatic fauna, • turbidity, and • absence of aquatic fauna. 8.6 Site Stability Observations will be made of the general stability of slopes and streambanks in the mitigation areas during each monitoring event. Any erosion on the streambank, streambed, or adjacent slopes will be recorded and corrective measures will be taken. CHAPTER 9. MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY Regular maintenance reviews will be performed according to schedule presented in Table 7 to address any conditions that could jeopardize the success of the mitigation project. Following maintenance reviews by the biologist or ecologist, required maintenance on the site will be implemented within ten (10) business days of submission of a maintenance memo to the maintenance contractor and permittee. Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the yearly monitoring results to judge the success of the mitigation. If, during the course of the monitoring period, there appears to be a significant problem with achieving the performance standards, the permittee shall work with the City and other permitting agencies to develop a Contingency Plan in order to get the project back into compliance with the performance standards. Contingency plans can include, but are not limited to, the following actions: additional plant installation, erosion control, bank stabilization, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity, and/or location. If required, a Contingency Plan shall be submitted to the City by December 1st of any year when deficiencies are discovered. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 28 The following list includes examples of maintenance (M) and contingency (C) actions that may be implemented during the course of the monitoring period. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and other actions may be implemented as deemed necessary. • During year one, replace all dead woody plant material (M). • Replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute that meets mitigation plan goals and objectives, subject to Talasaea and agency approval (C). • Re-plant area after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C). • After consulting with City staff and other permitting agencies, minor excavations, if deemed to be more beneficial to the existing conditions than currently exists, will be made to correct surface drainage patterns (C). • Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., Scot's broom, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, purple loosestrife, Japanese knotweed, etc.) by manual or chemical means approved by permitting agencies. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful and would require prior agency approval. All non- native vegetation must be removed and disposed of off-site. (C & M). • Weed all trees and shrubs to the dripline and provide 3-inch deep mulch rings 24 inches in diameter for shrubs and 36 inches in diameter for trees (M). • Remove trash and other debris from the mitigation areas twice a year (M). • Selectively prune woody plants at the direction of Talasaea Consultants to meet the mitigation plan's goal and objectives (e.g., thinning and removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs) (M). • Repair or replace damaged structures including signs, or bat/bird boxes (M). CHAPTER 10. FINANCIAL GUARANTEES Per ACC 16.10.130.C.7, the mitigation plan, separate from other aspects of the project on the Site, shall include financial guarantees, to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented; therefore, a bond may be issued for the work. Per ACC 16.10.130.B, the bond shall be in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated cost of the mitigation project for the length of the monitoring period. CHAPTER 11. SUMMARY The Project Site for proposed development of the Copper Gate Apartments is located at 401 49th Street NE in Auburn, Washington. The Site is comprised of portions of 5 parcels (6 parcel numbers). Two (2) wetlands (Wetland A (Auburn) and Wetland C) occurs on the Site, and two (2) watercourses (Watercourses K and L) are located adjacent to the Site such that buffers project onto the Site. These features were identified in previously prepared critical areas reports. The Copper Gate Apartment Project proposes the construction of 500 units of multifamily housing on approximately 32 acres between 49th Street and 45th Street, a minimum of 822 parking spaces, and associated infrastructure typical of multifamily projects. This Project also requires road improvements to a portion of D Street NE as well as to 49th Street NE. The improvements for 49th Street NE propose a roundabout near the northeast corner of the Project Site that the future I Street NE will tie into. The required road improvements for the remaining portions of I Street NE itself are not included in this assessment and will be evaluated under separate future permit applications. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 29 The Project proposes a minor intrusion into the buffer for Wetland C to accommodate a pedestrian trail with buffer restoration at a 10:1 ratio proposed as compensation. Restoration activities will include the removal of the non-native substrate, decompaction with soil and/or soil amendments added, and native vegetation planted. Performance monitoring is proposed for a minimum of 5 years through the City of Auburn. Buffer modifications to Wetland A (Auburn), Watercourse K, and Watercourse L to accommodate the proposed development. These buffer impacts will be fully replaced for no net loss of buffer area, and these areas will be restored or enhanced post-construction. Proposed mitigation includes the restoration of approximately 14,655 square feet of wetland and watercourse buffer through the removal of the non-native substrate, decompacted with compost added, and native vegetation planted. Invasive species will be removed where applicable. Final mitigation plans for the buffer restoration and enhancement work for Wetland A (Auburn), Watercourse K, and Watercourse L will be provided as part of the I Street Mitigation Plan to be submitted in the near future. No net loss of floodplain compensatory storage is proposed as part of this Project. Native vegetation within the 100-year floodplain is only 5% of the Project Site, with 71% of that proposed to be retained. This falls within the 35% threshold allowed in the ACC. Despite meeting the requirement, a Habitat Impact Analysis was prepared to assessment the potential impacts to native habitats within the 100-year floodplain. The HIA concluded that the project determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) is appropriate for wetlands, streams, water quality or flow, floodplain refugia, or any type of wildlife habitat for listed or non- listed species. Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Page 30 FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Figure 2 – Parcel Map Figure 3 – Aerial View – 300’ Radius a a a Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 November 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Appendix A Appendix A Detailed Mitigation Plans (large format) Sheet W1.0: Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.1: Proposed Site Plan, Impacts & Mitigation Plan Sheet W1.2: Impacts & Mitigation Plan Sheet W1.3: Native Vegetation Impact Plan Sheet W2.0: Planting Plan, Plant Schedule, Notes & Details Sheet W2.1: Conceptual Planting Plan & Candidate Plant List Sheet W3.0: Planting Specifications Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig.a Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XX X XXXX X XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX X X X X X X X XXXXXXXX X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXCX P P P P P P PPP PPPPPPPPPPPPPP P P PPPPFFFW FF F FFFF F FF FF FRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RD RD RD RDRDRDRD RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRD RDRD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RDRD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FD FD FD FDFD FD FD FD FDFD FD FDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDF D F D F D F D F D FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFD FDFDFD FD FDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFD FDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFD FDFD FDFDFD FDFD FD FDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FDFD FDFD FDFD FD FDFDFDFD FD FDFD FD FD FDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FD FDFD FD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FDFD FD FD FDFD FDFD FD FDFD FD FDFD FD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FDFD FDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFD FDFDFDFD FDFD FDRDRDRD RD RDRDRDRDRDRD RDRDRDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDRD RD DDDDDRD DRD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RDRDRDRD RD RDRDRDRDRDRD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDRD RD RD RD RD RD DDDDDDDDDX X X X X X XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXPPPIR IR Da XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXX X XXXXXXXXXX X X IR DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDKnow what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig.a Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig.79+0080+0081+0082+0083+0084+0085+0086+0087+0088+0089+0090+0091+0092+0093+0094+0095+0096+0097+0098+0099+0099+49XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XX X XXXX X XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX X X X X X X X XXXXXXXX X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXCX P P P P P P PPP PPPPPPPPPPPPPP P P PPPPFFFW FF F FFFF F FF FF FRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RD RD RD RDRDRDRD RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRD RDRD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RDRD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FD FD FD FDFD FD FD FD FDFD FD FDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDF D F D F D F D F D FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFD FDFDFD FD FDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFD FDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFD FDFD FDFDFD FDFD FD FDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FDFD FDFD FDFD FD FDFDFDFD FD FDFD FD FD FDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FD FDFD FD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FDFD FD FD FDFD FDFD FD FDFD FD FDFD FD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FDFD FDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFD FDFDFDFD FDFD FDRDRDRD RD RDRDRDRDRDRD RDRDRDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDRD RD DDDDDRD Da RDRDRDRDRD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDRDRDRDDDDDDDDDDD DKnow what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig.a XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXX X XXXXXXXXXX X XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig.a Know what's below.Call before you dig.a½ ½ ½ Copper Gate Apartments Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment and Critical Areas Report 5 September 2019 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1835 Copper Gate FHA V3 Appendix B Appendix B Select Maps from BCRA Reports: 1. Copper Gate Apartments, Developed Condition Basin Map, BCRA, 09.2019 2. Compensatory Storage Exhibit, BCRA, 10.2019 79+00 80+00 81+00 82+00 83+00 84+00 85+00 86+00 87+00 88+00 89+00 90+00 91+00 92+00 93+00 94+00 95+00 96+00 97+00 98+00 99+00 99+49 BUILDING D TYPE 3A BUILDING F TYPE 2 BUILDING G TYPE 1 GARAGE 12BUILDING ETYPE 2GARAGE 10 GARAGE 9BUILDING C TYPE 3GARAGE 13GARAGE 14BUILDING ABUILDING BTYPE 4BUILDI N G H TYPE 1 GARAGE 1GARAGE 8BUILDING JTYPE 4BUILDING KTYPE 3SPLASHPADPOOLBUILDING LCLUBHOUSEGARAGE 2BUILDING MTYPE 4GARAGE 3GARAGE 4 BUILDING PTYPE 1GARAGE 7BUILDING N TYPE 3A BUILDING QTYPE 3BUILDING RTYPE 3GARAGE 6BIKE STORAGE BUILDING TTYPE 4MAINT.BUILDING STYPE 1AGARAGE 5 GARAGE 11PICNICHORSE SHOESBOCCE BALL HORSE S H O E S PICNICBIKESTORAGEBIKE STORAGE COMM U N I T Y GARDE N PICNIC PICN IC X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXX X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DS DS DS DSDS DS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DSDS DS DS DS DSDS DS DS DSDS DS DS DS DS DSDSDSDSDSDS DS DS DSDS DSDS DSDS DSDS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DS DSDS DS DS DS DSDSDSDSDSDS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DS DS DS DSDS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DS DSDS DSDSDS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DSDS DSDSDSDS DSDS DSDS DSDS DSDSDSDSDSDSDS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DSDS DSDSDS DS DSDS DSDS DS DS DS DS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSFDFDFDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FD FD FD FD FD FDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDF D FD FDFD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFD FDFD FDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FD FDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDFD FD FD FD FDFD FD FD FD FDFD FD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FDFDFDFDFD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD FDF D FDFD FD FD FD FDFD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFFE:54.08ZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE XZONE XZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE AEZONE XZONE XZONE AEZONE X ZONE A E ZONE AEZONE XXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXXN09.2019 / COPPER GATE APARTMENTSDEVELOPED CONDITION BASIN MAPSCALE: 1"=00200 100200200'PROPOSEDBASIN 1PROPOSEDBASIN 2PROPOSEDBASIN 3WETLAND CPROPOSEDBASIN 1FUTURE I STREET ALIGNMENTPROPOSEDBASIN 4PROPOSEDBASIN 5WATERCOURSE/DITCH LINTERMITTENT FISH-BEARINGWDFW TYPE FAUBURN CLASS II75' STANDARD BUFFER25' REDUCED BUFFER W/ MITIGATIONWATERCOURSE/DITCH KINTERMITTENT FISH-BEARINGWDFW TYPE FAUBURN CLASS II75' STANDARD BUFFERWETLAND A EAST, OFFSITE(PORT OF SEATTLE PROPERTY)HIGH POINT IN DITCHCONVEYANCE DITCH INOT A WATERCOURSENO BUFFERCONVEYANCE DITCH HNOT A WATERCOURSENO BUFFERWETLAND A NORTH(LANDS OF AUBURN)STORM PONDHIGH POINT IN DITCHFUTURE I STREET ALIGNMENT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXX X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXZONE XZONE AEZONE X ZONE A E ZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE XZONE XZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE XZONE AEZONE X5151 5 1 515252 5252 52525352525252 5252535 3 525351525251 52 52 52 52 5252525252515252525152 NSCALE: 1"=00200 100200200'CONVEYANCE RUN 218" PIPE @ 0.5% SLOPECONVEYS AREA 310.2019 / COPPER GATE APARTMENTSCOMPENSATORY STORAGE EXHIBITMATCH LINE SEE NEXT PAGEFUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGRADING SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLYNO CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS AREPROVIDED FOR THIS AREA AT THIS TIMEAREA 1AREA 2AREA 3AREA 4AREA 5IMPROVED FLOODCONVEYANCE CHANNELCONVEYS AREA 6EXISTING 36" PIPELOCATED IN D STREETCONVEYS AREA 2EXISTING DITCHCONVEYS AREA 5CONVEYANCE RUN 130" PIPE @ 0.2% SLOPECONVEYS AREA 1-5I STREET NEAUBURN WAY N49TH STREET NED STREET NE S 277TH STREET45TH STREET NE 4542 43 44464745 42 43 44 454344 4650 4748495046474849 4748 495050 55 494951515252 52 53 54 56 N10.2019 / COPPER GATE APARTMENTSCOMPENSATORY STORAGE EXHIBITSCALE: 1"=00200 100200200'MATCH LINE SEE PREVIOUS PAGEAREA 6GREEN RIVER Auburn Code Review – I Street NE (Watercourse K) Stream Relocation The following code review relates specifically to code related to streams, and does not reflect any code revisions that were are specific to wetlands, as no wetlands occur within the designated project immediate area around the stream relocation for Watercourse K, but exist elsewhere on the project site. ACC 16.10.010.B.2 identifies the purpose and intent statement applicable to of streams for the City of Auburn: B.2. Streams. Streams and their associated riparian corridors provide important fish and wildlife habitat; help to maintain water quality; store and convey storm water and flood water; recharge groundwater; and serve as areas for recreation, education and scientific study and aesthetic appreciation. Stream buffers serve to moderate runoff volume and flow rates; reduce sediment, chemical nutrient and toxic pollutants; provide shading to maintain desirable water temperatures; provide habitat for wildlife; and protect stream resources from harmful intrusion. The primary goals of stream regulation are to avoid adverse effects to streams and associated riparian corridors; to achieve no net loss of functions and values of the larger ecosystem in which the stream is located; to protect fish and wildlife resources; to protect water quality through appropriate management techniques; and, where possible, to provide for stream enhancement and rehabilitation. An important part of the discussion of the impacts and mitigation for this Project relate to this fundamental purpose by the City to protect the functions and values of streams and their buffers and the incredibly poor existing conditions of this stream and its buffer. The stream in its current condition is a steep sided (50% slope in many sections) farm ditch of which over 200 feet is contained within undersized culverts. The buffer is mostly dense gravel that is residual from the drive-in movie theater, which has created a condition that this buffer is unlikely to recover from naturally. The dense gravel precludes natural plant recruitment, which is evidenced by the lack of most vegetation except the hardiest of weedy seral species in a few small patches, despite the movie theater being closed for many years now. In its present undeveloped condition, there is little physical improvements and sources of human activity, noise and light. The proposed development and road construction will increase the proximity to of human activity, noise, disturbance, and light to 10-30 feet for all these it a watercourse determined to be fish bearing by various agency staff, beyond the city. The mitigation sequence requires that the impact to the critical area be avoided then minimized with appropriate mitigation/compensation provided for any unavoidable impacts. Impacts have been avoided to the maximum extent possible, but are unavoidable given the location of the City-dedicated ROW. The Applicant did not choose the location of the road. This was previously determined by the City prior to the Applicant’s involvement with this Site. Impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent practicable, but again, the location has been largely pre-determined by the City outside of the Applicant’s control. The portion of the stream being impacted is poor to very poor in its current condition with little to no functional buffer, located within an area that is heavily disturbed and that cannot recover on its own without human manipulation given the dense gravel layer present on the Site itself within the buffers and the need to remove/replace existing undersized culverts. Commented [JD1]: The subsequent subsection C, reinforces the mitigation and restoration purpose saying: “C. This chapter and other sections as incorporated by reference contain standards, procedures, criteria and requirements intended to identify, analyze, and mitigate potential impacts to the city’s critical areas, and to enhance and restore degraded resources where possible. The general intent of these regulations is to avoid impacts to critical areas. In appropriate circumstances, impacts to specified critical areas resulting from regulated activities may be minimized, rectified, reduced and/or compensated for, consistent with the requirements of this chapter.” Commented [JD2]: The conversion to daylighted watercourse is beneficial. Commented [JD3]: This is overstated. The majority of the west side of the watercourse is compacted gravel associated with the historic movie theater. Yes, the compacted gravel area is slow to recover but was beginning to show signs or recruitment of native vegetation. By contrast, the east side is open land and in the process of reverting from managed farm land. Commented [JD4]: Per ACC 16.10.020: “Mitigation” means activities which include: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of actions; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or 6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. While monitoring without additional actions is not considered mitigation for the purposes of these regulations, it shall be part of a comprehensive mitigation program. “Mitigation sequencing” means considering or performing mitigation actions, as defined in the definition of ... Commented [JD5]: It is accurate to say that the Applicant did not have a part in the ROW location. The ROW was selected based on the northern terminus and based on what was then known about the then status of wetlands and streams (incomplete) ; which included private property that was not surveyed. The city would not intentionally create the conflict . Commented [JD6]: It is acknowledged that the quality of the existing water course is not good but the statement which follow are not accurate. The east side is recovering and west side albeit more slowly. The Project as it is currently designed will remove a long culvert and create new area of open channel that was previously within a culvert, as well as replace an existing culvert with a fish passable box culvert that meets the current StreamSim modeling guidelines approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the local Tribes, as well as the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). In addition to adding new length of open channel of stream and the culvert upgrade, the Project will also broadly enhance over 2 acres of buffer around and in proximity to Watercourse K. This level of mitigation more than compensates for the variances that will be requested from the City to address the need to relocate the stream to accommodate a City-aligned ROW. The buffers for Watercourse K were previously reduced from 100 feet to 75 feet, which is also consistent with the City’s allowance for either averaging (16.10.090.3E.2.d) or pure reduction by 25% as determined appropriate on a case by case basis by the director where the buffer reduction will not result in any adverse impact to the stream (16.10.090.E.2.e). This project proposes buffer averaging as ALL lost/reduced buffer from the stream relocation will be replaced slightly north of the impact area. The buffer lost due to the road alignment is 8,497 SF, which will be replaced by the addition of 9,182 SF (which is part of the total buffer addition of 13,767 SF that also includes the buffer addition around Wetland A and Watercourse L by the round-about). In addition, ACC 16.10.090.E.2.b outlines the City measures that may be implemented by the Applicant to avoid any buffer width increases. The code clearly states that the “applicant may propose to implement one or more enhancement measures… (emphasis added by author)” This project will implement 8 of 8 enhancement measures, as outlined in the Critical Areas Report, pages 29-32 (PDF pages 35-38). This is beyond what is required by the AMC. AMC 16.10.100.B outlines allowable alterations of streams. The proposed relocation is being proposed as part of a large mitigation plan that will ultimately remove culvert, increase the length of stream within an open channel, and upgrade another culvert to a large box culvert that meets current WDFW guidelines for StreamSim compliance, consistent with the requirements of the USACE and Tribes. ACC 16.10.120 outlines the performance standards for mitigation planning, which is separated into sections for Wetlands and Stream (16.10.120.A), only wetlands (16.10.120.B), and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (16.10.120.C). Other subsections occur for geologically hazardous areas and aquifer recharge areas which do not exist on this site. All standards outlined in 16.10.120.A have been met as part of the proposed mitigation plan. Section 16.10.120.B identifies that slopes should not exceed 4:1 slopes, but this section very specifically applies to wetlands, which are not present around the proposed work area of Watercourse K, therefore, this section should not apply. Section 16.10.160 outlines the requirements for critical area variances, as follows, with explanations following each requirement: Applications for variances to the strict application of the terms of this chapter to a property may be submitted to the city. Minor variances, defined as up to and including 10 percent of the requirement, may be granted by the director as a Type II decision as defined by Chapter 14.03 ACC. Variance requests which exceed 10 percent may be granted by the hearing examiner as a Type III decision, pursuant to ACC 14.03.030 and Chapter 2.46 ACC. Approval of variances from the strict application of the critical area requirements shall conform to the following criteria: Commented [JD7]: What areas are counted to make this statement? Commented [JD8]: Not sure what “reduction” this is referring to? If I understand correctly, then this is backwards since the city by ordinance #6733 in 2019 changed its regulations to increase buffer standards in response to WA State DOE’s request. Buffer for fish bearing was changed from 75 to 100 feet. This change has nothing to do with the city’s regulations that allow buffer averaging. It was a change in standards to remain consistent with best Available science. Also, the applicant is not proposing to observe even this this now repealed standard. Instead, 10- 30 feet is proposed which exceeds reductions of 25% allowed through buffer averaging code provisions. Commented [JD9]: This code citation does not appear accurate. Commented [JD10]: ACC 16.10.090.E.2.e provides a separate mechanism or “pure” reduction (not averaging) as follows: e. Stream buffer widths may be reduced by the director on a case-by-case basis by up to 25 percent if an applicant demonstrates that a reduction will not result in any adverse impact to the stream. Further, if an existing buffer is vegetated, a buffer enhancement plan may be required to demonstrate how the function and values of the buffer and stream will be improved. If the existing buffer has been disturbed and/or is not vegetated, an enhancement plan shall be required that identifies measures to enhance the buffer functions and values and provide additional protection for the stream function and values. Enhancement plans are subject to approval by the director.” Commented [JD11]: This write-up started by saying that there were no wetlands nearby and that stated fact is contradicted here. Here nearby wetlands are mentioned in a manner that contradicts previous information by quantifying a combined mixture of wetland and stream buffer. The City’s code provision for buffer averaging requires 2 criteria that cannot be met (ii & iv) ACC 16.10.090(E)(2)(d), as follows: ... Commented [JD12]: The code section lists enhancement measures that can be proposed to avoid buffer increases beyond the standard buffer width, no increase beyond the standard have been suggested by the city and the proposal does not even meet the routine buffer standard distance. Commented [JD13]: Have not seen temporary irrigation system proposed in any mitigation plans which is one of the listed performance standards. Commented [JD14]: Agreed, that I previously misstated that steam buffer also must meet the wetland buffer slope grades. A. There are unique physical conditions peculiar and inherent to the affected property which make it difficult or infeasible to strictly comply with the provisions of this section; The Site does contain a unique physical condition. Watercourse K was present at this location when the City designated ROW for a future extension of I Street as part of the City’s comprehensive plan. Portions of the stream were piped at/near this location, which may or may not have been a permitting challenge at the time of ROW designation. Despite this, based on current federal, state, and local environmental regulations, constructing the new alignment of I Street within its designated ROW requires that Watercourse K is relocated and that the existing 2 culverts be addressed in some fashion consistent with the current regulations. This has resulted in the current stream relocation and the concurrent culvert removal and replacement. Yes, Watercourse K is physically located within the ROW that the city owns for I St NE. However, ROW are routinely adjusted in location and alignment as part of development proposal. The applicant has not exhausted mitigation sequencing to consider widening the ROW to the west to afford buffers closer in compliance to city standards for the relocated stream. B. The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the building footprint and access; The stream realignment is the minimum necessary to accommodate the new road alignment, while also providing a stream corridor that is an improvement over the existing condition that also meets the applicable federal and state requirements. By “minimum necessary”, the stream is being relocated the minimum amount necessary to the east, to retain the alignment on-site. The result is sandwiched between the road and property line resulting in buffers approaching 1/10 the current standard in effect. By showing two options, Inland has identified that both as possible options. Despite the city advocating for use of the adjacent port of Seattle property on the applicant’s behalf, the applicant has not exhausted discussions with the Port and pursed further. C. The proposed variance would preserve the functions and values of the critical area, and/or the proposal does not create or increase a risk to the public health, safety and general welfare, or to public or private property; The proposed variance significant increases the functions and values of the critical area (Watercourse K) over its existing condition by laying back the slopes compared to the current steep sided farm ditch configuration, removing the dense gravel and invasive species from within the buffer, implementing a modern stormwater facility that will ensure property attenuation and treatment of all stormwater prior to discharge into the stream, as well as adding large woody debris into the stream and corridor, which is currently lacking. The combination of mitigation elements is a significant improvement as it stands while also minimizing impacts to adjacent private properties. While the current proposed stream alignment does propose a wall along the edge of the road, the wall is as low as feasible and a fence will be installed to prevent any human/pet intrusion from the proposed sidewalk into the stream corridor. Given the presence of homeless encampments at other locations in this site, the slope, wall, and fence will hopefully be a deterrent to future intrusions by homeless encampments in the future. The design of the road will also ensure that any road runoff would be routed through the stormwater facility prior to entering the stream proper. Plantings and water quality facilities will enhance the stream. The removal of gravel surface that historically were periodically used for theater patrons within the buffer will be replaced by asphalt and concrete and heavy traveled by vehicles. The concrete wall, approaching five feet in height will be within the buffer with necessary wall maintenance. The City identifies the core functions of streams and their corridors as follows: provide important fish and wildlife habitat; help to maintain water quality; store and convey storm water and flood water; recharge groundwater; and serve as areas for recreation, education and scientific study and aesthetic appreciation. Stream buffers serve to moderate runoff volume and flow rates; reduce sediment, chemical nutrient and toxic pollutants; provide shading to maintain desirable water temperatures; provide habitat for wildlife; and protect stream resources from harmful intrusion. A more detailed assessment by item is provided here. • Provide important fish and wildlife habitat (Stream); The stream will provide improved fish and wildlife habitat for the restored stretch as the stream will provide more habitat elements within the channel rather than be a linear channel with little shade present. The realigned channel will contain a small meander, incorporate large woody material into the channel itself, install a fish-friendly gravel/cobble substrate, and integrate the stream seamlessly into the restored adjacent buffers. • Help to maintain water quality (Stream); The stream will continue to maintain water quality same as its existing condition. This stream receives stormwater inputs upstream, which will remain. Any runoff from the Project Site will be routed through a stormwater facility that will meet all current stormwater treatment and attenuation requirements prior to discharge of any water into the adjacent Wetland A buffer/Watercourse L before this water reaches Watercourse K. • Store and convey storm water and flood water (Stream); The proposed project will not negatively impact the capacity of Watercourse K to store or convey stormwater or flood waters. The Project broadly should increase the stream’s ability to both store and convey flood waters as a long undersized culvert is being removed, while another culvert is being upgraded to a fish-passable culvert that will also ensure no stream flows are hindered, and lastly, the system is being connected to additional flood storage through the Project’s expansion of Watercourse N into a flood conveyance channel. Floodplain connection doesn’t benefit reach K. • Recharge groundwater (Stream); The proposed project will not negatively impact the ability, if any, of this area to recharge groundwater. • Serve as areas for recreation, education and scientific study and aesthetic appreciation (Stream); This stream is located in an area used for recreation, education or scientific study, nor would any element of the Project hinder this stream’s functions in this capacity, if so desired. • Moderate runoff volume and flow rates (buffer); Runoff from the Site is currently released untreated into Watercourse L through an existing drain system. While buffers do typically moderate runoff volume and flow rates, the buffer in this area will have a limited ability to do so as the entirety of the developed portion of the Site will be managed and all runoff routed through the designed stormwater facility, which will then act as both treatment for water quality and flow control. This will also apply to any sediment, chemical nutrient, or toxic nutrients. • Reduce sediment, chemical nutrient and toxic pollutants (buffer); See above response. • Provide shading to maintain desirable water temperatures (buffer); Dense plantings of native woody species are proposed within all buffer restoration areas that will provide shading over the stream channel that will help to maintain desirable water temperatures within this stream. Stream shading is very important for fish usage of this stream, and is something that is mostly lacking in this system in the current condition. Dense plantings will jumpstart natural succession. • Provide habitat for wildlife (buffer); and The buffer currently provides very limited opportunity for wildlife habitat given the monoculture of Himalayan blackberry or reed canarygrass that exists currently. Regardless of the width of the final buffer, the total buffer area will remain the same as what the regulations require, which will all be planted with dense native vegetation that will provide a substantial improvement over existing conditions. Opportunities for wildlife usage will increase significantly post-development and implementation of the Project’s mitigation plan. • Protect stream resources from harmful intrusion (buffer). The low wall and perimeter critical area fencing will work to protect critical areas from harmful intrusions. A more robust chainlink fence has been installed around the Port property that will contain entry from the adjacent property into this riparian corridor. The USACE will require a long-term management plan for all mitigation areas that would also work in the future to help protect the stream (along with the buffers) from harmful intrusions, in addition to the dense plants, low wall, and fencing. D. The proposed variance would not adversely affect surrounding properties adjoining; The proposed variance would contain the relocated stream within the City’s ROW and would minimize the effects of the stream and shifted buffer on the adjacent private property while also ensuring that the proposed stream and corridor is a significant improvement over the existing conditions for both the stream and its buffer. E. Adverse impacts to critical areas resulting from the proposal are minimized; and Adverse impacts to the stream have been minimized. The proposed mitigation plan will result in a significant improvement to the habitat of the stream and its corridor. F. The special circumstances or conditions affecting the property are not a result of the actions of the applicant or previous owner. (Ord. 6733 § 3 (Exh. B), 2019; Ord. 6442 § 14, 2012; Ord. 5894 § 1, 2005.) The special circumstances are a result of the previous development on the Site prior to the Applicant, and the City’s comprehensive planning that identified an extension of I Street at this location, including the City acquiring ROW that is being used by this Project. While we appreciate the desire to compare the buffers of the standard width with the proposed buffers for this Site, the standard buffers do not apply. If they did apply, then we would still be meeting the intent of the regulations given the extensive stream and stream buffer restoration proposed as part of the mitigation plan for this Project. The critical areas ordinance does not stipulate anything relating to wall presence or absence, and where slopes are mentioned, the reference occurs specifically in the wetland portions of the code. This project requires a variance no matter which alternative is proposed, given the proximity of the road to the stream. That said, we feel that the proposed stream alignment, reflecting the short wall with 3:1 slopes within the buffer is the best alternative for this project as it significantly improves the functions and values of the stream and its buffer along its entire stretch adjacent to this Project, while also avoiding physical impacts to adjacent properties. This is the proposal that has been presented to the USACE, Tribes, DOE, and WDFW. At a minimum, we would appreciate the City’s willingness to listen to the feedback provided by these other agencies, which are reviewing this proposal as we speak, prior to continuing discussions that might expand the impacts of this Project on adjacent property, especially in light of the extensive mitigation currently being provided. Commented [JD15]: This rationale is nonsensical from a natural resource protection perspective. Using this theory, every applicant should be able to state that the minimum buffer standards judged to the “best avaible science” by the WA DOE, don’t apply to them. 1 Jennifer Marriott From:Brent Parrish <brentp@inlandconstruction.com> Sent:Thursday, October 22, 2020 2:47 PM To:Jennifer Marriott Subject:FW: Alternatives for stream mitigation Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Brent Parrish Development Manager Inland Group 120 W Cataldo |Ste 100| Spokane, WA 99201 www.inlandconstruction.com W: (509) 321‐3228 F: (509) 922‐2251 C: (702) 235‐8326 brentp@inlandconstruction.com From: Royal, Allan <Royal.A@portseattle.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 9:47 AM To: Brent Parrish <brentp@inlandconstruction.com> Cc: Jennings, James <Jennings.J@portseattle.org>; Maney, Chipper <Maney.R@portseattle.org> Subject: Alternatives for stream mitigation Brent: Based upon what you have so far, the Port would prefer the alternative that is the least impactful to our property which was the one with the retaining wall on your property. Are you taking this to Jeff Dixon next to get the city input? That would appear to be last step regarding buffers and the like, which still may affect Port property. Allan Royal Property Manager AV/Business & Properties A division of the Port of Seattle PO Box 68727‐0727 | Seattle, WA 98168 P: 206‐787‐6788 | C: 206‐321‐1557 | F: 206‐787‐4985 E: royal.a@portseattle.org From: Brent Parrish <brentp@inlandconstruction.com> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 2:59 PM To: Steven Sturza <ssturza@auburnwa.gov> 2 Cc: Development <Development@auburnwa.gov>; Jeff Dixon <jdixon@auburnwa.gov>; Reid Dickinson <reidd@inlandconstruction.com>; 'Andrew Cirillo' <ACirillo@bcradesign.com>; John Fisher <JohnF@inlandconstruction.com>; Ben Dort <BDort@bcradesign.com>; Royal, Allan <Royal.A@portseattle.org>; Maney, Chipper <Maney.R@portseattle.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: FDP19‐0013 Copper Gate Apartments Compensatory Storage WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the content of this email to be safe. Based on your email below we are providing the pre‐developed topographic exhibit for the Port of Seattle property using LiDAR data from the City of Auburn 2000 dataset. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks Brent Parrish Development Manager Inland Group 120 W Cataldo |Ste 100| Spokane, WA 99201 www.inlandconstruction.com W: (509) 321‐3228 F: (509) 922‐2251 C: (702) 235‐8326 brentp@inlandconstruction.com From: Steven Sturza Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 1:26 PM To: Brent Parrish Cc: Development ; Jeff Dixon ; Reid Dickinson ; 'Andrew Cirillo' ; John Fisher ; Ben Dort Subject: RE: FDP19‐0013 Copper Gate Apartments Compensatory Storage Good afternoon Brent, The Port was unable to find the original survey of the Port of Seattle's site prior to the compensatory storage being created. Chipper at the Port did indicate that Parametrix was the firm that was used for the permitting of the compensatory storage creation. From our meeting a while back I was under the impression you are using Parametrix for the CLOMR that is being prepared for the project due in December of this year. Can you check with Parametrix to see if they have the original survey? I don’t think this is necessary for the floodplain permit on the Copper Gate project, but it will be important for the CLOMR that will be submitted to FEMA for the Auburn Gateway project in December. Thank you, Steve Sturza, P.E., CFM Development Engineer Manager City of Auburn Community Development (253) 876‐1969 Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map) Customer Service Survey | Application Forms | Zoning Maps 3 From: Brent Parrish <brentp@inlandconstruction.com> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 8:14 AM To: Steven Sturza <ssturza@auburnwa.gov>; 'Ben Dort' <BDort@bcradesign.com> Cc: Development <Development@auburnwa.gov>; Jeff Dixon <jdixon@auburnwa.gov>; Reid Dickinson <reidd@inlandconstruction.com>; 'Andrew Cirillo' <ACirillo@bcradesign.com>; John Fisher <JohnF@inlandconstruction.com> Subject: RE: FDP19‐0013 Copper Gate Apartments Compensatory Storage CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Good morning. We don’t have “The original survey of the Port of Seattle's site prior to the compensatory storage being created.” The only documents we have from the Port’s property were the “Compensatory Storage Improvement Plans” and “As‐built” drawings the Port provided. Does the City not have a record of this plan from the original permit issuance for the work associated with the Port’s property? Thanks Brent Parrish Development Manager Inland Group 120 W Cataldo |Ste 100| Spokane, WA 99201 www.inlandconstruction.com W: (509) 321‐3228 F: (509) 922‐2251 C: (702) 235‐8326 brentp@inlandconstruction.com From: Steven Sturza <ssturza@auburnwa.gov> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 4:22 PM To: 'Ben Dort' <BDort@bcradesign.com> Cc: Development <Development@auburnwa.gov>; Jeff Dixon <jdixon@auburnwa.gov>; Reid Dickinson <reidd@inlandconstruction.com>; 'Andrew Cirillo' <ACirillo@bcradesign.com>; John Fisher <JohnF@inlandconstruction.com>; Brent Parrish <brentp@inlandconstruction.com> Subject: FDP19‐0013 Copper Gate Apartments Compensatory Storage Good afternoon Ben, I was able to review the compensatory storage design memo you provided for Copper Gate Apartments. The memo was very clear and it was encouraging to see there is more than enough compensatory storage available out there. I realize that I already have all of these items, but it would be very helpful if you could include the following in the memo in the Appendices so it is easily found if someone else was to pick up this memo. Please include the following: The topographic survey done for the Copper Gate project site that is stamped and signed by the surveyor. A stand‐alone Copper Gate grading plan from FAC19‐0013 The original survey of the Port of Seattle's site prior to the compensatory storage being created. I don’t recall if we have the survey stamped and signed but a surveyor, but that would be preferred. 4 The Port of Seattle Compensatory Storage as‐built exhibit stamped and sign by Mitchell Duryea from Duryea & Associates. Please also include the Master Compensatory Flood Storage Plan with City comments addressed. The colored exhibit is very helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, Steve Sturza, P.E., CFM Development Engineer Manager City of Auburn Community Development (253) 876‐1969 Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map) Customer Service Survey | Application Forms | Zoning Maps From: Steven Sturza Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 2:18 PM To: 'Ben Dort' <BDort@bcradesign.com>; John Fisher <JohnF@inlandconstruction.com>; Brent Parrish <brentp@inlandconstruction.com> Cc: Development <Development@auburnwa.gov>; Jeff Dixon <jdixon@auburnwa.gov>; Jacob Sweeting <jsweeting@auburnwa.gov>; Ingrid Gaub <igaub@auburnwa.gov>; Reid Dickinson <reidd@inlandconstruction.com>; Andrew Cirillo <ACirillo@bcradesign.com> Subject: FAC19‐0013 Copper Gate Apartments; 1st Review Comments and Deviation Determinations Good afternoon Ben, John, and Brent, FAC19‐0013 2nd Review The 2nd FAC review for Copper Gate Apartments (FAC19‐0013) project is complete. Below is a link to access the City’s Dropbox to download the marked up plans, reports, and additional guidance documents for your project. The applicant/engineer will need to address all comments, provide clear detailed responses to each comment on the plans/reports in a unique color directly next to the City comment, and return the 2nd review documents with responses. The applicant will also need to resubmit all revised reports/plans in .pdf format for additional review via email, CD, flash drive, uploaded to the Dropbox setup by the City or some other approved electronic submittal method. The City will not begin the review until all required submittal documents have been revised and received. If you have any questions or concerns on the review please do not hesitate to contact me and I will do my best to answer your questions/concerns or put you in touch with the appropriate person. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uxv17owlkybpn3p/AABIiPxMEMWwC_TvZaCy8aQfa?dl=0 Deviation Request Determinations The City Engineer has reviewed the Deviation Requests (DEV19‐0035, DEV19‐0036, DEV19‐0037, & DEV19‐0038) submitted for the Copper Gate project. The results of that review are provided below. DEV19‐0035 Three Driveway Access Points Deviation Request (DEV19‐0035) dated September 27, 2019, requests approval of a three driveway access points to the public right‐of‐way with justification. 5 Section 10.04.3.2 of the Engineering Design Standards (“EDS”), dated January 3, 2019, states that, “properties/parcels, or a development project that incorporates multiple adjacent parcels, shall be limited to one driveway access to a City street.” The City Engineer may grant a deviation from the EDS if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed deviation will meet or exceed the corresponding City standard for the criteria listed in Section 1.04.1 of the EDS. In this case, the City Engineer has determined that the proposal meets or exceeds the corresponding City standards found in that section. Based on the above, the Deviation Request is approved. DEV19‐0036 Fire Hydrants Closer than 50‐feet to a building Deviation Request (DEV19‐0036) dated September 27, 2019, requests approval to place fire hydrants closer than 50‐feet to proposed structures with justification. Section 7.1.6.1(D) of the Engineering Design Standards (“EDS”), dated January 3, 2019, states that, “Fire hydrants shall be located no closer than 50‐feet to the surrounding structures.” The City Engineer may grant a deviation from the EDS if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed deviation will meet or exceed the corresponding City standard for the criteria listed in Section 1.04.1 of the EDS. In this case, the City Engineer has determined that the proposal meets or exceeds the corresponding City standards found in that section. Based on the above, the Deviation Request is approved. DEV19‐0037 Reduced Horizontal Curve Deviation Request (DEV19‐0037) dated September 27, 2019, requests approval of reduced horizontal curves in the proposed streets with justification. Table 10‐1 in the Engineering Design Standards (“EDS”), dated January 3, 2019, requires a minimum horizontal radius of 1,121‐feet for minor arterial streets with a design speed of 45 mph and 544‐feet for non‐residential collector streets. The City Engineer may grant a deviation from the EDS if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed deviation will meet or exceed the corresponding City standard for the criteria listed in Section 1.04.1 of the EDS. In this case, the City Engineer has determined that the proposal meets or exceeds the corresponding City standards found in that section. Based on the above, the Deviation Request is approved with Conditions. Please address the following: The City’s Engineering Design Standards indicates that the design speed for a minor arterial road is the posted speed limit plus 10 mph. The justification letter has a the design speed listed as the posted speed limit plus 5 mph. Please provide the section in the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets that indicates the design speed for a superelevated road should be the posted speed plus 5 mph. The justification letter references a speed of 25 mph for the roundabout. The roundabout validation report prepared by Transpo has a speed that is slightly greater than this which the City has requested to be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. Please ensure that the justification letter and validation report are coordinated on the speed referenced. The justification letter provided requests reduction for the horizontal radius in 49th St SE near the intersection of Auburn Way N. Since the improvements to 49th St SE between Auburn Way N and D St NE proposed with FAC19‐0013 improvements are considered interim, the deviation request for this reduction will be done with the future full build out of 49th St NE plans. DEV19‐0038 Storm Pipe with a slope of 0.1% 6 Deviation Request (DEV19‐0038) dated September 27, 2019, requests approval to propose running storm pipes at slopes as shallow as 0.1%. Section III.D.4.1.9 of the City of Auburn Supplement to the Department of Ecology Surface Water management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW), dated July 10, 2018, states for storm conveyance that, “a minimum slope for all pipes shall be 0.5%.” The City Engineer may grant a deviation from the EDS if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed deviation will meet or exceed the corresponding City standard for the criteria listed in Section 1.04.1 of the EDS. In this case, the City Engineer has determined that the proposal meets or exceeds the corresponding City standards found in that section. Based on the above, the Deviation Request is approved. Appeals to Deviation Request Determination Appeals of the City Engineer’s decisions shall follow the procedure found in City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards Section 1.05. The applicant shall have 15 working days from the date of receipt of the decision in which to submit a written notice to the Public Works Director contesting the decision of the City Engineer. The Public Works Director shall then have 15 working days to notify the applicant of a decision to uphold or modify the City Engineer’s decision. For appeals of engineering Deviation Requests, the Public Works Director’s determination shall be final. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, Steve Sturza, P.E., CFM Development Engineer Manager | City of Auburn Community Development 253.876.1969 | ssturza@auburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map) Customer Service Survey | Application Forms | Zoning Maps This message is private and privileged. If you are not the person meant to receive this message, please let the sender know, then delete it. Please do not copy or send it to anyone else. This message is private and privileged. If you are not the person meant to receive this message, please let the sender know, then delete it. Please do not copy or send it to anyone else. From: Brent Parrish <brentp@inlandconstruction.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:58 AM To: Jeff Dixon Cc: Jeff Tate; Steven Sturza; John Fisher; Reid Dickinson Subject: I Street Ditch K Relocation Attachments: 18208_I Street Stream_1-2.pdf; I Street Walls.pdf CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Attached are the two exhibits we discussed yesterday on our call relative to the relocation of Ditch “K” along “I” Street at 45th. Please note we have also included the revised “I” street design drawings that reflect the addition of the required box culvert to meet stream sim criteria along with the headwalls. Please let us know how your conversation goes with the Port. Thanks Brent Parrish Development Manager Inland Group 120 W Cataldo |Ste 100| Spokane, WA 99201 www.inlandconstruction.com W: (509) 321-3228 F: (509) 922-2251 C: (702) 235-8326 brentp@inlandconstruction.com 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+0 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XPPWWWWWWWWWWWDDDP P P P P P P P P P P P P P P W W W W W 27 32 33 R35'52 53 53 5454 50 50 47 47 48 48 49 49 51525354 50 50484849 49 5152535350525354PT STA:101+36.28, 19.50'L PC STA:101+01.51, 58.49'L CB #118 STA: 101+36.28, -18.58L CB #117 STA: 102+93.01, -18.58L CB #116 STA: 104+53.86, -18.58L CB #115STA: 105+95.24, -18.58L CB #119STA: 101+36.50, 18.58R EX CB #08 STA: 79+85.12, -10.06L 39'10.5'5.5'10'TEE #34 STA 103+86.54, 12.86 CULVERTSTA:101+01.99, 51.39'RIE: 47.43 CULVERT STA:100+42.43, 44.13'RIE: 47.60 3.0:13.0:10.29% STA:100+80.67, 19.50'RDRIVEWAY CL 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60 100+20EGCL:52.1FGCL:100+40EGCL:52.4FGCL:100+60EGCL:52.6FGCL:100+80EGCL:52.8FGCL:101+00EGCL:52.8FGCL:101+20EGCL:53.3FGCL:53.06101+40EGCL:53.6FGCL:53.26101+60EGCL:53.5FGCL:53.46101+80EGCL:53.4FGCL:53.66102+00EGCL:53.5FGCL:53.82102+20EGCL:53.2FGCL:53.89102+40EGCL:52.8FGCL:53.88102+60EGCL:52.2FGCL:53.77102+80EGCL:51.3FGCL:53.59103+00EGCL:51.1FGCL:53.39103+20EGCL:50.9FGCL:53.19103+40EGCL:50.3FGCL:52.99103+60EGCL:47.6FGCL:52.79103+80EGCL:50.0FGCL:52.59104+00EGCL:50.0FGCL:52.39104+20EGCL:50.1FGCL:52.26104+40EGCL:50.1FGCL:52.18104+60EGCL:50.1FGCL:52.17104+80EGCL:50.1FGCL:52.22105+00EGCL:50.2FGCL:52.33WITHIN FLOOD HAZARD ZONE OUTSIDE FLOOD HAZARD ZONE 0.00%1.00%2.00%3.00%4.00% 0.00%-1.00%-2.00%-3.00%-4.00% 0.00%1.00%2.00%3.00%4.00% 0.00%-1.00%-2.00%-3.00%-4.00% 101+66.21'LC102+07.71'RC102+49.21'BFS101+36.28'102+00.00'103+00.00'104+00.00'105+00.00'Runout Runoff Tangent Curve Curve.1 FINISH GRADE ELEV. AT I STREET ℄ EXISTING GRADE ELEV. AT I STREET ℄ BASE FLOOD ELEV. AT I STREET ℄ FINISH GRADE ELEV. AT I STREET ℄EXISTING GRADE ELEV. AT I STREET ℄BASE FLOOD ELEV. AT I STREET ℄BFE:51.40BFE:51.39BFE:51.37BFE:51.36BFE:51.35BFE:51.33BFE:51.32BFE:51.31BFE:51.29BFE:51.28BFE:51.26BFE:51.25BFE:51.24BFE:51.24BFE:51.23BFE:51.23BFE:51.24BFE:51.24BFE:51.25BFE:51.24BFE:51.17BFE:51.12BFE:51.10BFE:51.09BFE:51.08-1.00%1.00% GRADE BREAK STA: 101+01.28 ELEV: 52.87 PVI STA: 104+53.86 PVI ELEV: 51.85 K: 64.00 LVC: 128.00 BVCS: 103+89.86BVCE: 52.49EVCS: 105+17.86EVCE: 52.49LOW PT. STA: 104+53.86 LOW PT ELEV: 52.17 PVI STA: 102+26.28 PVI ELEV: 54.12 K: 45.00 LVC: 90.00 BVCS: 101+81.28BVCE: 53.67EVCS: 102+71.28EVCE: 53.67HIGH PT. STA: 102+26.28 HIGH PT ELEV: 53.90 CB #119 - TYPE 1 STA: 101+36.50 OFF: 18.58R RIM: 52.98 IE OUT: 49.73 12" (W) 37LF 12" HDPE @ 0.51% CB #118 - TYPE 1 STA: 101+36.28 OFF: -18.58L RIM: 52.85 IE IN: 49.54 12" (E) IE IN: 49.54 12" (SW) IE OUT: 49.54 12" (N) 154LF 12" HDPE @ 0.51% CB #117 - TYPE 1-SOLID LID STA: 102+93.01 OFF: -18.58L RIM: 52.71 IE IN: 48.76 12" (S) IE OUT: 48.76 12" (N) 155LF 12" HDPE @ 0.51% CB #116 - TYPE 1 STA: 104+53.86 OFF: -18.58L RIM: 51.42 IE IN: 47.97 12" (S) IE OUT: 47.97 12" (NW) LEFT LANE RIGHT LANE CULVERT IE:47.60 45LF 12" DI CL52 @ 0.10% EX CB #08 - EXIST STA: 79+85.12 OFF: -10.06L RIM: 51.61 IE OUT: 49.58 12" (NE) 139LF 8" DI CL52 REFER TO PLAN VIEW FOR GRADING INFORMATION BEYOND THE SUPERELEVATION TABLE CULVERT IE:47.43 60LF 3'x12' BOX CULVERT @ 0.28% TEE #34 STA: 103+86.54 OFF: 12.86 (1) 8"x6" TEE (FLxFL) (1) 8" ADAPTER (FLxMJ) (1) 8" BLIND FLANGE (FL) (1) 6" GATE VALVE (FLxMJ) 9 LF 6" DI CL52 (1) FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY THRUST BLOCKS OFFSITE ROADWAY NOTES CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER PER DETAIL CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK CITY OF AUBURN STANDARD DETAIL T-15 OFFSITE ROADWAY NOTES 1 2 MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK SLOPE AND GRADE MATCH EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT SLOPE AND GRADE MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 6 7 8 PERPENDICULAR CURB RAMP PER DETAIL ADJUST UTILITY STRUCTURE TO FINISHED GRADE PER CITY OF AUBURN STANDARD PLAN T-05.2 13 14 SURVEY MONUMENT PER CITY OF AUBURN STANDARD PLAN T-11 AIR AND VACUUM RELIEF VALVE PER COA DETAIL W-02 26 PIPE CROSSING TABLE # 32 33 UPPER PIPE STORM STORM INVERT 49.58 48.95 LOWER PIPE WATER WATER CROWN 46.44 46.07 DIFFERENCE 3.14 2.88 12'x3' BOX CULVERT PER DETAIL 2" IRRIGATION METER, 2" LINE, & BACKFLOW PREVENTION PER COA DTLS 31 CONNECT TO EXISTING TEE AND GATE VALVE WITH (1) 12" ADAPTER (FLxRJ) 47 ENERGY DISSIPATER PER DETAILS16 HMA NON-MOTORIZED TRAIL PER ROAD SECTION ON SHEET C5.01 HMA PAVEMENT PER ROUNDABOUT PAVEMENT SECTION ON SHEET C5.01 59 STANDARD DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE WITH OFFSET APRON PER COA DETAIL T34 39 HMA PAVEMENT PER ROADWAY SECTION ON SHEET C5.01. (2) 2" SCHEDULE 80 PVC CONDUITS FOR FUTURE RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON INSTALLATION 62 63 SURFACING BASE COURSE WITH DOWEL BARS, SEE NOTE THIS SHEET. SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENT 1" IRRIGATION METER, 1" LINE, & BACKFLOW PREVENTION PER COA DTLS 50MATCH L INE SEE SHEET C2.02 C2.01 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE 18208 11.06.2019 JBD ACCRJBAUBURN, WA 98002 I STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS4750 AUBURN WAY NORTH PROJECTBCRA NO. DATE REVISIONS SHEET TITLE SEAL T 253.627.4367 F 253.627.4395 WWW.BCRADESIGN.COM2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA 98402DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: IF SHEET MEASURES LESS THAN 24"X36", IT IS A REDUCED PRINT. REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLYDATE PLOTTED: 3/17/2020 11:40:58 AM FILENAME: 18208C-201-205.DWG BY: ----DESIGNED BY: SHEET © COPYRIGHT 2019 - BCRA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OWNER PROJECT REF: FAC19-0018 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN'S ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS. APPROVED BY: Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. INLAND GROUP PERMIT SET 0 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"= VERTICAL SCALE: 1"= 5' 5 52.5 20' 20 2010 N SCALE: 1"= 20 10 0 20 20' REFER TO COPPER GATE APARTMENTS FAC19-0013 PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS OUTSIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY 1 59 62 2 13 6 8 7 62 2 59 C5.06 5 C5.06 6 C5.06 1 I STREET NE (MINOR ARTERIAL)45TH STREET NE(RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR)C5.03 2 C5.04 1 C5.07 5 C5.05 5 31 47 14 C5.05 3 16 26 EXISTING CHAINLINK PORT OF SEATTLE FENCE 13 13 3116 39 50 63 100+00 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+0 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XPPWWWWWWWWWWWDDDP P P P P P P P P P P P P P P W W W W W 52 53 53 5454 50 50 47 47 48 48 49 49 51525354 50 50484849 49 5152535350525354R610'BW:53.61 BW:52.83 BW:52.04 BW:51.26 BW:50.53 BW:49.92 TW:54.99 TW:54.62 TW:54.14 TW:53.67 TW:53.33 TW:54.50 TW:54.73 TW:54.97TW:55.17 TW:55.19 BW:49.84BW:49.99 BW:50.13BW:50.27 BW:50.42 BW:49.82 STA:101+05.47, 40.00'RELEV: 53.21 STA:103+55.00, 40.00'RELEV: 54.27 PC STA:102+21.54, 40.00'RELEV: 55.07 45 50 55 60 45 50 55 60 100+00EGCL:52.0FGCL:100+20EGCL:52.1FGCL:100+40EGCL:52.4FGCL:100+60EGCL:52.6FGCL:52.62100+80EGCL:52.8FGCL:52.76101+00EGCL:52.8FGCL:52.84101+20EGCL:53.3FGCL:53.06101+40EGCL:53.6FGCL:53.26101+60EGCL:53.5FGCL:53.46101+80EGCL:53.4FGCL:53.66102+00EGCL:53.5FGCL:53.82102+20EGCL:53.2FGCL:53.89102+40EGCL:52.8FGCL:53.88102+60EGCL:52.2FGCL:53.77102+80EGCL:51.3FGCL:53.59103+00EGCL:51.1FGCL:53.39103+20EGCL:50.9FGCL:53.19103+40EGCL:50.3FGCL:52.99103+60EGCL:47.6FGCL:52.79103+80EGCL:50.0FGCL:52.59104+00EGCL:50.0FGCL:52.39104+20EGCL:50.1FGCL:52.26104+40EGCL:50.1FGCL:52.18104+60EGCL:50.1FGCL:52.17104+80EGCL:50.1FGCL:52.22FINISH GRADE ELEV. AT I STREET ℄ EXISTING GRADE ELEV. AT I STREET ℄ FINISH GRADE AT BOTTOM OF WALL ELEV. 100+00 BW:TW:100+20 BW:TW:100+40 BW:TW:100+60 BW:TW:100+80 BW:TW:101+00 BW:TW:101+20 BW:50.35TW:53.40101+40 BW:50.24TW:53.67101+60 BW:50.12TW:54.05101+80 BW:50.01TW:54.44102+00 BW:49.89TW:54.79102+20 BW:49.79TW:55.05102+40 BW:49.93TW:55.20102+60 BW:50.45TW:55.18102+80 BW:51.06TW:55.02103+00 BW:51.74TW:54.82103+20 BW:52.41TW:54.62103+40 BW:53.08TW:54.42103+60 BW:TW:103+80 BW:TW:104+00 BW:TW:104+20 BW:TW:104+40 BW:TW:104+60 BW:TW:104+80 TW:FINISH GRADE AT TOP OF WALL ELEV. FINISH GRADE AT BOTTOM OF WALL ELEV. FINISH GRADE AT TOP OF WALL ELEV.FINISH GRADE ELEV. AT I STREET ℄ EXISTING GRADE ELEV. AT I STREET ℄ C2.07 WALL PLAN AND PROFILE 18208 11.06.2019 JBD ACCACCAUBURN, WA 98002 I STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS4750 AUBURN WAY NORTH PROJECTBCRA NO. DATE REVISIONS SHEET TITLE SEAL T 253.627.4367 F 253.627.4395 WWW.BCRADESIGN.COM2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA 98402DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: IF SHEET MEASURES LESS THAN 24"X36", IT IS A REDUCED PRINT. REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLYDATE PLOTTED: 3/17/2020 11:42:22 AM FILENAME: 18208C-207.DWG BY: ----DESIGNED BY: SHEET © COPYRIGHT 2019 - BCRA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OWNER PROJECT REF: FAC19-0018 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN'S ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS. APPROVED BY: Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. INLAND GROUP PERMIT SET 0 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"= VERTICAL SCALE: 1"= 5' 5 52.5 20' 20 2010 N SCALE: 1"= 20 10 0 20 20' I STREET NE (MINOR ARTERIAL)45TH STREET NE(RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR)EXISTING CHAINLINK PORT OF SEATTLE FENCE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 101+00 STA:100+71.67, 19.50'R 53.39 18' 52.81 52.62 53.19 52.5652.87 53.44 53.59 53.54 53.34 53.14 TC 53.06 53.29 53.6553.71 TC 53.37 -10.4%-1.5%-0.9%-0.5%-10.4%-1.5%-1.1% -1.1%-1.1% - 4 . 0%-1.1%-1.1% -1.1%-1.5%-1.5%53.65 53.04 53.01 -10.1%-7.9% -1.1% -1.1%-1.5%-1.5%-1.1% STA:100+53.67, 19.50'R 5'5'5'10'5.5'- 4 0 . 1%-33.0% 1 0 '5.6'X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 101+00 53.44 53.59 52.78 -6.6% -1.4%-1.5%-1.0%-7.1%-1.0%52.88 PTSTA:101+36.28, 19.50'R STA:101+11.27, 19.50'R TC 53.24 TC 53.24 52.77 52.67 TC 53.17 53.10 53.25 52.62 TC 53.11 TC 53.28 52.73 -1.4% -1.4% -6.8% -6.1%-1.5%TC 53.34 TC 53.45 TC 53.58-1.0%-1.0%7'8'10'10'5.5'- 4 0 . 1%-33.0% 1 0 '5.6'5253R35'TC 53.02 52.54-7.6%TC 52.14 52.29 51.64 52.15 MATCH EX 52.18 MATCH EX -0.5%-1.0%-0.1%-1.5% PC BEGIN CURB AND GUTTER(MATCH EX) STA:101+01.50, 58.38'L PTSTA:101+36.28, 19.50'L10'STA:101+11.85, 56.36'L STA:101+30.80, 30.62'L STA:101+17.45, 40.64'L 52.41 52.34 52.98 52.91 52.98 53.06 52.20 TC 52.70 52.14 TC 52.61 52.00 51.93 52.50 52.57 52.65 52.5751.80 TC 52.30 52.32 -7.6%-1. 5 % -1. 5 % -1. 5 %-1.5%-1.5%-9.4 % -5 . 4 % - 9 .4%-1.5%-1.6%-1.6%-1.5% -1.5% -7.5% -7.6% 52.82-5.5%5' 6' 6'5'6'6' STA:101+13.32, 28.08'L STA:101+02.55, 45.13'L 7.5'5'113+00 52528.4'7.5' 7'10'5.5'10'5.5'-7.2% -6.4%-1.5%-1.5%-1.5%-1.5%-1.5%-6.9% -7.7%-1.5%52.06 51.46 51.52 52.07 52.20 51.66 52.21 51.37 51.44 -0.6% -0.8% -0.6% STA:112+64.52, 19.68'R STA:112+74.85, 22.15'R 51.60 TC 52.11 TC 52.17 STA:112+61.81, 35.00'R STA:112+52.50, 25.00'R STA:112+81.35, 30.00'R TC 51.87 TC 51.96 TC 51.96 TC 51.92 51.44 51.48 51.30 51.69 51.83 52.08 51.9451.34 51.22 51.25 -7.5%-1.5%-7.3% -0.3%-1.5%-5.4% -5.6%-1.5%-0.4%-1.5%-1.5%-1.5%0.3% 9.6'7' 7'10'10'5.5' 51 52 STA:114+61.67, 32.43'R STA:114+71.31, 29.80'R TC 51.95 TC 51.98 TC 51.75 TC 51.71 TC 51.83 TC 51.80 STA:114+56.18, 39.85'R STA:114+80.76, 33.18'R 10.5'4748495010'1.9' 10' 10.4'23.5'10'-2.7%-2.7%-2.2%-1.5%-1. 5 % -1.5%-1.5%-0.5%-0.5%-1.2%-0.5%50.86 50.11 50.72 TC 50.69 50.19 50.00 50.26 50.12 50.12MATCH EX 50.07 MATCH EX 49.93 49.82 TC 50.43 49.56MATCH EX TC 50.06 -1.3%END CURB AND GUTTER(MATCH EX) STA:121+93.61, 76.47'L PC STA:121+43.97, 19.50'L STA:121+80.88, 35.77'L STA:121+89.96, 49.87'L65.5'TC 50.22 16.9'-1.1%50.00 50.15 -1.8% 31'R50'23.5'PT STA:121+93.86, 72.85'L TC 50.66 TC 50.62 45 50 46 47 48 49 50.75 50.30 50.27 50.20 50.45 50.77 50.26 50.78 50.64 50.53 51.04 50.90-2.2%-2.3%-1.1%-1.4%-1.5%-1.7% -1.5% -1.6 %-1.5%-1.5%-1.5%-0. 4 % -1.5% -1.5%-0.2%10'11.4'10'STA:121+90.96, 39.77'R STA:122+01.51,47.60'RR50'PCSTA:121+66.71, 33.50'R END CURB AND GUTTER (MATCH EX)STA:122+16.17, 76.17'R 4 9 . 1 ' PT STA:121+66.71, 48.50'R TC 50.69 TC 50.79 TC 50.76 PC STA:122+01.33, 78.37'R 25.3'32.7 ' 13 . 2 ' TC 50.95 -0 . 6 % -0 . 8 % TC 51.04 50.39 50.35 TC 50.85 -1 .4% 51.05MATCH EX 50.96MATCH EX-1.1%-1.5%-0.8%-1.5%-1.5%-1.5%-7 . 8 % -1 . 2 %-10.5%-5. 2 %-9.9%-1 . 3 % -1 . 2 % 51.73 51.67 TC 52.17 52.25 52.28 52.39 52.40 52.18 52.10 51.91 52.06 TC 51.84 51.36 51.51 5. 2 ' 1 6 . 7 ' 5.1 '10'5'STA:113+14.04, 43.67'R STA:113+27.26, 55.93'R 0. 6 % -0 . 1% -1. 3 % -3. 0 %-10.5%50.44 STA:120+57.49, 33.50'R -1.0%-1.5%-8.3% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0%-1.5%-1.5%-1.0%-10.5%-9.0%-1.5%-1.5%-1.0% -1.0%-1.5%STA:120+95.49, 33.50'R5' 38' 5' TC 50.94 51.06 51.01 51.16 51.21 50.49 51.00 50.92 TC 51.42 51.4451.49 51.59 51.64 STA:100+36.99, 30.30'RBW: 50.98 STA:100+43.16, 38.17'RBW: 47.60 STA:100+41.71, 50.09'RBW: 47.60 STA:100+33.83, 56.25'RBW: 51.82 STA:101+01.26, 57.35'RBW: 47.43 STA:101+07.43, 65.22'RBW: 51.44 STA:101+02.72, 45.44'RBW: 47.43 STA:101+07.09, 42.00'RBW: 49.27 TW: 51.77 TW: 53.26 TW: 53.26 TW: 53.19 TW: 52.24 TW: 52.60 TW: 52.60 TW: 51.42 50 48 49 51 52 50 48 49 51 - 4 0 . 1%-33.0%-42.3% - 3 3 . 9%10'1 0 ' 1 0 '5.6'C5.06 GRADING DETAILS 18208 11.06.2019 JBD ACCRJBAUBURN, WA 98002 I STREET NE IMPROVEMENTS4750 AUBURN WAY NORTH PROJECTBCRA NO. DATE REVISIONS SHEET TITLE SEAL T 253.627.4367 F 253.627.4395 WWW.BCRADESIGN.COM2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300, TACOMA, WA 98402DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: IF SHEET MEASURES LESS THAN 24"X36", IT IS A REDUCED PRINT. REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLYDATE PLOTTED: 3/17/2020 11:54:30 AM FILENAME: 18208C-506.DWG BY: ----DESIGNED BY: SHEET © COPYRIGHT 2019 - BCRA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OWNER PROJECT REF: FAC19-0013 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN'S ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS. DEV. REVIEW ENGINEER: APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. INLAND GROUP PERMIT SET SCALE: 1"= 10 5 0 10 10' SCALE:545TH ST NE & I ST NE DRIVEWAY 1"=10' SCALE:145TH ST NE AND I ST NE NW RAMPS 1"=10'SCALE:4S 277TH ST & I ST NE SW RAMP 1"=10' SCALE:645TH ST NE & I ST NE NE RAMP NTS SCALE:249TH ST NE & I ST NE SE RAMP 1"=10' SCALE:8S 277TH ST & I ST NE SE RAMP 1"=10' SCALE:749TH ST NE & I ST NE NE RAMP 1"=10' N SCALE:3POND ACCESS DRIVEWAY S NTS SCALE:9POND ACCESS DRIVEWAY N NTS NOTE: 1.DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1.DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1.DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1.DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1.DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1.DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1.DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1.DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR NOTE: 1.DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE COLOR TO BE BRICK RED OR SIMILAR SCALE:10CULVERT HEADWALLS NTS From: Jennings, James <Jennings.J@portseattle.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:50 PM To: Jeff Dixon Cc: Maney.R@portseattle.org; Alhadeff.D@portseattle.org; johnson.jason@portseattle.org; Kaplan.D@portseattle.org; Franklin.A@portseattle.org Subject: RE: RE: [EXTERNAL] Request for conversation on Port Property in North Auburn Jeff, Thanks for keeping this issue visible, as you can suspect our focus has been on the COVID-19 impacts to SEA’s operation and tenants as we try to create a safe environment for the return of mass travel for our region. In regards to your question about the Port approval process on the easement, we need to have a clear project construction scope, buffer and easement boundary to fully determine the degree of impact on future Port use. Commission action is required if the easement would be determined to have a material impact or limitation on future Port use or development. So not knowing whether one option over the other would create a different outcome, a clear decision on whether Alternative 1 or 2 is pursued seems to be a key data point to move the process forward. So who ultimately makes that decision? The Port’s appraisal process usually takes about a month and our Commission process takes about two months (if necessary) but those processes may overlap a bit. I am out on PTO next week, but feel free to keep the discussion going with those on this email string so we can endeavor to keep things moving forward. Best Regards. --JJ James Jennings (JJ) Director, Aviation Business and Properties Seattle-Tacoma International Airport PO Box 68727 | Seattle, WA (206) 787.7476 From: Jeff Dixon <jdixon@auburnwa.gov> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 6:29 PM To: Jeff Dixon <jdixon@auburnwa.gov>; Jennings, James <Jennings.J@portseattle.org> Cc: Maney, Chipper <Maney.R@portseattle.org>; Alhadeff, Daniel <Alhadeff.D@portseattle.org>; Johnson, Jason <johnson.jason@portseattle.org>; Kaplan, Dave <Kaplan.D@portseattle.org>; Franklin, Alicia <Franklin.A@portseattle.org> Subject: RE: RE: [EXTERNAL] Request for conversation on Port Property in North Auburn JJ, Have you had a chance to discovered what steps would be required for Inland Washington LLC, to acquire an easement? Jeff Dixon From: Jeff Dixon <jdixon@auburnwa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 4:01 PM To: Jennings.J@portseattle.org Cc: Maney.R@portseattle.org; Alhadeff.D@portseattle.org; johnson.jason@portseattle.org; Kaplan.D@portseattle.org; Franklin.A@portseattle.org Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Request for conversation on Port Property in North Auburn James, Thanks for the reply and information. The first point is about getting a shared understanding of when to recognize the start of the monitoring period. Why was the location of the mitigation changed? On the second point, yes, I would expect the Port would need to be appropriately compensated for the full encumbrance. Yes, I would like to better understand regardless of the final option, what level of Port approval is required, and what legal vehicle should be utilized. The may have some effect on the overall project timing so this needs to be understood. I understand working for the city that there are certain procedures and process that must be followed. Please let me know when you are ready to share information on the process required. Jeff Dixon From: Jennings, James Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:16 PM To: Jeff Dixon Cc: Maney, Chipper ; Alhadeff, Daniel ; Johnson, Jason ; Kaplan, Dave ; Franklin, Alicia Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Request for conversation on Port Property in North Auburn CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Jeff, Thanks for your patience in awaiting a response to your 6/1 email. I remember Al’s failed attempt to coordinate our meeting on 3/9, how little we all knew about COVID-19 at that time, and it seems so long ago! In any case, per my 6/2 email, we held an internal meeting in an effort to develop a response. As you can probably suspect, Al’s departure has created some resource challenges in the short-term, so including a couple of other team members who will likely be participating in facets of this discussion and process. In regards to the Port’s future use of our Auburn property, in light of COVID and other major projects, development on our parcel is not a high priority for the Port at this time. However, as with all of our properties, we will be looking at what our options are for the future. In response to your first question, the Port planted 30 cedars in November 2019 as mitigation for impacts to the fence construction on the Port’s vacant parcel (Permit #GRA-16-0016 and FDP19-0005). The Port worked with Amber Price and Mike Kamenzind regarding the notice of construction completion and submitted as-built drawings in a January 14, 2020 email (attached) which included the mitigation component. The Port plans to conduct survival monitoring over three years and replace any mortality. This monitoring would occur at the end of the growing season (September-October), followed by a brief report to the City. The Port would be happy to schedule a site inspection of the mitigation trees with the City as desired. In regards to your second question, the Port would indeed prefer the lesser encumbrance to our property as reflected in Option #1, but the Port would not be completely adverse to Option #2 based on the merits referenced in your email. If Option #2 were to ultimately be selected, we would expect any costs associated with fence line adjustments be borne by others, and the Port would need to be appropriately compensated for the full encumbrance. Regardless of the final option, we will begin to work through what level of Port approval is required, and what legal vehicle should be utilized. Hopefully this provides you with the general feedback you were looking for. Happy to participate in an additional call or meeting if desired. Best Regards, --JJ James Jennings (JJ) Director, Aviation Business and Properties Seattle-Tacoma International Airport PO Box 68727 | Seattle, WA (206) 787.7476 From: Jennings, James Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 1:10 PM To: Jeff Dixon <jdixon@auburnwa.gov> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Request for conversation on Port Property in North Auburn Jeff, With Al’s Departure, I have been working on getting some alternative team members up to speed to assist in our response back to you. We have an internal meeting on 6/10, so you should be hearing from one of us soon thereafter. Best Regards. –JJ James Jennings (JJ) Director, Aviation Business and Properties Seattle-Tacoma International Airport PO Box 68727 | Seattle, WA (206) 787.7476 From: Jeff Dixon <jdixon@auburnwa.gov> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 5:05 PM To: Jennings, James <Jennings.J@portseattle.org>; Trogdon, Denise <Trogdon.D@portseattle.org>; Maney, Chipper <Maney.R@portseattle.org> Cc: Royal, Allan <Royal.A@portseattle.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request for conversation on Port Property in North Auburn WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the content of this email to be safe. James, Denise, and Chipper, At the request of Al Royal (who I assume by now has since retired) we had tried to set up a meeting between the Port of Seattle and the myself as a City representative for March 9th, but that was just about the time that all of us were really beginning to understand the significance of the COVID-19 pandemic and how that would affect work routines, so the meeting did not take place. I’m reaching out today to follow up on a couple of subjects of mutual interest between the Port of Seattle and the City and hopefully to initiate some further discussion and actions. I’d like to schedule a phone or teleconference to discuss the following subjects: 1) Wetland Mitigation Status - The city approved the Port’s floodplain permit application (File No. FDP19-0005) in September 2019 for the installation of a perimeter fence for the Port’s property holdings in northeast Auburn. As I’m sure the Port’s environmental professionals can attest to, the installation of 6-foot chain link type through areas of wetland and regulated buffers is highly unusual. However, the fence installation was warranted in this circumstance due to the substantial amount of trespass, vegetation destruction and debris accumulation due to homeless encampments on the Port’s property. The city agreed due to the extenuating circumstances, that the project could be authorized with appropriate mitigation. A small amount of mitigation (tree planting) was authorized in proportion to mitigation for the fence construction impacts through areas of wetland. The City also agreed that due to the agency to agency relationship, financial security typically required to be held by the City to guarantee the success of the mitigation would not be required. However, the city did specify that the other requirements under the city’s critical area regulations for required monitoring and annual reporting on the success of the mitigation construction would be provided. The city has not received notification of mitigation construction completion or an inspection request to start the yearly monitoring and reporting. I want to ensure that the monitoring and reporting obligation is brought current 2) Port’s Coordination with the Auburn Gateway Project - As the Port of Seattle representatives are aware from historical coordination and including a recent meeting with project representatives and federal wetland permitting agencies, the City has been planning the redevelopment of the approximately 70-acre former Valley 6 Drive In Theater site since 2004. This is the property located west of the Port’s “access” property. Last year, the original owner of the theater site decided they would not be able to develop, and sold the site to Inland Washington LLC who is currently underway with the initial phases of construction as 500 units of workforce housing. As part of the infrastructure necessary to support this development and future phases as commercial development, the extension of a new public road (I ST NE) and utility alignments is needed. The plans for the future extension of the alignment of I ST NE was previously the subject of an agreement in 2007 between the Port and the city to exchange right-of-way alignments based on the development planned since 2004. A copy of the dedication deed is attached. I have been told by Brent Parrish of Inland Washington LLC, that he has had discussions with Port representatives about the re-alignment of Watercourse K, that must be shifted in location eastward to accommodate the northward extension of I ST NE to work with the right-of-way alignment as envisioned by the land exchange with the Port in 2007. I have not been a party to this discussion. He said that he previously shared diagrams of two options for the re-alignment of Watercourse K (see attached). Option 1 has the least impact on Port property but includes steeper buffer slopes and retaining wall within the buffer. Option 2, has a slightly greater impact on Port–owned property with gentler slopes but include a minor amount of fence relocation and grading on the Port’s site. To be clear, neither option includes moving the watercourse onto the Port’s property, only shifting it closer, with a corresponding different amounts of buffer overlapping the Port’s property. The amount of buffer extending on the Port’s property varies from 11,600 sq. ft. (Option 1) to 14,000 sq. ft. (Option 2). Also, these buffer encroachments to the Port’s property are based on smaller buffer standards of 75 feet each side which were in effect at the time of project application, and to which the project has been vested, rather than larger buffers of 100 feet that have subsequently been adopted by the City to meet state requirements. Since under either Option, the watercourse buffer cannot fully comply with city standards for buffer width—it is narrower than prescribed by city standards--a critical areas variance is required to be applied for and secured under the city’s critical area regulations. The critical areas variance is subject to a public hearing process conducted by an independent hearing examiner that the Port would be notified of the hearing and have the opportunity to provide input. Inland Washington LLC has not applied yet for this variance. However, one of the criteria for this variance decision is “adverse impacts to critical areas resulting from the (variance) proposal are minimized” (ACC 16.10.160). This means that the Option 2, with the wider buffer stands a greater likelihood of approval since it provides greater protection to this fish bearing water course (Watercourse K). While I can understand that the Port generally seeks to avoid encumbering their property with buffers, I believe on further and deeper evaluation, there are possible benefits from the Port’s perspective. I wish to have some discussion of the project having the following advantages to the Port: · The completion of I ST NE and the project brings public road access and utilities closer to the Port’s property and adds value. · Avoids the Port being responsible for larger buffers and the cost of mitigation construction (grading, planting, etc.) under current standards in effect, at some time in the future when development of the port’s property is proposed. · Port can be compensated by Inland Washington LLC for easement use of their property (or other form of use) for the buffer construction on the Port’s site that already is limited by a mosaic of wetlands. The compensation may assist in recouping some of the Port’s fence construction cost. · Inland Washington LLC has already minimized buffer impacts of Watercourse K on the Port’s property from their initial by reducing the north-south extent of re-alignment of Watercourse K. It does not continue the buffer further north to S 277th Street on the Port’s property. Al Royal expressed to me several times in conversations that the Port generally has as one of its goals to foster development in local communities and especially the provision of housing units. Assisting the development of the adjacent property would appear to contribute to a fundamental Port mission. He also indicated that the Port has no specific plans or use identified for this Port-owned “access” parcel. Please let me know when you’re available to discuss. Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager Community Development Dept. City of Auburn 253.804-5033 | jdixon@auburnwa.gov City of Auburn website | www.auburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address (physical): 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Map) Customer Service Survey | Application Forms | Zoning Maps Effective March 25, 2020, in response to Gov. Inslee’s ‘Stay Home Stay Safe’ directive, the City of Auburn has closed City Hall and the Annex Customer Service Center until further notice. I am currently out of the office but working remotely from home. I have access to email and voicemail but will be responding to all inquiries by email only. E-mail communication is best. Please note the following temporary adjustments that are expected to remain in place until July 25, 2020: • I am working Monday thru Thursday, 8 to 5. • Community Development offices are closed on Fridays • Expect response times as long as 3 working days • Bld Inspections can still be requested online and will occur uninterrupted M – F · (Please contact me directly for landscape inspections) · Plan review and business license review timelines are as long as 4 weeks This message is private and privileged. If you are not the person meant to receive this message, please let the sender know, then delete it. Please do not copy or send it to anyone else. Following the recommendations of Public Health – Seattle & King County, the Washington State Department of Health and the Center for Disease Control, the City of Auburn is implementing safety protocols and modifying our services to prevent the spread of COVID-19. As a result, we are requesting that our customers limit their in-person interactions as much as possible. This practice is intended to help protect our customers and staff from potential exposure to the virus. If you are able to conduct business with the City remotely by phone or email, we would urge you to do so. A directory of City contacts can be found at auburnwa.gov/city_hall/contact_us. This message is private and privileged. If you are not the person meant to receive this message, please let the sender know, then delete it. Please do not copy or send it to anyone else. Following the recommendations of Public Health – Seattle & King County, the Washington State Department of Health and the Center for Disease Control, the City of Auburn is implementing safety protocols and modifying our services to prevent the spread of COVID-19. As a result, we are requesting that our customers limit their in-person interactions as much as possible. This practice is intended to help protect our customers and staff from potential exposure to the virus. If you are able to conduct business with the City remotely by phone or email, we would urge you to do so. A directory of City contacts can be found at auburnwa.gov/city_hall/contact_us. This message is private and privileged. If you are not the person meant to receive this message, please let the sender know, then delete it. Please do not copy or send it to anyone else. Following the recommendations of Public Health – Seattle & King County, the Washington State Department of Health and the Center for Disease Control, the City of Auburn is implementing safety protocols and modifying our services to prevent the spread of COVID-19. As a result, we are requesting that our customers limit their in-person interactions as much as possible. This practice is intended to help protect our customers and staff from potential exposure to the virus. If you are able to conduct business with the City remotely by phone or email, we would urge you to do so. A directory of City contacts can be found at auburnwa.gov/city_hall/contact_us. NORTHEAST AUBURN / ROBERTSON PROPERTIES SPECIAL AREA PLAN Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Addendum Addendum No. 3 Prepared for City of Auburn October 11, 2019 Final Environmental Impact Statement July 2004 2 Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page i ESA Table of Contents Project Background .......................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of this 2019 EIS Addendum .............................................................................. 6 Phase 1 ................................................................................................................................ 7 Phase 2 ................................................................................................................................ 8 Additional Revisions From 2004 Final Eis And 2011 Eis Addendum ............................... 9 Proposed Analysis For The 2019 Eis Addendum ............................................................. 11 Addendum to Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ................................. 13 Water Resources ............................................................................................................... 13 Applicable Laws And Regulations ........................................................................... 13 Affected Environment - Surface Water .................................................................... 14 Green River Floodplain..................................................................................... 16 Storm Drainage ................................................................................................. 16 Surface Water Quality....................................................................................... 16 Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 17 Short-Term Construction Impacts..................................................................... 17 Long-Term Operational Impacts ....................................................................... 17 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts................................................................ 19 Plants And Animals .......................................................................................................... 20 Applicable Laws And Regulations ........................................................................... 20 Affected Environment ............................................................................................... 20 Wetlands ....................................................................................................... 20 Streams And Watercourses ........................................................................... 21 Threatened And Endangered Species ........................................................... 22 Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 22 Short-Term Construction Impacts..................................................................... 22 Long-Term Operational Impacts ....................................................................... 23 Habitat Loss And Fragmentation .................................................................. 23 Mitigation .................................................................................................................. 25 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts................................................................ 27 Transportation ................................................................................................................... 28 Affected Environment ............................................................................................... 28 Methodology To Assess Project Impacts .................................................................. 29 Planned Transportation Improvements (Future Without-Project Conditions) .......... 30 Summary Of Project Impacts .................................................................................... 31 Mitigation .................................................................................................................. 32 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts................................................................ 35 Environmental Elements Not Analyzed ............................................................................ 36 Geology/Soils ............................................................................................................ 36 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 36 Noise ......................................................................................................................... 36 Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page ii October 2019 ESA Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 37 Cultural And Historic Resources .............................................................................. 37 Land Use ................................................................................................................... 37 Recreation ................................................................................................................. 38 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................. 38 Utilities And Public Services .................................................................................... 38 References ........................................................................................................................ 39 List of Figures Figure 1. Planning Area.................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Auburn Gateway Project Area. ....................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Conceptual Inland Development Plan for Auburn Gateway. ......................... 8 Figure 4. King County FEMA Floodplain. .................................................................. 15 List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of Preferred Alternative from the 2004 Final EIS with the Inland Development Plan. ............................................................................. 10 Table 2. Summary of Existing Street System in the Study Area ................................ 28 Table 3. Improvements Required Prior to Issuance of Construction Permits by Phase as Outlined in Development Agreement (Under Review by City of Auburn) ............................................................................................. 33 Table 4. Improvements Required Prior to Occupancy Outlined in Development Agreement and Presented by Phase .............................................................. 34 List of Attachments Attachment A Development Phasing Plan Attachment B Subject Property Parcel Numbers Attachment C Amended and Restated Developing Agreement Attachment #6 Attachment D Traffic Impact Analysis Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page iii ESA Acronyms and Abbreviations ACC Auburn City Code ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers APN assessor parcel number BMPs best management practices CWA Clean Water Act DFIRM draft Federal Insurance Rate Map DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources Ecology Washington Department of Ecology EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency HPA Hydraulic Project Approval Inland Inland Washington LLC ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers LID low impact development LOS level of service MTCA Model Toxics Control Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Port Port of Seattle PUD planned unit development RCW Revised Code of Washington RPG Robertson Properties Group TIA Traffic Impact Analysis TMP Transportation Management Program/Plan TPH-G total petroleum hydrocarbons USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page iv October 2019 ESA This page intentionally left blank Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 1 ESA PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Auburn (City) has prepared this report to analyze potential impacts associated with a proposed multi-family housing and mixed commercial development in the City of Auburn, King County, Washington. The proposed project, referred to as the Auburn Gateway project, is part of a larger, related project in the Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area. The Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area was originally analyzed in a 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement (2004 Final EIS), as well as a 2011 Addendum to the Final EIS (2011 EIS Addendum). This report, the 2019 EIS Addendum, addresses minor changes to the Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan proposed by the prospective buyer of the majority of the properties in the planning area, Inland Washington LLC (Inland). Inland is in the process of purchasing the properties within this area that are owned by Robertson Properties Group (RPG). As the project applicant, Inland proposes multi-family housing and mixed commercial development in a configuration that requires modifications to zoning regulations and to the Development Agreement established by RPG. Inland’s proposal is referred to here as the Inland Development Plan, to distinguish it from the previous plans by RPG. The project history is summarized below. In July 2004, the Final EIS was issued for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan (City of Auburn 2004). The Special Area Plan was developed to address a designated ‘special planning area’ as a subarea of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and to establish policies governing the redevelopment and uses of the area in the Auburn Comprehensive Plan (City of Auburn 2005). The 2004 Final EIS also evaluated an application to redevelop the property located within the area designated as the “Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area.” The Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan was adopted in June 2008 (Ordinance No. 6183) along with a Development Agreement (Resolution No. 4756, adopted 2011) and a “planned action” ordinance (Ordinance No. 6382) as authorized under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.21C.031 (a more detailed description of the early planning history, including the rezone action that was part of previous land use approvals, can be found in the 2004 Final EIS). The Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan covers approximately 90 acres of land (referred to in the 2004 Final EIS as the “planning area”). The planning area is bordered by Auburn Way N, S 277th Street, 45th Street NE, and the undeveloped right-of-way of I Street NE (Figure 1) as it existed within Parcel 0004200006 in 2004. A portion of the I Street NE right-of-way has been vacated as part of the implementation of the plan. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 2 October 2019 ESA FIGURE 1. PLANNING AREA. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 3 ESA At the time of the 2004 Final EIS, RPG owned the Valley Six Drive-in Theater and several adjacent properties within the planning area. In addition to a “no action” scenario, the 2004 Final EIS evaluated three redevelopment alternatives for the RPG properties to retail, office, and multi-family residential uses. RPG named its redevelopment proposal “Auburn Gateway.” A core area of RPG’s holdings, together with other properties that RPG was considering acquiring or that could be cooperatively developed, was defined in the 2004 Final EIS as the Auburn Gateway project area. This area totaled approximately 60 acres, a subset of the 90-acre planning area for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan. An EIS Addendum in 2011 expanded the impacts of the study of the Auburn Gateway area to 71 acres (City of Auburn 2011). The boundaries of the planning area and the Auburn Gateway project area as evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS are shown in Figure 2. These boundaries are not changed by this 2019 EIS Addendum; however, the number of properties owned by RPG has grown since the 2004 Final EIS. After the 2004 Final EIS was published, RPG purchased four additional parcels outside of the Auburn Gateway project area but within the boundaries of the planning area. These were the subject of the 2011 EIS Addendum, shown in Figure 2 as Auburn Gateway II. Since 2011, RPG has acquired other parcels within the Auburn Gateway planning area including: · A parcel at the southeast corner of the Valley 6 Drive-in (Parcel 936060-0271). · A parcel adjacent to the southeast corner of the intersection of NE 49th Street and D Street NE (Parcel 936060-0300, previously referred to as the McKee property). · A parcel near the northeast corner of the Auburn Gateway Site (Parcel 936060- 0325, previously referred to as the Stein property). While the Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan covers approximately 90 acres of land, the total size of the Auburn Gateway project remains approximately 71 acres. A complete list of assessor parcel numbers (APNs) associated with the subject property is included in this 2019 EIS Addendum in Attachment B. In addition, Inland has a separate contract to potentially purchase Parcel 936060-0269. However, that purchase is contingent on the completion of a cleanup plan and receipt of a No Further Action from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). If the purchase of the parcel is completed at some point in the future, additional environmental review will be completed, if necessary. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 4 October 2019 ESA FIGURE 2. AUBURN GATEWAY PROJECT AREA. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 5 ESA The 2004 Final EIS evaluated the impacts associated with the implementation of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan and the Auburn Gateway project. In addition to the retail, office, and multi-family residential uses, development in this area would include new roads and utilities, surface parking, and stormwater detention and water quality facilities. The former drive-in theater and other structures on the RPG properties have been demolished with permits issued by the City. Alternatives evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS of the Auburn Gateway project involved building up to 720,000 square feet of retail development, 1,600,000 square feet of office, 500 multi-family residences, and 6,133 parking spaces. All alternatives evaluated the area outside the Auburn Gateway project area (the remaining portions of the planning area) as developing in accordance with existing zoning. This would include multi-family residential development to the south and east, and heavy commercial development to the west. The focus of this 2019 EIS Addendum is on the proposed changes to the configuration of uses in the Auburn Gateway project area under the Inland Development Plan. The Inland Development Plan includes a multi-family residential area referred to in reports submitted by Inland as Copper Gate. Changes in phasing are also proposed. The previous phasing was just two phases: north and south. Now the “Heart” (central park) would be developed with the south portion. The infrastructure to support commercial development is also proposed and is closely associated with multi-family residential development. There are also road improvements, grading, and floodplains within other portions of the site. This 2019 EIS Addendum was prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules, contained in Chapter 197-11 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). In accordance with WAC 197-11-625 through -635, the analysis and results as presented in both the 2004 Final EIS and the 2011 EIS Addendum are incorporated by reference into this 2019 EIS Addendum. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 6 October 2019 ESA PURPOSE OF THIS 2019 EIS ADDENDUM The focus of this 2019 EIS Addendum is on the proposed changes to the configuration of uses and phasing in the Auburn Gateway project area under the Inland Development Plan. The Inland Development Plan includes the Copper Gate residential area. Other changes include a greater number and different phasing being proposed than before and a reduction in the amount of commercial development. Also, the prospective buyer and developer proposes to observe current stormwater management standards and anticipated floodplain standards with the development. The changes in phasing include revising the previous phasing that was just two phases; north and south to add the “Heart” (central park) that would be developed with the south portion. The first phase also includes compensatory floodplain storage as provided off-site within the previously constructed storage in the Port of Seattle Wetland Mitigation Site unless the timing for approvals for replacement storage does not coincide with the need for displacement, or is deemed insufficient. If this is the case, then temporary compensatory storage will occur within the north portion of the site (Stormwater Site Plan, Copper Gate Apartments [BCRA 2019]). The purpose of this 2019 EIS Addendum is to compare the impacts of the Inland Development Plan with those for the Auburn Gateway project analyzed in the 2004 Final EIS and 2011 EIS Addendum, to ensure that all potentially significant impacts can be avoided or adequately mitigated. Figure 3 provides an overall site plan for the Inland Development Plan. The Auburn Gateway project under the Inland Development Plan would include the same potential amount of multi-family residential development evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS and 2011 EIS Addendum, but the residential development would be separate from the commercial development. The amount of retail, office, and other allowed commercial uses (not vertically integrated mixed use) proposed by Inland is less than was evaluated in either the 2004 Final EIS or 2011 EIS Addendum. Since the 2004 Final EIS was prepared, greater definition of phasing has been proposed for the Auburn Gateway project, which is a change from the original proposal. Although the project has always been planned to be built out over a period of approximately 15 years, the applicant had not previously identified any phasing of the project or infrastructure for the project evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS. Under Inland’s proposal, depicted in Figure 3, the project would be developed in multiple phases. Inland has proposed to construct city utilities (water, sewer, and stormwater) during the earlier phase even though that infrastructure would serve the commercial development scheduled for the later phases. The phasing is proposed as follows and as shown in the figure in Attachment A of this 2019 EIS Addendum. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 7 ESA PHASE 1 Multi-family residential development would occur first in Phase 1 along with road and utility improvements serving the entire site, and some of the open space and trail elements (See Figure 3). Commercial development would follow in subsequent phases as market conditions permit. Phase 1 is generally located south of 49th Street NE. · Phase 1A (Multi-Family) – Includes up to 500 multi-family residential units (referred to as Copper Gate Apartments), supporting buildings, and site work. Phase 1A also includes completion of public utility and transportation improvements specified in the Development Agreement. · Phase 1B (The Heart) – The “Heart” is defined as work required for the centrally located open/green space serving the residential and commercial users. It also includes site work and the completion of public utility and transportation improvements as specified in the Development Agreement. · Phase 1C (I Street NE) – Includes additional work located outside the Copper Gates Apartment needed for the multi-family units and supporting buildings. Public roadway improvements would be constructed as a part of the first phase of development, which would include: · I Street NE extended from 45th Street NE to S 277th Street, with traffic signal at I Street NE and S 277th Street. · 49th Street NE from Auburn Way N to D Street NE improved to the maximum extent feasible within the right-of-way. · D Street NE terminated at Auburn Way N and a cul-de-sac constructed. · Auburn Way N improvements that include a U-turn. · A traffic signal at the intersection at Auburn Way N and 49th Street NE. Access to Phase 1 is proposed via a right-in/right-out driveway on Auburn Way N located south of the existing D Street NE intersection, and driveways on 49th Street NE, and 45th Street NE. Wetlands would be preserved as open space, and a pedestrian trail system would link to the common open space areas in Phase 1 and future phases. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 8 October 2019 ESA FIGURE 3. INLAND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AUBURN GATEWAY. PHASE 2 Subsequent phases are anticipated to include commercial retail in the northwest portion of the Auburn Gateway project area, southeast of S 277th Street and west of D Street. Access would be provided from Auburn Way N, 49th Street NE, and D Street NE. The remainder of the commercial development, north of 49th Street NE and between D Street NE and I Street NE, is less well defined at this time, due to anticipated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain map revisions and market conditions for commercial tenant space by the property owner. Two scenarios for this final phase of commercial development are presented in the transportation analysis referenced in this addendum. The purpose of describing the scenarios in this document is to provide disclosure of floodplain criteria and mapping changes that may affect development decisions that need to consider potential impacts on floodplains. · Phase 2A Commercial /North Phase Outside of Flood Zone · Phase 2B Commercial/North Phase in Flood Zone The first scenario includes a reduction in the total amount of commercial development that reflects anticipated FEMA floodplain map revisions with greater amount of Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 9 ESA floodplain. The total amount of commercial retail assumed in this scenario is 150,000 square feet. The second scenario assumes full development of the north areas, consistent with the previous approvals and assumes site filling and securing FEMA floodplain map amendments to develop outside the floodplain. The total amount of development for the second scenario assumes 168,000 square feet of commercial retail and 111,000 square feet of office use. Results for both development scenarios are presented in the traffic analysis in this Addendum. Both scenarios have smaller commercial components than either Alternative 1 (evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS as having up to 1,800,000 square feet of office and retail development) or Alternative 2 (evaluated as having up to 720,000 square feet of office and retail development. ADDITIONAL REVISIONS FROM 2004 FINAL EIS AND 2011 EIS ADDENDUM Additional 2019 revisions proposed subsequent to the issuance of the 2004 Final EIS and 2011 EIS Addendum include: · With the Inland Development Plan, D Street NE would remain connected to S 277th Street and restricted to right-in, right-out only vehicle movements. In the 2011 EIS Addendum, D Street NE north of 49th Street NE was proposed to be vacated and converted to an internal circulation aisle serving the project. · In the 2011 EIS Addendum, RPG requested removing the eastward extension of 49th Street NE east of the proposed I Street NE, which was included in the 2004 Final EIS to serve development to the east of the RPG property. The 2011 EIS Addendum included an assessment of the traffic impacts of eliminating the northern portion of D Street NE and of not constructing the eastward extension of 49th Street NE. Similarly, the Inland Development Plan does not include constructing this extension of 49th Street NE, east of I Street NE. · Also, since the 2004 Final EIS was prepared, development of nearby properties has proceeded and City of Auburn regulations and policies have changed. Notable regulatory changes affecting the Auburn Gateway Project since the 2011 EIS Addendum are described in the impacts analysis below. Table 1 summarizes the total development proposed by Inland as part of the Auburn Gateway project. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 10 October 2019 ESA TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FROM THE 2004 FINAL EIS WITH THE INLAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Land Use Preferred Alternative from Final EIS (2004) Inland Development Plan (2019) Office Up to 1,600,000 gross square feet Up to 111,000 gross square feet. Retail Up to 720,000 gross square feet Up to 168,000 gross square feet. Multi-family residential Up to 500 units Up to 500 units. Parking Up to 6,133 spaces Up to 870 spaces for residential. Commercial would meet code requirements: Up to approximately 555 for office and 672 for retail, for a total of 1,227 spaces. Overall total – up to 2,097 spaces. Roads S 277th Street would be widened. I Street NE would be constructed from S 277th Street to 45th Street NE. A new east-west street (49th Street NE) would be constructed. The south end of D Street NE at Auburn Way N would be closed. Same as preferred alternative, as indicated in the 2011 EIS Addendum, D Street NE could be vacated north of 49th Street NE and be turned into an internal aisle and a right-in/right- out driveway at S 277th Street. D Street NE would remain as a public road and terminate at Auburn Way North via a cul-de-sac. (S 277th Street has already been widened since the 2011 EIS Addendum). Pedestrian trails and open space A pedestrian trail would be constructed along the south side of S 277th Street. A pedestrian trail would be constructed to link the wetland areas within the project area and to public roads and trail connections. Same as preferred alternative. (The trail along S 277th Street has been constructed). Signs A coordinated signage system would be constructed throughout the project area, including pylon signs, monument signs, directional signage, and signs for individual stores and tenants. Same as preferred alternative. Wetlands and Streams Wetlands would be preserved, with the exception of the ditches along S 277th Street and the wetlands within the existing and proposed right-of- way of 49th Street NE. Wetlands and streams may require temporary grading, filling and mitigation in accordance with agency standards to provide for the development as shown in the Inland Development Plan and to provide for the road and infrastructure improvements associated with the development. Other features Approximately 400,000 cubic feet of landscaped stormwater detention ponds would be constructed. Approximately 250,000 cubic yards of soil would be excavated, and approximately 650,000 cubic yards of fill would be placed. (Increased to 750,000 cubic yards in the 2011 EIS Addendum.) Compensatory floodplain storage is proposed to be provided in the Port of Seattle Wetland Mitigation Site unless storage capacity is Grading, stormwater management, and floodplain storage would conform to current (2019) regulations for Phase 1. Phase 2 may be governed by standards in effect at the time of construction as allowed by the development agreement. Phase 1 detention volumes total approximately 222,460 cubic feet. Future phases would be determined once a detailed site plan is established for the commercial phase of development. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 11 ESA TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FROM THE 2004 FINAL EIS WITH THE INLAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN. (CONT.) Land Use Preferred Alternative from Final EIS (2004) Inland Development Plan (2019) Other features (cont.) unavailable or insufficient and the City would then allow temporary storage on-site. Estimated volumes for Phase 1 (residential) are: 150,000 cubic yards of excavation, and 150,000 cubic yards of fill. Maximum grading volumes for the entire site would not exceed those described in the 2004 Final EIS and 2011 EIS Addendum. Approximately 250,000 cubic yards of soil could be excavated, and approximately 750,000 cubic yards of fill could be placed. Permanent floodplain compensation will be provided within previously constructed advance storage on the Port of Seattle wetland mitigation site , per Resolution 4841 (City of Auburn 2012). If the timeframe for approvals for replacement storage does not coincide with the need for displacement, or is deemed insufficient, the City will allow temporary floodplain storage within the northern portion of the site during Phase 1. PROPOSED ANALYSIS FOR THE 2019 EIS ADDENDUM The following environmental elements warrant evaluation of potential changes in the affected environment and a change in the intensity of impacts associated with the Auburn Gateway project under the Inland Development Plan: · Water resources · Plants and animals · Transportation These elements require a detailed analysis because the Auburn Gateway project involves development within a floodplain that is anticipated to be more restricted than was evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS and 2011 EIS Addendum, requiring greater compensatory flood storage; reduced impervious surfaces relative to the alternatives evaluated due to limitations on floodplain development; and reduced total trip generation relative to the impacts projected in the 2004 Final EIS. In each case, the Inland Development Plan would have less development or intensity than previously evaluated and may not require the same level of mitigation as previously required. In addition, this 2019 analysis summarizes changes found in the wetlands and streams on the site and examines potential impacts on threatened or endangered species. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 12 October 2019 ESA Construction of the project in two phases was evaluated in the 2011 EIS Addendum, but the 2019 EIS Addendum updates the phasing plan as described in this section of the addendum. Street improvements described above would be provided in the first phase of the project under the Inland Development Plan. Transportation improvements needed to support the project are proposed to be completed during Phase 1 in advance of development of the Phase 2 commercial phases. Therefore, no additional analysis of phasing is warranted. Impacts on the remaining environmental elements evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS (geology/soils, air quality, noise, hazardous materials, cultural and historic resources, land use, aesthetics, recreation, utilities and public services) are not expected to be substantially different from those evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS. These are described briefly at the end of this 2019 EIS Addendum. The following sections assess the changes that have occurred in the affected environment, environmental impacts, and mitigation measures resulting from changes in the project plans and/or the environment since the 2004 Final EIS and 2011 EIS Addendum were issued. For all impacts other than those described in this 2019 EIS Addendum, the 2004 Final EIS analysis and conclusions have not changed, and the mitigation measures in the 2004 Final EIS continue to apply. The analysis provided below does not find any significant impacts that were not disclosed in the 2004 Final EIS. The information contained in this 2019 EIS Addendum is provided to allow the revised project to be evaluated by the City and other regulators, in order to determine appropriate mitigation for development applications. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 13 ESA ADDENDUM TO AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION WATER RESOURCES Applicable Laws and Regulations Laws and regulations regarding water resources have changed since the 2004 Final EIS and 2011 EIS Addendum were published. The 2011 EIS Addendum noted new critical area regulations in Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 16.10 Critical Areas. Chapter 16.10 has been amended twice since publication of the 2011 EIS Addendum, primarily to clarify processes for variances and exceptions, and to provide flexibility in siting wetland mitigation. In addition, effective January 1, 2017, Auburn adopted its Surface Water Management Manual. The City also adopted the Supplemental Manual to the Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington on January 1, 2017. The drainage requirements that would apply to the project are based on equivalency to the Department of Ecology’s 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2014). As noted in the 2011 EIS Addendum, since the 2004 Final EIS, FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) released preliminary draft Federal Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs) on September 28, 2007 that, when adopted, will revise the extent and depth of the Green River floodplain in the planning area. Revised preliminary DFIRMs were published September 15, 2017. These draft maps indicate a larger and deeper 100-year floodplain area than the 1995 maps that are currently in effect. Since FEMA has not yet adopted the DFIRMs, the 1995 maps remain in effect from a regulatory standpoint, based on City code. Also as noted in the 2011 EIS Addendum, on April 5, 2010, the City of Auburn approved interim floodplain regulations (Ordinance No. 6295; City of Auburn 2010), which replaced the City’s previous floodplain regulations. The City received written notification from FEMA dated September 21, 2011, that FEMA reviewed the City’s interim regulations and concur they are consistent with FEMA’s model ordinance; the regulations are no longer interim. The regulations incorporated federal habitat protection requirements and created a new City floodplain development permit to replace the previous flood zone control permit. The changes include requiring new developments to prepare a habitat impact assessment that must include one of the following: · A Biological Evaluation or Biological Assessment that has received concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); or · Documentation that the activity fits within Section 7 or Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA); or · An assessment prepared in accordance with Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation (FEMA 2010). Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 14 October 2019 ESA New development must be designed and located to minimize the impact on flood flows, flood storage, water quality, and aquatic habitat. Stormwater and drainage features must incorporate low impact development (LID) techniques that promote pre-development hydrologic conditions. If the project involves more than 10 percent impervious surfaces within the regulated floodplain, then the project applicant must demonstrate that there will be no net increase in the rate and volume of the stormwater surface runoff that leaves the site. Structures must be located as far from the water body as possible or on the highest land on the lot (City of Auburn 2010). After completion of the Port of Seattle’s approximately 70-acre compensatory flood storage and wetland mitigation project, located, southeast of the planning area, and in response to FEMA’s release of the DFIRMs, King County and the valley cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila (appellants) commissioned NW Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. to analyze and map the 100-year floodplain for the area. The resulting report (NW Hydraulic Consultants 2017) was submitted to FEMA for their consideration during the public appeal period on the draft floodplain maps. At the time of this writing, the appellants expect that the DFIRM maps for the planning area will be changed to closely reflect the DFIRM maps that FEMA reviewed in 2017 as the basis for the appeal. FEMA is expected to adopt the revised maps in early 2020 and restrict vesting opportunities. Because the DFIRM maps have not been adopted by FEMA, the 1995 maps remain in effect from a regulatory standpoint however, with the imminent floodplain map changes, the City and FEMA have been cautioning consideration of the anticipated preliminary 2017 DFIRMs maps, and Inland has been relying on them for planning its development. Affected Environment - Surface Water The Auburn Gateway project area is within the floodplain of the Green/Duwamish River watershed. The surface water conditions in the Auburn Gateway project area were described in the 2004 Final EIS and have not changed substantially, except for the increased likelihood of flooding, as reflected in the anticipated FEMA maps described above, and completing of some development projects in the area. In May 2019, BCRA produced a Stormwater Site Plan for Phase 1 of the Inland Development Plan (BCRA 2019). The stormwater conditions described by BCRA are summarized in this section. Figure 4 of this 2019 EIS Addendum illustrates the floodplains project area. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 15 ESA SOURCE: ESA, 2019; King County, 2018 D180066 Port of Seattle Environmental Review FIGURE 4. KING COUNTY FEMA FLOODPLAIN AUBURN, WASHINGTON. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 16 October 2019 ESA Green River Floodplain As described in the 2011 EIS Addendum, the Port of Seattle (Port) completed its compensatory flood storage and wetland mitigation project described in the 2004 Final EIS. The City of Auburn and the Port entered into an Interlocal Agreement to allow the Port’s wetland mitigation property to be used to compensate for filling nearby properties located in the floodplain, including the Auburn Gateway project site (Resolution 4841; City of Auburn 2012). As described in the 2011 EIS Addendum, the Port constructed a flood conveyance channel from its wetland, southeast of the planning area, to the roadside ditch along the south side of S 277th Street. At the time of the 2004 Final EIS, the Port reported that the capacity of the roadside ditch on the south side of S 277th Street that connects to the Port’s flood conveyance channel is not sufficient to convey the 100-year flood volume (Wessels 2003, personal communication). The roadside ditch was relocated as part of the roadway widening completed along S 277th Street. Storm Drainage Runoff from the planning area in general, and specifically from the Auburn Gateway I site, was described in the 2004 Final EIS. Runoff from the Auburn Gateway II site was described in further detail in the 2011 EIS Addendum. In general, surface water flows in sheetflow or via ditches toward the northeast. Most of the site is approximately 4 to 6 feet lower in elevation than the road level of Auburn Way N (BCRA 2007). No changes to drainage patterns have occurred in the Auburn Gateway project area since the 2011 EIS Addendum was issued. As described in the 2011 EIS Addendum, since the 2004 Final EIS was published, a residential subdivision and planned unit development (PUD) was constructed on a 40.9- acre site east of the planning area. The Trail Run (previously called River Sands) development involved the construction of houses, townhouses, roadways, and stormwater facilities. As noted in the 2011 EIS Addendum, assuming the stormwater system is working as designed, the rate of stormwater runoff from the Trail Run property has decreased since the 2004 Final EIS was prepared. The City has determined that the ditches along the south side of S 277th Street are not regulated as streams under the City’s critical areas ordinance (ACC Chapter 16.10), but are regulated by the City’s Flood Hazard Area regulations as typed waters using the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) water typing system (WAC 222-16-030). These water bodies are therefore referred to as drainage ditches in this EIS addendum, to distinguish them from water bodies that the City regulates as streams. However, other agencies with jurisdiction may make different determinations. Surface Water Quality The 2004 Final EIS refers to the 1998 Ecology 303(d) list when describing water quality conditions for the Green River. According to the 2012 Ecology 303(d) list, the Green River adjacent to the planning area is still listed as having elevated temperature and low Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 17 ESA dissolved oxygen. The 303(d) list also indicates that fecal coliform bacteria and temperature do not meet standards in the Green River reaches located several miles downstream (Ecology 2012). Impacts Short-Term Construction Impacts Project construction as two phases was evaluated in the 2011 EIS Addendum. The applicant is expected to develop the Inland Development Plan in more than two phases. Phase 1 (multi-family residential) south of 49th Street NE, and one or more commercial phases north of 49th Street NE. Short-term impacts associated with construction would be similar to what was described in the 2004 Final EIS. The 2004 Final EIS estimated that approximately 650,000 cubic yards of fill and 250,000 cubic yards of excavation would be necessary to allow for proper drainage of stormwater using a combination of gravity and pump systems. With the addition of the Auburn Gateway II properties, the 2011 EIS Addendum indicated that up to 750,000 cubic yards of fill would be necessary, if the stormwater system were designed to function by gravity alone. The Auburn Gateway project site would be graded to accommodate a gravity system with an outlet to the existing ditch along S 277th Street. Because the type of stormwater detention facilities have yet to be determined, this volume of earthwork is an estimate. Grading for the Auburn Gateway project would consist of importing and placing fill material sufficient to allow for proper drainage of stormwater and to raise the buildings above the 2017 100- year FEMA floodplain elevation whether structures are in the floodplain or not (BCRA 2019). The Preliminary DFIRM map is currently dated September 15, 2017. Any future phasing projects would be required to address floodplain regulations in effect for each phase. Erosion impacts could affect water quality. Water quality impacts associated with grading would be similar to those described in the 2004 Final EIS and 2011 EIS Addendum. Potential erosion impacts would be avoided by implementing best management practices (BMPs) and complying with Ecology’s requirements for temporary erosion control, grading, and drainage; the City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual (City of Auburn 2014); and Ecology’s 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2014). The contractor will also be required to obtain a Construction Stormwater General Permit through Ecology and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Long-Term Operational Impacts Green River Floodplain Volume of Floodplain Storage Affected For Phase 1 of the Inland Development Plan, all floodplain compensatory storage would be provided off-site within previously constructed advance storage in the Port of Seattle Wetland Mitigation Site unless the timeframe for approvals for replacement storage does Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 18 October 2019 ESA not coincide with need for displacement. If off-site storage is unavailable due to timing, or capacity is deemed insufficient, then the City will allow temporary storage within the northern portion of the project site. Exact volumes to be used have not been calculated as of this writing, and any use of these compensatory storage volume would be subject to City approval. Any additional floodplain compensation beyond that provided by the Port site would be provided in compliance with applicable City regulations pursuant to a flood development permit and habitat impact assessment. Connection of Wetland Flood Storage to Existing Floodplain As noted above, the 2004 Final EIS indicated that the ditch along S 277th Street would not adequately carry floodwaters after the entire Auburn Gateway project was developed. RPG indicated that the relocated roadside ditch and culvert system would be designed to accommodate the 100-year, 24-hour peak flow rate and fish passage criteria (if required) per Chapter 3 of the City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual (City of Auburn 2014). If necessary, the Inland project would do the same; therefore, the impact would not change with the Inland Development Plan and would not be significant. Storm Drainage Systems The conceptual stormwater system for Auburn Gateway I and II was described in the 2011 EIS Addendum. The conceptual plan for the Inland Development Plan remains the same as described in that analysis. As described in the 2011 EIS Addendum, storm drainage discharge would be directed to either S 277th Street (EIS Scenario 3a), or split evenly between S 277th Street and D Street NE (EIS Scenario 3b). To provide for adequate storm drainage and conveyance to the point of discharge at the northeast corner of the Auburn Gateway II site, the site at the south and southwest ends would need to be at an approximate elevation of 56 feet, requiring a substantial amount of fill to allow for draining the site to the northeast. The site would likely need to be raised approximately 5 to 7 feet in some areas to allow for gravity drainage to the culvert at S 277th Street and D Street NE (BCRA 2007). The Stormwater Site Plan for Phase 1 of the Inland Development Plan provides further detail for the residential development proposed in the southern portion of the Auburn Gateway project area (BCRA 2019). It describes three basins within the site and the design approach taken for each to meet requirements of the 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2014) and Auburn Supplemental Manual (Effective date of January 1, 2017). The Auburn Gateway project is expected to meet the design requirements and stormwater management code as required by the City of Auburn. To ensure coordination of the future storm system for the project area in conformance with proposed phasing and City codes, a master storm drainage plan will be prepared prior to construction authorization. The master storm drainage plan shall also define which improvements are to be constructed concurrent with each phase of the project. If necessary, additional downstream drainage analysis shall be required as directed by the City Engineer prior to construction Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 19 ESA authorizations. Development consistent with current stormwater regulations is not expected to result in significant impacts on water quality or quantity. Stormwater facilities for both the Auburn Gateway project and the Inland Development Plan sites would be designed to comply with the City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual. The City’s Surface Water Management Manual is equivalent to Ecology’s 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. With the construction of on-site detention facilities, stormwater runoff from the Inland Development Plan is expected to be the same or less than the current rate of runoff. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts As stated in the 2004 Final EIS, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on water resources would occur if the mitigation requirements and recommendations provided in the 2004 Final EIS, and future mitigating measures required during permitting, are followed. Compliance regulations for stormwater management, and floodplain management adopted since the 2004 Final EIS also ensure that significant impacts will be avoided. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 20 October 2019 ESA PLANTS AND ANIMALS Applicable Laws and Regulations When the 2004 Final EIS was issued, the City of Auburn relied on adopted SEPA policies and used the SEPA process to identify impacts and mitigation for environmentally critical areas. General guidance from the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan regarding the protection of critical areas was also used as a guide for assessing impacts. Since that time, the City of Auburn has developed critical area regulations codified in ACC 16.10 Critical Areas. The 2011 EIS Addendum summarized the critical areas regulations, standards, and procedures. Changes to the critical areas regulations since 2011 clarify the processes for variances and exceptions, and provide additional flexibility in siting wetland mitigation. Affected Environment Wetlands Wetlands in the Auburn Gateway project area were not delineated or categorized in the 2004 Final EIS. Since that time, J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. conducted a delineation and prepared a Wetland and Stream Impact Assessment (J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. 2010). Wetland information from that 2010 report was described in the 2011 EIS Addendum. The assessment categorized Wetlands A, B, C, and D, all of which are located at least partially within the Auburn Gateway I project area. The 2010 report also described Wetland E in the northwest corner of the project, which is in the Auburn Gateway II project area and was qualitatively described (i.e., not delineated or formally categorized) in the 2011 EIS Addendum. This 2019 EIS Addendum updates information on the wetlands that would be affected by Phase 1 of the Inland Development Plan in addition to features located within ditches along S 277th Street. The updates are based on information provided by J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. and EnCo (Environmental Corporation). In a delineation report prepared in 2014, the boundary of Wetland A was expanded to include a wetland to the north, Wetland B, as depicted in the 2004 Final EIS (J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. 2014). In 2019, EnCo conducted a site visit to confirm existing conditions and prepared a Combined Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment with Critical Areas Report (HIA/ CAR), which compiles past studies, updates information on listed species, and summarizes ratings for wetlands (EnCo 2019a). EnCo subsequently described Wetland E in an amendment to the report (EnCo 2019b). The revised HIA/CAR dated September 27, 2019 included an additional site visit which determined that the former Wetland E area no longer meets criteria for wetland (EnCo, 2019d). Current wetland conditions are similar to those described in the 2011 EIS Addendum. However, Wetland B has been consolidated with Wetland A and re-classified to Category III. The reclassification of Wetland A results in a 50-foot buffer requirement under current Auburn Code; in previous documents, it was listed as having a 35-foot buffer Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 21 ESA requirement. In addition, former Wetland E has been removed from the project maps based upon the information found in the updated HIA/CAR prepared by EnCo (2019d). EnCo conducted a site visit on September 26, 2019 to update information in the HIA/ CAR and to confirm the location and boundaries of former Wetland E. The area in question was found to be a cultivated field dominated by pasture grasses, weeds and an unidentified root crop. Based upon data taken at three locations in the former wetland area, EnCo determined that this area no longer meets the federal definition of wetland based upon the lack of hydric soil indicators and wetland hydrology (EnCo, 2019d). In addition to Wetlands A and C, the 2004 Final EIS described several roadside wetlands (Wetland Ditches H, I, and J) within a ditch on the south side of S 277th Street. The 2011 EIS Addendum indicated that these interconnected features may no longer be regulated and would be relocated as part of a road widening project. In June 2019, after completion of the road widening project, a field visit with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and others resulted in a change in the jurisdictional status to some of these features, described in the Streams and Watercourses section below (EnCo 2019c). Beyond the on-site wetlands, ESA delineated several off-site wetlands as part of a separate project on land located immediately east of the project area that is owned by the Port of Seattle (ESA 2019). The City wetlands inventory map depicts Wetland A on the Port property and Wetland A on the Auburn Gateway project site as connected. However, ESA’s 2019 Port of Seattle delineation determined that these two wetlands are not connected (ESA 2019). The boundaries of Wetland A on the Port property were surveyed and do not intersect with the Auburn Gateway property; however, the buffer of Wetland A does overlap the project site. In addition, the boundaries of Wetland E on the Port property do not extend onto the Auburn Gateway project site; however the buffer does overlap the site in the vicinity of a newly created stormwater pond. It is important to note that wetland buffers from the off-site Port wetlands are fully encompassed within the 75- foot riparian buffers on Watercourses K and L, as described below. Streams and Watercourses The wetland ditches described in the 2004 Final EIS as Wetlands H, I, and J were determined by WDFW in 2009 to be intermittent fish-bearing waters as the agency defines them. Wetland Ditch G, which is also located along D 277th Street, was not considered a stream by WDFW and was not identified as a wetland in the 2004 Final EIS. Since then, the ditch was relocated south and is no longer assessed as part of this 2019 EIS Addendum. In addition, six watercourses were identified and described in the HIA/CAR (EnCo, 2019a, 2019d). These are named Watercourses K, L, M, N, O and P. Watercourses N, O and P are located entirely off-site; whereas K, L and M are at least partially located on the development site. Watercourses K, L, N, O and P are considered fish-bearing and are recognized as Class II streams under the City’s regulations, requiring a 75-foot standard buffer each side of the ordinary high water mark (EnCo, 2019d). Watercourse M is a mitigation watercourse constructed in 2017 as part the City’s road widening project along S 277th Street. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 22 October 2019 ESA With the completion in 2018 of the City project widening S 277th Street, the following physical changes were made along the road: · The culvert under S 277th Street near the intersection with I Street NE has been replaced with a fish passable culvert. · Watercourses H, I, and J were relocated south and are no longer considered intermittently fish-bearing. Watercourses H, I, and J are considered stormwater conveyance features and are no longer regulated based on a field visit with WDFW in June 2019 (EnCo 2019c). The City of Auburn installed a 36-inch pipe replacing the streams, which now conveys stormwater from a drainage area south and west of the Auburn Gateway site to the culvert at S 277th Street. · On-site mitigation required for these watercourse relocations was completed on the northeast corner of the Auburn Gateway site (mostly on what was the former Stein property). Mitigation Watercourse M was constructed to offset project impacts. Threatened and Endangered Species Wildlife Changes to the listing status for several wildlife species have occurred since the 2004 Final EIS was published. The 2011 EIS Addendum provided updated information on listed species. The CAR (EnCo 2019b) does not identify any changes to the listing status of any species previously identified on or near the site. As noted in previous environmental documents, the CAR (EnCo 2019b; 2019d) states that there are no known federally listed wildlife species or critical habitat present on the site. The EnCo report (2019b) also notes that there are no known state-listed wildlife species present. Consistent with the 2004 Final EIS and the 2011 EIS Addendum, state priority habitats present on the site include wetlands, riparian buffer zones, and snags. Fish The 2004 Final EIS identified the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) as a Candidate species; their current federal status continues to be Candidate, while at the state level they are listed as a species of concern. In June 2019, WDFW reported that threatened and endangered fish were not found or expected in Watercourse K or Watercourse L (EnCo 2019a); furthermore, these two watercourses do not contain designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed fish species. Coho salmon are the only state-listed fish species present on the site; these are reported for Watercourses K, L, M, N, O and P (EnCo, 2019d). Other listing changes that have occurred since the 2004 Final EIS were described in the 2011 EIS Addendum and have not changed. Impacts Short-Term Construction Impacts Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 23 ESA Impacts on plants and animals would be similar to the impacts described in the 2004 Final EIS and not considered significant. Long-Term Operational Impacts Habitat Loss and Fragmentation Wetland Habitat Wetland impacts under the Inland Development Plan are similar to those described in the 2004 Final EIS and the 2011 EIS Addendum. No wetlands would be permanently impacted; however, temporary impacts are anticipated. Temporary impacts from grading are anticipated in Wetland A (0.60 acre) to remove reed canarygrass as part of wetland restoration. Temporary grading impacts are also anticipated in Wetland D (0.05 acre) as part of Watercourse N expansion to address flood conveyance issues (EnCo, 2019d). Wetland buffers would also be affected by project development. Wetland buffer impacts associated with the Auburn Gateway project under the Inland Development Plan were described in the August and September 2019 CAR (EnCo 2019c, 2019d). The wetland buffers for Wetland A would be impacted due to the proposed alignment of I Street NE as described in the 2004 Final EIS. The buffer areas that would be impacted are currently a gravel road. The remaining on-site portion is a 50-foot buffer for Wetland A. In 2005, a 35-foot buffer for the north portion of this wetland was planted with native shrubs and trees (J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. 2010). Wetland C also has an enhanced 35-foot buffer that was planted in 2005 (J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. 2010). Wetland D would likely have a minimum 50-foot buffer as required by the city code. Because delineations had not occurred at the time of the 2004 Final EIS, there were no estimates of buffer impacts. In the 2011 EIS Addendum, total buffer impacts were estimated at 0.22 acre. Phase 1 of the Inland Development Plan would affect 0.14 acre of buffer, not including impacts associated with constructing I Street NE. All development would comply with the City’s critical areas regulations, which were adopted after the 2004 Final EIS and are expected to adequately protect wetland resources and avoid significant impacts. June 12, 2019 Site Visit Update A site visit was conducted between WDFW and EnCo on June 12, 2019. EnCo’s Combined Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment with Critical Areas Report (EnCo 2019c) documents the June 12, 2019 meeting with WDFW staff and the results of the discussion. EnCo’s report notes the following: “In order to determine the status of the project site and nearby watercourses and manmade conveyance ditches, a site visit was initiated by EnCo (Jonathan Kemp) Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 24 October 2019 ESA with Brent Parrish (Inland Construction), Mr. Larry Fisher, Area Habitat Biologist (WDFW), Jeff Dixon and Ryan Vondrak (City of Auburn), and Ben Dort (BCRA). This event was used to determine if the current on-line WDFW Fish Passage Map and WDFW SalmonScape Fish Distribution Map accurately represents the current status of these two watercourses. Based on this event it was confirmed that these two WDFW maps do not accurately represent the current status of these two watercourses. It was confirmed by WDFW and concurred by EnCo that former Watercourse H and former Watercourse I are now classified as stormwater conveyance ditches and are no longer considered watercourses. EnCo and WDFW representatives concur that the extent of the former location of Watercourse H and Watercourse I (south of South 277th Street) was mitigated for as a newly constructed fish-bearing watercourse that is located contiguous to the north, east, south, and west of a constructed stormwater detention pond that is located a few hundred feet east of the planned alignment of I Street NE. These two watercourses were officially relocated to the east under an agency-approved watercourse mitigation plan (As-Built Report – South 277th Street Corridor Capacity and Non-Motorized Trail Improvements – Parametrix May 2018) that was completed in 2017. WDFW also confirmed and EnCo concurred that Watercourse K and Watercourse L (seasonal watercourses) support Coho salmon, thereby classifying these two watercourses as fish-bearing. This assessment changes the current status of Watercourse L from a non-fish bearing watercourse to a fish-bearing watercourse. The baseline condition of Watercourse L was much degraded in comparison to Watercourse K as evidenced by the thick growth of reed canary grass within the substrate (bed) of the eastern segment of Watercourse L. WDFW confirmed that threatened and endangered fish were not found or expected in Watercourse K and Watercourse L, thereby rendering that these two watercourses are not a federal listed critical habitat for fish.” (sic) Fish Habitat As described in the 2004 Final EIS, erosion of exposed soils during land clearing, grubbing, and grading could affect fish habitat. Compliance with City requirements for a floodplain permit and associated City of Auburn requirements would provide adequate protection for endangered fish species. Stream Habitat Watercourse K, which WDFW determined as fish-bearing, is located almost entirely outside of the project area, except at the most northern end. The southern 460 linear feet would be impacted by the extension of I Street NE. Permanent impacts to Watercourse K are anticipated to place an additional 250 linear feet of the watercourse into a culvert. Approximately 222 linear feet of Watercourse K near the southern property boundary is culverted. To accommodate the preferred alignment of I Street NE, a total of 472 linear feet of Watercourse K will be placed within a culvert at the south end of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 25 ESA site, requiring 250 linear feet of new culvert. The proposed culvert will be slightly larger than the current culvert with fish-friendly substrate added within the new section of culvert. Due to the right-of-way location of I Street NE, this southern portion of Watercourse K would require displacement and mitigation in accordance with applicable agency standards. Proposed stream mitigation includes improving and enhancing the remaining portions of Watercourse K. The planned mitigation would require permission from the Port of Seattle and negotiation to acquire temporary construction easements. Temporary impacts from grading are anticipated to occur within Watercourse L (425 linear feet) and Watercourse N (520 linear feet). Grading would be required as part of stream restoration efforts and in conjunction of expansion of Watercourse N to address flood conveyance issues (EnCo, 2019d). As noted in the 2004 Final EIS, the extension of 49th Street NE through the Stein and Port of Seattle properties would impact Watercourse L. The EnCo report (EnCo 2019c) indicated that WDFW determined this is a fish-bearing stream. In 2011, the extension of 49th Street NE east of I Street through the Stein and Port properties was removed from the proposed project development. Mitigation The 2004 Final EIS provided a list of measures to mitigate impacts both during construction and operation of the planning area. That list was updated with the 2011 EIS Addendum. Mitigation required by law was described in the 2011 EIS Addendum and is not repeated here. Phase 1 is expected to require a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit due to fill placed. The June 12, 2019 Site Visit Update section describes proposed mitigation measures to offset impacts on watercourses. Future phases could trigger this type of permit. A Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) will be required for construction of roadways where fish-bearing waters are affected. The June 12, 2019 Site Visit Update section describes proposed mitigation measures to offset impacts on watercourses. As described in the Water Resources section of the 2004 Final EIS, impacts on water quality are regulated by the City of Auburn Supplemental Manual to the Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (City of Auburn 2018). The proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines indicate that native plantings would be used in wetland buffer areas and around detention facilities (BCRA 2003). No change to these guidelines is proposed and they will remain in effect. Changes proposed to the mitigation measures for impacts on plants and animals as identified in the 2011 EIS Addendum are listed in the notes from the June 12, 2019 Site Visit, as described below. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 26 October 2019 ESA A more detailed discussion on the proposed mitigation plan will be provided in a report currently in preparation by Talasaea Consultants and available in October 2019. The proposed mitigation plan will contain elements that will restore or enhance portions of Watercourse L, Watercourse K, Watercourse N, Wetland A, Wetland A (Port), and Wetland D and portions of their buffers. All elements of the mitigation plan will be consistent with the requirements outlined in ACC 16.10.090(E) for both wetlands and streams. Mitigation or enhancements proposed off site will require coordination and legal agreement with adjacent land owners, including the Port of Seattle. Should mitigation proposed not be acceptable to all parties, then alternative mitigation options will be developed to fully meet code requirements for either on or off-site mitigation. June 12, 2019 Site Visit Update EnCo’s Combined Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment with Critical Areas Report documents the June 12, 2019 meeting with WDFW staff and the results of the discussion. EnCo’s (2019c) report notes the following: “While in the field and after additional correspondence to clarify a proposed approach to re-align the southern segment of Watercourse K, an un-official agreement was made with WDFW that would allow compensatory mitigation for the permanent filling of about 460 linear feet of the southern extent of Watercourse K. This proposed action would provide a more feasible connection from 45th Street NE to the future alignment of I Street NE (after Phase 1). EnCo and WDFW representatives concur that this mitigation approach for Watercourse K is reasonable. A discussion was held and it was agreed to compensate for the permanent loss of about 460 feet of the southern extent of Watercourse K via a mitigation plan that would be drafted and would include enhancing about 1,400 feet of Watercourse K, north of the area to be permanently impacted by I Street NE. This would be accomplished through mitigation by removing opportunistic aggressive species in and around this watercourse, to be replaced by implementing a native plant species enhancement program in concert with designing and installing habitat features (i.e. down wood, perches, snags, rock piles, and rip rap) along with re- configuring the watercourse with amphibian / fish beneficial sinuosity, a gently sloped prism, and added vegetation to provide shading and over hanging shrubs. Portions of the regulated 75-foot wide, fish-bearing watercourse buffer would be enhanced along the entire length of Watercourse K. EnCo and WDFW representatives concur that this mitigation approach for Watercourse K is reasonable. It is understood that this mitigation effort would also need the approval / support by all agencies with permitting authority such as the Muckleshoot Tribe, ECOLOGY, and the ACOE. Watercourse L is currently mapped by several consultants as a seasonal, non-fish bearing watercourse with a regulated 25-foot-wide buffer. EnCo and WDFW concurred, while in the field, that Watercourse L is fish-bearing with very limited habitat function to support fish use. This would require establishing a regulated Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 27 ESA 75-foot-wide buffer. The entire length of Watercourse L would not be negatively impacted by the proposed project action. It was proposed to reduce the watercourse buffer from the regulated 75 feet…. This buffer reduction would allow for a more feasible alignment of I Street NE and its roundabout at the intersection of 49th Street NE. This would be accomplished through mitigation by removing opportunistic aggressive species in and around this watercourse, to be replaced by implementing a native plant species enhancement program in concert with designing and installing habitat features (i.e. down wood, perches, snags, rock piles, and rip rap) along with re-configuring the watercourse with amphibian / fish-beneficial sinuosity, a gently sloped prism, and added vegetation to provide shading and over-hanging shrubs. The reduced …watercourse buffer would be enhanced along the entire length of Watercourse L. EnCo and WDFW representatives concur that this mitigation approach for Watercourse L is reasonable. It is understood that this mitigation effort would also need the approval / support by all agencies with permitting authority such as the Muckleshoot Tribe, ECOLOGY, and the ACOE.” After consideration of City comments, Inland Construction has revised the previous buffer reduction proposal for the project. Stream buffers for Watercourses K, L, N, O and P are proposed to be reduced to 65 percent of the standard buffer as allowed administratively by code (ACC 16.10.090). Therefore, the 75-foot buffer for these Class II (fish-bearing) streams would be reduced to no less than 48.75 feet with enhancement. Watercourse M is a mitigated feature with buffers ranging from 25 to 48.75 feet. The buffer reduction proposal is summarized in the September 27, 2019 revised HIA/CAR (EnCo, 2019d). Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts As described in the 2004 Final EIS, the 2011 EIS Addendum, and this 2019 EIS Addendum, with mitigation in accordance with City regulations and those of other agencies with jurisdiction currently in development and required during project permitting, no significant impacts on watercourse and wetland functions are expected. All reductions to buffers are allowed administratively by code and will required enhancement within the remaining buffer area. To avoid impacts on ESA-listed species and habitats, the development must meet City floodplain development permit standards as well as FEMA and NMFS requirements for providing adequate protection to endangered species. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 28 October 2019 ESA TRANSPORTATION Affected Environment In the 2004 Final EIS, development-related traffic impacts were evaluated under year 2020 traffic conditions. The 2011 EIS Addendum considered a similar timeframe, but with updated baseline information. Inland now projects Phase 1 to be completed in year 2022, and the commercial phase(s) to be completed in year 2024. Therefore, the traffic forecasts without the development were revised to reflect actual traffic patterns in 2019, along with recent historical growth trends. Information on existing conditions is provided below. The TIA (Transpo 2019) also provides information on existing conditions in the study area for 2019. Characteristics are provided for the roadway network, non-motorized facilities, transit service, existing traffic volumes, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Roadway Network - Characteristics of the existing street system in the vicinity of the proposed project are shown in Table 2 below. TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF EXISTING STREET SYSTEM IN THE STUDY AREA Roadway Arterial Classification1 Posted Speed Limit (mph) Number of Travel Lanes Parking Sidewalks Bicycle Facilities Auburn Way N Principal Arterial 35 5 No Yes No S 277th Street Principal Arterial 35 4–6 No Partial Partial 45th Street NE Residential Collector 25 2 Yes Yes No 49th Street NE Non-Residential Collector 25 2 Yes No No D Street NE Non-Residential Collector/Local Street 25 2 Yes No No I Street NE Minor Arterial 35 2–3 Partial Partial Partial Based on the 2015 City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan Non-Motorized Facilities - In addition to the facilities provided on the roadways, there is a non-motorized trail on the south side of S 277th Street between Auburn Way and L Street NE. This trail connects to other non-motorized facilities on either side that extend to the Interurban Trail to the west and to the S 277th Corridor Recreational Trail to the east. About a quarter mile south of the project, off I Street NE, a trail connects to Brannan Park and Auburn Golf Course. Transit Service - King County Metro provides transit service in the project study area. Route 180 operates along Auburn Way N from approximately 3:30 AM to 12:00 AM on both weekdays and weekends with a weekday PM peak hour headway of 30 minutes. The project site is served by three transit stops, one each near the intersections with 45th Street NE, 49th Street NE, and S 277th Street. Route 180 provides service to the north up Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 29 ESA through Kent and to the Burien Transit Center, with a stop at SeaTac airport, and to the south toward southeast Auburn and White River Junction. Traffic Volumes - This transportation analysis focuses on the weekday PM peak hour when traffic conditions would be the highest. Existing turning movement counts in the study area were counted in February 2019. Existing weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes are summarized in the TIA and were used to characterize existing traffic conditions. Changes that have occurred in or near the study area since the 2004 Final EIS was issued include: 1. The Trail Run residential subdivision and PUD (referred to as River Sands in the 2004 Final EIS) east of the project area, has been completed, including opening of L Street NE to provide access to that site onto S 277th Street. In the 2004 Final EIS, access to Trail Run was expected to be via a roadway that would have right-in/right-out only access to S 277th Street, and that 49th Street NE would be extended east of I Street NE to connect and serve the Trail Run development. On an interim basis, a temporary signal was installed at L Street NE and S 277th Street and monies were collected by the City for the future extension of 49th Street NE east of I Street NE and for I Street NE to serve the Trail Run development and to facilitate the relocation of the temporary signal to the future intersection of I Street NE and S 277thStreet. (The 2011 EIS Addendum included an assessment of conditions with and without the 49th Street NE extension east of I Street NE to Trail Run.) 2. S 277th Street was widened from three lanes to five lanes from Auburn Way N east to L Street NE. A multi-use trail was also constructed on the south side of S 277th Street. 3. At S 277th Street/Auburn Way N, lanes have been added: o Eastbound: one through lane and a right-turn lane. o Westbound: one through lane and a right-turn lane. o Northbound: a northbound to eastbound right-turn lane. Methodology to Assess Project Impacts The analysis below is summarized from the Traffic Impact Analysis - Copper Gate report prepared by Transpo Group, July 2019 (2019 TIA). The 2019 TIA is hereby incorporated into this analysis. In its approach, the traffic analysis focuses on the Inland Development Plan, with specific reference to Copper Gate, the name given to the South Phase (multi- family residential) of Inland Development Plan, also referred as Year 2022 South Phase Only (Phase 1) to evaluate impacts and mitigation associated with any development. The Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 30 October 2019 ESA 2019 TIA also evaluates future commercial development for Phase 2 under two scenarios: Reduced Build and Full Build. The 2019 TIA summarizes the following without-and with-project scenarios, as requested by the City: · Year 2022 Without-Project · Year 2022 With-Project – South Phase (Phase 1) Only, without I Street NE · Year 2022 With-Project – South Phase (Phase 1) Only, with I Street NE · Year 2024 Without-Project · Year 2024 South (Phase 1) plus Reduced North Phase (Phase 2 – Reduced Build) · Year 2024 South (Phase 1) plus Full Buildout of the North Phase (Phase 2 -Full Build) Note that although the extension of I Street NE is proposed as part of Phase 1 of the project, a scenario that excludes this improvement has been identified. This scenario reflects the future conditions assuming a delay in permitting and construction of the I Street NE improvements. More information on each scenario is included in the 2019 TIA. The amount of development under the Inland Development Plan is most similar to Alternative 3 evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS (the Residential/Retail Option). Because the trip generation of Alternative 3 was not re-analyzed for the 2011 EIS Addendum, the analysis in this 2019 EIS Addendum compares the Inland Development Plan with the preferred alternative evaluated in the 2004 EIS. Planned Transportation Improvements (Future Without-Project Conditions) This section describes the future traffic conditions during the PM peak hour without the addition of project traffic. It focuses on 2022 conditions and describes planned transportation improvements, traffic volume forecasts, and traffic operations. A review of jurisdiction documents, including the City of Auburn’s 2019-2024 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (City of Auburn 2018), the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan (City of Auburn 2015), and King County Metro’s Long Range Plan (King County Metro 2017), was conducted to determine potential improvements to facilities in the study area. Each is broken down into the sections below. Roadway - The following projects, from the City’s TIP, have been identified in the study area and would affect capacity or traffic patterns: · I Street NE corridor (45th Street NE to S 277th Street) – TIP# R-2 · 49th Street NE extension (Auburn Way N to I Street NE) – TIP# R-8 Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 31 ESA The projects listed above have funding identified in 2022 but are not assumed in 2022 without-project conditions as they are associated with the development of the proposed project. Both projects are assumed under with-project conditions for each phase. Additionally, a signal was assumed at the future I Street NE/S 277th Street intersection as part of the corridor extension. Because these have been identified as conditions of the proposed development, the completion of these projects has not been assumed in the without-project conditions. One additional project not in the City’s TIP but associated with future development in the study area was assumed under 2022 without-project conditions. The west leg at the intersection of Auburn Way N/NE 49th Street will be widened to include a dedicated right-turn lane and a shared through-left turn lane. Non-motorized - The City’s Transportation Plan shows the future priority sidewalk corridors and future bicycle facilities in maps 3-1 and 3-2. No priority sidewalk corridors are shown in the project vicinity. A future trail facility is shown on S 277th Street, which already exists, and a future bicycle facility is shown on the planned I Street NE extension connecting the existing facilities near 40th Street NE and S 277th Street. Transit - There are no planned transit improvements that would occur by 2024 in the study area. Service changes as part of the regular service updates could occur throughout the year. The King County Metro Long Range Plan does identify RapidRide service along Auburn Way; however, it is not anticipated until the year 2023. Summary of Project Impacts The detailed analysis for traffic impacts is provided in the 2019 TIA. Project impacts are summarized below. · Phase 1 of the project is expected to generate 208 new PM peak hour project trips (127 inbound and 81 outbound). The Phase 2 Reduced Build scenario is expected to generate 540 new PM peak hour project trips (278 inbound and 262 outbound). The Phase 2 Full Build scenario is expected to generate 654 new PM peak hour project trips (291 inbound and 363 outbound). · The I Street NE corridor project (including a signal at S 277th Street/I Street NE) and the 49th Street NE extension project would be constructed with the south phase of the development and thus was assumed as part of the with-project analysis. · For the Phase 1 development, all intersections are expected to operate at the same or better level of service (LOS) than under 2022 without-project conditions. · A signal warrant analysis was conducted at the intersection of Auburn Way N/ 49th Street NE. The eight-hour, four-hour, and peak hour vehicular volume warrants were met under 2022 without-project conditions. A signal is recommended at this location. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 32 October 2019 ESA · A signal warrant analysis was conducted at the intersection of I Street NE/S 277th Street. The 8-hour, 4-hour, and peak hour vehicular volume warrants were met under 2022 with-project conditions, which is the first scenario where I Street NE has the potential to be completed. A signal is recommended at this location. · The signalization of the Auburn Way N/49th Street NE intersection is recommended as mitigation with Phase 1 of the project to bring the intersection operations above the LOS standard. · For the Reduced Build Phase 2 development, all intersections are expected to operate at or above the LOS standard. · With the Full Build Phase 2 development scenario, the intersection of Auburn Way N/42nd Street NE is expected to operate at LOS F. While the intersection increases in delay between 2024 Baseline and Full Build, going from LOS E to LOS F, it operates at the same level as projected for the 2022 baseline conditions that don’t reflect the I-street extension. This amount is negligible and could be reduced with a slight adjustment in signal timing. · Due to the shifts in traffic from the completion of the I Street NE corridor and the closure of the Auburn Way N/D Street NE intersection, no other improvements are recommended as part of either scenario of Phase 2. Mitigation The 2019 TIA presents an assessment of the mitigation needs of the Inland Development Plan and compares them with mitigation proposed in the Development Agreement as proposed to be amended for the Auburn Gateway project. Traffic-related mitigation recommended for the project is substantially the same as that described in the 2004 Final EIS, with some refinements and minor changes. Tables 3 and 4 compare the mitigation requirements, assuming that the development of Phase 1 (South Phase) is constructed first as is currently proposed. Table 3 identifies the requirements to be met prior to issuance of construction permits, and Table 4 identifies requirements to be met prior to issuance of occupancy permits. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 33 ESA TABLE 3. IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS BY PHASE AS OUTLINED IN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (UNDER REVIEW BY CITY OF AUBURN) Improvement Either Phase First North Phase First South Phase First Assessment Master Plan for Peds/Non- Motorized Circulation Plan X Plan completed and submitted to the City as a separate document. Master Transit Plan X Plan completed and submitted to the City as a separate document. Master Access and On-site Vehicular Circulation Plan X Plan completed and submitted to the City as a separate document. Master Motorized Public Improvement Plan X Plan completed and submitted to the City as a separate document. Widen S 277th St to 5 lanes (L St NE to Auburn Wy N) X This project has already been completed by the city as a capital project. Traffic Signal at S 277th St/I St NE X This was assumed to be completed in Phase 1 to support future Phase 2 commercial development scenarios. EBR turn pocket at S 277th St/D St NE X X Intersection operations do not indicate that an EB right-turn pocket is necessary. Therefore, no action is required of the applicant at this location. WB right-turn pocket at Auburn Way N/S 277th St X Project has already been completed by the city as a capital project. Complete I St NE (49th St NE to S 277th St) X X This was assumed to be completed in Phase 1 to support future Phase 2 commercial development scenarios. Roundabout at I St NE/ 49th St NE X X Analysis assumed the construction of a single lane roundabout at the intersection. The intersection, with 3-lanes constructed on I Street NE, was forecast to operate at LOS A with the north phase Full Build scenario (see Attachment N in the 2019 TIA). Traffic Signal at Auburn Way N/ 49th St NE X X Project may either install signalization or contribute either proportionate share towards installation of traffic signal pending discussions with City. Traffic Signal at Auburn Way N/ 45th St NE X X Intersection operations do not indicate a signal is necessary as the westbound approach is projected to operate at LOS C during the weekday PM peak hour. Dedicate and construct cul-de- sac on D St NE at Auburn Way N X X Included in the Inland Development Plan and reflected in the analysis. Complete I St NE (45th St NE to 49th St NE) X This was assumed to be completed in Phase 1 to support future Phase 2 commercial development scenarios. Traffic Signal at I St NE/45th St NE X Intersection operations do not indicate a signal is necessary and as such installation is not recommended. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 34 October 2019 ESA As shown in Table 4, many improvements previously outlined in the Development Agreement were already completed, assumed as part of Phase 1, or became unnecessary by the results of the analysis. Traffic volume forecasts developed for I Street NE between 45th Street NE and S 277th Street suggest that I Street NE could be constructed with three lanes instead of five, as described in the 2004 Final EIS and the 2011 EIS Addendum. Depending on the scope of the north phase, auxiliary lanes could be needed, but this could be determined when the north phase is permitted and the extension of I Street NE between 49th Street NE and S 277th Street is finalized. TABLE 4. IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OUTLINED IN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND PRESENTED BY PHASE Improvement Either Phase First North Phase First South Phase First Assessment Built according to approved transportation construction plans. X Applicant will comply with the requirement as each phase of the project is approved. City accepts ownership of all public transportation facilities X Applicant will comply with the requirement as each phase of the project is approved. Conceptual design and construction estimate, & paying proportional share for EB right- turn lane at Auburn Way N/37th St NE X Due to decreases between the 2004 Final EIS and the current proposed development, these intersections were not included in the current analysis. Conceptual design and construction estimate, & paying proportional share for SBT lane at Harvey Rd NE/M St NE/8th St NE X Conceptual design and construction estimate, & paying proportional share for new traffic signal & widening at SE 304th St/ 112th Ave SE X Mitigation agreement effort w/ Kent & King County X NB right-turn lane at Central Ave/ S 259th St X Widening at S 277th St/55th St NE X Reconfigure signal phasing at S 272nd St/Military Rd X Signal warrant analysis at Auburn Way N/45th St NE and I St NE/ 45th St NE X Intersection operations do not indicate that a signal is necessary at either intersection. Transportation Demand Management program X The need for the TDMP would be removed as the north phase of the development proceeds through the approval process. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 35 ESA Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The revised road layout and the addition of Auburn Gateway under the Inland Development Plan would not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts. Traffic impacts are expected to be generally equivalent to or less than what was described in the 2004 Final EIS and 2011 EIS Addendum. As described in the 2004 Final EIS, all of the development alternatives would result in additional traffic at several intersections that would operate at LOS F in the future. The 2004 Final EIS and the 2011 EIS Addendum did not identify mitigation for three intersections where the project would cause an increase in delay: S 277th Street/West Valley Highway, Central Avenue/Willis Street, and 116th Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road. These intersections would operate at LOS F regardless of whether the proposed project is developed, and the additional delays were not considered significant. For the 2019 EIS Addendum, the following traffic conditions are expected: · The proposed project would be developed in two phases. Phase 1 (South Phase) would include 500 multi-family residential units. Phase 2 (North Phase) could be developed under two possible scenarios: A Reduced Build and a Full Build. The Reduced Build would include 150,000 square feet of commercial retail. The Full Build would add an additional 18,000 square feet of commercial retail (for a total of 168,000 square feet) and 111,000 square feet of office use. · For the Phase 1 Development, all intersections are expected to operate at the same or better LOS than under 2022 without-project conditions. · A signal warrant analysis was conducted at the intersection of Auburn Way N/49th Street NE. The 8-hour, 4-hour, and peak hour vehicular volume warrants were met under 2022 without-project conditions. A signal is recommended at this location. · A signal warrant analysis was conducted at the intersection of I Street NE/S 277th Street. The 8-hour, 4-hour, and peak hour vehicular volume warrants were met under 2022 with-project conditions, which is the first scenario where I Street NE has the potential to be completed. A signal is recommended at this location. · The signalization of the Auburn Way N/49th Street NE intersection is recommended as mitigation with Phase 1 of the project to bring the intersection operations above the LOS standard. · For the Reduced Build Phase 2 development, all intersections are expected to operate at or above the LOS standard. · With the Full Build Phase 2 development scenario, the intersection of Auburn Way N/42nd Street NE is expected to operate at LOS F. While the intersection increases in delay between 2024 Baseline and Full Build, going from LOS E to LOS F, it operates at the same level as projected for the 2022 baseline conditions that do not reflect the I-street extension. The increase in delay due to the project Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 36 October 2019 ESA would be negligible and could be reduced with a slight adjustment in signal timing. · Due to the shifts in traffic from the completion of the I Street NE corridor and the closure of the Auburn Way N/D Street NE intersection, no other improvements are recommended as part of either scenario of Phase 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS NOT ANALYZED The following briefly describes the reasons that additional analysis was not performed for other elements of the environment analyzed in the 2004 Final EIS. Geology/Soils No change is expected for impacts related to geology and soils due to the development of Auburn Gateway under the Inland Development Plan. The project acreage remains approximately the same, grading volumes are expected to be similar to or less than those evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS, and the project will be required to meet future changes in FEMA floodplains. Air Quality No change is expected for impacts related to air quality due to the development of the Auburn Gateway project under the Inland Development Plan. The analysis in the 2004 Final EIS estimated maximum peak hour carbon monoxide concentrations by examining intersections that would be most affected by the project, and is still relevant. The development of Auburn Gateway under the Inland Development Plan would not result in an increase in project-related trips because a smaller amount of retail and office square footage is proposed for the project, compared to that evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS. There would be minor changes in traffic circulation related to D Street NE and 49th Street NE. The change in traffic generation is expected to reduce the project-related volume of traffic at S 277th Street and Auburn Way N during the PM peak hour under Alternative 2 of the 2004 Final EIS, an intersection studied in the 2004 Final EIS for carbon monoxide concentrations. Lower traffic volumes would result in less delay at the Auburn Way N and S 277th Street intersection, which in turn would result in less carbon monoxide concentrations during the PM peak hour than shown in the 2004 Final EIS under Alternative 2. Noise No increase is expected for impacts related to noise due to the development of the Auburn Gateway project under the Inland Development Plan as compared to that evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS. Temporary construction noise would likely be of shorter duration due to the lower overall density of development. Similarly, operational noise from project-related traffic is expected to be proportionally lower than that described in the 2004 Final EIS. Of the four noise study focus areas studied in the 2004 Final EIS, only residences along D Street NE would find project-related traffic to have noticeably increased noise levels compared to existing noise levels. The proposed change in traffic circulation would not increase traffic volume along D Street NE any further than what Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 37 ESA was evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS. To ensure noise from the operations and land uses does not result in noise impacts, a noise mitigation master plan is required to be provided and approved prior to vertical construction authorization by the development agreement. Hazardous Materials No change is expected for impacts related to hazardous materials due to the development of the Auburn Gateway project under the Inland Development Plan. A Phase I Site Assessment was conducted by Landau Associates in 2014 to assess and document environmental conditions on a property acquired by RPG after the 2011 EIS Addendum (Landau Associates 2014a). The report indicates that the site had underground storage tanks that were removed in 1991. The analytical results for the soil samples taken after tank removal indicated the presence of benzene, xylene, and gasoline-range total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-G) at concentrations greater than the current Ecology Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method A soil cleanup levels based on unrestricted land uses. Landau conducted groundwater and soil sampling in 2014 and concluded that soil and groundwater were below cleanup levels and requested a No Further Action determination from Ecology (Landau Associates 2014b). The No Further Action determination from Ecology is still pending. There is a soil remediation plan on parcel # 936060-0269 under City grading permit GRA19- 0017, which may become part of the project in the future and is included for that purpose. Further environmental review may be required as part of the grading permit process if Inland moves forward with purchase of the property. Cultural and Historic Resources No change is expected for impacts related to cultural and historic resources due to the development of the Auburn Gateway project under the Inland Development Plan. The 2004 Final EIS evaluated the entire planning area for the potential of discovering cultural and historic resources. The 2004 Final EIS indicated that there is a high probability of hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period and historic Indian, and historic period archaeological resources within the planning area. The probability estimates for the Auburn Gateway project area and the planning area were based on the availability of the Duwamish River – Green River floodplain for hunter-fisher-gatherer use, soils data that indicate old channels and low terrace deposits, prehistoric and historic period land use in similar environmental settings, and documented ethnographic and historic period land use in these two areas. Land Use No change is expected for impacts related to land uses due to the development of the Auburn Gateway project under the Inland Development Plan. The same Comprehensive Plan and C4, Mixed Use Commercial zoning designations would apply. The Auburn Gateway project would be developed with retail, office, and/or multi-family residential units, parking lots, and stormwater facilities, similar to the alternatives described in the 2004 Final EIS, with minor changes that would not introduce any new potential for incompatible uses. The same amount of multi-family residential development is proposed, but it would be separated from the commercial development on the site, rather than being vertically integrated within the same building. A smaller amount of Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 38 October 2019 ESA commercial, retail, and/or office use would be developed compared to that evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS. The private residences south of the Auburn Gateway project site would be less affected under the Inland Development Plan because the proposed development would be residential rather than commercial mixed-use, as evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS. Recreation No change is expected for impacts related to recreation due to the development of the Auburn Gateway project under the Inland Development Plan. The development of the Inland Development Plan would tie into the trail that has been developed along the south side of S 277th Street. Internal trail connections are proposed as part of the Auburn Gateway project and identified in the proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines. The recreational demand as a result of retail, office, and/or residential development would likely be lower than what was evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS since the Inland Development Plan proposes a lower amount of total development than evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS. Aesthetics No change is expected for impacts related to aesthetics due to the development of the Auburn Gateway project under the Inland Development Plan because the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines apply to the similar mix of retail, office, residential or mixed-use structures, surface parking lots, and stormwater facilities. The amount of fill required to ensure that buildings are above the flood elevation would not substantially change the appearance of the project. In addition, the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines proposed in the 2004 Final EIS, together with the landscaping and other measures required by the Auburn City Code, include measures to mitigate the aesthetic impacts of the project that would be effective in addressing this additional impact. Utilities and Public Services No change is expected for impacts related to utilities (except storm drainage systems) and public services due to the development of the Auburn Gateway project under the Inland Development Plan. The residential development would be similar to alternatives evaluated in the 2004 Final EIS, and the retail and office component would be lower. Therefore, the estimate for domestic water consumption and wastewater production associated with development in the 2004 Final EIS likely overstates demand that would be expected under the Inland Development Plan. To ensure orderly and efficient extensions of public utilities consistent with the proposed phasing and City regulations, a master plan will be provided prior to construction authorization. The fiscal impact analysis in the 2004 Final EIS associated with fire, emergency medical, and police service is also still applicable. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 39 ESA REFERENCES ACOE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Letter to Mr. Jeffrey Jones regarding wetlands on Robertson Properties holdings in Auburn dated May 10, 2010. BCRA. 2003. Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines. November 11, 2003. BCRA. 2007. Letter dated December 10, 2007 to Tamara L. Thompson, Landmark Development Group, LLC from Tom Dargan, BCRA. BCRA. 2007. Memorandum regarding Auburn Gateway I and II Site Visit dated December 8, 2010 by Tom Dargan, BCRA. BCRA. 2011. Email regarding Auburn Gateway I and II floodplain fill by Tom Dargan, BCRA, to Jeff Dixon, City of Auburn, and others; September 20, 2011. BCRA. 2019. Stormwater Site Plan. Copper Gate Apartments. May 2019. City of Auburn. 2004. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement, July 30, 2004. City of Auburn. 2004. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Addendum. City of Auburn. 2008. Resolution No. 4416. Signed November 17, 2008. City of Auburn. 2011. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, COA, June 2008. Ordinance 6183. Development Agreement COA, November 2011, Resolution No. 4756. Planned Action Ordinance, November 2011, Ordinance 6382. City of Auburn. 2009. Auburn City Code current through Ordinance 6250, passed June 15, 2009. Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/auburn/. Accessed in January 2010. City of Auburn. 2010. City of Auburn Ordinance 6295, passed April 5, 2010. City of Auburn. 2011. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan. Environmental Impact Statement Addendum, November 2, 2011. City of Auburn. 2012. City of Auburn Resolution 4841, passed June 15, 2009 and July 16, 2012. City of Auburn. 2015. Imagine Auburn: City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Available at: https://www.auburnwa.gov/city_hall/community_development/ zoning__land_use/auburn_s_comprehensive_plan. City of Auburn. 2015. Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Adopted by Ordinance No. 6584 on December 14, 2015. Available at: https://www.auburnwa.gov/UserFiles/ Servers/Server_11470554/File/City%20Hall/Community%20Development/ Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 40 October 2019 ESA Zoning%20and%20Land%20Use/Comprehensive%20Plan/06- Vol%205_Transportation_Full.pdf. City of Auburn. 2018. 2019–2024 Transportation Improvement Program. Community Development and Public Works Department Transportation Section. Adopted June 18, 2018 by Resolution 5355. Available at: https://www.auburnwa.gov/ UserFiles/Servers/Server_11470554/File/City%20Hall/Public%20Works/ Transportation/Transportation%20Improvement%20Program%20(TIP).pdf. City of Auburn. 2019. Amended and Restated Development Agreement Between the City of Auburn and Inland Washington, LLC, passed June 24, 2019 as Resolution Bi, 5442, EnCo. 2019a. Summary Letter Report – Preliminary Findings Combined Habitat Impact Assessment & Critical Areas Report. EnCo Environmental Corporation. May 14, 2019. EnCo. 2019b. Combined Critical Areas Report with Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment. EnCo Environmental Corporation. May 31, 2019. EnCo. 2019c. Combined Critical Areas Report with Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment. EnCo Environmental Corporation Addendum 1. July 12, 2019, revised September 16, 2019. EnCo. 2019d. Combined Critical Areas Report with Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment. EnCo Environmental Corporation Addendum 1. July 12, 2019, revised September 27, 2019. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2008. 2008 Washington State Water Quality Assessment. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/Programs/wq/303d/ 2008/index.html. Accessed in January 2010. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012. 2008 Washington State Water Quality Assessment. Available at: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water- Shorelines/Water-quality/Water-improvement/Assessment-of-state-waters-303d. Accessed in June 2019. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2014. 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington adopted January 1, 2017 with supplemental requirements (Supplemental Manual) specific to City of Auburn adopted July 10, 2018. ESA (Environmental Science Associates). 2019. Critical Areas Report and Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment. Port of Seattle Auburn Mitigation Site Perimeter Fence Extension. Prepared for the Port of Seattle. June 2019. Federal Register. Volume 72, Number 91. Friday, May 11, 2007. Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determination for Puget Sound Steelhead. Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum October 2019 Page 41 ESA Federal Register, Volume 70, Number 185. Monday, September 26, 2005. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bull Trout; Final Rule. Federal Register, Volume 70, Number 170. Friday, September 2, 2005. Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of west Coast salmon and Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho: Final Rule. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2010. Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation: Regional Guidance for the Puget Sound Basin. FEMA Region 10, Bothell WA. January 2010. Available at: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/ regions/regionx/draft_mitigation_guide.pdf. ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 2017. Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. 2009. Letter regarding Valley 6 Theaters Streams addressed to Larry Fisher, WDFW dated June 15, 2009. Prepared by Jeffrey S. Jones, J.S. Jones and Associates. J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. 2010. Wetland and Stream Impact Assessment, Robertson Properties Group, Auburn Valley 6 Theaters, City of Auburn, WA. Prepared by Jeffrey S. Jones, J.S. Jones and Tom Dargan, BCRA Engineering. Mark Johnson, ESA Adolfson contributed to the report. J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. 2014. Critical Area Study of the RPG Robertson Properties Group Auburn Valley 6 Theater Site. Prepared by Jeffrey S. Jones, November 18, 2014. King County Metro. 2017. Metro Connects: King County Metro Long-Range Plan. Adopted January 2017. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/ 0B44RYEx3kgpoZUJqbXVScnR4cjg/view. Landau Associates, Inc. 2007. Draft Report Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Auburn Phase II Project Auburn, Washington. Prepared by Kathryn F. McCarthy and Timothy L. Syverson. Prepared for Auburn Properties, Inc. May 21, 2007. Landau Associates, Inc. 2014a. Phase I Site Assessment. Landau Associates, Inc. 2014b. Focused Soil and Groundwater Investigation – Auburn Dairy Barn Site, 4710 Auburn Way North, Auburn, Washington. Memorandum prepared by Timothy L. Syverson and Dylan Frazer. Prepared for Robertson Properties Group. April 25, 2014. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the on-going National Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum Page 42 October 2019 ESA Flood Insurance Program carried out in the Puget Sound area in Washington State. HUC 17110020 Puget Sound. Letter dated September 22, 2008 to Mark Eberlein, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from D. Robert Lohn, National Marine Fisheries Service. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. ESA Salmon Listings. Updated on July 9, 2009. Accessed online February 2010 at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA- Salmon-Listings/Index.cfm. Parametrix, Inc. 2015. Wetlands and Streams Discipline Report South 277th Street Corridor Capacity and Non-Motorized Trail Improvements. May 2015. Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Personal communication between Teresa Vanderburg of ESA and Jennifer Marriott, Senior Ecologist at Talasaea. September 30, 2019. Transportation Solutions, Inc. 2011. Auburn Gateway Transportation Impact Analysis (Draft). Prepared for Robertson Properties Group and City of Auburn. October 2011. Transpo Group. 2019. Cooper Gate: EIS/Development Agreement Traffic Analysis (Traffic Memo) Transportation Impact Analysis. Copper Gate. Prepared for Inland Group. April 24, 2019. Transpo Group. 2019. Transportation Impact Analysis. Copper Gate. Prepared for Inland Group. Drafted June 2019, revised July 2019, revised August 2019. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1990. 50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Federal Register. Volume 55, Number 123. 26114-26194. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat; Candidate Species; and Species of Concern in Snohomish County as Prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. Revised on November 1, 2007. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/speciesmap/ KING.html. WDW (Washington State Department of Wildlife). 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats and Species. Wildlife Management, Fish Management, and Habitat Management Divisions. Olympia, Washington. May 1991. Wessels, Ralph. 2003. Personal communications (telephone conversations with Erich Hester, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington, regarding timing and other parameters of a wetland mitigation project in the floodplain of the Green River.) Third Runway Project Manager. Port of Seattle. April 1 and 8, 2003. RESOLUTION NO. 5442 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS, LLC RELATED TO THE AUBURN GATEWAY PROJECT WHEREAS, Chapter 36.70B.170 — 36.70B.210 allows cities to enter into development agreements in order to provide greater flexibility in existing city standards in exchange for development that is of significantly higher quality, generating more public benefit, and providing a more sensitive proposal than that which would be required by the existing code; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 4756 on November 21, 2011, which authorized the City to enter into a development agreement with Auburn Properties, Incorporated, acting through its affiliate Robertson Property Group ("API") for the development of the Auburn Gateway Project (the "Original Agreement"); and WHEREAS, despite the City's and API's intentions, the market conditions have changed such that the API is no longer interested in developing the property, and has proposed selling the property; and, WHEREAS, the new developer, Capital Acquisitions, LLC, doing business as Inland Group ("Inland"), has proposed changes to the development standards and the requirements of the Development Agreement to take into account the changes in the market conditions; and, WHEREAS, all public meeting and hearing requirements in Title 14 of the Auburn City Code and RCW 36.70B.200 have been met, as follows: a public Resolution No. 5442 June 18, 2019 Page 1 of 3 meeting was held on June 24, 2019, This application was presented for discussion at a Council Study Session on June 24, 2019. All of these meetings were properly noticed and were open to the public. Additionally, a public hearing was held on June 24, 2019 before the full City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: Section 1, The City Council makes the following findings: 1.1 except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in other appropriate legislation that requires Council approval, Inland has agreed to all of the terms and conditions of the Original Agreement. 1.2 Inland has proposed modifications to the Development Standards, and has submitted updated studies to allow staff to determine whether the revised standards are consistent with the environmental and other requirements associated with the Original Agreement; Section 2. Based on these findings, the Council concludes that: 2.1. the Project modifications proposed by Inland provide efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities that results in a higher quality of development than is required by the standards of the applicable zone; 2.2. the proposed development will be of significantly higher quality, will generate more public benefit, and will be a more sensitive proposal than would be developed in the absence of the proposed agreement. Resolution No. 5442 June 18, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Section 3. The Mayor is authorized to enter into an Amended and Restated Development Agreement with Capital Acquisitions, LLC, doing business as Inland Group ("Inland"), in substantially the form at Exhibit A,. Section 4. The Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon. Dated and Signed this \ day n sL 2019. CITY OF AUBURN ANCYJKUS, M4)R ATTEST: Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk APPR IV. D AS TO FORM: sl * Steven L. Gross, City Attorney Resolution No. 5442 June 18, 2019 Page 3 of 3 AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF AUBURN AND CAP ACQUISITIONS, LLC, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE AUBURN GATEWAY PROJECT The CITY OF AUBURN ("City")and AUBURN PROPERTIES, INC.,a Washington corporation, entered into a Development Agreement on November 15, 2011 and subsequently adopted by Resolution No.4756 (the Original Agreement.") The following Amended and Restated Development Agreement ("Agreement") is a result of the proposed sale of the property to a new Developer with a revised business model, and is intended to supersede and govern the development, use and mitigation of environmental impacts associated with the development of the Auburn Gateway Project("Project"),through construction of the buildings and related physical on-and off-site improvements. All references to the Agreement include the Agreement and all Attachments to the Agreement. In consideration of the mutual promises contained in this Agreement and in those documents referenced in this Agreement,the City and Cap Acquisitions, LLC(a Washington limited liability corporation)doing business as Inland Group("Developer")enter into this Amended and Restated Agreement. The Agreement is authorized by RCW 36.708.170 through .210. It addresses Project development standards,which are defined in the statute to include,for example, impact fees, mitigation, design standards,approach to phasing, review procedures,vesting issues, and any other appropriate development requirements.'The Agreement provides the City and Developer with certainty as to the type of Project that will be built,and the type of mitigation that will be provided. The Project,when all development improvements are completed as contemplated for this project, will be consistent with current local regulatory requirements in effect as of the date this Agreement is signed.2 The development standards in the Agreement will govern the Project for the term of the Agreement unless amended or terminated.'As authorized by state statute,'the Agreement identifies, in part,the mitigation measures,development conditions and other requirements under the State Environmental Policy Act(Chapter 43.21C RCW, "SEPA") pursuant to the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Final Environmental Impact Statements and addendums, supplements or modifications to the EIS documents for the Project.The Agreement shall only be approved and recorded with King County's real property records after a public hearing before the Auburn City Council has been held.'Approval of this Agreement by the Auburn City Council is a "land use decision" as defined in RCW 36.70C.020(2). As further described below,the Parties agree that certain provisions of this Agreement may only be appealed or challenged in accordance with the appeal procedures set forth in the Land Use Petition Act LUPA") (Chapter 36.70C RCW). 1 RCW 36.708.170(3). 2 RCW 36.708.170(1). 3 RCW 36.708.180. 4 RCW 36.706.170(3)(c). 5 RCW 36.70B.200; RCW 36.70B.190. Amended and Restated Development Agreement Final 06/25/19 Page 1of14 1.Zoning/Land Use. A.The Original Agreement fulfilled that portion of the obligation specified in Section 13 of Ordinance No. 6183 (as amended),that non-conditional applicability of the C-4, Mixed Use Commercial zoning designation shall only take effect on the Parties' execution of a development agreement. Section 13 of Ordinance No. 6183 also required adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance.A Planned Action Ordinance was adopted in as part of Ordinance No. 6382. Additionally,the Parties agreed to process an amendment to change the zoning of any property owned by the Developer as of the date of execution of the Original Agreement and covered by the EIS and addendums, supplements or modifications to the EIS to C4, Mixed Use Commercial Zoning not later than one year after the date of this Agreement. The requirement to process an amendment to change zoning of property owned by the Developer as of the date of execution of the Original Agreement was not met by the original owner("RPG"). B.The proposed changes in this Agreement are expressly conditioned on the City Council approving amendments to Ordinance No. 6183 and 6382, and other applicable provisions of the Auburn City Code that are consistent with the intent of the Parties to this Agreement. If Council does not approve the necessary amendments, or if Developer's purchase of the property from RPG for the Project fails for any reason,this Agreement is null and void and the terms of the Original Agreement will remain in effect otherwise, upon Developer's purchase of the property, RPG shall be released from all obligations under the Original Agreement in accordance with Section 12 below). 2. Location.The Project consists of approximately 70 acres of land in the northeast corner of the City, generally bordered by South 277th Street to the north,45th Street NE to the south,Auburn Way North to the west,and Port of Seattle property(Tax Parcel No. 0004200006)to the east. Developer's property is located within the Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area, an approximately 120-acre area established by the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan in 1995 and as subsequently amended by Ordinance No. 6183. The property location is legally described on Attachment 1 ("Subject Property"). Developer has a contingent property interest in the subject property that will become final if Developer completes the purchase of the property.Additional properties may become part of this Agreement through the amendment process described in RCW 36.708.170-210. In the event the Agreement is amended to include additional properties,the terms of this Agreement shall apply equally to those additional properties except as specified in the amendment(s). 3. Project Description.The Project involves the redevelopment of the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex and adjacent properties owned or controlled by Developer.The redevelopment of the Property will include a mixture of office, retail and residential uses in a vertical or horizontal mixed use configuration. Residential uses will primarily be located on the southern portion of the site,generally bordered by 49th Street NE to the north and 45th Street NE to the south,while commercial uses will be primarily located on the northern portion of the site generally bordered by 277th Street to the north and 49th Street NE to the south, and a community common area generally located within the center of the development.The parties intend to provide the Developer with flexibility to reasonably respond to market conditions with limitations mutually agreed to by both parties. In exchange for this flexibility,the City will receive a planned mixed use development consistent with applicable chapters of the adopted City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan including, but not limited to,the Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan and the goals Amended and Restated Development Agreement Final 06/25/19 Page 2 of 14 for this area set forth in this Agreement.The entire Project is more fully described both in Attachment 2, which includes the Project Site Plan,and in the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Final Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)and addenda,supplements or modifications to the EIS set forth as Attachment 3 to this Agreement.The City and Developer recognize that economic market conditions may cause the mix of land uses to differ slightly from the specific alternatives analyzed in the EIS.The land use mixture is proposed to remain consistent with the scope of land uses analyzed in the 2004 Northeast Auburn/Robertson Property's Environmental Impact Statement. Mitigation beyond the improvements identified within this Agreement will be related and roughly proportional to the impacts created by development-generated traffic volumes. 4.Term of Agreement and Vesting.The term of the Agreement shall be through December 23, 2026, with three distinct vesting periods of which only one remains.The legal requirements identified in the Agreement shall govern the Project as follows: (a) Development regulations pertaining to land use and zoning requirements,such as permitted, conditional and prohibited uses and lot development standards but excluding building,engineering and environmental regulations shall be the C4, Mixed Use Commercial Zoning District,as adopted by Ordinance No. 6183,June 16, 2008 and applied to all properties covered by this Agreement or as set forth in Attachment 5. Other than the amendments contemplated to permit the changes between the Original Agreement and this Agreement, any amendment to the C4, Mixed Use Commercial Zoning District subsequently approved by the Auburn City Council shall not be applicable to the properties covered by this Agreement.The C4, Mixed Use Commercial Zoning District in effect on the effective date of this Agreement shall be applicable to the subject property for the entire term of the Agreement. The Architectural and Site Design Standards titled: "Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards, ("Architectural and Site Design Standards") prepared by BRCA October 2011 and proposed by the Original Developer and attached as Attachment 4 are adopted as part of this Agreement and shall be vested for the term of the Agreement. Amendments to these Architectural and Design Standards proposed by the Developer shall be processed as provided for in Section 11 B of this Agreement. b) Development Regulations,except those specified in Section 4(a)that are in effect for the entire term of the Agreement, in effect at the time of the City's receipt of each full and complete application shall be applicable and govern development for the Initial Vesting Period (IVP),to the extent of the development activities included in a full and complete application.The IVP shall run from the effective date of the Original Agreement and ending December 31, 2016. c) Following the IVP a Second Vesting Period (SVP)shall be established for the 5 year period starting January 1,2017 and ending December 31, 2021,for development activities subsequent to those covered by the IVP. However,this amendment was not entered into and all standards as of the date of any application would apply. d) Following the SVP a Third Vesting Period (TVP)shall be established for the 5 year period starting January 1, 2022 and ending December 26, 2026,for development activities subsequent to those covered by the SVP. Amended and Restated Development Agreement Final 06/25/19 Page 3 of 14 At the beginning of each subsequent five-year vesting period,SVP and TVP,the development regulations in effect on December 31 of the last year of the prior vesting period shall replace the development regulation then in effect. Provided,that the development regulations specified in Section 4(a)that are in effect for the entire term of the Agreement shall not be replaced.The Developer shall be responsible for re-recording the Development Agreement with the new regulations attached at the beginning of each new vesting period.At the beginning of each subsequent five-year vesting period,the development regulations in effect as of December 31 of the prior vesting period shall replace Attachment 5 and this Agreement shall automatically be amended with the regulations with the Developer's re-recording of this agreement with the new regulations attached. It shall be the responsibility of the Developer to re-record this Agreement with the new regulations attached at the beginning of each five-year vesting period. Notwithstanding this vesting period,the property owner(s) subject to this agreement may, if agreed to by the City,conform to new development regulations that may from time to time be adopted by the City by providing the City with the applicable development regulations that apply under this Agreement or providing the City with the applicable Development development regulations the applicant elects to have applied to the application along with a sworn statement that the property owner shall be bound by the new regulations at the time of subsequent permit application. Failure to submit the then-current regulations with an application shall result in a waiver by the property owner of any claim that the City applied the incorrect regulations and the City shall have the discretion to apply either the vested regulations or the current regulations. e) Development regulations related to public health and safety issues, including but not limited to building codes,fire codes, mechanical codes, plumbing codes,electrical codes and property maintenance codes shall vest on the City's acceptance of a complete permit application for each specific permit as determined by the City through its permit completeness determination process in accordance with Chapter 14.06 of the Auburn City Code ("ACC") in effect on the date the permit is submitted. f)Any amendments or additions made to these legal requirements during the term of the Agreement shall not apply to or affect the development to the extent of previously received full and complete applications for development activity of the Project, except as otherwise provided,or if other county, state, or federal laws preempt the City's authority to vest regulations.The City reserves the authority to impose new or different officially adopted regulations if,and to the extent required by,a serious threat to the public health and safety,as determined by the City. The City also reserves the authority to impose new or different officially adopted regulations, if federal or state laws change requiring new or different standards. Developer can appeal City determinations as described in this paragraph, except for those standards required by state or federal laws,through the normal appeal processes for administrative decisions as provided for by ACC 14.13.010. g)The parties specifically agree that right-of-way requirements shall be vested for"footprint design" requirements as of the effective date of this Agreement, but"technical design" requirements shall be established as of the date of the complete permit application as determined by the City through its permit completeness determination process in accordance with Chapter 14.06 of the Auburn City Code ACC") in effect on the date the permit is submitted. Amended and Restated Development Agreement Final 06/25/19 Page 4 of 14 h)The vested rights established by this Agreement as applied to any particular project merge into the permit approval for that project and shall terminate as provided for that permit by the applicable provision of the Auburn City Code. 5. Project Reporting and Coordination. In recognition of the large size,scale and complexity of the Project, market absorption factors and the overall term of the Agreement,the parties agree that phased construction and acceptance of public and private streets, and public and private utilities and equipment may be needed.The Parties agree to the following reporting and coordination schedule. Developer shall report to the City,at a minimum, on January 15 and June 15 of each year the Agreement is in effect. Once Developer begins construction of the infrastructure,the parties shall jointly determine a quarterly or monthly reporting schedule. Reports shall include, but not be limited to,the following areas: Status of leases; Construction updates(rights-of-way(ROW), utility infrastructure, and buildings Percentage completed and construction remaining); Non-City Permit/approval status, including Department of Ecology,Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA-Fisheries Reports shall be written. If the written reports contain information that Developer considers to be proprietary business information as that term is used in Washington's Public Records Act, RCW 42.56.270, it shall clearly mark those portions of the report that Developer considers to be exempt from disclosure.The City agrees that, if it receives a public records request for documents that Developer has marked as proprietary business information, it will assert the exemption,and notify the Developer of the request.The Developer may seek a court order to prevent disclosure as provided for in RCW 42.56.540. If a requestor files an action in court seeking release of these documents, Developer agrees to be in interpleaded into that action,to defend its designation of those documents as proprietary, and, provided the City has timely notified Developer of the request and the City's response,to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any fines or penalties for non-disclosure of documents the Developer has marked as proprietary. Developer also agrees to attend,or to send a representative familiar with the Project and this Agreement to attend, Council study session meetings or full Council meetings when requested to report on the Project status at least annually. 6. Project Approvals.The City shall accept for processing, review,and action all complete applications and submissions for Project Approvals as determined by the City through its permit completeness determination process in accordance with Chapter 14.06 of the Auburn City Code ("ACC") in effect on the date the permit is submitted. Any agreement by the City to cooperate does not in any way obligate the City with respect to usual and customary City permit processing, code compliance and other regulatory reviews as they may relate to Amended and Restated Development Agreement Final 06/25/19 Page 5 of 14 the Developer or the Developer's requirements under this Agreement.The outcome of any regulatory review or action undertaken by the City involving the Developer will be independent of and in no way biased, prejudiced,or predetermined in any way by this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to require that the City exercise its discretionary authority under its regulatory ordinances in a manner favorable to the Developer. 7. Flood Storage Capacity.The City and Developer acknowledge that under this agreement there may be a need for off-site flood storage capacity for the Project.The parties acknowledge that the City is not legally obligated to provide off-site storage capacity, but if off-site flood storage capacity is not available, the Project,or elements of the project, might not go forward.The City entered into an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with the Port of Seattle ("Port") regarding the City's right to use or commit the use of flood storage capacity with the constructed wetland mitigation property owned by the Port that is located in the Planning Area for the Project.That amendment is reflected in Resolution No.4841 and was signed on July 16, 2012 and attached as Attachment 7. The Parties agree that the City shall make a mutually-agreed on amount of cubic feet of storage capacity available to the Developer for Developer's on-site compensatory flood storage requirements and an additional compensatory flood storage volume as needed to accommodate the Developer's public transportation and storm drainage improvements, on the condition that City and the Developer negotiate full and sufficient consideration for Developer's use of the flood storage capacity.The City and Developer agree that this amount will be established following the conclusion of technical analysis by the Port and City that establishes the total amount of cubic feet of compensatory flood storage.The Developer acknowledges that the City may elect to reserve a portion of this capacity for municipal purposes and needs. Priority shall be given to storage capacity that serves public improvements prior to private development. The City shall assign its right to use the flood storage capacity on the Port's property to the Developer by means of an easement or other similar document as agreed to by the Parties and the Port of Seattle. Developer agrees that it will submit a Letter of Map Revision ("LOMR")to the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)that addresses the reviewing agency's standards of the placement of fill and effect on the floodplain.The City agrees to provide concurrence in Developer's LOMR process as provided for in Chapter 15.68 ACC. 8. Design and Construction. The parties agree that as a material consideration for the City's entry into this Agreement,the Developer will design and construct the Project in accordance with the Amended Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards adopted as part of this Agreement. Additionally, notwithstanding the permitted uses in the Amended C-4, Mixed Use Commercial Zoning District,the Developer agrees that the layout and uses of the Project shall adhere to the following guidelines: Multiple Family Residential uses shall occur primarily on the southern portion of the site. It may contain vertical or horizontal mixed-use. Commercial development shall occur primarily on the northern portion of the site. It may contain vertical or horizontal mixed-use.The Project shall contain more full service,sit down restaurants than "fast food" restaurants including drive-thru type restaurants. Gas stations and automobile repair service and parts businesses shall only be Amended and Restated Development Agreement Final 06/25/19 Page 6 of 14 constructed as a department of a larger retail operation. 9.Transportation/Utility infrastructure Improvements.The City and Developer acknowledge that under this Agreement there will remain a "gap" in the funding of infrastructure improvements that the City is not obligated to fill but without which the Project, or portions of the project, might not go forward.The Parties agree that Developer's requirement to construct infrastructure is limited to improvements required by City code, and/or mitigation measures specified in the Planned Action Ordinance, and items identified in section Attachment 6 of this Development Agreement. The Parties to this agreement acknowledge the contributions in both land and cost of improvements that the original developer contributed to the City's S 277th Street project. Both Parties recognize that there are benefits from these improvements to the public that extend beyond the Developer's obligations.The Parties agree that they will work cooperatively to resolve issues related to infrastructure funding.The Parties recognize that the Developer's obligations will be proportionate to the scale and impact of the development.The Parties agree that,for purposes of this section,that the provision of payments and credits for infrastructure improvements is governed by state law and applicable City code. Both the City and Developer will make their best efforts to assist each other as well as consider all other options in filling that"gap"as improvements become necessary. While a number of Transportation and Utility Improvements in and around the proposed Project are needed to be made concurrent with initial construction of the Project,the Parties agree that the infrastructure construction may be done in multiple increments. If the Developer constructs these needed improvements the City will, in accordance with City code and state law, provide the following payments and credits: Transportation Improvements: a) Transportation Impact Fee Credit-The City has determined through its comprehensive transportation planning and transportation impact program development that certain infrastructure projects create capacity in the City's public street system and as such will remain included in the City's list of eligible projects for traffic impact fee credits Transportation Impact Fee Program List).As such,the City will provide a credit for transportation fees attributable to the Project in conformance with Chapter 19.04. b) Grants.The City will consider placing a higher priority on the I Street NE project in the City's Capital Facilities Plan and its Transportation Improvement Program.The City will at its sole discretion,apply for and seek state and federal grants for eligible Transportation improvements within the Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program.The Developer agrees to partner with the City in these efforts, including financially participating in an amount not to exceed the Developer's proportional share of the improvement. If the City is successful obtaining any grants,the City will make a good faith effort to design and construct the improvements in coordination with the phasing project milestones set out in this Agreement. Amended and Restated Development Agreement Final 06/25/19 Page 7 of 14 d) Street Payback Agreement. Developer may apply to the City for a Street Payback Agreement in accordance with Chapter 3.25 of the Auburn City Code. Utilities Improvements: e) Utility Payback Agreements-The City may enter into Utility Payback Agreements as set forth in ACC 13.40.060 in order to obtain reimbursement on behalf of the Developer for applicable Project-related public Utility Improvements (water,sanitary sewer,and storm drainage) benefiting other new development consistent with the Auburn City Code in effect at the time the applicable permit is issued. f) Utility System Development Charge Credit-The City will credit utility System Development Charges attributable to the Project to the extent the Developer over sizes public Utility Improvements(water,sanitary sewer,and storm drainage)consistent with Auburn City Code at the time the applicable permit is issued. 10.Adequacy of Project Mitigation under SEPA. A.The original Project underwent detailed environmental review with a Final EIS in 2004 and EIS Addendum dated November 2, 2011.The City issued a Determination of Significance and a Final Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Environmental Impact Statement(EIS).The EIS sets forth numerous Project conditions in a variety of environmental areas. In connection with the Original Agreement,the City Council reviewed the SEPA record and the EIS, and entered findings stating that, when all improvements are completed as contemplated for this Project,the Project in its entirety inclusive of all properties within the Project Area for the EIS as approved, including addenda or supplements to the EIS)will be adequately mitigated under SEPA with the implementation of the Original Agreement and other project approvals and text changes, zoning code map and text changes and adoption of a special area plan and planned action ordinance.The mitigation that is imposed under SEPA,through the City's SEPA regulations, is listed in the City's EIS, a copy of which is included as Attachment 3 to this Agreement.Subject to requirements contained in a Planned Action Ordinance, no further SEPA mitigation will be required by the City for any Project qualifying as a Planned Action, subject to a major modification as provided below in Paragraph 11, unless such further mitigation is required by federal or state law or regulation, or is determined by the City in its sole discretion to be necessary to prevent a serious threat to public health and safety. B.The Parties acknowledge that the contemplated change to the intensity and configuration of the revised Auburn Gateway Project may be less intense than the parameters within the Original EIS. As part of the amendment to the Development Agreement the City has also provided an addendum to the EIS for purposes of the amendments to the Auburn Gateway Project.The Council has reviewed the addendum to the EIS, and agrees to enter findings stating that the Project in its entirety(as proposed to be amended by this Agreement)will be adequately mitigated under SEPA. No further SEPA mitigation will be required by the City for any Project qualifying as a Planned Action unless there is a major Amended and Restated Development Agreement Final 06/25/19 Page 8 of 14 modification,further mitigation is required by federal or state law or regulation, or further mitigation is determined by the City in its sole discretion to be necessary to prevent a serious threat to public health and safety. 11. Modifications.The Project will be subject to building, land use,environmental and engineering reviews and approvals.The final design of the buildings and other improvements, precise location of building footprints, location of utilities,determination of access points,and other design issues will be determined during that process and are part of this Agreement. A. Deviations from the adopted document: 'Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards'. The Director of Community Development or the Director's Designee has the authority to vary from these standards on a specific limited instance and non-routine basis if the variation provides equivalent design or approximate dimensions, or if there are unique building or site design considerations that, in the Director's determination,warrant a deviation. B.Amendments to the adopted document: 'Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards'. If the Developer wishes to amend any of the adopted 'Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards',the Developer shall submit the proposed changes to the Director of Community Development,who shall have the authority to approve, approve with modifications or deny the requested design standard amendment(s).An "amendment" is a change to the standards that changes the area-wide and routine intent or effect of the standards. C. Modifications to the Development Agreement. Changes to the Development Agreement that are determined by the Director of Community Development to constitute a major change shall be referred to the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner for a public hearing.The Hearing Examiner is authorized by the Auburn City Council pursuant to RCW 36.70B.200 to review and decide on amendments to the Development Agreement.The Hearing Examiner shall only review the requested modification and shall rely on applicable regulations and standards identified through this Agreement for their decision making. For purposes of this Agreement only, a modification to the Development Agreement shall be those actions that are deemed by the Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works, as appropriate,to be major modifications including, but not limited to,the following: a) A proposed change in land use; b) Cumulative exceedance of the vehicle trip volumes or changes to trip distribution patterns estimated for the project by the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Planning Area Draft and Final EIS and addendums,supplements or modifications to the EIS documents. Amended and Restated Development Agreement Final 06/25/19 Page 9 of 14 c) A proposed change to any of the development criteria applicable to the Project as set out in this Agreement, except for minor deviations that are consistent with the current City regulations in effect at the time of this Agreement or subsequent vesting period; d) Change in density or intensity of use; e) Change in "physical" environmental impact(going from no impact to some impact);and f) Substantive changes to utility capacity,service demand, or design. D. Changes to the term,the parties to the Agreement or the vesting periods in the Agreement, must be approved by the City Council. 12. Recording;Assignment.The Agreement shall be recorded with the Real Property Records Division of the King County Records and Elections Department.The Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors in interest(subject to the Developer's purchase of the property from RPG as set forth in Section 1.B above). Developer may assign this Agreement in whole or in part to an affiliate or affiliates with common control after providing the City with 10 days'written notice. Developer may assign this Agreement in whole or in part to an entity not under common control with Developer with the City's prior written consent, not to be unreasonably withheld. On assignment and assumption of all obligations under the Agreement by the assignee, Developer shall be released from all Agreement obligations after the effective date of the assignment; provided, however,that upon RPG's initial assignment of all obligations under the Original Agreement to the Developer and the Developer's assumption thereof(to occur upon Developer's purchase of the property), RPG and its affiliates shall be released from any and all obligations under the Original Agreement and/or relating to the property. 13. Dispute Resolution. If there is a dispute regarding the interpretation of this Agreement,where there is not already a procedure provided for in the Agreement, staff from each Party will attempt to resolve the dispute. If the Parties cannot resolve the dispute, either Party may request mediation.The Parties will agree on a mediator. If Parties cannot agree on a mediator within 10 days of either party requesting mediation, each Party will choose a mediator, and the two mediators will choose a third to mediate the dispute. If mediation fails,this matter shall be heard in the Superior Court of King County,Washington. 14. Default. a) Subject to extensions of time by mutual consent in writing,failure or delay by either party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event of alleged default or breach of any terms or conditions of this Agreement,the Party alleging the default or breach shall give the other Party not less than thirty(30)days' notice in writing, specifying the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which the default may be cured. Amended and Restated Development Agreement Final 06/25/19 Page 10 of 14 During this thirty(30)day period,the Party charged shall not be considered in default for purposes of termination or institution of legal proceedings. b) After notice and expiration of the thirty(30)day period, if the default has not been cured or is not being diligently cured in the manner set forth in the notice,the other Party may, at its option, institute legal proceedings pursuant to this Agreement. In addition,the City may decide to file an action to enforce the City's Codes, and to obtain penalties and costs as provided in the Auburn City Code for violations of this Development Agreement and the Code. 15.Termination.This Agreement shall expire and/or terminate as provided below: a) This Agreement shall expire and be of no further force and effect if the Developer does not construct the Project as contemplated by the permits and approvals identified in this Agreement, or submits applications for development of the Property that are inconsistent with such permits and approvals. Developer shall have the ability to appeal land use decisions,which will not constitute a termination of this agreement until a final decision is rendered for an appeal. b) This Agreement shall terminate on the expiration of the term or when the Subject Property has been fully developed,which ever first occurs, and all of the Developer's obligations under this Agreement are satisfied as determined by the City.The City shall record a notice of termination when appropriate. 16. Effect of Termination on Developer Obligations.Termination of this Agreement as to the Developer of the Subject Property shall not affect any of the Developer's obligations to comply with the terms and conditions or any applicable zoning code(s)or subdivision map or other land use entitlements approved with respect to the Subject Property.All conditions of development specified in the Agreement to shall continue after the termination of this Agreement,as well as obligations to pay assessments, liens,fees or taxes. 17. Effects of Termination on City. On any termination of this Agreement as to the Developer of the Subject Property,the entitlements,conditions of development, limitations on fees and all other terms and conditions of this Agreement shall no longer be vested with respect to the property affected by the termination.Vesting of entitlements,conditions or fees may then be established for that property pursuant to the existing planning and zoning laws). Notwithstanding termination of the Agreement before the end of the term of the Agreement,the City shall not initiate or approve any amendments to the land use and zoning requirements of the C4, Mixed Use Commercial Zoning District as adopted in Ordinance No. 6183 without the consent of the Developer if done before December 26, 2026. 18.Administration of Agreement.This Agreement shall be administered by the authorized representative of the Developer,and by the Mayor of the City,or designee, on behalf of the City. Amended and Restated Development Agreement Final 06/25/19 Page 11 of 14 Any written notices required by the terms of this Agreement shall be served on or mailed to the following addresses: CITY OF AUBURN: Mayor City of Auburn 25 West Main Auburn,WA 98001-4998 253)931-3000 253)931-3053-fax DEVELOPER: Scott Morris Inland Group 120 W. Cataldo Ave.,Suite 100 Spokane,WA 99201 509-321-3201 20. Notices.All notices or communications permitted or required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given if delivered in person or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid,for mailing by certified mail, return receipt requested and by regular mail and addressed, if to a party of this Agreement,to the address for the party set forth above, or if to a person not a party to this Agreement,to the address designated by a party to this Agreement in the foregoing manner.Any party may change their address by giving notice in writing to the other party. 21. Parties in Interest.This Agreement shall be binding on, and the benefits and obligations provided for in this Agreement shall inure to and bind,the parties and their respective successors and assigns.This section shall not permit any transfer or assignment otherwise prohibited by this Agreement.This Agreement is for the exclusive benefit of the parties and it does not create a contractual relationship with or exist for the benefit of any third party, including contractors,sub-contractors and their sureties. 22.Costs to Prevailing Party. In the event of litigation or other legal action to enforce any rights, responsibilities,or obligations under this Agreement,the prevailing parties shall be entitled to receive its reasonable costs and attorney's fees. 22.Applicable Law.This Agreement and the rights of the parties shall be governed by the interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and venue for any action shall be in King County, Washington.Any applicable statute of limitation shall commence no later than the last day of the term of the Agreement, or the date of termination,whichever is earliest. 23. Nondiscrimination. Neither the City nor Developer shall discriminate on the basis of any protected class as defined by any state,federal, or local ordinance, including but not limited to, race, color, national origin,disability, age,or sex in the performance of this Agreement. Amended and Restated Development Agreement Final 06/25/19 Page 12 of 14 24.Captions, Headings and Titles.All captions, headings or titles in the paragraphs or sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not constitute a part of this Agreement or act as a limitation of the scope of the particular paragraph or sections to which they apply.Terms not specifically defined in this Agreement shall have the same definition as in the applicable section of the Auburn City Code. Interpretation or construction of this Agreement shall not be affected by any determination as to who is the drafter of this Agreement,this Agreement having been drafted by mutual agreement of the parties. 25.Severable Provisions. Each provision of this Agreement is intended to be severable. If any provision is illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever,that illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 26. Entire Agreement.This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties in respect to the transactions contemplated and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. 27.Counterparts.This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts,each of which shall be one and the same Agreement and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to the other party. 28. Post-execution actions:The Parties agree that, after execution of this Agreement,they will work cooperatively to resolve issues relating to infrastructure funding,the construction of I Street NE,seeking an agreement with the City of Kent to allow for a traffic signal at I Street NE and S 277th Street, any applicable zoning changes,and allocation of flood storage capacity. CITY OF AUBURN CAP ACQUISITIONS, LLC CU% lb•'1•i t5 I° ancy Ras Mayor DATE Scott Morris, Manager DATE Approved as to form: Steve Gross,City Attorney Amended and Restated Development Agreement Final 06/25/19 Page 13 of 14 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF cOoNZAtQC On this 25.1"' day of v w1 Z n t q before me,the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Scott Morris,to me known to be the Manager of CAP Acquisitions, LLC,the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act of and deed of said corporation,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned,and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. Witness y hand and seal the day and year first above written. 011III11///i gMeF i Notary Public residing at SPok,41E, Wei 0,oksstonFp.',9 1/moi Printed Name: Tui„ 1 f n•.bF o°NOTAR 01:; My Co scion Expires: 45 Q! ' lLo p PUBLIC 'e:'A..god 09j• !nber09;. 01111111110 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING On this /-'1% day of 13 GV9',/ , rim , before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Nancy Backus,to me known to be the Mayor of the city of Auburn,Washington,the municipal corporation that executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act of and deed of said corporation,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that she is authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. Wiy e/sIs/'my hand and seal the day and year first above written. 1'''' G/II 'G §/W- p ON MAPr pal Qv..- swim f i P Notary Public re/siding at 1 Al-C Q C' te'o+ o?A,p ep'. Printed Name: I/{r lT1n f. My Commission Exg,ires: i N y 'Ous 0 =O al Amended and Restated Development Agreement Final 06/25/19 Page 14 of 14 Resolution 5442 Attachment 1 - South EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF THE DONATION LAND CLAIM OF WILLIAM A. COX AND HIS WIFE, ELIZABETI•I COX, DESIGNATED AS CLAIM NO, 38, BEING A PART OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING Al'THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID DONATION CLAIM NO. 38; THENCE NORTH 88°55'WEST 420.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1°53'45" WEST 1,229.725 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87°24'27" WEST 579.90 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 87°24'27" WEST 426.07 FEET TO THE EAST MARGIN OF KENT-AUBURN ROAD (86TH AVENUE SOUTH) AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO.761007; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PORTION OF 49TH STREET NORTHEAST AS VACATED UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 2627 IN THE CITY OF AUBURN,ALSO RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO.7301120384; THENCE SOUTH 89°08'15" EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID VACATED PORTION OF 49TH STREET NORTHEAST TO A POINT NORTH 1°53'45" EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH l°53'45" WEST TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED 49TH STREET NORTHEAST AS VACATED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3594 OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, ALSO RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8102090641, WHICH WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF THE DONATION LAND CLAIM OF WILLIAM A. COX AND HIS WIFE, ELIZABETH COX, DESIGNATED AS CLAIM NO. 38, BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 38;THENCE NORTH 88°55'WEST 420.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1°53'45" WEST 1,229.725 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87°24'27" WEST 622.30 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 1°53'45" WEST 117.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°06'15" WEST TO THE EAST MARGIN OF KENT-AUBURN ROAD(86TH AVENUE SOUTH), AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED TO KING COUNTY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 761007; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN TO A POINT FROM WHICH THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING BEARS SOUTH 87°24'27" EAST; THENCE SOUTH 87°24'27" EAST TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Exhibit"A" 00063544-13 1- TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED D STREET NORTHEAST (86 AVENUE SOUTH) ADJOINING, WHICH UPON VACATION, ATTACHED TO SAID PROPERTY BY OPERATION OF LAW; ALSO BEING KNOWN AS A NORTHWESTERLY PORTION OF TRACT 36 IN SECOND ADDITION TO WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF); PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF THE DONATION LAND CLAIM OF WILLIAM A. COX AND HIS WIFE, ELIZABETH COX, DESIGNATED AS CLAIM NO. 38, BEING A PART OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM; THENCE SOUTH I°53'45" WEST 898.20 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SOUTH 280TH STREET AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED TO KING COUNTY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 5869551 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 1°53'45" WEST 859.86 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56°01'19"WEST 203.43 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°17'18" WEST 485.03 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°53'45" EAST 285.8 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°47'15" WEST 350.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°53'45" EAST 166.01 FEET TO A POINT WHICH IS 1,000 FEET WEST OF, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO,THE EAST LINE OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM; THENCE NORTH 88°06'15" WEST TO THE EAST MARGIN OF KENT-AUBURN ROAD, 86TH AVENUE SOUTH, AS ESTABLISHED BY DEEDS TO KING COUNTY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 761006 AND 761007; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PORTION OF 49TH STREET NORTHEAST, AS VACATED UNDER ORDINANCE NUMBER 2627 IN THE CITY OF AUBURN, ALSO RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER.7301120384;THENCE SOUTH 89°08'15" EAST, 1,005 22 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1°53'45" WEST 10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°08'15" EAST TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM NO.38;THENCE NORTH 88°55'WEST 420.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1°53'45" WEST 1,229.725 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87°24'27" WEST 579.90 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 87°2427" WEST 42.4 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1°53'45" WEST 117.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°06'15" WEST TO THE EAST MARGIN OF KENT-AUBURN ROAD, 86TH AVENUE SOUTH, AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED TO KING COUNTY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 761007; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PORTION OF 49TH STREET NORTHEAST AS VACATED UNDER ORDINANCE NUMBER 2627 IN THE CITY OF AUBURN AND ALSO RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7301120384; Exhibit"A" 00063544.13 2- THENCE SOUTH 89°08'15" EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID VACATED PORTION OF 49TH STREET NORTHEAST TO A POINT NORTH 1°53'43'EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 1°53'45" WEST TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED "D" STREET NORTHEAST(86TH AVENUE SOUTH) AS VACATED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2626, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7301120385,AS WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW; TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF VACATED 49TH STREET NORTHEAST (SOUTH 280TH STREET) ADJOINING AS VACATED BY AUBURN ORDINANCES 2627, 3594, & 3614, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 7301 120384, 8102090641 & 8104220744, RESPECTIVELY,AS WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW; ALSO KNOWN AS PORTIONS OF TRACTS 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 AND 39, TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS ADJOINING, WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRACTS 2ND ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF). PARCEL D: PARCEL 1, CITY OF AUBURN SHORT PLAT NO. SP-29-79, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7912120806,IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF SAID PARCEL 2 LYING WEST OF THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST LINE OF PARCEL I,SAID SHORT PLAT; AND TOGETHER WITH THE WEST 427.03 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF SAID PARCEL 2 LYING EAST OF THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST LINE OF PARCEL I, SAID SHORT PLAT; SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A PORTION OF THE W.A. COX DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 38, IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. ALSO KNOWN AS ADJUSTED LOT B OF CITY OF AUBURN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA-0038-89 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9201292262.) PARCEL F: PARCEL 2, CITY OF AUBURN SHORT PLAT NO. SP-29-79, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7912120806, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID PARCEL 2 LYING WEST OF THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST LINE OF PARCEL I,SAID SHORT PLAT; AND EXCEPT THE WEST 427.03 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF SAID PARCEL 2 LYING EAST OF THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST LINE:OF PARCEL I, SAID SI-IOR'I' PLAT; SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A PORTION OF THE W.A. COX DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 38, IN SECTION 31. TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Exhibit"A" 00063544-13 3- ALSO KNOWN AS ADJUSTED LOT A OF CITY OF AUBURN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA-0038-89 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9201292262.) Exhibit"A" 00053544-0 4- Resolution 5442 Attachment 1 - North Property EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF LOT 32,WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRACTS,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 13 OF PLATS AT PAGE 17, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 18, 1964, UNDER RECORDING NO. 5775470;AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN BY RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION DEED RECORDED APRIL 11,2016, UNDER RECORDING NO.20160411001521. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF THE W.A.COX DONATION LAND CLAIM N08. 38 AND 43, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 13 OF PLATS, PAGE 17, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH ALONG EAST LINE TO SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 32 OF SAID ADDITION; THENCE EASTERLY TO A POINT 258.2 FEET EAST OF EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 32; THENCE NORTH 809.4 FEET TO NORTH LINE OF DONATION CLAIM; THENCE WEST 258.2 FEET TO BEGINNING; EXCEPT STATE ROAD NO. 5; AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 200 FEET OF THE EAST 110 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR 49TH STREET NORTHEAST; AND EXCEPT ALL THAT PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN 15.2 FEET RADIALLY FROM A POINT 52 FEET NORTHEASTERLY OF STATION 122+63 OF AUBURN WAY NORTH AND EXTENDING FROM THE NORTH LINE OF 49TH STREET NORTHEAST TO A POINT OPPOSITE STATION 122+72(AND AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7911271078, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON) AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN BY RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION DEED RECORDED APRIL 11,2016, UNDER RECORDING NO.20160411001520. I'. THAT PORTION OF W.A.COX DONATION CLAIM NOS. 38 AND 43, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 13 OF PLATS, PAGE 17, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH ALONG EAST LINE TO SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 32 OF SAID ADDITION; THENCE EASTERLY TO A POINT 258.2 FEET EAST OF EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 32; THENCE NORTH 809.4 FEET TO NORTH LINE OF DONATION CLAIM; Exhibit"A" 00067632-3 1- THENCE WEST 258.2 FEET TO BEGINNING; PARCEL C: THE SOUTH 200 FEET OF THE EAST 110 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF W.A.COX DONATION CLAIM NOS. 38 AND 43, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRACTS; THENCE SOUTH ALONG EAST LINE TO SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 32 OF SAID ADDITION; THENCE EASTERLY TO A POINT 258.2 FEET EAST OF EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 32; THENCE NORTH 809.4 FEET TO NORTH LINE OF DONATION CLAM; THENCE WEST 258.2 FEET TO BEGINNING; EXCEPT STATE ROAD NO. 5; AND EXCEPT ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR 49TH STREET NORTHEAST. PARCEL D: THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WA.COX DONATION LAND CLAM IN SECTION 31 TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH,RANGE 5 EAST,W.M., IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING 1,454.4 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID W.A.COX DONATION LAND CLAM; THENCE SOUTH 843.64 FEET; THENCE WEST 258.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 844.06 FEET; THENCE EAST 258.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND,A DISTANCE 312 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE 312 FEET; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT 258.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT 312 FEET TO A POINT WEST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EAST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET CONDEMNED FOR ROAD PURPOSES IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO.85322; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION,IF ANY, LYING WITHIN THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO DAVE HILL AND BRIDGET HILL, HUSBAND AND WIFE, BY DEED RECORDED IN VOLUME 469 OF DEEDS, PAGE 605,RECORDS OF KING COUNTY; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION, IF ANY, LYING WITHIN SOUTH 277 STREET(52ND STREET NORTHEAST); ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20160411001519, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, BEING KNOWN AS A PORTION OF TRACT 46,WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRACTS NO.2, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF.) Exhibit"A" 00067632-3 2- PARCEL E: THAT PORTION OF THE DONATION LAND CLAIM OF WILLIAM A. COX AND HIS WIFE, ELIZABETH COX, DESIGNATED AS CLAIM NO.38, BEING A PART OF SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID DONATION CLAIM,WHICH POINT IS 938.33 FEET SOUTH 89°10'30"WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID DONATION CLAIM; THENCE SOUTH 89°10'30"WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID DONATION CLAIM 258.64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°49'30"WEST 842.68 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD,AS ESTABLISHED BY DEEDS TO KING COUNTY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 544796 AND 5869551,WHICH POINT IS 1,197.18 FEET SOUTH 88°55'30"WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID DONATION CLAIM; THENCE NORTH 88°56'30"EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD 258.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0°49'30"EAST 841.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION, IF ANY, LYING WITHIN SOUTH 277TH STREET(52ND STREET NORTHEAST); TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED 49TH STREET NORTHEAST(SOUTH 280TH STREET)ADJOINING AS VACATED BY AUBURN ORDINANCE 3594 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8102090641,AS WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20160411001518, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON ALSO KNOWN AS TRACT 44,TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREET ADJOINING,WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRACTS 2ND ADDITION,ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF). PARCEL E-1 THAT PORTION OF THE DONATION LAND CLAIM OF WILLIAM A. COX AND HIS WIFE, ELIZABETH COX, DESIGNATED AS CLAIM NO.38,BEING A PART OF SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM,AT A POINT WHICH IS SOUTH 89°10'30"WEST 1,196.97 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 89°10'30"WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE 258.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1°03'30"WEST 843.64 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD,AS ESTABLISHED BY DEEDS TO KING COUNTY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 544796 AND 5869551,AT A POINT WHICH IS SOUTH 88°56'30"WEST 1,455.53 FEET FROM THE EAST LINE OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM; THENCE NORTH 88°56'30"EAST 258.35 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0°49'30"EAST 842.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE WESTERLY 30 FEET THEREOF FOR COUNTY ROAD;AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION,IF ANY, LYING WITHIN SOUTH 277TH STREET(52ND STREET NORTHEAST);AND Exhibit"A" 00067632-3 3- EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7103110262; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED 49TH STREET NORTHEAST(SOUTH 280TH STREET)ADJOINING AS VACATED BY AUBURN ORDINANCE 3594 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8102090641,AS WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20160411001518, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. ALSO KNOWN AS A PORTION OF TRACT 45,TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREET ADJOINING, WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRACTS 2ND ADDITION,ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF). PARCEL F: THAT PORTION OF THE DONATION LAND CLAIM OF WILLIAM A. COX AND HIS WIFE, ELIZABETH COX, DESIGNATED AS CLAIM NO.38, BEING A PART OF SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ATA POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID DONATION CLAIM,A DISTANCE OF 420.15 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 839.74 FEET TO THE NORTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 280TH STREET,AS ESTABLISHED BY DEEDS TO KING COUNTY, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 544796 AND 5869551; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTH MARGIN 259.26 FEET; THENCE NORTH 840.74 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID DONATION CLAIM A DISTANCE OF 259.24 FEET WEST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET;AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION, IF ANY, LYING WITHIN SOUTH 277TH STREET(52ND STREET NORTHEAST);AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7103110262; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED 49TH STREET NORTHEAST(SOUTH 280TH STREET)ADJOINING AS VACATED BY AUBURN ORDINANCE 3594 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8102090641,AS WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20160411001517, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON ALSO KNOWN AS A PORTION OF TRACT 42,TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS ADJOINING, WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRACTS 2ND ADDITION,ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF). PARCEL F-1 THAT PORTION OF THE DONATION LAND CLAIM OF WILLIAM A.COX AND HIS WIFE, ELIZABETH COX, DESIGNATED AS CLAIM NO. 38,BEING A PART OF SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, Exhibit"A" 00067632.3 4- RANGE 5 EAST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID DONATION CLAIM,AT A POINT 679.39 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 89°10'30"WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 258.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°49'30"WEST 841.71 FEET TO THE NORTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 280TH STREET, AS ESTABLISHED BY DEEDS TO KING COUNTY, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 544796 AND 5869551,SAID POINT BEING SOUTH 88°56'30"WEST 938.52 FEET FROM THE EAST LINE OF SAID DONATION CLAIM; THENCE NORTH 88°56'30"EAST ALONG SAID NORTH MARGIN 258.95 FEET; THENCE NORTH 840.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION, IF ANY, LYING WITHIN SOUTH 277TH STREET(52ND STREET NORTHEAST); TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED 49TH STREET NORTHEAST(SOUTH 280TH STREET)ADJOINING AS VACATED BY AUBURN ORDINANCE 3594 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8102090641,AS WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20160411001517, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. ALSO KNOWN AS TRACT 43,TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREET ADJOINING,WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRACTS 2ND ADDITION,ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF). PARCEL G: THAT PORTION OF THE W.A.COX D.L.C., IN SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5, EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID W.A.COX D.L.C.; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORIH LINE THEREOF 210.15 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 210.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 839.74 FEET, MORE OR LESS,TO THE NORTH LINE OF SOUTH 280TH STREET AT A POINT 420.31 FEET WEST FROM THE EAST LINE OF SAID COX D.L.C.; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 209.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 839.0 FEET,MORE OR LESS,TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 414.56 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION, IF ANY, LYING WITHIN 52ND STREET NORTHEAST; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20160411001516,RECORDS OF KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; ALSO KNOWN AS A PORTION OF TRACT 41,WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRACTS 2ND ADDITION,ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF.) PARCEL H: THAT PORTION OF THE W.A. COX D.L.C. IN SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5, EAST, Exhibit"A" 00067632-3 5- WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID W.A. COX D.L.C.; THENCE WEST AICNG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF 210.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 839 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SOUTH 280TH STREET AT A POINT 210.37 FEET WEST OF THE EAST1 LINE OF SAID Q.L.C.; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 210.37 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID D.L.C.; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE 838,2 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 414.56 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION, IF ANY, LYING WITHIN 52ND STREET NORTHEAST; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20160411001515, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; AISO KNOWN AS A PORTION OF LOTS 40 AND 41,WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRACTS 2ND ADDITION,ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF). PARCEL I: THE SOUTH 414.56 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF W.A. COX DONATION LAND CLAIM IN TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,W.M., IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID W.A,COX DONATION LAND CLAIM; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM 420.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 839.74 FEET, MORE OF LESS,TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD SOUTH 280TH STREET"(49"h ST NE)AT A POINT 420.31 FEET WEST FROM THE EAST LINE OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID COUNTY ROAD 420.31 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM 838.2 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED 49TH STREET N.E. ADJOINING AS VACATED BY CITY OF AUBURN ORDINANCE NUMBER 3614 UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8104220744,AS WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW(BEING THE NORTH HALF OF THE 40 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 544796); ALSO KNOWN AS THE SOUTH 414.56 FEET OF TRACTS 40 AND 41,SECOND ADDITION TO WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRACTS,ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF). Exhibit"A" 00067632-3 6- ExHism....-g- J \----,....., ___.__.__)\...........„-)i i t 1 t S.277th S ree 1 t..... * .........xxxxilmt 0,.Ant 0=,..•= 4"" ' ' r , p,,._,, _"..,..._ NAP I I-I I ISI 1 ri D . Ule 1Pcfol/ I Off/cc I Public Amenity Y Goruxrc/ol I liked U I The neighborhood's Heart,with a 1 1 Gorvxrc/a/ gathering place such as an outdoor E III theatre or park space.Centrally connected to residential areas with Retail Commercial l I r L l l I I _ 11 11 1 1 I Uses and services that cater pedestrian paths to encourage s i I healthy living activities.ILtoregionalshoppers WI I Pub/ a Opcn9Plr0I1Space.such as large retailers, pharmacies,or banks. 7 Amenity i I Go • rc/a i ba , QQ c/..h6o -•__.I Neighborhood Mixed Use Retail NAP I Mixed I- .r 1 11 zed Ux ' I i Commercial uses that serve the local Petal'1 . 7.- doll I neighborhood residents for day-to-day Office Mixed Use Commercial u.r. I items such as restaurants,grocery,Office and retail with mixed J I I I i I and personal services. use housing above ground floor 49th Street — — commercial uses. I I l I . w I i :I C v, v / I 1—virt A1.- I 1 1 Neighborhood Open Space NAP I r T '^ Preserved open space with trails, I5pacc loppr- natural vegetation,and wetlands. t5. til-I y i r 1 I Pedestrian Trail System1C'tldcn//all A `\ To encourage healthy lifesyle choices. Connectivity j CI C Cl CI[Gonnccflvlf S 3 Pcdcfrlan 4:-' 'Circulation Yr j Currently in FEMA floodplain 4 fir 1% \ E[ Vchldc Alt Fufur Open 5 aceCirculation I I K;,-` racrcl- P P k'c /dcnflat- r,: I Group R`.11 Pod I i InlaAuburn Safeway .........,.... I i - I Property Line N NAP:Not a Pan 45th Street ATTACHMENT 3 -CITY OF AUBURN'S ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DRAFT AND FINAL NORTHEAST AUBURN/ROBERTSON PROPERTIES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDA,ETC. 1. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Northeast Auburn Robertson Properties Special Area Plan,City of Auburn,2004 2. Final Environmental Impact Statement Northeast Auburn Robertson Properties Special Area Plan,City of Auburn,2004 3. Addendum Final Environmental Impact Statement Northeast Auburn Robertson Properties Special Area Plan,City of Auburn,2004-clarification of wetland-related text,Page 9 4.Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Statement Northeast Auburn Robertson Properties Special Area Plan,City of Auburn,2011 - evaluates approximately 11 acres added to the project site, identification of project phasing,changes in intersection signalization, changes in surrounding development,changes in regulations. 5.Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Statement Northeast Auburn Robertson Properties Special Area Plan,City of Auburn,2019- As a result of new property ownership by Inland Construction LLC,the addendum evaluates revision of the project to include amendment of the development agreement and zoning code to allow residential development first and separate from commercial development rather than mixed used within the same structure,a change in the boundaries and number of phases,different proportions of land uses and to recognize changes in intersection signalization and changes in surrounding development and critical area mitigation. Attachment 3 ATTACHMENT 4-AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS DOCUMENT Attachment 4 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA, Inc.of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS 1.2 ADMINISTRATION 1.3 ORGANIZATION 1.4 DEFINITIONS 2.0 URBAN DESIGN, SITE PLANNING, BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS AND LAND USES 2.1 URBAN DESIGN AND SITE PLANNING POLICIES AND GOALS 2.2 GENERAL BUILDING, SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AND COMPATIBILITY ISSUES 2.3 LAND USES 2.3.1 OFFICE USE DESIGN STANDARDS 2.3.2 LARGE PAD TENANT RETAIL/COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS(50,001-230,000 SF) 2.3.3 MID-SIZE TENANT RETAIL/COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS(10,001-50,000 SF) 2.3.4 SMALL PAD TENANT,COMMERCIAL/RETAIL/SERVICES AND DRIVE-THROUGH DESIGN STANDARDS 1,000-10,000 SF) 2.3.5 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING DESIGN STANDARDS 3.0 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 3.1 TRANSPORTATION RELATED DESIGN POLICIES AND GOALS 3.1.1 INTERNAL STREET CIRCULATION DESIGN STANDARDS 4.0 PROJECT BOUNDARIES, ENTRY POINTS AND LANDSCAPING 4.1 PROJECT BOUNDARY, ENTRY POINT AND LANDSCAPING DESIGN POLICIES AND GOALS 4.1.1 PROJECT BOUNDARY AREA AND ENTRY POINT DESIGN STANDARDS 4.1.2 GATEWAY DESIGN STANDARDS Page 2 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT. 4.1.3 LANDSCAPE HIERARCHY AND MASTER PALETTE DESIGN STANDARDS 4.1.4 WALLS AND FENCES DESIGN STANDARDS 5.0 PARKING AREA DESIGN 5.1 PARKING AREA DESIGN POLICIES AND GOALS 5.1.1 PARKING AREA DESIGN STANDARDS 5.1.2 PARKING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES 6.0 PEDESTRIAN / NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK FEATURES 6.1 PEDESTRIAN/NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK DESIGN POLICIES AND GOALS 6.1.1 PEDESTRIAN/NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK DESIGN STANDARDS 6.1.2 PEDESTRIAN/NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK DESIGN GUIDELINES 7.0 SITE LIGHTING 7.1 SITE LIGHTING DESIGN POLICIES AND GOALS 7.1.1 SITE LIGHTING DESIGN STANDARDS 8.0 NATURAL AMENITIES AND PUBLIC MULTI-SPACE 8.1 NATURAL AMENITIES AND PUBLIC MULTI-SPACE DESIGN POLICIES AND GOALS 8.1.1 NATURAL AMENITIES AND PUBLIC MULTI-SPACE DESIGN STANDARDS 8.1.2 NATURAL AMENITIES AND PUBLIC MULTI-SPACE DESIGN GUIDELINES 9.0 MASTER SIGN PLAN 9.1 MASTER SIGN PLAN DESIGN POLICIES AND GOALS 9.1.1 MASTER SIGN PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS Page 3 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Urban design can be an important tool in achieving goals for land use and development. The NE Auburn Special Area Plan provides an opportunity to achieve a high degree of design quality. Robertson Properties Group has helped to develop and has committed to adhere to the Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards,which are more stringent than those required by zoning bulk regulations. These Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards will implement the policy directives of the previously adopted NE Auburn Special Area Plan Ordinance No.6183,June 2008). These policies are the basis of the City of Auburn's expectations for the project and are included throughout the Standards at the beginning of each section. 1.1 PURPOSE OF ARCHTECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS The Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards,or the"Design Standards",were originated by Robertson Properties Group (RPG)to apply to their"Auburn Gateway project"and consists of the Auburn Gateway I and Auburn Gateway II project areas that are described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)and EIS addendum. The Auburn Gateway project consists of approximately 70 acres. These Design Standards are meant to supplement and work in conjunction with the Auburn City Code(ACC)and any other regulatory codes and standards that are referenced with the ACC. These Design Standards apply in lieu of the City of Auburn's 'Multi-Family& Mixed-Use Developments Design Standards',adopted July 12,2010,which are not applicable to the Auburn Gateway project. The Design Standards were originated to fulfill three main purposes. First,the purpose of the Design Standards is to establish the design and development requirements that will guide the quality of development of a specific area within the City of Auburn in compliance with the comprehensive plan and specifically the NE Auburn Special Area Plan,a subarea or neighborhood plan of the city's comprehensive plan. Second,the purpose of the Design Standards is to establish the enhanced design and development requirements that will guide the quality of development to demonstrate that the city code criteria is met as required for the approval of development agreements. The city code section that addresses city council approval of a development agreement and to which the project is vested, requires demonstration of the use of enhanced design features to provide building and site design that complements surrounding land uses,the project environment and is reflective of quality site planning, landscaping and building architecture. Third,the Design Standards were developed to demonstrate the quality of site planning, landscaping and building architecture for the purpose of evaluating aesthetic impacts under the Environmental Page 4 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS Policy Act(SEPA, WAC 197-11). The Design Standards were originated by RPG prior to preparation of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements to serve as the baseline for assessing the potential significance or insignificance of visual impacts resulting from the Auburn Gateway Project. The Design Standards were subsequently revised at the time of preparation of the EIS addendum. The Design Standards are primarily intended to address architectural and site design and not conflict with or supersede the dimensional standards typically found in the zoning code or to apply to public or private infrastructure-type improvements,except where design of one element influences the other. Because it is expected that development will generally span 15 years from site planning to construction and occupancy,to agree with the term of the development agreement for the Auburn Gateway Project, the Design Standard's general goals are intended to ensure that development will achieve the following: Establish a coordinated,unified and identifiable visual character around and throughout the development and development phases in both building and overall site design. Allow an innovative and flexible balance between all intended land uses. Convey a sense of permanence,attention to detail,quality and investment. Establish a strong pedestrian oriented core,with efficient vehicular circulation. Address the need for protection and enhancement of critical areas. Guide the bulk and scale of buildings so that buildings of different uses relate to one another and do not appear incongruent. The Auburn Gateway is an entry point to the City of Auburn and as such should both visually announce the transition into the city limits while inviting vehicles and pedestrians originating locally and from the vicinity to enter along clearly marked paths that have a purpose and destination. Ultimately,the City envisions a sustainable mixed-use development that draws visitors to it and also encourages flow through to the center of the City. The Design Standards are intended to capitalize on the existing strengths and future opportunities in order to prescribe and address aesthetic issues and thereby create a vibrant mix of commercial, office and residential. This development will be linked with neighboring sites by a network of pedestrian walkways and plazas supported by adequate vehicular circulation to flow smoothly through and around the site,while giving priority to pedestrian safety within the development core. The Auburn Gateway project is proposed to consist of a mix of retail,office, and multifamily residential uses. Development in this area will include new roads and utilities,surface parking,stormwater detention and water quality facilities. The land uses of the future development are intended to be responsive to the market and the various land uses involved in the Auburn Gateway project may include up to 720,000 square feet of retail development, 1,600,000 square feet of office, 500 multi-family residences,and supporting parking. The primary focus will be the development of traditional mid-size to large pad tenant retail uses that have parking in front of the buildings and where appropriate between the buildings and streets,in Page 5 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS combination with other mutually supporting uses. The Design Standards presents a guide for the following five main land uses that may be used in any combination of phased portions of this project: Office development(medical/dental or other professional offices) Large pad tenant retail/commercial uses(50,001 square feet—230,000 square feet) Mid-size tenant retail/commercial uses(10,001 square feet—50,000 square feet) Small pad tenant,in-line shop tenants and drive-through commercial/retail services( 1,000 square feet— 10,000 square feet) Multi-family residential housing over other first floor uses. 1.2 ADMINISTRATION Design standards are meant to be administratively applied by the Planning Director or designee and interpreted to provide flexibility and creativity. The Design Standards are intended to be administered and implemented in accordance with the City's Design Standards Plan Review process as described in Auburn City Code Section 18.31.200. City code section 18.31.200 will require a text amendment to broaden the scope beyond its current language which refers to a single set of design standards applicable only to Mixed Use and Multi-Family Residential, and to acknowledge an additional unique set of design standards that apply to this specific portion of the city:the Auburn Gateway project area. After amendment,this code section will provide the applicability, exemptions, purpose, review standards,submittal requirements and the process for adjustments of the design approvals. As these Design Standards will apply to a project that is intended to be developed in phases over a generally 15-year period,the Design Standards will likely need to be adapted to changing market conditions and construction techniques and may require additional amendment over this period of time. The Design Standards document may be amended upon approval by the Planning and Development Committee of the Auburn City Council after staff recommendation. The Design Standards are meant to be supplemental to and work with the zoning requirements of Auburn City Code Chapter 18.31, C4 Mixed Use Commercial Zoning District. The authority for these Standards will be applied through a development agreement between RPG and the City of Auburn and will apply to properties with the Auburn Gateway project area. The Design Standards are intended to be adopted by reference within the code section implementing the development agreement. A copy of the Design Standards shall be maintained on file by the city clerk. 1.3 ORGANIZATION This manual is organized into nine chapters that deal with the following elements: Chapter 1. Project introduction;Goals and Administration of the Architectural and Site Design Standards;and Definitions and other overarching functions. Page 6 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS Chapter 2. Urban design,site planning, building characteristics of all anticipated land uses on the project site. Chapter 3.Transportation infrastructure,outlining vehicular and pedestrian mobility requirements. Chapter 4. Project boundaries,entry points and landscaping, how the site is defined and accessed. Chapter 5. Parking area design and landscape needs,separation from pedestrian uses and relation to buildings. Chapter 6. Pedestrian and non-motorized network features;connectivity to surroundings and throughout the site. Chapter 7.Site lighting standards and performance requirements. Chapter 8. Natural amenities and public multi-spaces. Chapter 9. Master Sign Plan Within each of these chapters the manual is organized into the following sections: Policies and Goals—This section contains the policy statements and goals that form the basis of the directives and expectations for the project Design Standards—This section contains the requirements for design of the project that will be implemented. These are generally denoted by the word: "shall". Design Guidelines—This section contains design considerations for the project. These are expressed as considerations where the applicant is requested to give strong consideration to the guideline, and implement the guideline, if feasible and appropriate. These are generally denoted by the word: "should". Within the document photos and drawings are provided for illustrative purposes to convey graphically the intent of the standards and guidelines. 1.4 DEFINITIONS The following terms are used to describe certain elements of site design and building architecture and are generally defined as stated.Terms used in the Design Standards but not defined here shall have the same meaning as that contained in the Auburn Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance. articulation Variation in depth of the building plane, roof,materials and/or height of a structure that breaks up a plain,monotonous area and creates patterns of light. balance An aspect of rhythm achieved by matching different symmetrical and asymmetrical elements which when perceived as a whole display harmony or equilibrium. berm A mound or wall of earth that may be landscaped to create a screen or barrier. bikeway A term that encompasses bicycle lanes, bicycle paths,and bicycle routes. bollard A raised planter;a type of light standard;or,a structure that prohibits vehicle access Page 7 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS to a pathway or other area. buffer/buffering The act of softening or mitigating the effects of one use on another. Usually achieved by a combination of distance,landscaping or physical barriers. character Special physical features of a structure or area that set it apart from its surroundings and contributes to its individuality. column A vertical shaft or pillar that supports,or appears to support,a load. compatible Projects that give the appearance of existing together without conflict with respect to site,architecture and landscaping design. cornice A decorative horizontal member or top course that crowns a wall or architectural composition. courtyard An area wholly or partly surrounded by walls or buildings. design To create,fashion,and arrange elements or details.The creation and execution of aesthetic and functional elements. eaves The lower border of a roof that overhangs the wall. emphasis The use of different elements,features and patterns,including landscaping,to call attention to a feature or place such as a building entrance or focal point. facade The exterior face of a building. fascia A flat board with a vertical face that forms the trim along the edge of a flat roof,or along the eaves of a pitched roof.The rain gutter is often mounted to it. fenestration The arrangement and design of windows and doors in a building. footprint The outline of a building at all of those points where it meets the ground. gable The portion of an end wall or truss of a building enclosed by the sloping ends of a pitched or gable roof. In the case of a pitched roof this takes the form of an isosceles triangle that forms the entire end,or the upper half of the end,of a gable roof. gable roof A double sloping roof that creates a gable at each end. hip roof A roof having four uniformly pitched sides. landscaping The planting of trees,shrubs and groundcovers that have been suitably designed, selected,installed and maintained so as to permanently enhance a site or roadway. louver An opening provided with one or more slanted fixed or movable fins to allow flow of air but to exclude rain or sun. Page 8 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS mansard roof A roof with two slopes on each side,the lower slope being much steeper. marquee A roof-like structure made of solid materials,projecting over an entrance to a building and connected to the wall with no columnar support.The front of the marquee is often hung from chains or rods extending out from the face of the building. masonry Wall construction materials such as stone, brick,adobe and concrete. mass/massing The physical bulk or volume of a building. In architectural terms,a single-mass building is a single geometric form such as a rectangle or square,and may include a simple roof form with no variation in the roof line."Massing"refers to variation in the mass and may involve multiple masses joined together. mixed-use A single unified development that incorporates the planned integration of two or development more different land uses consisting of some combination of office,light industrial, hotel,retail,entertainment,public uses,and residential uses. Mixed-use development may be vertically oriented in one or more buildings,or geographically distributed on a development site.When geographically distributed,the different uses may be constructed concurrently or in separate phases,and should incorporate common and/or complimentary features and/or elements such as pedestrian walkways,access driveways,parking areas,architectural themes,or other techniques that provide integration between uses on the site. modulation- A measured and proportioned inflection or setback in a building's footprint. building modulation-façade Architectural techniques and elements used that can add interest to a blank wall. It includes such things as using different types of windows and incorporating decorative features like tile or trim work. multi-family Multi-family residential housing over other first floor uses. palette In building architecture,the set of colors to be used on a particular building or group of buildings. In landscape architecture,the set of planting materials to be used in the landscape design. parapet The part of a wall that rises above the edge of the roof. pattern The arrangement of building materials or features into a pattern designed to add texture,scale,balance and/or character to a building. pedestrian scale The relating of the structures and features in the built environment to the size of a person. pitch The angle of a roof pitch,usually expressed as a ratio of units of vertical distance to 12 units of horizontal distance. For example,8/12 means eight units of vertical rise Page 9 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS to every 12 units of horizontal run. proportion The relationship between elements taken as a whole or in comparison to each other. Often expressed as a ratio. public multi-space A publicly accessible gathering place,plaza,or pedestrian-oriented space associated with commercial development or high density,urban,multi-family development. roof-mounted Heating and air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment mounted on the equipment roof of a building. scale The measurement of the relationship between objects. Usually expressed in terms of a building or element possessing human or pedestrian proportions.Also refers to the relationship between different architectural elements of a building and their relationship to the building itself. sculpture A three-dimensional artwork created by shaping hard or plastic material,commonly stone(either rock or marble),metal,or wood. setbacks The depth of a yard area bounded on opposite sides by lot lines along the span of a parcel within which no building or structures may be permitted except as required for public utilities, unless specifically permitted by the Zoning Code. shall/should Where a standard is prefaced by the word"shall,"compliance with that standard is mandatory.Where the word"should"is used,the applicant is requested to give strong consideration to that guideline. streetscape The appearance achieved along a street(public or private)from implementation of a comprehensive,unified landscape plan requiring similar landscape components and elements between adjacent parcels. texture The surface characteristics of the exterior facade of a building created through the use of similar or differing materials and patterns usually expressed in terms of softness,smoothness or roughness. trellis A frame or latticework used as a screen or as a support for climbing plants to create a screen. urban design The practice of giving form,beauty and function to an area or portion of the city through the establishment of guidelines that express a concern for the location, mass,design,and appearance of various urban components. view corridor The line of sight with respect to height,width,and distance of an observer. Page 10 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS 2.0 URBAN DESIGN, SITE PLANNING, BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS AND LAND USES The purpose of this section is to encourage site planning and building massing that is conducive to a retail/commercial focus and visual character, while designing comfortable human-scale environments for the full complement of land uses on the site. 2.1 URBAN DESIGN AND SITE PLANNING POLICIES AND GOALS The aim of the following urban design and site planning goals is to allow flexibility of any combination of land uses that supports a vital shopping and pedestrian environment. Design standards for each land use are intended to relate to one another, providing a cohesive unified appearance to the development. General goals, common to the entire mixed-use project, are to: A. Site planning and building massing should be conducive to a retail/commercial focus and visual character,and comfortable human-scale environments should be incorporated within all land uses in the planning area.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.1.,Urban Design Site Planning,Building Characteristics and Land Uses) B. A visually friendly frontage with"street appeal"for passersby on major streets(South 277th Street, D Street NE, I Street NE,49th Street NE,and Auburn Way North)should be developed.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.1.,Urban Design Site Planning,Building Characteristics and Land Uses) C. Building and/or landscape forms should be articulated as focal points,and major site entrance points should be framed.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.1.,Urban Design Site Planning, Building Characteristics and Land Uses) D. The building characteristics and landscape design should include themes that unify the site character across multiple phases of development.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.1., Urban Design Site Planning,Building Characteristics and Land Uses) E. Landscape plantings should be used to reduce the visual impact of open parking areas and loading, service,and storage functions.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.1., Urban Design Site Planning, Building Characteristics and Land Uses) F. Multifamily development should be of high-quality design,create a sense of community and synergy between land uses,and include active-and passive-use open space appropriate for use by all age groups.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.1.,Urban Design Site Planning, Building Characteristics and Land Uses) G. Create a site plan that defines the Auburn Gateway project as a clearly recognizable and distinct urban landmark. H. Assemble buildings and land uses in a harmonious association of mutually compatible uses,to encourage a sustainable relationship between land uses and circulation to reduce automobile dependency and promote pedestrian mobility. Page 11 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS I. Define a clearly recognizable on-site pedestrian and vehicular circulations system. J. Facilitate connections to regional mass transportation and recreational bicycle routes. K. Develop a family of architectural styles,massing,colors and textures reflective of local contemporary design to tie the buildings and site together. As development occurs over time, each subsequent phase shall be reviewed for consistency with design compatibility to existing development. L. Provide for continuity of landscape themes,and use landscape plantings to unify the site character and reduce the visual impact of open parking areas. M. Provide a gradual visual and environmentally appropriate transition from developed areas to natural areas. Pedestrian plazas, pathways and landscaping elements along with scale of features can aid in transition from more intense public uses to less intensive uses. N. Avoid pedestrian and vehicle conflicts by emphasizing pedestrian orientation and safety. 2.2 GENERAL BUILDING,SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AND COMPATIBILITY ISSUES New commercial buildings shall provide architectural relief and interest, with emphasis at the building entrances and along walkways,to promote and enhance a comfortable pedestrian scale and orientation. Attention to detail can significantly increase the compatibility of commercial development with adjacent uses. To accomplish building relief and interest the project design shall: A. Provide a vehicular and pedestrian framework about which buildings and land uses are arranged to create overall site character and sense of place. B. Provide entrances to buildings that face the site interior and parking areas. Provide pedestrian walkways differentiated by texture and/or color so that there is a clear separation of pedestrian from vehicular traffic. r ilt E 1 t lit ' ', g.1 i/ iti'::.:1-_-,_ r S 1 jilt i r.-... .-.40..,„1.7-.-- la,7170,,ma% e 4 w'rw1M. . w 'arrW a1. r I - , i4 II!' 1 '' ', ' ,i s 4 7X mM..,,, FIG.2.2 Page 12 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS Incorporating ground floor windows for transparency along pedestrian walkway to a main entry. Upper floor windows continue similar character. C. Fronts of buildings shall face main walkways and be embellished with coordinated street furniture. D. Create main pedestrian connection corridors between businesses, parking areas and other land uses. E. Incorporate ground floor windows,transparency or other architectural elements along frontages adjacent to walkways. The main front elevations of buildings shall provide a minimum of 20%of the length of the frontage in transparency at the pedestrian level. Functional characteristics of the intended use shall be taken into consideration when evaluating proposed elevations for transparency. When transparency is not feasible,appropriate substitutions such as additional articulation or use of opaque window-like features that promote pedestrian interest,shall be used. F. Design any upper floor windows to continue the vertical and horizontal character of the ground level windows as proposed uses allow. G. Walls shall include a combination of architectural elements and features such as offsets, pilasters, windows,entry treatments,awnings,colonnades,trellises or other similar elements,and a variation in materials and colors. Blank walls shall be minimized. Pedestrian amenities and landscaping may also be used to help break up the appearance of blank walls. H. Walls that are typically the back or service side of a commercial or office building shall be treated with emphasis on screening unsightly back of the building functions that are within the public view. Any undesirable impacts produced on the site,such as noise,glare,odors,dust or vibrations shall be adequately screened from public view and adjacent properties. I. Unsightly exterior improvements and items such as trash receptacles and mechanical devices shall be screened either by walls,fencing or landscaping. Roof top equipment shall be treated so if visible shall appear as if part of the building. Landscaping may be used as a ground-level screening element if dense enough to properly screen the activity from public viewing areas. J. On-site loading facilities shall provide sufficient square footage and number to adequately handle the delivery or shipping of goods or people. K. Group loading/delivery and service related functions close to those of adjacent buildings where possible to reduce areas dedicated to service and maximize parking capability and landscape areas. L. The project shall provide a variety of urban-style, publicly-accessible open spaces or"public multi-spaces" associated with the commercial development. Such spaces shall range in size and purpose and be designed,constructed and maintained for the enjoyment primarily by users of the retail,service and professional offices uses. The open spaces shall be an integral part of the overall development design, not merely leftover space and clearly defined and distinguished from parking areas and walkways. The open spaces shall include pedestrian-oriented amenities such as trees,shrubs, pathways,sculpture, benches, bike racks,and water elements. M. The urban-style, publicly-accessible open spaces or"public multi-spaces"associated with the commercial development shall be appropriately located within the project site,along major pedestrian corridors linking to walkways and sidewalks. Where possible,such features shall be located adjacent to wetland buffers,stormwater management or natural areas to take advantage of visual accessibility when such proximity does not compromise the function of the wetland buffers,stormwater management or natural areas. N. Develop and implement a coordinated hierarchy of landscape themes and design to tie the buildings and site areas and phases together. In addition to landscape palette,elements to be coordinated will include site furniture, pedestrian and bicycle pathway design,alternative pavement treatments, lighting,critical area fencing,etc. As development occurs over time,each subsequent phase shall be reviewed for consistency with landscape design compatibility to existing Page 13 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS development. 0. Landscaping shall include retention of existing vegetation where appropriate,and in new plantings include the use of drought tolerant plant materials native to the pacific northwest or well-adapted to the climate and avoid the use of invasive or nuisance plants. P. Landscaping shall be coordinated with all site utility elements such as power lines, underground lines,transformers, meter boxes,and fire protection devices to effectively diminish the visual impact of such utility elements while ensuring sight distance for pedestrian and vehicular safety and the long-term viability of the landscaping. 2.3 LAND USES This section defines the categories of land uses and presents design standards for these categories of land uses that may be used in any combination of phased portions of this project. A. Office development(medical/dental or other professional offices) B. Large pad tenant retail/commercial uses(50,001-250,000 square feet gross floor area) C. Mid-size tenant retail/commercial uses(10,001-50,000 square feet gross floor area) D. Small pad tenant, in-line shop tenants and drive through commercial/retail services(1,000-10,000 square feet gross floor area) E. Multi-family residential housing as allowed within the upper story of multi-story buildings,except for necessary support functions which can be located on the ground floor. 2.3.1 OFFICE USE DESIGN STANDARDS Offices are needed for the provision of professional services and businesses to the community. Buildings shall adhere to the following: A. Office buildings may be single use structures,or have a combination of office and retail functions on the ground floor,with offices on upper floors. B. Orient front doors toward the site interior, pedestrian zones and parking. C. Articulate entries through the use of architectural features such as overhangs. D. Upper floor windows shall continue similar horizontal and vertical character of the ground floors. E. The rear and sides of office buildings shall have articulation,architectural features and fenestration to provide aesthetics and visual interest. F. Accentuate building presence by highlighting with formal landscape themes around the base of the building perimeter. G. Provide roofs,canopies or other forms of weather protection at main building entries. 2.3.2 LARGE PAD TENANT RETAIL/COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 50,001-230,000 SQUARE FEET GROSS FLOOR AREA) Large retail tenants are destinations that are regionally focused due to the diversity of goods and Page 14 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS material contained in one location. As such they are necessarily automobile oriented. However,to reduce automobile reliance within the site by customers,site layout and building design shall focus on minimizing walking distance and providing for pedestrian needs and comfort over vehicles. IIIMIallik 4' ti s l FIG.2.3.2 A Highlight main pedestrian entrances and destinations to be clearly visible from other site locations. A. Orient buildings so entry doors are closest to the incoming internal street. Main entrances shall be clearly identifiable from a distance to facilitate navigation. B. Individual buildings shall have horizontal and vertical modulations both in relief and material changes for visual interest and aesthetic diversity.(Refer to Table 2.3.2).Wall and parapet modulation,design features and architectural detailing can be combined to break up long walls and reduce the appearance of large building massing. Horizontal setbacks and vertical step-backs provide for landscaping, light and pedestrian resting/gathering areas along pedestrian corridors. C. Walls over 60 feet in length shall provide breaks in the wall plane either by modulating the building footprint or providing feature elements in order to provide visual relief from the horizontal length. Design elements and features shall be proportionate to the scale and size of the building. TABLE 2.3.2 WALL ARTICULATION FOR LARGE PAD TENANT RETAIL,50,001—230,000 SQUARE FEET Building Feature Distances Material Appearance/Finish Principal Facade 60 foot maximum length shall be Shall have variety of visually and tactilely allowed without articulation. different materials up to 20 feet height. Change materials from one building to Provide 3-dimensional elements for another within a range of compatible at least 50%of the overall facade. materials for consistency. Shall have Colonnades shall cover at least 6 feet homogenous finish,with scoring patterns of the walkway at storefront window and/or material changes.Weather space for shelter,shade and lighting. protection for pedestrians that is integral Include pedestrian amenities along to the building design shall be provided front facade and connecting along the facades that are convenience Page 15 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS pedestrian pathways. routes,where appropriate. Building Entrances Highlight entrances with vertical Entrances shall have architectural change of at least 4 feet higher than elements significantly different than the average wall height.Building may be rest of the wall space,and may use a articulated forward or back to large roof covering for entrances,which accentuate entrance,but maintain shall provide adequate weather required width of walkways. Use protection. Columns,canopies,or other second story-like or clear story architectural features may be used on features at building entrances or either side of the entry canopy to street intersections to provide a announce"the presence of a store transition between single story and entry. Higher quality material,such as multi-storied buildings. tile,brick,or heavy timber,etc.,shall be used at these architectural features. Secondary Facades(walls facing Horizontal articulation shall be same Continue articulation with window Primary Public Streets) as for Principal Façades,allowing for elements,trellis,awnings,or other wall landscaping and pedestrian access. material finishes to provide building interest,for at least 30%of the length of the facade. Side Entrances facing Primary Public Shall be a scaled down version of Shall be a scaled down version of main Streets main front door entry treatment. front door entry treatment. Rear building walls facing Primary As much as possible,modulate and Continue any multi-color or multi-finish Public Streets articulate building walls and parapet scheme around building to include the line to break up large planes of walls. rear. Screen from public viewing areas with landscaping. Utilize scoring patterns and/or material changes rather than building exterior color changes alone. Mechanical,trash,storage and If on grade,screening walls shall be Material shall be compatible with chosen loading facilities shall be screened constructed of the same materials as building finishes. Chain link fencing shall when facing a Public Street the building and attached to the not be used. Brick,CMU,wood fencing, building,a minimum 8 feet high.ornamental steel may be used as screening. Landscape planting shall beFormechanicalunitsonbuilding used as additional screening.roofs,locate at perimeter if obscured by parapet walls or locate away from edges of wall out of sight lines from parking areas,and public roads. Screening walls shall be provided if units are visible from street rights-of-way or parking areas. Page 16 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS landsxaping.sstern wall ar fro,mg andscuprd berm uus! 4rwax.-rafurrs and stagger buifrbhys in 44 414,47111W tyres i r""--"—shield terrine 41MP+frern prinking I Titus Ifhsribfing. i'w"'"'". d- rear Abu Jrrsnr roads A C. 14""" All Fr j" ijfi ii>itual 3 1 ening realblenrrng1 Urban muar.fufeuraik FIG.2.3.2 B Landscaping shall screen service areas from public view. 2.3.3 MID-SIZE TENANT RETAIL/COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 10,001-50,000 SQUARE FEET GROSS FLOOR AREA) Mid-size commercial and retail buildings serve different needs of customers than large scale tenants. Mid-size retail centers can include bookstores,grocery stores, clothing, gardening supplies and hardware. The Design Standards for these stores are similar to those for large size retail/commercial tenants. Mid-size retail may function as standalone buildings or be attached to a larger retail/commercial building. TABLE 2.3.3 WALL ARTICULATION FOR MID-SIZE, TENANT RETAIL AND DRIVE THROUGH, 10,001—50,000 SQUARE FEET Building Feature Distances Material Appearance/Finish Principal Facade 30 foot maximum length shall be Shall have variety of visually and tactilely allowed without articulation. different materials up to 16 feet height. Provide 3-dimensional elements for Change materials from one building to another within a range of compatible at least 50%of the overall facade. materials for consistency. Shall have Colonnades shall cover at least 6 feet homogenous finish,with scoring patterns of the walkway at storefront window and/or material changes.Weather space for shelter,shade and lighting. protection for pedestrians that is integral to the building design shall be provided along the façades that are convenience routes,where appropriate. Building Entrances Highlight entrances with vertical Entrances shall have architectural change of at least 2 feet higher than elements significantly different than the Page 17 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS average wall height. rest of the wall space,and may use a Building may be articulated forward large roof covering for entrances. or back to accentuate entrance. Columns,canopies,or other architectural features may be used on either side of the entry canopy to"announce"the presence of a store entry. Higher quality material,such as tile,brick,or heavy timber,etc.,shall be used at these architectural features. Consider second story-like features at building entrances or street intersections to provide a transition between single story and multi-storied buildings. Secondary Facades(walls facing Horizontal articulation shall be same Continue articulation with window Primary Public Streets) as for Principal Facades,allowing for elements,trellis,awnings,or other wall landscaping and pedestrian access. material finishes to provide building Continue articulation for at least 30% interest,for at least 30%of the length of of the length of the facade. the facade. Side Entrances facing Primary Public Shall be a scaled down version of Shall be a scaled down version of main Streets main front door entry treatment. front door entry treatment. Rear building walls facing Primary As much as possible,modulate and Continue any multi-color or multi-finish Public Streets articulate building walls and parapet scheme around building to include the line to break up large planes of walls. rear. Screen from public viewing areas with landscaping.Utilize scoring patterns and/or material changes rather than applied building exterior color changes alone. Mechanical,trash,storage and If on grade,screening walls shall be a Material shall be compatible with chosen loading facilities. minimum 8 feet high. building finishes. Chain link fencing shall For mechanical units on building not be used. Brick,CMU,wood fencing, roofs,locate at perimeter if obscured ornamental steel may be used as by parapet walls or locate away from screening. Landscape planting shall be edges of wall out of sight lines from used to screen these areas. parking areas,and public roads. Screening walls shall be provided if units are visible from street rights-of-way or parking areas. Page 18 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS 111 I` 0 0. 0,, tf:,,,, i ,„.„,„.. -,,,,,,, ,1 1,4'. „.0 r1 w, , t , ,. hiw ,,„, -,.,... A 4,' d et, yam It- FIG.2.3.3 A Pedestrian Pocket EfA` mn a r'-,K' 3 ,44`'•*,y or:; Yqv mak xw4,"'S'N I Ir tis • t- si ,a FIG.2.3.3 B Retail development illustrating wall articulation,entry treatment,and wall height variation. 2.3.4 SMALL PAD TENANT,COMMERCIAL/RETAIL/SERVICES AND DRIVE-THROUGH DESIGN STANDARDS 1,000—10,000 SQUARE FEET GROSS FLOOR AREA) Small pad tenants include restaurants, banks or specialized offices and commercial retail functions, such as dentists,vision stores, drugstores, bakeries, restaurants, specialty clothing shops, and neighborhood services. Small pad retail/commercial functions also include drive-through services such as banks with outdoor automatic teller machines, pharmacies, drive-through beverage and fast food services. A. As much as possible,all drive-through and small pad tenants shall be connected to each other in the pedestrian network and front onto main walkways. Page 19 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS B. Drive-through lanes shall work with pedestrian and automobile flow so as not to generate conflicts,and be clearly visible at select locations to prevent criminal activity from happening in the drive through lane areas. C. Where two drive-through facilities are within 100 feet of each other and both of a restaurant type use,coordinate an outdoor seating plaza between them in order to form a terminus to pedestrian walkways. (See figure 2.3.4) D. Where drive-through lanes are visible from public streets or private main roads,a low wall 3 feet high with adjacent landscaping shall be provided to break up the impact of vehicular stacking at the drive through window. I I le I I I l•.111d 4 t _ ill i l t ! cs±tla AID II SiPo& '- - -1*atrernar!mown&E T r I.enrrriar trees i/, iii r' _..»Vertn rtn I wG:..ilifY1 1L. !1iaa i _ 1 iG. /M2:, ,11?t#Il t v41. 1. i3 i /arrnr-xliro+tgh f rte, m q lkuN-torn,/a entail i mod with winvinn mot nip p Parknrg It a re ParkingW's r Gs. ih s —NM i filum •1 8 F l T` un fella% ( \ C Ffr t si n,-‘e a*7 Nn/1rt plaiuirr„ Low dnronat ae renin wale jr iTINTY-cr -- FIG.2.3.4 Plazas such as this one can unify the pedestrian and landscape themes between two small pad businesses and act as a terminus for a major pedestrian connector to larger retail tenants. Connection to the urban trail system can make this place a stopping point for recreational users. 2.3.5 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING DESIGN STANDARDS The design standards applicable to multi-family housing are intended to set threshold standards for quality designs in new multi-family development. Good design results from buildings that are visually compatible with one another and adjacent neighborhoods and contribute to a residential district that is attractive, active and safe. Multi-family housing within the Auburn Gateway is limited to residential that is located on floors above other uses in a mixed-use setting and provides a vital component of pedestrian and customer activity as an important economic part of the development. Page 20 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS General design standards for multi-family housing are as follows: A. Entrances to housing units shall be separated from first floor uses and clearly identifiable as private entities, unless there are demonstrated benefits from shared entrances. B. Articulate buildings and textures to be reflective of a Northwest style of architecture reminiscent of local contemporary projects that help mitigate the impact of large developments. C. Common walkways shall connect to parking areas,and nearby internal public multi-spaces. D. For Multi-family developments,an area shall be permanently established as common outdoor open space which could be at grade level or be a rooftop element. It should be of adequate size and shape as is driven by the market,in order to ensure the Multi-family development be marketable and attractive to potential occupants.Outdoor space should be located to be functional for passive uses. It is not the intent to provide formal playfields or play structures within the Auburn Gateway development. e 004, 00 ti e 1, s FIG.2.3.5 Edging gardens,fence,landscape features. Page 21 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS 3.0 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE The purpose of the transportation infrastructure section is to ensure an efficient and logical layout of roads and pedestrian linkages that makes egress and ingress easy for customers and visitors to the site. The transportation network proposed defines the skeleton of circulation around which the site development is arranged, and the project boundaries are defined. 3.1 TRANSPORATION RELATED DESIGN POLICIES AND GOALS A. Develop a clear hierarchy of road systems that progresses from major public thoroughfares to intimate pedestrian-scale roads to internal roads serving parking areas and site uses.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.2.,Transportation Infrastructure) B. Provide for bus zones and pedestrian and bicycle travel in a safe manner.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.2., Transportation Infrastructure) C. Satisfy access requirements for solid waste handling, utility, police,fire, and emergency personnel. Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.2., Transportation Infrastructure) D. Provide a logical sequence of entry and egress to the site,with traffic calming measures to reduce potential accident hazards. E. This development will be linked with neighboring sites by a network of pedestrian walkways and plazas supported by adequate vehicular circulation to flow smoothly through and around the site, while giving priority to pedestrian safety. 3.1.1 INTERNAL STREET CIRCULATION DESIGN STANDARDS Internal streets are the finer grain of vehicular traffic that brings visitors and customers to their destinations and provides egress from the site. This is the interface between pedestrian and vehicular traffic that is found between parking areas and the site buildings. Internal streets shall provide: A. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic separated by landscaped strips with shrubs,ground covers and trees. B. Pedestrian areas shall be distinguished by a change in pavement to scored concrete,concrete unit pavers,or some other surface treatment at major intersections of internal streets(at entry to large retail tenants,for example). C. Driveways shall be aligned where possible. Page 22 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS 4.0 PROJECT BOUNDARIES, ENTRY POINTS AND LANDSCAPING The purpose of this section is to establish a clear sense of place that defines the site's distinct character for instant recognition for visitors and customers. Boundary definition and entry points are to establish clear edges and set up a hierarchy of spaces that delineate areas of ownership and progression from public areas to private ones. 4.1 PROJECT BOUNDARY, ENTRY POINT AND LANDSCAPING DESIGN POLICIES AND GOALS A. Establish a clear"sense of place"that defines the distinct character of the Auburn Gateway project area through a unified approach to boundary and entry design.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.3.,Project Area Boundary and Entry Points) B. Clearly signify major entrance points to the Auburn Gateway project area and to subareas within the project area by means of features such as prominent architectural or artistic landmarks.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.3.,Project Area Boundary and Entry Points) C. Define differences in land uses within the Auburn Gateway project area.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.3.,Project Area Boundary and Entry Points) D. Develop hierarchies of spaces from public to private spaces to delineate areas of ownership and responsibility.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.3.,Project Area Boundary and Entry Points) E. Protect property values and unify the Auburn Gateway project area by means of a consistent building character and landscape theme.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.3., Project Area Boundary and Entry Points) F. Screen unsightly views from public areas by a combination of walls, landscape planting,screening and/or use of building massing.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.3., Project Area Boundary and Entry Points) G. Identify an interconnected system of bicycle and pedestrian pathways around the perimeter of the Auburn Gateway project area,linking to natural areas and the regional trail system.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.3.,Project Area Boundary and Entry Points) 4.1.1 PROJECT BOUNDARY AREA AND ENTRY POINT DESIGN STANDARDS A. Identify strategic site entrances with architecturally and artistically attractive place markers visible from roads to orient customers and visitors. B. Separate land uses by means of landscape buffers both for screening and for boundary definition. Native plant species for wildlife value in buffers is encouraged. Page 23 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS 1.1.'".. sEFt- a i ,. - r^^`71 7 f 3 y 401 v WY C a# AO4.4 1 Rale sr z. M e c: F 7. FIG.4.1.1A This multi family development entry clearly defines the site boundary by landscaping and walls. C. Develop combined bicycle and pedestrian pathways along the development edges,combining use of berms,street trees, landscaping,grass areas,and paved paths for use by bicyclists and pedestrians within the public right of way or by easement on private property. rl K a`i 1 w• t! pd .' Pt 4. '" F;;. 7.1.-94‘‘:; to as,,fx i' a. H, :; ir:?:17 ''' ' ;, It! 46 ''.: 2- i L. j ' A m FIG.4.1.1 B Urban trail.Note the separation between automobile traffic,pathway and building. D. Frame views to destination points by hedging,shade and street trees,and identify strategic entry points with decorative colorful landscaping, art,water features,and signage. E. Screen service functions of buildings with evergreen tree screens,foundation plantings,screen walls or fences to define boundaries between public and private spaces. F. Create resting areas(benches,special pavement treatments)and shade trees, landscaping for pedestrians along walkways,and at exterior corners of buildings. Page 24 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS 4.1.2 GATEWAY DESIGN STANDARDS To distinguish primary entrances to the project and by extension,entrances to the City,special design features and architectural elements at these entrances or gateways shall be provided. While gateways should be distinctive within the context of the project,they should also be compatible with the project in form. A. To implement the policies and goals,the project shall implement the following elements: 1. Buildings or features located at entrances or gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features that give height and connectivity transitioning from single story to multi story buildings that could be developed within the project. 2. Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and designed for both pedestrians and vehicles. 3. Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two(2)or more of the following: a. Special landscape treatment b. Open space/plaza c. Landmark-type building forms,such as feature elements projecting above parapets or roofs; d. Special paving, unique pedestrian(scale lighting,or bollards; e. Prominent architectural features trellis,arbor, pergola,or gazebo); f. Neighborhood or district entry identification feature. B. Development that occurs at gateways shall be distinguished with features that visually indicate to both pedestrians and vehicular traffic the uniqueness and prominence of their locations in the City. Examples of these types of features include monuments, public art,and public plazas. ot,2 nl, it , s,i , i., , o'f 1 Il dt, Z '';;;#';',-. iifY 9 q a iryft gj - t 0.-- 3 s ,; 7, fi, a $. om j f ,-''44.'"*, 1: ' - „ :—...'''' ",, e::'",..'''-. FIG.4.1.2 Visually prominent features to give height and connectivity transitioning from •single story to multi story buildings. Page 25 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCR of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS 4.1.3 LANDSCAPE HIERARCHY AND MASTER PALETTE DESIGN STANDARDS Identify major and minor entrances into the project with architecturally and artistically attractive place markers or gateway-type features visible from roads to orient customers and visitors. To implement the policies and goals,the project shall include the following elements: A. Major gateways shall clearly highlight the identity of the development site,and shall include a combination of at least(2)of the following features: 1. Decorative stone wall/rock work,sufficient in size to be visible from adjacent roads. 2. Flag poles,flags. 3. Ornamental site lighting, landscape lighting. 4. Decorative signage identifying site. 5. Intensive decorative and specialty landscaping. 6. Architectural elements,such as gazebos,fencing,trellises, roofs(if the walkway is incorporated into the gateway feature,for example). 7. Water features such as fountains,waterfalls, reflection pools. 8. Pedestrian amenities,such as benches, decorative pavement for walkways,street crossings. e ,irr.-- li 9444 '')e.,',.'441, 4. ' , t-i' I IL tzto 7-44::'-:I '; 1',,'',2' - v SilO a' ,' 4 l Vi fl O4a/, i (',ryav ', y 2 r FIG.4.1.3 A Formal planting is found around parking and near buildings denoting high visibility and use areas. Planting beds in traffic islands protect pedestrians from vehicular traffic,soften the visual impact of asphalt areas and help define parking zones. Page 26 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS B. Semi-formal landscaping(a mix of formal and native plant species, medium maintenance level and profile)shall define transition areas from interior areas of the Auburn Gateway site to the perimeters, along major roadways exclusive of corners and entrance points.Semi-formal landscaping shall include the following elements: 1. A mix of deciduous native and evergreen trees with looser arrangement of shrubs and ground covers breaks up the regimentation of interior landscape themes. 2. Semiformal landscape areas generally are arranged in mass plantings and more often use regular spacing. rte f,---4,---,..,,----. 4: 7;"'• -,- vr,•' ' 7-•1/4 ,4(-4---,,,,,,,,;:_.!'''..k 1%. •?.-: :',4,A4.4,......,„stf,:it'',-:44:7.f‘, 7::!k' ' ';'''. *ciff40- ..---- 40k,,,,:`,.,ivi-:„.4.'-, -, ' •.:Ft', t,'.,,.; ',.,-- ''."4,4,, if t 3 E rd, FIG.4.1.3 8 Note the transition from formal to semiformal landscaping from right to left,as site use decreases. C. Informal landscaping(natural buffers,wetland mitigation, low/no maintenance, high wildlife value) is for areas within the site not expected to be developed or disturbed,or for areas developed for stormwater detention and biofiltration facilities. Informal landscaping shall include the following elements: 1. Planting uses exclusively native plant species to add wildlife and water purification value, and to naturalize designated undisturbed areas 2. Includes native meadow grass mixes requiring low maintenance 3. Serves as visual backdrop to contrast to highly structured landscaping around site buildings. 4. Incorporates passive public use opportunities like walking trails for nature appreciation and wildlife habitat. 5. Provide transition between informal and semi-formal landscape areas. Page 27 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS TABLE 4.1.3 SUGGESTED PLANT SIZES, USE AND SPECIES Plant type Size at time of planting Spacing Uses,comments consider species mature size) Deciduous trees, 2"min.caliper,balled Maximum tree spacing Use as shade,canopy trees to shade/canopy and burlapped, No bare max.not more than 30 break up parking lot, unify root trees allowed. feet on center streets. Species may include: Minimum branching Oak,Sunburst Honey locust, Red height:6 feet from Maple,American or Oregon Ash, ground to lowest Sweet gum, Linden,Raywood branch. If branching Ash,Tulip Tree,and Hornbeam. height cannot be achieved at caliper size, larger caliper may be required. Well-branched and uniformly shaped. Deciduous trees, 2"min.caliper,balled Maximum tree spacing Use as screening,to break up Columnar/upright and burlapped.No bare max. not more than 30 walls or to provide a transition. root trees allowed. feet on center Species may include:Oak,Maple, Minimum branching Beech,and Hornbeam. height:6 feet from ground to lowest branch. If branching height cannot be achieved at caliper size, larger caliper may be required. Well-branched and uniformly shaped. Deciduous trees, 1-1/2"caliper,balled As clumps,specimens Use as colorful accents and small/decorative and burlapped. No such as(Vine Maple,naturalization. Species may bare root trees allowed. Shadblow, Hawthorn) include:Vine Maple,Japanese Well-branched and Maple,Shadblow, Flowering uniformly shaped.Cherries, Magnolias, Dogwood, Flowering Plum,Redbud,etc. Coniferous trees 6'minimum height,full 12 feet on center or as Year-round color,greenery, specimens,balled and clumps texture interest,screening, burlapped. No bare naturalization or specimens. root trees allowed. Species may include: Dawn and Well-branched and California Redwood,Shore Pine, uniformly shaped.Ponderosa Pine,Giant Sequoia, Douglas Fir and Hemlock. Large Shrubs 5 gallon pots,tubs or 4-5 feet on center Where more immediate balled and burlapped, maximum. screening is appropriate. Mass min.25"height. Evergreen shrubs used plantings and clumps, buffer plantings,formal to informal Evergreen screening for screening:2 feet on planting areas. Includes native Page 28 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS shrubs:5 feet height center and non-native species, evergreen and deciduous. Small Shrubs 3 gallon to 5 gallon pots, 2-3 feet on center Low planting where visibility is 18"height,min. maximum required,such as in around pedestrian areas and parking lots. Mix of native and non-native species evergreen and deciduous. Ground Covers 1 gallon pots 18"on center maximum. Where grass is not desired and low watering/maintenance is important. Species may include Kinnickinnick, Rock Raspberry, Salal,and Periwinkle. Use non-invasive plants. Annual/Perennials Bulbs,4"pots By species Limited to accent planting for entry ways to site,signage foundation planting,potted planting for color. 4.1.4 WALLS AND FENCES DESIGN STANDARDS Where landscaping alone is insufficient for screening,walls and fences shall be provided to make firm boundary changes and provide screening of views not compatible with the pedestrian or public street experience. To implement the policies and goals,walls and fences shall include the following elements: A. Design walls to be complementary tothe design of buildings through the use of materials, colors and architectural detailing. Avoid monolithic appearances. B. Screening walls for loading areas along a street shall be articulated so that screening vegetation and shade trees can be planted in front of them to break up the scale of the wall. Fn ft gv 4'''''.0(.:r z Vim, a. g A , gym 3 H 6?a "' Lbw t# t t & . a'.7 - N L FIG.4.1.4 A AND B Two examples of fencing, walls and landscaping used to separate public from semi public spaces. Page 29 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards ber 2011PreparedbyBCRAofTacoma,WA;Octo AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS C. Drive-through establishments(banks and fast food/coffee outlets)shall have a low(42 inch high max.)opaque screening wall and/or with low level obscuring landscape planting in front towards the public domain to reduce the visual impact of vehicles queuing up for services or food. Walls shall not intrude into vision clearance requirements for vehicular traffic. D. Plazas and seating areas that are part of food establishments and shared common areas shall be distinguished by low fences(42 inch high maximum)and made of visually porous materials steel,stone,wood)so as to be see-through. E. Trellises and arbors are encouraged along pedestrian walkways to accentuate changes in boundaries and add visual/artistic interest to the shopping experience. F. Fenced common areas for multifamily residences shall be used to define semi public and semi private areas belonging to the housing community so that area ownership is enforced. 5.0 PARKING AREA DESIGN The primary purpose of this section is to ensure that development of parking does not overwhelm the site aesthetic or environmental quality. Parking areas shall be designed so that pedestrian and vehicular navigability is maximized, and that their visual and ecological impacts are minimized. Refer to ACC Chapter 18.52 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING and ACC Chapter 18.50 LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING,for parking and landscaping regulations. 5.1 PARKING AREA DESIGN POLICIES AND GOALS A. Design parking areas to maximize their navigability by pedestrian and vehicles and minimize their visual and ecological impacts.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.4., Parking Areas) B. Provide adequate efficient onsite parking in locations convenient to destinations.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.4.,Parking Areas) C. Ensure pedestrian safety by providing ample walkways that are separated from parking and travel lanes.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.4.,Parking Areas) D. Use crime prevention through environmental design(CPTED)principles to reduce fear of crime and ensure user safety.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.4.,Parking Areas) E. Provide ample pedestrian circulation through parking areas that is safe from vehicular conflicts and fear of crime. F. Allocate parking areas in clearly defined areas of ownership by site tenants while promoting shared parking for uses which don't overlap times of occupation. 5.1.1 PARKING AREA DESIGN STANDARDS A. Provide pedestrian walkways within parking areas separated by landscaped strips with shrubs, ground covers and trees. Ensure pedestrian safety by separating walkways from parking and Page 30 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS travel lanes. Walkways shall be raised above traffic pavement except at load/unload areas and heavily traveled routes. Where raised walkways are not possible, provide pavement changes to clearly delineate pedestrian paths. B. Define entry and destination points clearly for pedestrian orientation and movement. C. Desire lines, also known as foot paths, reflect the shortest distances pedestrians travel between points on a given site. Often these are found as paths worn through planting beds in parking areas or lawns. Site design shall anticipate and acknowledge major pedestrian starting and ending points,provide unobstructed,visually clear routes. D. Planting areas shall not block pedestrian flow,and shall be used to define parking area boundaries. E. Parking areas shall be interspersed with landscape islands to minimize expanses of asphalt. F. Designate areas for oversize vehicles and trailers in a separate zone to avoid size conflicts and visibility problems. G. Separate loading,delivery,storage and garbage collection areas from customer parking. H. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design(CPTED)principles shall be used to reduce fear of crime and assure user safety. I. Provide sufficient driveway throat length for exiting to a public right-of-way to avoid queuing that impedes circulation. J. Provide a hierarchy of drive aisles within parking areas. Drive aisles shall be differentiated by aisles for slower moving traffic and vehicle parking and maneuvering operations and aisles for access to parking areas where parking and maneuvering is reduced or avoided. shrkh.s/Ind caping 3"-4"hili Ground Lown under 2 car averhang —E Maintain 5'walkway spate r elan,c"t)tlYnapie3i All I) a af qtr, .. fr;er rifle 17411.01, , Parking I 6 4, Parking t 2'overhang FIG.5.1.2 A Illustration of walkway section landscaping. 5.1.2 PARKING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES A. As much as is practical,90-degree head in parking shall be used to maximize parking stalls in the least amount of area. Stalls and travel aisle dimensions will be according to Auburn City Page 31 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS code. B. Landscaping shall not block sight lines from origin points to destinations. Trees shall have branching no lower than six feet(6')to ensure pedestrian safety.At installation trees may be required to be larger in size to meet sight distance. Shrubs shall be no taller than three feet 3'). C. Encourage shared parking between tenants of the site in order to reduce the impact of parking on the site and maximize building use and diversity of uses. D. Provide natural surveillance across parking areas from buildings and along walkways. Page 32 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS Awning°whoa i etan-len tty 4,,,i....Ai-x.---,- ).4..4: , Itai J9d n,, le it° 111_ .. Decorative cross 1 i 4 Y, walk pavement r iiit 1 f 1' l i 01 S 1 1itli '61R1.i IIOIM'iii w r i o. IIIIwIN...,.. 44 way islands9allim .Pedestrian walk u ap 1111 ti " t IG'rampaEritalls u tji— 1s1t I 4-r a hi-irking lad 1•..--Pedests ian lighsln `e x lighting y s MI III e.I j --- Shade Pres 11 an trilder r a Pedestrian light y at crosswalk MI itinllll Pained Bros Walk i T `--,..•Bollards at Crass walk ramps j o' moliy hr P ! r-- Prdrtt an lighting T r d I y/ it t 111111011116, pc_,*".T...tea." 1 1 1 tandem a 'r' i $itlru alk ._ Ina Roaduraylighting But sheher 1 Denotative pavement l Strict FIG.5.1.2 B Showing parking lot layout and landscaping concept from perimeter street to a large or midsize retail center. Page 33 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS 6.0 PEDESTRIAN/NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK FEATURES The purpose of this section is to provide a network of clearly defined linkages throughout the project and within sub areas of the project that are safe, easy to negotiate, and provide for a visually stimulating system of open spaces. 6.1 PEDESTRIAN/NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK DESIGN POLICIES AND GOALS A. Create a cohesive and continuous network of pedestrian/non-motorized circulation facilities in the Auburn Gateway project area and vicinity.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan, Section 2.6.5.,Pedestrian/Non-motorized Circulation Network) B. Create a pedestrian environment in which it is easy,safe,convenient,and comfortable to walk between businesses,to transit stops,across streets,and through parking lots. (Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.5.,Pedestrian/Non-motorized Circulation Network) C. Encourage the use of non-motorized transportation to and within the Auburn Gateway project area by providing facilities that are adequately sized,well-built,well-maintained,and connected to existing or planned pedestrian/non-motorized circulation facilities in the vicinity.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.5.,Pedestrian/Non-motorized Circulation Network) D. Assure pedestrian safety and ease of navigability by separating walkways from vehicular travel. E. Reduce fear of automobile conflicts and fear of crime by creating a highly surveillable environment in all land uses. F. Create a visually diverse pedestrian experience between destinations through urban design features. G. Provide communal spaces in all land uses for social interaction and people watching and at intervals along desire lines of travel. 4r 1a fir. III i iolsx A am;: g." ia„,,, a. s A FIG.6.1 Page 34 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS Corner entrance addresses both pedestrian and automobile traffic,providing high visibility and good orientation. 6.1.1 PEDESTRIAN/NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK DESIGN STANDARDS To implement the policies and goals the Auburn Gateway project area shall be designed and implemented and include the following elements: Define entry and destination points clearly for pedestrian orientation and movement. A. Sight lines will be acknowledged and visually unobstructed. B. Provide bicycle parking for a minimum of 2 bicycles per commercial building. The Planning Director may reduce the amount of bicycle parking required when it is demonstrated that bicycle activity is not a priority for that building considering current and potential future use. C. Facilitate pedestrian safety by separating walkways from parking and travel lanes by landscaped strips with shrubs,ground covers and trees. Walkways should be raised above traffic pavement except at load/unload areas and heavily traveled vehicle routes. Where separation is not possible, provide pavement changes to clearly delineate pedestrian path. D. All bicycle parking shall be located in safe,visible areas that do not impede pedestrian or vehicle traffic flow,and are well lighted for nighttime use. s,e 3 , sit, 07. ` 6.' --rt.zr,'. 7,‘'.•'.,':' -'..,--it, ..z.-tV,..4.. ''',,e7 ? 4: ,,,los,* oo,soro .,—0 f d"s. t r 1 1 ,fib t' : g t Y R' `. k Y`.. E .q4 y' , il4' ' Mfr p , s^ r,%'-' _, _ + • . kT" i ,..;- RINENIgii."'. '. t--:.'44L: ).:' '''‘'. 44:isew,3 r Z yt$'tt d FIG.6.1.1 Landscaping buffers vehicles from pedestrian areas. 6.1.2 PEDESTRIAN/NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK DESIGN GUIDELINES A. There are five types of pedestrian routes: 1. Urban trails:These link the development to regional recreational and transportation Page 35 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS systems. 2. Street edge walkways: major pedestrian spines crossing the development. 3. Parking lot internal walkways: Link streets and parking areas to site buildings and uses. 4. Store/building front walkways: Provide continuity along building frontages and connect to other buildings and plazas. 5. Communal walkways: In multi-family housing development to connect housing blocks into a community and with open public multi-space areas. TABLE 6.1.2 PATHWAY DESIGNATIONS AND USES. Path Type Pavement Widths Uses Locations Pedestrian Parking Lot internal Connecting parking areas to Concrete/pavers 5 feet min.movement Walkways buildings and uses Pedestrian Store/building front No less movement and Building fronts facing parking areas, Walks Concrete/ than 8 feetlazasresting,shopping, p decorative pavement restaurant outdoor seating area, Communal Walks Concrete,with 6 feet Residential Multi-family housing community decorative node pedestrian areas i B. Along store frontages and pathways through parking areas, pedestrian-oriented open spaces shall NOT have: 1. Asphalt pavement, loose gravel surface,or loose crushed and tumbled glass surface. 2. Adjacent chain link fences. 3. Surroundings of adjacent blank walls with no visual security. 4. Constricted passageways with no means of escape or visual connection to an intended destination. C. Continue pedestrian route pavement across vehicular travel ways so that crosswalks are designated as safe zones for pedestrian crossings. Pavement types may include: 1. Colored concrete or asphalt,scored,stamped or brushed to highlight pavement change. 2. Concrete unit pavers with decorative banding. D. Use full spectrum lighting in pedestrian and parking areas for public safety and true color rendering. Low and high pressure sodium lamps make people,clothing and vehicle colors difficult to identify at night. E. Clearly link walkways across the site to facilitate wayfinding and create a continuous network of pedestrian connections within and beyond the site. Various project types and land uses shall be clearly connected in a cross-site fashion,to create a continuous network of pedestrian connections. F. Provide destination site amenities,such as water features, benches,trash receptacles,as part of the pedestrian experience. Page 36 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS 7.0 SITE LIGHTING The goal of site lighting of the Design Standards is to ensure sufficient nighttime lighting and to minimize negative aesthetic or environmental impacts from site development to adjoining properties or land uses. It is expected that many site land uses will be nighttime intensive uses, and lighting must be provided for pedestrian and vehicular safety. 7.1 SITE LIGHTING DESIGN POLICIES AND GOALS A. Ensure pedestrian safety by providing adequate lighting on pedestrian routes.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.6.,Site Lighting) B. Minimize the negative effects of onsite and offsite glare.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.6.,Site Lighting) C. Provide energy-efficient lighting.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.6., Site Lighting) D. Create a family of light standards to be used throughout property that responds to a variety of site conditions and that can be consistently implemented over multiple year phased development. 7.1.1 SITE LIGHTING DESIGN STANDARDS A. Lighting shall NOT: 1. Blind passengers or pedestrians to approaching people or vehicles by direct glare or reflection off building surfaces. 2. Cast shadows into parked cars and trucks to hide criminal activity. 3. Use low-pressure sodium lighting(yellow spectrum) bulbs. 4. Be used indiscriminately to illuminate areas not normally covered by natural surveillance. If rear sides of buildings(service/loading and garbage areas) need lighting, lighting shall be directed toward the building and these areas,and/or mounted on the building itself. 5. Cast glare outward from the project toward the streets;cast lighting in the direction of surveillance from street edges. B. Light standards shall be designed and located based on the following criteria: 1. Distinctive appearance that creates site identity and character. 2. Visual compatibility and unobtrusiveness with the site by night. 3. Architecturally compatible with building design styles by day. 4. Minimization of glare,and use of cutoff angles. 5. Ease of maintenance. 6. Provide a coordinated system of lighting fixtures based on function;such as taller standards for parking lot illumination and shorter standards for walkway lighting. C. Locate lighting to facilitate public safety and sense of security,and to provide aesthetic benefits. D. Intersections of pedestrian,vehicular and bicycle traffic shall be appropriately lighted for Page 37 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS nighttime visibility where night use will occur. E. Avoid glare from light sources into wildlife habitat or environmentally critical areas and surrounding neighborhoods. F. Use lighting to highlight unique site features and landmarks such as buildings,significant trees and landscape elements, but done so that off site glare is not created. G. Illumination levels shall be determined on a case by case basis by a lighting engineer. H. Avoid lighting areas that can be used for loitering, unlawful uses and vandalism. In such situations,it may be desirable to turn lights off and fence these areas after hours to displace activities to more appropriate locations. J. There are eight basic types of lighting that may be used throughout the site: 1. Overhead lighting: Roadways and parking lots 2. Entry and walkway overhead lighting:Site entrance points,walkways and pedestrian plazas 3. Interior Parking lot lighting 4. Walkway lighting 5. Pathway low level(bollard) lighting 6. Bus stop lighting: Define bus stop locations 7. Ambient lighting: Buildings and awnings onto walkways 8. Landscape lighting TABLE 7.1.1 LIGHTING TYPES AND CHARACTERISTICS. Lighting type Fixture Height Max Spacing,location* Overhead lighting Overhead 16'-26' 90'or less,D Street,I Street, Robertson Way Entry and walkway Pedestrian/Overhead 14'-26'30'or less to highlight entrances overhead Lighting Interior Parking Lot Overhead 25'-30' Site specific spacing Walkway Lighting Pedestrian 14' 30 feet or less,on walkways in parking lots,Roundabout,major plazas and seating areas Pathway Lighting Bollard 3'Spacing varies.Located on pedestrian low level)paths in office entrance ways, restaurant uses,and on communal walkways in multi-family residential areas. Bus Stop Lighting Pedestrian 12' At either end of bus stop zone equivalent to length of tandem bus to define bus stop apron. Ambient Lighting Varies:building mounted, Varies Attached to building or overhanging overhang mounted awnings or canopy for ambient lighting on walkways Landscape Lighting Up-lighting,spot lights 12"or less Site specific lighting location/spacing Page 38 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS Lighting shall only be provided to meet minimum desired illumination levels;however pedestrian intensive areas must meet minimum code requirements for safety and wayfinding. Page 39 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS 8.0 NATURAL AMENITIES AND PUBLIC MULTI-SPACE The purpose of this section is to provide opportunities to bring wildlife into an urban area for habitat preservation, enhancement and interaction with human beings for passive public use and enjoyment. Coupled with that will be to provide attractive options for integrating stormwater drainage design, detention and treatment while preserving the ecological value of existing wetlands or other critical areas of the site. 8.1 NATURAL AMENITIES AND PUBLIC MULTI-SPACE DESIGN POLICIES AND GOALS A. Provide habitat preservation,enhancement and opportunities for human enjoyment of wildlife. Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.7.,Natural Amenities and Recreation Areas) B. Wetlands that contain low-functions and values as evidenced by limited size and isolation from hydrological systems,may be considered by the city for development and displacement in conjunction with specific environmental review,appropriate mitigation and permitting from the city and applicable outside agencies.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.7., Natural Amenities and Recreation Areas) C. Provide attractive options for integrating wet ponds,stormwater treatment facilities,and detention ponds as an amenity to the land uses in the project area.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.7.,Natural Amenities and Recreation Areas) D. Reduce downstream floodwater volumes from runoff.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.7.,Natural Amenities and Recreation Areas) E. Enhance property values by incorporating sustainable water management practices.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.7.,Natural Amenities and Recreation Areas) F. Preserve existing wetlands to the extent possible and enhance their intrinsic environmental value as habitat and water storage. 8.1.1 NATURAL AMENITIES AND PUBLIC MULTI-SPACE DESIGN STANDARDS To implement the policies and goals,the project shall include the following elements: A. Meet requirements of the City of Auburn Stormwater Management Manual for stormwater management,treatment and flood control. B. Adhere to design principles for wet ponds per The Integrated Pond: Enhancing the Design and Value of Stormwater Ponds,September 1988. C. Integrate wet ponds and biofiltration channels into the site as part of an overall landscape plan. D. Incorporate passive public multi-space areas between storm ponds and more intensive public areas as a transitioning device. E. Design wet ponds to blend with natural buffers and look like a naturally occurring part of the existing landscape. Page 40 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS F. Use native plant species to line the edges of the ponds and biofiltration swales to remove sediments and toxins before the water is released into the ground and surrounding hydrologic system and rivers. G. Use food-producing plants and shrub species to bring wildlife into the development. H. Capture all runoff from buildings and hard surfaces for collection in detention ponds staged to delay runoff entering local rivers and streams during rains. I. Enhance property values by incorporating sustainable water management practices. J. Urban style, publically-accessible open spaces or"public multi-spaces"shall be provided as part of all commercial development and shall be a mix of hard surface pedestrian plazas, landscaped areas,and interconnected walkways linked to wetland buffers and stormwater management areas. It is not the intent of this standard to require public park land. 1. Open space shall be clearly separate from parking or other paved areas. 2. Open space shall include trees,shrubs, pathways, benches or other pedestrian amenities. 6( fi I4 Po a x bi s.Ivi' :7, ,A. , ,j'. ,' Pil"'–,°..t0:111;(14' Or r1 „,.;, ,,,,, ,, ,f ,,,, 1„, , , , t% ,../.,i . ....,(1, :,, i, .1. ,,.;, , ,,,, ,,,,,,, z, .. ._oku, , ,,,t 4 3g 4, if FIG.8.1.2 Wet ponds provide a pleasant backdrop to urban/office development. 8.1.2 NATURAL AMENITIES AND PUBLIC MULTI-SPACE DESIGN GUIDELINES Outdoor Public Multi-spaces,not part of a stormwater facility, and wetland buffer should be developed with the following characteristics: A. Have appropriate grades and surfaces suitable for pedestrian oriented activities and non-motorized circulation improvements. B. Be central and otherwise logically located on the proposed site development for maximum ease of access by multi-family residents and the public using the commercial development. C. Where appropriate, provide on-site accessibility orstub for future accessibility by walkway or bike path to any existing municipal, county,or regional park, public open space or trail system, which may be located on properties in the vicinity. Page 41 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BCRA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 AUBURN GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS 9.0 MASTER SIGN PLAN A Master Sign plan will be implemented to coordinate design standards for signage and graphics is to enrich the experience of visitors and customers by providing wayfinding and information in a way that is visually pleasing, and reduces wasted time caused by navigational confusion. The Master Sign Plan will include freestanding signs(both monument and pylon), building signage, under canopy blade signs,informational and directional signage including critical area signage. Formal adoption of a Master Sign Plan will be through an application submitted at the first stages of formal project development and pursuant to ACC 18.56.030(K), Master Sign Plans Authorized. 9.1 MASTER SIGN PLAN DESIGN POLICIES AND GOALS A. Enrich the experience of visitors and customers by providing directions and information in a coordinated visually pleasing way that and prevents confusion.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.8.,Sitewide Signage and Graphics) B. Provide clear and legible site directions and signage for customers,bus passengers,and visitors. Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.8.,Sitewide Signage and Graphics) C. Define the character of the Auburn Gateway project area as a distinct entity for instant roadside recognition and street appeal to attract customers.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.8.,Sitewide Signage and Graphics) D. Use creative designs and durable,resource-efficient materials.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.8.,Sitewide Signage and Graphics) E. Minimize the adverse impacts of signs,such as visual clutter and glare,through the development of a master signage plan to be adhered to throughout the development of the Auburn Gateway project area.(Policy Statement from NE Auburn Special Area Plan,Section 2.6.8.,Sitewide Signage and Graphics) 9.1.1 MASTER SIGN PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS Standards will be determined through a subsequent step of formal adoption of a Master Sign Plan pursuant to an application submitted at the first stages of formal project development and pursuant to ACC 18.56.030(K), Master Sign Plans Authorized. Page 42 of 42 Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards Prepared by BORA of Tacoma,WA;October 2011 ATTACHMENT 5-DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Listing of Development Regulations as provided for in Section 4 of the Development Agreement ACC Title 12,(Streets, Sidewalks,and Public Works),Except Chapters 12.04(Public Works Construction) and 12.64A(Required Public Improvements),and excluding any provision in Title 12 requiring payment of permit fees and assessments and excluding provisions setting forth permit procedures. ACC Chapter 15.68,Flood Hazard Areas except any provisions related to requiring payment of fees and permit procedures. ACC Title 16(Environmental Review, Shoreline Development Permits. and Critical Areas Regulations) except any provisions related to requiring payment of fees and permit procedures. ACC Title 17(Land Adjustments and Divisions) except any provisions related to requiring payment of fees and permit procedures. ACC Title 18 (Zoning)except any provisions related to requiring payment of fees and permit procedures. The Development Regulations attached as Attachment 5 are not in a form suitable for recording.Copies of the Development Regulations Attachment 5 have been provided to CAP Acquisitions,LLC.and the City of Auburn with this Agreement and at the time of this Agreement.Any person wanting copies of this Attachment 5 may obtain copies by contacting the City Clerk,at 25 West Main Street,Auburn,WA,98001,(253)931- 3090,or CAP Acquisitions,LLC,Attn: Scott Morris, 120 W. Cataldo Ave., Suite 100, Spokane,WA 98201 Attachment 5 ATTACHMENT#6 TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Development Agreement Concept Additions General 1. Similar to an HOA, an association shall be formed that will review building design before submission of building permits to the city. Building permit application submissions will be accompanied by documentation that the association has reviewed the proposal and determined that it complies with the adopted design standards. Objective:To limit individual commercial users applying to the City directly without being reviewed and coordinated first by an "HOA" or some similar other governing body that reviews the proposal against the Auburn Gateway Design Standards and coordination. The City will allow the developer to submit permits for an initial phase of commercial buildings before formation of this association or similar other governing body, as long as any proposed building is located contiguous to the "Heart." A governing body to manage commercial common areas on an ongoing permanent basis and provide initial design review will be in place before submission of any other commercial building's applications past the first phase. 2. If there are conflicts between the supplemental requirements outlined within this Exhibit and other adopted standards or requirements, the more restrictive and/or the more detailed requirement shall apply. 3. For purposes of this Agreement the following phases are defined: a. Phase 1: Multifamily Project that includes the following: i. Multifamily (up to 500 units referred to as Copper Gate Apartments), supporting buildings, and site work ii. Completion of the following public utility and transportation improvements are a requirement of Phase 1: 1. I Street NE from 45th Street NE to S 277th Street with traffic signal at 277th 2. 49 Street NE from Auburn Way North to D Street NE within the existing ROW and with traffic signal at Auburn Way North, and 49 Street NE from D Street NE to I Street NE,with a roundabout at I Street NE and payment of the fee in lieu for 49th Street NE from Auburn Way to D Street NE outside the existing right-of-way. 3. D Street NE from 49th Street NE to cul-de-sac termination near Auburn Way North 4. All improvements along Auburn Way North from 49th Street NE to the south including southbound Auburn Way North U-turn 5. Other improvements as determined necessary by the City Engineer to mitigate Phase 1 impacts as determined through the SEPA and project review processes per ACC 12.64A. b. Phase 2:The Heart i. Heart improvements and site work ii. Completion of the following public utility and transportation improvements are a requirement of Phase 2: 1. Pedestrian crossing across 49th Street NE with a simple pedestrian warning system, such as a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), if determined by the City to be needed to connect Phase 1 to Phase 2 2. Other improvements as determined necessary by the City Engineer to mitigate Phase 2 impacts as determined through the SEPA and project review processes per ACC 12.64A. c. Phase 3: Commercial i. Commercial Buildings and site work ii. Completion of the following public utility and transportation improvements are a requirement of Phase 3: 1. D Street NE from 49th Street NE to S 277th Street 2. All required frontage improvements, if any, along Auburn Way North (north of 49th Street NE) 3. Other improvements as determined necessary by the City Engineer to mitigate Phase 3 impacts as determined through the SEPA and project review processes per ACC 12.64A. Amenities 1. Before approval of the plans for Phase 1 and/or the Heart, Developer will submit an "Amenities Plan" that includes the following: Objective:To build connections with the surrounding community and integrate the use of amenities to strengthen those connections. a. Community Garden that is at least 800 square feet in size. The community garden space will be an amenity located on the residential portion of Auburn Gateway(for residents of Copper Gate Apartments) and managed by property staff. Owner will reach out to local farmers to gage their interest in being involved with the community garden, and will engage local farmers to the extent there is interest. b. Community Trails that connect to public sidewalks and trails that offer a connection to the Green River Trail and Interurban Trail and provide 5 permanent stalls for Trailhead parking within the Phase 3 development for access to the 277th Street trail (before Phase 3,temporary stalls associated with Phase 2 may be used for Trailhead parking, but will not be located on 277th Street).Trails and connections will be limited to the extent of the Auburn Gateway development and no trails shall be physically blocked/gated. c. The developer will construct and maintain a gateway feature on parcel #9360000200 at the northwest corner of the property within 30 feet of Auburn Way North. The feature will include signage that welcomes travelers to Auburn that is visually stimulating and distinguished by surrounding landscaping or hardscaping or a combination of the two. The developer will work with the city to identify the appropriate footprint, landscaping and design of this feature.The footprint will be modest in size (not less than 500 square feet and no more than 1,000 square feet) and ensure that future maintenance costs are considered in the final design. The design will be visually interesting, but not interactive and may include wayfinding signs for Auburn Gateway. Features allowed within the 500- 1,000 square feet may include signage that promotes Auburn, community amenities (e.g. parks, civic services,general wayfinding), and The Heart. d. A minimum of two children's playgrounds will be provided within the multifamily community. Use of these amenities will be restricted to residents of the multifamily complex e. The developer will include 4,100 square feet of sport court amenities. Sports courts include basketball, tennis, pickle ball, etc. Use of these amenities will be restricted to residents of the multifamily complex. f. The developer will provide other sport and/or play amenities such as bocce, horseshoes, Frisbee golf, etc. The developer will provide at least three such amenities. Use of these amenities will be restricted to residents of the multifamily complex. Objective:To ensure a higher attention to detail on how the commercial component will be master planned and the uses linked together between public and private spaces. The goal is to create interesting and usable spaces that people can enjoy as they shop and entertain themselves at Auburn Gateway. The City does not want a piece-meal approach to the layout of the commercial space. The objective can be accomplished through the existing design standards under the guidance of the to be formed "HOA" or governing body, which would ensure a holistic approach of the development be adhered to. The commercial users are not identified, and the parameters of development should not be further constrained to this level of detail other than the guidance provided in the previously approved design standards. Beyond the basic premise of providing good pedestrian connections to, and throughout, the commercial area, additional attention shall be paid to the quality and appearance of pedestrian walkways as well as incorporation of small seating areas that lie within common areas. The goal is to not only provide the pedestrian infrastructure but to ensure that there is an enhanced pedestrian experience as people move throughout the complex. a. Developer will incorporate a landscaped design feature to show the transition between the commercial and residential communities. The design feature should clearly show the transition, such as a stream bed with modest pedestrian bridges that provide connectivity. This will be constrained by City standards regarding location and design of pedestrian crossings of public roadways. b. The developer will provide full financial contribution to the City's utility box wrap program for each utility box that is required to serve the development. The Heart(centrally-located open/green space serving the residential and commercial uses) 1. Submit a "Programming Plan"for the privately-owned and -maintained "Heart" before the final CO of Copper Gate that includes the following: a. 3rd party event programmer. b. Annual coordination with the City Parks Department. c. Objective: create an event schedule with the 3rd party event programmer to make sure the space is appropriately utilized and vibrant for the Auburn Gateway businesses and surrounding community. The event schedule and supporting budget shall be provided to the City of Auburn on an annual basis by March 31st (or upon request from the City, no more often than quarterly). Failure to provide the schedule and budget within 10 days following receipt of notice from the City of such failure will be considered a code enforcement violation and trigger the timelines and penalties set forth in Chapter 1.25 ACC. d. Incorporates an annual funded marketing plan. 2. Within six months after the issuance of the first building permit for Copper Gate, require submittal of a future specific site layout concept for The Heart that includes: a. Modest size stage/platform for multipurpose music and performance. b. A method for showing outdoor movies (could include using a building's blank wall). c. Can accommodate 5 food trucks with electric and water/sewer connections. d. Includes contouring of ground for grass seating. e. Includes a perimeter hard surface path that is ADA compliant. f. Accommodates daytime and evening programming. g. Includes landscaping and a vegetation maintenance plan. Note: will be included as part of the HOA" or governing body of the future Commercial component. Before, maintenance would be the responsibility of the developer. h. Includes a pedestrian-scale lighting plan. i. CPTED review of the Heart. j. Public restrooms. Note: restrooms will be built before or as part of the first commercial buildings occupancy. Restroom may be stand-alone facilities or they may be incorporated into the commercial buildings that are adjacent to The Heart. If they are incorporated into the adjacent buildings, restroom access doors need to be readily accessible and cannot require the public to first access a commercial establishment in order to access the restroom. k. Construction of The Heart shall be completed before issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy within Phase 1. Rental Housing 1. Initial testing at completion and then periodic testing of emergency radio signal coverage within site buildings (MF residential and commercial portions). 2. After MF residential opening property owner shall implement crime prevention strategies for rental housing generally consistent with purpose and intent of city code ACC 5.22.040 (Rental Housing Business License Criteria). These may be carried out by non-owner management company. 3. Property owner or non-owner manager shall quarterly request police incident reports and provide summary of this information to the city's Code Enforcement Division to assess the prevalence of reoccurring criminal activity or nuisance activity and then if warranted, to use information for mutually derived crime prevention strategies. 4. The property owner shall enroll in the Safe Auburn For Every Resident(SAFER) program. Promoting the Commercial Area 1. Within 90 days of the closing date of the property acquisition,the owner will provide proof that a commercial leasing firm has been contracted for the purposes of marketing the commercial property and will provide periodic proof that the commercial spaces are being actively promoted. 2. Developer agrees to extend wet and dry utilities past sidewalks and curbs of the improved roadways that are included in the Phase 1 improvements to serve the commercial components of Auburn Gateway within the appropriate Facility Extension permits. 3. Developer agrees to present annual written reports and if requested, oral updates on the developments progress to City Council on a semi-annual basis. Transportation and Utilities 1. Before issuance of any type of occupancy for any buildings for any phase, the Developer will complete all public infrastructure required to support and serve the buildings for that phase (in accordance with the approved phasing plan and terms specified in this agreement).The following public infrastructure must be completed during Phase 1 as set forth below: a. Within 30 days following approval status of the first Building permit of any Phase 1 building: i. Dedication of ROW needed for the Phase 1 public utility and transportation improvements ii. Dedication of ROW for a future extension of 49th Street NE from I Street NE to the eastern limits of the Developer's property iii. Dedication of ROW needed for I Street NE from South 277th to 45th Street NE b. Before issuance of the first Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) of any Phase 1 building: i. Frontage Improvements on Auburn Way North for Phase 1 (other than parcel TMK: 9360600269, which is not part of Phase 1), including a southbound U-turn on Auburn Way North between the site driveway on Auburn Way North and 45th St NE. ii. D Street NE from 49th Street NE to Auburn Way North with all utilities and as a Local Non-Residential street per the City's Engineering Design Standards and a cul-de-sac to remove the connection to Auburn Way North. iii. Storm drainage facilities required to accommodate infrastructure listed in this section lb. c. Before either 1) issuance of TCO for any buildings with access to D Street NE or 49th Street SE, or 2) issuance of TCO for any buildings beyond 50%of the total number of buildings in Phase 1 whichever occurs first(unless otherwise waived by the Public Works Director): i. 49th Street NE from D Street NE to I Street NE with all utilities (including water, storm and sewer infrastructure ), and to include 14-foot wide through lanes in each direction, shared use path on the north side of 49th, 10-foot sidewalk on the south side of 49th, and an 11-foot wide center turn lane, including the I Street roundabout. ii. 49th Street NE between Auburn Way North and D Street NE to the extent possible within existing ROW and property controlled by the Developer. iii. 49th Street NE and Auburn Way North Traffic Signal. iv. Design of any improvements not completed by the Developer due to lack of property rights on 49th Street NE between Auburn Way North and D Street NE (to include 14- foot wide through lanes in each direction, shared use path on the north side of 49th Street NE, 10-foot wide sidewalk on the south side of 49th Street SE and an 11-foot wide center turn lane) and, prior to final CO, payment to the City of a fee-in-lieu equal to 100%of the estimated cost for the City to complete the such improvements excluding land acquisition). The cost shall be determined in the same manner set forth in Section 3 of this agreement. v. Storm drainage facilities required to accommodate infrastructure listed in this section 1c. d. Other improvements as determined necessary by the City Engineer to mitigate Phase 1 impacts as determined through the SEPA and project review processes per ACC 12.64A. 2. The City will not issue any building permits (excluding grading and foundations)for Phase 1 work until the City has received a complete application (design, supporting documentation)and all non-City(i.e. Corps, DOE, WDFW) permit application forms and documentation (to the extent known by the Developer to be needed at the time of the application submittal to the City and within the Developers ability and control to complete at the time of application submittal for the following public utility and transportation improvements even though building occupancy is not tied to completion of such improvements: a. I Street NE from 49th Street NE to South 277th Street with water and storm utilities, with minimum 14-foot wide through lanes, shared use path on the east side of"I"Street, 10-foot sidewalk on the west side, an 11-foot wide center turn lane, and additional turn lane(s) as determined to be needed at the intersection of 277th b. Traffic signal at I Street NE and South 277th Street 3. If any of public utility and transportation improvements identified in paragraph 2 preceding this paragraph are not complete upon issuance of the TCO for the final multifamily residential building, the City may at its sole discretion require, as a condition to issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer to bond the completion of the improvements in an amount equal to 130%of the estimated cost for the City to complete the improvements; provided that the estimated environmental mitigation for stream mitigation of Ditches K and L associated with the I Street NE roadway improvements will be capped at$1,000,000 unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. The bond would require the remaining improvements to be complete no later than 3 years after first TCO issuance or no later than 1 year after final CO, whichever occurs first, or a later date as determined by the City. However, if the City requires a bond,the Developer shall have the option of satisfying this requirement by paying a fee-in-lieu equal to 130%of the estimated cost for the City to complete the improvements. Cost estimates(to determine the amount of the bond or the fee-in-lieu) will be prepared by the Developer and reviewed by the City and be based on the City's costs to complete the remaining work. If the City and Developer cannot reach agreement on the estimated costs,the Developer will hire an independent cost estimator selected by the City with concurrence from the Developer to review and finalize the cost estimate, at which time it will become the basis for the bond or the fee-in-lieu. All estimates must be prepared and sealed by a professional engineer registered in Washington State. 4. South 277th Street a. The right turn pocket previous proposed on 277th at D Street NE is removed from the agreement and is not required by the project. 5. Commute Trip Reduction concepts: a. The owner will incorporate a minimum of 3 secured bike storage lockers that are available to residential tenants without charge. Bike lockers must be able to provide cumulative storage for at least 250 bikes. b. Within the commercial area, one bike rack shall be provided for each commercial building. Each bike rack shall accommodate at least 5 bikes. c. Along the perimeter of The Heart bike racks shall be provided that accommodate a cumulative total of 40 bikes. Sequencing 1. A site plan will be created that clearly delineates the commercial component, the multifamily component, and The Heart. 2. Phased occupancy of Copper Gate Apartments will be allowed. An occupancy phasing plan will be provided to the City before, or concurrent with, the civil FAC submittal for Phase 1 that shows which buildings will be occupied and what site improvements will be completed to accommodate each phased occupancy. 3. The developer agrees to carry out full development of the development concept. This includes: a. Completion of the multifamily residential component. b. Completion of The Heart before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final multifamily building(except for the restrooms as noted above). c. To foster completion of the commercial component, in addition to the infrastructure, transportation and utility requirements set forth herein that benefit the commercial property, as well as the completion and programming of the Heart,the flood plain permitting requirements, and the active marketing requirements for the commercial component, the developer shall: i. Before issuance of TCO or CO for any Phase 3 buildings(other than those in the initial phase of commercial buildings, if any, located contiguous to the "Heart"), dedicate ROW along the commercial frontage of Auburn Way North between 49th Street NE and South 277th Street for any required frontage improvements. In addition, Right-of- way will be dedicated for bus turn out(s) and/or shelters for the future King County Rapid Ride, provided that the ROW is known to be needed based on the final alignment and stop locations of the Rapid Ride I-Line. Objective:Assure that the proper consideration and intention be given by Developer to maximize the build-out and success of the commercial component of Auburn Gateway. By making significant early on the ground investments that make commercial development more viable and likely,the development of the commercial component will increase long term value of Copper Gate Apartments, providing amenities that will create additional demand and increase length of occupancy of residents. d. Completion of all agreed-upon transportation and utility infrastructure as previously identified in Transportation and Utilities section. 4. The developer agrees to submit all floodplain permitting documentation to FEMA no later than 6 months after City Council approves the amendment to the Development Agreement, and actively fund and pursue processing until conclusion. RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS, VOLUME 2: MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS A P RIORITY H ABITATS AND S PECIES D OCUMENT OF THE WASHINGTON D EPARTMENT OF F ISH AND WILDLIFE December 2020 This document should be cited as follows: Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations. 2020. Amy Windrope, Terra Rentz, Keith Folkerts, and Jeff Azerrad. A Priority Habitats and Species Document of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Land Acknowledgement: We acknowledge the traditional, ancestral, territory of Washington state on which we are learning, working, and organizing today. We recognize the longstanding history that has brought us to reside on this land and seek to understand those who first lived here. Many people were involved with creation of both Volumes 1 and 2 for Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Riparian Ecosystems. WDFW extends our sincere appreciation to the following individuals and organizations that played important roles during development and/or review of both volumes. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided funds that made this document possible (Contract C1300107). The Washington State Academy of Sciences, with coordination by Dr. Robert Bates, provided an independent peer review that improved the scientific rigor of Volume 1. Federal (EPA and NOAA Fisheries) and tribal entities (individual tribes, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, and Upper Columbia United Tribes) as well as numerous state agencies (Washington State departments of Ecology, Natural Resources, and Commerce; Recreation and Conservation Office; Washington State Conservation Commission; and Puget Sound Partnership) reviewed draft versions of this document. During the summer 2018 public comment period, local governments and members of the public provided valuable feedback that led to a more concise and user-friendly final version of Volume 2. Within WDFW, Keith Folkerts led coordination, contract planning and budgeting for this work. Tim Quinn and George Wilhere were integral in ensuring a strong relationship with information in Volume 1 and provided additional valuable feedback on multiple drafts. Terry Johnson developed the Site-Potential Tree Height mapping tool and wrote the associated user guide information in the Appendix to this Volume 2. Alison Hart produced final graphics and ensured consistent formatting and stylistic usage throughout. Mary Huff provided editorial support, improved the document’s organization, and (in late 2020) took it across the finish line. WDFW recognizes and appreciates the significant role that tribes, local governments, conservation organizations, and others play in accomplishing our agency’s mission. Indeed, we are certain that without these concerted efforts to designate and protect the riparian ecosystems that are essential for most of the state’s fish and wildlife species, WDFW would be unable to fulfill its mandate on behalf of all of Washington’s residents. While we acknowledge and have deep appreciation for all the review and comments provided, WDFW bears sole responsibility for this document and any errors contained herein. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms for Volume 2 ....................................................................................................................................................... iii Overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Our Role as Washington’s Conservation Agency .................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Applicability of Volume 2 ................................................................................. 3 1.3 Science Synthesis and Management Implications (Volume 1) Summary ........................... 4 1.4 Key Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 6 1.5 Relationship with Washington’s Development Laws and Regulations ............................... 9 1.6 Organization of Volume 2 ..................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 2. Riparian Management Zone Delineation ........................................................................................... 11 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Foundational Concepts in RMZ Determinations ................................................................. 11 2.3 Procedures for RMZ Delineation .......................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 3. Riparian Regulatory Protections .......................................................................................................... 23 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 23 3.2 Recommendations to Local Jurisdictions ............................................................................ 23 3.3 Riparian Management in Urban Areas ................................................................................. 29 3.4 Managing Watersheds ........................................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER 4. Restoring Riparian Ecosystems ............................................................................................................. 34 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 34 4.2 Restoration Actions ............................................................................................................... 35 4.3 Implementing Riparian Strategies Through Incentives ..................................................... 36 4.4 Suggested Restoration Practices .......................................................................................... 38 CHAPTER 5. Improving Protection through Adaptive Management ............................................................... 40 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 40 5.2 Common Questions Addressed by Adaptive Management ................................................ 41 5.3 Recommended Implementation Monitoring Efforts .......................................................... 42 5.4 Effectiveness of Regulatory Protections of Critical Areas .................................................. 44 5.5 Using Land Cover Change to Understand Long-term Regulatory Protection ................... 44 5.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 47 Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................................................................................. 53 APPENDIX. Site-Potential Tree Height Mapping Tool ............................................................................................ 61 Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations iii ACRONYMS FOR VOLUME 2 CAO Critical Areas Ordinance CMZ Channel Migration Zone CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program DFC Desired Future Condition DNR Department of Natural Resources (Washington State) EBM Ecosystem Based Management EPA Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.) ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team FPA Forest Practices Act FWHCA Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area GIS Geographic Information System GMA Growth Management Act HMP Habitat Management Plan HRCD High Resolution Change Detection LID Low Impact Development NHD National Hydrography Dataset NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OHWM Ordinary High-Water Mark OSS On-site Sewage Systems PHS Priority Habitats and Species RCO Recreation and Conservation Office (Washington State) RCW Revised Code of Washington RMZ Riparian Management Zone RZ Riparian Zone SMA Shoreline Management Act SMP Shoreline Master Program SPTH Site-Potential Tree Height SPTH200 Site-Potential Tree Height (at age 200 years) USFS United States Forest Service Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations iv USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UWCIG University of Washington Climate Impacts Group VSP Voluntary Stewardship Program WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WFPB Washington Forest Practices Board WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WSCC Washington State Conservation Commission WWRP Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 1 OVERVIEW 1.1 OUR ROLE AS WASHINGTON’S CONSERVATION AGENCY The mission of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is to preserve, protect, and perpetuate the state’s fish, wildlife, and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities. We offer the following science-based guidance to further that mission through the preservation, protection, and—where possible—restoration of healthy, intact, and fully functioning riparian ecosystems statewide. As described throughout this volume, we believe that protection and restoration1 of Washington’s riparian ecosystems is a foundational conservation action; considering a growing population and changing climate, it is also an urgent one. Within the State of Washington’s land use decision-making framework, WDFW’s role is that of advisor. We provide information relative to our mission about the habitat needs of fish and wildlife, and the likely implications of various land use decisions on those resources over time. Through the Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Program, we work cooperatively with land use decision makers and landowners to facilitate solutions that accommodate their needs and the needs of fish and wildlife. We provide this PHS document, Riparian Ecosystems Volume 2: Management Recommendations in support of that effort. Priority Habitats are places that warrant special consideration for protection when land use decisions are made and should also be prioritized for restoration or enhancement wherever possible. To qualify as a “Priority Habitat” in WDFW’s PHS program, an ecosystem or habitat component must provide unique or significant value to many species. Specifically, it must have one or more of the following attributes (WDFW 2008): • Comparatively high fish and wildlife density • Comparatively high fish and wildlife species diversity • Important fish or wildlife breeding habitat 1 Restoration of riparian ecosystems is critically important because legacy of environmental impacts resulting from the ways land use has affected riparian areas over the past 200 years. In other words, what remains available for protection is not enough to provide the full functions and values Washington’s fish and wildlife need. WDFW’S MISSION To preserve, protect, and perpetuate Washington’s fish, wildlife, and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities. WDFW’S RIPARIAN VALUES We value the protection and restoration of healthy, intact, and fully functioning riparian ecosystems statewide. WDFW’S RECOMMENDATION Within the context of wise watershed management, preserve, protect, and—where possible—restore the full extent of riparian ecosystems. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 2 • Important fish or wildlife seasonal ranges • Important fish or wildlife movement corridors • Limited availability • High vulnerability to habitat alteration • Unique or dependent species Riparian areas (comprised of riparian ecosystems, active floodplains, and riverine wetlands) meet all these criteria, and were among the first Priority Habitats described by WDFW. Riparian areas provide important ecological functions that help create and maintain aquatic habitats in addition to supporting terrestrial wildlife. Riparian areas alongside rivers and streams are the focus of this document, however much of the science reviewed in Volume 1 and the recommendations in this Volume 2 are relevant for lakes, ponds, and marine shorelines as well. As previously mentioned, one role of WDFW in land use decision making is that of advisor. In that role, recommendations like those contained in this document and in complementary PHS documents (available at https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/phs/recommendations) provide critical information for the protection (and where necessary, recovery) of Washington’s fish and wildlife. We recognize landowners and land managers most often face situations where various human needs must also be met; and thus, considerations other than fish and wildlife will be incorporated into land use decision making. The information presented in this management recommendation document is not, in and of itself, science. Rather, it consists of policy recommendations which are informed by the best available science summarized in Volume 1 2 and which reflect WDFW’s mission and legislative mandate. To that end, these recommendations represent WDFW’s guidance for the protection and restoration of healthy, intact, and fully functioning riparian ecosystems and 2 The original manuscript of Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1: Science Synthesis and Management Implications was publicly released in May 2018. In 2020, the format of the document was professionally designed, which included making limited updates to content focused on copyediting and improving usability. In accordance with standard citation practice, Volume 1 is now cited as having a 2020 publication date, but substantively, the current document is equivalent to the original 2018 version. Ecosystem Based Management & WDFW’s Conservation Principles In 2013, WDFW adopted ecosystem-based management principles into policy (WDFW Policy 5004). Ecosystem-based management is an integrated, science-based approach to natural resource management that aims to sustain the ability of ecosystems to provide goods and services upon which humans and other species depend. Importantly, ecosystem-based management recognizes the magnitude of humans as change agents in the ecosystem, and the role of social, economic, and ecological factors in managing complex and dynamic systems. We believe that conservation is best achieved through employing the following ecosystem-based management principles: 1. We practice conservation by managing, protecting, and restoring ecosystems for the long-term benefit of people, and for fish wildlife and their habitats. 2. We work across disciplines to solve problems because of their connections among organisms, species and habitats. 3. We integrate ecological, social, economic, and institutional perspectives into our decision- making. 4. We embrace new knowledge and apply best science to address changing conditions through adaptive management. 5. We collaborate with our co-managers and conservation and community partners to help us achieve our shared goals. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 3 for how land managers and land use regulators can utilize best available science to protect these ecosystems within the scope of their authority and/or ability. For example, local governments are encouraged to use information provided through PHS to guide critical area ordinance (CAO) updates and other land use policies, plans, or regulations. More specifically, WDFW advises using the information in this PHS Riparian Volume 2 for designating riparian areas as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) and protecting them for their inherent value, rather than just as buffers for rivers and streams. This is because riparian areas are so important for helping sustain endangered, threatened, and sensitive species; providing habitat connectivity for both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife; and for their critical role in protecting salmonid habitat (WAC 365-190-130). In short, Volumes 1 and 2 focus on the science and management, respectively, of riparian ecosystems to support fish and aquatic wildlife species. Volume 1 characterizes riparian ecosystem functions and essential processes, while Volume 2 provides management guidance for riparian ecosystems in the context of watershed processes. To be clear, these two volumes do not provide a summary of science or recommendations regarding the contribution of riparian ecosystems for the protection of terrestrial wildlife species. However, our first generation PHS Riparian-specific document, Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats: Riparian (Knutson and Naef 1997) does provide terrestrial species information related to riparian areas. Further, PHS has separate, species-specific management recommendations that address the needs of many terrestrial Priority Species. This document provides recommendations applicable across the State of Washington but does not address unusual, site-scale environmental conditions or issues specific to particular ecological communities. We strongly encourage addressing such matters at a local level with the assistance of WDFW regional habitat biologists, and other technical experts and stakeholders such as tribal biologists and conservation organizations. 1.2 PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY OF VOLUME 2 The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to protect and—where possible—restore healthy, intact, and fully functioning riparian ecosystems, which are fundamental for clean water, healthy salmon populations, and climate resilient watersheds. Volume 2 provides information to: • Protect existing and restore degraded riparian ecosystem functions in support of aquatic and terrestrial species recovery; • Assist local governments with their responsibilities to protect priority fish and wildlife and their habitats; • Assist landowners and local groups in implementing voluntary restoration actions on and off working lands; and • Incorporate monitoring and adaptive management to understand how well regulatory and non-regulatory efforts are protecting riparian functions and values. This guidance is applicable to riparian ecosystems statewide. We offer a specific focus on lands within the purview of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and Shoreline Management Act (SMA), although a broader application by local governments and other users is also appropriate. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 4 While many other federal, state, and tribal government programs and policies pertain to riparian ecosystems, they are not specifically addressed in this document. For instance, we do not discuss holistic protection of floodplains, nor do we discuss specific Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements relative to listed salmonids and other species. Also, we do not address commercial forestlands that fall under the jurisdiction of the Forest Practices Act (FPA), or the Department of Ecology’s clean water regulations. These other programs and policies were developed with specific goals and objectives that may be different from the goals of this document, and as such may differ with guidance provided herein. 1.3 SCIENCE SYNTHESIS AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS (VOLUME 1) SUMMARY As stated above, Volume 1 (Quinn et al. 2020; see footnote 2) provides important information integral to the development of these management recommendations. It includes both overarching as well as specific considerations important to all efforts, large and small, to protect rivers and streams for the benefit of the aquatic species associated with them. Volume 1 focuses on the science of riparian ecosystems—specifically, how riparian areas interact with large-scale drivers (e.g., topography, geology, climate, and land use) and watershed processes to create and maintain riparian and aquatic habitat in support of fish and wildlife. Thus, we provide here an explicit definition of riparian ecosystems from Volume 1 that combines a variety of conceptual riparian descriptions from the scientific literature: Riparian ecosystems are transitional between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, distinguished by gradients in biophysical conditions, ecological processes, and biota. They are areas through which surface and subsurface hydrology connect waterbodies with adjacent uplands. They include those portions of terrestrial ecosystems (i.e., a zone of influence) that significantly influence exchanges of energy and matter with aquatic ecosystems and the portion of the ecosystem characterized by moist soils and plants adapted to periodically saturated soils – the riparian zone (RZ). The width of the riparian ecosystem is typically defined by the outer edge of the zone of influence, which, in forested regions, is based on site-potential tree height (SPTH) measured from the edge of the active channel. While our definition of riparian ecosystem does not include the water in river or streams, it does include riverine wetlands and recognizes the riparian zone as a distinctive area within riparian ecosystems. To assist managers in understanding important implications of the science synthesized in Volume 1, we reiterate the ten overarching findings of that document below. These findings are also discussed in more detail in later chapters. 1. Protection and restoration of riparian ecosystems continues to be critically important because: (a) they are disproportionately important, relative to area, for aquatic species (e.g., salmon) and terrestrial wildlife; (b) they provide ecosystem services such as water purification and fisheries (Naiman and Bilby 2001, NRC 2002, Richardson et al. 2005); and (c) by interacting with watershed-scale processes, they contribute to the creation and maintenance of aquatic habitats. 2. Stream riparian ecosystems encompass the riparian zone; the active floodplain, including riverine wetlands and the terraces; and adjacent uplands that contribute matter and energy Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 5 to the active channel or active floodplain (Gregory et al. 1991, Naiman and Bilby 1998). Such terraces and adjacent uplands are called the zone of influence. 3. The width of the riparian ecosystem is estimated by one 200-year SPTH measured from the edge of the active channel or active floodplain. Protecting functions within at least one 200-year SPTH is a scientifically supported approach if the goal is to protect and maintain full function of the riparian ecosystem. 4. Where the riparian zone is narrow (<100 ft [30 m]) and the zone of influence lacks tall trees (<100 ft), (e.g., in parts of the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion), the pollution removal function may determine the width of the zone of influence. 5. The riparian ecosystem begins at the edge of the active channel or active floodplain, whichever is wider. As the active channel moves back and forth across the channel migration zone (CMZ), the riparian ecosystem moves with it. Consequently, there are times when the riparian ecosystem lies adjacent to or overlaps the CMZ (see Figure 2.3). Hence, to maintain riparian ecosystem functions, management must anticipate and protect future locations of the riparian ecosystem. 6. A near consensus of scientific opinion holds that the most effective and reliable means of maintaining viable self-sustaining fish, especially salmon, and wildlife populations is to maintain/restore ecosystems to conditions that resemble or emulate their historical range of natural variability (Swanson et al. 1994, Reeves et al. 1995, Bisson et al. 2009). This opinion is based in part on the complexity of processes that affect the expression of habitats over time and space. 7. The protection and restoration of watershed-scale processes, especially related to hydrology, water quality, connectivity, and inputs of wood, shade, and sediment are important for aquatic system function, and help maximize the ecological benefits of riparian ecosystem protections. 8. Riparian areas and surrounding watersheds are complex and dynamic systems comprised of many interacting components. Natural disturbances (flood, fire, and landslides) across the watershed and through time create the mosaic of conditions necessary for self-sustaining populations of fish, especially salmon, and other aquatic organisms. 9. Impending changes to aquatic systems as a result of climate change increase risk to species already threatened by human activities. The effects of climate change on rivers and streams threaten to reduce fish distribution and viability throughout the Pacific Northwest (Beechie et al. 2013). 10. The use of the precautionary principle and adaptive management are particularly appropriate when dealing with complex and dynamic systems, and when we have uncertainty related to exactly how management activities affect functioning of watersheds and riparian ecosystems. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 6 1.4 KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WDFW recognizes that there is a significant amount of work currently being done throughout the state to protect and restore riparian areas. This focus is longstanding and has ranged from regulatory protections that guide Washington’s growing population to voluntary conservation on our working lands. Below, we highlight what we believe—based on best available science and our agency’s mission—are the most important recommendations to ensure healthy, intact, and fully functioning riparian ecosystems that provide for the preservation, protection and perpetuation of Washington’s fish and wildlife: 1. Designate riparian ecosystems as critical areas: WDFW recognizes riparian ecosystems as a Priority Habitat for fish and wildlife and recommends that local jurisdictions designate those ecosystems as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs), a type of critical area. We define the bounds of the riparian ecosystem as the riparian management zone (RMZ), and this RMZ should be designated as the location where protection and restoration of riparian ecosystem functions and values are addressed. RMZs provide a framework for delineating, evaluating, planning, and managing functions and values. In this volume, we provide a process for RMZ delineation (Chapter 2). 2. Include watershed–scale management considerations: Watershed-scale management is critical to realizing the full benefits of riparian ecosystem protection and restoration. Certain types of anthropogenic changes at the watershed scale can dramatically reduce the effectiveness of riparian ecosystems to protect aquatic habitat. For example, unmitigated delivery of stormwater from impervious surfaces like roads, parking lots, and rooftops to streams, for example, dramatically increases peak stream flows, alters channel form, and short-circuits the capacity of riparian areas to remove pollutants from runoff. Similarly, road-crossing culverts that are impassible to fish can reduce stream-network connectivity and dramatically reduce amounts of otherwise suitable habitat. 3. Use reference points to locate the inner edge of the RMZ: • For streams without Channel Migration Zones (CMZs), the inner edge of the RMZ should be delineated starting at the outer edge of active floodplain, if this has or can be determined; otherwise, from the active channel, as delineated by the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM)3. • For streams with CMZs, the unpredictable nature of channel migration should be accommodated through delineation of an RMZ that encompasses both the entire CMZ and future locations of the riparian ecosystem. In these instances, the inner edge of the RMZ should be located at the outer edge of the CMZ. Whether or not a stream has a CMZ, the distance from the inner edge of the RMZ to the outer edge of the RMZ should be one SPTH200. 3 Active floodplain delineations are rarely available, and we currently lack a repeatable, well-vetted, and widely accepted method for the delineation of active floodplains. Therefore, until such a process is developed, we recommend delineating the RMZ’s inner edge using the OHWM for streams without CMZs. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 7 4. Include CMZs in delineation of the RMZ: CMZs are important to protect for maintaining riparian functions and values, and so are included in the delineation of RMZs. Over time, a riparian ecosystem will occupy different parts of the CMZ and uplands outside the CMZ. Lateral channel migration and related streambank erosion processes can pose risks to homes and communities located near rivers; however, when channels are constrained from moving, aquatic and riparian ecosystems may degrade over time. To maintain riparian ecosystem functions, land managers must anticipate and protect future locations of the riparian ecosystem and thus delineate the RMZ accordingly. 5. Establish RMZ widths based on site-specific conditions: From the perspective of those riparian ecosystem functions affecting aquatic systems, the width of the riparian ecosystem varies with ecological conditions. The most efficient way to protect riparian functions is to adopt protections that recognize these differences, rather than uniform-width (i.e., one-size-fits-all) RMZs, as these may result in over-protection in some places and under-protection in others. a. In forested ecoregions, start with SPTH200: At most riparian areas in forested ecoregions, SPTH200 is 100 feet or greater, and so the RMZ is delineated using one SPTH200. If SPTH200 is less than 100 feet, the RMZ is delineated by the pollution removal function (see below). In highly altered areas where soil data are not available, it may be necessary to estimate SPTH200 values based on nearby soils. b. In dryland ecoregions, start with SPTH200 (if available), or the width of the riparian vegetation community: If site conditions do not support tree species or SPTH200 is less than 100 feet, then RMZ width is determined by the full extent of all riparian vegetation (the riparian zone) or by the pollution removal function—see below. c. For both forested and dryland ecoregions, use the pollution removal function when appropriate: Where the SPTH200 and/or the width of the riparian vegetative community is less than 100 feet, we recommend that RMZ width be delineated at a minimum of 100 feet, as this provides the width necessary for 95% pollution removal target for most pollutants (approximately 85% for surface nitrogen.)4 To aid with site-specific RMZ delineation, WDFW created an internet-based mapping tool that reports recommended widths for RMZs (Appendix 1) statewide based on SPTH200. The tool also notes instances where a 100-foot RMZ should be applied to support the pollution removal function. 6. Apply the recommended RMZ delineation steps to all streams, whether or not they are fish-bearing: In 1997, WDFW recommended a lower level of protection for non-fish bearing streams than fish-bearing streams. In reviewing the current science literature for Volume 1, we found no evidence that full riparian ecosystem functions along non-fish-bearing streams are less important to aquatic ecosystems than full riparian ecosystem 4 See Chapter 2, Section 2.3.5 for more information about surface nitrogen removal and other site-specific characteristics that may require RMZ distances greater than 100 feet in order to ensure an adequate pollution removal function. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 8 functions along fish-bearing streams. This recommendation is based on four additional considerations. Non-fish-bearing streams: • Support a unique community of aquatic and riparian-obligate wildlife; • Provide movement corridors for wildlife, particularly in the face of changing climate conditions; • Provision fish-bearing streams with matter and energy; and • Provide cool water to downstream reaches. Washington State has already experienced increased stream temperatures due to climate change and expect further increases, which have direct implications for the persistence of fish. 7. Establish monitoring and adaptive management frameworks: We believe it is critical to understand if riparian ecosystems protections are working as intended, and if not, to adjust them accordingly. We recommend the establishment of monitoring and adaptive management designed to improve (where necessary) local permit implementation and compliance, and to increase effectiveness of actions intended to protect aquatic species. 8. Consider needs of relevant terrestrial species: As stated earlier, a review of new literature related to the needs of terrestrial Priority Species was not a focus of Volume 1. Nonetheless, riparian areas provide important functions for threatened, endangered, and sensitive terrestrial wildlife that require consideration by landowners and land managers. WDFW regional habitat biologists, tribal biologists and/or other local habitat experts can assist in identification of site-specific terrestrial species needs. Because riparian protections WAC 365-190-130 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS (1) “Fish and wildlife habitat conservation” means land managed for maintaining populations of species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution, so that the habitat is sufficient to support viable populations over the long term and isolated subpopulations are not created. This does not mean maintaining all individuals of all species at all times, but it does mean not degrading or reducing populations or habitats so that they are no longer viable over the long term. Counties and cities should engage in cooperative planning and coordination to help assure population viability. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas contribute to the state's biodiversity and occur on both publicly- and privately- owned lands. Designating these areas is an important part of land use planning for appropriate development densities, urban growth area boundaries, open space corridors, and incentive-based land conservation and stewardship programs.” WAC 173-26-186 GOVERNING PRINCIPLES OF THE [SMP] GUIDELINES (8) “Through numerous references to and emphasis on the maintenance, protection, restoration, and preservation of “fragile” shoreline “natural resources,” “public health,” “the land and its vegetation and wildlife,” “the waters and their aquatic life,” “ecology,” and “environment,” the act makes protection of the shoreline environment an essential statewide policy goal consistent with other policy goals of the act. It is recognized that shoreline ecological functions may be imparted not only by shoreline development subject to the substantial development permit requirements of the act but also by past actions, unregulated activities, and development that is exempt from the act’s permit requirements. The principle regarding protecting shoreline ecological systems is accomplished by these guidelines in several ways, and in the context of related principles.” Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 9 benefit both aquatic and many terrestrial wildlife species, concentrating protections around riparian areas may also be an efficient use of resources. 1.5 RELATIONSHIP WITH WASHINGTON’S DEVELOPMENT LAWS AND REGULATIONS Relationship with the Growth Management Act (GMA) The GMA requires local jurisdictions to designate and protect critical areas, and in so doing, use best available science and give special consideration to anadromous species 5. The GMA also encourages state agencies to provide technical assistance to counties and cities in the review of their critical areas ordinances (CAOs), comprehensive plans, and development regulations [RCW 36.70A.130(6)(g)]. While the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) administers the GMA, WDFW is the lead state agency for advising local governments on matters related to one type of critical area: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs), and we produce PHS Management Recommendations like this Volume 2 in support of that role. This document provides guidance that is consistent with the GMA, under which local governments exercise their land use responsibilities: specifically, protection of the functions and values of critical areas. It also reflects the legal and policy framework within which WDFW and the PHS program operate, which includes among other things providing a source of best available science necessary to support local governments in distinguishing and delineating those critical areas (e.g., FWHCAs). WDFW understands that local jurisdictions have existing critical area regulations that have been approved by elected officials and in many cases have been found to be compliant with GMA through the Growth Management Hearings Board and courts. We acknowledge that revising a critical area regulation can be a lengthy, expensive, and contentious process, and so jurisdictions frequently do not make updates to their CAOs more frequently than required by law or rule. In this volume, we aim to be more precise about where recent science has improved our certainty around the need for riparian protections, as well as for specific practices; and how to incorporate best available science and WDFW’s management recommendations. WDFW also recommends local jurisdictions continue considering PHS best available science (e.g., Volume 1; PHS maps), incorporating PHS Management Recommendations, and seeking technical assistance from WDFW’s regional habitat biologists not just when updating and implementing critical area policies and regulations, but in all land use planning efforts. Relationship with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) As with GMA, WDFW plays a role of technical advisor under SMA, working directly through locally led development processes, with the goal of addressing needs for fish and wildlife. Under SMA, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) has a role approving Shoreline Master Program (SMP) updates when they are deemed consistent with all statutory and regulatory requirements. Ecology also has 5 RCW 36.70A.172(1): “In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries.” Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 10 a direct role in implementation of SMPs, including issuing the final decision to approve, deny, or put conditions on locally issued conditional use permits and variances. [Under GMA, Commerce does not approve comprehensive plan updates or CAOs.] The goal of SMA is “to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines” (RCW 90.58.020). To achieve that end, WDFW recommends local jurisdictions designate riparian areas and provide the same levels of protection for them within the SMA jurisdiction areas as they do under GMA. While the SMA does not apply to streams with 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) or less mean annual flow, we recommend the application of the guidelines in this Volume 2 to all rivers and streams, regardless of size. 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF VOLUME 2 Chapter 1 aims to establish Volume 2’s purpose and intent; articulate WDFW’s values; and provide policy context regarding protection and designation of riparian ecosystems. In Chapter 2, we define the RMZ based on SPTH200 with special considerations for urban and dryland landscapes; and provide a stepwise process for identifying and delineating the RMZ both for requiring riparian protections and for classifying RMZs as a FWHCA under GMA. Chapter 3 articulates policies, plans, and practices that protect riparian ecosystems. WDFW recognizes that counties and cities have a long history of providing such protections, and the responsibility to include best available science when updating CAOs. The protection recommendations described in this chapter are intended to help counties and cities moving forward with reviewing and updating their CAOs and other relevant policies and plans. Chapter 4 explains the importance of restoration in riparian management, which is necessary for recovery of the degraded riparian functions present in many locations and is critical to recover salmon stocks and preserve Washington’s riparian-dependent Priority Species. To that end, we outline voluntary approaches to improve riparian functions. Although Volume 2 is not a restoration guide, it is applicable to restoration practitioners in that it describes management actions that enhance riparian functions and values. We do not address restoration project design or standards but provide links within this chapter to resources that do. Chapter 5 will assist with developing monitoring programs in support of adaptive management, designed to ensure transparent programs that consistently deliver sufficient protection of riparian functions. Careful monitoring and adaptive management are particularly important when a land use may harm a critical area and scientific information about the likely severity of harm is lacking. Although specific to local governments, this chapter provides valuable resources for any land manager interested in engaging in adaptive management. Finally, this volume includes an appendix that contains a “how-to” process for utilizing WDFW’s SPTH mapping tool to help determine recommended minimum RMZ widths around the state. The tool itself is available at wdfw.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=919ea98204eb4f5fa70eca99cd5b0de1. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 11 CHAPTER 2. RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT ZONE DELINEATION 2.1 INTRODUCTION We define the extent of the riparian ecosystem as the area that provides full ecological function for bank stability, shade, pollution removal, contributions of detrital nutrients, and recruitment of large woody debris. For the purposes of management or regulatory protection, the riparian management zone (RMZ) encompasses the riparian ecosystem, and—when present—the channel migration zone (CMZ) to account for lateral movement of the riparian ecosystem over time. RMZs can also provide habitat for many terrestrial wildlife species including movement corridors. WDFW categorizes the riparian ecosystem as a Priority Habitat, and thus recommends local jurisdictions designate all riparian areas as critical areas: specifically, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs), as mentioned in Chapter 1. The RMZ provide an initial framework for delineating, assessing, planning, and managing riparian ecosystems. The RMZ as defined here is not necessarily the same as setbacks or buffers. Setbacks are areas meant to protect an important feature (e.g., a stream or wetland) from certain types of adjacent activities, e.g., the area separating a building from the bank of a river. Setbacks are not typically designed to provide ecological function. On the other hand, buffers, which also protect important features, are commonly undeveloped, naturally vegetated areas that can contribute habitat and in the case of a stream, to riparian functions. In this document, we reserve the use of the term RMZ to mean the area capable of providing full function and managed to that end. 2.2 FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS IN RMZ DETERMINATIONS Desired Future Condition A major goal in fulfilling WDFW’s mission to preserve, protect, and perpetuate Washington’s fish, wildlife, and ecosystems is the protection and restoration of healthy, intact, and fully functioning riparian areas. More specifically, the goal will be achieved through management strategies that result in ecosystem composition and structure that provides the five key ecological functions associated with riparian ecosystems. A useful benchmark for this goal is desired future condition (DFC) for riparian areas. DFC describes what land managers are attempting to achieve, often in terms of composition and structure (e.g., vegetation or land-use), over a period of time in a given geographic area. The DFC we recommend results in fully functioning riparian ecosystems as measured by the five key ecological functions (bank stability, shade, pollution removal, contributions of detrital nutrients, and recruitment of large woody debris) in western Washington. The DFC for composition and structure is old, structurally complex conifer-dominant forest. Such forests exhibit large diameter trees, contain numerous large snags and logs, and have multi-layered canopies and canopy gaps, which promote understory plant diversity. Throughout the Columbia Plateau, differences in hydrology and geomorphology manifest substantial site-level differences in composition and structure of riparian vegetation, and hence, the DFC for composition and structure is more site-dependent in the Columbia Plateau than in western Washington. Nonetheless, the DFC in the Columbia Plateau is based on the same concepts of ecosystem composition and structure that support the same five key ecological functions in forested regions; specifically, biologically diverse vegetation communities consisting of native trees, Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 12 shrubs, grasses and forbs. In addition, the DFC for the upland portion of the riparian ecosystem which serves as the zone of influence and contributes to the pollution removal function in the Columbia Plateau is often intact native shrub-steppe or prairie vegetation. Site-Potential Tree Height (SPTH) Background A fundamental component of our recommendation is the use of site-potential tree height (SPTH). In this section, we provide background information on its origin, applicability, and usefulness (see also Volume 1, Chapter 9). In 1993, a group of experts (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]) was convened to develop a conceptual model to determine how to protect riparian areas in forested landscapes. This model has come to be known as the FEMAT curves (FEMAT 1993). Though this model is over 25 years old, it continues to be one of the most useful conceptual models informing riparian management. The FEMAT curves provide a conceptual model of important riparian functions and how those functions change with increased distance from the stream channel (Figure 2.1). The model conveys two important points: (1) four of the five riparian ecosystem functions or processes occur within one 200-year SPTH; and (2) the marginal return for each function or process decreases as distance from the stream channel increases. Thus, designating a riparian area based on at least one SPTH200 is a scientifically supported approach if the goal is to protect and maintain full function of the riparian ecosystem for aquatic habitat and species, including salmon. The FEMAT curves and SPTH have been used to describe the lateral extent of riparian ecosystems, and accordingly, the width of the RMZ needed to provide full riparian ecosystem function. Figure 2.1. The “FEMAT Curves” (FEMAT 1993): a generalized conceptual model describing contributions of key riparian ecosystem functions to aquatic ecosystems as the distance from a stream channel increases. “Tree height” refers to average height of the tallest dominant tree (200 years old or greater); referred to as site-potential tree height (SPTH). Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 13 FEMAT (1993, p. V-34) defined SPTH as “the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or more) for a given site class.” The key phrase in this definition is “200 years or more” which refers to the approximate minimum age of old-growth forests. This reflects FEMAT’s underlying assumption that old-growth forest conditions are needed for full riparian ecosystem functions. WDFW uses SPTH at 200 years (abbreviated SPTH200) in our recommendations in this Volume 2. Given its utility, the height of site-potential trees has been described for a variety of tree species and can be readily found in silvicultural literature. Mean heights of dominant trees in riparian old-growth forest of Washington range from 100 to 240 feet (Fox 2003). The wide range of heights reflects differences in site productivity, i.e., local differences in soil nutrients and moisture, light and temperature regimes, and topography. Site productivity is described quantitatively through a site index, which is the average height that dominant trees of a species are expected to obtain at a specified tree age at a given location. The Importance of Channel Migration Zones (CMZs) Not all streams have CMZs, but where CMZs are present, it is necessary to map the CMZ in order to establish an RMZ. The Washington Forest Practices Board Manual (DNR 2004) provides a useful definition of the CMZ as “the area where the active channel of a stream is prone to move and this results in a potential near-term loss of riparian function and associated habitat adjacent to the stream, except as modified by a permanent levee or dike” (DNR 2004, Section M2). Protecting the CMZ from incompatible land uses (e.g., development) is important for providing riparian ecosystem functions. Human alterations to river channels that limit channel migration and bank erosion can degrade aquatic and riparian habitats. For these reasons, geomorphologists have developed protocols for delineating CMZs. Further, RMZ delineation along streams with CMZs ensures that riparian functions do not degrade as a channel moves. Proper delineation also helps landowners avoid siting homes and infrastructure in CMZs that coincide with geologically hazardous critical areas and floodplains (WAC 365-190-120[6f]). Relationship of CMZs and Floodplains This document does not include guidance on the integration of floodplains into RMZ delineation (see footnote 4 for a brief explanation about the active floodplain). However, a general understanding of floodplains and their relationship to CMZs is valuable, as the two often overlap. Both federal and state regulations establish floodplain protections. Floodplain data and maps (typically 100-year floodplains) are readily available through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Insurance Management Program. Ecology is the state’s authority as lead on floodplain management and we support their recommendations for management of Frequently Flooded Areas (another type of critical area specified in GMA) and the use of the Floodplains by Design grant program to reduce hazards and restore natural functions. Proper floodplain delineation and protection helps landowners and land managers avoid placing homes and infrastructure in areas at high-risk of flooding. FEMAT defined Site potential tree height (SPTH) as “the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or more) for a given site class.” “200 years or more” is the approximate minimum age of old-growth forests which are thought to be necessary for full riparian ecosystem functions. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 14 The Bureau of Land Management provides common clues to help determine the presence of an active floodplain (BLM 2015) such as visual evidence of frequent inundation, which may include but is not limited to: • Fresh deposits of fine sediment; • Floodplain vegetation matted down or lying flat on floodplain from overbank flow or by deposition or overbank sediment; • Debris piled on the upstream side of tree trunks; or • High water marks seen on rocks, trees, or other stationary objects; and ice-rafted deposits on the floodplain. However, BLM advises caution when relying on these visual clues. Furthermore, looking for signs that an active floodplain is present is only the first step toward delineating the outer edge of an active floodplain. We recommend reviewing BLM’s technical reference titled Proper Functioning Condition Assessment for Lotic Areas (BLM 2015) and to consult Ecology for assistance regarding floodplain delineation and protections. Good floodplain management is not only beneficial for human communities, it is also good for fish and wildlife. Although we do not describe use of the 100-year floodplain to measure the RMZ in Volume 2, we recommend that landowners and land use decision makers treat floodplains similarly to RMZs due to their importance to instream health, as habitat, and for their ecological services. 2.3 PROCEDURES FOR RMZ DELINEATION To conserve riparian habitat, one must first establish the lateral extent (i.e., width) of the RMZ. In Chapter 1, we noted that an RMZ encompasses the riparian zone and zone of influence (Figure 2.2, page 16), and, where present, considers the CMZ (Figure 2.3, page 18). In this section, we outline general steps for collecting site-specific information essential to map an RMZ. These steps will help you identify a site’s proximity to streams as well as essential site characteristics. With this information, we then explain how to delineate an RMZ. In the rest of this section, we explain how to: • Identify the ecoregion in which the riparian ecosystem is located (e.g., forested or dryland); • Verify the presence of a stream; • Identify the inner edge of the RMZ; and finally • Determine the RMZ width. Determining Ecosystem Location We have identified two distinct types of ecoregions statewide, each with a slightly different RMZ delineation procedure: (1) Forested, and (2) Dryland. In general, forested ecoregions dominate western Washington, northeastern Washington, and portions of southeast, north central, and eastern Cascades. Dryland ecosystems are more readily contained in the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion east of the Cascade Range. Landowners and land use planners should utilize the SPTH mapping tool, described in Appendix 1, to determine the ecoregion where the river or stream lies. Appendix 1 also provides instructions for using this tool to determine the 200-year site-potential tree height (SPTH200) at a given location. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 15 Verifying the Presence of a Stream Once you have identified which ecoregion you are in (e.g., Columbia Plateau), a qualified professional6 should visit the site to verify the stream’s location on or near the project area. It is very important not to rely solely on “stream maps” (e.g., DNR stream layer, National Hydrography Dataset) in place of a site visit (which is also important for mapping RMZs) because existing mapped stream layers often have errors, including streams whose locations are mapped inaccurately on the landscape, and streams actually present on the landscape that are missing from maps. Instead, use the site visit to validate existing stream maps. Identifying the Inner Edge of the RMZ Once you have verified a stream’s location, proceed to locate the inner edge of the RMZ. Accurate RMZ delineation is dependent on using the correct starting point. In this section, we describe how to determine the location of the RMZ’s inner edge using either the Channel Migration Zone (CMZ), if one is present; or the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM). Ecology, as the state’s water quality lead, provides extensive guidance and resources associated with OHWM or CMZ, and those resources are referenced here forward. 2.3.3 (A) Identifying Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) Delineate the RMZ’s inner edge by identifying the OHWM along both sides of the stream following the procedure in Chapter 3 of Ecology’s OHWM delineation manual (Anderson et al. 2016). 6 Qualified professionals can be entities and individuals identified by the jurisdiction, WDFW regional habitat biologists, tribal biologists, Ecology staff, and/or other individuals familiar with stream verification and who have local expertise (e.g., Conservation District staff, Stream Teams, etc.). Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 16 Figure 2.2. The diagram depicts the riparian management zone (RMZ) for both forested (left) and dryland (right) ecoregions. The RMZ is coincident with the riparian ecosystem, which consists of the riparian zone (riparian vegetative community) and the zone of influence. The riparian zone extends from the edge of the active channel towards the uplands and it includes areas where vegetation is influenced at least periodically by flowing waters. The zone of influence includes areas where ecological processes significantly influence the stream, at least periodically. 2.3.3 (B) Identifying the Channel Migration Zone Delineate the RMZ’s inner edge by identifying the edge of the CMZ. Information about CMZs is available for certain streams in the state. For example: • SMA-Covered Shorelines – During Shoreline Master Program comprehensive updates, many jurisdictions map the general location of CMZs associated with shorelines that fall under the jurisdiction of SMA (RCW 36.70A.480). Note that even smaller streams not subject to SMA jurisdiction can have CMZs. In these cases, we recommend jurisdictions still identify and analyze CMZs to protect riparian ecosystems and public health and safety. • Puget Sound Streams – The federal Endangered Species Act may require CMZ delineation in Puget Sound basin streams under the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program Biological Opinion for Puget Sound. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 17 • Other Local Examples – Check with your jurisdiction to see if they have more detailed CMZ maps. Ecology provides the following resources which can help landowners and land managers assess the presence and extent of CMZs where maps and data on CMZs do not currently exist: • CMZ Home Page provides a high-level look at CMZ identification, and references useful documents; • Channel Migration Processes and Patterns in Western Washington (Legg and Olson 2014) describes the general channel migration processes that occur in western Washington; • A Methodology for Delineating Planning-Level Channel Migration Zones (Olson et al. 2014) provides a process for delineating “planning-level” CMZs and gives a few good examples in the appendices; • A Framework for Delineating Channel Migration Zones (Rapp and Abbe 2003) is a more in-depth guide on how to develop “detailed” CMZs; and • Screening Tools for Identifying Migrating Stream Channels in Western Washington (Legg and Olson 2015) outlines the “CHAMP” (channel migration potential) GIS layer with guidance on using it to identify high-risk CMZs. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 18 Figure 2.3. This diagram depicts the spatial relationship between the riparian management zone (RMZ) and channel migration zone (CMZ) over time. As the active channel moves laterally within the CMZ, the riparian ecosystem moves with it. As a result, when considering the establishment of an RMZ, delineation should occur at the edge of the CMZ to account for the full extent of both the present day and future riparian ecosystems. Time 1 and Time 2 could be separated by days or centuries. This depiction of a forested system is one representation of a CMZ, which are also present in dryland systems: both should be managed for accordingly. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 19 Determining RMZ Width Once you have determined the location of the RMZ’s inner edge, you then establish the width of the RMZ. The following stepwise process aims to establish recommended minimum delineation distances based on SPTH200, vegetation composition, and pollution removal function (Figure 2.4). We say “recommended minimum” because upland adjacent land uses may require further adjustment of the RMZ to provide adequate pollution removal functions. Landowners and land use regulators should also consider additional actions to support wildlife connectivity and/or to protect riparian adjacent Priority Habitats. Figure 2.4. Aerial view of variable width RMZ delineation process for forested (A) and dryland (B) systems. • Step 1: Identify the SPTH or full extent of the riparian vegetative community (green); • Step 2: Overlay a 100-foot pollution removal distance (yellow); • Step 3: Delineate the RMZ (black) as the greater of the two distances. We tailor the following guidance based on two types of ecoregion: (1) Forested and (2) Dryland. 2.3.4 (A) Forested Ecoregions Forested ecoregions are well-suited for using SPTH200 consistently to establish RMZ widths, and so for these areas, landowners and land managers can rely on the SPTH200 information provided in the SPTH mapping tool (see Appendix 1). The tool provides the derived average height attained by the dominant tree species at age 200 years (SPTH200) using the U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 20 Service (NRCS) forest productivity site index values, which we recommend for delineation of RMZs (see Sec 9.3 in Volume 1 for background on the origin and use of SPTH200). In forested ecoregions, contributions of large wood as a riparian ecosystem function often define the farthest lateral extent of the RMZ. Occasionally, the SPTH200 may be less than 100 feet, in which case the pollution removal function (described in more detail in Section 2.3.5 below) defines the lateral extent of the RMZ. In Washington, STPH200 can be as large as 260 feet: therefore, be sure to evaluate each soil polygon within 260 feet of the stream channel to ensure that RMZ delineation is in fact being driven by the largest dominant tree species. 2.3.4 (B) Dryland Ecoregion Riparian ecosystems in arid and semi-arid regions of North America (also referred to as the dryland ecoregion) make up less than 1 to 3 percent of the landscape (Patten 1998). Dryland riparian ecosystems are hydrologically linked to and influenced by adjacent surface waters; as a result, surface waters sustain riparian vegetation that is clearly distinct from upland vegetation. Riparian ecosystems in dryland environments are highly variable due to various site-level conditions. While these ecosystems may support large trees in low gradient floodplains, tree presence in riparian ecosystems throughout the dryland ecoregion is much more varied than in forested ecoregions, and so in many cases, the contribution of large wood no longer serves as the outermost ecological function for RMZ delineation. Further, riparian vegetation may be minimal or even non-existent, particularly along degraded, incised streams. In dryland ecoregions, the outermost of three factors drives delineation of the RMZ: (1) SPTH200 (if trees are present); (2) riparian vegetative community; or (3) pollution removal function. 2.3.4 (C) Considerations in Highly Modified and Urban Systems In some locations, riparian systems have been substantially modified, and current site-specific conditions may not provide adequate indication of where riparian vegetation would naturally occur. On the whole, this is particularly true of riparian systems in dryland ecoregions. In these instances, we recommend considering nearby sites with unaltered vegetation or selecting a representative site with similar bank height and gradient conditions to identify adequate riparian vegetation delineation for both protection and restoration. Protecting Columbia Plateau’s Priority Habitats Supports Riparian Health Native shrub-steppe vegetation and other drought-tolerant plant communities dominate Washington’s dryland environments. Approximately 450 plant community associations occur in this region, with over 20% of these associations considered vulnerable (WDFW 2005, p. 523). Among the most imperiled ecosystems in North America, historical shrub-steppe has been greatly reduced due to conversion to other land uses (Vander Haegen 2007). Riparian areas are critical to most animal species using shrub-steppe. Biodiversity in these vegetative communities increases dramatically where surface water occurs, and riparian areas directly support numerous species found only in or near water (Rogers et al. 1988, Johnson and O’Neil 2001). Linking and protecting upland adjacent Priority Habitat(s) not only aims to support Washington’s wildlife and their associated habitat conservation goals, but also works to protect and maintain riparian ecosystem integrity. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 21 Similarly, four major urban areas (Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, and Bellingham) in forested ecoregions lack NRCS soils data. For these areas, WDFW identified nearby NRCS soils polygons and calculated weighted averages as estimates reflective of the surrounding environment (“imputed SPTH200”). Much like in forested areas where SPTH200 data are available, we recommend using the imputed SPTH200 values specified for each of these urban areas to delineate RMZs within them. Width delineation steps Step 1: Use SPTH200 if it is at least 100 feet. In forested ecoregions, WDFW recommends full protection within one SPTH200, identified with the use of our SPTH mapping tool (https://arcg.is/1ueq0a). The mean SPTH200 in western Washington ranges from 100 to 240 feet (Fox 2003). Some soil polygons have SPTH200 information for multiple tree species; therefore, each soil polygon within one SPTH200 should be evaluated to ensure RMZ delineation is driven by the largest dominant tree species. Occasionally the SPTH200 in forested ecoregions is less than 100 feet; for example, red alder is a fairly common riparian tree species, yet the SPTH200 for this species does not always exceed 100 feet. If red alder is the only species for which SPTH200 information is available for a certain location, and it is less than 100 feet, then skip to Step 3. In dryland ecoregions, it is less common, but still possible to find riparian vegetation which includes—and may even be dominated by—large trees. Examples of large tree species in these areas are black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). If SPTH200 in dryland ecoregions exceeds 100 feet, then it should be used for the RMZ width. Step 2: In dryland ecoregions, if SPTH200 is less than 100 feet or if no large trees are present, identify the extent of the riparian vegetative community. In dryland ecoregions, the riparian vegetative community is often comprised of shrubs, sedges, grasses, and forbs that are distinct from upland communities. For example, in the Columbia Plateau, vegetation within riparian ecosystems often exhibits an abrupt demarcation between the riparian zone and zone of influence. Phreatophytic 7 trees and shrubs and hydrophytic8 herbaceous plants are confined to moist streamside areas, but the upland zone of influence may consist of sagebrush or bunchgrass communities [for more information, see Volume 1, Chapter 7 (Section 7.1.1)]. Where trees are not present or consist only of small species (less than 100 feet tall), WDFW recommends full protection of the entire riparian vegetative community. In some places the community may only be a few feet wide but in others it may extend up to several hundred feet, particularly when associated with a wetland or floodplain (Bermingham et al. 2013). Where the riparian vegetative community is less than 100 feet wide, go to step 3. 7 A phreatopyhtic plant is a species that obtains water from the subsurface zone of saturation either directly or through the capillary fringe (Thomas 2014). 8 Hydrophytic plants are those that are adapted to growing conditions associated with periodically saturated soils. They include obligate wetland plants that almost always occur in wetlands under natural conditions, facultative wetland plants that usually occur in wetlands but are occasionally found in non-wetlands, and facultative plants that equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (Lichvar et al. 2012). Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 22 Step 3: Overlay 100-foot pollution removal delineation The following applies to both forested and dryland ecoregions. Our recommendation to protect full riparian function recognizes the importance of the pollution removal function of riparian ecosystems. Because pollution removal depends on multiple factors, including slope, soils, plant community composition, and upland uses, establishing a standard RMZ width for 100% pollution removal even at the site scale was impractical. Where neither SPTH200 nor the extent of the riparian vegetative community is at least 100 feet, we recommend RMZ delineation of a minimum distance of 100 feet, because this distance will achieve 95% or more removal efficacy of phosphorous, sediment, and most pesticides. To be clear, we value a similar removal efficacy for nitrogen, and at a 100-foot width, an RMZ would achieve only 80% removal efficacy for surface runoff containing excess nitrogen. However, the literature reflects that both the actual risk posed by excess nitrogen, as well as the efficacy of its removal, are very site-specific. In recognition of this, we strongly recommend that, where upland uses contribute nitrogen, the 100-foot minimum pollution removal distance be extended accordingly when determining the appropriate RMZ width. Further, if RMZ widths are being based on a minimum pollution removal function at locations with steep slopes or poorly drained soils, distances greater than 100 feet should also be considered: this applies for all pollutants. Additionally, WDFW recommends cities and counties identify high intensity land uses that may be located adjacent to riparian areas within their jurisdiction and establish wider RMZs to enhance the pollution removal function in these locations as well, following guidance from Ecology. When dealing with variables such as those outlined above, it may be necessary to seek expert assistance in determining the appropriate adjustments to RMZ widths based on the pollution removal function. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 23 CHAPTER 3. RIPARIAN REGULATORY PROTECTIONS 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter gives guidance to help local governments review, develop, and implement regulatory tools to protect riparian ecosystems as critical areas, i.e., Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs). We describe key steps toward creating effective programs to protect riparian ecosystems consistent with the goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP). More specifically, this chapter describes recommendations for carrying out common land use activities and provides steps for developing Habitat Management Plans (HMPs). The riparian management zone (RMZ) should serve as the focal area to apply our recommendations. Parcel-scale regulations are foundational to Washington’s traditional land use regulatory approaches for protecting rivers and streams and their adjacent riparian ecosystem. However, sole reliance upon a regulatory approach at this site scale may result in loss of aquatic system function over the long term (see Volume 1). Thus, we believe that site-scale regulations must work in coordination with watershed-scale planning (Chapter 4) and that both should be monitored and adaptively managed (Chapter 5). In this chapter, we present considerations and recommendations for managing and protecting riparian ecosystems at both site- and watershed-scales. 3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS Protection of watersheds commonly falls under the purview of agencies other than WDFW. Nonetheless, we encourage local jurisdictions (and their long-range planners in particular) to consider how land use patterns at all scales collectively affect fish and wildlife and other important ecosystem services. The scientific literature review (see Volume 1) informs WDFW’s position that protecting the area within one SPTH200 from the edge of a stream channel maintains full riparian ecosystem functions for all aquatic species, including salmon, and promotes healthy, intact riparian ecosystems. This recommendation provides the greatest level of certainty that land use activities do not impair functions and values of riparian ecosystems. We recommend the use of monitoring and adaptive management (see Chapter 5) to inform regulations and evaluate the complement of both regulatory and voluntary conservation measures in achieving outcomes. Land use decision makers should ensure all programs that can affect riparian habitat (e.g., CAOs; SMPs; and ordinances for clearing and grading, fire hazard reduction, and tree protection) are coordinated to optimize the ability of local policies, rules, and management activities to protect those habitats. Further, jurisdictions should look for gaps such as inconsistencies, exemptions and loopholes, or inefficient practices (e.g., inspection and monitoring protocols) that could impede protection of or cause harm to riparian ecosystems. To that end, we provide important questions to consider when reviewing CAOs, Comprehensive Plans, or other plans that can affect riparian ecosystems: Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 24 1. Conservation Strategies: • What external strategies exist (salmon recovery plans, reach-scale assessments, and incentive-based plans) to maintain, protect and restore riparian areas? • Which of these strategies (if any) currently inform your regulatory, planning, and/or voluntary processes or programs? • If these strategies are not in your current programs, could they be incorporated to provide additional benefits to riparian ecosystems? Are there other strategies that could also (or instead) benefit riparian ecosystems? • Which of these strategies may help your jurisdiction satisfy mitigation obligations? • How are riparian restoration and/or enhancement programs informed by these strategies? 2. Regulatory Buffers: • Does your jurisdiction rely on SPTH200 for delineating regulatory riparian buffers? • If your jurisdiction does not rely on SPTH200 for delineating those buffers, does your jurisdiction currently have regulatory buffers for riparian areas that are equal to or greater than the distance equal to SPTH200? • Are there buffer exemptions? If so, how do those affect riparian function across your jurisdiction? • Do your buffers consider the CMZ? • Do your buffers consider adjacent wetlands and appropriate wetland delineation methodology as prescribed by Ecology? • If your jurisdiction’s CAO or SMP buffers are less than SPTH200, can you use the RMZ to identify areas to do mitigation or areas impacted that will require mitigation? 3. Restoration and Adaptive Management (see also Chapter 5): • Can your jurisdiction use the RMZ to identify areas for incentive-based restoration? • Do you have a monitoring and adaptive management program for improving permit implementation? • Is your jurisdiction collecting information on effectiveness of protecting riparian areas? • If you collect effectiveness information, what programs (e.g., incentives, regulations) could you improve to increase riparian conservation? 4. Other Programs and Regulations • What other regulations separate from CAOs, may inadvertently affect riparian areas? (e.g., clearing and grading ordinance that lack safeguards for riparian protection.) • Are there opportunities to connect riparian areas with other protected areas (e.g., frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, green belts, parks, wetlands, and aquifer recharge areas)? Recommendations for Common Activities in the RMZ Local governments should regulate all land use activities that are likely to impact functions of a riparian ecosystem found within the RMZ to ensure, at a minimum, that the existing functions and values are protected from development actions. For the purposes of meeting requirements under GMA, SMA, and VSP, we describe the RMZ as the area in which functions and values are contributed Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 25 to the riparian ecosystem: providing a delineated space not just for protection, but also for mitigation and management. We also recommend prioritizing the RMZ as the space for restoration 9. We provide specific information and recommendations for the following ten common activities: (Note that neither the list of activities nor the recommendations themselves are exhaustive; for more information, contact your WDFW regional habitat biologist.) 1. On-site Sewage Systems (OSS) 2. Bank hardening 3. Clearing, grading, and placement of fill 4. Removal of noxious weeds 5. Forest practices and conversions 6. Firewise and wildfire hazard reduction 7. Removal of hazard trees 8. Non-compensatory restoration and enhancement 9. Emergency activities 10. Educational or Recreational Areas 1. On-site Sewage Systems (OSS) – Historically, developers sited OSS at lower elevations bordering streams, lakes and wetlands in order to use passive gravity flow. The disadvantage of these systems is that when drain fields are located near water features, they can more easily contaminate water with high loads of nutrients and toxic pollutants, causing significant impacts to flora, fauna and water quality. The State Department of Health adopted rules establishing public health standards for location, design, installation, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of OSS, including requiring setbacks from waterbodies (WAC 246-272A) which modern OSS systems, using pump systems, can support. Some OSS may meet public health standards even if located within RMZs; nevertheless, jurisdictions should exercise authority to require HMPs to ensure project proponents protect habitat functions of riparian critical areas. 2. Bank Hardening – We recommend jurisdictions avoid allowing new development that requires bank protection now or is likely to in the future (consider channel migration, wind and wave action, and climate change), unless it addresses an imminent threat as an emergency activity (see Emergency Activities in this section below). Always look to alternative places to site a project so that no bank protection measures are needed. If measures cannot be avoided, require that a project proponent evaluate the effectiveness of bioengineering alternatives (also known as soft armoring) prior to proposing hard armoring. Follow bank protection recommendations in the Washington State Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (Cramer et al. 2002) when bank protection is unavoidable. 3. Clearing, Grading, and Filling – We recommend jurisdictions acknowledge impacts of clearing, grading, and filling on riparian areas in their CAOs by limiting these activities to areas outside the RMZ (unless directly related to restoration) as they can negatively affect riparian areas. If a clearing, grading, or filling project must encroach in an RMZ, limit disturbance and minimize 9 As explained previously, many riparian areas had already experienced a substantial degree of degradation before laws like GMA, SMA, and VSP were passed, so while protecting what level of riparian functions and values remain is essential, protection alone will not be sufficient for meeting the needs of the state’s fish and wildlife species. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 26 effects to the greatest extent possible. Require that a qualified professional prepare an HMP describing how the project proponent will follow the mitigation sequence. Jurisdictions that exempt small areas from filling or grading ordinances in riparian ecosystems should calculate cumulative impacts from these exemptions. They should also mitigate impacts and subsequently establish monitoring to ensure that mitigation measures are effectively negating potential losses to habitat function. 4. Invasive and/or Noxious Plant Removal – Many CAOs do not require a permit for control and removal of invasive and/or noxious weeds within riparian ecosystem. We support this when weed control efforts (1) employ hand weeding with light equipment; (2) use only Ecology-approved aquatic herbicides and adjuvants (a substance added to herbicides to improve application); avoid use of hazardous substances; and (3) do not result in soil compaction. Local governments should retain some oversight authority for more extensive invasive and/or noxious plant control projects to ensure adequate protections of riparian functions, especially water quality. Most communities issue an exemption letter or permit, which should include conditions to ensure impacts to fish, wildlife, and habitat are minimal. It is important to note that even plants native to the region can, in certain circumstances, be detrimental to riparian areas. An example is in Puget Sound Prairies, where in the absence of periodic fire events (typically prescribed fire), common western Washington conifer species like Douglas fir outcompete native deciduous species (primarily Oregon white oak). In these circumstances, conifer removal and re-establishment of historical riparian conditions (oak and prairie vegetation) should occur under an approved HMP. WDFW regional habitat biologists can assist in preparing, reviewing, and implementing such a plan. 5. Forest Practices and Conversions – The state’s Forest Practices Act (RCW 76.09 and WAC 222) regulates forest practice activities on forestland: We recommend that the proponent always contact DNR prior to conducting forest practice activities and seek technical assistance from a WDFW regional habitat biologist to ensure protections for Priority Habitats and Species. When conducting commercial forest practice activities, the forest practice rules—not the CAO—apply for protection of resources on site. Lands converted from forestry to another use require a special forest practice permit, and when converting land, local CAOs are applied. If conversion occurs, WDFW recommends timber harvests not be allowed within SPTH200. 6. Wildfire Hazard Reduction – Wildfire is a concern in Washington, though the threat varies across the state. Local regulations to reduce wildfire hazards should be coordinated with a Firewise program in order to require landowners to consult with a Firewise professional (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/firewise) before removing trees or manipulating vegetation in an RMZ. Understanding the composition of historical forest stands and shrub-steppe can help ensure retention of riparian functions when carrying out wildfire hazard reduction activities. When fuel (vegetation) reduction efforts involve the removal of merchantable trees, the proponent should check with the local jurisdiction and DNR, which may require a permit for tree removal. 7. Removing Hazard Trees – Tree trimming or removal in RMZs is sometimes necessary to address public safety concerns but should be balanced with the potential impacts to riparian ecosystem function. Jurisdictions should define a “hazard tree” (sometimes referred to as a “danger tree”) as a threat to life, property or public safety, and require that the method of tree removal not Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 27 adversely affect riparian ecosystem functions if possible. Specifically, we recommend that any removal of hazard trees involve an avoidance and minimization of damage to remaining trees and vegetation within the RMZ. We further recommend that local governments require a qualified arborist to evaluate requests for hazard tree removal. The qualified arborist should be able to establish when a tree presents an imminent threat to life, property or public safety. It is important to note that snags (dead trees) are a Priority Habitat feature for wildlife, and so should be preserved if not hazardous. Some local governments use Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222-21-010[4]), which define a hazard tree as “any qualifying timber reasonably perceived to pose an imminent danger to life or improved property.” This applies to any tree within 1.5 tree-lengths of the structure. A DNR forester can verify during a site visit that a tree is a hazard based on this definition, and thus removing the hazard would not be subject to the Forest Practice jurisdiction or require a Forest Practice Application. 8. Restoration and Enhancement – We encourage local governments to include in their CAOs allowances for restoration and/or enhancement of the riparian ecosystem, including in-channel or streamside work, especially on lands set aside for conservation. To the extent possible, jurisdictions should promote incentives and set up a streamlined review process for restoration or enhancement projects to help facilitate project proponents not just meeting the minimum requirements of the local CAO, but instead going “above and beyond”. Significant resources are available to jurisdictions that address limiting factors in riparian areas or undertake high priority restoration activities that benefit salmon or other listed species (see Chapter 4 for information on restoration). 9. Emergency Activities – Local codes typically have provisions for emergency activities (e.g., bank stabilization to address imminent threats to homes) that provide relief from time delays related to procedural code requirements. Local regulations should distinguish the immediate need to permit an emergency activity from the need to compensate for its impacts after-the-fact. 10. Educational or Recreational Areas – Public access to shorelines is a priority use under the SMA and providing educational and/or recreational developments such as trails, viewing platforms, or similar facilities may also enhance the public’s understanding and appreciation of riparian areas, streams, and habitats. Thus, some focused use of the RMZ for educational and recreational activities may be desirable, if it does not create significant disturbances. Most CAOs include allowances for unpaved access to a stream for aesthetic or recreational enjoyment with defined limits on clearing to avoid impacts and minimizing soil, vegetation, and habitat disturbances: this is an allowance we support. That said, construction of trails could allow greater access for pets and other high intensity recreation, which may increase predation on, and/or disturbance of fish and wildlife species. Regulations should minimize impacts from recreational trails and interpretive facilities to the extent practicable, informed by PHS data and associated management recommendations. Project-specific Riparian Habitat Management Plans When reviewing proposed projects near streams, local governments typically require applicants to provide detailed site-specific HMPs (often called a Critical Area Report). Here we describe six aspects of Riparian HMPs that we recommend be addressed in CAOs: Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 28 1. When HMPs are required; 2. Which additional critical areas must be delineated, and how; 3. Which specific land use actions must be identified, and how; 4. Mitigation requirements; 5. Monitoring and Adaptive Management requirements; and 6. Articulate who must prepare and review the HMP. 1. When required – We recommend jurisdictions require an HMP whenever someone proposes a land use activity in an RMZ (regardless of the jurisdiction’s regulatory RMZ delineation) or when a proposal likely could affect riparian or aquatic functions. In cases where there is less confidence in the spatial accuracy of the RMZ, consider requiring a Riparian HMP when impacts occur adjacent to the RMZ’s zone of influence. Maps, DNR’s stream layers, the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), and other (e.g., local) stream layers are important for triggering HMPs. An HMP should be required whenever a stream is present near proposed development activities, including but not limited to subdivisions (plats, short plats, and large lot subdivisions), land/vegetation disturbing activities (e.g., clearing and grading, septic drain field siting), and stormwater routing. 2. Critical Area Delineation – HMPs should have the extent of critical areas within and adjacent to a proposed project site identified, along with ecosystem functions that need protection. Follow the RMZ delineation procedure outlined in Chapter 2, along with locations of other critical areas on or near the site (e.g., wetlands, geologic hazards, frequently flooded, critical aquifer recharge areas; informed by Ecology). Also, identify salmon and other priority aquatic species that use the stream network in the immediate vicinity as well as up- and downstream. Likewise, HMPs should identify Priority Species that may use the riparian corridor and any other Priority Habitats to which the corridor is connected. Attach the delineation map (1) to the property’s title to inform future property owners of the site’s critical areas, and (2) use it to update the jurisdiction’s critical areas maps. 3. Land Use Action Identification – A complete HMP should describe relevant management recommendations for Priority Habitats and Species found on or near the site. Include a map in the HMP showing the location of proposed land use actions. It should identify and quantify current and proposed disturbances to the RMZ and other FWHCAs. 4. Mitigation – The HMP should have a description of the project proponent’s mitigation sequencing. It should describe in detail measures to avoid impacts and minimize unavoidable impacts (e.g., clustering, conservation easements, and seasonal construction restrictions). If mitigation or compensation is necessary, the HMP should identify ways to improve riparian ecosystem function by enhancing riparian corridor connectivity (e.g., removal of stream barriers) or by improving the quality of the riparian area (e.g., replacing invasive vegetation with appropriate native vegetation). 5. Monitoring and Adaptive Management –The HMP should describe requirements for monitoring and adaptive management. In addition, it should identify measurable standards and expectations to monitor compliance (e.g., areal extent of vegetative cover, composition of riparian tree species, maximum invasive plant cover). The HMP should identify frequency of visits to monitor the site (e.g., at year 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10) as well as measurable triggers for requiring more actions (e.g., maximum percent area coverage of invasive plants). The HMP Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 29 should specify who is responsible for preparing, reviewing, and submitting reports. Finally, if deemed necessary by the jurisdiction, the report should include a cost estimate for monitoring, and the project proponent should post a bond for this amount or more to allow for overages. 6. Preparer and Reviewer – A qualified professional biologist, botanist, or ecologist should prepare the HMP; additional expertise related to CMZs, unstable slopes, and wetlands may also be necessary. Additionally, an independent professional with similar qualifications should review the HMP. WDFW’s regional habitat biologists can often serve in this role, especially for larger projects. USFWS or NOAA Fisheries should also review the HMP if the project might affect a federally listed fish or wildlife species. 3.3 RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT IN URBAN AREAS Some people have raised questions about the applicability of RMZs to urban and urbanizing areas. These concerns generally fall into two categories: (1) the science on RMZs comes largely from agricultural and forestry settings, and so is perceived to be irrelevant to urban areas; and (2) there is a belief that the need to maximize density of development in urban areas is in direct conflict with the protection of riparian areas. Concerns over the relevancy of literature on riparian functions to urban areas is largely unfounded. While most riparian ecosystem studies are from non-urban settings, the principles are the same. Functions of shade, bank stability, large wood recruitment, nutrient inputs, and pollutant removal operate similarly in urban areas as they do in other settings. However, within urban areas, these riparian ecosystem functions are often greatly diminished or even absent altogether. The role that urban RMZs play in delivering habitat functions for aquatic and many terrestrial species is also like that in non-urban areas. Factors that may be different in urban areas are that urban riparian ecosystems may perform some functions at reduced levels due to their position in developed watersheds, which are often heavily degraded. However, intact RMZs in urban areas function as wildlife corridors that link habitat patches, which is critical for many species. In fact, sometimes RMZs in urban areas may be more important from a habitat standpoint, because within urban areas, adjacent uplands are often even more degraded than the RMZs, which then are often the only remaining areas where habitat functions are provided. Thus, a key element to maintain in urban RMZs is connectivity, both in and along streams. Many Puget Sound salmon move through channelized streams, traversing heavily urbanized areas prior to reaching spawning grounds and as juveniles on a reciprocal journey to marine waters. Salmon must pass through a wide spectrum of development. For example, adults returning to spawn often start in urban cores (e.g., downtown Seattle), where streams are often channelized; then pass through areas with small lots and high urban density and into suburban creeks where larger lots allow for more riparian protection; and finally, to rural lots with less development and better ecosystem health. When juveniles make their journeys in reverse, they generally spending more time in each of these areas than their parents did, and yet because of their small size, they are also at much greater risk of not surviving any of them. While the decades-long decline of many of our native salmon stocks illustrate just how challenging this is, their persistence—especially the subspecies which are showing signs of improvement—shows us what is possible. Therefore, it is critical that the urban environment maintain and enhance the ability of different species and ages of salmon to not just survive, but thrive, while in these disturbed areas. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 30 Many of the actions we recommend urban communities focus on are the same or similar to those appropriate in less densely developed areas. For example, it is critical to maintain connectivity through properly sized culverts such that all fish can pass through at all relevant life stages. Additional riparian function can be achieved through revegetation efforts using native plants and by improving connectivity between habitat patches. A landscape analysis can help identify existing connections to protect, as well as areas where restoring connectivity is a priority. On the other hand, some actions are particularly well-suited to urban jurisdictions, like standards for Low Impact Development (LID) and state-of-the-art stormwater management. Further, when changes are made to urban infrastructure, this may create opportunities to improve riparian functions while contributing to new or improved public open spaces. Recommendations for urban riparian ecosystems: 1. Delineate urban RMZs to protect what areas remain and to highlight lost or degraded areas to target for restoration. 2. Quantify current conditions, with a goal of maintaining and improving functions through regulatory and voluntary means. 3. Identify and prioritize restoration opportunities and projects within the RMZ: a. Protect riparian functions that remain, especially in places that are relatively high functioning; implement actions that enhance degraded functions (see Chapter 4). b. Prioritize opportunities to maintain and restore in-stream and riparian connectivity. c. Adopt a stormwater design manual equivalent to Ecology’s most current manual for western and eastern Washington. d. Manage stormwater by adopting Ecology’s latest manual regarding LID for new development, redevelopment and retrofit projects. 4. When replacing or removing existing infrastructure within an RMZ: a. Map RMZ to pinpoint the best sites to restore – consider connectivity and adjacency to other Priority Habitats; b. Improve aquatic connectivity by replacing culverts and removing barriers to movement; c. Revegetate with native plants and consider improvements for wildlife by integrating structures necessary for nesting, breeding, and foraging; d. As infrastructure is remodeled or replaced, incorporate additional setbacks from streams; e. Control access to RMZ to limit soil compaction; f. Avoid operating equipment near the stream to reduce sedimentation and soil compaction; and g. Avoid using chemicals in the RMZ which are not approved for use there by Ecology. 3.4 MANAGING WATERSHEDS As described in Chapter 8 of Volume 1, land use activities in a watershed can affect the stream network, even when the riparian ecosystem itself is relatively undisturbed. “Watershed management” is a land management approach that seeks to minimize negative effects of upland land uses on aquatic systems, which include riparian areas. The remainder of this chapter focuses on key watershed elements important to managing and protecting functional aquatic systems. Many of the approaches we outline here are non-regulatory and can complement regulatory efforts; Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 31 as previously stated, we recommend cities and counties inventory current conditions of critical areas and, based on that inventory, develop watershed scale management plans accordingly. Fully functional riparian ecosystems, in combination with targeted watershed protections, provide significant benefits to humans. These benefits, often described as ecosystem goods and services, include clean water; decreased flooding; increased nutrient cycling, sediment and pollutant filtering; reduced erosion; carbon sequestration; and cultural services such as recreational, spiritual, and other nonmaterial benefits. These services provide real but often unquantified economic benefits to individuals and society that largely go unnoticed until they are lacking. Watershed-Scale Recommendations to Protect Aquatic Systems To achieve desired ecosystem goods and services watershed managers should focus on influencing watershed processes that act upon water, wood, sediment, nutrients, vegetation, and pollutants at both the site- and watershed-scale. This section focuses on watershed-scale management. Restore and Protect Watershed Processes – Efforts to improve watershed conditions should first focus on protecting and restoring watershed processes (e.g., natural disturbances) that create and retain habitat for fish and wildlife. Maintain the frequencies, magnitudes, and durations of natural disturbances (flood and fire being the most common) to the greatest extent that surrounding land uses can tolerate. Manage Land for Stormwater – Stormwater runoff can change the timing, quality, and quantity of water provided to streams. Land uses should avoid/minimize changes to surface water flows. Protection and restoration efforts should focus on attenuating peak flows and reducing pollutants. Primary tools available to local governments include land use designations/zoning code, and stormwater regulations. See City of Redmond Watershed Management Plan (City of Redmond 2013). Manage Land for Stream Temperatures – Reduced riparian vegetation cover, decreased streamflow, and simplified stream channels (e.g., increased width-to-depth ratio and reduced groundwater exchange) can lead to increased water temperature (Volume 1, Chapter 4). Modifications like these are often the result of land use activities such as riparian vegetation removal; water diversions; unmanaged livestock grazing; and stream channelization associated with roads, levees, and other forms of development. Identify and restore thermally sensitive stream reaches at the watershed scale to maintain optimal stream temperatures for sensitive aquatic species such as salmonids. Restore and Protect Connectivity – Manage watersheds to avoid creating longitudinal (e.g., dams, road crossings), lateral (e.g., levees and roads/buildings that cutoff riparian areas and floodplains from their stream), and vertical (water withdrawals, reductions of floodplains) barriers to fish and wildlife movement and fragmentation of their habitat. This is especially important for highly mobile species that require a variety of habitat components across large areas. For example, where CMZs interact with floodplains, dikes and levees restrict the movement of the river or stream and also serve as a barrier for fish and many forms of wildlife. Restoration to correct existing barriers to movement of water, wood, sediment, and species (e.g., removing blocking culverts) is a high priority with proven benefits for salmon. Connectivity to achieve nearly or completely contiguous RMZs is important to water quality and to achieve Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 32 connectivity among patches. Ensuring connectivity both for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife works towards a more interconnected and healthy riparian system. Plan for Climate Change – Impending changes to aquatic systems caused by climate change increases risk to species already threatened, and riparian ecosystem protection is one of the most useful responses to ameliorate those risks. For example, because more intense rainfall events will lead to wider streams, larger culverts will be necessary to support fish passage. WDFW, in collaboration with the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group, created an online tool (UWCIG 2017) that estimates how much a stream’s channel width will increase with climate change in the years 2040 and 2080. Connectivity within the RMZ allows voluntary migration for species and helps minimize temperature change and increase off-channel storage of water to reduce low flows. Conduct Monitoring and Adaptive Management – Monitoring and adaptive management are important elements to both site-scale and watershed-scale; this is addressed further in Chapter 5. Tools and Key References for Assessing Current Watershed Conditions Washington’s State agencies, including WDFW, have developed multiple tools to assist local government in assessing watershed conditions. Jurisdictions can utilize these resources—many available at no cost—to quantify changes in land cover, tailor planning for specific species, coordinate monitoring activities, inform restoration, and assess watershed health. WDFW’s High Resolution Change Detection (HRCD) is a spatial dataset that characterizes changes in land cover. This tool allows jurisdictions to evaluate in specific ways how watersheds are changing at a sub-parcel scale over 2- to 3-year intervals. This dataset is currently available throughout the entire Puget Sound basin and in some Eastern Washington watersheds. HRCD data is available at www.pshrcd.com. WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species program has several resources of interest to watershed planners. In addition to this two-volume document on riparian ecosystems, readers will find useful ideas in Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout: A land use planner’s guide to salmonid habitat protection and recovery (Knight 2009) and Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife: Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas (Azerrad et al. 2009). Since 2004, the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership has collaborated with West Coast federal, state, and tribal agencies to coordinate monitoring activities and develop common approaches. This partnership provides best practices, mapping tools, and protocols, and serves as a voluntary clearinghouse for a wide variety of monitoring projects. Since 2009, Ecology’s Watershed Health Monitoring Project has been monitoring sites throughout the state to assess watershed health. This project’s protocols can be adapted by jurisdictions and scaled to watersheds of various sizes. Data is stored in the Environmental Information Management database. This sophisticated database allows users to input and retrieve data via the web, reliably store it, and make it available for analysis. Quality assurance/quality control measures ensure data put into the database are of high quality. Ecology’s Puget Sound Watershed Characterization is a Puget Sound-wide tool that compares areas based on their suitability and value for restoration and protection. This tool informs two fundamental questions: (1) where to focus protection and restoration on the landscape first, and Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 33 (2) what types of activities and actions (i.e., restoration, protection, conservation, or development) are most appropriate to that place. With insights gained by this tool, decision-makers can incorporate information regarding watershed processes to improve plans (e.g., comprehensive plans, subarea plans, CAOs, stormwater plans) and conservation efforts (e.g., in-lieu fee programs, open space tax credits, open space land acquisitions). In 2016, the Washington Department of Commerce (Commerce) published Building Cities in the Rain (Ballash 2016) to help communities improve watersheds while redeveloping and revitalizing urban areas. The guidance describes an optional three-step process for prioritizing watersheds for stormwater retrofits in urban areas. Commerce’s Puget Sound Mapping Project uses an interactive map to help users develop insights about how current and expected development patterns might affect the region’s environmental health. The tool is designed to help decision makers consider information from the Puget Sound Watershed Characterization (described above) when making decisions regarding development projects, urban growth boundaries, and compensatory mitigation. Finally, the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group has developed a suite of tools, many in concert with WDFW, which may be useful for landowners and land use decision makers including climate trends, culvert design projections, and habitat connectivity. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 34 CHAPTER 4. RESTORING RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS 4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides high-level guidance to landowners, land use decision makers, and conservation partners to promote restoration of riparian areas. Despite recent efforts to protect existing riparian systems, imperiled salmon stocks and other riparian dependent endangered species are not recovering as hoped (Table 4.1). Since non-indigenous settlement of Washington began in the 1800s, between 50 percent and 90 percent of riparian ecosystems have been lost or extensively modified (RCO 2019). While two subspecies (Hood Canal summer chum and Snake River fall Chinook) are moving towards recovery, most listed salmon in Washington are below recovery goals (Table 4.1). The lack of recovery is also evidenced in the ongoing decline of salmon fishing, which affects the long-term health of Washington’s tribes, Washington’s economy, and our shared cultural heritage. The lack of salmon is one of the primary reasons Southern Resident Killer Whales are at risk of extinction, in addition to other impacts such as vessel disturbance and pollutants. (Lacy et al. 2017, Murray et al. 2019) Given the extent of historical loss, WDFW recognizes that protection alone of remaining riparian ecosystems, will not recover salmon or the Southern Resident Killer Whale population. Therefore, WDFW recommends restoring and enhancing riparian ecosystems to achieve healthy, intact, and fully functioning riparian systems statewide. Continued investments in restoration will be required at all levels of government and in concert with Washington tribes. Table 4.1. Non-statistical evaluation of natural origin (wild) fish that returned to spawn with consideration for threats and factors affecting health including habitat, harvest, and hydropower. (Adapted from RCO 2019; Data sources: WDFW, Indian tribes, NOAA). Below Goal (Endangered Species Act-Listed Salmon in Washington) Near Goal Getting Worse Not Making Progress Showing Signs of Progress Approaching Goal Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook Puget Sound Chinook Upper Columbia River Steelhead Lower Columbia River Chum Lower Columbia River Coho Lower Columbia River Fall Chinook Lower Columbia River Spring Chinook Snake River Spring Chinook Snake River Summer Chinook Mid-Columbia River Steelhead Lake Ozette Sockeye Lower Columbia River Steelhead Snake River Steelhead Puget Sound Steelhead Hood Canal Summer Chum Snake River Fall Chinook Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 35 4.2 RESTORATION ACTIONS Although this section focuses on restoring riparian areas for the benefit of salmon, emulating historical conditions benefits many other aquatic and terrestrial species as well. WDFW is available to provide technical assistance and species-specific guidance for terrestrial species-focused restoration and recovery efforts. To recover salmon, we must protect all remaining existing riparian and watershed functions, while seeking opportunities to restore functions that have been lost over time. We provide the following information to assist the restoration community 10 in understanding what is important to restore. Developing a Restoration Strategy Aquatic restoration strategies typically start with a clear set of goals and objectives. The selection of appropriate restoration strategies is informed by the political, social, and ecological context of the watershed, and bounded by the extent of opportunities and constraints. It is important in ecosystem restoration to consider the habitat attributes and scale necessary for a desired suite of species, be they aquatic or terrestrial. At a watershed scale, restoration efforts should focus first on projects that offer the greatest potential for success. The Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (Cramer 2012) suggest the following prioritization of stream habitat restoration strategies that are specific to instream related activities most often geared at anadromous fish: 1. Protect existing habitat. Protect areas that provide healthy, high-quality habitat functions (strongholds, refugia, and key sub-watersheds) to prevent further degradation. Secure, expand, and link protected areas. 2. Connect habitat. Connect and provide access to isolated habitat, including instream, off-channel, and estuarine habitat made inaccessible by culverts, levees, fragmentation, or other man-made obstructions. 3. Restore habitat-forming processes. Employ land use recovery and watershed restoration techniques to restore processes that create, maintain, and connect habitats (including restoring sediment dynamics, large wood dynamics, and flow regimes; avoiding/removing manmade disturbances within the riparian ecosystem; and maintaining water quality, floodplain connectivity, and channel evolutionary processes). Employ a combination of active or passive restoration techniques, as necessary. Active restoration involves accelerating processes or attempting to change the trajectory of succession; passive restoration simply involves ceasing environmental stressors such as agriculture, grazing, or timber harvest, and then allowing nature to take its course. 4. Create new or enhance existing habitat. Improve existing or create new habitat for specific species by installing instream structures such as large woody debris; reconfiguring channel shape, cross-section, or profile to reduce incision or restore flow; or constructing one or more new side channels. In conjunction with other state agencies and partners, WDFW provides multiple technical guidance documents to help design and implement riparian restoration projects that have proven successful 10 Many watersheds in Washington have salmon recovery restoration goals that can be obtained from regional Salmon Recovery Boards or Lead Entities for Salmon Recovery. Lead Entities and Salmon Recovery Boards are in every region of the state, including those areas without salmon or other anadromous fish (https://www.rco.wa.gov/salmon_recovery/regions/regional_orgs.shtml). Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 36 in different types of landscapes, including on marine shorelines, and on river- and streambanks. These are part of a suite of Aquatic Habitat Guidelines found at https://wdfw.wa.gov/licenses/environmental/hpa/application/assistance. They include: • Water Crossing Design Guidelines (Barnard et al. 2013) • Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (Cramer 2012) • Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (Cramer et al. 2012) • Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout: A land use planner’s guide to salmonid habitat protection and recovery (Knight 2009) • Draft Fishway Guidelines for Washington State (Bates 2000) • Draft Fish Protection Screen Guidelines for Washington State (Nordlund and Bates 2000) Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines (Johannessen et al. 2014) • Your Marine Waterfront (WDFW 2016) • Protecting Nearshore Habitat and Functions in Puget Sound (AHGP 2010) 4.3 IMPLEMENTING RIPARIAN STRATEGIES THROUGH INCENTIVES There are several types of conservation incentives available to individuals and local governments: • Financial assistance: grant programs that provide funding for conservation activities • Tax adjustment: tax reductions for landowners undertaking conservation activities • Technical assistance: advice and/or hands-on help for landowners on tools or techniques • Recognition: promotion of landowners who undertake conservation actions Each of these will be described (and examples provided) in more detail, below. Financial Assistance State and federal grant funds are available for riparian ecosystem conservation and restoration projects on public and private lands through the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) and Salmon Recovery Funding Board. To access these funds and to learn more, go to https://www.rco.wa.gov/grants/index.shtml. Grant programs include: • Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account • Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP; Riparian Protection, Critical Habitat, Natural Areas, and Urban Wildlife Habitat Categories) • Salmon Recovery Funding Board • Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program—a program of WDFW • Land and Water Conservation Fund • Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Land trusts also help land owners conserve habitat for key aquatic and terrestrial species, often leveraging funds from foundations and other non-governmental sources; see www.walandtrusts.org for a county-specific list of land trusts. For agricultural property owners, local conservation districts and the Washington State Conservation Commission (WSCC) can provide technical assistance to find an approach that works for the farmer and improves riparian ecosystem function. Technical assistance is also available Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 37 from the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Washington State University Extension, and WDFW. Additionally, a host of state and federal financial incentives to expand and maintain riparian functions within the riparian management zone (RMZ) are available, some of which are listed below. For example, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) provides funding to landowners for riparian preservation and is the most successful riparian buffer program in Washington. Since CREP’s 1999 inception in our state, more than 900 miles of stream buffers have been planted, and as of October 2020, producers had over 13,500 acres actively enrolled in CREP. Contact your local conservation district or the RCO to learn more. • Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (NRCS) • Environmental Quality Incentives Program (NRCS) • Conservation Stewardship Program (NRCS) • Conservation Reserve Program (NRCS) • Regional Conservation Partnership Program (NRCS) • Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (NRCS) • Agricultural Land Easements (NRCS) • WWRP Farmland Preservation Grants (RCO) Timber landowners have access to a variety of forestry-oriented conservation incentive programs (see list, below) and can also receive technical assistance from DNR’s Forest Stewardship Program (foreststewardship@dnr.wa.gov / 360-902-1428): • Forestry Riparian Easement (DNR) • Rivers and Habitat Open Space Program (DNR) • Healthy Forests Reserve Program (NRCS) • Family Forest Fish Passage Program (DNR) • Forest Legacy (USFS) • WWRP Forestland Preservation Grant Program (RCO) Tax Reduction Incentives Landowners can receive a substantial tax reduction by converting land into “open space” status because of the Open Space Taxation Act (WAC 458-30), enacted in 1970. Lands with riparian areas often qualify for this incentive; see your county assessor and local planning department for details. Technical Assistance Local governments and individual landowners who want to improve riparian habitat for a suite of species can request land use advice from a variety of sources, including: • WDFW regional habitat and district wildlife biologists. Go to http://arcg.is/1SgsHqk to find the names and direct contact information for your local biologists, or call the regional office in your area: o Region 1 – Eastern: 509-892-1001 o Region 2 – North Central: 509-754-4624 o Region 3 – South Central: 509-575-2740 o Region 4 – North Puget Sound: 425-775-1311 o Region 5 – Southwest: 360-696-6211 Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 38 o Region 6 – Coastal: 360-249-4628 • Salmon Recovery Lead Entities or Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups • Tribal natural resource departments • Local Conservation Districts 4.4 SUGGESTED RESTORATION PRACTICES The following section provides a series of suggested restoration practices promoted by WDFW, other state and federal agencies, and conservation partners. We encourage consideration of these activities and others within and adjacent to the RMZ, as delineated in accordance with our recommendations in Chapter 2. Further, it is not unusual to find other types of Priority Habitats (e.g., wetlands, shrub-steppe) adjacent to riparian areas. In such cases, restoration practices should not degrade or disturb the adjacent habitat, but rather—if feasible—improve it in addition to improving the riparian habitat. The same approach should be used where riparian-adjacent Priority Species areas are present. Like most restoration practices, the ones recommended below can range in complexity, both biologically and technically, so landowners are strongly encouraged to seek technical assistance from WDFW and other experts before taking any action: This will help save money, time, and greatly increase the likelihood of success for any restoration activity. Landowners should also be aware that many of these activities may require permits11, 12 issued by one or more agencies such as WDFW for the Hydraulic Code rules, and DNR for the Forest Practices rules; as well as permits from the local jurisdiction. 1. Improve quality of vegetation for both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife by removing invasive species wherever present. Further, to avoid the likely return of invasive species, cleared areas should be replaced with native riparian vegetation: specifically, native vegetation that provides needed ecosystem functions as described in Volume 1 and throughout this document (e.g., shade, large wood, pollution removal). 2. Where riparian areas already possess some native vegetation, enhance them with a greater mixture of native plants that provide necessary habitat components (forage, cover, breeding, roosting, etc.) for a diversity of species and multiple riparian functions (e.g., streambank stability, wood recruitment, organic litter input, and pollutant removal). The specific mix of vegetation will vary by ecoregion and local needs, but likely includes conifers, grasses, and herbaceous plants. 3. Increase off-channel habitat and improve natural flow regimes by removing dikes or levees and restoring access to and within the floodplain. 11 The Governor’s ORIA Office provides additional assistance for general permitting questions (https://www.oria.wa.gov/site/alias__oria/347/Permitting.aspx) 12 Larger projects may also trigger permit requirements with federal agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 39 4. In areas of incised channels, reintroduce beaver or construct beaver dam surrogates to store sediments, raise streambed elevation, raise water table elevation, and restore riparian vegetation. 5. Remove reed canary grass, which can greatly inhibit channel morphology and aquatic species movement. (Management techniques for reed canary grass vary and are often site-specific: contact your local WDFW regional habitat biologist for technical assistance.) 6. Through proper consultation with WDFW and tribal biologists, increase the presence of large wood in streams and rivers to improve habitat for salmon, resident fish species, and aquatic amphibians. 7. Increase connectivity through removal of non-fish passing culverts. If replacement culverts are needed, ensure they are adequately sized and climate-change-resilient; see WDFW’s online resource on Incorporating Climate Change into the Design of Water Crossing Structures (Wilhere et al. 2016). 8. Reduce soil erosion by increasing vegetation complexity and density, excluding (or substantially minimizing) soil compacting activities, and implementing upland soil management techniques where applicable. 9. For agricultural operators: add and/or improve fencing structures to increase the amount of riparian area acreage from which livestock are excluded to reduce compaction, erosion, and overgrazing. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 40 CHAPTER 5. IMPROVING PROTECTION THROUGH ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 5.1 INTRODUCTION Adaptive management is widely recognized as an essential component of effective natural resource management because it provides a systematic process for continually improving policies and management through outcome-based learning. The adaptive management process is a continual cycle of planning, acting, monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting (Figure 5.1). This feedback loop provides information for making adjustments that focus on improving decisions in all phases of resource management. The utility of adaptive management programs should be considered by conservation practitioners, landowners, and land use planners to ensure that conservation actions achieve desired outcomes: in the case of this document, that means preserving, protecting, and restoring healthy, intact, and fully functioning riparian areas. In addition to improving ecosystem outcomes, adaptive management should improve clarity of regulations—resulting in increased transparency to all stakeholders. All cities and counties are currently protecting critical areas, including riparian ecosystems, through a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms. One regulatory challenge is understanding how well these mechanisms meet their intent of protecting ecosystem functions and values and how to make improvements where they are falling short. This chapter was written in collaboration with the Washington Department of Commerce (Commerce) and relies heavily on the Commerce’s 2018 update of the Critical Areas Ordinance Handbook (Bonlender 2018), with one exception, as noted. Figure 5.1. A simple depiction of the adaptive management cycle (modified from Bormann et al. 1994). The process for monitoring we describe here supports both local and larger-scale actions that improve our collective efforts to protect riparian ecosystems throughout the state. For example, the Puget Sound Partnership (Partnership) uses “Vital Signs” of ecosystem health and recovery, such as riparian forest cover, to understand ecosystem condition, articulate shared goals and progress, and inspire action towards meeting those goals. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 41 Adopting an adaptive management program can allow local governments to respond more quickly and meaningfully as new information become available. A willingness to address issues identified through this process is critical to the idea of adaptive management. 5.2 COMMON QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Adaptive management does not have to be expensive or complicated to be useful. We believe local jurisdictions can maximize their investment in adaptive management by focusing on two types of monitoring related to their own regulatory process (explained in more detail in the next section). We begin by discussing three basic types of monitoring because we have found it instructive to understand how different monitoring types can be hierarchically or sequentially staged, based on the types of questions they seek to answer: implementation monitoring, effectiveness monitoring 13, and validation monitoring. Implementation Monitoring Implementation monitoring typically helps the permit issuer (permittor) answer the following questions about its permitting system, by looking at the outcomes of individual permits: • Are permits consistent with regulations? • Do permits contain all necessary conditions or provisions for a project? • Does the permittor issue consistent permits (same requirements) for all permittees? Implementation monitoring can also include: • Permit compliance monitoring, which asks if the permittee followed or complied with each permit condition or provision and refrained from conducting unpermitted activities. Compliance monitoring usually takes place very soon after completion of permitted work. • Keeping track of unpermitted activities; that is, finding changes in land use or management that require a permit but where no permit of any kind was issued. Effectiveness Monitoring In Commerce’s 2018 Critical Areas Handbook, effectiveness monitoring is a form of long-term implementation monitoring. In other words, effectiveness monitoring looks at permit compliance as a while to determine whether permit conditions/provisions (e.g., buffer widths) are followed over time. For the purposes of this document, we describe effectiveness monitoring a bit differently: Specifically, effectiveness monitoring is a way to determine whether permit conditions/provisions 13 As explained further in Section 5.2.2, we describe and use the term effectiveness monitoring somewhat differently than how it is described in Commerce’s 2018 Critical Areas Handbook. Monitoring does not have to be complicated. Even if a city or county chooses to do only permit implementation monitoring, this will provide key information that can improve the permit process, and an individual landowner can check whether choices like enhancing native plantings produce the desired results. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 42 are working relative to intended environmental outcomes. For example, “Are permit conditions/provisions leading to the riparian function(s) (e.g., shade, bank stability) that they were intended to provide?” Effectiveness monitoring typically involves some on-the-ground measurement of environmental variables affected by land use activities. Validation Monitoring Research within the adaptive management framework is often referred to as validation monitoring. In the context of land use regulations, the questions relate to how management of critical areas (e.g., riparian) affects the specific environmental resource it was intended to protect (e.g., water quality, salmon). Validation monitoring may be beyond the fiscal means of most local governments. Moreover, it often involves questions that must be addressed over large spatial extents (e.g., at watershed or multi-watershed scale). In comparison, implementation and effectiveness monitoring are often tied to local jurisdiction’s regulatory processes at the site scale: For these reasons, the next two sections focus more on these two types of monitoring 5.3 RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING EFFORTS We advise local governments to focus first on using implementation monitoring to evaluate their regulatory processes that affect riparian ecosystems. Implementation monitoring tracks execution of the permitting system from the perspective of both the permit issuer (permittor) and permit holder (permittee) (Figure 5.2). This effort can result in regular status reports that help demonstrate how well local governments and permittees are working together to meet resource objectives in a fair and consistent manner. Figure 5.2. Depiction of the adaptive management cycle specific to permit compliance. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 43 Implementation monitoring provides key information for permitting process improvement (Error! Reference source not found.2; Table 5.1). Even in situations where local governments cannot monitor all steps in their permitting process, monitoring any step—regulations to permit conditions/provisions, permit provisions to construction, construction to inspections, or inspections to enforcement—can provide valuable feedback about the quality of regulatory processes. Table 5.1. Key questions for implementation monitoring during the Critical Areas permit review process. Process Steps Key study questions to evaluate permit implementation Proposed metrics Application Was adequate information gathered from the permit applicant? Did the local government provide timely and necessary technical assistance to the permit applicant? Number and percent of complete applications. i.e., include all information necessary to issue a permit. Number and percent by type of permit applications missing information Permit Do permit provisions follow the local government code? Number and percent of permit provisions by type consistent with code. Permit Do permit provision identify intent of protection and how it can be accomplished? (e.g., area of tree retention, distance of structure from stream, clearing, grading, or storm water provisions, replanting requirements, extent of impervious surface.) Number and percent of (complete) permits (i.e., include all provisions that enable a permittee to be fully compliant with the permit.) Number, percent, and type of missing provision/information Permit (variance) If a variance was granted, is the reason for the variance clearly stated? Percent of variances by type justified by code or policy Percent of permits with variances by type. Permit (mitigation) If compensatory mitigation was required, were the unavoidable impacts clearly identified/quantified? Was the rationale clearly stated? Number and percent of permits by type with unavoidable impacts Percent of permits by type with quantified mitigation requirements Compliance Post-Construction Visit: Did the permittee comply with the permit? (Requires field measurements of some or all the provisions in the permit. For riparian ecosystems, key provisions to inspect include RMZ width, retention of trees, replanting, structure distances from stream, area of impervious surface, and implementation of storm water provisions.) Number and percent by type of provision that were out of compliance. Enforcement Are enforcement actions necessary to meet permit provisions and/or the regulations? Number and percent by type of permit enforcement actions. Because little or no fieldwork is required, the easiest and least expensive step to monitor is the link between regulations and permit provisions: that is, whether local land use regulations have been translated into permit provisions that can be understood easily by permittees. We recommend that some implementation monitoring become part of all local regulatory programs, even if it only on a relatively small subset of permits selected at random. A database for storing information on each Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 44 step (i.e., a permit tracking system—see Table 5.1, Figure 5.3) is a critical tool for creating a complete system of accountability. Figure 5.3. One system of permit accountability that includes implementation monitoring of internal permit processes, inspection for permit compliance, a database from which to judge outcomes, and a feedback loop connecting outcomes with policy intent. Long-term implementation monitoring can help answer additional questions, such as: “Are rules/regulations intended to provide long-term protection of critical areas (e.g., RMZs) actually followed or maintained over time?” One way to answer this is by looking at changes in land cover, which describes the type and amount of vegetation, roads, and buildings occurring on the landscape. By comparing high quality aerial photographs taken of the same locations over time, change can be quantified and attributed to specific activities, both from natural disturbances (e.g., wildfires, river channel migration) and human activities (e.g., timber harvesting, residential subdivision construction, highway widening). In Section 5.5, we describe one such process WDFW developed and for which information for many parts of the state are already available. 5.4 EFFECTIVENESS OF REGULATORY PROTECTIONS OF CRITICAL AREAS Where implementation monitoring has been successful, that is, either documenting a highly functional permitting process or improving poorly performing permitting process, we encourage additional effort on effectiveness monitoring. As described above, our primary goal for effectiveness monitoring would focus on understanding how well the permit conditions/provisions lead to measurable outcomes on the ground (e.g., protection/restoration of one or more riparian functions or values) over an extended period. 5.5 USING LAND COVER CHANGE TO UNDERSTAND LONG-TERM REGULATORY PROTECTION High Resolution Change Detection (HRCD) is a tool that is useful for detecting changes in two specific types of land cover (tree canopy and impervious surfaces) over set time periods. Land cover change analysis like HRCD can show jurisdictions the degree to which critical area regulations are maintaining RMZs as intended. This information can then help shape if, where, why, and how adjustments to permitting processes should occur. By combining land cover change analysis with targeted questions about permitting processes, jurisdictions can begin to adaptively manage changes to their overall regulatory system. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 45 The example in the following section is adapted from Commerce’s Critical Areas Handbook (Bonlender 2018). Chapter 7 of that document provides a number of similar monitoring program examples, nearly all of which were developed by cities or counties. Example: WDFW/Thurston County Shoreline Master Program In 2015, Thurston County and WDFW utilized a National Estuary Program grant to quantify shoreline vegetation, land cover change, and evaluate land use permit compliance. Specifically, Thurston County used WDFW’s HRCD data to monitor compliance within the County’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) jurisdiction. This project developed a protocol manual for using HRCD for this purpose, available to all jurisdictions within the Puget Sound region. Adaptive Management Framework in the Voluntary Stewardship Program The Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) was authorized by the Legislature in 2011 through RCW 36.70A.705. The goals of VSP are to protect and enhance critical areas where agricultural activities are conducted, maintain and improve the long-term viability of agriculture in the State of Washington, and reduce conversion of farmland to other uses. The program provides counties with an alternative approach from traditional development regulations that require protection (and encourage enhancement) of critical areas at the individual parcel scale. Instead, VSP relies upon voluntary practices and incentive programs to protect (and enhance) at a watershed scale. Counties “opted-in” to VSP, and as of 2019, 27 of the state’s 39 counties are participating. Under VSP, local workgroups created work plans that include benchmarks for protection and enhancement of critical areas designed to be achieved through voluntary and incentive-based actions. VSP requires monitoring and adaptive management to maintain and enhance critical areas, including riparian ecosystems, and directs workgroups to monitor at the watershed or sub-watershed scale. Key requirements for county-level programs include: 1. Establishing a durable system to track and report goals, benchmarks, and performance metrics. 2. Developing implementation and effectiveness monitoring programs and conducting monitoring on a pre- determined schedule. 3. Establishing an adaptive management program with (a) “triggers”; (b) subsequent actions to take; and (c) a process to review/update both the triggers and actions over time. 4. Reporting on the achievement of protection and enhancement goals and benchmarks at specified intervals. Numerous counties have utilized WDFW’s recommended VSP Adaptive Management Matrix in approved VSP Work Plans. Examples include: • Chelan County, Appendix I (Approved April 2017) • Grant County, Tables 5-7 through 5-10 (Approved June 2017) • Asotin County, Tables 5-3 through 5-5 (Approved May 2018) • Okanogan County, Chapter 6 (Approved September 2018) • Spokane County, Section 4 (Approved November 2018) Jurisdictions can adapt matrices as templates for connecting goals, benchmarks, performance metrics, monitoring, and adaptive management for other uses beyond VSP. These matrices can be modified as frameworks to identify specific elements of any adaptive management plan. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 46 One goal of the pilot project was to answer several related sets of questions: For Thurston County: • What land cover change is happening within designated SMP areas? What change is happening throughout the Deschutes River watershed (WRIA 13)? • How does change known by permit records compare with detected changes by HRCD? • What changes, if any, can be made to the land use permits or permitting process that could increase the relevancy or efficacy in utilizing the HRCD in compliance monitoring? For WDFW: • How well can HRCD detect changes relative to land use permit records? • Using Thurston County’s SMP area as an example test area, what land cover changes are happening which HRCD is not capturing? • With the development of a HRCD user manual, can HRCD be successfully utilized by other entities in the absence of direct assistance by WDFW? The pilot quantified increases in impervious surfaces and decrease in tree canopy within marine areas of the SMP jurisdiction and checked for relevant permits issued. It consisted of five phases: Phase 1: Initial SMP Change Analysis: Staff from WDFW’s Habitat Program and the County’s Long-Range Planning Department intersected the HRCD dataset with the County’s SMP area and tax parcel data within ArcGIS for three time periods of HRCD availability (2006 to 2009, 2009 to 2011, and 2011 to 2013). Staff compared known areas of change to those locations with the county’s land use permit records to find locations of observed change via HRCD without any permit record. During this phase, land cover change statistics were also produced, including total area of change and discrete occurrences of land cover change events. Phase 2: Learning What the HRCD Misses: Using the SMP area in the County, WDFW staff manually looked for land cover changes not captured by the HRCD analysis, to understand how accurate HRCD was in capturing all land cover change situations (rates of omission error). Phase 3: Developing a Standardized Method for Utilizing the HRCD: A major goal of this project was to develop support materials for others to be able to utilize HRCD to answer land use management questions independent of WDFW staff assistance. Using lessons learned in Phases 1 and 2, WDFW and the County agreed upon a recommended method for applying HRCD to a specific management question, and collaboratively developed a “how-to” manual. In this phase, WDFW staff also developed a web-based service (https://hrcd-wdfw.hub.arcgis.com) where users can download the HRCD dataset, detail the methodology of HRCD construction, find WDFW contact information, and more. Phase 4: Testing the Manual through Remaining SMP Analysis in WRIA 13: Using only the HRCD dataset and the manual produced in Phase 3, County staff examined land cover change within the remaining SMP areas within WRIA 13 successfully for the same three time periods that HRCD data was available and utilized in the earlier phase. Phase 5: Training and Outreach: With the lessons learned and products derived from Phases 1 through 4 of the project, staff worked in conjunction with the Coastal Training Program, managed by Ecology, to develop and deliver a workshop for planning staff within other state agencies, local Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 47 governments, and some non-governmental organizations. WDFW also used this opportunity to train internal staff on the benefits, limitations, and uses of HRCD. The evaluators analyzed land cover change within Thurston County’s SMP area between 2006 and 2013, pulling permit records from timeframes that corresponded with the available HRCD datasets. The project’s findings were very helpful, not only because of the information collected, but also in providing proof of concept for several of the steps/tools. For example: The utility of HRCD in analyzing patterns of land cover change in a specific geographic area of concern were well demonstrated. The HRCD analysis found that, from 2006 to 2013, less than half of one percent (0.39%) of the riparian area contained within the SMP had land cover change – approximately two-thirds of this was due to canopy loss, with one-third due to new impervious surfaces. The HRCD analysis did not find any permitted developments that were out of compliance, though it did find unpermitted events (e.g., tree removal) in each time period studied. Furthermore, the HRCD dataset proved to be relatively simple to use. With the development of standard application methods, Thurston County was able to complete an analysis of their remaining SMP area without any further assistance from WDFW. On the flip side, Thurston County found that comparing actual permit compliance with HRCD data was “tedious and difficult” because of limitations with the county’s permit tracking database (AMANDA). For example, in many cases, land use permits did not include enough information to determine conclusively that a parcel with observed change via HRCD was out of compliance or determine that the parcel had a permit record during the study’s timeframe in question. Local governments can use HRCD analysis at the start to find land cover changes that are otherwise unknown; as they begin to understand patterns, HRCD analysis provides indications to identify locations that warrant closer investigation through other methods. 5.6 CONCLUSION Implementation and effectiveness monitoring are important parts of adaptive management and can be undertaken relatively easily by local governments. Many of our riparian ecosystems are already degraded and stressed, so it is worth our while to investigate whether the actions put in place to protect them are being carried out as required and leading to the specific environmental responses that were intended. This is now more important than ever, because in spite of advances in science and efforts to improve regulatory processes, climate change and population pressures are increasingly confronting many parts of the state. Using monitoring and adaptive management to track successes and failures and then learning from both will make our challenges easier to overcome. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 48 LITERATURE CITED Volume 1 serves as the primary source and citation for this document: Quinn, T., G. Wilhere, and K. Krueger (managing editors). 2020. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1: Science Synthesis and Management Implications. Habitat Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Anderson, P.S., S. Meyer, P. Olson, and E. Stockdale. 2016. Determining the ordinary high water mark for Shoreline Management Act compliance in Washington State. Publication No. 16-06-029. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1606029.pdf) Arid Lands Initiative. 2014. The Arid Lands Initiative: shared priorities for conservation at a landscape scale. Summary prepared by S.A. Hall and the Arid Lands Initiative Core Team. SAH Ecologia LLC, Wenatchee, Washington. Available at (https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/file/get/546d0a6ae4b0fc7976bf1db0?f=__disk__ab%2Fd6%2F7d%2Fabd67df8a73f48f87922d184ffec6e9b8dac635c) Ashcroft, M.B. 2010. Identifying refugia from climate change. Journal of Biogeography 37:1407-1413. Azerrad, J., J. Carleton, J. Davis, T. Quinn, C. Sato, M. Tirhi, G. Wilhere, and S. Tomassi. 2009. Landscape planning for Washington’s wildlife: managing for biodiversity in developing areas. Habitat Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. (https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00023) Ballash, H. 2016. Building cities in the rain. Washington State Department of Commerce. Olympia, Washington. (https://www.ezview.wa.gov/site/alias__1780/overview/34828/overview.aspx) Barnard, R. J., J. Johnson, P. Brooks, K. M. Bates, B. Heiner, J. P. Klavas, D.C. Ponder, P.D. Smith, and P. D. Powers. 2013. Water crossings design guidelines. Habitat Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. (https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01501) Bermingham, B., C. Douglas, B. Floyd, D. Koellmann, P. Mugunthan, and J. Small. 2013. Final draft semi-arid riparian functions and associated regulatory protections to support shoreline master program updates. Anchor QEA LLC., Kennewick, Washington. Bonlender, B. 2018. Critical area handbook: A handbook for reviewing critical areas regulation. Washington State Department of Commerce, Olympia, Washington. (https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-topics/critical-areas/) Bormann, B.T., P.G. Cunningham, M.H. Brookes, V.W. Manning, and M.W. Collopy. 1994. Adaptive ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest. PNW-GTR-341. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2015. Riparian area management: proper functioning condition assessment for lotic areas. Technical Reference 1737-15. BLM, National Operations Center, Denver, Colorado. City of Redmond. 2013. City of Redmond, Washington citywide watershed management plan. Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Seattle, Washington. (https://www.redmond.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4055/Watershed-Management-Plan-2013-PDF) Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 49 Cordell, H. K., D. Murphy, K.H. Ritters, and J.E. Harvard III. 2005. The natural ecological value of wilderness. Pages 205-249 in H.K. Cordell, J.C. Bergstrom, J. M. Bowker (editors). The Multiple Values of Wilderness. Venture Publishing, State College, Pennsylvania. Cramer, M.L. (managing editor). 2012. Stream habitat restoration guidelines. Co-published by the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Transportation, and Ecology, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, Puget Sound Partnership, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington. Cramer, M., K. Bates, D. Miller, K. Boyd, L. Fortherby, P. Skidmore, and T. Hoitsma. 2002. Integrated streambank protection guidelines. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. (https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00046) DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2004. Forest Practices Board Manual, Section M2: standard methods for identifying bankfull channel features and channel migration zones. DNR, Forest Practices Division, Olympia, Washington. (https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/fp_board_manual.pdf?amcgpv) EnviroVision, Herrera Environmental, and Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group. 2010. Protecting nearshore habitat and functions in Puget Sound, revised edition. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. (https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00047) Fetherston, K.L., R.J. Naiman, and R.E. Bilby. 1995; Large woody debris, physical process, and riparian forest succession in montane river networks of the Pacific Northwest. Geomorphology 13:133-144. Fox, M.J. 2003. Spatial organization, position, and source characteristics of large woody debris in 2485 natural systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Harris, R.R. 1987. Occurrence of vegetation on geomorphic surfaces in the active floodplain of a California alluvial stream. American Midland Naturalist 118:393-405. Hilty, J.A., and A.M. Merenlender. 2004. Use of riparian corridors and vineyards by mammalian predators in northern California. Conservation Biology 18:126-135. Johannessen, J., A. MacLennan, A. Blue, J. Waggoner, S. Williams, W. Gerstel, R. Barnard, R. Carman, and H. Shipman. 2014. Marine shoreline design guidelines. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. (https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01583) Johnson, D.H., and T.A. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Keppel, G., K.P. Van Niel, G.W. Wardell-Johnson, C.J. Yates, M. Byrne, L. Mucina, A.G.T. Schut, S.D. Hopper, and S.E. Franklin. 2012. Refugia: identifying and understanding safe havens for biodiversity under climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography 21:393-404. Knight, K. 2009. Land use planning for salmon, steelhead and trout: a land use planner’s guide to salmonid habitat protection and recovery. Habitat Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. (https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00033) Knutson, K.L., and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats: riparian. Habitat Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. (https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00029) Krosby, M., D.M. Theobald, R. Norheim, and B.H. McRae. 2018. Identifying riparian climate corridors to inform climate adaptation planning. PLOS ONE 13(11): e0205156. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 50 Lacy, R.C., Williams, R., Ashe, E., Balcomb III, K.C., Brent, L.J., Clark, C.W., Croft, D.P., Giles, D.A., MacDuffee, M. and Paquet, P.C. (2017). Evaluating anthropogenic threats to endangered killer whales to inform effective recovery plans. Scientific reports, 7(1), 1-12. Legg, N.T., and P.L. Olson. 2015. Screening tools for identifying migrating stream channels in western Washington – geospatial data layers and visual assessments. Publication No. 15-06-003. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1506003.pdf) Legg, N.T., and P.L. Olson. 2014. Channel migration processes and patterns in western Washington: A synthesis for floodplain management and restoration. Publication No. 14-06-028. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1406028.pdf) Lichvar, R.W., N.C. Melvin, M.L Butterwick, and W.N Kirchner. 2012. National wetland plant list indicator rating definitions. ERCD/CRREL TN-12-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Murray, C.C., Hannah, L.C., Doniol-Valcroze, T., Wright, B., Stredulinsky, E., Locke, A., and R. Lacy. (2019). Cumulative Effects Assessment for Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whale Populations in the Northeast Pacific. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Scientific Advisory Research Document 2019/056. x. + 88 pp. Naiman, R. J., and R. E. Bilby. 1998. (editors) River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer Science & Business Media, New York. Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3:209-212. Nordland, B., and K. Bates. 2000. Draft fish protection and screen guidelines for Washington State. Habitat Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. (https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00050) NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Riparian areas: functions and strategies for management. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. https://doi.org/10.17226/10327. Olson, P. L., N. T. Legg, T. B. Abbe, M. A. Reinhart, and J. K. Radloff. 2014. A methodology for delineating planning-level channel migration zones. Publication No. 14-06-025. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1406025.pdf) Patten, D.T. 1998. Riparian ecosystems of semi-arid North America: diversity and human impacts. Wetlands 18:498-512. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161668. Puget Sound Partnership. 2020. Puget Sound Vital Signs. Available: https://www.psp.wa.gov/evaluating-vital-signs.php (December 2020). Quinn, T., et al. 1998. Habitat Associations of the riparian-dependent amphibian, reptile, mammals, and mollusks in commercial forest lands of Washington State: a report to the Timber, Fish & Wildlife policy committee. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. Rapp, C.F., and T.B. Abbe. 2003. A framework for delineating channel migration zones. Publication No. 03-06-027. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/0306027.pdf) RCO (Recreation and Conservation Office). 2019. State of Salmon. RCO, Olympia, Washington. https://stateofsalmon.wa.gov/exec-summary/ Retrieved July 23, 2019. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 51 Richardson, J.S., R.J. Naiman, F.J. Swanson, and D.E. Hibbs. 2005. Riparian communities associated with Pacific Northwest headwater streams: assemblages, processes, and uniqueness. Journal of American Water Resources Association 41:935-947. Rogers, L.E, R.E. Fitzner, L.L. Cadwell, and B.E. Vaughan. 1988. Terrestrial animal habitats and population responses. Pages 182-257 in W.H. Rickard, L.E. Rogers, B.E. Vaughan, and S.F. Liebetrau (editors). Shrub-steppe: balance and change in a semi-arid terrestrial ecosystem. Elsevier, New York. Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied river morphology: Second edition. Wildland Hydrology Books, Fort Collins, Colorado. Seavy, N.E., T. Gardali, G.H. Golet, F.T. Griggs, C.A. Howell, R. Kelsey, S.L. Small, J.H. Viers, and J.F. Weigand. 2009. Why climate change makes riparian restoration more important than ever: recommendations for practice and research. Ecological Restoration 27:330-338. Shared Strategy Development Committee. 2007. Puget Sound salmon recovery plan. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, Seattle, Washington. Smith, D. 2005. Off-channel habitat inventory and assessment for the upper Skagit River basin. Report to non-flow coordinating committee of the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 553). Skagit River System Cooperative, La Conner, Washington. Thomas, F.M. 2014. Ecology of phreatophytes. Progress in Botany 75:335-375. Thomas, J.W. (technical editor]). 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. (https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/uncaptured/gtr_pnw080.pdf) Thomas, J.W., J.F. Franklin, J. Gordon, and K.N. Johnson. 2006. The Northwest Forest Plan: Origins, components, implementation experience and suggestions for change. Conservation Biology 20:277-87. USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2008. Stream simulation: an ecological approach to providing passage for aquatic organisms at road-crossings. National Technology and Development Program, San Dimas, California. USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2001. Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers Subbasin Assessment. Nez Perce, Clearwater, and Bitterroot National Forests, Idaho. Retrieved August 26, 2019. Vander Haegen, M.W. 2007. Fragmentation by agriculture influences reproductive success of birds in a shrub-steppe landscape. Ecological Applications 17: 934-947. Ward, J.V., and J.A. Stanford. 1995. Ecological connectivity in alluvial river ecosystems and its disruption by flow regulation. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 11:105-119. Washington Sea Grant. 2009. Protection of marine riparian functions in Puget Sound, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. (https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00693) WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2005. Washington’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy, final draft. WDFW, Olympia, Washington. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016. Your marine waterfront: A guide to protecting your property while promoting healthy shorelines. WDFW, Olympia, Washington. (https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01791) Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 52 Williams, P.B., E. Andrews, J.J. Opperman, S. Bozkurt, and P.B. Moyle. 2009. Quantifying activated floodplains on a lowland regulated river: its application to floodplain restoration in the Sacramento Valley. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 7(1). Wolman, M.G., and L.B Leopold. 1957. River flood plains: some observations on their formation. Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-C. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 53 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Active channel: The active channel is defined by the lower limit of continuous riparian vegetation (Naiman et al. 1998) and may be delineated by absence of both moss on rocks and rooted vegetation (USFS 2008). The upper most elevation of the active channel is sometimes equated with the ordinary high-water mark. Active floodplain: Located between the active channel and adjacent terrace or hillslopes (Fetherston et al. 1995; Harris 1987). Depending on the watershed, the flood return interval of the active floodplain varies between 1 and 10 years (Wolman and Leopold 1957; Ward and Stanford 1995; Lichvar et al. 2006; Williams et al. 2009; BLM 2015). Adaptive management: The systematic acquisition and application of reliable information to improve management over time. It often includes treating management decisions as experiments in order to address critical uncertainties and learn more quickly from experience. It involves setting objectives, monitoring conditions, and adjusting management based on results. Hallmarks of a sound adaptive management program include: (1) adequate funding for monitoring and research, (2) a willingness to change course when pre-established triggers are reached, and (3) a commitment to gather data and evaluate conditions at appropriate spatial extents and time scales. See Ecosystem-based management and WAC 365-195-920(2). Anadromous fisheries: The commercial, recreational or subsistence harvest of fish that are born in freshwater, rear at sea, and return to freshwater to spawn. Anadromous fisheries of Washington include salmon (Chinook, coho, chum, sockeye, and pink), steelhead, bull trout, coastal cutthroat trout, green sturgeon, white sturgeon, eulachon, longfin smelt, and Pacific lamprey. Aquatic species: Wildlife species that live in marine or freshwater including fish, shellfish (e.g., clams, snails, mussels), amphibians (e.g., frogs, salamanders), reptiles (e.g., turtles), crustaceans (e.g., crayfish), insects (e.g., larval mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, dragonflies) and various other invertebrates. Best Available Science: Information produced through a valid scientific process that WDFW or another local, state or federal agency has determined represents the best available science consistent with criteria set out in WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925. (Volume 1 of this document is an example of Best Available Science regarding riparian ecosystems.) Biota: The animal and plant life of a region, habitat, or geological period. Buffer: The area around a critical area that separates the critical area from incompatible uses. For example, a 200m buffer may be established around a heron-nesting colony (the critical area) to keep suburban land uses from disrupting the colony. See WAC 365-190-130(3)(a). Riparian ecosystems are both buffers (for instream habitat) and critical areas on their own merit. Channel Migration Zone: The area within which a river channel is likely to migrate and occupy over a specified time period (e.g., 100 years). Channel slope or gradient: The average steepness of a stream segment measured as its change in elevation divided by its length. Typically, a segment’s gradient is considered low if less than 2%, moderate between 2% and 4%, and high if greater than 4%. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 54 Classification (critical area): Defining categories to which critical areas are assigned. The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) program provides WDFW’s recommended classification scheme for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. Classification precedes designation in counties’ and cities’ effort to protect critical areas. See WAC 365-190-040(4). Complexity: The complicated state seen in dynamic environments that contain multiple components and processes that interact with one another in a web of interactions whose outcomes are often unpredictable. Complexity can be described with conceptual models; outcomes of well-understood complex phenomena can be partially predicted using computer models. Connectivity: Landscape connectivity is the physical relationship between landscape elements. Functional connectivity describes the degree to which landscapes facilitate or impede the movement of organisms between areas of habitat. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area: Areas with an essential recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water. One of five types of Critical Areas identified in the Growth Management Act. Critical Area(s): Places that the Growth Management Act requires all counties and cities to designate and protect, specifically, (1) Wetlands; (2) Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas; (3) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (e.g., Riparian Management Zones); (4) Frequently Flooded Areas; and (5) Geologically Hazardous Areas. In developing policies and regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas, counties and cities are required to include best available science and give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. See RCW 36.70A.172(1). The presence of a critical area may limit some land development options. See WAC 365-190-040(6). Delineation (critical area): The act of applying definitions or performance standards in the field to identify the boundary of a critical area. Designation (critical area): Assigning critical areas into established categories and specifying their general distribution, location, and extent. Designation can be made by maps (which are useful for public awareness and for identifying if a proposal may affect a critical area) and by performance standards or definitions (which allow for specific identification and site-scale delineation during permit review). WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) program provides the agency’s recommended designation maps and performance standards/definitions for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. Designation occurs after classification in counties’ and cities’ efforts to protect critical areas. See WAC 365-190-040(5). Disturbance regime: The frequency, magnitude, and duration of disturbance events. Disturbance: A pronounced, temporary change in environmental conditions within an ecosystem. Disturbances often act quickly and can alter ecosystem composition, structure, and function. Ecological (biological) integrity: Ability of an ecological system to support and maintain a community of organism that has species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to those of natural habitats within a region. An ecological system has integrity when its dominant ecological characteristics (composition, structure, function, and processes) occur within their historical ranges of natural variability. See Historical condition and Range of natural variability. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 55 Ecosystem(s): A spatially explicit unit of the Earth that includes all the organisms, along with all components of the abiotic (chemical and physical) environment. Ecosystems have composition, structure, and functions. Ecosystem composition (or ecological composition): All living (biotic) and nonliving parts of an ecosystem. Ecosystem function(ing) (or ecological function): (1) The process or cause and effect relationship underlying two or more interacting components, e.g., terrestrial plant material as food/substrate for aquatic invertebrates. (2) The sum of processes that sustain the system. (3) The capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, either directly or indirectly. Ecosystem functions can be conceived as a subset of ecological processes (See Ecosystem process). Ecosystem process (or ecological process): Interactions among components of an ecosystem, biotic (living organisms) and abiotic (chemical and physical) components. Many processes involve transfer, conversion, or storage of matter or energy (See Ecosystem function). Ecosystem structure (or ecological structure): The arrangement of and relations among the parts or elements (components) of an ecosystem. Ecosystem-based management (EBM): Management driven by explicit goals; executed by policies, protocols, and practices; and made adaptable by monitoring and research; based on our best understanding of the ecological interactions and processes necessary to sustain ecosystem composition, structure, and function. EBM acknowledges that humans are an important ecosystem component and focuses on managing human activities within ecosystems. EBM often involves balancing ecological, economic, and social objectives within the context of existing laws and policies. Enhance: To improve a critical area’s existing ecosystem processes, structure, and/or functions so that its ecological integrity is more like its historical condition. Erosion: The loosening and transport of soil particles and other sediment by water. Terrestrial erosion includes raindrop splash erosion, overland flow sheet erosion, surface flow rill (shallow) and gully (deeper) erosion. Channel erosion includes streambank erosion and channel incision (gouging). Rill and gully erosion diminish the ability of the riparian area to trap sediment and pollutants and can often be avoided with intact riparian vegetation. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA): A type of Critical Area specified in the Growth Management Act. The intent of FWHCAs are to maintain populations of species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that (1) the habitat available is sufficient to support viable populations over the long term, and (2) isolated subpopulations are not created. FWHCAs come in a variety of types including waters of the state, places with which listed species have a primary association, habitats and species of local importance, and riparian ecosystems. See WAC 365-190-130. Flow regime (stream): The distribution of stream flow through space and time. Flow regimes can be described by their magnitude (e.g., mean annual, hourly maximum), timing, frequency or return periodicity, duration, spatial distribution, and rate of change. The pathways that water takes to reach a stream (e.g., surface runoff) and within a stream exert a strong influence on the flow regime. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 56 Function: Physical, chemical, or biological processes that occur within an ecosystem. WAC 365-196-830 says, “Functions are the conditions and processes that support the ecosystem. Conditions and processes operate on varying geographic scales ranging from site-specific to watershed and even regional scales.” See also Ecosystem function(ing) and Ecosystem process. Habitat: The resources and conditions presented in an area that support the functional needs of a species (e.g., hiding, migration, resting, feeding, breeding, and rearing), and which are necessary for its survival and reproduction. Habitat is species-specific, scale dependent, and more than vegetation composition or structure. Hazard Tree: A tree that a jurisdiction’s building official or other recognized professional (e.g., certified arborist, registered landscape architect, or certified forester) has determined poses a near-term hazard to public safety or to an existing permanent structure or public utility. Herbaceous: Non-woody plants such as grasses and ferns. Historical condition: See Ecological integrity and Range of natural variability. Hydrology: Description of the properties, distribution, movement, and storage of water on and below the Earth’s surface. Impervious surface: Ground surfaces that resist or prevent water infiltration, e.g., roofs of houses, roadways. Imputed: estimated; a value assigned to missing data by inference from the values of data within the same dataset. Infiltration: The rate or process by which water on the ground enters the soil. Instream: Within flowing freshwater; also, the area waterward of the Ordinary High-Water Mark. Large Woody Debris: Large dead woody material (such as fallen trees and branches) in various stages of decomposition that provide nutrient capital to forest and aquatic resources and serve as habitat in forest and riparian ecosystems. Large wood is usually defined as having diameter greater than 4 in (10 cm) and length greater than 6 ft (≈ 2 m). Low Impact Development (LID): A storm water and land-use management strategy that tries to mimic natural hydrologic conditions by emphasizing pre-disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation, and transpiration. Mitigation: General category of measures that a proponent may take to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts. Mitigation sequence: The stepwise process of protecting a critical area through, first (1) avoiding harm to the critical area to the maximum extent practicable, then (2) minimizing unavoidable harm to the maximum extent practicable, and finally (3) providing compensation for all unavoidable harm by restoring, creating, enhancing, or preserving the critical area’s ecological functions and values to replace those impacted or lost through permitted activities. Monitoring: The process of observing and checking the progress or quality environmental conditions for the purposes of adaptive management. Often described as having three types – implementation, effectiveness, and validation. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 57 Morphology (stream channel, aka fluvial geomorphology): A stream channel’s shape and how it changes over time. Channel morphology is influenced by the abundance and variation in sediment sources, the ability of water to transport sediment downstream, and interactions of sediment with riparian vegetation and woody debris. Off-Channel Habitat: Overflow channels, sloughs, alcoves, wetlands, and small streams found within the floodplains of larger river channels. Off-channel habitat consists of waters connected to and draining into rivers and streams by inundation during peak flow events (Smith 2005; WAC 222-16-031). Off-channel habitat provides habitat for salmonids and other aquatic species which often afford (1) spawning habitat that does not experience scouring high flows; and (2) summer rearing habitat that does not experience loss of stream flow. Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM): (1) That mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland (Washington Department of Ecology 2016). (2) That line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2014). Organic litter: Plant, leaf, tree, or soil litter, and duff are dead plant materials that have fallen to the ground. In this document, organic litter is referenced as available for contributions to the stream system. Passive Restoration: Allowing natural succession to occur in an ecosystem after removing a source of disturbance. Population viability (local): The likelihood that a population of a species will persist for some length of time. Precautionary principle: Erring on the side of not harming resources when faced with uncertainty, especially for potential harm that is essentially irreversible. Utilizing a precautionary approach in land use planning involves: (1) taking preventive action (avoiding impacts); (2) shifting the burden of proof to the project proponents; (3) exploring a wide range of potential alternatives; and/or (4) including multiple stakeholders and disciplines in decision making. Priority Area: The area within a Priority Species’ natural geographic distribution within which protective measures and/or management actions are needed to (1) support viable populations over the long term and (2) avoid creating isolated subpopulations. Priority Habitat: A State of Washington habitat type with unique or significant value to many species; an area with one or more of the following attributes: (1) comparatively high fish and wildlife density; (2) comparatively high species diversity; (3) important breeding habitat; (4) important seasonal ranges; (5) important movement corridors; (6) limited availability; (7) high vulnerability to habitat alteration; or (8) unique or dependent species. Examples of Priority Habitats include but are not limited to instream, riparian, shrub steppe, Oregon white oak woodlands, freshwater wetlands, and marine nearshore. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 58 Priority Habitats & Species (PHS): WDFW’s primary means of transferring fish and wildlife information from resource experts to local governments, landowners, and others for the protection of fish, wildlife, and habitat. Includes endangered, threatened, sensitive, candidate, and vulnerable species and habitats deemed priorities of WDFW and reflective of best available science. See WAC 365-190-130. Priority Species: A State of Washington fish or wildlife species requiring protective measures and/or management actions to ensure its survival. A Priority Species fits one or more of the following criteria: (1) is a state-listed endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species, (2) has vulnerable aggregations, or (3) is of recreational, commercial, and/or tribal importance. Examples of Priority Species include but are not limited to steelhead/rainbow trout, bull trout/Dolly Varden, great blue heron, cavity-nesting ducks, sage grouse, fisher, orca, and elk. Process: See Ecosystem process. Protect: To prevent the degradation of existing ecosystem functions and values. Range of natural variability (or Historical range of natural variability): Refers to the range of ecological conditions (components, structures and functions) in a time period before widespread anthropogenic changes. Recruitment (wood): The process of wood moving from a riparian area to the stream channel. Sources of recruitment include bank erosion, windthrow, landslides, debris flows, snow avalanches, and tree mortality due to, for example, fire, ice storms, beavers, insects, or disease. Dominant factors include, but are not limited to, channel width, slope steepness, slope stability, forest composition and structure, and local wind patterns. Refugia (singular Refugium): sites to which biota retreat, persist in and potentially expand from under changing environmental conditions (Keppel et al. 2012). Riparian: An adjective meaning alongside a waterbody: stream, river, lake, pond, bay, sea, and ocean. Riparian areas are sometimes referred to by different names: riparian ecosystems, riparian habitats, riparian corridors, or riparian zones. Depending on the contexts, these terms may have somewhat different meanings. Riparian area: A defined area encompassing both sides of a water body, composed of aquatic ecosystems (i.e., the river or stream), riparian ecosystem, and riverine wetlands. Riparian areas are three dimensional: longitudinal up and down streams, lateral to the width of the riparian ecosystem, and vertical from below the water table to above the canopy of mature site-potential trees (NRC 2002). Riparian buffer: Buffer refers to its purpose, which is to reduce or prevent adverse impacts to water quality, fisheries, and aquatic biodiversity from human activities occurring upslope of the buffer. Riparian buffers managed specifically for pollutant removal may also be called a vegetated filter strip. Riparian ecosystem: Riparian areas are transitional between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and distinguished by gradients in biophysical conditions, ecological processes, and biota. They are areas through which surface and subsurface hydrology connect waterbodies with their adjacent uplands. They include those portions of the ecosystem distinguished by gradients (i.e., riparian Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 59 zones) and portions of terrestrial ecosystems that significantly influence exchanges of energy and matter with aquatic ecosystems (i.e., the Zone of Influence). Our definition of riparian ecosystem does not include adjacent waters (i.e., rivers or streams, but does include riverine wetlands) and recognizes the riparian zone as a distinctive area within riparian ecosystems. Riparian Management Zone: A delineable area defined in a land use regulation; often synonymous with riparian buffer. For the purposes of this document, we define the RMZ as the area that has the potential to provide full riparian functions. In many forested regions of the state this area occurs within one 200-year site-potential tree height measured from the edge of the stream channel. In situations where a CMZ is present, this occurs within one site-potential tree height measured from the edges of the CMZ. In non-forest zones the RMZ is defined by the greater of the outermost point of the riparian vegetative community or the pollution removal function, at 100-feet. Riparian values: The benefits that riparian ecosystems provide to society, including but not limited to flood damage reduction, water quality improvement, provision of harvestable populations of salmon, and provision of recreational opportunities. Riparian values have direct economic consequences to local communities through fishing opportunities, and flood and water quality protection, among others. Riparian zone: A distinctive area within riparian ecosystems. The riparian zone contains wet or moist soils and plants adapted to growing conditions associated with periodically saturated soils. See Riparian ecosystem. Risk: A situation involving exposure to danger, harm, or loss. Risk reflects the magnitude of the adverse impact and its probability of occurring. Risk is appropriately managed by applying the precautionary principle (especially for irreversible losses) and through adaptive management. Salmonid: A family of fish comprised of salmon, trout and whitefish. Native salmonid species in Washington State include: Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Chum Salmon (O. keta), Coho Salmon (O. kisutch), Pink Salmon (O. gorbuscha), Sockeye Salmon/Kokanee (O. nerka), Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (O. mykiss), Cutthroat Trout (O. clarki), Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Dolly Varden (S. malma), Pygmy Whitefish (Prosopium coulteri), and Mountain Whitefish (P. williamsoni). This list does not include names of subspecies. (See anadromous fisheries). Site class: The classification of a site based on the productivity of its dominant tree species. Site classes vary based on local differences in soil nutrients and moisture, light and temperature regimes, and topography. Site classes are typically described as most productive (I) through least productive (V). Site-Potential Tree Height: The average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees for a given age and site class. Stronghold: Habitat strongholds are refugia watersheds that contain high quality habitat with depressed or weak populations. The habitat in these areas has a high to very high potential to support these species. The population level in these areas is not considered to be a function of habitat, but other factors (USFS2001). Structure: See Ecosystem structure. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 60 Succession: Ecological succession is the process by which the biological community composition recovers over time following a disturbance event. Uncertainty (scientific): The absence of information about the state of something or a relevant variable. Sources of uncertainty include, but are not limited to natural variation (i.e., because outcomes vary in difficult-to-predict ways through time and space), model uncertainty (i.e., we do not understand how things interact with each other), systematic error (e.g., poorly designed experiments or calibrated instruments), or measurement error. See Risk. Values: The level of benefits that the space, water, minerals, biota, and all other factors that make up a natural ecosystem provide to support native life forms, including humans (Cordell et al. 2005). Vegetative filter strips: A riparian buffer designed to capture nutrients, contaminant compounds, and sediment transported by run-off. Filter strips are sometimes synonymous with riparian buffers. Water quality: Physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of water that describe its suitability to meet human needs or habitat requirements for fish and wildlife. Watershed processes: The fluxes of energy (e.g., sunlight, wildfire) and materials (particularly water and sediment) that interact with biota (e.g., vegetative cover, salmon, beavers, soil microbes) to form a watershed’s physical features and characteristics, which give rise to its instream physical and ecological conditions. These processes occur within a context that reflects the watershed’s climate, geology, topography, and existing human land use. See Ecosystem process. Watershed: A land area that drains to a common waterbody. Wetland: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support—and that under normal circumstances do support—a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Examples include but are not limited to swamps, marshes, and bogs. Zone of Influence: The portions of terrestrial ecosystems that significantly influence exchanges of energy (e.g., sunlight) and matter (e.g., large wood, sediment, nutrients) with aquatic ecosystems. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 61 APPENDIX. SITE-POTENTIAL TREE HEIGHT MAPPING TOOL The Site-Potential Tree Height (SPTH) Mapping Tool helps users find information they need to conserve, protect, and restore riparian ecosystems within a project site. The SPTH mapping tool works on personal computers (PCs) and mobile devices (tablets and smartphones). SITE-POTENTIAL TREE HEIGHT MAP DATA The SPTH mapping tool contains several GIS data layers, explained below: 1. Site-potential Tree Height at 200 Years (SPTH200), 2. Imputed14 SPTH200 Values for Urban areas, 3. Dryland Ecosystems – No SPTH Values, and 4. Other Lands – No SPTH Values. Site-potential Tree Height at 200 Years (SPTH200) WDFW derived the SPTH200 values from forest productivity site index information using Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil polygons and its Soil Data Viewer tool for ArcGIS. The NRCS-provided forest productivity site index values, in feet, were for ages 50 years in Western Washington and typically 100 years in Eastern Washington. WDFW determined SPTH200 values using tree site index equations. Each soil polygon has one or more tree species records with associated SPTH200. When multiple tree species records with associated SPTH200 are available, WDFW recommends using the largest SPTH200 value of the tree species historically present at the site (such trees may currently be found on the site, but also may not). For example, if a project site contains mostly red alder but Douglas-fir is present (or was present prior to modern human alterations), use the Douglas-fir SPTH200 for that soil polygon. Imputed SPTH200 Values Four large urban areas (Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, and Bellingham) lacked NRCS soil polygons; therefore, forest productivity information could not be mapped for most locations within those areas. Similarly, numerous soil polygons labelled as “Urban Land” lacked forest productivity information. For each of these four urban areas, WDFW calculated an imputed SPTH200 by using an area-weighted average for 200-year site index values within a two-mile buffer around the perimeter. WDFW recommends the use of this imputed SPTH200 as a guide for delineating RMZs in these urban areas. At the time of publication, WDFW had calculated imputed SPTH200 information for those large urban areas. WDFW expects to continue to update the map. Dryland Ecosystems and Other Lands Not all soil polygons are forested, or have forest productivity information from NRCS; therefore, not all of them have associated SPTH200 values. In addition, Benton, Franklin, Grant, and Adams counties had no forest productivity information in their NRCS soil polygons. These areas without SPTH200 values were classified in one of two ways: as “dryland ecosystems”, or “other lands.” 14 Imputed: estimated; a value assigned to something by inference from the value of the products or processes to which it contributes. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 62 • WDFW approximated the area contained within “dryland ecosystems” using the Arid Lands Initiative study area boundary (Arid Lands Initiative, 2014) and have developed associated process steps that we recommend be used to derive RMZ widths (Volume 2, Section 2.2.3). • The “other lands” comprise the remaining soil polygons and are small and dispersed across the landscape. These polygons include the NRCS soil map unit name, if applicable, and often represent soils that do not support tree growth, such as beaches and wetlands, as well as certain types of heavily modified sites like gravel pits. Please consult with a WDFW regional habitat biologist on deriving RMZs for “other lands” and consider following a similar process for delineation in dryland ecosystems. USING THE MAPPING TOOL The mapping tool can be accessed from several locations: • WDFW web site (https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/phs/recommendations), • Washington Geospatial Open Data Portal (http://geo.wa.gov/), and • ArcGIS Online (AGOL) (https://wdfw.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=919ea98204eb4f5fa70eca99cd5b0de1). The mapping tool consists of the statewide map with the four riparian datasets described above; user tools; and a sidebar explaining map contents, how to use the map, and links to supporting documents. The four riparian datasets have unique colors indicating where the information occurs. • Green: Area where SPTH200 has been calculated. • Orange: Areas where SPTH200 values have been imputed. • Pale brown: Dryland ecosystems where there is no tree height information. • Beige: Places for which no SPTH site index information is available. Tribal and publicly owned/managed lands federal and tribal lands are typically subject to different riparian regulations. Tribal, federal, and state lands are displayed in shades of grey. County-owned lands are shown in lavender, and city-owned lands are light blue. The mapping tool contains the following tools (Figure A1): 1. Zoom Slider: zoom in or out on the center of the map. 2. Home icon: resets map to statewide extent. 3. Target icon: allows the user to zoom directly to their current location. 4. Address Search: zooms to a street address, place name, or latitude and longitude. 5. Measurement: use this to measure the distance between objects (e.g. edge of stream to another point), or to measure an area (square feet of an area surrounding a project site). 6. Basemap Selector: change the basemap to show a different view of the landscape: aerial imagery (default), topographic map, open street map, terrain with labels, and USGS national map. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 63 7. Legend: displays the map layers currently visible. For example, map layers displayed at a site-specific scale will not appear in the legend when zoomed out to the statewide extent. 8. Scale bar: shows the scale that the map is zoomed to. At a statewide extent, the scale bar will show 0 to 60 miles. When zoomed to a scale where you can view the project area, the scale bar will show 0 to 100 feet or 200 feet. 9. Coordinates: latitude and longitude (decimal degrees) are shown where the cursor is located on the map. 10. Panning: move the map by placing the cursor over a desired location and dragging it to the center of the map display. Figure A1. Tools available on the SPTH200 and RMZ Online Map. To zoom to a site location, use the Address Search tool or use a combination of the Zoom Slider and panning. (If using the Address Search tool, select the “ArcGIS World Geocoding Service” from the dropdown menu to the left of the search field for faster results.) Once the site is located, a click (on PCs) or tap (on mobile devices) of the cursor will open a popup window with information about that location. Be sure to review each window if multiple records are selected. The NRCS soil polygons form a complex mosaic across the landscape, so you must zoom in close enough to clearly see your project site. Clicking (or tapping, on mobile devices) on the map when it is zoomed out will result in erroneous returns of the SPTH200 values. Below is an example of using these tools to obtain riparian information at a project site. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 64 MAPPING TOOL EXAMPLE #1 1. Start up the Online Map. 2. Type the project location into the Address Search tool (Figure A2). If the address is unknown, use a nearby place name or latitude and longitude. This example uses 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard, Mill Creek, Washington. 3. Select the correct address from the drop-down menu or continue to enter manually. Click (on a PC) or tap (on a mobile device) the search button. The map will zoom to that location, shown as a small blue box and a popup titled “Search result” (Figure A3). Figure A2. Using the Address Search tool. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 65 Figure A3. Zoomed in aerial image of the site address. 4. Click (or tap) on the “X” in the Address Search tool to close the popup. Zoom and pan until you can clearly see where the project site is on the landscape (Figure A4). In this example, the project site lies in a wooded area to the west of the address selected in the previous screen. We panned west to center the map display over the project site. In this screen, you can see the outlines of the soil polygons. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 66 Figure A4. Adjusting the map display over the project site. 5. Click (or tap) near a stream on the project site. The outline of the soil polygon selected will turn blue, and a popup window will provide information about the SPTH200 (Figure A5). On a PC, the popup should automatically show (1) the SPTH200 in feet, (2) the species of tree it is based on, and (3) the reference study used to derive the height value. On a mobile device, tap the arrow on the right side of the popup to display this information. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 67 Figure A5. Bringing up the SPTH200 information at the project site. In Example #1, the soil polygon for the project site only showed one tree species: Red Alder. Sometimes soil polygons will list more than one tree species, as shown in Example #2. MAPPING TOOL EXAMPLE #2 Example #2, the project site was at a different location. Steps 1-3 in Example #1 were repeated to zoom to the project site. For this site, the popup window for the selected soil polygon looked different: • The upper left corner of the popup window says “(1 of 2)”; and • There is a small arrow near the upper right corner of the popup window. This means that this soil polygon has two different associated tree species. The first is Douglas-fir (see Figure A6a). To view the information for the second tree species, click on the small arrow. The second tree species is western hemlock (see Figure A6b). For project locations with multiple tree species, WDFW recommends using the largest SPTH200 value, even if the largest tree species is not the most numerous (or even currently present) onsite. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 68 Figure A6a. SPTH information for the first of multiple tree species at a given site. Figure A6b. SPTH200 information for the second of multiple tree species at a given site. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 69 APPENDIX REFERENCES: TREE SITE INDEX CURVES The following twenty studies were used to determine SPTH200 throughout the state: Alexander, R.R. 1966. Site indexes for lodgepole pine, with corrections for stand density: instructions for field use. Research Paper RM-24. U.S., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Alexander, R.R. 1967. Site indexes for Engelmann spruce. Research Paper RM-32. U.S., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Baker, F.S. 1925. Aspen in the Central Rocky Mountain Region. Bulletin 1291. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Barnes, G.H. 1962. Yield of even-aged stands of western hemlock. Technical Bulletin 1273. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. British Columbia Forest Service (BCFS). 1977. Site index curves for cottonwood (as adapted by W.J. Sauerwein). pp. 852-853 in Pocket Woodland Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Portland, Oregon. Cochran, P.H. 1979a. Gross yields for even-aged stands of white or Douglas-fir and white or grand fir east of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington. Research Paper PNW-263. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. Cochran, P.H. 1979b. Site index and height growth curves for managed, even-aged stands of Douglas-fir east of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington. Research Paper PNW-251. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. Cochran, P.H. 1985. Site index, height growth, normal yields, and stocking levels for larch in Oregon and Washington. Research Note PNW-424. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. Haig, I.T. 1932. Second-growth yield, stand, and volume tables for the western white pine type. Technical Bulletin 323. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Hegyi, F., J.J. Jelinek, J. Viszlai, and D.B. Carpenter. 1979. Site index equations and curves for the major tree species in British Columbia. Forest Inventory Report No. 1. Ministry of Forestry, Victoria, British Columbia. Herman, F.R., R.O. Curtis, and D.J. Demars. 1978. Height growth and site index estimates for noble fir in high-elevation forests of the Oregon-Washington Cascades. Research Paper PNW-243. U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. Hoyer, G.D., and F.R. Herman. 1989. Height-age and site index curves for Pacific silver fir in the Pacific Northwest. Research Paper RP-418. U.S., Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. King, J.E. 1966. Site index curves for Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. Forestry Paper 8. Weyerhaeuser Company, Forestry Research Center, Centralia, Washington. Kurucz, J.F. 1978. Preliminary, polymorphic site index curves for western red cedar (Thuja plicata Donn) in coastal British Columbia. Forest Research Note No. 3. MacMillan Bloedel, Nanaimo, British Columbia. Meyer, W.H. 1961. Yield of even-aged stands of ponderosa pine. Technical Bulletin 630 (revised 1961). United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations 70 Meyer, W.H. 1937. Yield of even-aged stands of Sitka spruce and western hemlock. Technical Bulletin 544. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Monserud, R.A. 1985. Applying height growth and site index curves for inland Douglas-fir. Research Paper INT-347. U.S. Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. Schmidt, W.C., R.C. Shearer, and A.L. Roe. 1976. Ecology and silviculture of western larch forests. Technical Bulletin 1520. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Wiley, K.N. 1978. Site index tables for western hemlock in the Pacific Northwest. Forestry Paper No. 17. Weyerhaeuser Company, Western Forestry Research Center, Centralia, Washington. Worthington, N.P., F.A. Johnson, G.R. Staebler, and W.J. Lloyd. 1960. Research Paper No. 36. Normal yield tables for red alder. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. July 2020 Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation UMBRELLA BANK PROSPECTUS Prepared by Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattleii Sponsor Contact Information Jon Sloan Port of Seattle P.O. Box 1209 Seattle, Washington 98111 206-787-3675 Sloan.J@portseattle.org Photo: Anchor QEA Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle iii Contents Introduction 1 Umbrella Bank Project Sites 11 Future Mitigation and Conservation Sites 37 Proposed Service Area and Project Need 41 Site Protection 45 Qualification of Sponsor and Design Teams 47 References 49 List of Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2 Proposed Initial Mitigation and Conservation Sites 3 Figure 3 Proposed Mitigation and Conservation Sites 4 Figure 4 Terminal 25 Existing Conditions 13 Figure 5 Terminal 25 Concept Design 17 Figure 6 Terminal 117 Existing Conditions 22 Figure 7 Terminal 117 Concept Design 25 Figure 8 Auburn Site Existing Conditions 31 Figure 9 Auburn Site Concept Design 34 Figure 10 Proposed Future Mitigation and Conservation Sites 38 Figure 11 Proposed Service Area Watersheds 42 Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattleiv List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Bank Joint Umbrella Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Bank Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CSO combined sewer overflow Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EFH Essential Fish Habitat EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FR Federal Register ILF in-lieu fee IRT Interagency Review Team MLLW mean lower low water NGVD 29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRD natural resources damage PCB polychlorinated biphenyl Port Port of Seattle ppt part per thousand RM river mile SAMP Sustainable Airport Master Plan SAV submerged aquatic vegetation SDOT Seattle Department of Transportation STIA Seattle-Tacoma International Airport WAC Washington Administrative Code WRIA 9 Water Resource Inventory Area 9 WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 1 Introduction As the only river in Seattle, the Green-Duwamish River provides habitat for many of the region’s valued fish and wildlife species, and is home to tribal, recreational, and commercial fisheries. The Green- Duwamish watershed also supports the core of industrial and port activity in the Seattle area. The watershed, known as Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9), has been heavily developed over time, degrading estuarine, riparian, and freshwater wetland environments. The Port of Seattle (Port) is proposing to establish a Joint Umbrella Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Bank (Bank) within the watershed to rehabilitate ecological functions and restore priority habitat, while facilitating sustainable growth and development throughout the region. Upon certification by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the proposed Bank project will provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources, as well as provide conservation credits for impacts to special status salmonid species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Bank project is being proposed through Washington State’s Mitigation Banking System, co-chaired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and will also be reviewed and proposed for certification by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries as a conservation bank. The proposed Bank will include multiple sites that would serve WRIA 9, including the Lower Green River, Duwamish Estuary, and Nearshore subwatersheds (Figure 1). The Bank would substantially contribute to the Port’s Century Agenda goals and strategies to advance commerce and promote industrial growth in an environmentally responsible way (Port of Seattle 2017). The proposed Bank would initially include habitat creation and restoration sites in marine, estuarine, and freshwater environments (Figure 2). Terminal 25 South will provide substantial off-channel marsh and marine shoreline habitat at the south end of the East Waterway, where habitat is otherwise lacking. Terminal 117, located in the heart of Seattle’s South Park neighborhood, will provide brackish water marsh and mudflat, which is critical for Chinook salmon as they migrate through the transition zone. In Auburn, 34 acres of floodplain wetlands and buffers will be enhanced contiguous to the Port’s existing 60-acre compensatory mitigation site on the banks of the Green- Duwamish River. Future sites could include restoration at Terminals 105, 107, 108, and 115 South; Pier 48; and others Seaport operations along the East Waterway and Elliott Bay Introduction Lower GreenRiverSubwatershed DuwamishEstuarySubwatershed NearshoreSubwatershed [0 4 Miles LEGEND: Green-Duwamish River Streams WRIA 9 W a sh ington!Project Area Green-D u w a mi s hRiverWetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle2 Figure 1: Vicinity Map !!! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! Terminal 25 Terminal 117 Auburn Site ELLIOTT BAY Auburn Bellevue Burien Covington DesMoines Federal Way Kent Medina MercerIsland Newcastle Normandy Park Renton SeaTac Tukwila LEGEND: City Boundary Potential Mitigation Site !Existing Port of Seattle Habitat Site Stream Storage Vacant [0 4 Miles Introduction Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 3 Figure 2: Proposed Initial Mitigation and Conservation Sites Terminal 25 Terminal 117 Terminal 105 Terminal 107 Terminal 108 Terminal 115 HarborIsland Terminal 5 Pier 16 Pier 34 Pier 48 Auburn Gr e e n River ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! Terminal 25 Terminal 117 Terminal 105 Terminal 107 Terminal 108 Terminal 115 Harbor Island Terminal 5 Pier 16 Pier 34 Pier 48 LO W E R D U W A M I S H W A T E R W A Y LEGEND: Proposed Initial Site Proposed Future Site !Existing Port of Seattle Habitat Site Auburn Gr e e n River Pier/Moorage Park/Public Access Storage Vacant [0 1 Miles ! ! Figure 3: Proposed Mitigation and Conservation Sites Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle4 Introduction Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 5 depending on availability, feasibility, market conditions, and agency approval (Figure 3). Background and Overview As a special-purpose municipal corporation, the Port serves King County and operates the Seattle seaport and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (STIA). The Port’s mission is “to create good jobs here and across the state by advancing trade and commerce, promoting manufacturing and maritime growth, and stimulating economic development” (Port of Seattle 2018a). The Port owns and manages many properties and seeks to maximize the public assets in their portfolio, with an eye toward best uses and environmental sustainability (Port of Seattle 2018a). Port organizational values include: • We conduct business with the highest ethical standards. Our business practices reflect integrity, accountability, honesty, fairness, and respect at all levels. • We honor our commitments and provide outstanding service and value to each other, our customers, the citizens of King County, and the region. • We are capable, high-performing people who appreciate the privilege of public service. We practice open communication, innovation, collaboration, and transparency in all interactions. • We embrace the richness of a diverse workplace and support employee development. We encourage healthy and diverse organization that enhances our contributions locally and globally. • We are responsible stewards of community resources and the environment. We exercise care and wisdom in the use of both financial and natural resources. The seaport is an approximately 1,540-acre commercial port in Seattle. Although there are active seaport operations throughout Seattle’s shoreline, the port’s principal marine cargo operations and industrial properties are in the lower 5 miles of the Green-Duwamish River, known as the Lower Duwamish Waterway, and in south Elliott Bay, including the East and West waterways, where the Lower Duwamish Waterway discharges to Elliott Bay. Additional port facilities and properties in east and northeast Elliott Bay operate as marine cargo facilities, marine transportation/cruise vessel terminals, marinas, and marine industrial properties. The STIA Airport Operations Area consists of 1,287 acres, which includes the terminal, runways, and airport support services, generating approximately 172,000 jobs. The Port also owns an additional 1,505 acres of aviation properties outside of the Airport Operations Area. STIA has partnered with area cities and developers to help boost local economies in Burien, Des Moines, and SeaTac. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) airport operation and compatible land use regulations guide STIA’s activities. The Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) utilizes sustainability concepts to augment existing operations and land uses to accommodate projected growth. The SAMP identifies measures for the Port to satisfy growing air transportation needs while meeting sustainability goals and objectives (Port of Seattle 2018b). Development and operations by the Port and other businesses in these areas often affect aquatic environments or sensitive areas. Federal, state, and local regulations and decision-making guidelines require that potential development projects avoid and minimize environmental impacts to the extent possible and that all unavoidable adverse impacts be offset by mitigation actions that provide compensatory natural resource values and fish and wildlife habitat functions. There are limited opportunities to complete mitigation projects in this heavily developed region. As a significant landowner and lessor in the area, the Port has the direct ability to identify, implement, and sustain offsetting habitat restoration and creation projects. In recent years, ports and other public organizations have chosen to sponsor mitigation banks to provide predictable, cost-effective, and timely fish and wildlife and environmental functions while reducing development project review and Credit: Don Wilson Terminal operations at STIA Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle6 approval inefficiencies. A number of Washington ports are sponsoring wetland mitigation banks (Port of Vancouver), habitat conservation banks (Port of Everett), or joint wetland mitigation and habitat conservation banks (Port of Tacoma) that have been approved or are in the process of the technical review. The Bank is a unique opportunity to expand mitigation opportunities and cost effectiveness within the GreenDuwamish and Central Puget Sound watersheds, providing important natural resource values and habitat functions within the largest economic engine of the Puget Sound region. The Port’s plans to develop a joint wetland mitigation and conservation bank would require approval by the Corps, Ecology, and the rest of the IRT, as well as NOAA Fisheries. The IRT is co-chaired by the Corps and Ecology, who will certify the bank to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources. NOAA Fisheries will certify that the habitat bank provides conservation credits for impacts to special status salmonid species listed under the ESA. Once certified, the proposed joint bank will be a predictable compensatory mitigation tool for agency-approved natural resource impacts. Bank credits will be available to the Port, Port tenants, private developers, and government agencies. Importantly, these credits may support natural resources damage (NRD) settlements related to the Lower Duwamish Waterway, East Waterway, Harbor Island, and Lockheed West Superfund sites. The Terminal 117 site is already approved by NOAA Fisheries and the Elliott Bay Trustee Council for NRD credits. The Port will ensure proper ledgering to ensure credits are not double-counted. Any revenues generated from sales of wetland, conservation, or NRD credits will be reinvested by the Port in habitat projects identified in this Prospectus (or as amended). Many private mitigation banks are interested in generating a profit through the sales of credits; however, the goal of the Port’s joint wetland and habitat conservation bank is to create a self-sustaining habitat restoration program that results in continual improvement of wetland and habitat functions in the Lower Green-Duwamish watershed. Geography and Terminology WRIA 9, anchored by the Green-Duwamish River and central Puget Sound, includes three subwatersheds in the vicinity of the proposed bank sites (Figure 1). • The Duwamish Estuary subwatershed extends from River Mile (RM) 0 at Elliott Bay to RM 11 at the confluence with the Black River • The Lower Green River subwatershed includes the portion of the Green-Duwamish River from approximately RM 11, near Tukwila and the historical confluence of the Green- Duwamish River with the Black River, upstream through Renton and Kent, to RM 30 near Auburn • The Nearshore subwatershed includes marine shorelines and other smaller drainages, such as the Elliott Bay marine shoreline, and similar small streams, such as Miller, Walker, and Des Moines creeks, that connect upland areas in SeaTac, Burien, Normandy Park, Des Moines, West Seattle, and the upland margins of northwest Elliott Bay to Puget Sound In the Green-Duwamish River, tidal influences on river height are observed upstream to about RM 15 (City of Seattle 2003). Saltwater from Puget Sound typically extends along the dredged subtidal Lower Duwamish Waterway channel and upstream of Turning Basin Number 3, beyond the dredged channel to a natural basalt rock ledge near the Green River Trail pedestrian bridge over the Lower Duwamish Waterway, at approximately RM 8 (City of Seattle 2003). The area from RM 0 to RM 8 is generally termed “the transition zone” and represents the estuarine area where freshwater and saltwater mix, which is essential for changes in juvenile salmon osmoregulation during the transition from a freshwater to saltwater life stage and is equally important to many other migratory and resident fish and wildlife species. Watershed Processes and Functions The need for a Bank is supported by local salmon recovery plans, which have consistently demonstrated that restoring estuarine tidal and riparian habitat and freshwater aquatic and riparian environments is an important tool in improving impaired watershed processes (Duwamish Blueprint Working Group 2014; King County 2017, 2018; WRIA 9 Steering Committee 2005). Creating or restoring wetland and shoreline habitat and associated riparian buffers improves water quality; provides habitat connectivity for other species dependent on riparian, marsh, and other aquatic environments; and, re-establishes critical off-channel estuarine and freshwater rearing, feeding, and refuge for juvenile salmonids (Duwamish Blueprint Working Group 2014; King County 2017, 2018; WRIA 9 Steering Committee Introduction Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 7 2005). The Green-Duwamish subwatersheds are shown in Figure 1. The Green-Duwamish River is considered the fourth most endangered river in the country, and providing salmon habitat and floodplain habitat is critical for restoration of the system (American Rivers 2019). The Green-Duwamish watershed provides important feeding, spawning, and migratory habitat to native fish and wildlife. Anadromous salmon found there include Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), chum (O. keta), sockeye (O. nerka), and pink (O. gorbuscha), as well as steelhead (O. mykiss), cutthroat (O. clarkia), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus; Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and WDFW 2015). Among these, federally threatened species include Puget Sound Chinook salmon (64 Federal Register [FR] 41835, 70 FR 37160), Puget Sound steelhead (72 FR 26722), and Coastal-Puget bull trout (64 FR 58910). Puget Sound and the Green-Duwamish River have been designated as critical habitat for Chinook salmon (70 FR 52630), steelhead trout (81 FR 9251), and bull trout (64 FR 58910). Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act for Pacific Coast salmon, which encompasses Chinook, coho, and pink (73 FR 60987). After the federal government listed both Puget Sound Chinook salmon and bull trout as threatened, local governments in the Green-Duwamish watershed created the Salmon Habitat Plan – Making Our Watershed Fit for a King (WRIA 9 Steering Committee 2005), which acts as a guide for protection and restoration actions to enhance Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat. The Salmon Habitat Plan outlines factors that have led to population decline and habitat enhancement actions that could increase Chinook salmon and bull trout populations; it identifies reduced channel complexity, lost riparian vegetation, disconnected off-channel habitat, increased stream scour due to reduced sediment supply, and decreased summer low flows and increased temperature as widespread factors motivating species decline in this watershed. Restoration of off-channel areas along the Green-Duwamish River would provide productive rearing habitat, loss of which is currently limiting Chinook salmon recovery. Providing more productive, protected habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon would also increase the amount of available prey for endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). As described in Executive Order 18- 02: Southern Resident Killer Whale Recovery and Task Force (Southern Resident Orca Task Force 2018), recent studies indicate that reduced Chinook salmon runs undermine the potential for Southern Resident Killer Whales to successfully reproduce and recover. Off-channel restoration benefitting Chinook salmon will also benefit Southern Resident Killer Whales. The Port’s bank will create, enhance, and restore significant freshwater rearing habitat for Chinook in Auburn, as well as highly significant transition zone habitat in the estuary and marine environment in Seattle. Lower Green River Subwatershed (RM 11 to RM 30) Fall-run Chinook, coho, fall-run chum, sockeye, and pink (odd-year) salmon, winter- and summer-run steelhead, and bull trout have been documented in the Lower Green River subwatershed (WDFW 2019). The specific use of different habitats along the river varies with seasonal timing, life stage, and species of salmon (Ruggerone et al. 2006). Adult salmon primarily spawn in the middle reaches of the Green-Duwamish River and its tributaries (upstream of this subwatershed). Juvenile salmonids that migrate downstream rely on naturally formed pools as well as downed wood and roots from riparian buffers for refuge from aquatic predators. Riparian buffers also reduce turbidity levels, improve water quality through stormwater filtering, and improve the foraging capacity for juvenile salmonids (Anchor 2004). These documented conditions confirm the importance of restoration and creation actions that increase habitat diversity, which provides natural resource values and functions that support multiple juvenile salmon life-history strategies, thus contributing to population resilience. Levees and revetments have channelized the Lower Green- Duwwamish River and its tributaries and disconnected off-channel habitat, affecting many areas along the river. Protecting and restoring off-channel habitat, increasing habitat complexity (including increased riparian vegetation, feeding, and refuge areas), reconnecting sediment sources for spawning substrate, and improving fish passage would have beneficial effects for fish and wildlife populations in the subwatershed. Productive off-channel habitat is the most important factor for out-migrating juvenile salmonids in the Lower Green-Duwamish River (King County 2017). Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle8 Additionally, wetland flood storage capacity is needed in this highly developed subwatershed. Restoring freshwater wetlands near the Green-Duwamish River can increase flood storage, thereby improving water quality for salmon, in support of the goals of the Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9 Steering Committee 2005). Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed (RM 0 to RM 11) Estuary habitat between the Green-Duwamish River and Elliott Bay is vital for juvenile salmon life cycles. Industrial and urban uses on the river have transformed the Duwamish Estuary subwatershed, resulting in channel simplification and altered hydrology (King County 2018). Due to contamination, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared the Lower Duwamish Waterway a federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (or Superfund) site. EPA published a final cleanup plan in 2014 to address approximately 400 acres of contamination (EPA 2018). Stormwater discharging into the estuary reduces water quality and can lead to high stream flows during storms. Additionally, fragmented, low-functioning riparian habitat makes many tributaries that lead to the estuary inhospitable for salmon (King County 2018). Chinook and chum salmon and bull trout have been documented in the Duwamish Estuary. The Re-Green the Green: Riparian Revegetation Strategy for the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) (WRIA 9 Riparian Revegetation Work Group 2016) and Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9 Steering Committee 2005) summarize the planned restoration efforts for the Duwamish Estuary, which focus on increasing function and connectivity for riparian habitat and improving water quality and hydrology in tributaries that drain into the estuary. Numerous federal, state, and University of Washington evaluations of the Duwamish Estuary indicate that restoring the once abundant, and now rare, natural resource values and functions would benefit all resident and migratory fish and wildlife (in particular, juvenile salmon), reversing significant declines in estuarine habitat that is essential to diverse salmon life histories. Elliott Bay Elliott Bay is adjacent to the Duwamish Estuary and Nearshore subwatersheds. Elliott Bay includes approximately 13 miles of shoreline, nearly all of which has been altered by past and continuing development uses and activities. Approximately 65% of the Elliott Bay shoreline consists of overwater docks, piers, and associated structurally stabilized riprap and bulkhead shoreline. Although approximately 35% of the Elliott Bay shoreline remains exposed, or uncovered, these shoreline areas consist of exposed riprap slopes and other altered and developed shoreline conditions. Approximately 16% of the exposed, altered shoreline is fringed with down-slope sand/mud substrate, representing shoreline areas that, although truncated by artificial structures, are crucial intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat. Less than approximately 4% of the Elliott Bay shoreline could be characterized as including any sort of marine riparian vegetation. Habitat restoration and creation actions that remove overwater cover, in-water structures (especially creosote-treated wood), and other hard shoreline structures would directly benefit resident and migratory fish and wildlife in Elliott Bay. Nearshore Subwatershed The Nearshore subwatershed includes a portion of Elliott Bay, Puget Sound, and tributaries that drain directly into the marine waters to the west (Figure 1). Human development over many decades has significantly altered watershed processes and habitat availability and function in the Nearshore subwatershed. Land use in the subwatershed consists primarily of residential and industrial uses, which have degraded water quality, riparian vegetation, and sedimentation processes and nearshore habitat functions. Regional salmon populations have decreased over time, as evidenced by ESA listings of Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout, which were historically present (along with other salmon) in the Duwamish and Puget Sound tributaries, including Miller, Walker, and Des Moines creeks (near where STIA is located). Published in 2001, the comprehensive Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem recognized the importance of restoration and protection of critical ecosystem functions in the nearshore environment, providing recommendations that included wetland enhancement and preservation, protection of undeveloped shoreline habitat, and restoration of modified land, starting in the main Duwamish Estuary and subestuaries (Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory et al. 2001). Shoreline armoring in the nearshore subwatershed is also an ongoing issue Introduction Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 9 for salmon habitat restoration, with more armoring built than removed through restoration between 2005 and 2014 (Higgins 2014). Habitat restoration and creation actions would be crucial to reversing historical nearshore habitat effects and generating important, sustainable, shoreline and aquatic area natural resource processes and functions. Habitat restoration and creation actions would provide substantial direct nearshore environmental benefits to resident and migratory fish and wildlife in Elliott Bay as well as species that are dependent on the Lower Duwamish Waterway as a migratory corridor. Miller and Walker Creeks Extensive flooding and erosion in the Miller and Walker Creeks Basin prompted an analysis of current and future conditions, as presented in the Miller and Walker Creeks Basin Plan (Amoto and The Resource Group Consultants 2006). Residential, commercial, and industrial development and associated impacts have increased impervious surface and reduced fish habitat in stream systems. Stream corridors lack riparian habitat, leading to high storm flows, which increases erosion and damages stream beds. Miller and Walker creeks have a high pre-spawn salmon mortality rate (Amoto and The Resource Group Consultants 2006), between 78% and 88% in 2017 (King County 2019). Stormwater discharge and low water quality in streams may be the cause of poor biological health. The Basin Plan identifies the goal of habitat protection and improvement to increase anadromous fish populations. Des Moines Creek In 1997, the Des Moines Creek Basin Committee developed the Des Moines Creek Basin Plan to address stream-related issues and make recommendations for infrastructure investments. High flows, erosion, fish passage barriers, and water quality are limiting factors for fish in this basin (Des Moines Creek Basin Committee 1997). The plan recommended improving riparian and instream habitat, such as rehabilitating riparian zones by removing invasive plants and improving riparian buffers. Umbrella Bank Goals and Objectives Mitigation banks are more successful compared with project applicant/development sponsor mitigation projects because they provide fully functioning, durable natural resource values and functions at critical locations to a greater extent than single, fragmented mitigation actions implemented by development sponsors lacking institutional capability and sustained resource management. Banks also provide more ecological benefits at a watershed level, reduce permit processing times, and are more likely to be protected in perpetuity. The goal of the Port’s proposed joint wetland mitigation and conservation Bank is to provide a range of high-quality, long- term habitats that can be used to offset unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources and fish habitat due to development, redevelopment, and repair/maintenance actions in the Lower Green River subwatershed, Duwamish Estuary subwatershed, Elliott Bay, and the Nearshore subwatershed. To reach this goal, the Bank must accomplish the following: • Restore, create, or preserve wetland, riparian, and offchannel habitat for fish and wildlife. Expanding rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon will also provide more primary prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales. • Assist in reaching the habitat restoration and species recovery goals for the Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watersheds as well as in Elliott Bay and the Lower Green-Duwamish River, Duwamish Estuary, and Nearshore subwatersheds • Use economies of scale by combining required mitigation from individual smaller projects within the subwatershed area into a larger, collective mitigation approach to maximize ecological value • Use monitoring, long-term management, and commitments for repair, maintenance, and stewardship to ensure successful establishment and long-term viability • Employ a comprehensively designed system for restoration and enhancement actions that utilizes large sites to reduce the risk of mitigation failure • Provide institutional protections, including conservation easements, covenants, and long-term site management • Enable economic activity by the Port and other local jurisdictions and businesses to meet regulatory mitigation requirements by providing a cost-effective, consistent, and predictable option for mitigation in Elliott Bay and the Lower Green River, Duwamish Estuary, and Nearshore subwatersheds This Prospectus serves as the basis for initial agency and public review of the proposed Bank under state and federal mitigation rules. Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle10 This page left intentionally blank Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 11 Umbrella Bank Project Sites Site Selection Framework In accordance with joint regulatory agency guidance, the Bank sites were selected using a watershed approach, and each site will undergo further design development using techniques based on its watershed position. As described previously, the Lower Duwamish Waterway and Lower Green River are identified in several watershed-based restoration plans, and the degradation, fragmentation, and loss of estuarine habitat and off-channel freshwater fish-rearing habitat are cited as two primary limiting factors for Chinook salmon populations. The Bank will provide opportunities to add estuarine habitat back to the Lower Duwamish Waterway and restore critical estuarine watershed processes that have been altered and disrupted by urban development. Per restoration plans and regulatory documents, expanding off-channel fish-rearing habitat in the Lower Green River subwatershed will benefit a number of fish species, including ESA-listed Chinook salmon and steelhead. The subwatershed also lacks flood protection and high-functioning riparian and wetland habitat next to the river (Duwamish Blueprint Working Group 2014; King County 2018; WRIA 9 Steering Committee 2005; WRIA 9 Riparian Revegetation Work Group 2016; Our Green/Duwamish Watershed Advisory Group 2016). The Bank will provide expanded off-channel fish-rearing habitat, additional flood capacity, and a large area of protected wetland habitat next to the Lower Green-Duwamish River. Potential ecological value (lift) was evaluated using the priorities and recommendations in watershed-based restoration plans for the Green-Duwamish watershed and the Duwamish Estuary subwatershed, and the guidance provided in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-700-303. Specifically, the Duwamish Blueprint (Duwamish Blueprint Working Group 2014) and the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (NOAA 2013) developed specific recommendations and criteria for restoration in the Duwamish Estuary subwatershed. Similar relevant ecological value and recommendations were identified for wetland establishment and re-establishment and fish and wildlife habitat restoration in the Lower Green-Duwamish River (King County 2017). The following criteria were evaluated for the selection of the initial Bank projects: • Size. Watershed-based restoration plans value larger restoration projects because they are more likely to support a diverse ecosystem and be resilient and self- sustaining. Specifically, the minimum size threshold for a project to ensure this benefit is 2 acres. Accordingly, candidate Bank sites in the Lower Duwamish Waterway have higher potential ecological value if they accommodate more than 2 acres of combined intertidal habitat, wetland habitat, and/or upland riparian habitat. • Connectivity. The plans recommend projects with high potential to connect to or complement existing wetlands or other habitat, to create off-channel habitat, or to reconnect a freshwater source to the Lower Duwamish Waterway. Candidate Bank sites in the Lower Duwamish Waterway and Lower Green-Duwamish River have higher potential ecological value if they are adjacent to existing habitat, could support off-channel habitat, offer enhanced floodplain area, or could reconnect a freshwater source to the river. • Distribution. The plans value projects that contribute habitat to areas where it is lacking. Candidate Bank sites were therefore evaluated in the context of the distribution of existing habitat along Elliott Bay and in the Lower Green River, Duwamish Estuary, and Nearshore subwatersheds and to maximize benefits to ESA-listed fish species for multiple life stages throughout the watershed. • Urgency. Both WAC 173-700-303 and watershed-based restoration plans direct restoration efforts to projects that contribute to the improvement of identified management problems in the drainage basin or watershed. Accordingly, candidate sites with the opportunity to address such problems have higher potential ecological value. The Green-Duwamish River is considered the fourth most endangered river in the country, and providing salmon habitat and floodplain habitat are critical for restoration of the system (American Rivers 2019). Initial Sites The three primary mitigation sites selected for initial inclusion in the Bank are presented in this section and shown in Figure 2. These three initial sites include Terminal 25 South, Terminal 117, and the Port’s Auburn property. The Port is proposing these three sites be designed and then reviewed by the IRT and NOAA Fisheries such that they qualify as bank sites under a Joint Umbrella Mitigation and Conservation Banking Instrument. Potential future sites are presented in the following section (Future Mitigation and Conservation Sites). Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle12 Terminal 25 South Terminal 25 South is on the southeast bank of the East Waterway (the segment of the Lower Duwamish Waterway east of Harbor Island), north of South Spokane Street and south of the active Terminal 25 container cargo facility, at 2917 East Marginal Way South in Seattle, Washington (Figure 4). The site is in the northeast quarter of Section 18 of Township 24 North, Range 4 East. This Port-owned site comprises a nearly 12-acre area in the southwest corner of Parcel No. 7666207905. This site has the potential to restore valuable fish and wildlife habitat in a marine-freshwater transition zone. The Terminal 25 South site is expected to provide conservation credits for impacts to special status salmonid species listed under the ESA following certification by NOAA Fisheries, including credits that may support NRD settlements by the Port in the Lower Proposed bank site at Terminal 25 South Figure 4: Terminal 25 Existing Conditions PotentialExpansionArea T25 South Property East WaterwayMaintained Federal Navigation Channel%EAST MARGINAL WAY SSR 99WEST SEATTLE BRG S HORTON ST S HINDS ST S HANFORD ST S SPOKANE ST SW SPOKANE ST D U W A M I S H A V E S ![0 400 Feet Truck ParkingLog Storage%Piles LEGEND: 1-Foot Contours Potential Expansion Area Primary Restoration Area Port Ownership Parcel Boundary Right-of-Way Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 13 Umbrella Bank Project Sites Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle14 Duwamish Waterway, East Waterway, Harbor Island, and Lockheed West Superfund sites. Any remaining credits generated by the Terminal 25 South site are proposed to be made available through the joint bank once certified by NOAA Fisheries (for conservation credits) and by the Corps, Ecology, and the IRT (for wetland and aquatic resource credits). Site Selection The creation of a Bank site at Terminal 25 South represents an opportunity to make progress toward several of the watershed-based restoration priorities for the Green-Duwamish watershed and the Duwamish Estuary subwatershed. The site’s location in the East Waterway makes it uniquely suited for mitigation of future development impacts in the Lower Duwamish Waterway as well as in the central waterfront. Using the site selection framework described previously, key benefits of the Terminal 25 South site include the following: • Size. Nearly 12 acres of habitat, including subtidal improvements, intertidal substrate, estuarine emergent vegetation, and native riparian shoreline/forested uplands, would be restored. • Connectivity. Valuable off-channel habitat would be created, which would help bridge the gap in the habitat network between the mouth of the Duwamish Estuary and the off-channel habitat upstream at Terminals 105, 107, 108, 115, and 117 along this important migratory corridor. • Distribution. Valuable habitat would be added to the East Waterway, which currently lacks viable fish and wildlife habitat altogether (Windward Environmental and Anchor QEA 2014). The site is located within the marine/ estuarine transition zone, which contains critical salmon habitat. Juvenile salmon tend to out-migrate through the East Waterway (rather than the West Waterway), adding importance to this location. • Urgency. Removal of creosote-treated piling would help address longstanding water and sediment quality concerns in an area that is crucial for migrating salmon. Existing Conditions In accordance with joint regulatory agency guidance (Ecology 2012), this section presents baseline conditions for the proposed site. Land Use and Structures The proposed site is in the western portion of the Port’s Terminal 25 South property. The property is bounded by East Marginal Way to the east, Spokane Street to the south, the East Waterway to the west, and the active Terminal 25 marine cargo facility to the north. Historical uses of the property since its construction in the early 1900s include logging facilities, a mill, an electrical manufacturing facility, fumigation plant, automobile staging, and shipping operations (Anchor QEA 2012). Most recently, the site included 7 acres of cold storage and seafood processing facilities, including approximately 145,000 square feet of processing, warehouse, and shipment structures. In 2004, all facilities were removed, and the site was entirely cleared to previous building footprint grade levels. The Port currently leases the property to various tenants who use the area for construction staging and storage as well as truck parking. The proposed site is currently vacant (used only for vehicle staging and inert material stockpiling) and contains paved and unpaved portions. No structures are present on the upland portion of the site. In 2006, the Port removed decking from a 2-acre creosote-treated wood dock from the site. Approximately 950 creosote-treated wood piling, concrete rubble, concrete bulkhead, concrete apron, and small sections of concrete decking remain in the intertidal and subtidal footprint of the former dock. The south-central portion of the Terminal 25 South property is paved with asphalt and used as a parking area for tractor- trailer cabs. The northern portion of the property is used by a Port tenant for construction staging. Currently, these uses partially overlap the proposed Bank site. However, these uses do not require access to the waterway, and will be moved farther east on the property to accommodate the site and avoid impacts to tenant operations. Green stormwater infrastructure will be installed between the Bank site and the adjacent relocated uses. Sound Transit is planning to extend the light rail line to West Seattle in 2030. This line would be elevated over the East Waterway and West Waterway (the segment of the Lower Duwamish Waterway west of Harbor Island). Although one previous alignment alternative passed through Terminal 25 South, Sound Transit’s preferred alignment is on the south side of the West Seattle Bridge, which will not affect Terminal 25 South. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the preferred alignment is planned to be released in 2021. Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 15 Public view/fishing access point over the East Waterway, with West Seattle Bridge supports in the background The southeastern corner of the property, outside of the Bank site, includes the City of Seattle right-of-way for the West Seattle Bridge, which the City uses as a paved, active construction laydown area (Anchor QEA 2012). The West Seattle Bridge is elevated above Terminal 25 South as it crosses the East Waterway. Adjacent to the West Seattle Bridge is the SW Spokane Street Bridge, which includes a bicycle and pedestrian trail with a pull-off public view/fishing access point looking north over the East Waterway. There are no other transportation or utility easements on the property. Soils and Topography The Terminal 25 South property was constructed in the early 1900s from intertidal sediments and upland fill materials (Anchor QEA 2012). These fill materials constitute the top 15 feet of soil on the site, and are characterized as loose, silty, fine-to-coarse sand containing gravel. Holocene alluvium sits below the fill material (Anchor QEA 2012). The site is generally flat, with a slight downward slope toward the center from the northern and southern edges of the site. Elevations on the site range from +12 to +16 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). Most of the area landward of the former dock footprint is within the preliminary 100-year floodplain (FEMA 2013). South of the former dock footprint, the property extends farther west into the East Waterway. The shoreline in this section is steep and reinforced with riprap and treated wood bulkhead structures. The areas upland of this riprapped shoreline are not included in the mapped floodplain (FEMA 2013). Hydrology No wetlands, streams, or other surface water features are present on the Terminal 25 South property. Stormwater is collected using catch basins and discharges to the East Waterway from the southern end of the property. The Southwest Hinds Street combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfall, controlled by the City of Seattle, is just north of the historical dock footprint (City of Seattle 2015). This CSO serves 56 acres, and between 2000 and 2009, an average of 4.2 CSO events occurred per year (Windward Environmental and Anchor QEA 2014). Based on results from an environmental investigation in 2012, groundwater on the Terminal 25 South property likely flows from the northern and southern ends toward the center, discharging into the East Waterway. Within the proposed Bank site, groundwater is contained approximately 5 to 7 feet below ground surface. At high tide, water rises above the nearshore groundwater elevations and intrudes into the aquifer (Anchor QEA 2012). Groundwater salinity ranges from less than 2 parts per thousand (ppt) to almost 24 ppt. East Waterway salinity ranges from 15 to 28 ppt (Windward Environmental and Anchor QEA 2014). Vegetation Vegetation is sparse or absent throughout most of the site. Scattered bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) occurs in the deep subtidal area adjacent to and northeast of the former Terminal 25 seafood receiving/processing dock on the East Waterway. Other than sparse bladderwrack (Fucus gardneri), intertidal areas are generally unvegetated, and the intertidal area is covered in riprap armoring, rubble, and industrial debris. Vegetation in the uppermost intertidal areas of the site is dominated by Puget Sound gumweed (Grindelia integrifolia). Upland areas are predominantly unvegetated; however, non- native, invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii) are locally dominant in places. Fish and Wildlife Use Several studies characterizing the benthic and fish communities of the East Waterway were completed between 1999 and 2010. The results of these studies were collated and summarized as part of the East Waterway Superfund remedial investigation in 2014 (Windward Environmental and Anchor QEA 2014). The benthic invertebrate community in the East Waterway is generally dominated by annelids, crustaceans, and Umbrella Bank Project Sites Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle16 mollusks. Larger epibenthic invertebrates identified here include crab, shrimp, sea stars, anemones, and squid. More than 20 species of fish have been documented in the East Waterway during beach seine and trawl sampling. The most prevalent species were Chinook salmon, chum salmon, shiner surf perch (Cymatogaster aggregata), and English sole (Parophrys vetulus). Fish abundance peaks in late summer to early fall and is generally lowest in winter (Windward Environmental and Anchor QEA 2014). Relatively little East Waterway-specific information is available on bird populations. Formal studies and field observations indicate that up to 87 species of birds use the Lower Duwamish Waterway during at least part of the year to feed, rest, or reproduce. This number is likely lower in the East Waterway due to the absence of riparian, intertidal, and shallow water habitat. Birds, such as cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.), that feed in open water or dive in deeper waters to feed are more likely to frequent the East Waterway under current conditions. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) have been observed along the East Waterway, and osprey nests are present elsewhere in the East Waterway near Terminal 25 South. Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) have also been observed using the East Waterway (Blomberg 2013). Waterfowl species often observed in the East Waterway include common and red breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), Barrow’s goldeneye (Bucephala islandica), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), and bufflehead (Bucephala albeola). Seabirds include pelagic (Phalacrocorax pelagicus) and double-crested (P. auritus) cormorants, pigeon guillemot (Cepphus Columba), grebes (Podiceps spp.), and gulls (Larus spp.; Windward Environmental and Anchor QEA 2014). The proposed restoration is expected to support shorebird use in the East Waterway. Three marine mammal species may occasionally enter the East Waterway: harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and harbor porpoise (Phocoena; Dexter et al. 1981). Three species of semi- aquatic terrestrial mammals are known to forage in the East Waterway, including raccoons (Procyon lotor), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), and river otters (Lutra canadensis; Windward Environmental and Anchor QEA 2014). Landscape and Site Constraints The Port owns and controls the entire Terminal 25 parcel, including the aquatic areas (Figure 5). The East Waterway navigation channel is actively maintained north of the historical dock footprint, and was last dredged by the Corps in 2006. The proposed Bank site will be designed to prevent adverse impacts from these downstream dredging activities. The site is not subject to large vessel propeller wash; large container vessels and tugs are present at the container terminal berths in the widest part of the East Waterway to the north. The bridge is grade-level, so large vessels and tugs are not able to pass. However, skiff fishermen occasionally pass under the bridge and some smaller barges are moored on the west shoreline—both of which can result in mild propeller wash and smaller wakes. The maximum speed permitted in the East and West waterways and Lower Duwamish Waterway is 2 knots. The potential for vessel wake has been considered in the conceptual design for the intertidal habitats, including mudflat and emergent marsh. The site is adjacent to the East Waterway Operable Unit of the Harbor Island Superfund Site. Cleanup activities for the Superfund site will address sediment contamination within the East Waterway, following the issuance of a Record of Decision by the EPA, anticipated in 2021, and preconstruction sampling and design activities, expected to span several years. The proposed habitat project will result in creation of new aquatic habitat from upland areas, which are not part of the Superfund site. Construction of the habitat project may occur in concert with or prior to sediment cleanup activities, depending on the cleanup schedule required by EPA. Habitat construction is tentatively planned to occur no sooner than 2022/2023 and will be designed and constructed in coordination with EPA in a manner to avoid disturbing previously completed sediment cleanup areas while also accommodating any remaining cleanup activities and minimizing the potential for recontamination of the site. The Port is also coordinating with Ecology regarding characterization of upland soils and will ensure that the project design achieves all necessary remedial objectives. At the site, just north of the Spokane Street Bridge and west of the Terminal 25 shoreline, a mound of fill stabilized by rock was placed specifically for habitat restoration purposes. This mound provides shallow water and intertidal habitat. This habitat feature is not protected by a restrictive covenant or conservation easement and will be modified as part of the restoration proposal. Umbrella Bank Project Sites Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 17 Figure 5: Terminal 25 Concept Design PotentialExpansionArea Maintained Federal Navigation Channel East Waterway0 400 Feet LEGEND: Riparian Emergent Marsh Mudflat Intertidal Shallow Subtidal Deep Subtidal Port Ownership Boundary Proposed Expansion Area ![ Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle18 Conceptual Site Design The goal of the site is to restore estuarine wetland functions across the site as well as to restore and create riparian habitat and off-channel rearing and refuge habitat for salmonids and other migratory and resident fish and wildlife in the East Waterway. The project would re-establish between 9 and 10 acres of riparian, emergent marsh, mudflat, and subtidal habitat at Terminal 25 South. The design footprint may be modified to expand the project by up to 3.6 acres, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. The Port will decide on the base restoration option or the potentially expanded footprint during subsequent design steps after development of the Prospectus. The following section describes the base restoration option without the potential expansion area. Habitat Elements Habitat restoration at the proposed site will involve large-scale fill removal and bankline regrading. The restoration will create a large off-channel intertidal marsh and exposed unvegetated intertidal substrates (including mudflat, sandflat, and cobble) surrounded by a riparian buffer. Subtidal re-establishment will include substrates suitable for kelp and eelgrass. The Elliott Bay Trustee Council released a final restoration plan and environmental impact statement that stated that a 5-meter riparian buffer is sufficient to provide most functions that are important within an industrial urbanized area. Anything beyond 5 meters may not result in proportional functional benefits (i.e., diminishing returns resulting from less aquatic area created). In the highly manipulated nearshore environments, maximizing intertidal marsh area would provide the highest ecological value adjacent to the waterbody. While local and state guidelines recommend larger buffers, reducing marsh area at Terminal 25 to create larger riparian buffers would reduce overall ecological benefit, especially for fish species utilizing habitat in the heavily armored shoreline areas in the Lower Duwamish River. Riparian function in industrial nearshore areas depends primarily on overhanging vegetation directly adjacent to the restored area, which could be functionally achieved in the 5-meter width. The Port plans to coordinate with the IRT and NOAA Fisheries on optimal buffer widths. The proposed project is designed to maximize habitat functions and values using dimensions, locations, elevations relative to MLLW, slope contours, and substrates critical to each habitat type. This approach is based on a combination of joint regulatory agency guidance (Ecology 2012) and the Habitat Equivalency Analysis methodology developed by the Elliott Bay Trustee Council (NOAA 2013). Shallow subtidal habitat occurs within a tidal range of -4 feet to -14 feet MLLW, and deep subtidal habitat occurs below -14 feet MLLW. Slopes within the subtidal area range from 3:1 to 20:1. Fully functioning subtidal habitat depends on appropriate substrate conditions and adjacency to fully functioning intertidal habitat, as described here. The shallow subtidal slopes will be reshaped to remove debris and allow Terminal 25 proposed concept Umbrella Bank Project Sites Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 19 for terraced restoration areas with substrates suitable for kelp, eelgrass, and other native submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Rock riprap will support the terraced steps at lower elevations, and a bio-cement mattress infilled with SAV may be possible within the mid-subtidal elevations. While finer substrates would be ideal, slope angles and geotechnical considerations will likely require coarser material in places, such as a sand/gravel mix underlain with coarser gravel. Subtidal habitat makes up 3.1 acres of the project area. Unvegetated intertidal habitat occurs within a tidal range of -4 feet to +6 feet MLLW. To provide desired habitat functions, unvegetated intertidal habitat would feature fine-grained sediment. Restored marsh or riparian habitat would border the intertidal area. The project design includes approximately 0.9 acres of unvegetated intertidal habitat. Emergent marsh habitat occurs within a tidal range of +6 feet to +12 feet MLLW. The restored marsh area would experience regular tidal inundation, and would be vegetated with native vascular plants. Riparian habitat would border the marsh area. The project design includes approximately 4.1 acres of emergent marsh. All of this will be off-channel and therefore subject to reduced currents, providing increased fish and wildlife refuge. The marsh will be designed as a Category II wetland, per the Washington State Wetlands Rating System – Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby 2014). However, due to its location in an urban industrial area, the wetland should provide moderate habitat functions. Large wood will be placed within the emergent marsh and at the edges, and potentially within the riparian habitats. Within the emergent marsh, groupings of wood with root wads will provide structural habitat diversity and contribute to microtopography over time. Large wood will also be placed along channels, with trunks largely embedded in the substrate and roots exposed. These pieces may be used to create a shallow berm or “arms” at the north and south side of the estuary, with pockets for soil and low riparian vegetation. Wood material will be secured by being partially embedded within the material substrate and anchored using large non-galvanized chain and buried anchors. Riparian habitat occurs above a tidal elevation of +12 feet MLLW. The riparian area should be vegetated with a mixture of native trees and shrubs. To protect the restored functions of the intertidal and subtidal habitats, the riparian area will be sufficient to ensure an optimal range of habitat functions in the urban environment. Construction Elements To complete the work, upland and/or water-based mobilization is expected. In-water construction work would be planned to accommodate tribal fishing activities in the East Waterway and work windows for fish species, as determined by the Corps, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries. Construction elements include the following: • Removal of approximately 950 creosote-treated timber piling, connecting timbers, concrete decking, and associated structures within the footprint of the former dock Terminal 25 marsh habitat features Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle20 • Removal of approximately 235 cubic yards of in-water rubble, debris, and abandoned material within the footprint of the former dock • Placement of approximately 710 cubic yards of substrate materials in the existing intertidal area to increase the abundance of prey organisms important to migratory fish and wildlife • Excavation of approximately 15,496 cubic yards of upland soil to intertidal and subtidal elevations • Planting of approximately 120,000 square feet of intertidal marsh • Planting of approximately 50,000 square feet of native riparian buffer • Removal of approximately 16,000 square feet of riprap along the southern shoreline of the site • Use of anchored large wood throughout the site to provide structural complexity, shallow water refugia, and to aid in establishing long-term stable estuarine habitat areas Functions to be Restored or Enhanced The project will increase wetland functions and ecological processes in the Duwamish Estuary subwatershed by creating off-channel estuarine wetland on the East Waterway. Daily tidal fluctuations in the Duwamish Estuary will restore the historical, self-sustaining hydrologic regime at the site. Removal of existing in-water structures and riprap armoring, re-establishment of subtidal habitat, creation of intertidal channels, establishment of intertidal vegetation, and planting of riparian vegetation will greatly enhance wetland and habitat functions of the site. Native marsh and riparian vegetation will contribute to water quality improvements through biofiltration. Stormwater from the surrounding developed area will be conveyed, treated, and stored in bioswales and raingardens, prior to infiltrating through berms around the perimeter of the mitigation site, to provide clean freshwater inputs into the habitat area. Native marsh and riparian vegetation will also contribute organic matter to the site, and tidal export of this organic material will support the food web in the East Waterway. Re-establishment of subtidal habitats will also restore potential habitat for benthic and epibenthic invertebrate communities, which further support the aquatic food web. The project will create high-quality estuarine habitat for a variety of resident and migratory fish and birds as well as water-associated and -dependent mammals. Locally, the site will function as a habitat hub within the Lower Duwamish Waterway for resident fish, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and invertebrates. Regionally, the site will provide needed habitat along the Green-Duwamish River for anadromous fish and resident birds. In particular, the mitigation site will provide the only off-channel habitat in the East Waterway, which is particularly valuable for refuge and rearing of early-migrating salmonid fry. On a larger scale, the site will function as a staging area in the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. Terminal 25 subtidal habitat features Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 21 Terminal 117 The Terminal 117 site consists of 13.5 acres along the Lower Duwamish Waterway shoreline from RM 4.1 to 4.5. The site is bordered by the South Park Marina to the north, Dallas Avenue South to the northwest, the Boeing South Park facility to the southwest, and Lower Duwamish Waterway to the east. Figure 6 shows the existing conditions of the site. This site has the potential to restore valuable fish and wildlife habitat in a marine-freshwater transition zone. Cleanup actions at the site, led by the City of Seattle and Port, were completed in 2015, including the removal of contaminated Umbrella Bank Project Sites Proposed Terminal 117 bank site Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle22 Figure 6: Terminal 117 Existing Conditions Lower Duwam ish Waterway DALLA S A V E S 16TH AVE SS DONOVAN ST S TRENTON ST S TH I S T L E S T 17TH AVE S15TH PL SS CLOVERDALE ST 50-10-5-15 0 400 Feet Boeing South Park Property LEGEND: 1-Foot Contours Federal Navigation Channel T117 Site Area Port Ownership Parcel Boundary T e rm i n a l 1 1 7 ![ Umbrella Bank Project Sites Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 23 in-water sediment and upland soils (Port of Seattle 2018c). Construction of the habitat project included in this Prospectus is being initiated in July 2020, following a lengthy design and permitting process. The site is expected to provide conservation credits for impacts to special status salmonid species listed under the ESA following certification by NOAA Fisheries, including credits that may support NRD settlements by the Port in the Lower Duwamish Waterway, East Waterway, Harbor Island, and Lockheed West Superfund sites. Any remaining credits generated by the Terminal 117 site are proposed to be made available through the joint bank once certified by NOAA Fisheries (for conservation credits) and by the Corps, Ecology, and the IRT (for wetland and aquatic resource credits). The Port understands the need to carefully account for credits generated in the joint bank. Site Selection The Terminal 117 site represents an opportunity to make progress toward several of the watershed-based restoration priorities for WRIA 9 and the Duwamish Estuary subwatershed. Using the site selection framework described previously, key benefits of the site include the following: • Size. Approximately 13.5 acres of habitat, including emergent marsh, mudflat, and riparian areas, and approximately 2,050 linear feet of shallow subtidal and deep subtidal habitat along the shoreline would be restored. • Connectivity. Valuable off-channel habitat along the Duwamish Estuary subwatershed would be created and would support the connection of the habitat network between the mouth of the Duwamish Estuary through the marine-freshwater transition zone along this important migratory corridor. • Distribution. Valuable habitat would be added to the Lower Duwamish Waterway, which is a bottleneck for salmon that require a higher functioning marinefreshwater transition zone (WRIA 9 Steering Committee 2005). By removing fill material, the Terminal 117 project will increase the bank-full width of the Lower Duwamish Waterway in this location, which is the narrowest point between RM 0 and RM 5. • Urgency. Estuarine habitats that extend from mean higher high water to shallow intertidal elevations are crucially important for migrating salmon along this stretch of the river, and should be further enhanced by native riparian and marsh vegetation in an area with minimal existing vegetation and associated prey resources. Existing Conditions Site Land Use and Structures Terminal 117 was owned and operated by the Duwamish Manufacturing Company from 1937 to 1978. The Malarkey Asphalt Company bought the property in 1978 and operated a shingle plant at the site until 1993, when manufacturing activities ended. Oils previously used for heating at the facility led to significant polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) soil contamination in the surrounding upland and aquatic areas. Between 1996 and 1997, the former structures, including the asphalt plant, storage tanks, and some contaminated soils, were removed. By 1999, the Port acquired the property and performed two Time-Critical Removal Actions, the first in 1999 and the second in 2006, to remove PCB-contaminated sediments as part of an Early Action Area cleanup within the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site. The upper intertidal area at the site includes large concrete rubble and riprap shoreline, extending from approximately +10 feet MLLW to top-of-bank elevations, approximately +15 feet MLLW to +20 feet MLLW. Additional shoreline stabilization includes limited areas of creosote-treated timber crib bulkhead, extending vertically between approximately +6 feet MLLW to approximately +14 feet MLLW. Several storm drain outfalls are present along the Terminal 117 shoreline bank that are owned by the Port and discharge stormwater conveyances from the upland property. Soils and Topography Aquatic area conditions at Terminal 117 include shallow subtidal mud/sand substrate area, along the west margin of the Duwamish Waterway navigation channel, and moderately sloped, exposed intertidal, coarse substrate. As part of previous cleanup actions at the site, contaminated sediment and bank soil were removed to an elevation of about -0.5 to -1.5 feet MLLW. The slope was backfilled with gravel borrow and sand. Riprap was also placed for stability and erosion protection. Approximately 37,000 cubic yards of upland area was excavated and backfilled with 18,000 cubic yards of clean material to an elevation of +15 feet MLLW. Approximately 14,000 cubic yards of adjacent aquatic area Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle24 designed to support completion of the proposed habitat restoration project without disturbing the cap. Habitat construction is planned for 2020. Site construction is being coordinated with the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund cleanup, which is currently undergoing cleanup design under EPA oversight. Future sediment cleanup activities will be designed in a manner to minimize the potential for recontamination of the site. Conceptual Site Design The goal of the site is to restore estuarine wetland functions across the site as well as to restore and create riparian habitat and off-channel rearing and refuge habitat for salmonids and other migratory and resident fish and wildlife in the Lower Duwamish Waterway. The project would restore 14 acres of riparian, emergent marsh, mudflat, and subtidal habitat at Terminal 117. Figure 7 shows the preliminary design for the project. Habitat Elements Habitat restoration at the site will involve large-scale fill removal and bankline regrading. The project will create a large off-channel marsh with an on-channel riparian berm and enhance a continuous stretch of on-channel riparian slope with adjacent marsh. The project is designed to maximize habitat functions and values using dimensions, locations, elevations relative to Terminal 117 berm and marsh habitat features Terminal 117 marsh habitat features Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 25 Umbrella Bank Project Sites Figure 7: Terminal 117 Concept Design Lower Duwam ish Waterway DALLA S A V E S 16TH AVE SS TRENTON ST S DONOVAN ST S DIRECTOR ST 17TH AVE S15TH PL SS CLOVERDALE ST S 92ND PL 0 400 Feet Boeing South Park Property LEGEND: Riparian Mudflat Intertidal Shallow Subtidal Emergent Marsh Deep Subtidal Public Access Path Riprap T117 Site Area King County Parcels Federal Navigation Channel T e rm i n a l 1 1 7 ![ Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle26 Terminal 117 proposed concept was excavated, backfilled with 10,000 cubic yards of clean material, and recontoured to intertidal elevations. Hydrology No wetlands, streams, or other surface water features are present on the Terminal 117 property. Stormwater is collected using a temporary vegetated swale and discharges to the Lower Duwamish Waterway at a new outfall location. Groundwater is contained approximately 5 to 12 feet below ground surface (SECOR 1997; Hart Crowser 1992). Vegetation Little to no native vegetation is present on the site. Algal growth is limited to the lower margins of the rubble and riprap armor. Emergent vegetation is limited to isolated, hand-sized patches, approximately 5 to 10 square feet in total area. Rubble and riprap bankline elevations between approximately +13 feet MLLW and the top of the bank include non-native vegetation. There are limited native trees in several locations along the abrupt bankline. Fish and Wildlife Use Fish and wildlife use along Terminal 117 would be similar to Terminal 25 South, as discussed previously. Fish observed on or near the site include bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, herring, and shellfish. Observed birds include hawks, heron, eagle, and songbirds, and mammals could include deer and beaver. Landscape and Site Constraints The Port owns and controls the entire Terminal 117 parcel, including aquatic areas (Figure 6). The Lower Duwamish Waterway navigation channel is actively maintained and was last dredged in this area by the Corps in January 2020. The site will be designed to prevent adverse impacts from future maintenance dredging activities. The site is not subject to large vessel propeller wash, because vessels are not maneuvering in this section of river (rather, they are transiting past the site at low speeds). The maximum speed permitted in the Lower Duwamish Waterway is 5 knots. The potential for vessel wake has been incorporated in the conceptual design for the intertidal habitats, including mudflat and emergent marsh. Cleanup activities of contaminated Terminal 117 soils and aquatic sediments have been completed, which remediated approximately 5.4 acres of the project site. Following removal of contaminants, the Terminal 117 upland area was stabilized with clean fill material, bankline armoring, and a sheetpile wall. Any contamination that was not removed was capped, under EPA oversight, which was specifically Umbrella Bank Project Sites Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 27 MLLW, slope contours, and substrates critical to each habitat type. This approach is based on a combination of joint regulatory agency guidance (Ecology 2012) and the Habitat Equivalency Analysis methodology developed by the Elliott Bay Trustee Council (NOAA 2013). Habitat elements include shallow subtidal, exposed unvegetated intertidal substrates (including mudflat, sandflat, and gravel), emergent marsh, and riparian vegetation. Shallow subtidal habitat occurs within a tidal range of -4 feet to -14 feet MLLW and deep subtidal habitat occurs below -14 feet MLLW. Slopes within the subtidal area range from 3:1 to 20:1. Fully functioning subtidal habitat depends on appropriate substrate conditions and adjacency to fully functioning intertidal habitat, as described here. The project will not directly alter subtidal substrates, but will promote secondary benefits by improving adjacent intertidal habitat. Subtidal habitat makes up 5.8 acres of the project area. Unvegetated intertidal habitat occurs within a tidal range of -4 feet to +6 feet MLLW. To provide desired habitat functions, unvegetated intertidal habitat would feature fine-grained sediments at slopes less than 2%; however, a grade this flat is not possible and thus coarser sand to pea-sized gravel would be required. Restored marsh or riparian habitat would border the intertidal area. The project design includes approximately 3.6 acres of unvegetated intertidal habitat. Emergent marsh habitat would be adjacent to the restored marsh or riparian habitat bordering unvegetated habitat. Emergent marsh habitat occurs within a tidal range of +6 feet to +12 feet MLLW. The restored marsh area would experience regular tidal inundation and be vegetated with native vascular plants. Riparian habitat would border the marsh area. The project design includes approximately 3.1 acres of emergent marsh. Most of this will be off-channel and therefore subject to reduced currents to provide increased fish and wildlife refuge. On-channel marsh habitat will be protected by large wood placement, which, through overlapping groupings of logs and wood materials with roots attached, will also benefit structural habitat diversity. On-channel wood that is embedded below +10 feet MLLW will be sanded/smoothed to prevent navigation channel hazards or snagging of tribal fishing nets. Large wood will also be placed within off-channel areas in groups of three to five pieces, partially embedded within the material substrate and anchored using large non-galvanized chain and buried anchors. Riparian habitat occurs above a tidal elevation of +12 feet MLLW. The riparian area should be vegetated with a mixture of native trees and shrubs. To protect the restored functions of the intertidal and subtidal habitats, the riparian area will be 35 feet wide. Narrower riparian berm areas will provide protection to the off-channel marsh. The project design includes approximately 1.5 acres of restored riparian habitat. Detailed View of Proposed Habitat with Viewpoint Pier Sites 23 & 25 Restoration Project Port of Seattle Terminal 117 proposed concept: public access Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle28 Construction Elements To complete the work, upland and/or water-based mobilization is expected. In-water construction work would be planned to accommodate tribal fishing activities in the river and above low water levels to avoid impacts on fish during work windows approved by the Corps, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries. Construction elements include the following: • Regrading of approximately 1,250 linear feet of existing filled upland and rubble-filled bankline next to the Boeing facility • Removal of approximately 30,000 cubic yards of post- remediation cleanup fill and historically placed fill materials • Planting of approximately 135,000 square feet of intertidal marsh • Planting of approximately 65,000 square feet of native riparian buffer • Placement of approximately 4,100 square feet of riprap along the northern shoreline of the site • Installation of an approximately 10,000-square-foot public access area at the northwest portion of the site, including upland seating, viewing area, viewing pier, and hand-carried boat launch. These features will provide opportunities for the public to experience the restoration project elements, but will not diminish habitat value. Functions to be Restored or Enhanced The restoration objectives are to increase the area and functional value of habitat for salmonids and other migratory and resident fish and wildlife by converting existing industrial uplands to aquatic area and improving degraded intertidal substrate to higher-function habitat. Analysis and evaluation of multiple habitat restoration sites in the Lower Duwamish Waterway indicates water depth and inundation time are significant determining factors in the benefits to and frequency of use by juvenile salmon. Shallower sites provide marsh vegetation important to the production of estuarine prey items necessary for resident and migratory fish and wildlife. Shallow intertidal areas also provide beneficial estuarine refuge habitat during high tide. Deeper intertidal features, including low-slope intertidal channels, are also beneficial and available to fish for longer periods of time. Productive, stable, upper and lower intertidal areas, with direct connections to the Duwamish Waterway corridor, also support higher species diversity and density (e.g., Turning Basin Number 3). Dense native riparian vegetation will be established to benefit juvenile salmon and complement emergent vegetation, increasing the abundance and diversity of prey insect species. Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 29 Auburn The Auburn site comprises approximately 34.1 acres south of South 277th Street, just east of the intersection of 45th Street Northeast and I Street Northeast in Auburn approximately 28 RMs upstream from the mouth of the Green-Duwamish River at Elliott Bay. A City of Auburn right-of-way crosses the 34-acre site, splitting the property into a northern portion (6.3 acres) and a southern portion (28.7 acres). The entire site is zoned Residential (R20) by the City and has supported agricultural use historically, but is not in a designated Agricultural Production District. The R20 zone is intended for multifamily residential development at 20 dwelling units per acre. Proposed Auburn bank site Umbrella Bank Project Sites Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle30 The 34-acre site is part of property purchased by the Port to construct compensatory mitigation for development activities associated with STIA’s 1997 Master Plan Update. The Port built a 65-acre compensatory mitigation site adjacent to the Green- Duwamish River in 2006, but the 34-acre portion ultimately was not needed. The two sites share a boundary and are both located within the Green-Duwamish River floodplain. Site Selection The site has been evaluated in the context of the surrounding watershed. Development of the 34-acre property is limited by the presence of wetlands and buffers, and the Port has determined a joint wetland mitigation and habitat conservation bank site is the preferred use of this property. Using this property as a Bank site would add floodplain capacity to the area, providing a mitigation opportunity that would enable development that may otherwise not be possible. The 65-acre restrictive covenant site is protected from development in perpetuity. Using the watershed-based site selection framework, key benefits of the Auburn site include the following: • Size. Within the 34-acre property, approximately 14.8 acres of emergent, forested, and scrub-shrub wetland would be re-established, and approximately 18.8 acres of wetlands and associated buffer would be enhanced by proposed habitat construction activities. • Connectivity. High-quality wetland habitat (contiguous to the Port’s existing 65-acre restrictive covenant site) would be restored on the 34-acre site, making habitat enhancements that expand the existing wetland area more desirable because they would augment important habitat and floodplain availability near the Green- Duwamish River. • Distribution. The project would contribute wetland habitat to the Green-Duwamish River floodplain and off- channel habitat in the Green-Duwamish River. Adjacent land use in the surrounding areas are zoned residential or commercial, and much of this area is already developed. The City of Auburn encourages “Floodplain by Design,” a methodology focused on maintaining or protecting floodplain services (The Nature Conservancy 2018). Creation of wetland habitat to augment flood storage, improve water quality, and create new highly functioning habitat is needed in the entire Green River valley to offset historical and future development activities. • Urgency. Significant loss of floodplain habitat and off- channel habitat in the Lower Green-Duwamish River has caused a significant reduction in the rearing habitat available to ESA-listed Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and other species documented in the river (King County 2017). The creation of off-channel habitat in this area would provide significant benefits to juvenile fish. Increased flood storage is identified as a priority in the Preliminary Background Report (Our Green/Duwamish Watershed Advisory Group 2016). Additional flood storage would mitigate peak flows in the Green-Duwamish River, reducing erosion and scour to improve water quality for salmon. Existing Conditions Site Land Use and Structures No buildings are present on the properties (Figure 8). A gravel access road extends from the end of 45th Street NE across the 34-acre property to the existing 65-acre restrictive covenant site. A City of Auburn right-of-way is present on the northern portion of the 34-acre property. Historical photographs show the site was used for agriculture. Two abandoned artificial stormwater ponds are present on the property, which were excavated sometime between 1990 and CityofAuburnRig h t-o f-W a y 49TH ST NE 52ND ST NE O PL NEL PL NE51ST ST NE J PL NEAUBURN WAY N43RD ST NEM ST N EL ST NEN ST NEL ST NEL PL NE42ND CT NE 42ND PL NE 43RD CT NEI ST NE50TH ST NE 51ST PL NE 42ND ST NE45TH ST NES 277TH ST 656 0 555055 50 55 50 55 50 55 50 5045555 0 5055 55 5050505045 50 5555 55 55 55 55 50 50 50 5050 50 50 50 Briscotsiltloam Briscotsilt loam Urban land Oridiasilt loam Rentonsilt loam Oridiasilt loam Briscotsiltloam Woodinvillesiltloam Rentonsiltloam Urban land Oridiasilt loam Briscotsiltloam Briscotsiltloam Rentonsiltloam King County Parcels Port Ownership Boundary Third Runway Mitigation Restrictive Covenant Site Soils Hydric Rating Hydric (66 to 99%)Not Hydric (0%) [0 500 Feet LEGEND: Umbrella Bank Project Sites Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 31 Figure 8: Auburn Site Existing Conditions CityofAuburnRig h t-o f -W ay Green-DuwamishRiverAuburn Wetland B Wetland D Wetland C Wetland A Wetland E 52ND ST NE O PL NEL PL NE51ST ST NE J PL NEM ST N EL ST NEN ST NE O C T N E L ST NE G R E E N RI V E R R D L PL NE42ND CT NE 42ND PL NE 43RD CT NE 45TH ST NE 49TH ST NE 50TH ST N E 51ST PL NE I ST NES 277TH ST 8580757065606 0 5550405550555055 50 55 501 0 5 5 0 70 4 5 454 5 55 50555555 50 45 50505045 50 45 45 45 555555 5555 5555 50 50 40LEGEND: King County Parcels Port Ownership Boundary Delineated Wetland (Surveyed October 2018 and March 2019) Third Runway Mitigation Restrictive Covenant Site Artificial Stormwater Features Existing Ditch King County 100-Year Floodplain [0 550 Feet Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle32 2002 (based on aerial photograph analysis). These ponds may have been excavated to capture stormwater during past road and housing development projects to the south and west. Soils and Topography Site soils on the 34-acre property are mapped as somewhat poorly drained Briscot, Oridia, Renton, silt loams, with poorly drained Woodinville silt loam in the northwest corner; these are all designated hydric soils (NRCS 2019). Topography is generally flat, except for the lower elevations near Wetlands A, C, D, and E and each of the artificial stormwater features (Figure 8). Topography ranges from approximately 37 to 56 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [NGVD 29]) and generally grades to lower elevations at the northern end of the property. Hydrology Within the 34-acre property and outside of the existing restrictive covenant area, five wetland areas have been delineated (Figure 8). Wetland A is a large, 14.1-acre Category III wetland, 9.0 acres of which are within the 34-acre property, and 5.1 acres of which are part of the 33 acres of created and restored wetlands within the 65-acre restrictive covenant site. Wetland A is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and is ponded much of the year. Wetland E is a smaller 1.0-acre Category III wetland in the northwest corner of the property with forested patches and reed canary grass dominating the herbaceous layer. Wetland B is a very small (less than 500 square feet) Category III wetland and does not appear to be connected to other wetlands, with vegetation dominated by invasive grasses. The artificial stormwater ditch along the site’s southern boundary contains open-water habitat and is dominated by mature cottonwood along the graded and armored banks. The other artificial stormwater pond contains open-water habitat and is north of Wetlands C and D along the western property boundary. Wetlands C and D are 0.06-acre and 0.2-acre Category III wetlands dominated by reed canary grass with clusters of mature black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia). A remnant ditch runs north to south and connects Wetland D to the southern artificial stormwater ditch. Groundwater likely follows the topography, flowing south to north. Groundwater is expected to be similar to the elevations measured at monitoring wells on the neighboring, existing wetland mitigation site, which can range from standing water above the existing ground surface to 6 feet below ground surface during summer months. Wetland A connects to a ditch that continues off site in a pipe under South 277 Street, which takes several sharp turns before intersecting with the Green-Duwamish River after approximately 5,000 feet along the ditch and NE Auburn Drain stream. Flooding from the Green- Duwamish River extends through Wetland A and into the 65-acre existing wetland mitigation site, but despite its proximity to the Green-Duwamish River, no other surface water connections are present between the 65-acre mitigation site and the Green-Duwamish River. Auburn Site marsh and scrub-shrub wetland habitat features Umbrella Bank Project Sites Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 33 Vegetation On the 34-acre property, reed canary grass is present over much of the western portion of the site, including in each of the wetlands and adjacent uplands, with groups of mature black cottonwood trees along the western and southern property boundaries. Meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis) and colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris) are the dominant grasses in Wetlands A, B, and E. Around Wetlands C and D and within their buffers, the forest community is more diverse with patches of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), red alder (Alnus rubra), vine maple (Acer circinatum), Pacific willow (Salix lucida) and Oregon ash. A dense area of Himalayan blackberry is present along the southern portion of the western boundary of the site and in pockets within the upland area adjacent to Wetlands A and B. Fish and Wildlife Use On the 34-acre property, habitat complexity is low, with limited emergent plant species diversity and low structural diversity. Amphibian habitat is poor, lacking forest cover and large woody debris. However, at the adjacent 65-acre wetland mitigation site, habitat has been created to encourage waterfowl feeding and resting during the winter and spring months. The site provides foraging and breeding habitat for small mammals and significant foraging habitat and cover for raptors, waterfowl, and other bird species. Wildlife species diversity increases closer to the Green-Duwamish River. Fish do not use the 34-acre or 65-acre properties. Landscape and Site Constraints The Port owns and controls the entire 34-acre and 65-acre sites; a 2.8-acre City right-of-way splits the 34-acre site into northern (6.3-acre) and southern (28.7-acre) segments. If the City of Auburn vacates the right-of-way, the vacated area could become part of the 34-acre site. Conservatively, for the purpose of design and analysis, the right-of-way defines the boundaries of the proposed restoration activities. The drainage ditch that connects Wetland A to the Green- Duwamish River would be relocated and improved to ensure connectivity between the Green-Duwamish River, this site, and the third runway mitigation site. This site is more than 5 miles away from STIA, so the FAA would not likely require land use compatible with the airport. Conceptual Site Design On the 34-acre property, the proposed mitigation site design includes the 28.7-acre portion south of the City right-of- way and the 6.3 acres north of the City right-of-way. If the City of Auburn decides to abandon plans to develop a road and vacates its right-of-way, the site could expand into the right-of-way as well. The design presented in Figure 9 Third runway mitigation restrictive covenant site Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle34 Figure 9: Auburn Site Concept Design CityofAuburnR ig h t -o f-Way Green-DuwamishRiverAuburn Wetland B Wetland D Wetland C 52ND ST NE O PL NEL PL NE51ST ST N E J PL NEPIKE ST NE 43RD ST NEM ST NEL ST NEN ST NEO C T N E L ST NEQ ST NE42ND CT NE 42ND PL NE 43RD CT NE R ST NE45TH ST NE 49TH ST NE 50TH ST N E 51ST PL NE 42ND ST NEI ST NES 277TH ST GR E E N R I V E R R D Wetland E Wetland A LEGEND: King County Parcels Port Ownership Boundary Delineated Wetland(Surveyed October 2018 and March 2019) Third Runway Mitigation Restrictive Covenant Site Upland Enhancement Existing Wetland withinProposed Buffer Potential Wetland Enhancement Potential Wetland Re-Establishment Potential Buffer Enhancement Re-Routed Ditch King County100-Year Floodplain 0 640 Feet [ Umbrella Bank Project Sites Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 35 proposes enhancing 8.0 acres of wetland and re-establishing 14.8 acres of wetland. The mitigation design enhances and preserves 10.7 acres of buffer habitat, assuming a 100- foot buffer around the wetland, within the Port’s property boundary, that is not adjacent to the Port’s previously constructed mitigation site. Site Habitat Elements For the 34-acre property, wetland re-establishment, wetland enhancement, and buffer enhancement are proposed at the site. Wetland restoration is defined by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) as “the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural or historical functions to a former or degraded wetland” (Ecology 2006). Re- establishment falls under wetland restoration and results in a net gain in wetland function. Wetland re-establishment is proposed over a majority of the site around Wetlands A and E. To protect the functions of existing wetlands and the re-established wetlands, a 100-foot buffer will be enhanced where the site is open to existing uplands. The proposed elevation range for the emergent wetland is 44 to 47 feet, so that the wetland will have seasonal flooding in years of average rainfall, and the groundwater table will be within 12 inches of the ground surface during the growing season. The proposed elevation range for the scrub-shrub and forested wetland is 47 to 49 feet, to achieve seasonal saturation or flooding during average rainfall years, with soil being saturated within 12 inches of the ground surface during the growing season. The re-established wetlands will connect to the floodplain and create 15.5 acres of floodplain storage. Floodwater will not be the primary source of hydrology at these wetlands; however, floodwater will come from the drainage ditch connecting the site to the adjacent 65-acre restrictive covenant site wetlands, and through precipitation and groundwater. Construction Elements For the 34-acre site, invasive vegetation and fill will be removed to achieve desired elevations to re-establish wetland hydrogeomorphic functions and flood storage. Native vegetation will be planted at the site. Construction will involve the following elements: • Excavation of approximately 84,700 cubic yards of upland soil to elevation 47 to 49 to support emergent, shrub- scrub, and forested wetland habitat • Planting of approximately 9.2 acres of emergent marsh • Planting of approximately 13.7 acres of shrub-scrub and forested habitat • Planting of approximately 10.7 acres of native riparian buffer • Relocation of drainage ditch approximately 80 feet to the east to support flood storage connection to the Green- Duwamish River Functions to be Restored or Enhanced The objective for the 34-acre wetland re-establishment is to increase the amount of wetland habitat adjacent to the existing third runway mitigation site, increasing the area and functional value of high-quality wildlife habitat near the Lower Green-Duwamish River. Additionally, wetland and buffer re-establishment at the 34-acre site is designed to provide 15.5 acres of flood storage capacity in and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain of the Green-Duwamish River (the 65-acre restrictive covenant site already provides 100-year flood storage). Re-established wetlands will also provide benefits to water quality through enhanced infiltration and pollutant removal. Improvements to hydrology and habitat at the site will result, in part through increasing the size of the wetlands, diversity of plants, and complexity of habitat. Grading the site to a lower elevation in places will provide varied hydroperiods. As it matures, forested wetland habitat will increasingly provide nesting habitat for birds and enhanced cover for small mammals at the site. Amphibian use will increase as individuals migrate from the adjacent mitigation site. This page left intentionally blank Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 37 Future Mitigation and Conservation Sites The Port evaluated mitigation and habitat restoration opportunities at several other sites in the East, West, and Lower Duwamish waterways. The following sites were selected for future inclusion in the Bank: Terminals 105, 107, 108, and 115 South, and several overwater cover and in-water structure removal sites. Bank projects at these sites (Figure 10) would be developed as needed following implementation of the Terminal 25, Terminal 117, and Auburn projects. Prior to certification of the additional sites, the proposed projects would be fully reviewed by the IRT and the constructed habitat sites protected in perpetuity under a long-term management plan and site protection tool (e.g., deed restriction, conservation easement). Overwater cover and in-water structure removal sites will generate credits as a result of removal of overwater cover and/or removal of creosotetreated wood from the aquatic environment. Additional sites within the approved service area of the Bank would be selected, developed, and reviewed according to the same process. This section provides an overview of each of the four selected sites, including a description of the current conceptual design for wetland mitigation and habitat conservation. Overwater Cover and In-Water Structure Removal Sites Four sites have been identified along the Elliott Bay shoreline that contain overwater cover and/or in-water structures (many of which contain creosote-treated wood) that could be removed from the aquatic environment. Credits generated by this removal would be banked and available for release to other parties to offset impacts of new in-water structures in the service area. The Pier 48 site is the largest of these sites, located on Elliott Bay approximately 0.7 miles north of the mouth of the East Waterway. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) owns the 4-acre pier and adjacent uplands. The uplands are used for Seattle ferry overflow holding. The site neighbors Pier 50, which is used for passenger-only ferries, as well as the Seattle ferry terminal at Colman Dock to the north. To the south is Terminal 46, which currently supports container cargo uses. The north portion of Terminal 46 is being redeveloped to support cruise ship moorage and a new facility. Approximately 6,000 square feet of Pier 48 was removed previously as mitigation for increased overwater cover associated with WSDOT projects in the area. The conceptual design for the Bank proposes to remove approximately 180,000 square feet of overwater cover and creosote-treated piles from shallow subtidal and deep subtidal habitat in Elliott Bay. Clean sand cover and other beneficial substrates would be installed on the seabed throughout the removal area, creating opportunities for bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) establishment. Because Pier 48 is a WSDOT asset, details regarding project sponsorship would be identified in future phases of the Bank. The Port controls the following overwater cover removal projects: • Terminal 5: Approximately 1,000 piles and 11,000 square feet of overwater cover • Pier 16 on Harbor Island: Approximately 50 piles and 3,000 square feet of overwater cover • Pier 34: Approximately 350 piles and 10,000 square feet of overwater cover These overwater cover removal projects would improve intertidal, shallow subtidal, and deep subtidal habitat along the important migratory corridors in the East Waterway and Elliott Bay. The East Waterway is an important area for refuge and outmigration of juvenile salmonids (Duwamish Blueprint Working Group 2014). Terminal 105 The Terminal 105 site is on the west bank of the Lower Duwamish Waterway at RM 0.7, just upstream from the southern tip of Harbor Island. The Port owns the entire waterfront parcel, which is currently vacant. The Port retained the property for future habitat mitigation and has no plans for commercial development. The Port sold the upland parcels adjacent to the site, which are now owned and operated by private industry, including Lipsett Co., LLC, and Pacific Biodiesel. These parcels’ non-water-dependent uses do not require access to the waterway. The site is immediately south of the Terminal 105 off-channel wetland re-establishment site completed by the Port in 1995, which features an intertidal slough with mudflat, marsh, and riparian habitat. The off-channel habitat site also features a Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle38 Figure 10: Proposed Future Mitigation and Conservation Sites ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Terminal 5 Pier 16 Pier 34 Pier 48 Terminal 105 Terminal 107 Terminal 108 Terminal 115 Terminal 25 Harbor Island Lower Duwam i sh Wa te rway LEGEND: !Existing Habitat Site Parks Water Proposed Initial Site Proposed Future Site Pier/Moorage Park/Public Access Storage Vacant [0 1 Miles Future Mitigation and Conservation Sites Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 39 public access area, which would remain following project construction. The conceptual design for the Bank consists of improvements to an 8-acre site following completion of restoration, which would create and enhance upslope mudflat (0.18 acres), emergent marsh (0.83 acres), and riparian (1.32 acres) habitat. Construction activities required for the Bank project would include grading the existing intertidal area to create marsh elevations, planting intertidal marsh, and planting riparian buffers. Terminal 107 Terminal 107 is on the west bank of the Lower Duwamish Waterway at RM 1.7, upstream from Terminal 105. The Port owns the entire waterfront parcel. In 1985, the Port designated a portion of Terminal 107, including the northern half of Kellogg Island, as a public access preserve. In 1995, the Port developed Terminal 107 Park, an 8-acre upland public park with interpretive shoreline access, public art, and a view of Kellogg Island. Puget Creek Estuary, a small restoration site completed by the Corps in 1999, is at the southern end of the park. An upland area south of the park is used for freight storage, which does not require access to the waterway. West Marginal Way Southwest borders the parcel to the west. Herring’s House Park (an intertidal restoration project completed by the City of Seattle in 2000) borders the north side of the parcel. The Terminal 107 Bank site includes portions of the Terminal 107 Park property. The conceptual design for the Bank consists of improvements to a 10-acre site following completion of restoration, which would create and enhance emergent marsh (1.93 acres), mudflat (3.64 acres), riparian buffer (1.68 acres), and upland habitat (0.53 acres) areas. A 1-acre off-channel marsh would be created, expanding upon a smaller off-channel area at the south end of the park. Construction activities required for the Bank project would include grading the existing upland and intertidal areas to create marsh elevations and installing intertidal marsh and riparian buffer plantings. In the future, additional habitat value could be garnered through restoration and reconnection of the mouth of Puget Creek, which is culverted beneath Terminal 107. The public access areas outside of the habitat restoration would remain following construction of this Bank project. Terminal 108 Terminal 108 is on the east bank of the Lower Duwamish Waterway at RM 1.2, across the waterway from Herring’s House Park and the downstream tip of Kellogg Island. The Port owns the entire waterfront parcel, which is vacant. The adjacent upland parcel, also owned by the Port, is leased for container storage, which does not require access to the waterway. An old bulk cement transshipment facility at the northwest corner of the parcel is also leased for barge moorage. The Diagonal Avenue South intertidal mitigation project and public shoreline access site is located at the southern end of the waterfront parcel. The Port constructed this project in 1986, with riparian enhancements constructed in 1989 and 1993, resulting in creation of an intertidal embayment. The Port recently replaced the riprapped bankline north of this embayment with native vegetation and anchored large wood. Terminal 107Terminal 105 Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle40 The conceptual design for the Bank consists of improvements to a 5-acre site following completion of restoration, which would create and enhance upslope off- channel marsh (0.54 acres), mudflat (0.55 acres), and riparian buffer (0.88 acres) areas. This would require excavating and grading existing uplands, including some paved areas, to create intertidal elevations, and planting intertidal marsh and riparian buffers. Terminal 115 South The Terminal 115 South site is on the west bank of the Lower Duwamish Waterway at RM 2.7, just north of the First Avenue South Bridge. Of the potential Bank sites, it is the farthest upstream. The Port owns the entire Terminal 115 parcel and has ownership rights over the adjacent Commercial Waterway. The Bank site is vacant, are there are no plans for commercial development. The remainder of the terminal is leased by private marine industrial businesses, which would not be adversely affected by the project. The Terminal 115 parcel is bordered to the south and east by WSDOT and Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) parcels. These parcels are vacant, and Bluefield Holdings, Inc. leases the SDOT parcels for potential future compensatory habitat restoration. A completed WSDOT habitat restoration project is located next to these properties under the First Avenue South Bridge. In 2011, the Port removed a derelict dock and two vacant buildings from the Terminal 115 South site, leaving the concrete building foundations. The site now features uneven topography and a mix of paved and unpaved groundcover. The conceptual design for the Bank consists of improvements to a 3-acre site following completion of restoration, which would create and enhance upslope emergent marsh (0.53 acres) and riparian buffer habitat (0.28 acres) areas. Construction activities would include creating the off-channel marsh by excavating the existing paved upland areas, grading the existing intertidal areas to create marsh elevations along the channel, and planting intertidal marsh and riparian buffers. Terminal 115 SouthTerminal 108 Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 41 Proposed Service Area The proposed service area for the potential Bank would serve the Elliott Bay shoreline and Lower Green River, Duwamish Estuary, and Nearshore subwatersheds within WRIA 9 (Figure 11). Each site may be associated with its own portion of the larger service area within the lower Green-Duwamish watershed. For example, sites along Elliott Bay that improve marine shoreline functions through overwater cover and in-water structure removal and sites in the Duwamish Estuary subwatershed that provide marine and estuarine habitat functions are intended to offset marine and estuarine impacts along the Elliott Bay shoreline, Duwamish estuary, and nearshore subwatersheds. The Auburn mitigation site would provide freshwater wetland functions intended to offset freshwater wetland impacts within the Lower-Green Duwamish watershed. The proposed service area boundaries are based on aligning the anticipated functions of the Bank with the nature and likelihood of impacts requiring compensatory mitigation in the watershed surrounding it. Within the proposed service area, the Green-Duwamish River passes through industrial and commercial centers in Seattle, Tukwila, Renton, Auburn, Kent, and unincorporated King County. Future development in these areas, resulting in unavoidable impacts to aquatic habitat functions, would benefit from the use of the Bank. STIA is outside the Lower Green-Duwamish watershed. The Port intends to mitigate for impacts at STIA within the subbasins in which the impacts are located (Miller, Walker, and Des Moines creeks). However, certain airport-related impacts may be required to be mitigated farther from the airfield due to FAA restrictions and concerns regarding waterfowl as a hazard to aviation. For example, impacts to emergent or open- water wetland areas would need to be mitigated elsewhere. Therefore, the credits generated by the Auburn site as part of this joint wetland mitigation and habitat conservation bank may be used to partially offset impacts at STIA. The proposed service area boundaries align with restoration objectives and strategies for salmon recovery within WRIA 9, and encompass the “Habitat Focus Areas” defined by the Elliott Bay Trustee Council. These are priority focus areas for restoration with a strong nexus to the historically injured natural resources in the Lower Duwamish Waterway. Project Need Analysis The Bank will create and restore essential habitat for fish and wildlife in a highly urbanized, commercial, and industrial watershed. With federal, state, and local regulations developing stricter mitigation requirements and developable land becoming scarcer, demand for mitigation is high. Credits from the Bank can be used for the Port’s own future development projects, or development by other Port tenants, business owners, and government agencies to mitigate for wetland impacts and other freshwater and estuarine aquatic area impacts, as well as impacts to ESA-listed fish species, EFH, and other state- and federally protected species and habitat. The National Research Council evaluated wetland mitigation extensively in 2001 and concluded that permittee-responsible mitigation on small sites experience higher rates of failure due to the increased temporal loss and risk (NRC 2001). Using mitigation banking reduces the risk associated with traditional permittee-responsible mitigation. Mitigation banking also undergoes a more stringent interagency review process, decreasing the chance of failure of the mitigation site. A 2002 study by Ecology yielded similar conclusions; small mitigation sites were likely to fail because monitoring periods were too short and maintenance was too limited (Johnson et. al 2002). Other mitigation options in the area include the King County in-lieu fee (ILF) Mitigation Program, which sells credits for impacts in the Lower Green-Duwamish River and Nearshore subwatersheds. Mitigation for estuarine or Proposed Service Area and Project Need Terminal 5 restoration Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle42 Figure 11: Proposed Service Area Watersheds Middle Green RiverSubwatershed Duwamish EstuarySubwatershed Upper Green RiverSubwatershed NearshoreSubwatershed Lower Green RiverSubwatershed [0 8 Miles LEGEND: WRIA 9 Proposed Service Area Proposed Service Area Subwatersheds Other WRIA 9 Subwatersheds Proposed Service Area and Project Need Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 43 marine impacts is available on a case-by-case basis. King County is constructing the Chinook Wind project as part of the ILF program, but this site is at RM 6.7 along the Lower Duwamish Waterway, and would not provide the same level of benefits as the other estuarine sites included in the Bank, based on their optimal location in the Duwamish Estuary. Two other mitigation banks are in operation or proposed for operation in the WRIA 9 service area. The Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank is in Renton but is only available for mitigation credits to the City of Renton and WSDOT. The Thom Mitigation Bank is a proposed wetland mitigation bank adjacent to the Green-Duwamish River in Kent at RM 17.8, but the service area does not include the Duwamish Estuary subwatershed. Port Maritime Mitigation Needs Overall, the Port has already created or enhanced more than 177 acres of wetlands and 30 acres of intertidal and saltwater habitat as mitigation or voluntary stewardship. Additional habitat restoration and mitigation will likely be required in the future. The Maritime Division expects a substantial demand for mitigation credits along the Seattle waterfront and in the Lower Duwamish Waterway in the next 5 years. In recent years, the Port has also been contacted by many waterfront facility owners and development sponsors seeking mitigation opportunities to offset the expansion of waterfront structures and shoreline development. In addition, more common requirements for habitat mitigation, associated with waterfront structure repair, maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement, have increased potential demand for mitigation credits associated with endangered salmon habitat impacts. Port Aviation Mitigation Needs STIA will need to expand to match the rapid growth expected in the next few years. According to the SAMP, STIA will require 35 new gates and 16 new wide-body gates to meet the demand of increased passengers and operations by 2034 (Port of Seattle 2018b). The airport expansion will come with expanded support services in the surrounding area, particularly in the South Aviation Support Area, which may result in unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other critical areas. Specific wetland mitigation needs have not been formally estimated, but will become more evident in the coming months and years. Emergent marsh at third runway mitigation site This page left intentionally blank Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 45 All constructed habitat Bank sites will be protected in perpetuity by a third-party conservation easement or deed restriction that meets the requirements set forth for such sites by agencies. The Port will own and manage the constructed habitat Bank sites in perpetuity unless ownership is transferred to local, state, or federal agencies; tribal governments; or private nonprofit nature conservancy corporations under Revised Code of Washington 47.12.370. If transferred, the mechanism for transfer will require the site be maintained in a manner that complies with applicable permits, laws, and regulations pertaining to the maintenance and operation of the mitigation site. If not, the site will revert to Port ownership. Once performance standards are achieved and monitoring has been completed, long-term management of the site will begin. Long-term management, including maintenance and monitoring, will either be performed by the Port as part of their normal operations, or by a third-party steward under an endowment. Ownership of the overwater cover and in-water structure removal sites may vary, depending on the site. Site Protection Restoration site protected by goose exclusion device This page left intentionally blank Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 47 Qualification of Sponsor and Design Teams Development of the joint wetland mitigation and habitat conservation bank program, including design and permitting for individual sites, will be completed by the Port as the project sponsor, with technical support from consultants and other public agencies as needed. Sponsor Qualification The Port seeks to sustain and enhance both the natural environment and the water-dependent businesses in the Lower Duwamish Waterway. Over the past 30 years, the Port has implemented significant environmental restoration, cleanup, and habitat enhancement projects as part of its capital improvement programs and ongoing operations and management of Port facilities. As a result, the Port has a great deal of experience designing, developing, and maintaining compensatory mitigation sites. The Port has successfully completed several estuarine restoration projects in the Lower Duwamish Waterway. These projects include critically important, mature, fully- functional habitat attributes that demonstrate successful and durable estuarine wetland establishment, native riparian buffer planting, and off-channel habitat development. Examples include a 3.4-acre wetland complex at Turning Basin Number 3 (at the upstream limit of the Duwamish Waterway navigation channel) and a 3.2-acre marsh and off-channel slough at Terminal 105 (near the southern tip of Harbor Island on the west bank of the river). The projects serve as important testing grounds for restoration techniques in the area and will provide good models for future restoration efforts. Importantly, they indicate that cleanup and restoration efforts in the industrialized Lower Duwamish Waterway can result in successful, self-sustaining habitat for fish and wildlife. The Port has successfully constructed the third runway mitigation site in Auburn, and the site is meeting its performance standards in year 12 of the 15-year monitoring program. The site has developed mature forested wetland, emergent wetland, and scrub-shrub wetland habitat and is supporting four ponds where waterfowl can nest and forage. The Auburn site was built primarily to mitigate impacts to avian species, and recent monitoring notes that waterfowl, songbirds, and raptors increasingly use habitat in the site as forested areas mature. The Port’s current mitigation and preservation holdings total approximately 30 acres, including 12 acres of compensatory mitigation projects and 18 acres of voluntary habitat initiatives. A performance monitoring period to demonstrate that standards have been met has been successfully completed for most of the mitigation sites. Other sites are still undergoing monitoring and maintenance. Mitigation sites and riparian planting areas are maintained regularly as part of normal operations by the Port’s Marine Maintenance Division. As a major landowner in the Lower Duwamish Waterway, the Port is in a unique position to design and construct estuarine and freshwater habitat projects in critically important transition areas and manage those projects in perpetuity. The Port’s role as a major landowner also places it in a unique position to advance social equity in the Lower Duwamish industrial lands, an area interspersed with residential neighborhoods that are heavily impacted by environmental justice issues. The Port commits to taking a lead role in regional and national efforts to achieve equity and social justice; work supporting the joint bank will reflect this commitment. Diversity at the Port of Seattle is not an initiative or campaign; rather, it is integral to the policies, processes, and programs that are woven into all daily activities within the Port community. Diversity is essential to our mission, goals, and values. Port's Auburn mitigation site Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle48 Outside Services The Port engaged Anchor QEA, LLC for overall project management and prospectus planning, wetland mitigation, and conceptual design of the proposed joint bank sites. Further planning and design of the mitigation and conservation sites will also be completed with consultant support, including natural resource professionals, landscape architects, engineers, and environmental planners. The Port has ambitious goals related to hiring certified women and minority-owned business enterprises and small businesses, in addition to robust community engagement programs. Anchor QEA's Seahurst Park shoreline restoration project Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 49 References American Rivers, 2019. “America’s Most Endangered Rivers of 2019: #4 Green-Duwamish River, WA.” Accessed April 18, 2019. Available at: https://endangeredrivers.americanrivers.org/green-duwamish-river/. Amoto and The Resource Group Consultants, 2006. Miller and Walker Creeks Basin Plan. Prepared for City of Burien, City of Nor- mandy Park, City of SeaTac, King County, Port of Seattle, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. February 2006. Anchor (Anchor Environmental, LLC), 2004. Lower Green River Baseline Habitat Survey Report. Prepared for WRIA 9 Technical Committee and King County. Available from: http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2004/KCR1599/Title%20Page.pdf. Anchor QEA (Anchor QEA, LLC), 2012. Field Investigation Report: Terminal 25S Site Investigation. Prepared for the Port of Seattle. December 2012. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Pentec Environmental, Striplin Environmental Associates, Shapiro Associates Inc., and King County Department of Natural Resources, 2001. Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Ecosys- tem: Eastern Shore of Central Puget Sound, including Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and 9). May 2001. Blomberg, G., 2013. Regarding: Wildlife use at T25S. In-person conversation with Tess Brandon (Watershed Company) during field work on the Lower Duwamish River. June 2013. City of Seattle, 2003. Seattle’s Urban Blueprint for Habitat Protection and Restoration. December 2003. City of Seattle, 2015. Public Utilities and Drainage: Combined sewer & drainage outfalls: City & Metro-King County. Des Moines Creek Basin Committee, 1997. Des Moines Creek Basin Plan. Prepared for King County, City of Des Moines, City of SeaTac, Port of Seattle. November 1997. Dexter R.N., D.E. Anderson, E.A. Quinlan, L.S. Goldstein, and R.M. Strickland, 1981. A summary of knowledge of Puget Sound related to chemical contaminants. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-13. Duwamish Blueprint Working Group, 2014. Duwamish Blueprint: Salmon Habitat in the Duwamish Transition Zone. Prepared for the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound (WRIA 9) Watershed Ecosystem Forum. November 6, 2014. Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology), 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1). Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011b. March 2006. Ecology, 2012. Interagency Regulatory Guide – Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Ecology Publica- tion No. 12-06-015. December 2012. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2018. “Superfund Site: Lower Duwamish Waterway.” Accessed December 5, 2018. Available at: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Clean- up&id=1002020#bkground. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Administration), 2013. Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) for King County, WA. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Hart Crowser, 1992. Site Assessment UST Decommissioning, Malarkey Asphalt Company. Prepared for Duwamish Properties, Inc. Higgins, K., 2014. The WRIA 9 Marine Shoreline Monitoring and Compliance Pilot Project. Prepared for Watershed Resource Inventory Area 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Washington De- partment of Natural Resources. April 2014. Hruby, T., 2014. Washington State Wetlands Rating System – Western Washington: 2014 Update. Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029. Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle50 Johnson, P., D.L. Mock, A. McMillan, L. Driscoll, and T. Hruby, 2002. Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study, Phase 2: Evaluating Success. February 2002. King County, 2017. A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016). Salmon Conservation and Restoration: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. November 6, 2017. Available at: https://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/pdf/technical-white-papers/WRIA9-salmonid-use-up- date-FINAL_11_6_2017.pdf King County, 2018. “Salmon Conservation and Restoration: Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed.” Accessed December 5, 2018. Available at: http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/activities-partners/duwamish.aspx. King County, 2019. “Salmon Monitoring Program - Community Salmon Investigation (CSI) for Highline.” Miller and Walker Creek Stewardship. Accessed February 11, 2019. Available at: https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/ watersheds/central-puget-sound/miller-walker-creeks/salmon-monitoring.aspx The Nature Conservancy, 2018. “Benefits of Floodplain by Design.” Accessed December 13, 2018. Available at: https:// www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/protect-water-and-land/land-and-water-stories/bene- fits-of-healthy-floodplains/. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2013. Final Lower Duwamish River NRDA Restoration Plan and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared on behalf of the Lower Duwamish River Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustee Council. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and WDFW (Washington Department of Wildlife), 2015. “SSHIAP Statewide Fish Distri- bution Map”. Accessed October 9, 2015. Available at: http://maps.nwifc.org/swifd/. NRC (National Research Council), 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Prepared for Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Water Science and Technology Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), 2019. “Web Soil Survey.” Accessed January 18, 2019. Available at: https://web- soilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Our Green/Duwamish Watershed Advisory Group, 2016. Preliminary Background Report. June 2016. Available at: https://our- greenduwamish.com/2016/06/13/check-out-the-preliminary-background-report-and-join-us-at-the-june-28-storm- water-workshop/. Parametrix, 2001. Natural Resource Mitigation Plan Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Master Plan Improvements. Prepared for the Port of Seattle. November 2001. Seattle, Washington. Port of Seattle, 2017. “Century Agenda: Strategic Objectives.” Amended December 19, 2017. Available at: https://www.portse- attle.org/page/century-agenda-strategic-objectives. Port of Seattle, 2018a. “Our Mission.” Accessed November 16, 2018. Available at: https://www.portseattle.org/about/our-mission. Port of Seattle, 2018b. “Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP).” Available at: https://www.portseattle.org/plans/sustain- able-airport-master-plan-samp. Port of Seattle, 2018c. “Terminal 117 Cleanup.” Accessed December 6, 2018. Available at: http://www.t117.com/default.aspx. Ruggerone, G., T. Nelson, J. Hall, and E. Jeanes, 2006. Habitat Utilization, Migration Timing, Growth, and Diet of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Duwamish River and Estuary. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Technical Committee and WRIA 9 Steering Committee. References Wetland Mitigation and Habitat Conservation Umbrella Bank Prospectus | Port of Seattle 51 SECOR (SECOR International Incorporated), 1997. Focused site characterization report, Malarkey Asphalt site, 8700 Dallas Avenue South, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Copeland, Landye, Bennett, and Wolf, LP; Port of Seattle; and City of Seattle. Southern Resident Orca Task Force, 2018. Report and Recommendations. Prepared for the Washington State Office of the Gov- ernor. November 16, 2018. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2019. “SalmonScape.” Accessed April 17, 2019. Available at: http://apps. wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html. Windward Environmental and Anchor QEA (Windward Environmental, LLC, and Anchor QEA, LLC), 2014. Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report. East Waterway Operable Unit. January 2014. WRIA 9 Riparian Revegetation Work Group, 2016. Re-Green the Green: Riparian Revegetation Strategy for the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9). Prepared for the WRIA 9 Forum. October 14, 2016. WRIA 9 Steering Committee, 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan – Making Our Watershed Fit for a King. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Forum. August 2005. NOTICE OF APPLICATION & NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING INLAND GROUP CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE VARIANCE CAO20-0004 The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Application & Notice of Public Hearing for the following described project. The permit applications and listed studies may be reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community Development at 1 E Main ST, 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001 by contacting planning@auburnwa.gov Proposal: Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) variance to allow for the reduction of a Category II stream buffer (fish bearing) (vested buffer standard). The reduction is related to the future construction of public street improvements, I ST NE, associated with the Copper Gate Apartments as part of the Auburn Gateway Project. Mitigation for the buffer reduction is proposed. Location: 4750 Auburn Way N, within the Section 31, T 22 N, R 5E, WM. King Co. Parcel Numbers 9360600305, 9360600320, 9360600325, 9360600330, & 9360600271. Notice of Application: February 2, 2021 Permit Application: December 1, 2020 Complete Application: December 29, 2020 File No. CAO20-0004 Applicant/Owner: Brent Parrish, Development Manager Inland Development Group 120 W Cataldo, Ste 100 Spokane, WA 99201 Studies/Plans Submitted with Application: • I St NE Extension NE Critical Areas Ordinance Request (Letter), Wet.Land, LLC, November 18, 2020. • Alternatives for Stream Mitigation e-mail Brent Parrish to Jennifer Marriot, October 22, 2020 • Critical Areas Floodplain Habitat Impact Assessment Report and appendices, I Street Extension Project, Wet.Land, LLC; June 17, 2020 • NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan EIS Addendum #3, City of Auburn, October 21, 2019 (cover page) • I St Realignment Variance Request & Mitigation Discussion (Memo) Wet.Land, LLC, October 29, 2020 • Auburn Code Review- I St NE (Watercourse K) Stream Relocation (narrative), Wet.Land, LLC, and city comments, undated Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed: City - Building Permits, Civil plan approval, floodplain permit and others Federal – Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit State – Dept of Ecology Section 401 Water Quality Certification Dept of Fish & Wildlife Hydraulic Project Application NOTICE OF APPLICATION & PUBLIC HEARING CAO20-0004 (Continued) Page 2 of 3 Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, & Engineering Design Standards. Public Comment Period: All persons may comment on this application. Comments must be in writing and received by the end of the comment period at 5:00 p.m. on February 16, 2021 to the mailing address of 25 W Main ST, Auburn, WA, 98001-4998. Any person wishing to become a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and participate in any hearings, if relevant, request a copy of decisions once made, and be made aware of appeal rights. For questions regarding this project, please contact Jeff Dixon, at planning@auburnwa.gov or (253) 804-5033. Public Hearing: The meeting of the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner scheduled for February 17, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. will be held virtually and telephonically. To attend the meeting virtually please enter the meeting ID into the ZOOM app or call into the meeting at the phone number listed below. Per Governor Inslee's Healthy Washington - Roadmap to Recovery Plan, meetings will be virtual until the Governor of Washington State authorizes local governments to conduct in-person meetings. Per the Governor's Emergency Proclamation 20-28, the City of Auburn is prohibited from holding an in-person meeting at this time. Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/91724427232 Meeting ID: 917 2442 7232, One tap mobile +12532158782,91724427232# US (Tacoma) Dial by your location: +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma); 877 853 5257 US Toll-free; 888 475 4499 US Toll-free; Meeting ID: 917 2442 7232; Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/acUbsogCnx NOTICE OF APPLICATION & PUBLIC HEARING CAO20-0004 (Continued) Page 3 of 3 VICINITY MAP: NORTH AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OF LEGAL APPLICATION NOTICE Application Number: CAO20-0004 Applicant: Brent Parrish, Development Manager Inland Development Group 120 W Cataldo, Ste 100 Spokane, WA 99201 Property Owner: Brent Parrish, Development Manager Inland Development Group 120 W Cataldo, Ste 100 Spokane, WA 99201 Location: 4750 Auburn Way N, within the Section 31, T 22 N, R 5E, WM. King Co. Parcel Numbers 9360600305, 9360600320, 9360600325, 9360600330, & 9360600271 Closing Date for Public Comments: February 16th, 2021 I certify that on or before February 2nd, 2021, I did send a Notice of Application (NOA) and Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) for the above referenced application, as required by Auburn City Code 16.06.090, to all property owners located within 300 feet of the affected site. Said Notice was mailed pre-paid stamped through the United States Postal Service at least 14 days prior to the closing date for public comments noted above. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. ___________________________________________ Jennifer Oliver – Planning Administrative Assistant From:Jeff Dixon To:legals@seattletimes.com Subject:Request to public legal notice Date:Friday, January 29, 2021 3:02:00 PM Attachments:CAO20-0004 - Request to Publish.docx Please publish the attached legal notice once on Tuesday, February 2nd. If there are any questions, please let me know. Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager Community Development Dept. City of Auburn 253.804-5033 | jdixon@auburnwa.gov City of Auburn website | www.auburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address (physical): 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Map) Customer Service Survey | Application Forms | Zoning Maps Effective March 25, 2020, in response to Gov. Inslee’s Stay Home Stay Safe directive, the City of Auburn has closed City Hall and the Annex Customer Service Center until further notice. I am currently out of the office but working remotely. I have access to email (preferrable) and voicemail. 1/29/2021 9k= (250×825) …1/1