HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2007-07-09 Item 3D.2 - Ordinance - Number of Wetland Mitigation Credits Process (Sensitive Areas Ordinances / SAO) COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
�J 9 Initials ITEM No.
O j +a �t 7
d Meeting Date Prepared by n 1 Mayor's review 1 Council review 1
Q e y ,u�; 05/14/07 I JP ell 1
07/09/07 I ]P I .4' 1 3 0 (c.))
isos I I I v
1TE M INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 07-057 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: MAY 14, 2007
AGENDA ITEM TITLE SAO Mitigation Ratio for Wetland Banks
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 07/9/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 07/16/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date 07/16/07 Mtg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adnl Svcs ®DCD El Finance El Fire Legal P &R Police PIS
SPONSOR'S The proposal is to amend the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) to allow the Director to
SUMMARY establish a mitigation ratio that meets the intent of the SAO for specific wetland
mitigation banks.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DA 1'E: 4- 24 -07, 7/9/07 (CAP), 5/14/07 (COW), 5/24/07 (PC), 7/9/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMEN. Hold a public hearing on the ordinance
CottE\HTrEE Forward to full Council for consideration
COST =IMPAGT 1 FUNDSO U RCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0 $0 $0
Fund Source: N/A
Comments:
1
=MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
5 -14 -07 1 Forward to Planning Commission for a recommendation
7 -9 -07 1 1
MTG. DATE I ATTACHMENTS_
1 5 -14 -07 Information Memo dated 5/8/07 with Attachments
Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 4/24/07
7 -9 -07 Information Memo dated 6/28/07 with Attachments
Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 6/26/07
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
Committee of the Whole
From: Jack Pace, Acting Director Department of Community Develop Is
Date: June 28, 2007
Subject: Code Amendment Sensitive Areas Ordinance
ISSUE
Should the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) be amended to allow the DCD Director to establish
a mitigation ratio on a case -by -case basis for off -site mitigation carried out at a wetland
mitigation bank?
BACKGROUND
The CAP discussed this at their April 24 meeting. They had some suggested changes to the
code language which have been incorporated into the proposal but did not have a consensus
opted The COW discussed this at the May 14 meeting and while they p ted to
forward the amendment on to the PC there were concerns about the use of mitigation sites
outside of Tukwila and the degree of flexibility granted to the DCD Director's decision. The PC
held a public hearing on May 24 and discussed the desirability of mitigation sites within
Tukwila and the Director's special permission decision making process, though they ultimately
recommended approval of the amendment as written. The CAP reviewed the issue on June 26
and opted to forward the amendment to the COW unchanged.
DISCUSSION
Only isolated Type 3 wetlands or wetlands in the path of an essential public facility may be filled
and mitigated off -site under the City's Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO). This off -site mitigation
requires a Special Permission approval from the DCD Director, and may be inside or outside the
city limits of Tukwila as long as the mitigation site is within the same river basin, see criteria at
TMC 18.45.090 E listed in Attachment A. The current proposal would not change this process
or the criteria that must be met.
Tukwila's Urban Environmentalist has investigated the opportunities for off -site mitigation in
Tukwila, including establishment of a wetland mitigation bank, and has found them to be
limited. Staff's recommendation was to make appropriate City -owned properties available for
individual mitigation projects that would be designed and implemented by the developer, see a
CL Page 1 of 3 06/28/2007 8:57:00 AM
Q:\2007 SAO Amendment \CAP Memo.doc
summary of the "Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Program for Tukwila" report at Attachment B.
The Council adopted this policy direction in Resolution 1608. However due to the limited area
available for creation and enhancement these sites are unable to meet the mitigation needs of
larger projects.
Wetland mitigation banking as a tool for off setting unavoidable impacts to wetlands is
increasingly becoming more important, and the City is starting to see proposals for off -site
mitigation at banks. A wetland mitigation bank is the consolidation of small, fragmented
wetland mitigation projects into a large contiguous site where creation, restoration and
enhancement is carried out in advance of the impacts. Banks are established under a fouifal and
rigorous permitting process that establishes how many wetland mitigation "credits" will be
available for sale.
The mitigation ratios established in the SAO apply to both on -site and off -site mitigation and are
used to determine a mitigation area requirement when multiplied by the acreage of fill or impact
due to the project. The SAO does not address transferring mitigation to a mitigation bank, which
uses credits as opposed to acreage in detemuining the amount of mitigation needed. Determining
the number of mitigation bank credits needed to meet the City's mitigation ratios is not
straightforward.
Credits in a mitigation bank are based on the net ecological benefit provided and are determined
on the basis of Department of Ecology mitigation ratios, the kinds of mitigation carried out at the
bank (wetland creation, restoration, and/or enhancement), the type (class) of wetland that has
been created, rehabilitated or enhanced and the total acreage for each type of mitigation. The
number of credits needed for mitigation is based on the type (classification) of the wetland being
impacted. The amount of mitigation built into the value of a credit does not directly equate to
Tukwila's SAO mitigation ratios, which are based on acreage impacted and do not distinguish
between types of wetlands in applying the mitigation ratios.
Mitigation ratios applied to projects that are carrying out wetland mitigation in conjunction with
a development project are typically higher than those ratios in a mitigation bank, because they
factor in the element of risk that the wetland mitigation might fail. In wetland mitigation banks,
however, the theory is that the wetland will already be mitigated well in advance of any
development proposal thus reducing the risk of mitigation failure (if the bank fails, credits
cannot be released).
The Springbrook mitigation bank established by the City of Renton and WSDOT was reviewed
and approved by the State Department of Ecology, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Federal Highway
Administration and underwent rigorous review for compliance with both State and Federal
requirements for wetland and stream protection and restoration. This review process is required
for the establishment of any mitigation bank. See Attachment C for the relationship between the
acreage of mitigation, ratio applied and resulting credit value at the Springbrook Creek Bank in
Renton.
NG Page 2 of 3 06/28/2007 8:57 :00 AM
Q:\CODEAMND\WetlandBank\SA07-9COW.DOC
The City recently processed two land use applications submitted by the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) seeking approval to transfer mitigation for impacts to
wetlands along Hwy 518 and I -405 to the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank, a mitigation
bank area of over 125 acres located in Renton. The location of the highway construction on both
Hwy 518 and I -405 and the sensitive areas made it difficult to fmd room to adequately mitigate
for wetland impacts in the remaining right -of -way. In addition, the size of the remaining
sensitive areas available in the right -of -way would limit the effectiveness of any mitigation
implemented. Thus off -site mitigation made sense in these two cases. WSDOT proposed
withdrawal of a certain number of credits from the bank as the proposed wetland mitigation.
This issue will arise again when applications are submitted for the Strander Blvd. extension,
which will disturb Type 1 wetlands. The City of Renton will be requesting permission to carry
out wetland mitigation in the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. WSDOT will also likely
want to use the bank for future highway construction in Tukwila. Unless our SAO is amended to
permit a determination of the equivalency of a specific bank's credits to the mitigation area
required per our SAO requirements we will not be able to ensure that the net ecological benefits
at the mitigation bank compensate for the wetland impacts.
The current proposal would not change the process or the criteria for approval of off -site
mitigation. If permission is granted for off -site mitigation the applicant must identify a site
capable of providing an equivalent ecological benefit to the filled wetlands. The argument for
carrying out the mitigation at a Mitigation Bank is that mitigation is completed in advance of
impacts and generally results in improved hydrologic, water quality and habitat functions in a
consolidated location. Studies of wetland mitigation banks have shown this to be true as long as
the mitigation bank is maintained and monitored.
Staff recommends amending the SAO as identified in Attachment A to permit the DCD Director
to establish a ratio of mitigation acreage to wetland bank credit for off -site mitigation proposed
in wetland mitigation banks that have been approved by appropriate agencies. This would be a
Type 2 decision, similar to most of the other discretionary approvals in the SAO.
REOUESTED ACTION
Send the PC endorsed changes to a final public hearing and adoption of the ordinance as written
or amended.
Attachment A Draft Ordinance
Attachment B Summary of the "Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Program for Tukwila" Report
Attachment C Springbrook Creek Mitigation Credit Table
NG Page 3 of 3 06/28/2007 8:57:00 AM
Q: \CODEAti ND \WetlandBank\SAO7- 9COW.DOC
no A r- T
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2074, AS CODIFIED AT
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.45, TO CREATE A PROCESS
FOR DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF WETLAND MITIGATION
CREDITS REQUIRED FOR OFF -SITE MITIGATION; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance does not currently address a
method for determining the number of wetland mitigation bank credits needed for a
specific off -site mitigation project; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission held a
public hearing on the proposed amendments that would create a decision process and
criteria for the determination of the number of wetland mitigation credits required for
off -site mitigation, and has recommended the adoption of certain Zoning Code changes;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on these proposed amendments
on July 16, 2007, after proper notice; and
WHEREAS, after having received and studied staff analysis, the City Council
believes these amendments to the City's sensitive area regulations are desirable;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 2074 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.45.090, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
18.45.090 Wetlands Uses, Alterations and Mitigation
A. No use or development may occur in a Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 wetland or its
buffer except as specifically allowed by TMC Chapter 18.45. Any use or development
allowed is subject to review and approval by the Director. Where required, a mitigation
or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of
mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45.
B. Alterations
1. Alterations to wetlands are discouraged and are limited to the minimum
necessary for project feasibility. Requests for alterations must be accompanied by a
mitigation plan, are subject to Director approval, and may be approved only if the
following findings are made:
a. The alteration will not adversely affect water quality;
b. The alteration will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitat;
c. The alteration will not have an adverse effect on drainage and /or storm
water detention capabilities;
d. The alteration will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create an
erosion hazard or contribute to scouring actions;
e. The alteration will not be materially detrimental to any other property;
and
f. The alteration will not have adverse effects on an other sensitive y ns e areas.
2. Alterations are not permitted to Type 1 wetlands unless specifically exempted
under the provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45.
3. Alterations to Type 2 wetlands are prohibited except where the location or
configuration of the wetland provides practical difficulties that can be resolved by
modifying up to .10 (one tenth) of an acre of wetland. Mitigation for any alteration to a
Type 2 wetland must be provided at a ratio of 1.5:1 for creation or restoration and 3:1
for enhancement and must be located contiguous to the altered wetland.
4. Isolated Type 3 wetlands may be altered or relocated only with the
permission of the Director. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and
must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45.
5. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling,
alterations and relocation of wetland habitat allowed in TMC Chapter 18.45.
6. Isolated wetlands formed on fill material in highly disturbed environmental
conditions and assessed as having low overall wetland functions may be altered and/ or
relocated under TMC Chapter 18.45. These wetlands may include artificial hydrology
or wetlands unintentionally created as the result of construction activities. The
determination that a wetland is isolated is made through the Type 2 permit process. A
mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the
standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45.
C. Mitigation Sequencing. Applicants shall demonstrate that reasonable efforts
have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and
wetland buffers. When an alteration to a wetland or its required buffer is proposed,
such alteration shall be avoided, minimized or compensated for in the following order
of preference:
1. Avoidance of wetland and wetland buffer impacts, whether by finding
another site or changing the location of the proposed activity on -site.
2. Minimizing wetland and wetland buffer impacts by limiting the degree of
impact on site.
3. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing, enhancing, or
substitution shall occur in the following order of preference:
a. restoring wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands;
b. enhancing significantly degraded wetlands;
c. creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative
cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species or noxious weeds.
D. Mitigation Plans.
1. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a sensitive area study by a
specialist approved by the Director. Wetland and /or buffer alteration or relocation
C:\Documents and Settings\Ali Users \Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances \Wetland Mitigation Credits.doc
GL:ksn 7/5/2007 Page 2 of 5
may be allowed only when a mitigation plan clearly demonstrates that the changes
would be an improvement of wetland and buffer quantitative and qualitative functions.
The plan shall follow the performance standards of TMC Chapter 18.45 and show how
water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland quality would be
improved.
2. In order to achieve the City's goal of no net loss of wetland functions and
acreage, alteration of wetlands will require the applicant to provide a restoration or
creation plan to compensate for the impacts to the wetland and will compensate at a
ratio of 1.5 1.
3. Impacts to wetlands may be mitigated by enhancement of existing
significantly degraded wetlands; however, in order to achieve the City's goal of no net
loss of wetland functions and acreage, mitigation through enhancement must be
compensated at a ratio of 3:1. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce
a sensitive area study that identifies how enhancement will increase the functions of the
degraded wetland and how this increase will adequately mitigate for the loss of
wetland area and function at the impact site. An enhancement proposal must also show
whether existing wetland functions will be reduced by the enhancement actions.
4. The DCD Director may approve, through a Type 2 decision, the transfer of
mitigation to a wetland mitigation bank using the criteria in 4.a. through 4.d below.
The Director must determine the number of wetland mitigation bank credits required to
meet the mitigation ratios established in TMC Chapter 18.45.
a. Off-site mitigation is proposed in a wetland mitigation bank that has been
approved by all appropriate agencies, including the Department of Ecologv. Corps of
Engineers, EPA or other regulatory agencies; and
b. The applicant provides a iustification for the number of credits proposed;
and
c. The mitigation achieved through the number of credits required meets the
intent of TMC Chapter 18.45; and
d. The Director bases the decision on a written staff report, evaluating the
equivalence of the lost wetland functions with the number of wetland credits required.
E. Mitigation Location.
1. On -site mitigation shall be provided, except where the applicant can
demonstrate that:
a. On -site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with
hydrology, soils, waves or other factors; or
b. Mitigation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from
surrounding land uses; or
c. Existing functional values created at the site of the proposed restoration
are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or
d. Established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or
other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of
mitigation at another site.
2. Off -site mitigation shall occur within the same watershed where the wetland
loss occurred.
C:\Documents and Settings All Users \Desktop\f elly\MSDATA \Ordinances \Wetland Mitigation CmAits.doc
GL:ksn 7/5/2007 Page 3 of 5
3. Mitigation sites located within the Tukwila city limits are preferred.
However, the Director may approve mitigation sites outside the city upon finding that:
a. Adequate measures have been taken to ensure the non development and
long -term viability of the mitigation site; and
b. Adequate coordination with the other affected local jurisdiction has
occurred.
4. In selecting mitigation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the following
order of preference:
a. Upland sites that were formerly wetlands;
b. Idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover
consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds or emergent vegetation;
c. Other disturbed upland;
d. Existing degraded wetland.
F. Mitigation Standards. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be
decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the
mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity.
The components of a complete wetlands mitigation plan are as follows:
1. Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a review and synthesis
of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site.
2. Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the
mitigation measures. This should include a description of site selection criteria,
identification of target evaluation species, and resource functions.
3. Performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental
goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include
water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices,
or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria.
4. A detailed construction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of
mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence
and construction management, and be accompanied by detailed site diagrams and
blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal.
5. Monitoring and /or evaluation program that outlines the approach for
assessing a completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the
monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's
progress.
6. Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action and any corrective
measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance
standards have not been met.
7. Performance security or other assurance devices as described in TMC
18.45.210.
G. Mitigation Timing. Mitigation projects shall be completed prior to activities that
will permanently disturb wetlands and either prior to or immediately after activities
that will temporarily disturb wetlands. Construction of mitigation projects shall be
timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife, flora and water quality, and shall be
completed prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. The Director may
C /Documents and SettingsWl Users\ Desk top \Kell}'MSDATA'Ordinances \Wetland Mitigation Credits.doc
GL:ksn 7/5/2007 Page 4 of 5
allow activities that permanently disturb wetlands prior to implementation of the
mitigation plan under the following circumstances:
1. To allow planting or re- vegetation to occur during optimal weather
conditions;
2. To avoid disturbance during critical wildlife periods; or
3. To account for unique site constraints that dictate construction timing or
phasing.
H. Permitted Uses Subject to Exception Approval. Other uses may be permitted
upon receiving a reasonable use exception pursuant to TMC 18.45.180. A use permitted
through a reasonable use exception shall conform to the procedures of TMC Chapter
18.45 and be consistent with the underlying zoning.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007.
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
Filed with the City Clerk:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number:
C :\Documents and Settinns\All Users\Desktop lielly\MSDATA \Ordinances \Wetland Mitigation Credits.doc
GL:ksn 7!512.007 Page 5 of 5
STAFF REPORT
OFF-SITE W M FOR TUKWILA WETLAND
MITIGATION
PROGRAM
N --"..-_:tivt,- ...-4 Jr -T N. 1, -T 7 --N- -P e4 :i'
0
4
L
4 3 i---7r-1
-4-- -1 f
4--
re
_1
EIrtiX 4-
0
r A
...I it
V_ c.‘ N_ v. i 7
I
'''.4.41■2-461._.-v. i- "I‘ il .Yr
-"k 'si-f-!` -7-
i .4. c k--,.; g r
4 7 A...No 1 Ay --44 k V „Fg
‘:-1- g 1F-
V4---. zi ,g-
Ng
1
-,_p•
_„„r .i._ 4 .1„,-, 1.
i A
_„.....-1-0 "i.J \s%
April 17, 2006
Attachment B
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
In an effort to address the increasing pressure for development in Tukwila on properties
that have wetlands, staff is proposing a program for off -site wetland mitigation when on-
site alternatives are not adequate. The program has been conceived as a way to help
facilitate development, particularly for small developers, while at the same time
providing an innovative mechanism for mitigating wetland impacts. It could be
beneficial environmentally, by directing mitigation for many small wetland losses to
larger or more highly functioning sites.
This report summarizes the key points of a study carried out by staff, with the support of
a wetland consultant. It also establishes program objectives and components, presents
conceptual mitigation plans for selected sites on city -owned properties, and identifies the
ess for implementing the program.
steps necessary p g ram. p g
P
Regulatory and Planning Context
As part of the study, staff analyzed the regulatory and planning context related to wetland
mitigation. Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC18.45) establishes mitigation
sequencing that first requires avoidance of wetland impacts, then minimization of
impacts, and finally compensation through mitigation. It allows for off -site mitigation
under certain circumstances. The proposed program respects the intent of the ordinance.
The US Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology also regulate wetland
impacts, but the Corps does not have jurisdiction over isolated wetlands (those not
"connected" hydrologically to waters of the United States). The proposed program
would be limited, at least initially, to wetlands not regulated by the Corps.
Tukwila's commitment to implementing the WRIA 9 Salmon Enhancement Plan is also
an important consideration when thinking about off -site wetland mitigation, as some
wetland mitigation projects could be directed to also enhancing salmon habitat, thus
achieving some of the objectives of the plan.
Alternative Wetland Mitigation Management Approaches
Staff evaluated three alternative wetland mitigation management instruments that could
be used to implement the program:
1) Alternative 1: wetland banking;
2) Alternative 2: consolidated mitigation at designated sites; and
3) Alternative 3: in -lieu fee program
S. Whiting i 04/24/2006 12:11:00 PM
Q: TUK2 \VOL3\HOME\SANDRA \WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING POLICIES \STAFF REPORT \FINAL \WETLAND
MITIGATION REPORT
Wetland banking (Alternative 1) would require the City to implement mitigation up front
at a designated site and later "sell" credits to developers. that need to do off -site wetland
mitigation. This approach would require a complicated and lengthy authorization process
with the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology.
Consolidated mitigation (Alternative 2) would be an informal program that directs off
site mitigation to designated sites (both City -owned and privately -owned properties), but
the mitigation would be carried out by the developer under City supervision.
An in -lieu fee program (Alternative 3) would establish fees to be charged to developers
in -lieu of them carrying out wetland mitigation. The City would then use the fees to
implement a mitigation plan and to conduct ongoing monitoring and maintenance.
The following table summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
Instrument Advantages Disadvantages 1 Comments
Wetland Consolidates mitigation for Difficult and lengthy No suitable city-
Mitigation Bank greater environmental benefit process for set -up owned sites available
Mitigation in advance, ensures City (or other sponsor)
success, no lag between would have to fund
1 impact and mitigation mitigation up -front
Risk of not being able to sell
credits /recoup investment
Consolidated Consolidates mitigation for Potential adverse Not as feasible for
mitigation at greater environmental benefit environmental impacts to Macadam or Green
designated sites some existing wetlands due River sites unless a
(city and Applicants would prepare and to repeated interventions proposed project
privately -owned carry out detailed mitigation over time needed a medium to
sites) plans under City oversight large site for
mitigation.
Minimal lag time between
impact and mitigation Actual availability
over time of privately
Potential for coordinating with owned sites is
WRIA 9 projects uncertain
In -lieu fee Could consolidate mitigation Possible long period Modification to TMC
program at for greater environmental between when impact 18.45 needed
designated sites benefit occurs and mitigation takes
place Sufficient staff needed
Mitigation would be entirely to implement
under City control Risk of not receiving (contracting,
enough fees to carry out a construction oversight,
Would allow for fees to be full mitigation or long -term monitoring, long -term
contributed towards WRIA 9 maintenance maintenance)
projects with wetland
components Risk of cost overruns that
would have to be borne by
City
S. Whiting ii 04/24/2006 12:11:00 PM
Q: TUK2 \VOL3\HOME\SANDRA \WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL \WETLAND
MITIGATION REPORT
Identification of Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites on City -Owned Land
Staff mapped all City -owned sites and overlaid this infomIation on the Sensitive Areas
Map to determine possible locations suitable for wetland creation or enhancement.
Criteria were applied for evaluating the sites and Public Works, the Fire Department, and
the Parks and Recreation Department were consulted in the process to ensure that there
were no conflicts with future proposed uses of the sites.
The results of the analysis of available sites for wetland mitigation indicate that:
feasible sites do not exist for every sub -basin where there is potential demand;
it will not be possible to achieve "in- kind" mitigation in every case (i.e. to
match wetland classifications between the wetlands impacted and the wetland
sites to be used for mitigation); and
Tukwila suffers from a shortage of suitable areas on City -owned land (and in
general) and there are no large amounts of contiguous acreage that would be
suitable as a large bank or mitigation site.
As a result of this effort, three sites were initially identified for preparation of conceptual
mitigation plans:
1) Macadam wetlands, located on the east side of Macadam Road and just
south of S. 144 (mostly south of the proposed Winter Garden). A small
amount of wetland creation and considerable wetland enhancement would
be possible at this site and would also complement the Winter Garden
project. Buffers would not be extended any further on to private property.
2) Fire Station 53 (undeveloped portion), located 4202 S. 115 behind the
fire station. This site presents opportunities for wetland enhancement and
a small amount of creation, without causing buffers to be expanded.
3) A site on the Green River, located adjacent to and north of the Riverview
Plaza development, and across the river from the Best Western Hotel. The
site has an upper and lower bicycle trail managed by the Parks
Department. The lower trail periodically floods during high water. The
site presents an opportunity for wetland creation along the river (while
leaving the upper trail in place) that would also provide off channel
salmon habitat. An access point for boat launching could also be
incorporated into the project.
Additional city -owned sites, such as Tukwila Pond, could be candidates for off -site
mitigation in the future.
S. Whiting iii 04/24/2006 12:11:00 PM
Q: TUK2 \VOL3\HOME\SANDRA \WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL \WETLAND
MITIGATION REPORT
Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites on Private Property
Off -site wetland mitigation on private properties is allowed under the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance and is already an established practice in Tukwila. However, with the idea of
helping to facilitate off -site mitigation, especially for small developments, staff
researched the availability of privately -owned sites in Tukwila. The idea would be to
serve as a matchmaker between developers needing mitigation sites and property owners
interested in making their sites available for mitigation. Negotiations regarding financial
compensation and easements would be between the property owner and the developer.
1 We identified potential wetland mitigation sites on privately -owned properties using the
same process and criteria that were used for identifying city -owned sites and began
contacting the property owners to see if they would be interested in the program. Staff
has been unable to reach all of the property owners as of this writing, but some interest by
has been expressed those reached.
Recommended Approach
Staff recommends the consolidated mitigation approach, using designated City or
privately -owned properties, but requiring that the developer be responsible for
preparation and implementation of detailed mitigation plans under the City's oversight.
The consolidated mitigation approach could work well at Fire Station 53, where there are
separate, well- defined small sections of the site that could be mitigated by different
applicants at different times.
The Macadam site would best accommodate one or two large projects to avoid repeated
interventions into the wetland. Smaller projects are not out of the question, but this
would require very careful planning and coordination to accommodate small projects.
The Green River site would be better suited to large projects (such as a WSDOT or
Sound Transit project), where a one -time intervention would be preferable due to costs
and to minimize negative impacts.
The consolidated approach could lend itself to supporting WRIA 9 projects in some
circumstances, where a WRIA 9 project is underway or close to starting up, and an
applicant could provide part of the restoration as mitigation (such as purchasing plants,
planting, or some other discrete task related to the restoration project).
In order to implement the proposed plan staff is seeking CAP Committee approval of
program and a Council resolution approving the use of City properties for wetland
mitigation under the program and establishing criteria for determining fees on a case -by-
case basis.
S. Whiting iv 04/24/2006 12:11:00 PM
Q: TUK2 \VOL3\HOME\SA 4DRA \WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING POLICIES\STAFF REPORT \FINAL \WETLAND
MITIGATION REPORT
FINAL
Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument
4.0 BANK OPERATION
4.1 CREDIT DETERMINATION
Credits are the "currency" of a mitigation bank. The value of credits that a mitigation
bank generates equals its net ecological benefit. The 129.37 -acre Springbrook Bank
includes 116.82 acres that qualify for bank credit. The remaining 12.55 non credit acres
have been designated for protection setback and the Trail Zone to minimize disturbances
I from adjacent roads, development, and the trail through Unit A. Units D and E each have
an existing 20 -foot utility easement inside the parcel boundary that will not generate
mitigation credit (see Figures 2 -4 and 2 -3). The 45.12 credits expected to be generated at
Springbrook Bank represents the number of acres of impacts to Category II wetlands
(Hruby 2004) for which the bank could be used as compensation (Table 4 -1). These
mitigation credits will become available as performance standards and other measures are
achieved (see Tables 3 -1 through 3 -4 and Table 4 -3). The precise number of credits
actually generated by the Springbrook Bank cannot be determined until the project is
constructed and the success of restoration and enhancement activities is assessed by the
BOC. The final number of credits will be determined by the BOC and will be based on
achievement of the performance standards.
Table 4 -1. Credit Potential
Mitigation Treatment Acreage Ratios* I Mitigation Credits**
I Unit A Unit B Unit C I Unit D Unit E Total
Wetland Re- Establishment I 17.79 I 1:1 I 0.05 0.12 9.27 I 8.35 I 17.79
Wetland Rehabilitation 52.14 3:1 6.64 10.39 0.35 17.38 I
Wetland Enhancement Type 1 I 4.69 4:1 1.17 1.17
Wetland Enhancement Type I I 2.63 I 5:1 0.53 0.53
Forested Wetland Enhancement 25.22 5:1 4.65 0.40 I 5.05
Riparian Upland Enhancement 6.56 I 4:1 0.16 0.37 1.11 1.64 I
Upland Habitat Enhancement 7.80 5:1 1.56 1.56
Buffer Enhancement 9.89
Trail Zone I 2.66 I
Totals I 129.37 6.85 10.88 17.00 0.93 9.46 45.12
The ratio of acreage to credits is the number of credits established per acre of mitigation activity in first column.
The number of mitigation credits that Springbrook Bank will generate for each mitigation treatment. Each credit can
compensate for the loss of a typical acre of Category II wetland.
4.2 APPROVING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CREDIT RELEASE
Springbrook Bank is expected to generate 45.12 credits that will be eligible for release as
the associated performance standards are met and approved by the BOC (Tables 3 -1
through 3 -4), with the exception that no credits may be released until a BOC- approved
Memorandum of Agreement and Instrument are signed by the Sponsors, Ecology, and the
Corps, and until a BOC- approved conservation easement is placed on the property title
Chapter 4 i Attachment C
Bank Operation
<o f V:z'; City of Tukwila
i a=� 4 .,�I, o
0t w,` Community Affairs Parks Committee
dl►
1908 r
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMIVIITTEE
Meeting Minutes
June 26, 2007 5:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Councilmembers: Pam Linder, Chair; Pam Carter and Dennis Robertson
Staff Jack Pace, Nora Gierloff and Kimberly Matej
Guest: Chuck Parrish
CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 4:57 p.m.
L PRESENTATIONS
No presentations.
II. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Sensitive Areas Ordinance
The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) amendment is returning to the Community Affairs and
Parks Committee since it was first heard on April 24, 2007. On April 24 the Committee
suggested some minor language changes, and chose to forward it to the COW for discussion. The
4 COW, in turn, chose to forward the amendment to the Planning Commission for review. After
the Planning Commission held a public hearing, they recommended approval of the SAO
amendment as written. With the exception of minor language changes, this is the same
amendment that the Committee reviewed previously.
In summary, the amendment addresses off -site mitigation and the amount of mitigation built into
the value of a credit in a mitigation bank. The current ordinance, as written, does not address the
issue of mitigation banks and is not straightforward on mitigation ratios. The proposed changes
will allow the DCD Director to establish a ratio for mitigation acreage in comparison to wetland
bank credits for off -site mitigation. The process will allow a certain number of mitigation bank
credits to be required for impact at a specific mitigation bank in comparison to the impact made
by development of the sensitive area in question.
The Committee expressed their concern with mitigations occurring outside of the City when there
are some sensitive areas within the City that will require funding in the upcoming years. Staff is
aware of these concerns and understands the priority of on and off -site mitigation. Staff reminded
the Committee that river areas cannot be utilized for wetland mitigation. The Committee is in
favor of forwarding the SAO amendment to the COW for discussion. Additionally, the
Committee feels that it would be in the best interest of the full Council for DCD to include a brief
summary of the status of Type 2, 3 and 4 projects resulting in administrative decisions in their
quarterly report. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW.
B. Code Amendment SEPA
The amendment in question for SEPA was previously heard by the Committee on April 10, 2007.
At that time, the Committee was not in consensus of the portion of the proposal which would
raise the residential construction from Tukwila's current threshold of four dwelling units to nine
dwelling units. The proposal was sent to the COW for discussion. The COW chose to forward the
amendment to the Planning Commission for review on the residential as well as commercial