optional determination of non-significance (dns) …
TRANSCRIPT
J:\DSD_Land Use\Planner_Files\RPittman\Projects\2017\17-116664-LO Morgan Bridge Replacement\Optional DNS Noticing Coversheet.doc/12/99
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR 450 110th Ave NE., P.O. BOX 90012 BELLEVUE, WA 98009-9012
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) NOTICE MATERIALS
The attached materials are being sent to you pursuant to the requirements for the Optional DNS
Process (WAC 197-11-355). A DNS on the attached proposal is likely. This may be the only
opportunity to comment on environmental impacts of the proposal. Mitigation measures from standard
codes will apply. Project review may require mitigation regardless of whether an EIS is prepared. A
copy of the subsequent threshold determination for this proposal may be obtained upon request.
File No. 17-116664-LO Project Name/Address: Morgan Bridge Replacement at 624 131st Ave NE Planner: Reilly Pittman Phone Number: 425-452-4350
Minimum Comment Period: August 24, 2017 Materials included in this Notice:
Blue Bulletin
Checklist
Vicinity Map
Plans
Other: Critical Areas Report
OTHERS TO RECEIVE THIS DOCUMENT:
State Department of Fish and Wildlife / [email protected]; [email protected]; State Department of Ecology, Shoreline Planner N.W. Region / [email protected]; [email protected] Army Corps of Engineers [email protected] Attorney General [email protected]
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe [email protected]; [email protected]
City of Bellevue Submittal Requirements 27
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 10/9/2009
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and adherence to these procedures. If you need assistance in completing the checklist or have any questions regarding the environmental review process, please visit or call Development Services (425-452-6800) between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday (Wednesday, 10 to 4). Assistance for the hearing impaired: Dial 711 (Telecommunications Relay Service).
INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21c RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the City of Bellevue identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the City decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the Planner in the Permit Center can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. Include references to any reports or studies that you are aware of which are relevant to the answers you provide. The City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of a Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: A nonproject proposal includes plans, policies, and programs where actions are different or broader than a single site-specific proposal.
For nonproject proposals, complete the Environmental Checklist even though you may answer "does not apply" to most questions. In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions available from Permit Processing. For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words project, applicant, and property or site should be read as proposal, proposer, and affected geographic area, respectively. Attach an 8½” x 11” vicinity map which accurately locates the proposed site.
1
City of Bellevue Submittal Requirements 27a
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 12/21/00
If you need assistance in completing the checklist or have any questions regarding the environmental review process, please visit or call the Permit Center (425-452-6864) between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday (Wednesday, 10 to 4). Our TTY number is 425-452-4636.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Property Owner: Victor Morgan
Proponent: Same as owner
Contact Person: The Watershed Company, Attn. Kenny Booth (If different from the owner. All questions and correspondence will be directed to the individual listed.)
Address: 750 Sixth Street South, Kirkland, WA 98033
Phone: (425) 822-5242
Proposal Title: Kelsey Creek Bridge Replacement
Proposal Location (Street address and nearest cross street or intersection) Provide a legal description if available: 624 131st Ave NE, WA 98005. Parcel 2472100020. Legal description: FAIRWAYS TO BELLEVUE ADD Plat Lot: 4 Please attach an 8½“ X 11” vicinity map that accurately locates the proposal site.
Give an accurate, brief description of the proposal’s scope and nature:
1. General description:
The proposed project involves replacement of a bridge over Kelsey Creek. The existing wooden bridge is failing and does not currently support access for wheeled vehicles. The landowner seeks to replace the bridge in order to facilitate safe walking access and access for golf carts. The subject property is immediately adjacent to the Glendale Country Club.
A restoration and monitoring plan is proposed to mitigate for the impacts associated with the replacement bridge.
2. Acreage of site: 0.32 acres
3. Number of dwelling units/buildings to be demolished: Zero.
4. Number of dwelling units/buildings to be constructed: No new dwellings will be constructed.
5. Square footage of buildings to be demolished: Not applicable.
6. Square footage of buildings to be constructed: No buildings will be constructed. The size of the proposed bridge is approximately 250 square feet.
2
7. Quantity of earth movement (in cubic yards): Some minor filling and grading would be conducted as necessary in order to construct the proposed bridge footings.
8. Proposed land use: No change in land use is proposed. The property will continue to support the existing single-family residence.
9. Design features, including building height, number of stories, and proposed exterior materials: No buildings are proposed. The proposed bridge will be approximately 36 feet long and 7 feet wide.
10. Other
Estimated date of completion of the proposal or timing of phasing:
The proposed replacement bridge would likely take approximately one month to construct. Construction would begin as soon as designs are finalized and permits have been obtained, within approved work windows.
Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
None at this time.
List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Critical Areas Report – Kelsey Creek Stream Channel Modification Improvements Project. Bellevue, WA. Anchor QEA LLC. November, 2009.
Morgan Residence – Bridge Replacement, Critical Areas Land Use Permit - Narrative Description, The Watershed Company, June 2017.
Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. List dates applied for and file numbers, if known.
The applicant does not have any other proposals in government review for the subject parcel.
List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. If permits have been applied for, list application date and file numbers, if known.
City of Bellevue SEPA Review
3
City of Bellevue Critical Areas Land Use Permit City of Bellevue Building Permit
Please provide one or more of the following exhibits, if applicable to your proposal. (Please check appropriate box(es) for exhibits submitted with your proposal):
Land Use Reclassification (rezone) Map of existing and proposed zoning
Preliminary Plat or Planned Unit Development Preliminary plat map
Clearing & Grading Permit Plan of existing and proposed grading Development plans
Building Permit (or Design Review) Site plan Clearing & grading plan
Shoreline Management Permit Site plan
4
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat Rolling Hilly Steep slopes Mountains Other:
Most of the site is relatively flat. The Kelsey Creek stream channel results in an area of relatively steep banks.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
The steepest slopes on the parcel are around 50% and are located along the banks of Kelsey Creek.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
According to the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey maps, the soils across the site are mapped as a mixture between Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC), Everett very gravelly sandy loam (EvC) and Norma sandy loam (No).
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
There are no surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Filling and grading would be conducted as necessary to construct the proposed bridge.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Erosion could occur if exposed soils are mobilized by rainfall. The measures described below would help minimize erosion.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Existing impervious surfaces are approximated at 5,200 square feet. This includes the existing footprint of the residence, patios, walkways, driveway and bridge. This equates to approximately 50% impervious coverage, less than the allowed maximum of 55%. The proposed project will not alter the amount of impervious surfaces.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
All clearing and grading construction would be in accordance with City of Bellevue Clearing & Grading Code, Clearing & Grading Erosion Control Standard Details (EC-1 through EC-23), Development Standards, Land Use Code, permit conditions, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and standards.
5
2. AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Any air quality impacts from construction vehicle emissions and dust generation would be temporary and rapidly dissipated. After project completion, no further impacts to air would occur.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
There are no off-site sources of emissions that will affect the project.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Standard methods of reducing impacts to air would be utilized, and include keeping all heavy equipment in good operating condition and managing disturbed soils as described above under 1h.
3. WATER
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
Yes, Kelsey Creek is a Type-F stream that flows into Mercer Slough and Lake Washington.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Yes. The proposed project will involve replacing a small pedestrian/golf cart bridge over Kelsey Creek.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
The project does not propose filling or dredging of surface waters or wetlands.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No surface water withdrawals or diversions will be required.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
The project will occur in the vicinity of a 100-year floodplain. However, the project is designed to avoid impacts or fill within the floodplain with the deck of the bridge above the surface elevation of the 100-year floodplain.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
6
No intentional discharges of waste materials would occur during project construction.
b. Ground
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
There will be no withdrawal of or discharge to ground water associated with this project.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
There will be no waste material from septic tanks or other sources discharged into the ground as part of this project.
c. Water runoff (including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
The proposed project will not modify runoff patterns. New native plantings adjacent to the stream will help to improve water quality functions.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
During construction, fuel, lubricant or other material spills from equipment could enter ground or surface waters. However, spill cleanup equipment would be present on site during construction.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
The erosion control measures described under question 1h would help control impacts to surface and runoff water. In addition, equipment would be in good working order with no known leaks.
4. PLANTS
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: Shore Pine shrubs: Vine Maple, Rose
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other:
other types of vegetation: English Ivy, lawn grasses
7
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
English Ivy will be removed as part of the proposed mitigation. Some minor vegetation impacts may occur as part of bridge deconstruction and construction of the replacement bridge. No other trees or shrubs are proposed to be removed or altered.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
No threatened or endangered plant species are known to be on or near the site.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
A portion of the stream buffer will be restored and enhanced by removing and/or controlling non-native weeds, improving soil conditions, and revegetating with native plant species. A combination of trees, shrubs, groundcover is proposed. Native species include Oregon Ash, Sitka spruce, western red cedar, pacific ninebark, cluster rose, red-flowering currant, oceanspray, coastal strawberry, kinnikinnick and sword fern.
A detailed mitigation area planting plan showing the location of these plantings has been prepared for the project. The proposed plantings will help to improve the values and functions of the existing buffer.
5. ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: raccoon, opossum, voles and other small mammals
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Adult and juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead trout, both listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), migrate through Lake Washington and into the Kelsey Creek. Adults migrate upstream to reach spawning grounds; juveniles migrate downstream from their natal streams to reach the ocean. Lake Washington and the Kelsey Creek potentially contain bull trout, a salmonid listed as Threatened under the federal ESA.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Yes; adult and juvenile salmon migrate up and downstream, respectively, through Kelsey Creek. The site lies within the Pacific Flyway; migrating waterfowl may use the area for resting and foraging during spring and fall migrations.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
The proposed project will enhance wildlife habitat through the planting of native species within the stream buffer. This proposed enhancement would add habitat complexity and help improve water quality functions of the buffer.
8
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
The project will not require any energy.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe.
The proposed project will not affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
No such measures are necessary.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
Typical hazards related to heavy equipment fuels are associated with construction of the proposed project.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
The need for emergency services is not anticipated at the site. In the unlikely event that an accident (spill, fire, other exposure) occurs involving toxic chemicals or hazardous wastes, the local Fire Department’s Hazardous Materials Team would respond. If necessary, local medical services might also be required. The full range of safety and accident response supplies would be on-site to treat any emergency.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Standard precautions would be taken to ensure the safety of the work crew. The construction manager would be contacted by a crew member immediately upon discovery of a spill. The construction manager would then ensure that the spill is cleaned up in the manner dictated by the chemical use instructions and would contact the appropriate authorities.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
There is no noise in the area that would affect this project.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Noise associated with the proposed project would be restricted to the use of construction-related equipment. Construction noise would be limited to normal daytime working hours, in
9
compliance with LUC 9.18. There would be no change in long-term noise associated with the proposed project compared with the existing condition.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
As mentioned above, noise would be limited to daylight weekday hours. No other noise-control measures are necessary.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The parcel is currently developed with a single-family residence. Parcels to the north, south, and west are also developed with single-family residences. The area to the east is developed with the Glendale Golf Course and Country Club.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
The parcel contains a single-family residence, a shed, and a pedestrian bridge over Kelsey Creek.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
The existing bridge will be removed and replaced.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Single Family (R-3.5).
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
SF- M (Single-family – medium density).
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
N/A.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Yes; Kelsey Creek is a Type F stream.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
No people would reside or work in the completed bridge.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
No people will be displaced as a result of this project.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
10
Not applicable.
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
No such measures are necessary. The proposed bridge is compatible with the single-family residential neighborhood that it is located in. The City’s comprehensive plan land use map does not indicate a different use for the area in the future.
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
No housing units will be provided.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
No units will be eliminated.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
No measures are necessary.
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
At the highest point, the bridge will be approximately 4 feet above the banks of Kelsey Creek. The principal building material will be wood.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
No views will be altered or obstructed by the proposed bridge. Once established, the proposed mitigation plantings may alter views on the subject property and immediately adjacent properties.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
No measures are necessary.
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
The proposed project will not produce any light or glare.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
11
No off-site sources of light or glare are expected to affect the proposal.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
No measures are necessary.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Glendale Country Club is immediately adjacent to the subject parcel.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
No measures are necessary.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
No places or objects of this type occur on or next to the site according to local, state and national registers.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
There are no landmarks or evidence of such in the immediate vicinity.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Should historic, archeological, scientific or cultural significant items be encountered during implementation of this project, work would be temporarily stopped while the appropriate agencies are notified.
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
The site can be accessed via 131st Ave NE. No changes to access are proposed.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Yes; the site is served by King County Metro Transit (B Line).
12
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate?
No parking spaces will be created or eliminated.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
This project will not affect public roads in any way. The proposed project involves replacement of the existing bridge in order improve private access over Kelsey Creek to the Glendale Country Club for the landowner.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
No.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
The proposed project will not generate any vehicular trips.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
No such measures are necessary.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
The proposed project will not result in an increase in the need for public services.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
No such measures are necessary.
16. UTILITIES
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone,
sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Utilities are not required for the project. Existing utilities will continue to serve the residence on site.
Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
KELSEY CREEK OHWM (APPROX.)
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EXISTING BRIDGE
110
1
1
0
102
1
0
2
104
1
0
4
106
1
0
6
1
0
8
108
112
114
116
110
110
1
0
2
1
0
4
104
106
106
108
108
1
1
2
1
1
2
114
116
110
1
1
0
1
0
2
104
104
106
106
108
1
0
8
112
112
114
116
110
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
4
104
1
0
6
106
1
0
8
108
112
1
1
4
1
1
6
PARCEL
2472100020
SINGLE
FAMILY
DWELLING
PARCEL
2472100025
PARCEL
3425059010
MORGAN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
PROJECT MANAGER:
DESIGNED:
DRAFTED:
CHECKED:
SHEET SIZE:
ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34".
SCALE ACCORDINGLY.
BY
© Copyright- The Watershed Company
DA
TE
PR
IN
TE
D B
YF
IL
EN
AM
E
THEWATERSHEDCOMPANY
Science & Design
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland WA 98033
p 425.822.5242
www.watershedco.com
JOB NUMBER:
SHEET NUMBER:
SU
BM
IT
TA
LS
&
R
EV
IS
IO
NS
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
ND
AT
EN
O.
MO
RG
AN
BR
IDG
E R
EPL
AC
EM
EN
TM
IT
IG
AT
IO
N P
LA
N
PR
EP
AR
ED
F
OR
: V
IC
M
OR
GA
N
PA
RC
EL
#
: 2
47
21
00
02
0
62
4 1
31
ST
A
VE
N
E
BE
LL
EV
UE
, W
A 9
80
05
KB
LM
LM
MF
170236
16
-2
2-2
01
7R
EV
IE
W S
ET
LJM
6/2
2/2
01
7L
OG
AN
M
CC
LIS
H1
70
23
6_
KE
LS
EY
_C
RE
EK
_M
OR
GA
N_
MIT
IG
AT
IO
N.D
WG
VICINITY MAPS
SHEET INDEX
1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SITE PLAN
3 TESC & SITE PREPARATION PLAN
4 MITIGATION PLAN DETAILS
5 PLANTING PLAN
6 PLANT INSTALLATION & MITIGATION NOTES
NOTES
1. THE ENTIRE PROJECT AREA IS WITHIN A
STREAM BUFFER. THEREFORE NO BUFFERS
ARE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN.
2. SURVEY RECEIVED FROM CLIENT ON
03.03.2017.
3. STREAM OHWM IS APPROXIMATED BASED
ON SURVEY.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Know what's below.before you dig.Call
R
W1 OF 7
40'
10'5'0' 20'
EXISTING BRIDGE
TO BE REPLACED
LEGEND
SCALE 1:10 WHEN PRINTED AT 22X34
PROJECT SITE
F
L
O
W
KELSEY CREEK
-0
+
3
0
0
+
0
0
0
+
3
0
110
1
1
0
102
1
0
2
104
1
0
4
106
1
0
6
1
0
8
108
112
114
116
110
110
1
0
2
104
104
1
0
6
106
108
108
1
1
2
1
1
2
114
116
110
1
1
0
1
0
2
104
1
0
4
106
106
108
1
0
8
112
112
114
116
110
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
4
104
1
0
6
106
1
0
8
108
112
1
1
4
1
1
6
PARCEL
2472100020
SINGLE
FAMILY
DWELLING
PARCEL
2472100015
PARCEL
2472100025
PARCEL
3425059010
KELSEY CREEK OHWM
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
MITIGATION PLANTING AREA
(526 SQ. FT)
STREAM OVERWATER
IMPACTS (120 SF)
STREAM BUFFER IMPACTS (143 SF)
ORDINARY HIGH
WATER 106.00±
SIDE GIRDER STYLE BRIDGE
100-YEAR PEAK
HGL 109.15±
EX GRADE
BRIDGE LOW
CHORD 109.40±
40.00'±
1'-8"
EX BRIDGE DECKING
3"
RAMP SLOPED
AT 8%
POTENTIAL ARCHED
BRIDGE MODEL
100
110
120
130
100
110
120
130
-0+30 -0+20 -0+10 0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30
-0+30 -0+20 -0+10 0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30
100
110
120
130
100
110
120
130
-0+30 -0+20 -0+10 0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30
-0+30 -0+20 -0+10 0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30
PROJECT MANAGER:
DESIGNED:
DRAFTED:
CHECKED:
SHEET SIZE:
ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34".
SCALE ACCORDINGLY.
BY
© Copyright- The Watershed Company
DA
TE
PR
IN
TE
D B
YF
IL
EN
AM
E
THEWATERSHEDCOMPANY
Science & Design
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland WA 98033
p 425.822.5242
www.watershedco.com
JOB NUMBER:
SHEET NUMBER:
SU
BM
IT
TA
LS
&
R
EV
IS
IO
NS
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
ND
AT
EN
O.
MO
RG
AN
BR
IDG
E R
EPL
AC
EM
EN
TM
IT
IG
AT
IO
N P
LA
N
PR
EP
AR
ED
F
OR
: V
IC
M
OR
GA
N
PA
RC
EL
#
: 2
47
21
00
02
0
62
4 1
31
ST
A
VE
N
E
BE
LL
EV
UE
, W
A 9
80
05
KB
LM
LM
MF
170236
16
-2
2-2
01
7R
EV
IE
W S
ET
LJM
6/2
2/2
01
7L
OG
AN
M
CC
LIS
H1
70
23
6_
KE
LS
EY
_C
RE
EK
_M
OR
GA
N_
MIT
IG
AT
IO
N.D
WG
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SITE PLAN
Know what's below.before you dig.Call
R
W2 OF 7
40'
10'5'0' 20'
LEGEND
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
FLOW
SCALE 1:10
KE
LS
EY
C
RE
EK
NOTES
1. IMPACTS MITIGATED AT A 2:1 RATIO
Scale: 1:10
EXISTING BRIDGE PROFILE - LOOKING UPSTREAM
1
Scale: 1:10
PROPOSED BRIDGE PROFILE - LOOKING UPSTREAM
2
KELSEY CREEK OHWM
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
COIR FABRIC (550 SQ. FT)
COIR WATTLE (85 LF)
STAGING AND ACCESS AREA
EXISTING BRIDGE
TO BE REPLACED (263 SQ. FT)
110
1
1
0
102
1
0
2
104
1
0
4
106
1
0
6
1
0
8
108
112
114
11
6
110
110
1
0
2
1
0
4
104
106
106
108
108
1
1
2
1
1
2114
116
110
1
1
0
102
104
104
106
106
108
1
0
8
112
112
114
116
110
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
4
104
1
0
6
106
1
0
8
108
112
1
1
4
1
1
6
PARCEL
2472100020
SINGLE
FAMILY
DWELLING
PARCEL
2472100015
PARCEL
2472100025
13
1S
T A
VE
N
E
PARCEL
3425059010
NOTES:
1. INSTALL UPRIGHT & DIAGONAL STAKE A
MIN. OF 2/3 INTO SOIL
3. PACK SOIL INTO WATTLE SPACES,
INSURE THAT 1/2 OF WATTLE IS BURIED
4. FIRM UP SOIL AROUND INSTALLED
STAKE AND BUNDLE
FINISH GRADE
12" BIODEGRADABLE WATTLE
VERTICAL & DIAGONAL WOOD STAKE
2
3
O
F
S
T
A
K
E
L
E
N
G
T
H
PROJECT MANAGER:
DESIGNED:
DRAFTED:
CHECKED:
SHEET SIZE:
ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34".
SCALE ACCORDINGLY.
BY
© Copyright- The Watershed Company
DA
TE
PR
IN
TE
D B
YF
IL
EN
AM
E
THEWATERSHEDCOMPANY
Science & Design
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland WA 98033
p 425.822.5242
www.watershedco.com
JOB NUMBER:
SHEET NUMBER:
SU
BM
IT
TA
LS
&
R
EV
IS
IO
NS
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
ND
AT
EN
O.
MO
RG
AN
BR
IDG
E R
EPL
AC
EM
EN
TM
IT
IG
AT
IO
N P
LA
N
PR
EP
AR
ED
F
OR
: V
IC
M
OR
GA
N
PA
RC
EL
#
: 2
47
21
00
02
0
62
4 1
31
ST
A
VE
N
E
BE
LL
EV
UE
, W
A 9
80
05
KB
LM
LM
MF
170236
16
-2
2-2
01
7R
EV
IE
W S
ET
LJM
6/2
2/2
01
7L
OG
AN
M
CC
LIS
H1
70
23
6_
KE
LS
EY
_C
RE
EK
_M
OR
GA
N_
MIT
IG
AT
IO
N.D
WG
TESC AND SITE PREPARATION PLAN
Know what's below.before you dig.Call
R
W3 OF 7
LEGEND
CLEAR AND GRUB ENGLISH IVY
AND HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY
Scale: NTS
WOOD STAKED BIODEGRADABLE WATTLE
1
2, 3
W4
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
COIR WATTLE
FLOW
SCALE 1:10
40'
10'5'0' 20'
KE
LS
EY
C
RE
EK
NATIVE PLANTINGS SOIL PREP
PLANTING AREA PREPARATION
STEP 1
REMOVE INVASIVE SPECIES. COMPACTED
SOILS OUTSIDE OF FORESTED AREAS
SHALL BE DE-COMPACTED TO A DEPTH OF
6". CLEARING AND GRUBBING WITHIN ANY
NATIVE PLANT ROOT ZONE SHALL BE
DONE BY HAND.
STEP 2
PLACE TWO (2) INCHES COMPOST AND
AMEND WITH DE-COMPACTED TOPSOIL
STEP 3
INSTALL WOOD STRAND MULCH 4" DEEP.
THEN PLACE BIODEGRAABLE EROSION
CONTROL BLANKET OVER THE TOP.
STEP 4
CUT "X" SLITS IN BIODEGRADABLE
EROSION CONTROL BLAKET AND INSTALL
PLANTS. SEE PLANTING PLAN SHEET W-08.
WOOD
STRAND
MULCH
DE-COMPACTED
SUBGRADE
SEQUENCE OF WORK - NOT TO SCALE
COMPOST
BIODEGRADABLE
EROSION
CONTROL
BLAKET
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4
MIN. 6"
4"
EXISTING
3"
2X MIN DIA. ROOTBALL
NOTES:
1. PLANTING PIT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN (2)
TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE ROOT BALL DIA.
2. LOOSEN SIDES AND BOTTOM OF PLANT PIT
3. REMOVE FROM POT & ROUGH-UP ROOT BALL
BEFORE INSTALLING. IF PLANT IS
EXCEPTIONALLY ROOT-BOUND OR CONTAINS
CIRCLING ROOTS, DO NOT PLANT AND RETURN
TO NURSERY FOR AN ACCEPTABLE
ALTERNATIVE. IF B&B STOCK, REMOVE ALL
TWINE/WIRE, & REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP
1/3RD OF ROOTBALL PRIOR TO PLANTING
(NOTE: CONTAINER STOCK PREFERRED)
4. SOAK PLANTING PIT AFTER PLANTING
FINISH GRADE
REMOVE DEBRIS AND LARGE ROCKS AND BACKFILL WITH NATIVE SOIL. FIRM UP SOIL AROUND PLANT
SLOW RELEASE GRANULAR FERTILIZER. APPLIED ONE YEAR AFTER INITIAL PLANTING
4" COARSE WOOD CHIP MULCH IN ALL PLANTING BEDS. HOLD BACK MULCH FROM TRUNK/STEMS
BIODEGRADABLE FABRIC
PROJECT MANAGER:
DESIGNED:
DRAFTED:
CHECKED:
SHEET SIZE:
ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34".
SCALE ACCORDINGLY.
BY
© Copyright- The Watershed Company
DA
TE
PR
IN
TE
D B
YF
IL
EN
AM
E
THEWATERSHEDCOMPANY
Science & Design
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland WA 98033
p 425.822.5242
www.watershedco.com
JOB NUMBER:
SHEET NUMBER:
SU
BM
IT
TA
LS
&
R
EV
IS
IO
NS
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
ND
AT
EN
O.
MO
RG
AN
BR
IDG
E R
EPL
AC
EM
EN
TM
IT
IG
AT
IO
N P
LA
N
PR
EP
AR
ED
F
OR
: V
IC
M
OR
GA
N
PA
RC
EL
#
: 2
47
21
00
02
0
62
4 1
31
ST
A
VE
N
E
BE
LL
EV
UE
, W
A 9
80
05
KB
LM
LM
MF
170236
16
-2
2-2
01
7R
EV
IE
W S
ET
LJM
6/2
2/2
01
7L
OG
AN
M
CC
LIS
H1
70
23
6_
KE
LS
EY
_C
RE
EK
_M
OR
GA
N_
MIT
IG
AT
IO
N.D
WG
MITIGATION PLAN DETAILS
Know what's below.before you dig.Call
R
W4 OF 7
Scale: NTS
COIR FABRIC, COIR LOG, AND STAKING DETAIL
1
LOW FLOW
OHWM
12" DIA, BIODEGRADABLE WATTLE, BURY 6" DEEP
COIR FABRIC UNDER COIR WATTLE
KEY IN FABRIC 8" MIN.
FOLD FABRIC OVER AND
STAKE THROUGH BOTH LAYERS
BIODEGRADABLE
FABRIC
BIODEGRADABLE FABRIC TO BE
STAKED WITH 18"
WOODEN STAKES 20" O.C
1"-2
"
2
0
"
STAKING PATTERN
AT BOTTOM OF BLANKET
STAKE THROUGH COIR
WATTLE AND THROUGH
FABRIC INTO SUBGRADE
PLAN
12
"
20"
12" DIA, BIODEGRADABLE WATTLE
FLOW
TOP OF SLOPE
24"
EXISTING TOE
LOGS STACKED
STREAM BED
APPROXIMATELY 85'-0"
EXISTING LAWN
EXISTING FLOWERS
AND SHRUBS (RETAIN)
STAKE COIR LOG AT 12" O.C.
USING 36" WOODEN STAKES.
EXISTING ROCK
EXISTING GRADE (APPROX.)
WASHING ROCK
4" OF MULCH
REDISTRIBUTED SOIL MIXED WITH COMPOST
SCALE AS NOTED
Scale: NTS
CONTAINER PLANTING ON SLOPE
2
110
1
1
0
102
1
0
2
104
1
0
4
106
1
0
6
1
0
8
108
112
11
4
11
6
110
110
1
0
2
1
0
4
104
106
106
108
108
1
1
2
1
1
2
114
116
110
1
1
0
102
104
104
106
106
108
1
0
8
112
112
11
4
116
110
1
1
01
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
4
104
1
0
6
106
1
0
8
108
112
1
1
4
1
1
6
PARCEL
2472100020
SINGLE
FAMILY
DWELLING
PARCEL
2472100015
PARCEL
2472100025
13
1S
T A
VE
N
E
PARCEL
3425059010
TREES
FRAXINUS LATIFOLIA / OREGON ASH
PICEA SITCHENSIS / SITKA SPRUCE
THUJA PLICATA / WESTERN REDCEDAR
SHRUBS
PHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS / PACIFIC NINEBARK
ROSA PISOCARPA / CLUSTER ROSE
RIBES SANGUINEUM / RED-FLOWERING CURRANT
HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR / OCEANSPRAY
GROUND COVER (UNDERPLANT)
FRAGARIA CHILOENSIS / COASTAL STRAWBERRY
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI / KINNIKINNICK
POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM
QTY
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
35
35
30
SPACING
AS SHOWN
ON PLAN
AS SHOWN
ON PLAN
18" O.C.
18" O.C.
18" O.C.
SIZE
2 GAL
2 GAL
2 GAL
1GAL.
1 GAL.
1 GAL.
1 GAL.
1-GAL.
1-GAL.
1-GAL.
PROJECT MANAGER:
DESIGNED:
DRAFTED:
CHECKED:
SHEET SIZE:
ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34".
SCALE ACCORDINGLY.
BY
© Copyright- The Watershed Company
DA
TE
PR
IN
TE
D B
YF
IL
EN
AM
E
THEWATERSHEDCOMPANY
Science & Design
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland WA 98033
p 425.822.5242
www.watershedco.com
JOB NUMBER:
SHEET NUMBER:
SU
BM
IT
TA
LS
&
R
EV
IS
IO
NS
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
ND
AT
EN
O.
MO
RG
AN
BR
IDG
E R
EPL
AC
EM
EN
TM
IT
IG
AT
IO
N P
LA
N
PR
EP
AR
ED
F
OR
: V
IC
M
OR
GA
N
PA
RC
EL
#
: 2
47
21
00
02
0
62
4 1
31
ST
A
VE
N
E
BE
LL
EV
UE
, W
A 9
80
05
KB
LM
LM
MF
170236
16
-2
2-2
01
7R
EV
IE
W S
ET
LJM
6/2
2/2
01
7L
OG
AN
M
CC
LIS
H1
70
23
6_
KE
LS
EY
_C
RE
EK
_M
OR
GA
N_
MIT
IG
AT
IO
N.D
WG
PLANTING PLAN
W5 OF 7
FLOW
SCALE 1:10
40'
10'5'0' 20'
PLANTING LIST
NO KINNIKINNICK
UNDER BRIDGE
KE
LS
EY
C
RE
EK
Know what's below.before you dig.Call
R
PROJECT MANAGER:
DESIGNED:
DRAFTED:
CHECKED:
SHEET SIZE:
ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34".
SCALE ACCORDINGLY.
BY
© Copyright- The Watershed Company
DA
TE
PR
IN
TE
D B
YF
IL
EN
AM
E
THEWATERSHEDCOMPANY
Science & Design
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland WA 98033
p 425.822.5242
www.watershedco.com
JOB NUMBER:
SHEET NUMBER:
SU
BM
IT
TA
LS
&
R
EV
IS
IO
NS
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
ND
AT
EN
O.
MO
RG
AN
BR
IDG
E R
EPL
AC
EM
EN
TM
IT
IG
AT
IO
N P
LA
N
PR
EP
AR
ED
F
OR
: V
IC
M
OR
GA
N
PA
RC
EL
#
: 2
47
21
00
02
0
62
4 1
31
ST
A
VE
N
E
BE
LL
EV
UE
, W
A 9
80
05
KB
LM
LM
MF
170236
16
-2
2-2
01
7R
EV
IE
W S
ET
LJM
6/2
2/2
01
7L
OG
AN
M
CC
LIS
H1
70
23
6_
KE
LS
EY
_C
RE
EK
_M
OR
GA
N_
MIT
IG
AT
IO
N.D
WG
Know what's below.before you dig.Call
R
W6 OF 7
GENERAL NOTES
QUALITY ASSURANCE
1. PLANTS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE SPECIFICATIONS OF
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS REQUIRING INSPECTION FOR
PLANT DISEASE AND INSECT CONTROL.
2. PLANTS SHALL BE HEALTHY, VIGOROUS, AND WELL-FORMED,
WITH WELL DEVELOPED, FIBROUS ROOT SYSTEMS, FREE FROM
DEAD BRANCHES OR ROOTS. PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM
DAMAGE CAUSED BY TEMPERATURE EXTREMES, LACK OR
EXCESS OF MOISTURE, INSECTS, DISEASE, AND MECHANICAL
INJURY. PLANTS IN LEAF SHALL BE WELL FOLIATED AND OF
GOOD COLOR. PLANTS SHALL BE HABITUATED TO THE OUTDOOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS INTO WHICH THEY WILL BE
PLANTED (HARDENED-OFF).
3. TREES WITH DAMAGED, CROOKED, MULTIPLE OR BROKEN
LEADERS WILL BE REJECTED. WOODY PLANTS WITH ABRASIONS
OF THE BARK OR SUN SCALD WILL BE REJECTED.
4. NOMENCLATURE: PLANT NAMES SHALL CONFORM TO FLORA OF
THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST BY HITCHCOCK AND CRONQUIST,
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PRESS, 1973 AND/OR TO A FIELD
GUIDE TO THE COMMON WETLAND PLANTS OF WESTERN
WASHINGTON & NORTHWESTERN OREGON, ED. SARAH SPEAR
COOKE, SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY, 1997.
DEFINITIONS
1. PLANTS/PLANT MATERIALS. PLANTS AND PLANT MATERIALS
SHALL INCLUDE ANY LIVE PLANT MATERIAL USED ON THE
PROJECT. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO CONTAINER
GROWN, B&B OR BAREROOT PLANTS; LIVE STAKES AND
FASCINES (WATTLES); TUBERS, CORMS, BULBS, ETC..; SPRIGS,
PLUGS, AND LINERS.
2. CONTAINER GROWN. CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS ARE THOSE
WHOSE ROOTBALLS ARE ENCLOSED IN A POT OR BAG IN WHICH
THAT PLANT GREW.
SUBSTITUTIONS
1. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN SPECIFIED
MATERIALS IN ADVANCE IF SPECIAL GROWING, MARKETING OR
OTHER ARRANGEMENTS MUST BE MADE IN ORDER TO SUPPLY
SPECIFIED MATERIALS.
2. SUBSTITUTION OF PLANT MATERIALS NOT ON THE PROJECT LIST
WILL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS AUTHORIZED IN WRITING BY
THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT.
3. IF PROOF IS SUBMITTED THAT ANY PLANT MATERIAL SPECIFIED IS
NOT OBTAINABLE, A PROPOSAL WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR USE
OF THE NEAREST EQUIVALENT SIZE OR ALTERNATIVE SPECIES,
WITH CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT OF CONTRACT PRICE.
4. SUCH PROOF WILL BE SUBSTANTIATED AND SUBMITTED IN
WRITING TO THE CONSULTANT AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO
START OF WORK UNDER THIS SECTION.
INSPECTION
1. PLANTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY
THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT FOR CONFORMANCE TO
SPECIFICATIONS, EITHER AT TIME OF DELIVERY ON-SITE OR AT
THE GROWER'S NURSERY. APPROVAL OF PLANT MATERIALS AT
ANY TIME SHALL NOT IMPAIR THE SUBSEQUENT RIGHT OF
INSPECTION AND REJECTION DURING PROGRESS OF THE WORK.
2. PLANTS INSPECTED ON SITE AND REJECTED FOR NOT MEETING
SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY FROM SITE
OR RED-TAGGED AND REMOVED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
3. THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT MAY ELECT TO INSPECT PLANT
MATERIALS AT THE PLACE OF GROWTH. AFTER INSPECTION AND
ACCEPTANCE, THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT MAY REQUIRE
THE INSPECTED PLANTS BE LABELED AND RESERVED FOR
PROJECT. SUBSTITUTION OF THESE PLANTS WITH OTHER
INDIVIDUALS, EVEN OF THE SAME SPECIES AND SIZE, IS
UNACCEPTABLE.
MEASUREMENT OF PLANTS
1. PLANTS SHALL CONFORM TO SIZES SPECIFIED UNLESS
SUBSTITUTIONS ARE MADE AS OUTLINED IN THIS CONTRACT.
2. HEIGHT AND SPREAD DIMENSIONS SPECIFIED REFER TO MAIN
BODY OF PLANT AND NOT BRANCH OR ROOT TIP TO TIP. PLANT
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MEASURED WHEN THEIR BRANCHES OR
ROOTS ARE IN THEIR NORMAL POSITION.
3. WHERE A RANGE OF SIZE IS GIVEN, NO PLANT SHALL BE LESS
THAN THE MINIMUM SIZE AND AT LEAST 50% OF THE PLANTS
SHALL BE AS LARGE AS THE MEDIAN OF THE SIZE RANGE.
(EXAMPLE: IF THE SIZE RANGE IS 12" TO 18", AT LEAST 50% OF
PLANTS MUST BE 15" TALL.).
SUBMITTALS
PROPOSED PLANT SOURCES
1. WITHIN 45 DAYS AFTER AWARD OF THE CONTRACT, SUBMIT A
COMPLETE LIST OF PLANT MATERIALS PROPOSED TO BE
PROVIDED DEMONSTRATING CONFORMANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED. INCLUDE THE NAMES AND
ADDRESSES OF ALL GROWERS AND NURSERIES.
PRODUCT CERTIFICATES
1. PLANT MATERIALS LIST - SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION TO
CONSULTANT AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF WORK
UNDER THIS SECTION THAT PLANT MATERIALS HAVE BEEN
ORDERED. ARRANGE PROCEDURE FOR INSPECTION OF PLANT
MATERIAL WITH CONSULTANT AT TIME OF SUBMISSION.
2. HAVE COPIES OF VENDOR'S OR GROWERS' INVOICES OR
PACKING SLIPS FOR ALL PLANTS ON SITE DURING INSTALLATION.
INVOICE OR PACKING SLIP SHOULD LIST SPECIES BY SCIENTIFIC
NAME, QUANTITY, AND DATE DELIVERED (AND GENETIC ORIGIN IF
THAT INFORMATION WAS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED).
DELIVERY, HANDLING, & STORAGE
NOTIFICATION
CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY CONSULTANT 48 HOURS OR MORE IN
ADVANCE OF DELIVERIES SO THAT CONSULTANT MAY ARRANGE FOR
INSPECTION.
PLANT MATERIALS
1. TRANSPORTATION - DURING SHIPPING, PLANTS SHALL BE
PACKED TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST CLIMATE EXTREMES,
BREAKAGE AND DRYING. PROPER VENTILATION AND
PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO BARK, BRANCHES, AND ROOT
SYSTEMS MUST BE ENSURED.
2. SCHEDULING AND STORAGE - PLANTS SHALL BE DELIVERED AS
CLOSE TO PLANTING AS POSSIBLE. PLANTS IN STORAGE MUST
BE PROTECTED AGAINST ANY CONDITION THAT IS DETRIMENTAL
TO THEIR CONTINUED HEALTH AND VIGOR.
3. HANDLING - PLANT MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE HANDLED BY THE
TRUNK, LIMBS, OR FOLIAGE BUT ONLY BY THE CONTAINER, BALL,
BOX, OR OTHER PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE, EXCEPT BAREROOT
PLANTS SHALL BE KEPT IN BUNDLES UNTIL PLANTING AND THEN
HANDLED CAREFULLY BY THE TRUNK OR STEM.
4. LABELS - PLANTS SHALL HAVE DURABLE, LEGIBLE LABELS
STATING CORRECT SCIENTIFIC NAME AND SIZE. TEN PERCENT
OF CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS IN INDIVIDUAL POTS SHALL BE
LABELED. PLANTS SUPPLIED IN FLATS, RACKS, BOXES, BAGS, OR
BUNDLES SHALL HAVE ONE LABEL PER GROUP.
WARRANTY
PLANT WARRANTY
PLANTS MUST BE GUARANTEED TO BE TRUE TO SCIENTIFIC NAME
AND SPECIFIED SIZE, AND TO BE HEALTHY AND CAPABLE OF
VIGOROUS GROWTH.
REPLACEMENT
1. PLANTS NOT FOUND MEETING ALL OF THE REQUIRED
CONDITIONS AT THE CONSULTANT'S DISCRETION MUST BE
REMOVED FROM SITE AND REPLACED IMMEDIATELY AT THE
CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.
2. PLANTS NOT SURVIVING AFTER ONE YEAR TO BE REPLACED AT
THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.
PLANT MATERIAL
GENERAL
1. PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH
GOOD HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES UNDER CLIMATIC
CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO OR MORE SEVERE THAN THOSE OF THE
PROJECT SITE.
2. PLANTS SHALL BE TRUE TO SPECIES AND VARIETY OR
SUBSPECIES. NO CULTIVARS OR NAMED VARIETIES SHALL BE
USED UNLESS SPECIFIED AS SUCH.
QUANTITIES
SEE PLANT LIST ON ACCOMPANYING PLANS AND PLANT SCHEDULES.
ROOT TREATMENT
1. CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS (INCLUDES PLUGS): PLANT ROOT
BALLS MUST HOLD TOGETHER WHEN THE PLANT IS REMOVED
FROM THE POT, EXCEPT THAT A SMALL AMOUNT OF LOOSE SOIL
MAY BE ON THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL.
2. PLANTS MUST NOT BE ROOT-BOUND; THERE MUST BE NO
CIRCLING ROOTS PRESENT IN ANY PLANT INSPECTED.
3. ROOTBALLS THAT HAVE CRACKED OR BROKEN WHEN REMOVED
FROM THE CONTAINER SHALL BE REJECTED.
PLANT INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS
PLANT INSTALLATION DETAILS & NOTES
SCALE AS NOTED
THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED AS MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO KELSEY CREEK ASSOCIATED WITHPROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT. THIS PROPOSAL WILL IMPACT A TOTAL OF 263 SQUARE FEET OFSTREAM AND STREAM BANK. TO OFFSET THESE CRITICAL AREA AND CRITICAL AREA BUFFER IMPACTS, ATOTAL OF 526 SQUARE FEET OF ENHANCEMENT IS PROPOSED. THIS RESULTS IN A NET ENHANCEMENTTO IMPACT RATIO OF 2:1. ENHANCEMENT OF THE DEGRADED BUFFER WILL INCLUDE REMOVAL OFNON-NATIVE AND INVASIVE SPECIES, AND THE INSTALLATION OF A NATIVE TREES, SHRUBS ANDGROUNDCOVERS.
MITIGATION AREA WORK SEQUENCE (SEE MATERIALS FOR ITEMS IN BOLD)A RESTORATION SPECIALIST SHALL MAKE SITE VISITS TO VERIFY THE FOLLOWING PROJECT MILESTONES:
1. ENSURE THAT COPIES OF ALL REQUIRED PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS FROM LOCAL ANDSTATE AGENCIES, WITH CONDITIONS, ARE PRESENT ON-SITE FOR THE DURATION OF THE WORK.
2. EQUIPMENT USED ON THIS PROJECT MUST BE IN EXCELLENT WORKING CONDITION, WELLMAINTAINED AND COMPLETELY FREE OF FLUID LEAKS OF ANY KIND.
3. BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION WORK, ESTABLISH CLEARING LIMITS AND DEFINE THE WORKAREA.
4. IDENTIFY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS, EQUIPMENT ACCESS PATHWAYS, STAGING AREAS, SILTFENCING, HIGH VISIBILITY FENCING, AND ANY AND ALL OTHER TEMPORARY EROSION ANDSEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES, GENERAL AND SITE-SPECIFIC, AS NOTED ON THE PLANSAND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS OR AS REQUIRED BY VARIOUS PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS.
5. LOCATE ANY EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA OR ALONG ACCESS ROUTES ANDRELOCATE OR PROTECT ANY THAT MAY INTERFERE WITH OR BE DAMAGED BY PROJECTIMPLEMENTATION.
6. PLACE BIODEGRADABLE FABRIC ALONG THE ENTIRE BANK, WITHOUT SPLICING OR SEAMS.7. STAKE TWO ROWS OF 12-INCH-DIAMETER BIODEGRADABLE WATTLES ALONG THE TOE OF THE
STREAMBANK FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE STREAMBANK REPAIR. THE WATTLES ARE TO BESTAKED ON TOP OF THE LAID OUT FABRIC AND WITH THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE LOWER LOGTOGETHER WITH THE LOWER EDGE OF THE FABRIC. THE WATTLES WILL SERVE AS, ANDSUBSTITUTE FOR, SILT FENCING ALONG THE WATER'S EDGE DURING THE PROCESS OFSMOOTHING THE UPPER SLOPE, PLACING AND STAKING BIODEGRADABLE FABRIC, ANDIMPLEMENTING THE NATIVE REVEGETATION PLAN
8. TEMPORARILY ROLL THE FABRIC FROM THE TOP, DOWNSLOPE, TO EXPOSE THE EARTHEN SLOPE.LEAVE THE FABRIC ROLLED UP, ON TOP OF OR UP AGAINST THE INSTALLED WATTLES.
9. REMOVE NON-NATIVE AND INVASIVE SPECIES FROM ENHANCEMENT AREA, INCLUDING ROOTS.10. USING HAND TOOLS, SHOVEL AND RAKE, SMOOTH THE STREAMBANK TO ACHIEVE AN EVEN
SLOPE TRANSITION (THE LOWEST SLOPE POSSIBLE).11. ADD 2" OF COMPOST TO SOIL AND TILL TO A DEPTH OF 6".12. ADD 4" OF MULCH.13. PLANT THROUGH THE FABRIC ON THE STREAMBANK SLOPE. SMALL HOLES ARE TO BE CUT TO
ALLOW BARE ROOT OR POTTED SPECIMENS TO BE PLANTED THROUGH THE FABRIC. DRIVE WOODSTAKES THROUGH THE FABRIC AND WATTLES ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN AND DENSITYSHOWN ON THE PLANTING PLAN (SHEET W4).
14. PROVIDE IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE ACCORDING TO THE PLANTING PLAN.15. CONDUCT SITE CLEAN-UP, TOUCH-UP, AND FINAL RAKING AND SMOOTHING OF THE PROJECT
AREA TO ACHIEVE A FINISHED, LANDSCAPED APPEARANCE.
A. NATIVE PLANT INSTALLATION SHALL OCCUR DURING THE DORMANT SEASON (OCTOBER 15THTHROUGH MARCH 1ST) IN FROST-FREE PERIODS ONLY.
B. LAYOUT PLANT MATERIAL PER PLAN FOR INSPECTION BY THE RESTORATION SPECIALIST. PLANTSUBSTITUTIONS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE RESTORATIONSPECIALIST.
C. INSTALL PLANTS PER PLANTING DETAILS
5. WATER IN EACH PLANT THOROUGHLY TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS.
6. APPLY A SLOW-RELEASE, PHOSPHOROUS-FREE, GRANULAR FERTILIZER TO EACH INSTALLED PLANTIN YEARS 2-5 AFTER PLANTING.
MAINTENANCETHE SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING SUCCESSFUL INSTALLATION.
1. REPLACE EACH PLANT FOUND DEAD IN THE SUMMER MONITORING VISITS IN THE FOLLOWINGDORMANT SEASON (OCTOBER 15 - MARCH 1). REPLACEMENT SHALL BE OF THE SAME SPECIESAND SIZE PER PLAN UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE RESTORATION SPECIALIST.
2. GENERAL WEEDING FOR ALL PLANTED AREASA. AT LEAST TWICE ANNUALLY, REMOVE COMPETING GRASSES AND WEEDS FROM AROUND THEBASE OF EACH INSTALLED PLANT TO A RADIUS OF 12 INCHES. WEEDING SHOULD OCCUR AT LEAST ONCEIN THE SPRING AND ONCE IN THE SUMMER. THOROUGH WEEDING WILL RESULT IN LOWER PLANTMORTALITY AND ASSOCIATED PLANT REPLACEMENT COSTS.B. MORE FREQUENT WEEDING MAY BE NECESSARY DEPENDING ON WEED CONDITIONS THATDEVELOP AFTER PLANT INSTALLATION.C. DO NOT USE STRING TRIMMERS IN THE VICINITY OF INSTALLED PLANTS, AS THEY MAY DAMAGEOR KILL THE PLANTS.
3. MAINTAIN A THREE-INCH-THICK LAYER OF WOODSTRAND MULCH ACROSS THE ENTIRE PLANTINGAREA. MULCH SHOULD BE PULLED BACK TWO INCHES FROM THE PLANT STEMS.
4. DURING AT LEAST THE FIRST TWO GROWING SEASONS, MAKE SURE THAT THE ENTIRE PLANTINGAREA RECEIVES A MINIMUM OF ONE INCH OF WATER PER WEEK FROM JUNE 1ST THROUGHSEPTEMBER 30TH.
GOALS1. MAINTAIN SLOPE STABILITY BY ESTABLISHING HERBACEOUS AND SHRUBBY NATIVE MATERIAL IN
THE STEEP SLOPE BUFFER AREAS (AREAS CURRENTLY DOMINATED BY IVY AND HIMALAYANBLACKBERRY).
2. ENHANCE 526 SQUARE FEET OF DEGRADED STREAM BUFFER.A. CREATE A DENSE, NATIVE, SHRUB COMMUNITY.B. REMOVE NON-NATIVE AND INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES FROM THE ENHANCEMENT AREA.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDSTHE FOLLOWING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WILL BE USED TO GAUGE THE SUCCESS OF THE PROJECTOVER TIME. IF ALL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED BY THE END OF YEAR FIVE, THEPROJECT SHALL BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE AND THE CITY OF BELLEVUE SHALL RELEASE THE
PERFORMANCE BOND.1. SURVIVAL
A. ACHIEVE 100% SURVIVAL OF ALL INSTALLED TREES AND SHRUBS BY THE END OF YEAR ONE.B. ACHIEVE 80% SURVIVAL OF ALL INSTALLED SHRUBS AND 100% SURVIVAL OF ALL INSTALLEDCONIFERS BY THE END OF YEAR TWO.C. ACHIEVE 80% SURVIVAL OF ALL INSTALLED TREES AND SHRUBS BY THE END OF YEAR FIVE.SURVIVAL STANDARDS MAY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANTED MATERIAL,RECRUITMENT OF NATIVE VOLUNTEERS, OR REPLACEMENT PLANTS AS NECESSARY.
2. DIVERSITYA. ESTABLISH AT LEAST THREE NATIVE SHRUB SPECIES IN THE ENHANCEMENT AREA BY THE END OFYEAR FIVE. ESTABLISHMENT IS DEFINED AS TWO OR MORE INDIVIDUAL PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIESALIVE AND HEALTHY.
3. COVERA. ACHIEVE 40% COVER OF NATIVE TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER BY THE END OF YEARTHREE.B. ACHIEVE 60% COVER OF NATIVE TREES, SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOVER BY THE END OF YEAR FIVE.C. NO MORE THAN 10% COVER BY INVASIVE SPECIES LISTED AS CLASS A, B, OR C BY THE KINGCOUNTYNOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD IN ANY MONITORING YEAR.
MONITORINGPRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE MONITORING PHASE, AN AS-BUILT PLAN DOCUMENTING THESUCCESSFUL INSTALLATION OF THE PROJECT WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF BELLEVUE. IFNECESSARY, THE AS-BUILT REPORT MAY INCLUDE A MARK-UP OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT NOTES ANYSIGNIFICANT CHANGES OR SUBSTITUTIONS THAT OCCURRED. DURING THE AS-BUILT INSPECTION, THERESTORATION SPECIALIST WILL ESTABLISH AT LEAST TWO PERMANENT PHOTO-POINTS. THE SITE WILLBE MONITORED ANNUALLY FOR FIVE YEARS BEGINNING WITH APPROVAL OF THE AS-BUILT REPORT. THEFORMAL LATE-SEASON MONITORING INSPECTION WILL TAKE PLACE ONCE ANNUALLY DURING LATESUMMER OR EARLY FALL. DURING EACH LATE-SEASON MONITORING INSPECTION, THE FOLLOWINGDATA WILL BE COLLECTED:
1. PERCENT SURVIVAL OF ALL INSTALLED PLANTINGS, INCLUDING SPECIES SPECIFIC COUNTS OFINSTALLED TREE AND SHRUB PLANTINGS (NOTE: GROUNDCOVER PLANTS COUNTED IN YEAR-1ONLY, FOR WARRANTY PURPOSES).
2. NATIVE WOODY COVER AS DETERMINED USING VISUAL COVER CLASS ESTIMATES.3. NATIVE GROUNDCOVER PLANT COVER AS DETERMINED USING VISUAL COVER CLASS ESTIMATES.4. ESTIMATES OF INVASIVE HERBACEOUS PLANTS OR GROUNDCOVER USING VISUAL COVER
ESTIMATES.5. THE SPECIES COMPOSITION, NOTING WHETHER A SPECIES IS NATIVE OR EXOTIC AND WHETHER
PLANTS WERE INSTALLED OR ARE VOLUNTEERS.6. THE GENERAL HEALTH AND VIGOR OF THE INSTALLED VEGETATION.7. PHOTOGRAPHS FROM FIXED PHOTO-POINTS ESTABLISHED DURING THE AS-BUILT INSPECTION.8. ANY EVIDENCE OF WILDLIFE USAGE IN THE MITIGATION AREA.
MONITORING REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED ANNUALLY TO THE CITY. REPORTS SHALL DOCUMENT THECONDITIONS OF THE SITE, INCLUDING QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTED DURING THE MONITORINGINSPECTION, AND SHALL PROVIDE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT MAY BE NECESSARY TOHELP THE SITE ACHIEVE THE STATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
CONTINGENCY PLANIF ANY MONITORING REPORT REVEALS THAT THE RESTORATION PLAN HAS FAILED IN WHOLE OR INPART, AND SHOULD THAT FAILURE BE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, THE APPLICANTWILL SUBMIT A CONTINGENCY PLAN TO THE CITY OF BELLEVUE FOR APPROVAL. THIS PLAN MAYINCLUDE REPLANTING, SOIL AMENDMENTS OR TOP-DRESSING, SUBSTITUTIONS FOR SPECIES SELECTEDIN THE ORIGINAL PLAN, AND ADAPTIVE WEED CONTROL METHODS.
MATERIALS1. WOOD STRAND MULCH: WOOD STRAND MULCH SHALL MEET WSDOT STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION FOR WOOD STRANDMULCH AS DEFINED 9-14.4(4). WOOD STRAND MULCH SHALL BE A BLEND OF ANGULAR, LOOSE,LONG, THIN WOOD PIECES THAT ARE FRAYED, WITH A HIGH LENGTH-TO-WIDTH RATION, AND ITSHALL BE DERIVED FROM NATIVE CONIFER OR DECIDUOUS TREES. A MINIMUM OF 95 PERCENTOF THE WOOD STRAND SHALL HAVE LENGTHS BETWEEN 2 AND 10 INCHES. AT LEAST 50 PERCENTOF THE LENGTH OF EACH STRAND SHALL HAVE A WIDTH AND THICKNESS BETWEEN 1/16 AND 1/2INCH. NO SINGLE STRAND SHALL HAVE A WIDTH OR THICKNESS GREATER THAN 1/2 INCH. THEMULCH SHALL NOT CONTAIN SALT, PRESERVATIVES, GLUE, RESIN, TANNIN, OR OTHERCOMPOUNDS IN QUANTITIES THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO PLANT LIFE. SAWDUST ORWOOD CHIPS OR SHAVING WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE.
2. COMPOST: 100% VEGETABLE COMPOST MATERIAL PER WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE173-350-220.
3. FERTILIZER: SLOW-RELEASE, PHOSPHOROUS-FREE GRANULAR FERTILIZER. MOST COMMERCIALNURSERIES CARRY THIS PRODUCT. FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE. KEEPFERTILIZER IN WEATHER-TIGHT CONTAINER WHILE ON-SITE. FERTILIZER IS ONLY TO BE APPLIED INYEARS TWO AND THREE, NOT IN YEAR ONE. LABEL MUST INDICATE FERTILIZER IS ANAQUATIC-SAFE PRODUCT.
4. RESTORATION SPECIALIST: QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL ABLE TO EVALUATE AND MONITOR THECONSTRUCTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.
MITIGATION PLAN NOTES
June 9, 2017
Vic Morgan
624 131st Ave NE
Bellevue, WA 98005
Via email: [email protected]
RE: Morgan Residence – Bridge Replacement
Critical Areas Land Use Permit - Narrative Description
The following narrative and criteria compliance description is provided for a proposed
bridge replacement project to satisfy the narrative description requirement for a Critical
Areas Land Use Permit (LO) for the City of Bellevue.
Description of the project site, including landscape features, existing development, and
site history as applicable.
Response: The project area is located on 131st Ave NE (parcel number
2472100020) in the City of Bellevue. The parcel is approximately 1/3 of an acre in
size and developed with a single-family residence. On the eastern side of the
parcel Kelsey Creek flows from north to south. The site is relatively flat, with the
exception of the banks of Kelsey Creek which are relatively steeply incised and
preclude pedestrian or vehicle crossing. This section of Kelsey Creek was
involved in an enhancement project around 2010 to improve fish access and
habitat and stabilize channel morphology. Consequently, the banks of Kelsey
Creek on site are armored with secured wood and riprap. A pedestrian and golf
cart bridge currently provides access from the residence over Kelsey Creek to the
adjacent golf course. The site features limited vegetation comprised primarily of
invasive English ivy. Several shrubs exist on the left bank, presumably installed
as part of the enhancement project. Two mature conifers are present; one on
either side of the stream bank. Some ornamental shrubs and small trees are
located around the periphery of the house. The site was screened for wetlands on
March 10th, 2017. No wetlands or streams (other than Kelsey Creek) were noted
on the property, nor do publicly available data indicate the presence of these
areas.
Kelsey Creek is classified as a Type F (fish-bearing) stream and eventually flows
into Mercer Slough and Lake Washington. Type F streams on sites with existing
primary structures require standard buffer widths of 50 feet and an additional
Critical Areas Land Use Permit – Narrative Description
June 2017
Page 2
structure setback of 50 feet. No additional critical areas are found on-site or in the
immediate vicinity.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
data indicates the presence of several priority species in Kelsey Creek, including
winter steelhead, sockeye, fall Chinook, coho, and resident coastal cutthroat.
Besides the species present in Kelsey Creek, PHS does not map any species
presence within a mile of the property. Species closely associated with larger
aquatic habitats (purple martin, great blue heron, osprey, and common loon) are
not expected to use the habitat on the site. No other federal or state listed species
are expected to have a close association with the habitat on site.
A description of how the design constitutes the minimum necessary impact to the
critical area.
Response: The proposed bridge was designed to minimize impacts to critical
areas to the greatest extent feasible, while providing a structurally sound and
safe bridge crossing. Minimization and avoidance measures include the
following:
The project was designed to avoid any direct impacts below the OHWM
of Kelsey Creek.
Total overwater coverage will not be increased as a result of bridge
replacement.
The project was designed to minimize potential floodplain impacts
through siting and sizing of the bridge abutments.
The proposed replacement bridge will be sited in the same location as the
existing bridge. Alternative siting would have resulted in increased
temporary impacts associated with bridge removal and construction.
Alternative siting would have also resulted in additional critical area
buffer impact; the proposed location is where the stream banks are closest
together and therefore allow the shortest crossing.
The bridge is designed only to support pedestrian and golf cart traffic, so
as to minimize the load bearing requirements of the bridge.
A description of why there is no feasible alternative with less impact to the critical
area, critical area buffer, or critical area structure setback.
Response: Alternatives to the proposed bridge replacement were investigated.
Alternatives considered include:
1) Repair and retrofit the existing bridge
2) Remove the existing bridge and construct a new bridge in a different location
3) Replace the existing bridge in the same location
Critical Areas Land Use Permit – Narrative Description
June 2017
Page 3
There are a number of complicating factors which make repairing and
retrofitting the existing bridge infeasible. The existing bridge supports have
deteriorated significantly and have required multiple repairs over the years. Due
to the deteriorated nature of the bridge, adequately repairing the existing bridge
would be difficult and expensive. Repairing the existing bridge would not reduce
permanent impact to critical areas as compared with replacing the bridge within
roughly the same footprint and configuration. Further, the existing bridge does
not provide adequate access, since there is a large step that prevents adequate
golf cart access.
Alternative locations for the proposed replacement bridge were also considered.
The existing bridge is located in the area where the stream banks are heavily
reinforced, steep and narrow. The location of the existing bridge is the preferred
location for the proposed replacement bridge because it will result in the least
amount of overwater coverage and buffer impacts. The distance between the two
stream banks elsewhere on site is wider and therefore alternative bridge
locations would result in greater impacts to critical area buffers as well as
additional costs associated with design and construction of a larger bridge.
The proposed project of replacing the existing bridge in the current location was
determined to be the preferred alternative since it serves to minimize critical area
and critical area buffer impacts and provides adequate and safe access for the
owner.
A description of alternatives considered and why the alternative selected is preferred.
Response: The alternatives considered as described above either do not provide
adequate access or result in additional critical area or critical area buffer impacts.
The selected alternative is preferred because it serves to provide adequate access
for the resident, will improve bridge function and safety, and will result in the
minimum impact to critical areas and critical area buffers on site. Further, given
the existing armoring and narrow point in the channel, the overall cost of bridge
replacement is lower than it would be elsewhere on site. Siting the replacement
bridge in the same location also avoids additional temporary impacts to
vegetation associated with removal of the existing bridge and construction of the
replacement bridge. While most of the right bank is covered with invasive
English ivy, the left bank contains some native shrubs installed as part of the
prior enhancement project that would be impacted by alternative bridge
locations.
Critical Areas Land Use Permit – Narrative Description
June 2017
Page 4
A summary of how the proposal meets each of the decision criteria contained in Land
Use Code Section 20.30P.
A. The proposal obtains all other permits required by the Land Use Code;
Response: This narrative, along with accompanying materials, is submitted for a
Critical Areas Land Use Permit (LO) to place an allowed use within a stream and
stream buffer. No other City of Bellevue land use permits are required of the
project at this time.
B. The proposal utilizes to the maximum extent possible the best available construction, design
and development techniques which result in the least impact on the critical area and critical area
buffer;
Response: The project has incorporated the best available design and
construction techniques in order to minimize impact on critical areas and critical
area buffers. The replacement bridge would be located over a portion of Kelsey
Creek that is armored on both banks by logs and riprap. All portions of the
replacement bridge would be positioned above armoring at the same
approximate elevation as the existing structure. The bridge and footings would
be located completely above the stream’s ordinary high water mark. No
permanent impacts below the ordinary high water mark would occur as a result
of the bridge replacement. Construction of the replacement bridge will not
increase permanent impacts to the stream buffer or result in additional
overwater cover. Impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent feasible by
minimizing the width of the bridge replacement. Further, standard BMPs will be
followed to minimize disturbance during construction.
C. The proposal incorporates the performance standards of Part 20.25H LUC to the maximum
extent applicable;
Response: See below for stream critical area (per LUC 20.25H.080.A)
performance standard compliance.
D. The proposal will be served by adequate public facilities including streets, fire protection,
and utilities;
Response: The existing site is served by adequate public facilities. No increase in
demand for public services will result from the proposed bridge replacement
project.
E. The proposal includes a mitigation or restoration plan consistent with the requirements of
LUC 20.25H.210; except that a proposal to modify or remove vegetation pursuant to an approved
Critical Areas Land Use Permit – Narrative Description
June 2017
Page 5
Vegetation Management Plan under LUC 20.25H.055.C.3.i shall not require a mitigation or
restoration plan;
Response: A mitigation plan has been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of LUC 20.25H.210. The plan (Morgan Bridge Mitigation. The
Watershed Company. June 2017) is submitted concurrent with this narrative
description.
F. The proposal complies with other applicable requirements of this code.
Response: The proposed project complies with all other applicable City of
Bellevue Land Use Codes.
A summary of how the proposal meets each of the criteria and performance standards
contained in Land Use Code Section 20.25H associated with the critical area you are
modifying.
Response: Repair and maintenance of bridges within stream critical areas are
allowed pursuant to LUC 20.25H.055.B, so long as compliance with LUC
20.25H.055.C.1 and LUC 20.25H.080.A is demonstrated. A discussion of
compliance with these sections is presented below.
20.025H.055.C.1 Performance Standards.
Repair and Maintenance and/or Construction Staging.
a. Work shall be consistent with all applicable City of Bellevue codes and standards;
Response: The proposed construction work and staging will be consistent with
all applicable City of Bellevue codes and standards.
b. Removal of significant trees is prohibited;
Response: No significant trees are proposed for removal as part of this project.
c. Areas of temporary disturbance associated with the work shall be restored to pre-project
conditions, pursuant to a restoration plan meeting the requirements of LUC 20.25H.210.
Response: All areas of temporary disturbance associated with the project will be
restored to pre-project conditions.
20.25H.080.A Performance Standards.
Development on sites with a type S or F stream or associated critical area buffer shall incorporate
the following performance standards in design of the development, as applicable:
1. Lights shall be directed away from the stream.
Critical Areas Land Use Permit – Narrative Description
June 2017
Page 6
Response: No lights are proposed on the replacement bridge.
2. Activity that generates noise such as parking lots, generators, and residential uses shall
be located away from the stream or any noise shall be minimized through use of design
and insulation techniques.
Response: The bridge replacement project will not result in the generation of
additional on-site noise.
3. Toxic runoff from new impervious area shall be routed away from the stream.
Response: The replacement bridge will be constructed of impervious materials.
However, the new bridge is not expected to result in an increase in toxic runoff
to the stream. Additionally, the project proposes installation of 526 square feet of
native plantings adjacent to the stream to improve habitat and help filter
pollutants from on-site runoff, thereby resulting in a net increase of on-site water
quality functions.
4. Treated water may be allowed to enter the stream critical area buffer.
Response: No change in on-site runoff patterns or drainage facilities is
proposed. However, new native plantings adjacent to the stream will help to
filter pollutants and infiltrate stormwater prior to it reaching the stream.
5. The outer edge of the stream critical area buffer shall be planted with dense vegetation to
limit pet or human use.
Response: A degraded portion of the critical area buffer that is 526 square feet in
size will be planted with native species. The plantings are intended to mitigate
for temporary and permanent impacts associated with bridge replacement.
Native species include Oregon Ash, Sitka spruce, western red cedar, pacific
ninebark, cluster rose, red-flowering currant, oceanspray, coastal strawberry,
kinnikinnick and sword fern.
6. Use of pesticides, insecticides and fertilizers within 150 feet of the edge of the stream
critical area buffer shall be in accordance with the City of Bellevue’s “Environmental Best
Management Practices,” now or as hereafter amended.
Response: The applicant will cooperate with the City’s program to manage
invasive species along this reach of stream as part of the Kelsey Creek Fish
Passage and Stream Channel Improvements at Glendale Country Club project.