Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWWP273549 (12)Ca r♦. 114011 Engineers... Working Wonders With Water " CITY OF RENTON WATER LIFT STATION PRE -DESIGN iTON SEWER ROUTE ANALYSIS FINAL March 2010 EXPIRES 1 0-25-- 1218 THIRD AVENUE • SUITE 1600 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3032 • (206) 684-6532 • FAX (206) 903-0419 px:lloco-pw-app:CardblDoaments\ClientlWAlRenon16235X0ODeUmabl" Rpt - East Rerdon doc CITY OF RENTON 2009 WASTEWATER LIFT STATION PRE -DESIGN EAST RENTON ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS TABLE. OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND.........................................................................................................1 3.0 GRAVITY SEWER ROUTE ALTERNATIVES............................................................1 3.1 Gravity Sewer Route Alternatives Summary .................................................... 4 3.1.1 Alternative 1......................................................................................4 3.1.2 Alternative 2......................................................................................5 3.1.3 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 Common Pipeline .............................7 3.1.4 Constructability and Phasing.............................................................7 4.0 PERMITTING AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ............................................. 7 5.0 COST ANALYSIS...................................................................................................... 9 5.1 Total Project Cost.......................................................................................... 10 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................10 7.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................12 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A East Renton Lift Station Wetland, Stream, and Wildlife Study (ESA Adolfson June 2009) APPENDIX B Draft Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (HWA GeoSciences Inc. July 10, 2009) APPENDIX C Revised — East Renton Lift Station — Permitting Requirements (ESA Adolfson December 7, 2009) APPENDIX D Cost Analysis Spreadsheets LIST OF TABLES Table 1 East Renton Lift Station — Environmental Permit Matrix..................................8 Table 2 Total Project Cost Summaries (2010 Dollars)...............................................11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Gravity Sewer Route Alternatives Overview ................... Figure 2 Gravity Sewer Route Alternatives .................................. March 4, 2010 - FINAL pw lloco-pw-app:CarolloOmumentslGienflWAlRenton18235X001DeliverableslRpt - East Renton.doc .......... 2 .......... 3 City of Renton EAST RENTON SEWER ROUTE ANALYSIS 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this sewer route analysis is to determine if the Maplewood Estates Sanitary Sewer (East Renton) Lift Station may be abandoned and replaced with a new gravity sewer pipeline that will connect to the Briar Hills Division No. 4 sewer system. Two gravity sewer route alternatives have been evaluated to determine the most cost effective and low impact alternative. 2.0 BACKGROUND The East Renton Lift Station is just under 10 years old. The lift station serves to pump sewage from nearby residential neighborhoods (Maplewood Estates, Parkside Court, Shy Creek, Liberty Ridge, and others for a service area of approximately 430 acres) to the gravity sewer system located near N.E. 4th Street. The City of Renton (City) prefers to serve customers via a gravity sewer pipeline, rather than a lift station whenever feasible. A gravity system eliminates electricity costs for pumping and equipment maintenance, which greatly reduces annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs. Based on survey data, conversion to a gravity system is possible at this location by crossing through an undeveloped portion of Maplewood Park (the Park) and connecting to the Briar Hills Division No. 4 sewer system to the south. Alternatives for a gravity sewer are discussed in this analysis. The current land use authority associated with permitting and regulatory requirements for the proposed project is King County. However, the Park may be annexed from King County to the City some time in the future, thus regulatory permit requirements and mitigation costs are discussed and compared depending on whether the Park is within unincorporated King County or annexed to the City. 3.0 GRAVITY SEWER ROUTE ALTERNATIVES Two gravity sewer alignments are presented in this section. The sewer route alignments are presented as Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. An overview of the Park and the proposed alignment of each sewer route is depicted in Figure 1. A detailed alignment of each sewer route identifying construction and installation issues is presented in Figure 2. The final section of sewer pipeline located in Briar Hills Division No. 4 is common to both alternatives and is discussed collectively in this section. Constructability and phasing of the new pipeline is also discussed at the end of this section. Refer to Appendix A for wetland, stream, and other regulatory requirements discussed for each alternative. The two alternatives are summarized below. March 4, 2010 - FINAL pw.11oco-pw-app:CarollolDocumentslGienAWAlRenton18235X001DeliverableslRpt - East Renton.doc Maplewood I � Park Parkside Court rrr- m NE2nd'Ct Maplewood Estates IL ` IMMA SE 139th PI WMA ,E 110th St > 1 � m � > m r' � SE 110th St Legend 17-71 Maplewood Park Flow Arrow U Maplewood Estates Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Wetlands Alternative 1 • Existing Manhole Streams Alternative 2 S;F Oi kI SE 13ath'PI rn Briar Hills Division No. 4 �. a e SE 139th PI W hfton Maplewood Park rta Renton 1 � Figure 1 GRAVITY SEWER ROUTE ALTERNATIVES OVERVIEW 2009 WASTEWATER LIFT STATION PRE -DESIGN Feet CITY OF RENTON 0 225 450 TH I aaVu E)QSTiNG LIFT STATION • ALBASED (Typ 1 ON DRIP LINE ALTERNATIVE 1 rPO-70771 GAS LINE • • NOTES: Hr T41 L IT'•'MOk 11 INT #. ;LETS Of E,310� �l 14,tH N; ., , T IEET 1'; 14 1 rH I L L I[ �L I T­E H W; F 1'. T I ILT .'TE THE L r. TI I N .,r f TI j L JET jj Hp.,E, !�A E FILL' , E.- .'A71 LN 1 4 ',Ll THFk­4 r. I IT 1 •1411, 1111 T1LI 1Hr.. F - J "DJ f_ •F 1_10IT 1, I.E.1 T- 44 .1-11 E T THE ­', S - V•417 E TI C LEGM • • WULOW TREES ASSUMED TO REQUIRE REMOVAL SWAM ALTERNATIVE I DIRECTION OF FLOW ALTERNATIVE 2 DIRECTION OF FLOW ALTERNATIVE 2 L. • CURVE RADIUS > 363 FEE • ADDITIONAL SURVEY REQUIRED INETLANO C WETLAND A CONTINUES EAST. OUTSIDE OF SURVEY BOUNDARY ETTlGL AA NTT ID IEOU,RO0D . DRAIN BOTH ALTERNATIVES) IAPPROXIMATE SCALE = 100 FEE>j C SPw—woddtV*oiectvA"Isw4th%&m763O2%FMlRE I & 2 7-24-M 08.Mw J&nkh XREFS: MAPLEWOOD PARK BOUNDARY Figure 2 GRAVITY SEWER ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 2009 WASTEWATER LIFT STATION PRE -DESIGN CITY OF RENTON 4la-calofir Engineers Waking Wonders MIT Water I 3.1 Gravity Sewer Route Alternatives Summary 3.1.1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 includes a sewer pipeline routed west from existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole (SSMH) 5314 080 (080) to existing SSMH 5314 079 (079) and then south through the Park to existing SSMH 5314 086 (086), located at the north end of 148th Place S.E. in Briar Hills Division No. 4. The pipeline is assumed to be polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. High -density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe will be analyzed as a potential pipe material during pre -design. The gravity sewer is estimated to include approximately 80 feet of 10-inch diameter (inside diameter) piping and 950 feet of 15-inch diameter (inside diameter) piping (includes piping in 148th Place S.E.). The first approximate 80 feet of 10-inch diameter piping will be installed such that the flow path direction between SSMH's 080 and 079 is reversed from the existing configuration. To change the flow path direction from the existing configuration, SSMH 080 will require approximately 15 feet of concrete fill, which will equal the approximate invert elevation of the existing 10-inch diameter influent sewer line from the east. SSMH 079 will require approximately 14 feet of concrete fill, which will equal the approximate invert elevation of the existing 12-inch diameter influent sewer line from the west. The existing 12-inch diameter sewer line that currently connects SSMH 079 to SSMH 080 is assumed to be plugged and abandoned in place as its depth does not necessitate removal for installation of the new sewer line above. Based on geologic mapping, site observations, and nearby exploration work, the entire area is underlain by Vashon glacial till which is typically a very dense to hard soil. This is an ideal material to excavate open trenches for sewer installation (refer to Appendix B). Cut depths for this section of pipe are estimated to be 12 feet deep. The pipeline could be installed by dragging trench boxes for trench support. Temporary fence removal will be required for installation of this section of pipeline. From SSMH 079, approximately 780 feet of 15-inch diameter pipe will be routed south through the Park to existing SSMH 086. Installation of this section of pipe is anticipated to include the following: • Temporary diversion of a stream. • Wetland and stream mitigation. • Clearing, grubbing, and tree removal of an estimated 20-foot wide path. • Gas, storm drain, and water line crossing. • Overhead utility line/pole and underground telephone line crossing and/or relocation. • Average open cut trench depth equal 10 feet. March 4, 2010 - FINAL 4 pw:lloco-pw-app:Caroilo1DocumentslGienflWAlRenton18235X00\Deliverables\Rpt - East Renton.doc Native material trench backfill. Trench box for trench support. In this alternative, the pipeline will immediately cross beneath an existing 30-inch diameter storm drain and along side an existing water line and isolation water valve. In the next 50 feet, the pipeline will parallel and potentially cross an existing underground telephone line. Relocation of the telephone line may be required. The pipeline will then cross beneath an existing power/utility pole. Permanent or temporary relocation of the power pole may be required. The utility crossings in this section of pipeline are not anticipated to pose any major conflicts. Approximately 100 feet downstream of SSMH 079, the pipeline will require crossing beneath a small stream running through the Park. Mitigation will be required for this section of pipe. The pipeline is assumed to be longitudinally bent for the last approximate 400 feet. A minimum bend radius of 363 feet (250 times outside pipe diameter) is recommended. To eliminate potential for infiltration, the pipeline is assumed to use fusible technology to connect piping segments. In this section of alignment, the pipeline will parallel an existing overhead utility line and will cross beneath an existing 2-inch diameter polyethylene gas line. The gas line follows an S-shaped path through the Park paralleling a King County owned 30-foot wide tract designated as "open space." The gas line is anticipated to be buried at minimum 3-foot depth and will likely not cause major installation conflicts. This will be confirmed during pre -design. The utility lines and poles may require permanent or temporary relocation. The pipeline is also routed within close proximity to Wetlands B, C, and D. Mitigation for wetland buffer crossing is anticipated to be required. Before connecting to the existing manhole at the south end of the Park, the pipeline will cross under the 2-inch diameter gas line up to three more times (based on current survey by PACE Engineers) and an existing 30-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe storm drain. Pipeline clearance under the existing storm drain is estimated to be only 1.4 feet based on current survey. Precautions shall be taken for each crossing. The pipeline will connect to the existing manhole at an approximate invert elevation of 367.6 feet. The sewer pipeline is routed within approximately 35 feet of the existing stream near the connection with the existing manhole. Mitigation is anticipated to be required for crossing of the stream buffer. Tree removal will be required along the entire alignment of Alternative 1. If this alternative is selected for pre -design, additional survey to the west may be required to depict topography not shown on the current survey. 3.1.2 Alternative 2 Alterative 2 includes a sewer pipeline routed east from existing SSMH 079 to existing SSMH 080 and then south through the Park to existing SSMH 086, located at the north end March 4, 2010 - FINAL 5 pw:lloco-pw-app:Carollo\Documents\ClientlWAlRenton18235XO(hDeliverables\Rpt - East Renton.doc of 148th Place S.E. in Briar Hills Division No. 4. The pipeline is assumed to be fusible PVC sewer pipe. The gravity sewer pipeline is estimated to include approximately 80 feet of 12- inch diameter piping (inside diameter) and 1,030 feet of 15-inch diameter (inside diameter) piping (includes piping in 148th Place S.E.). The first approximately 80 feet of 12-inch diameter piping will be installed above the existing 12-inch diameter sewer line running from SSMH 079 to SSMH 080. The purpose of relaying this pipeline at a shallower elevation is to reduce cut depths for the pipeline through the Park. SSMH 079 will require approximately 14 feet of concrete fill, which will equal the approximate invert elevation of the existing 12-inch diameter influent sewer line from the west. SSMH 080 will require approximately 12 feet of concrete fill, which will equal the approximate invert elevation of the new 16-inch diameter pipeline as this new pipeline is anticipated to be core drilled beneath the existing 10-inch diameter influent sewer line from the east. The existing sewer line that currently connects SSMH 079 to SSMH 080 is assumed to be plugged and abandoned in place similar to described in Alternative 1. Installation of this section of pipeline will be similar to Alternative 1. From SSMH 080, approximately 860 feet of 15-inch diameter pipeline will be routed south through the Park to existing SSMH 086. Installation of this section of pipe is anticipated to include the following: • Wetland and stream mitigation. • Clearing, grubbing, and tree removal of an estimated 20-foot wide path. • Water line crossing. • Average open cut trench depth equal 9 feet. • Native material trench backfill. • Trench box for trench support. The sewer pipeline will cross under a water line approximately 50 feet from SSMH 080. The water line shall be potholed prior to pipeline installation. It is not anticipated that relocation of the water line will be required. The pipeline is assumed to follow an arced path for the majority of the alignment at a minimum bend radius of 363 feet (see discussion for Alternative 1). The pipeline is also routed within close proximity to Wetlands B, E, F, and G and the stream. Mitigation for wetland and stream buffer crossing may be required. Near the south end of the Park and the end of the alignment, the pipeline will be routed through Wetland A. It is assumed that the pipeline cannot be economically routed around Wetland A, as ESA Adolfson (ESA) has confirmed that the wetland extends further east. March 4, 2010 - FINAL 6 pw:lloco-pw-app:Carollo\DocumentslGienBWA\Renton18235X001Deliverables\Rpt - East Renton.doc Additional survey should be conducted if this alternative would like to be pursued by the City. Mitigation for work within Wetland A will be required. The pipeline will connect to an existing manhole at the south end of the Park at an approximate invert elevation of 367.6 feet. The pipeline is routed within approximately 50 feet of the existing stream near the connection with the existing manhole. Mitigation is anticipated to be required for crossing of the stream buffer. Tree removal will be required along the entire alignment of Alternative 2. If this alternative is selected for pre -design, additional survey to the east will be required to depict topography not shown on the current survey. 3.1.3 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 Common Pipeline The final approximate 170 feet of 15-inch diameter sewer pipeline is common to both alignment alternatives. The existing 8-inch diameter PVC gravity sewer pipe located in 148th Place S.E. between SSMH 086 and SSMH 5314 090 will require upsizing to accommodate additional flows. It is assumed that the existing pipeline will be excavated via open cut trenching methods and replaced with new 15-inch diameter PVC gravity sewer pipe. Trench depths are estimated to be 10 feet deep and the pipeline could be installed by dragging trench boxes for trench support. Fence removal and replacement for access and pipeline installation will be required at the north end of 148th Place Southeast. 3.1.4 Constructability and Phasing Both alternatives present different construction complexities; however, the construction equipment and methods utilized are straight forward. Access to the north end of the Park is from a gravel road off S.E. 2nd Court in Maplewood Estates, while access to the south can be provided via 148th Place S.E. in Briar Hills Division No. 4. For both alternatives, the entire pipeline to can be constructed and connected to the existing manholes while the pump station remains in service. During the concrete fill of SSMH's 079 and 080, bypass pumping from an upstream manhole to the lift station or new gravity pipeline will be required. 4.0 PERMITTING AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Permitting will be required for both alternatives as construction of the new pipeline involves work within and near wetlands and streams; however, in some cases, King County's regulations are more restrictive than the City's. See Table 1 below for a summary of each jurisdiction's regulations. Regulatory requirements from other agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps], Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology], and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]) also regulate alteration of streams and wetlands. These other requirements remain similar under either King County or City ownership of the site. Refer to Appendices A and C for detailed permitting and regulatory requirements. March 4, 2010 - FINAL 7 pw:Uoco-pw-app:Carollo\DocumentslClienAWA\Renton18235X0i)IDeliverables\Rpt - East Remon.doc Table 1 East Renton Lift Station — Environmental Permit Matrix 2009 Wastewater Lift Station, Pre -Design City of Renton City of Renton King County Code Section: Code Section: RMC 4-3-050(L) - streams KCC 21A.24.355, 358 - streams RMC 4-3-050(M) — wetlands KCC 21A.24.318, 325, 340 —wetlands RMC 4-4-130 — tree removal KCC 16.82 — tree removal Wetland Classification: Category 3 Wetland Classification: Category 2 Wetland Buffers: 25 feet Wetland Buffers: 125 feet Stream Classification: Stream Classification: Class 3 (main channel) Type F (main channel) Class 4 (tributary) Type N (tributary) Stream Buffers: Stream Buffers: 75 feet (Class 3) 115 feet (Type F) 35 feet (Class 4) 65 feet (Type N) Type of Permit: Type of Permit: • Variance for reduction of standard • If project meets all the requirements of KCC buffers, wetland/stream impacts, 21A.24.045 (alteration conditions for new tree removal in critical areas. utility corridors), it will be processed through • SEPA review. a Clearing and Grading Permit. • Clearing and grading permit • SEPA and critical areas review would occur (obtained following land use as part of the Clearing and Grading Permit approvals). application. • If project does not meet all the above criteria, then a Critical Areas Linear Alteration Exception would be required. Submittal Requirements: Submittal Requirements: • Pre -application meeting • Pre -application meeting • Variance form • Certification and applicant status form • Title report • Affidavit of application • Land Use permit master form • Clearing and Grading Permit application • Project narrative worksheet • Justification for variance request • Fee worksheet • Neighborhood detail map • Site plans • Site plan • Legal description • Flood hazard data • Grading plan • Utilities plan • Erosion control in accordance with King • Geotech report County Surface Water Design Manual • Grading plan • Plan to retain soil moisture capacity • SEPA Checklist • SEPA Checklist • Critical Areas Study • Geotechnical Study • Critical Areas Mitigation Plan • Critical Areas Study • Tree Protection and Replacement • Mitigation Plan Plan March 4, 2010 - FINAL pw:lloco-pw-app:CarollolDocuments\ClienAWAlRenton18235XOMeliverableslRpt - East Renton.doc Table 1 East Renton Lift Station — Environmental Permit Matrix 2009 Wastewater Lift Station Pre -Design City of Renton City of Renton King County Wetland Mitigation Ratios: Wetland Mitigation Ratios: • Restoration or creation - 1.5:1 • Creation - 3:1 • Combination - 1:1 restoration or • Combination - 1:1 creation plus 4:1 creation plus 1:1 enhancement enhancement • Enhancement only — not typically • Rehabilitation - 8:1 allowed • Enhancement only - 12: 1 Buffer Mitigation: Buffer Mitigation: e Restore disturbed buffer with • Restore disturbed buffers with native native vegetation. vegetation. • Provide an additional area of compensatory buffer mitigation (1.5:1 mitigation ratio assumed; see Table 4). Review Timeline: Review Timeline: • Minimum 12 weeks (approximately Minimum 90 days (approximately 3 months) three months) following receipt of following receipt of complete application. complete application. Notes: 1 Table provided by ESA. Refer to Table 1 in Appendix C. Permitting and mitigation construction costs are difficult to estimate. However, it is anticipated that King County will have higher permitting costs than the City due to the larger critical area impacts. Permitting costs are not included in the Cost Analysis portion of this report as ESA indicates that the exact costs for permit application and review are difficult to determine at this stage of the project. Mitigation construction costs would be generally higher under King County ownership due to the result of larger stream and wetland buffers. Mitigation construction costs for each alternative are summarized in the following section of this report. Refer to Appendix C for an in depth comparison of estimated permitting and mitigation costs between the two alternatives. As discussed above, King County would require significantly more mitigation for wetland impacts than the City, so the determination of the Park being incorporated into the City is needed to confirm the area of mitigation required. For both jurisdictions, it is estimated that Alternative 2 will have higher permitting and mitigation costs than Alternative 1 due to direct wetland impacts. 5.0 COST ANALYSIS The cost analysis for the sewer route alternatives includes total estimated construction, mitigation, and project cost (expected accuracy range of +50 percent to -30 percent). The costs for each alternative are presented for King County and City ownership. See Appendix D for detailed cost estimate spreadsheets. March 4, 2010 - FINAL 9 pw:lloco-pw-app:CarollolDocumentslCiienhWAlRenton\8235X001DeliverableslRpt - East Renton.doc 5.1 Total Project Cost The construction costs for each alternative were calculated assuming the following: • Contingency = 30 percent. • Contractor overhead, profit, and risk = 10 percent. • Sales Tax = 9.5 percent. • General conditions = 15 percent. The total project cost includes an additional 30 percent of the sum of the construction and mitigation cost to account for all allied costs (i.e. construction and engineering). The total project cost for each alternative is shown in Table 2. The total project cost range for Alternatives 1 and 2 under King County ownership is $710,000 to $730,000 and $750,000 to $820,000, respectively. The total project cost range for Alternatives 1 and 2 under City ownership is $600,000 to $610,000 and $600,000 to $640,000, respectively. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the investigations performed in this analysis, Alternative 1 is recommended for implementation to replace the East Renton Lift Station. Alternative 1 is preferred to Alternative 2 for the following reasons: • Total project cost • Less impacts to wetlands • Less uncertainty in mitigation costs A gravity sewer pipeline will reduce 0&M costs, simplify maintenance operations, require less upgrades in the future, and be less vulnerable to failure due to lack of mechanical and electrical equipment. It is recommended that the City select Alternative 1 for pre -design. March 4, 2010 - FINAL 10 pw..kWoo-pw-app:CarollolDocuments%ClientlWA\Renton%235X001DeliverableslRpt - East Renton.doc v F3 A N 0 0 Table 2 Total Project Cost Summaries (2010 Dollars) 2009 Wastewater Lift Station Pre -Design City of Renton King County City of Renton Estimated Costs Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Construction(') $400,000 $390,000 $400,000 $390,000 Mitigation (2) $142,000 - $155,000 $182,000 - $240,000 $54,000 - $64,000 $69,000 - $98,000 Allied (30 percent) $163,000 - $167,000 $172,000 - $189,000 $137,000 - $140,000 $138,000 - $147,000 Total Project Cost(1,3) $710,000 $730,00 $750,000 ( $820,000) $600,000 - $610,000 $600,000 - $640,000 11 Notes: ~'•--� (1) Rounded up to nearest ten thousand dollars. (2) Per Tables 5a and 5b of "Revised — East Renton Lift Station — Permitting Requirements" (ESA Adolfson December 7, 2009). Attached as Appendix C to this memorandum. Costs for each "Item" rounded up to nearest thousand dollars. (3) Permitting costs not included. Refer to Table 3 in Appendix C for estimation of permitting costs. 7.0 REFERENCES Carollo Engineers. January 2009. City of Renton Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan, Planning Considerations and Design Criteria, Review Draft. City of Renton. 2008. Renton Municipal Code. Title IV Development Regulations, Chapter 6 Street and Utility Standards. ESA Adolfson. June 2009. East Renton Lift Station Wetland, Stream, and Wildlife Study. ESA Adolfson. December 7, 2009. Revised — East Renton Lift Station — Permitting Requirements. HWA Geosciences Inc. July 10, 2009. Draft Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Task 3. East Renton Lift Station, Renton, Washington. Underground Solutions. 2009. Fusible PVCTm Pipe Systems. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). Washington State Department of Ecology. August 2008. Criteria for Sewage Works Design. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2009. Environmental Permit Handbook. March 4, 2010 - FINAL 12 pw:\loco-pw-app:CarollolDocumentslClienhWAlRenton\8235XOO\Deliverables\Rpt - East Renton.doc x1 A P I APPENDIX A EAST RENTON LIFT STATION WETLAND, STREAM, AND WILDLIFE STUDY (ESA ADOLFSON JUNE 2009) - `•K'�.>.r 'fit �' East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study SUMMARY At the request of Carollo Engineers and the City of Renton, ESA Adolfson prepared this technical report for the East Renton Lift Station project located in Maplewood Park in King County, Washington. The project is to install a new sewer pipe to convey wastewater from an existing pump station located just north of the park to an existing sewer main located south of the park. The pipe would cross the central part of Maplewood Park. The Scope of Work for this report included delineating wetlands and streams, assessing wetland functions, and documenting wildlife habitat in the study area. The study area for this project is located in Maplewood Park in unincorporated King County, adjacent to the city limits of Renton. Maplewood Park is an approximately 45-acre King County park that is surrounded by residential developments. The study area for this project is a north - south corridor approximately 300 feet wide located in the central, undeveloped portion of the park. The corridor connects an existing City of Renton pump station located just north of the park to an existing sewer line within 148`h Place SE south of the park. The study area contains a mixed conifer -deciduous forest crossed by unpaved foot trails. The forest was historically logged and the trees are relatively young. The site contains evidence of other past disturbance including an old concrete building foundation. An overhead power line runs along the western edge of the study area, and a buried gas line also extends north to south through the study corridor. Seven palustrine forested wetlands (designated Wetlands A through G) and two streams were identified within the study area boundaries. The wetlands and the onsite streams are hydrologically connected. Surface water flows across the site from north to south. Most of the wetlands are located directly adjacent to or near the on -site streams and receive overbank flows as well as groundwater. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regulate alteration of streams or wetlands in the study area. Critical areas regulations of the City of Renton and/or King County also apply and are summarized in the table below. The critical area classifications and buffers listed in the table are subject to verification and approval by the regulatory agencies. All of the regulatory agencies require applicants to avoid and minimize wetland, stream, and buffer impacts. When permanent impacts are unavoidable, mitigation is required. ESA Adolfson page i June 2009 East Renton Lift Stalion - Welland, Stream and Wildlife Study Summary of Renton and King County Stream and Wetland Requirements City of Renton King County Aquatic Classification Buffers Wetland Classification Buffers Wetland Resource Mitigation Mitigation Ratios * Ratios Main Stream Class 3 75 feet n/a Type F 115 feet n/a Tributary Class 4 35 feet n/a Type N 65 feet n/a Wetlands A - Category 3 25 feet 1.5:1 C Category II 125 feet 3:1 C G Or Or 1:1 C plus 1:1 C plus 1:1 E 4:1 E * Wetland mitigation types: C = wetland creation; E = wetland enhancement. These types of wetland mitigation are commonly used. Other types of wetland mitigation are possible, and ratios for these are listed in the city and county codes and described in the report text. The City and County codes contain specific requirements for utility crossings of critical areas; for example, construction methods and timing, location of the utility relative to aquatic resources, prevention of adverse impacts to stream channels or hydrology, tree removal. Both local jurisdictions regulate grading and vegetation clearing, particularly within critical areas and their buffers. The City of Renton prohibits tree removal and land clearing within wetlands, streams, and buffers unless the proposed activity is exempt from critical area requirements, or through a variance process. King County requires a permit for clearing or grading within wetlands, aquatic areas, and their buffers. page ii ESA Adolfsoit June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Studv CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF WORK.......................................................1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................... I 3.0 WETLAND DEFINITION AND REGULATIONS....................................................................1 4.0 METHODS..................................................................................................................................... 2 4.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION.....................................................................................................2 4.2 ON -SITE INVESTIGATION.......................................................................................................................2 4.2.1 Determining the Presence of Wetlands and Delineating Welland Boundaries .....................2 4.2.2 Classifying Wetlands............................................................................................................. 3 4.2.3 Assessing Wetland Functions................................................................................................ 3 5.0 FINDINGS......................................................................................................................................4 5.1 EXISTING INFORMATION.......................................................................................................................4 5.1.1 Soils.......................................................................................................................................4 5.1.2 Streams and Fish...................................................................................................................4 5.1.3 Wetlands................................................................................................................................ 4 5.1.4 Wildlife.................................................................................................................................. 4 5.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION..........................................................................................................................4 5.2.1 Wetland A.............................................................................................................................. 6 5.2.2 Wetland B.............................................................................................................................. 6 5.2.3 Wetland C.............................................................................................................................. 7 5.2.4 Wetland D.............................................................................................................................. 7 5.2.5 Wetland E..............................................................................................................................8 5.2.6 Wetland F..............................................................................................................................9 5.2.7 Wetland G.............................................................................................................................. 9 5.2.8 Wetland Functions...............................................................................................................10 5.3 STREAMS AND OTHER AQUATIC FEATURES........................................................................................ 11 5.4 UPLAND DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................................ 11 5.5 WILDLIFE............................................................................................................................................12 6.0 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS............................................................................................12 6.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS..................................................................................................................... 12 6.2 STATE REGULATIONS......................................................................................................................... 13 6.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS.........................................................................................................................13 6.3.1 City ofRenton......................................................................................................................13 6.3.2 King County .........................................................................................................................15 7.0 LIMITATIONS...............................................................................................................:............17 8.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................17 9.0 GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................................20 FIGURESAND PHOTOGRAPHS...........................................................................................................1 APPENDIX A: METHODS USED TO EVALUATE WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS .................1 APPENDIX B: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND THEIR WETLAND INDICATORSTATUS............................................................................................................................... I APPENDIX C: WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND RATING SYSTEM AND RATING FORMS 1 APPENDIX D: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEETS......................................................1 ESA Adolfson page June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study LIST OF FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map 2 NRCS Soils 3 NWI and King County Wetland Mapping 4 Wetland Survey page iv ESA Adolfson Jame 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study 1.0 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF WORK At the request of Carollo Engineers and the City of Renton, ESA Adolfson prepared this technical report for the East Renton Lift Station project located in Maplewood Park in King County, Washington. The project is to install a new sewer pipe to convey wastewater from an existing pump station located just north of the park to an existing sewer main located south of the park. The pipe would cross the central part of Maplewood Park. The Scope of Work for this project included delineating wetlands and streams, assessing wetland functions, and documenting wildlife habitat in the study area. A brief discussion of regulatory implications and permitting considerations is also included in this report. An analysis of potential impacts to streams or wetlands and the development of a mitigation plan were not included in this Scope of Work. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The study area for this project is located in Maplewood Park in unincorporated King County, adjacent to the city limits of Renton (Figure 1). The park is located on a plateau on the north side of the Cedar River valley, within Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 8) — Cedar/Sammamish River drainage. Maplewood Park is an approximately 45-acre King County park that is surrounded by residential developments. Maplewood Heights Elementary School lies adjacent to the northwest side of the park. Developed recreation facilities including picnic areas and playfields are located in the southwest portion of the park. The study area for this project is a north -south corridor approximately 300 feet wide located in the central, undeveloped portion of the park. The corridor connects an existing City of Renton pump station located just north of the park to an existing sewer line within 148`b Place SE south of the park. The limits of the study area corridor were established during a site meeting attended by ESA Adolfson, Carollo Engineers, and PACE Engineers staff in April 2009. The study area contains a mixed conifer -deciduous forest crossed by unpaved foot trails. The forest was historically logged and the trees are relatively young. The site contains evidence of other past disturbance including an old concrete building foundation. An overhead power line runs along the western edge of the study area, and a buried gas line also extends north to south through the study corridor. A stream flows through the study area from north to south. Several wetlands are associated with the stream, as discussed below. Elevations range from 400 feet at the north end of the study area down to 378 feet at the south end of the study area. 3.0 WETLAND DEFINITION AND REGULATIONS The characteristics of an area that result in its classification as "wetland" have been formally defined by federal and state agencies, as described in Appendix A. Numerous federal, state, and ESA Adolfson page 1 June 2009 East Renton Lill Station - Welland, Stream and Wildlife Study local regulations govern development and other activities in or near wetlands; at each level, there are typically several agencies charged with such powers. Specific regulatory implications concerning the subject property are summarized later in this report. 4.0 METHODS Two levels of investigation were conducted for the analysis of wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat in the study area: a review of existing information and an on -site investigation. 4.1 Review of Existing Information ESA Adolfson reviewed existing literature, maps, and other materials to identify streams, wetlands, or site characteristics indicative of wetlands on the subject property. These sources can only indicate the likelihood of the presence of wetlands; actual wetland determinations must be based upon data obtained from field investigations. Several documents were reviewed: • Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington (Snyder et al., 1973); • Hydric Soils of the State of Washington (NRCS, 1995); • National Wetland Inventory mapping (USFWS, 2007); • King County critical areas mapping; • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife mapping of priority habitats and species (WDFW, 2008); and • Washington Department of Natural Resources mapping of rare plant communities (WDNR, 2008). 4.2 On -site Investigation 4.2.1 Determining the Presence of Wetlands and Delineating Wetland Boundaries Methods defined in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology, 1997) were used to determine the presence and extent of wetlands in the study area. Washington state and all local governments must use the state delineation manual to implement the Shoreline Management Act and/or the local regulations adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act. The Washington state manual is consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). The Corps has been working with states, federal agencies, and others to develop supplemental regional criteria to refine the 1987 delineation manual. Two regions fall within the state of Washington: The Arid West (dry lands west of the Continental Divide, from Idaho and eastern Washington south to the U.S. - Mexico border) and the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast. Interim Regional Supplements to the Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual have been completed by the Corps for page 2 ESA Adolfson Ane 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study both regions in Washington, and the appropriate supplement is now used, along with the Washington State Delineation Manual, when conducting delineations in those regions (Corps, 2008). The methodology outlined in the manuals is based upon three essential characteristics of wetlands: (1) hydrophytic vegetation; (2) hydric soils; and (3) wetland hydrology. Field indicators of these three characteristics must all be present in order to determine that an area is a wetland (unless problem areas or atypical situations are encountered). The "routine on -site determination method" was used to determine the wetland boundaries. The routine method is used for areas equal to or less than five acres in size, or for larger areas with relatively homogeneous vegetative, soil, and hydrologic properties. Formal data plots were established where information regarding each of the three wetland parameters (vegetation, soils, and hydrology) was recorded. This information was used to distinguish wetlands from non -wetlands. Where wetlands were determined to be present on the subject property, the wetland boundaries were delineated. Wetland boundaries were identified with sequentially numbered colored flagging imprinted with the words WETLAND DELINEATION. Data plot locations were also marked with colored flagging. The methods used to assess wetland characteristics are described in greater detail in Appendix A. Please note that common plant names are used throughout this text; the scientific names are presented in Appendix B. 4.2.2 Classifying Wetlands Two classification systems are commonly used to describe wetlands. The hydrogeomorphic (HGM) system describes wetlands in terms of their position in the landscape and the movement of water in the wetland (Brinson, 1993). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979) describes wetlands in terms of their vegetation communities; these include, for example, emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested community types. 4.2.3 Assessing Wetland Functions Wetlands and buffers play important roles that provide valuable benefits to the environment and society. Because detailed scientific knowledge of wetland functions is limited, evaluations of the functions of individual wetlands are somewhat qualitative and dependent upon professional judgment. For this project, wetland functions were assessed using the Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2004). Although this system is designed to rate wetlands, it is based on whether a particular wetland performs a particular function and the relative level to which the function is performed. An assessment of wetland functions is inherent in the rating system. This system was developed by Ecology to differentiate wetlands based on their sensitivity to disturbance, their significance, their rarity, our ability to replace them, and the beneficial functions they provide to society. Appendix C ESA Adolfson page 3 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study provides additional information about the rating system wetland categories and completed rating forms for the project. 5.0 FINDINGS 5.1 Existing Information 5.1.1 Soils The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps soils in the study area as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes (Figure 2). This soil type is not considered hydric but may contain unmapped small areas (inclusions) of hydric soils (MRCS, 2009). 5.1.2 Streams and Fish The study area is located within the Cedar River watershed. The Cedar River supports Chinook salmon (federally listed as threatened), coho salmon, sockeye salmon, bull trout/Dolly Varden (federally listed threatened), and winter steelhead (federally listed threatened) (WDFW, 2009). Maplewood Creek, a tributary of the Cedar River, is located west of the park (Figure 2). The lower portion of Maplewood Creek supports coho salmon (WDFW, 2009). The unnamed stream observed in the study area has not been mapped by King County (Figure 2). WDFW does not map fish use in this stream (WDFW, 2008, 2009). Anadromous fish use of the unnamed stream is not likely because the stream enters the storm drain system south of the park boundary, preventing fish access into Maplewood Park. 5.1.3 Wetlands King County and the National Wetland Inventory map riparian wetlands along the Cedar River, as well as scattered wetlands on the plateau north of the valley (Figure 3). No wetlands are mapped within Maplewood Park or the study area. 5.1.4 Wildlife The WDFW priority habitats and species (PHS) database does not identify sensitive species or habitats within Maplewood Park or the immediate vicinity. Bald eagles, which are protected by state and federal law, use the Cedar River. WDFW maps riparian areas, a type of priority habitat, along the river, as well as wetlands and vegetated corridors (urban natural open space) (WDFW, 2008). 5.2 Field Investigation The following sections describe the results of the field investigation conducted by ESA Adolfson biologists Sara Noland and Rosemary Baker on the East Renton Lift Station site on April 29, May 5, May 7, May 8, and June 19, 2009. These sections describe the wetlands and stream identified on the site, upland habitats, and wildlife observations. page 4 ESA Adolfson June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study Seven wetlands and two streams were identified within the study area boundaries (Figure 4). Pace Engineers, Inc. surveyed the wetland and stream boundary flags. Fourteen data plots were established within relatively uniform areas of vegetation on the site. Data sheets for each of the formal data plots evaluated for this project are provided in Appendix D. Photos of each of the wetlands are attached at the end of this report. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the onsite wetlands. Each wetland is described following the table. In general, the wetlands and the onsite streams are hydrologically connected. Surface water flows across the site from north to south. Most of the wetlands are located directly adjacent to or near the. on -site streams and receive overbank flows as well as groundwater. The wetlands are also connected by a young but relatively intact forested community that extends across most of the park. Table 1. Wetland Summary Wetland ID Size HGM Class Cowardin Class and (sq. ft.) Dominant Vegetation A 3,490 onsite Slope/ PFO: red alder, black (approx. 7,000 Depressional cottonwood, salmonberry, total) cascara, Douglas' spirea B 6,540 Slope/ PFO: black cottonwood, Depressional/ Pacific ninebark, salmonberry, Riverine willow, Himalayan blackberry C 190 Depressional PFO: red alder D 2,600 Slope/ PFO: black cottonwood, red Depressional/ alder, Pacific ninebark, Riverine salmonberry, red -osier dogwood, creeping buttercup E 11,050 Slope/ PFO: black cottonwood, red Depressional/ alder, western red cedar, Riverine salmonberry, Pacific ninebark, red elderberry, lady fern, sword fern, sedges F 6,170 Slope/ PFO: black cottonwood, red Depressional/ alder, Douglas' spirea, Pacific Riverine ninebark, sword fern, Himalayan blackberry G 2,200 Slope/ PFO: black cottonwood, red Depressional/ alder, Douglas' spirea Riverine ESA Adolfson page 5 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study 5.2.1 Wetland A Wetland A is a palustrine forested (PFO) wetland located in the southern part of the study area. The wetland extends offsite to the east of the study corridor. The onsite portion of the wetland is 3,490 square feet. The total wetland size is approximately 7,000 square feet. The hydrogeomorphic classification of this wetland is slope and depressional. A shallow swale that is also used as an informal foot trail runs through the southern portion of the wetland. Data Plot (DP) 2 represents the wetland community, and DP 1 represents the upland community adjacent to Wetland A. 5.2.1.1.1 Hydrology The hydrology of Wetland A is supported by surface flows from upslope areas to the east during heavy rain events, as well as a seasonally high groundwater table. No surface inundation was observed in the wetland in April 2009. However, during early May 2009, following a rainy period, approximately two inches of surface water was flowing through the shallow swale within the wetland to enter the onsite stream. The lower part of the swale adjacent to the stream is armored with concrete. In addition to observations of surface inundation, other hydrology indicators included sediment deposits, drift deposits, water stained leaves, and algal growth on bare soils. 5.2.1.1.2 Soils Soils sampled in Wetland A appeared to have been disturbed by past land uses, probably logging, grading, and burning. The soil profile at DP 2 consisted of silty loam and silty fine sand. From the surface to four inches deep, the soil color was very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2). From four to 10 inches deep, soil colors were a mixture of very dark grayish brown, dark brown, and dark yellowish brown (I OYR 3/2, 3/3, and 3/4); charcoal was evident in this soil layer. The lower portion of the soil profile (10 to 16 inches) was dark brown (1 OYR 3/3) with concretions. These soils do not match the NRCS description of the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam that is mapped in this area. Water was seeping into the bottom of the soil pit. Given the strong evidence of wetland hydrology and vegetation, as well as evidence of past soil disturbance, we assumed that soils were hydric in this area. 5.2.1.1.3 Vegetation Wetland A contains an immature forested community dominated by red alder and black cottonwood. The understory is composed mainly of salmonberry with some cascara and Douglas' spirea. Herbaceous cover is sparse and dominated by sedges. The shallow swale within the wetland contains sparse sedges with a forest overstory. 5.2.2 Wetland B Wetland B is a palustrine forested (PFO) wetland 6,540 square feet in size (Figure 4). The hydrogeomorphic classification of this wetland is a combination of slope, depressional, and riverine. The onsite stream bisects the wetland, and an unpaved foot trail runs parallel to the east side of the stream. Data Plot (DP) 3 represents the wetland community. Upland areas near Wetland B are represented by DP 6 and DP 12. page 6 ESA Adolfson June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study 5.2.2.1.1 Hydrology The hydrology of Wetland B is supported by groundwater, surface runoff, and overbank flows from the stream during heavy rain events. During early May 2009, we observed shallow surface water flowing downslope along the foot trail through Wetland B, along with areas of ponding. Other hydrology indicators included sediment deposits, drift deposits, water -stained leaves, and drainage patterns. 5.2.2.1.2 Soils Soils at the sampling plot in Wetland B (DP 3) consisted of a layer of silty sandy loam from the surface to 12 inches deep, with gravelly sand from 12 to 18 inches. It appeared that surface flows deposit silt in this part of the wetland. Soils colors were very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2) in the top layer and olive brown (2.5Y 4/4) with redoximorphic features (concentrations) in the lower layer. The soil had a stripped matrix, indicating hydric conditions. These soils have been disturbed and do not match the NRCS description of the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam that is mapped in this area. 5.2.2.1.3 Vegetation Wetland B is a palustrine forested wetland of primarily black cottonwood with an understory of Pacific ninebark, salmonberry, willow, and Himalayan blackberry. The vegetation community is dominated by hydrophytic plant species. 5.2.3 Wetland C Wetland C is a palustrine forested (PFO) wetland 190 square feet in size (Figure 4). The hydrogeomorphic classification of this wetland is depressional. No data plots were completed for this wetland due to its small size and similarity to other wetlands in the study area. 5.2.3.1.1 Hydrology The hydrology of Wetland C is supported by groundwater and surface runoff. During early May 2009, we observed ponding a few inches deep within the wetland. 5.2.3.1.2 Soils Similar to Wetland A, soils in Wetland C appeared highly disturbed as a result of past grading and logging. 5.2.3.1.3 Vegetation Wetland C is sparsely vegetated and has a forest overstory of red alder. 5.2.4 Wetland D Wetland D is a palustrine forested (PFO) wetland 2,600 square feet in size. Wetland D is a slope wetland containing two depressions which may have been excavated in the past. The wetland is represented by DP 5 and DP 13 (Figure 4). ESA Adolfson page 7 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study 5.2.4.1.1 Hydrology The hydrology of Wetland D is supported by overbank flow from the stream, groundwater, and surface runoff from surrounding uplands. In April 2009, hydrology indicators at DP 5 included soil saturation at nine inches depth, as well as sediment deposits and water -stained leaves within the depressions. In May 2009, ponding was present within the depressions, and groundwater was seeping from the adjacent slope into the northeastern part of the wetland. At DP 13, completed in May, hydrology indicators included a water table at 12 inches depth and soil saturation at 7 inches depth. The wetland is within a few feet of the stream and likely receives overbank flooding during storms. 5.2.4.1.2 Soils Soils in Wetland D appeared disturbed, likely as a result of past grading and logging. At DP 5, soils were sandy silt in the upper part with gravelly sand below, and a mix of matrix colors and charcoal. At DP 13, soil matrix colors were also mixed and included mucky mineral (organic) material and oxidized root channels, both indicators of hydric conditions. These soils do not match the NRCS description of the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam that is mapped in this area. 5.2.4.1.3 Vegetation Wetland D has a canopy dominated by black cottonwood and red alder. The southern part of the wetland has an understory of Pacific ninebark, salmonberry, and red -osier dogwood, while the northern part of the wetland has sparse shrubs and more emergent species such as creeping buttercup. 5.2.5 Wetland E Wetland E is a palustrine forested (PFO) wetland 11,050 square feet in size (Figure 4). The hydrogeomorphic classification of this wetland is depressional, slope, and riverine. The wetland is associated with the northern part of the onsite stream. Wetland E is represented by DP 8 and 9. 5.2.5.1.1 Hydrology The onsite stream enters the northwest portion of Wetland E and exits the southeast portion of the wetland (Figure 4). A defined stream channel is lacking in the center of the wetland, and surface water sheet flows through this area. The hydrology of Wetland E is supported by a high groundwater table and surface runoff, including overbank flows from the stream during heavy rain events, as was observed in May 2009. In addition to observations of surface ponding up to several inches deep within the wetland, hydrology indicators observed at the data plots included soil saturation near the surface and a high water table. 5.2.5.1.2 Soils Soils in Wetland E at DP 8 were a black (IOYR 2/1) silt loam from the surface to four inches deep, and a brown (IOYR 4/3) gravelly silty sand with redoximorphic features from four to 16 inches deep. At DP 9, soils were black (IOYR 2/1) silty clay loam and gravelly sandy loam from the surface to 15 inches deep; below 15 inches, the soil was black (7.5YR 2.5/1) silty loam. Page 8 ESA Adolfson June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Welland, Stream and Wildlife Study These observations indicate the presence of hydric soils. These soils do not match the NRCS description of the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam that is mapped in this area. 5.2.5.1.3 Vegetation Similar to other wetlands in the study area, Wetland E is a forested wetland with an overstory of black cottonwood and red alder, as well as some western red cedar. The dominant understory species is salmonberry, with some Pacific ninebark and red elderberry. Ground cover is sparse and includes lady fern, sword fern, and sedges. 5.2.6 Wetland F Wetland F is a palustrine forested (PFO) wetland 6,170 square feet in size (Figure 4). The hydrogeomorphic classification of this wetland is slope, depressional, and riverine. DP 11 represents the wetland community. 5.2.6.1.1 Hydrology The hydrology of Wetland F is supported by a high groundwater table and surface runoff. Hydrology indicators at DP 11 included surface ponding two inches deep, a water table at five inches below the surface, and soil saturation to the surface. Sediment deposits, water -stained leaves, and drainage patterns were also present. Following a rain storm in early May 2009, we observed surface water flowing south from the tributary stream adjacent to Wetland G, over a foot trail and into Wetland F. (The hydrologic connection between the tributary and Wetland F is not shown on Figure 4 because water sheet flows across the trail and there is no defined channel in this area.) 6.2.6.1.2 Soils Soils at DP 11 had a high organic content in the upper layer, and streaks of organic material in the lower layers, indicating past disturbance of the soil profile. From the surface to five inches deep, the soil was a very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2) silt loam. From five to eight inches deep the soil was a very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 3/2) gravelly silt. Soil in the lower layer (eight to 16 inches) was a dark yellowish brown (I OYR 3/4) gravelly sandy loam with cobbles. These soils do not match the NRCS description of the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam that is mapped in this area. The organic content of the sampled soils is similar to the hydric soil indicator for mucky mineral soil. 5.2.6.1.3 Vegetation Wetland F is a forested wetland dominated by black cottonwood and red alder. The understory is primarily Douglas' spirea, Pacific ninebark, and sword fern. This wetland has been heavily disturbed by past clearing and grading, and much of the vegetation community is dominated by Himalayan blackberry. 5.2.7 Wetland G Wetland G is a palustrine forested (PFO) wetland 2,200 square feet in size (Figure 4). The wetland is located adjacent to the onsite stream and contains a separate small tributary drainage. The hydrogeomorphic classification of this wetland is a combination of depressional, slope, and ESA Adolfson page 9 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study riverine. This wetland is just north of Wetland F and has similar plant communities and soils; therefore no data plot was completed. 5.2.7.1.1 Hydrology The hydrology of Wetland G is supported by a high groundwater table and surface runoff, including overbank flooding from the onsite stream and the small tributary. Hydrology indicators included surface ponding, drainage patterns, and sediment deposits. As stated earlier, following a rain storm in early May 2009, surface water sheet flowed south from the tributary stream adjacent to Wetland G, over a foot trail and into Wetland F. 5.2.7.1.2 Soils Soils in Wetland G were similar to those in Wetland F, described above. 5.2.7.1.3 Vegetation Wetland G is a forested wetland dominated by black cottonwood and red alder. The understory is primarily Douglas' spirea. 5.2.8 Wetland Functions The seven wetlands and streams identified in the East Renton Lift Station study area are located close together and are hydrologically connected via surface water and probably groundwater during the rainy season. The vegetation communities within and surrounding the wetlands are very similar. All of the wetlands within the study area appear to function together as a system. Therefore, all of the wetlands were rated as one unit in accordance with the guidance for wetland mosaics in the Washington State Wetland Rating System (Hruby, 2004). The wetland rating form and sketches of each wetland are provided in Appendix C. The wetlands in the study area received a relatively high score for water quality improvement. Portions of the wetlands contain clay and organic soils and areas of seasonal ponding that allow for the chemical processes that can remove pollutants from surface runoff. The persistent, dense vegetation in most of the wetland area also serves to slow and filter runoff. The wetlands have the opportunity to remove pollutants from runoff that comes from nearby residential developments. The hydrologic functions of the wetlands were rated moderately high because the wetlands can store some surface flows, helping to prevent flooding downstream. Again the opportunity for the wetlands to provide this function is present because there are large developed areas immediately upstream and downstream of the site. This wetland system has high wildlife habitat functions because it provides a multi -layered forest with trees, shrubs, and ground cover vegetation. Much of the wetland vegetation consists of native species, with invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry limited to areas of past disturbance, particularly on the north and south edges of the site. The wetlands and streams also provide riparian and aquatic habitats, and there are snags and downed wood that provide additional habitat structures. page 10 ESA Adolfson Jame 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Stuck, 5.3 Streams and Other Aquatic Features The onsite stream shown on Figure 4 flows from north to south through the study corridor. Representative photos of the stream are attached at the end of this report. The stream channel averages approximately five feet wide, with portions of the channel in the northern part of the site up to 10 feet in width. As the stream passes through Wetland E, the channel becomes undefined and braided, such that water sheet flows through the wetland. Water was flowing in the channel during our April, May, and June site visits. Following rains in early May, surface water overflowed the stream banks and flooded into some of the onsite wetlands. The bottom of the stream channel is composed of sand and gravel. In some areas the channel is incised up to three feet deep, and there are areas of bank scouring. The stream enters the northern end of the study area via a plastic culvert, and exits the southern end of the study area via a grated concrete culvert. The stream then enters the storm drain system south of Maplewood Park. The small tributary crossing through Wetland G (Figure 4) was dry during April but contained a few inches of flowing water in early May. The tributary is three feet wide with a gravel bottom and appears to have formed as a result of overbank flows from the main stream. The riparian area along both the stream and the tributary consists of native forest and wetlands. Two detention ponds are located north of the study area (Figure 4). These ponds were artificially created in upland and would not be regulated as wetlands. 5.4 Upland Description Upland communities in the study area are represented by DP 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, and I (Figure 4). Photos of upland areas on the site are attached at the end of this report. The uplands in the study area consist of two main community types: native, mixed conifer and deciduous forest; and cleared areas dominated by invasive vegetation. Native forest is dominant across most of the site, with invasive species present mainly at the north and south site boundaries and along foot trails. Within the native forest, dominant trees include red alder, black cottonwood, Douglas fir, western hemlock, and western red cedar. The forest community is fairly young, although some of the Douglas fir trees are large. Understory species include salal, snowberry, sahnonbenry, Oregon grape, and sword fern. Portions of the forest are open and parklike, while a dense understory is present in other areas. Unpaved foot trails parallel the stream and branch off into the rest of the park. The invasive herbaceous species herb Robert is present along the foot trails. The southern portion of the study area has been quite disturbed by past clearing and grading. Soils in this area were compacted, and the vegetation is dominated by non-native invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry and Scot's broom, as well as native trailing blackberry. An infestation of yellow archangel (an invasive vine sold in ornamental flower baskets) was noted adjacent to the fence along the southern boundary of the study area. This species often becomes established as a result of homeowners dumping yard waste into the adjacent forest. ESA Adolfson page 11 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study 5.5 Wildlife ESA Adolfson observed several bird species in the study area, including spotted towhee, American robin (nesting), song sparrow, American crow, black -capped chickadee, Anna's hummingbird, red -breasted sapsucker (excavations in trees), and Steller's jay. Mammals observed onsite included rabbit, raccoon (tracks), coyote (scat), and deer (tracks). Pacific treefrog calls were heard near the stream. Other species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians in addition to those observed are expected to use habitat on the project site. For example, nocturnal species may be present that were not active during the site visit, or other species may only be highly visible or present in this area during certain seasons. The site provides a relatively large and undisturbed forested area within a developed landscape. The combination of forest, stream, and wetlands contributes to the habitat value of the site. We observed several people using the foot trails and there was some garbage on the site, so there is some human disturbance of wildlife on the site. Domestic cats and dogs may also disturb wildlife on the site. In addition, the detention ponds north of the site provide habitat for species such as mallard, and songbirds such as cedar waxwing likely use the fringe of young alders near the eastern pond for perching and feeding on insects. 6.0 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS Wetlands are regulated at the federal, state, and local levels. Agencies with jurisdiction include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), City of Renton, and King County. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates work within streams. Regulatory implications associated with development in wetlands, streams, or buffers include, but may not be limited to, those discussed in this section. All applicable permits should be obtained prior to developing or otherwise altering streams or wetlands. 6.1 Federal Regulations The Corps regulates discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." A Section 404 permit may be required if a proposed project involves filling wetlands or altering streambeds or other waters of the U.S. The Corps will determine if wetlands are jurisdictional under Section 404 based upon the presence of a "significant nexus" to navigable waters (EPA and Corps, June 5, 2007). The Corps has established two types of permit programs under Section 404: nationwide and individual. Nationwide permits are issued when a proposed activity will have minimal adverse impacts to wetlands. All other projects are evaluated under the individual permitting process. page 12 ESA Adolfson June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study The Corps determines which permitting process is used for a proposed project. The Corps will require that wetland impacts be avoided or minimized to the extent practicable, and mitigation will likely be required for unavoidable wetland impacts. 6.2 State Regulations The state certification process under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act is usually triggered through a Section 404 permit application. Section 401 directs each state to certify that proposed in -water activities will not adversely affect water quality or violate state aquatic protection laws. In Washington State, Ecology is responsible for administering the state certification program. Ecology may issue approval, approval with conditions, denial, or a request for delay due to lack of information. Any conditions attached to the 401 certification become part of the Section 404 permit. King County is one of the 15 coastal counties in Washington regulated under the Washington State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program. Activities that would affect coastal resources and involve approvals from the federal government (such as a Section 404 permit) must be evaluated for CZM compliance through a process called "federal consistency." The Washington State Department of Ecology administers the CZM program in this state. If relocation or alteration of stream culverts or other in -stream work is proposed as part of the project, a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) would be required from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife under the state Hydraulic Code (RCW 77.55, WAC 220-110). 6.3 Local Regulations Two local jurisdictions are involved in the proposed project: the City of Renton, as the project proponent, and King County, as the current owner of Maplewood Park where the study area is located. This section presents wetland, stream, wildlife, and tree protection regulations of both jurisdictions. In some cases, one jurisdiction's regulations are more restrictive than the other's (for example, King County's wetland buffer requirements are larger than those of the City). The City and County will determine which jurisdiction's requirements apply to the project at the time when permit applications are submitted. 6.3.1 City of Renton The City of Renton regulates critical areas under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050. The following discussion of critical area classifications and buffers is subject to verification and approval by the City. 6.3.1.1 Wetlands Section M of RMC 4-3-050 contains the City's regulations for wetlands. The wetlands in the study area meet the City's definition of Category 3 wetlands because they have been disturbed by historic land uses including utility installation and probably logging, grading, and burning. Evidence of site disturbance includes modification and armoring of the stream outlet that drains the wetland system, as well as disturbed soils, fill material, and altered vegetation (RMC 4-3- ESA Adolfson page 13 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study 050(M)(1)(a)). Category 3 wetlands require a 25-foot buffer, as shown on Figure 4 (RMC 4-3- 050(M)(6)(c)). The City requires applicants to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. When impacts to a wetland or wetland buffer are unavoidable, mitigation is required. Wetland mitigation requirements are detailed in RMC 4-3-050(M)(9) through (16). The City requires "no net loss" of wetland acreage, meaning that an equivalent or greater area of wetland must be restored or created to compensate for impacts. Wetland enhancement is allowed in conjunction with wetland creation or restoration. For Category 3 wetlands, the ratios are 1.5:1 for restoration or creation only; or 1:1 restoration or creation plus 1:1 enhancement (RMC 4-3-050(M)(11, 12)). 6.3.1.2 Streams Section L of RMC 4-3-050 contains the City's regulations for streams. Under the City's definition, the main stream channel in the study area meets the definition of a Class 3 stream because it does not support salmonids and is assumed to be perennial (RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(a)). Class 3 streams require a 75-foot buffer (RMC 4-3-050(L)(5)(a)). The small tributary drainage meets the City's definition of a Class 4 stream because it is intermittent and does not support salmonids (RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(a)). Class 4 streams require a 35-foot buffer (RMC 4-3-050(L)(5)(a)). Figure 4 illustrates the City stream buffers that would apply in the study area. The buffer of the Class 4 stream is not shown because it would be contained within the larger Class 3 stream buffer and wetland buffers. The City permits new utility lines and facilities to cross water bodies if several conditions are Met (RMC 4-3-050(L)(8)(b)): (a) Fish and wildlife habitat areas shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible; and (b) The utility is designed consistent with one or more of the following methods: (1) Installation shall be accomplished by boring beneath the scour depth and hyporheic zone of the water body and channel migration zone; or (2) The utilities shall cross at an angle greater than sixty (60) degrees to the centerline of the channel in streams or perpendicular to the channel centerline; or (3) Crossings shall be contained within the footprint of an existing road or utility crossing; and (c) New utility routes shall avoid paralleling the stream or following a down -valley course near the channel; and (d) The utility installation shall not increase or decrease the natural rate of shore migration or channel migration; and page 14 ESA Adolfson June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study (e) Seasonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and (f) Mitigation criteria of subsection L3c(ii) of this Section are met. The City requires applicants to avoid and minimize stream impacts. When impacts to a stream or stream buffer are unavoidable, mitigation is required. The City prefers that mitigation should be performed on -site or in the same drainage subbasin. Preferred types of mitigation include daylighting (returning to open channel) of streams or removal of manmade salmonid migration barriers; removal of impervious surfaces in buffer areas and improved biological function of the buffer; in -stream mitigation as part of an approved watershed basin restoration project; or other mitigation suitable for site and water body conditions that meet all other provisions for a mitigation plan. These and other stream mitigation requirements are included in RMC 4-3- 050(L)(3)(c). 6.3.1.3 Wildlife The City defines critical habitats to include Category 1 wetlands, and habitats associated with the documented presence of non-salmonid species that are proposed or listed by federal or state governments as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority species (RMC 4-3-050(K)(1). The study area does not contain any critical habitats under this definition. 6.3.1.4 Trees The City's tree retention and land clearing regulations are provided in RMC 4-4-130. Tree removal and land clearing are prohibited within wetlands, streams, and buffers unless the proposed activity is exempt from critical area requirements, or through a variance process (RMC 44-130(D)(2) and (I)). Utility uses can be exempt from tree retention requirements if the tree removal can be justified in writing and is approved by the City (RMC 4-4-130(H)). 6.3.2 King County King County regulates critical areas under King County Code (KCC) Chapter 21A.24. The following discussion of critical area classifications and buffers is subject to verification and approval by the County. 6.3.2.1 Wetlands King County classifies wetlands using the Washington State Wetland Raring System for Western Washington (KCC 21 A.24.318). Using this system, ESA Adolfson rated the wetlands in the study area as Category II (wetland rating form is provided in Appendix Q. The County buffer requirements depend on the wetland category, habitat scores, and location within or outside of an urban growth area. For this site, the Category H wetlands have a habitat score of 22 points and are inside the urban growth area. The buffer width is therefore 125 feet as shown on Figure 4 (KCC 21A.24.325). King County requires applicants to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. When permanent impacts to a wetland or wetland buffer are unavoidable, mitigation is required. Mitigation ratios ESA Adolfson page 15 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study are 3:1 for wetland creation; or 1:1 for wetland creation plus 4:1 enhancement. Ratios for wetland rehabilitation and enhancement only are higher (8:1 and 12:1, respectively) (KCC 21 A.24.340). 6.3.2.2 Streams King County regulates streams as "aquatic areas" (KCC 21A.24.355). Using the City's classification, the main stream channel on the site meets the criteria for a Type F stream because it could contain resident fish or fish habitat. The buffer requirement for Type F streams within the urban growth area is 115 feet (KCC 21A.24.358). The small tributary drainage meets the County's criteria for a Type N stream requiring a 65-foot buffer (KCC 21A.24.355, 358). Figure 4 illustrates the County stream buffers that would apply in the study area. The buffer of the Type N stream is not shown because it would be contained within the larger Type F stream buffer and wetland buffers. Construction of a new utility corridor in an aquatic area or buffer is allowed, subject to several conditions that are detailed in KCC 21 A.24.045(D)(34). In general these include: • Applicants must show that there is no alternative location with less adverse impact on the critical area and critical area buffer. • Utility routes that parallel the channel or follow a down -valley route near the channel should be avoided. • The width of the corridor should be minimized, as should the removal of trees greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). • An additional, contiguous and undisturbed critical area buffer, equal in area to the disturbed critical area buffer area including any allowed maintenance roads, must be provided to protect the critical area. • To the maximum extent practical, access for maintenance should occur limited access points into the critical area buffer rather than by a parallel maintenance road. • The utility corridor or facility may not adversely impact the overall critical area hydrology or diminish flood storage capacity. • Construction should occur during approved periods for instream work. Open trenching is only allowed.during low flow periods or only within aquatic areas when they are dry. • The County may approve open trenching of Type F aquatic areas only if there is not a feasible alternative and equivalent or greater environmental protection can be achieved. • Construction techniques should be used to minimize disturbance to critical areas. Bored, drilled or other trenchless crossing must be laterally constructed at least four feet below the maximum depth of scour for the base flood. page 16 ESA Adolfson June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Sludy King County requires applicants to avoid and minimize aquatic area impacts. When impacts to a stream or stream buffer are unavoidable, mitigation is required. Mitigation requirements for unavoidable impacts to aquatic areas and their buffers are provided in KCC 21 A.24.380. 6.3.2.3 Wildlife The study area does not contain documented habitat for species covered under the County's wildlife habitat conservation areas standards (KCC 21A.24.382). The site does not contain a mapped wildlife habitat network (King County iMap, 2009). 6.3.2.4 Trees King County's grading code (KCC 16.82) regulates clearing and removal of vegetation, excavation, grading, and earthwork. A permit is required for clearing or grading within wetlands, aquatic areas, and their buffers. Utility developments are exempt from significant tree retention requirements (KCC 16.82.156). 7.0 LIMITATIONS Within the limitations of schedule, budget, scope -of -work, and seasonal constraints, we warrant that this study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices, including the technical guidelines and criteria in effect at the time this study was performed, as outlined in the Methods section. The results and conclusions of this report represent the authors' best professional judgment, based upon information provided by the project proponent in addition to that obtained during the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 8.0 REFERENCES Brinson, M. August 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Research Program. Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. April 2008. ERDC/EL TR-08-13. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1991. Shoreline Management Handbook: First Edition. Publication No. 9045. Olympia, Washington. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1992. The Growth Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act: A Guide to Interrelationships. Publication No. 92- 07. Olympia, Washington. ESA Adotfson page 17 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. Olympia, Washington. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Massachusetts. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). June 5, 2007. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the US Supreme Court's Decision it? Rapanos v. United States c& Carabell v. United States. Federal Register. 1982. Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter II, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Vol. 47, No. 138, p. 31810. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Federal Register. 1986. 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule. Vol. 51, No. 219, pp. 41206-41260. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Federal Register. 1988. 40 CFR Part 230. Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material. Vol. 45, No. 249, Pages 85336-85357. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Federal Register. 1994. Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. July 13. Washington, DC. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Manual. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — Revised. August 2004. Ecology publication number 04-06-025. Olympia, WA. King County iMap. 2009. King County iMap interactive mapping tool. Available: htty://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/gis/Mal2s/iMAP.aspx. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. GretagMacbeth, New Windsor, New York. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1995. Hydric Soils List for Washington. Revised December 15, 1995. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1998. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 4.0. G.W. Hurt, P.M. Whited, and R.F. Pringle (eds.), United States Department of Agriculture, Ft. Worth, Texas. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2009. Hydric Soils, King County Area, Washington. Available: httn:Hsoildatamart.nres.usda.gov. Accessed June 2009. Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Page 18 ESA Adolrson June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). Biol. Rpt. 88(26.9). United States Department of Interior, Washington, DC. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1993. 1993 Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. National Wetland Inventory GIS mapping. Vepraskas, M.J. 1999. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. Technical Bulletin 301. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2008. Priority Habitats and Species GIS database. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009. SalmonScape online mapping. Available: hn:Hwdfw.wa. og v/mappingJsalmonscape/. WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2008. Natural Heritage GIS database. ESA Adolfson page 19 Jame 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study 9.0 GLOSSARY agricultural wetland - Areas where wetland soils and hydrology remain, but hydrophytic vegetation has been removed to allow a crop to be grown. anaerobic - A situation in which molecular oxygen is absent (or effectively so) from the environment. atypical situation - Areas in which one or more wetland parameters (vegetation, soil, and/or hydrology) have been sufficiently altered by recent human activities or natural events to preclude the presence of wetland indicators of the parameter. "Recent" is intended to mean that period of time since legal jurisdiction of an applicable law began. best management practices (BMPs) — The physical, structural, and/or managerial practices that, when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce pollutant discharges. buffer - A designated area along the edge of a stream or wetland that is regulated to control the negative effects of adjacent development from intruding into the aquatic resource. concretion - A local concentration of chemical compounds such as calcium carbonate or iron oxide in the soil that forms a grain or nodule of varying size, shape, hardness, and color. Concretions of significance in hydric soil are usually iron and/or manganese oxides occurring at or near the soil surface that develop under conditions of prolonged soil saturation. dominant species — Plant species that define the character of a vegetation community. In wetland delineation, this is typically measured using percent areal cover. For each stratum in the plant community (trees, shrubs, and herbs), dominant species are the most abundant plant species that when ranked in descending order of abundance and cumulatively totaled immediately exceed 50 percent cover for the stratum, plus any additional species that individually compose 20 percent or more of the total cover in the stratum. The list of dominant plant species is then combined across strata. (Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, 1987) emergent - A plant that grows rooted in shallow water, the bulk of which emerges from the water and stands vertically. Usually applied to non -woody vegetation. emergent wetland - In the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979), a wetland characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens. enhancement - An improvement in the functions and values of an existing wetland, typically through native plantings. fill material - Any material placed in an area to increase the surface elevation. forested wetland - In the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979), a wetland characterized by woody vegetation that is six meters (20 feet) tall or taller. page 20 ESA Adolfson June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study gleyed - A soil condition resulting from prolonged soil saturation, manifested by the presence of bluish or greenish colors throughout the soil or in mottles (spots or streaks) among other colors. herbaceous - Having the characteristics of an herb; a plant with no persistent woody stem above the ground. hydric soil — A soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification — A system of classifying wetlands based on their position in the landscape and the movement of water within the wetland. hydrology — The science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water. hydrophyte - Any plant growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. The sum total of hydrophytes in an area is known as "hydrophytic vegetation." in -kind compensation - Compensation for lost wetland habitat with a replacement wetland of the same habitat type. inundation — A condition in which water from any source temporarily or permanently covers a land surface. invasive plant species - Plant species that become established easily in disturbed conditions, reproduce readily, and often establish monocultures. Most invasive plants are non-native species; they were introduced to the Northwest intentionally or unintentionally by humans. Examples of common invasive species in the Pacific Northwest are Scot's broom, Canada thistle, hedge bindweed, English ivy, reed canarygrass, and purple loosestrife. lacustrine - In the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979), lacustrine refers to a freshwater area that has all of the following characteristics: (1) situated in a topographic depression or a dammed river channel; (2) has less than 30% coverage of trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, mosses, or lichens; and (3) total area exceeds 20 acres. For areas less than 20 acres, an area is considered lacustrine if it has an active wave -formed or bedrock shoreline or is deeper than 6.6 feet in the deepest part. "Freshwater" means less than 0.5 parts per thousand ocean -derived salts. mitigation — Defined in WAC 197-11-766 as: (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; (3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; ESA Adolfson page 21 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study (4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing or providing substitute resources or environments: and/or (6) Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. mottles - Spots or blotches of different color or shades of color interspersed within the dominant color in a soil layer. This usually results from periodic anaerobic conditions in the soil. 100-year floodplain - The flood with a 100-year recurrence interval; those areas identified as Zones A, A 1-30, AE, AH, AO, A99, V, V 1-30, and VE on most current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Rate Insurance Maps, or areas identified as 100-year floodplain on applicable local Flood Management Program maps. ordinary high-water mark - The line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; changes in the character of soil or vegetation; topographic shelves; or the presence of a line of litter or debris. out -of -kind compensation - Compensation for lost wetland habitat with a replacement wetland of a different habitat type. palustrine - In the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979), palustrine refers to freshwater areas dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, mosses, or lichens. They can be non -tidal or tidal. Palustrine also includes wetlands lacking this vegetation but with the following characteristics: (1) area less than 20 acres; (2) no active wave -formed or bedrock shoreline; (3) water depth in the deepest part is less than 6.6 feet at low water. "Freshwater" means having less than 0.5 parts per thousand ocean -derived salts. persistent emergents — Emergent plants that remain standing at least until the beginning of the next growing season. reach - A length of stream channel with uniform characteristics. redoximorphic soil characteristics — Features of the soil such as masses, nodules, or mottles formed through reduction and oxidation of iron and manganese in seasonally saturated soils. restoration - To improve a disturbed or altered wetland by returning wetland parameters that may be missing. rhizosphere - The zone of soil surrounding a plant root in which interactions between the living root and microorganisms occur. riverine - In the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979), riverine refers to freshwater areas that are contained within a channel and are not dominated by trees, shrubs, and page 22 ESA Adolfson June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study persistent emergent plants. Examples include rivers and streams. "Freshwater" means having less than 0.5 parts per thousand ocean -derived salts. saturated soil conditions - A condition in which all easily drained spaces between soil particles in the root zone are temporarily or permanently filled with water. scrub -shrub - In the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979), areas dominated by woody vegetation less than 6 meters (20 feet) tall. The species include tree shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that are stunted because of environmental conditions. Section 404 permit - A permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act that allows an activity (filling) within a wetland. A 404 permit usually requires compensation or mitigation for the wetland impacts. soil matrix - The portion of a given soil that has the dominant color. In most cases, the matrix is the portion of the soil having more than 50% of the same color. synonymy - Different scientific names for the same species. waters of the United States - As defined in 33 CFR Part 328, the term "waters of the United States" means: 1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; 2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; 3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or iii. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce; 4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; 5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs 1-4; 6. The territorial seas; ESA Adolfson page 23 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study 7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs 1-6. Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. 8. Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with the EPA. wetlands - Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (Federal Register, 1982, 1986). wetland boundary — The point on the ground at which a shift from wetlands to non -wetlands or aquatic habitat occurs. wetland hydrology - Wetland hydrology is considered to be present when there is permanent or periodic inundation or soil saturation at or near the soil surface for more than 12.5% of the growing season (typically two weeks in lowland Pacific Northwest areas). Areas that are inundated or saturated for between 5% and 12.5% of the growing season in most years may or may not be wetlands. Areas inundated or saturated for less than 5% of the growing season are non -wetlands (Ecology, 1997). wetland indicator status (WIS) - Categories assigned to plant species based upon the estimated probabilities (expressed as a frequency of occurrence) of the species occurring in a wetland or a non -wetland. Wetland indicator status categories include the following: • Oblate (OBL): species that almost always occur in wetlands under natural conditions (estimated probability >99%). • Facultative wetland (FACW): species that usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99%), but are occasionally found in non -wetland areas. • Facultative (FAQ: species that are equally likely to occur in wetlands (estimated probability 34 to 66%) or non -wetland areas. • Facultative upland (FACU): species that usually occur in non -wetland areas (estimated probability 67 to 99%), but are occasionally found in wetlands. • Upland (UPL): species that almost always occur, in non -wetland areas under normal conditions (estimated probability >99%). A (+) or (-) following the WIS signifies a greater or lesser likelihood, respectively, of the species being found in wetland conditions. Plant species can also be designated "No indicator" or NI, page 24 ESA Adolfson June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study which includes species for which insufficient information is available to determine status, or which were not evaluated by USFWS in compiling the WIS listings. Plant species that are not listed on the USFWS list of WIS ratings are designated "NU and are presumed to be upland species. ESA Adolfson page 25 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study FIGURES AND PHOTOGRAPHS ESA Adolfson June 2009 East Renton Lift Station. 209036 SOURCE: King County, 2009 (2005) Figure 1 Vicinity Map King County, Washington uvrvd Oftoj—t Awes NOCS Soik Roads Synsbol, Name kirks M, Alderwood rawly sandy loam, 0 to 6 pe—t sb"s Hydra Status Af<, Ald—ood 6rarelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent dopes AND. Alderwood V,-dlyswWy loam, IS to 30 percent abpes Akf, Alderarood and Rksap soik, very waep Msl. Are Ms, Aid—ood materol, 0 to 6 percent sb", AmC, Arms, Alderwood material 6 w 1S percent fIdpas An, An", Events material an, Nlindsam sM loam EN, E—V rawly sandy loam, 0 to 5 per-M sb", EK, Ewratt /nasally sandy loam, S to 15 percent slopes Ppl, Ritsap silt loam, 2 to l percent slopes SOURCE: NRCS, 1011. rng County, 2009 hte. MYed alk,vrl land NI, Nw bars rh bans Ne, Norma sandy loam OK, Owl manly bam, 0 to 1S percent shores pin ►its ft, Ptldsuck loamy fine sand Py, ►uplbP Ane sandy b.m RdC.R psat•Indi—la asaoda—, sbpinl M, Ri--h Sk, Saa[le muck Srn, Sher for muck Aw, Tukwila muck LX, Urkan land W, water Ead Renton Lift Station. 209036 Figure 2 NRCS Soils King County, Washington c N C 5A V Z d a cc) �n CO c n g� z� _C fu < 3 N (0 -0 O 3' :3 T) t r / •41 r Pirv'. Xwv i �ti' 3 � ii► �'fl, . / t f �•.tr� .'f YF �, ,_any • . f � a T�if J� • � �''�� \'7c. L• 3LA� tW. � T �tH � 1•Fa1: �. lot Aw �C' -- t { -4 �. i �`RY� •y L .` -yam_").,.. � �' � • .�f 1. �. 1 �r• -�� `` �Y��.+'ey East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study Wetland F Foot trail running through western part of Wetland F, May 2009. Wetland G Looking into Wetland F, May 2009. Looking east along foot trail; surface water flowing from Wetland G (at left) into Wetland F (at right), May 2009. ESA Adolfson June 2009 �.� '�.+'���% ate• '�,. v 1i . r t•Ile East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study Uplands Disturbed upland area south of DP 2, May 2009. Detention Ponds Western detention pond, April 2009. Typical upland forest, June 2009. Eastern detention pond, April 2009. ESA Adolfson June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study APPENDIX A: METHODS USED TO EVALUATE WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS ESA Adolfson Appendix A June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study Wetland Definition Wetlands are formally defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (Federal Register 1982), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Federal Register 1988), the Washington Shoreline Management Act (SMA) of 1971 (Ecology, 1991) and the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (Ecology, 1992) as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (Federal Register, 1982, 1986). In addition, the SMA and the GMA definitions add: Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland site, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass - lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990 that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificially created wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Methods defined in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology, 1997) were used to determine the presence and extent of wetlands on the subject property. Washington state and all local governments must use the state delineation manual to implement the Shoreline Management Act and/or the local regulations adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act. The Washington state manual is consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). The Corps has been working with states, federal agencies, and others to develop supplemental regional criteria to refine the 1987 delineation manual. Two regions fall within the state of Washington: The Arid West (dry lands west of the Continental Divide, from Idaho and eastern Washington south to the U.S. - Mexico border) and the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast. Interim Regional Supplements to the Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual have been completed by the Corps for both regions in Washington, and the appropriate supplement is now used, along with the Washington State Delineation Manual, when conducting delineations in those regions. The methodology outlined in the manuals is based upon three essential characteristics of wetlands: (1) hydrophytic vegetation; (2) hydric soils; and (3) wetland hydrology. Field indicators of these three characteristics must all be present in order to determine that an area is a wetland (unless problem areas or atypical situations are encountered). These characteristics are discussed below. . ESA Adolfson Page A-1 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study Vegetation Plants must be specially adapted for life under saturated or anaerobic conditions to grow in wetlands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has determined the estimated probability of each plant species' occurrence in wetlands and has accordingly assigned a "wetland indicator status" (WIS) to each species (USFWS, 1988, 1993). Plants are categorized as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), upland (UPL), not listed (NL), or no indicator status (NI). Definitions for each indicator status are listed in the Glossary. Species with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC are considered adapted for life in saturated or anaerobic soil conditions. Such species are referred to as "hydrophytic" vegetation. A (+) or (-) sign following the WIS signifies greater or lesser likelihood, respectively, of the species being found in wetland conditions. Areas of relatively homogeneous vegetative composition can be characterized by "dominant" species. The indicator status of the dominant species within each vegetative stratum is used to determine if the plant community may be characterized as hydrophytic. The vegetation of an area is considered to be hydrophytic if more than 50% of the dominant species have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC. The Regional Supplements provide additional tests for evaluating the presence of hydrophytic vegetation communities including the prevalence index, morphological adaptations, and wetland non -vascular plants. The Supplements also address difficult situations where hydrophytic vegetation indicators are not present but hydric soils and wetland hydrology are observed. Soils Hydric soils are indicative of wetlands. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil profile (Federal Register, 1994). The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, has compiled lists of hydric soils (NRCS, 1995). These lists identify soil series mapped by the NRCS that meet. hydric soil criteria. It is common, however, for a map unit of non -wetland (non-hydric) soil to have inclusions of hydric soil, and vice versa. Therefore, field examination of soil conditions is important to determine if hydric soil conditions exist. The NRCS has developed a guide for identifying field indicators of hydric soils (NRCS, 1998). This list of hydric soil indicators is considered to be dynamic; revisions are anticipated to occur on a regular basis as a result of ongoing studies of hydric soils. In general, anaerobic conditions create certain characteristics in hydric soils, collectively known as "redoximorphic features," that can be observed in the field (Vepraskas, 1999). Redoximorphic features include high organic content, accumulation of sulfidic material (rotten egg odor), greenish- or bluish -gray color (gley formation), spots or blotches of different color interspersed with the dominant or matrix color (mottling), and dark soil colors (low soil chroma) (NRCS, 1998; Vepraskas, 1999). Soil colors are described both by common color name (for example, "dark brown") and by a numerical description of their hue, value, and chroma (for example, 1 OYR 2/2) as identified on a Munsell soil color chart (Munsell Color, 2000). Soil color is determined from a moist soil sample. Page A-2 ESA Adolfson June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study The Regional Supplements provide methods for difficult situations where hydric soil indicators are not observed, but indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology are present. Hydrology Water must be present in order for wetlands to exist; however, it need not be present throughout the entire year. Wetland hydrology is considered to be present when there is permanent or periodic inundation or soil saturation at or near the soil surface for more than 12.5% of the growing season (typically two weeks in lowland Pacific Northwest areas). Areas that are inundated or saturated for between 5% and 12.5% of the growing season in most years may or may not be wetlands. Areas inundated or saturated for less than 5% of the growing season are non -wetlands (Ecology, 1997). Indicators of wetland hydrology include observation of ponding or soil saturation, watermarks, drift lines, drainage patterns, sediment deposits, oxidized rhizospheres, water -stained leaves, and local soil survey data. Where positive indicators of wetland hydrology are observed, it is assumed that wetland hydrology occurs for a sufficient period of the growing season to meet the wetland criteria, as described by Ecology (1997). The Regional Supplements provide methods for evaluating situations in wetlands that periodically lack indicators of wetland hydrology but where hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation are present. ESA Adolfson Page A-3 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study APPENDIX B: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND THEIR WETLAND INDICATOR STATUS ESA Adolfson Appendix B June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study PLANT SPECIES LIST FOR THE EAST RENTON LIFT STATION PROJECT, IDENTIFIED IN APRIL AND MAY 2009 COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME WETLAND INDICATOR STATUS* Trees black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichoca a) FAC Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii FACU* European mountain —ash (Rowan tree) Sorbus aucuparia NL red alder Alnus rubra FAC Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla FACU- Western red cedar Thuja plicata FAC Shrubs' Baldhip rose Rosa gymnocarpa FACU beaked hazelnut Corylus cornuta FACU black twin -berry Lonicera involucrata FAC+* Cascara Rhamnus purshiana (Frangula purshiana) FAC- common snowberry Symphoricarpos albus FACU creambush oceanspray Holodiscus discolor NL Douglas' spiraea Spiraea douglasii FACW English holly Ilex aquifolium NL evergreen blackberry Rubus laciniatus FACU+ Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor (Rubus armenicus) FACU Indian plum (osoberry) Oemleria cerasiformis FACU Pacific ninebark Physocarpus capitatus FACW- red elderberry Sambucus racemosa FACU red huckleberry (red bilberry) Vaccinium parvifolium NL red -osier dogwood (western red osier) Cornus stolonifera (Cornus sericea) FACW Salal Gaultheria shallon FACU* salmonberry Rubus spectabilis FAC+ Scouler willow Salix scouleriana FAC Sitka willow Salix sitchensis FACW ESA Adolfson Page B-1 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME WETLAND INDICATOR STATUS* thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus FAC- vine maple Acer circinatum FAC- Bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum FACU Cooley's hedge -nettle Stachys cooleyae FACW creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens FACW Enchanter's nightshade Circaea alpina fireweed Epilobium angustifolium FACU+ fringe cup Tellium grandiflora herb Robert Geranium roberianium NL lady fern Athyrium filix-femina FAC large -leaf avens Geum macrophyllum FACW-* orange honey suckle Lonicera ciliosa Pacific blackberry (dewberry) Rubus ursinus FACU Pacific bleedingheart Dicentra formosa FACU* pig -a -back -plant Tolmiea menziesn FAC* slough sedge Carex obnupta OBL sword fern Polystichum munitum FACU tansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea western trillium Trillium ovatum FACU* yellow archangel Lamaistrum galeobdolon *Key to Wetland Indicator Status codes — Northwest Region (Source: USFWS, 1988, 1993): OBL Obligate: species that almost always occur wetlands under natural conditions (est. probability >99%). FACW Facultative wetland : species that usually occur in wetlands (est. probability 67 to 99%), but are occasionally found in non -wetlands. FAC Facultative: Species that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non -wetlands (est. probability 34 to 66%). FACU Facultative upland: species that usually occur in non -wetlands (est. probability 67 to 99%), but are occasionally found in wetlands. UPL Upland: species that almost always occur in non -wetlands under normal conditions (est. probability >99%). NL Not listed: species that are not listed by USFWS (1988, 1993) and are presumed to be upland species. NI No indicator: species for which insufficient information is available to determine status, or which were not evaluated by USFWS. Page B-2 ESA Adolfson June 2009 East Renton Lift Stalion - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study + indicates a species that is more frequently found in wetlands indicates a species that is less frequently found in wetlands * identifies a tentative assignment based upon either limited information or conflicting reviews ESA Adolfson Page B-3 June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Welland, Stream and Wildlife Study APPENDIX C: WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND RATING SYSTEM AND RATING FORMS ESA Adolfson Appendix C June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study Washington State Wetland Rating System The observed wetlands were rated using the Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2004). This system was developed by Ecology to differentiate wetlands based on their sensitivity to disturbance, their significance, their rarity, our ability to replace them, and the beneficial functions they provide to society. Wetlands are categorized using the Ecology rating system according to the following criteria: Category I wetlands represent a unique or rare wetland type; or are more sensitive to disturbance; or are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime. Category II wetlands are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. Category III wetlands have a moderate level of function. They have been disturbed in some ways, and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions and are often heavily disturbed. ESA Adolfson Appendix C June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study Page B-2 ESA Adolfson June 2009 East Renton Lift Station - Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study APPENDIX D: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEETS ESA Adol son Appendix D June 2009 M& AND DETERMINATION .DATA. FORM -Westem MounWris,•VallOys,-and.Coast Region kWestrgeiot(er . I eisdfarrm'.(hbAefetraee;: Are:dirnaNc/ hYdrP►oBfc_cor�tllUons . , e sIIe:typira(fof:Ws,time at ym?. Y. . No :�If!!c�explah!:in<Remsrks )'. Are a/egetatttort Soil : cr 8ysigriiflcantlq dishutied?. Aretormal Present?; Y No Are>Vegatatims -: : r So9 _ oraiydretogy : nabira4 Oobtenist�9: j f:deeded,_e n enY'ertswers �^ Re sts S.,tJNiN1aRY OF FiND1NG5`_ :Attachsite:°mapshOVA.n sampling paint;lr�cations,;:tran cts ampo�ia tfeatuces, etc. Iiyd.Vege%tfoi�:Pleseiii2 Yes__ !i0 %lea; - a, Y.::: - _ No - ✓ Is::Sampted es : Weitaii 9Hy iology_-Pn *d? ar}tldn WeQatid�i�. '.-Yes: t, se�_:dalaa o. tnesz�e�i i GIAj �:T,� T`IiatAie'Ot3.G,;�ACWr;or:FAG:"'... ' (W) .� ❑❑ �^f4�SAM�ITP_.�d`. a:.. _ .. _. . --_ ' Total Cover �t °tDoiit Spel3es _ -- ��=�+re�ol�i,- -�. WB} tiaawraJSfin�strariim::�(PtaPaize: •I.... 7-Tfo!°967Covarof:i.,.-;A�iitiietd. •.__. 1: CVic-a& a:: - satc• 5 '•�ta..�1!ad_ J_ ..._... .. ..... ..... OAGW as t; FAr,'� i"*q , — X 4P; _ ••''•'��� �tUi}F° .�!.: t`!tWw-:._ ..i: 4. Phytla•Yettop hrdkeRois. , T. ::t3.:,...._....__......._.......-.-...... _....._....... ...... ... _.rtavatertaaUUTe7f•iss3a7.- &: =; Wetlatiil;Non-VasaipF,Pta�ts�. .Prct�tem.... lc'Fdroytic:Vegetatjan!:(Ex ptain} trillcwrs;o%til��[�-so7!`eiid;dr�fhantf:Iiyiltolam-mist _ � Q := Total;Cover tiepreseiit;.uritass.dis5ubed orp ; _WoodyJone�S'tiatiirii (Plot arse 5 1 Flydropliy'de Vegetation Ptesestt?' "Yea tio; '96Bate.Grnund:ln'Herb Stratum :Remarks pro} Iac ed Oi�-1-. sIQ c.�P Pe, of 0- d ra2"a3.e-.-, ;epd-v�rc. Ara. % I Vf CA (-�s o,i j�� e,- d. C wim 44 A) uS: Aimy:corps: of &*Mm Western tuounmtrts; VaPaA-.ar.d coast = lnlerfm Version SOIL Sanv t . Point t7P Htstoso�;(A1. _: Sandy,Redoz..(55� 4'10}.: _ Hi—Fpiparfcn:(A2) _ Stripped,A O*h (SB) fiedPBrenlMFaimial:(TF2): Blacjc:HlstlG(7►9j:, _m3! Aaucky.Mineiat.iF�%texcept`t�ALRI+.��' , _>Olher(EzpleFn In:Rerriatsj. _: Hoit! nSL06-(A4) -Loamy (ileyea:Mefibr (F2) -:[7epleled.8eloblDa(ji:Suilaee. (A11) _ Qeplel�:AAatriii (F3); ` Th7clt-Derlcl'aurface:(Al2) _ Redwi Dark:Siuface'(FB) • ttgis'o� fatt .. Qn Bandy;bR dcy.wileral{61) _ Cpp{ated Dark Surface (FF vi�eiteri :hyd °8Y —'SandyCaleyo,Metrpc.(S 01, _ Redox.Depresatons (F8) -�udess distprbed Protileme_IYc .RestrfGtJvelayer;(UPrasent): Type.. :.... .ex 1 e1c� LC. a"reoulred:-ch _� Qdft.QQpq's, Ets:(93) WI)ti Ate 6FCnisl;(B4) _ `trim. .606.5b:(W 'Sutface;39ll;Ciacks.(BM leiusii=lJlsb)e:on Aerial lmegery.(B� �'Siaarsely Vegetetetl-Con cave Surface:(Bl t� cns �o.s'}- cis s-h+�bo�nc.�, . GI•ca�n� a�.d Bde all that annivt • Seeoridery:lndf�tmsd2;ar.'mora�reatdnedl _ iivaie =signed i vea (es).(ex�t•:t► LR :..-.. _ vvate� tair ed i:ea;re8001, uluui'.i� z; ' - .. 1� 2,.4A.:mtd ;.#Ai anti 48j _ ,Self Crust^(81:1) _ :D�tcl8ge;=,�attems(BtO�. _.:Atptaticingerte6rstes;(B+3j ._ �QiySeasQnllYeterjatite�(C2j' _ Hydrogert.Sul!)deOdcr(CIY _ Se(u goi'Vrtite:onA4jial::lmogery:(Coi -..,QxWlwd:Rtdio es •_;:GemapMiwPoaipriDZ� Pt.esefiee.of RcOACed:kt f.(C4J: _:SfiapaKrllgitilerq (D3)' Remo!.!roil':Red} C h't i.TWS4?S_(CM: _ FAC. Neutr ,-re#,,#) .Stunted 4!--; rU ied Plariti`(D 1):.(�RR A) _ _ReiseQ' i t:fMoigids.{Q6)-(LRR: A) _ 'ether (E#datri lh Rerriarka) Frgst=Heave Nprnrtiodlis tR7)' 1887 COE Wetlands Delineation 011anuai Project site: t0.SA i t_ - t S `ar, Sampling Date: Ji 7.9 69 Applicant/Owner 1 ( _ H Sampling Point �pz- Investigator. City/Coup ��( Section, Township, Range_ State: WA L,ndfarm (Ailtslapo. terrace. etc) )^(X Cs/b-Jt. Slope DO Local relief (borreeve, ecnvex, crone) Subregion (LRR) Let Long Datum ' Soil Map Unit Nerve I NWI dassiticallon Are di ma pfhydrolcgic conVons an the site.typicp! for this time of yeah I R. I Yes No (if no, explain In remarlra.) Are 'Normal On urnstanees' present on the site? . . ' Yes No Are vegetation ❑. Sall, ❑. or Hydrology ❑ sioniff6antly dlshubed? Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑. or Hydrology ❑ naturally prowernalla? Of needed. explain any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing samplingoint locations, bwsects, Important Teauues, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation t `aJ Present? r Yes � No Is this Sampling Pointwithin a Wetland? [ Yes ® No Hydric SopTil s Present? tH(r Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks F;- . 1 aC=�"� :. '15 *-'1- glen..•. 1 e.,.d 2>- LI -S.-PY To t�Cs� etas., VCrSCTATtr Hd - I Ian a -1nr& fie roman of nhmtr- Tree Stratum (Plot size „) Absubdu % Dominant Indicator Cover S ? Status Dominance Test Worksheet ,* G Number of Dominant Spades anal we OBL. FACW, or FAC: (A) Z D L & r: tiS A, Total Number of DornI ant Spades Auass All- Strata (B) 4' V-1, ry T'LA-S V t'6 i� � ari i SWIingtShrub Sbzbm (Plot aim n TOW Cow, Percerd of Dominant Spades that ere OBL.'FACW, or FAC: ' D (tVB) 'd: Prevalence Index Worksheet t Mu�nly by OBL Wades x l= Z Foic, i ' l o! - 4. FACW spades x 2 = L i FAC spades x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot dze - TOW Cave► FACU spades x 4 = UPL spades x S - Column totals (A) B I. Cc.cc Prevalence Index = B / A = 2 3. 4. ctro c Vegetation indicators 5. Darrdrance lest is > 50% g. Prevalence test is s 3.0 7. Morphological Adapta* (provide wipparting data In remarks or on a separate sheet) B 9. Wetland Non-VaswlarPhuft 10. Problematic Hwkq*& VagaWon' (exptatn) t1. • 4WIcatms of hydric soil and wbbnd hydrology must be present unless disturbed or pruWarnaft Woody Vine Stratum size TOW Cow Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes No ❑ Present? 2 =Tote! Covm % Bare Ground In Herb Stratum 9$ Remarks: Ste- US Am* Caps of Eriptneers western Mountains, Veueys, and coast - Inta trrr Veralon . Proftle Desert lion: Describe to the depth needed to doasnent the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators - Depth matrix Redmt Fealtues Texture Rerneft Color imoist % Color moist % T ccw- ►L a dudl Z 3 0 Io 3 S t=N to 2. Goew'. on r 'Type: C=Concentratbn, D=Deplatien. RM--Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered ar Sand ('rains =Pore Lirdng, pR-u ft —11 drlc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to an LRRs unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sorts,, , 131 Hlstosal (Al) Sandy Radox (S5) 2cn Muds (A10) El I Hfstic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) 01 Red Patent Material (M) Black Hlsfic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) IVI ❑ Hydrogen Other (explain in remarks) Sulfide (A4) Loamy Glayad Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) p Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark surface (F6) 3Intikaturs of hytb vegetation and we0and hydrology must. Sandy Mu dry Mtnaral (Sl) Depleted Dark Surface (�) be present, ut>�as lsbuad or problematic less di Sandy Glayed Matrix (S4) Radox Depressions (FB) Restrictive Layer Qf present) Ty _ Hydrtc soil present? Y NO Depth M�k Remarks: n _ bad' ��'(" bt,�rr,►�� �cv�� P1�v�A- L�'�y' ' : . HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology huttcators: Primary brdlcefors (rrtlnkmrm afore required cheek all that apply Seaorrdary hmIcatws (2.or more required): surfaco water (Al) Sparsely vegetated Concava Surface (BB) WaterStetned Leaves (89) (MLRA 1; 2, 4A & 4B) High Water Table (A2) WaterStatned Leaves (except MLRA 1; 2, 4A &4B) (Bg) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) sellQust (B11) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Narita (Bt) .Aquatic invertebrates (BU) Saturation VWWo on Aerial Imagery (CB) SedmentDoposfts-(B2)-------- . - Hydrogen•SulOo-Oda.(Cl) ..__......_..._:. _.. ...... . - -- - -GeortmpldcPcsl1k-(D2)-_....__ Dr1R Deposits (83) Udlmd Rtdmspheres along Unft ftocts (C3) Shaffow.Aquitard (03) Algal Mat of Crust (84) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) FAC41eutrel Test (05) Iron Deposits (85) Recent bon Reduction In MIM Sob (qB) Raised Ant Mounds (D6).(LRR A) Surface Sell Cracks (138) Stunted fir Stressed Plants (D7) (LRR A) . ftsMeave Hummoclut Inundation Visible on Astral Other (explain M ) Imagery (87) Field Observations Surface Water Present? Water Table PresanYl O Yea No Depth Q# Yes No Depth MX Wetlarnd Hydrology Yes Q Saturation present? ❑ Yes No Mk pncludes capillary ftgs) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous lnspacllms), if evafiable: Ramartw: ssi � s l.�Tet—G. cn0� . � Y11`J'�" . � Q"t�.i'�d S1 (�' C4-e POSj �--5 0�•, , � 'LD1x% '\htP rY` r US Rrmy Caps aravhreers Western hfatndaM4 Vallaya, and coast— Mt dm varstorr 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Q-2vv-kct vv\ Qycp SarnplIng Date: 7 ` J ` Applicent/Owner. rn Sampling Point ' Investigator titylCounty: VQLA Sedlorn. TowrmMp. Range: State: WA LwWform (hMslope. terrace. aft) )N a Slope rA) Q Local relief (concave, cmwm. ruxre) -- (t-RR) i at nw-Sop Long DSbttn &W Unit Name MNi damftaflon Are dimaticlhydrologic aondib= on the sits.typlca! for Ws d" of year? Yes ❑ No (if no. axplatn in remarks.) ❑ Ara •NmTnif C3rmunstBnces' presehl on the WW Yes NO '.� _..__.....__ ............................... �_........_... _ .._........ Are Vegetaton ❑. Sap: ❑. or Hydrology O slolkantlY d AAvf7 _._..__... _._.__.___ _ Are Vegetation ❑. W. O. or Hydrology ❑ naturally protrlerrretles (n nmd4 m#tdn any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site inap shomwing sampling oint locations, transacts, Irnport3nt features eta Hydrophydc Vegetation Present? Yes ® No is this Sampling Point within a Weiland? � Yes ®No Hydric Sags Present? Yes No Wetland Hydros Pyog mserd?_ ® Yes No Remarks: Tree Stratum (Plot stm ` r� ) A % Cover Dominant Mcalnr edes? Status Domlrmince Test Worksheet / r e / . �'t Y!•�� Numbm of Dominant Spades !i� that are C1131. FACW, or FAC ( ) . / '"• A z sP te-I _ <i i D s U Total Number of Domkmnt SpeciesAoassAll'Stratm (B) 4. r SgMng/Sh ub Stratum (Plot size.J = Toad COVOr Percent of Do'n*lsm Spades Ulm am C 21,FACW. or FAC: Q �) 1. Prevalence Index Worksheet rof tCp3 08L spades X1. L _ a(.t S / fl� L 4• lSw. ,: a-� S._ i (ht, ' FACW spades 2 x 2 = t7 a �. tot .� b% L-1 S V G FAC apedes 10 x 3= p i • - r Herb Stratum (Pka dta ) Toad Cover FACU spades x 4 = 4 $ UPL spades x 6 = O Column taQels (/1 Prevalence Index 6 / A = Z , + 2 4. Hydrophytic V090MM Indicators 5. Dmrdlrmrta test is 3, 50% 621 Prevalence test is s 3.0 - 7:MorombocalAdeptatlons I Wvvlde a Wwdng dsta in remarks or on a separate street) 5• 9. Wetland Nan-Vesadar Phints * 10. Problematic Hydrophyde Vegetation' (explain) 11. ' indicators of hydrie soil and watiand hydrology must be mien dlshxbed or probtematic wooft Was Stratum on& st m = TOW CUM Vegatalton Presents Yee � NO ❑ ZHydrophytic =TOW Cam % Sara Ground in Herb Strabrm -! Remarks: UIS Mny CoW of FngWeers Wasmm Aftwi km Valleys, and Coed - hdeAn veraton Profile Desert on: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or cardbTn the absence of Indicators Depth Matrix Redox Features aaches ) I Texture Remarks Color (molstl % Color (moist) % Type] Lae WA. qe, Lolino W Oiltd'fp�f, I 12, C--Cancentration, 11--Doplation, RM=ReducF-d Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-oc: PL-Pom Lbft M--Malft Hydric Sol] indicators: (Applicable to all LRR unless Otherwise noted.), Indicators for Problematic, Hydric Soils' Histoso (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Hisk Eplpodon (A2) Striped Matrix (S13) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black HWc (M) Loamy Mucky Mineral (FI) (except MLRA i) Other (explain In remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 8 Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Mabix (F3) 0 Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (FG) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hytimhWinust. Sandy Mucky Uraval (Sl) 0 Depleted Dark Woos (FT) be present unless dishubed or praWamado [31 Sandy Glayad Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (FO) Restrictive Laver (If Present): Type: Hydric sW present? Depth O=hasy Remark&- ec. ay HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indleatonk Primary km7cators (Mk*num of one mquh& check all OW ep*,t Sa=tdajy kw%xtors (2.or more Surface water (Al) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (am Water,%olned Umas (139) (MLRA 1; 2,4A & 40) High Water Table (A2) Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 11-, 2.4A & 4B) (139) Drainage Patterns (BIO) Saturation (A3) sestoust(Bll) Dry,%eason Water Tattle (C2) WatarMarks (BI) Aquatic, Invertebrates (613) Saturation MsU)W an Aerial Imagery (C9) SadJmant-Dsposh:3-(B2)----- -Hydrogen-SuIfidwGdor-(C1).: ... .... -GemwpMc Poslgon-(02)-. 11'rost-Heava d Drift Deposits (133) E3 -OxIdind Rhbmspheres Wong UvIng (0) ShaWAquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust(134) Presanca of Reduced Iron (C4) FACA4euW Ted (D5) Iran Deposits (B5) Record Iron Reduction In Tilled Solls (Ce) R Ant Mounds (06).(LRR A). Surfers Sao Cracks (Be) Shaded br Shessed Plants (Di) (I.RR A) Hummocits Inundation VLqNs an Aerial Other (explain In remarks) Imagwy (137) Field Obearvatlons WaterPresent? Yes Water Ta ble WeEdable Yes No Depth (Inx Pb Depth OnX I Wattand Hydrology Present? FN. ❑ Saturation prasent? Yes No Depth QnYO (Includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring WEA aerial photos, previous lnspecdons), If awftw&* Remarks: 'DP-.3 17 k\ CA IDVL Clq Wksk e4 r -wl C -4(k W6+(aA C'� L III US Army Crops of Engineers Western Mounfdn36 Vaby36 and Coast- Udedin version 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual a Project Site: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner. C_i Sampling Point: 4 Investigator_ YJ City/Courriy: t Section, Township. Range: State: WA a n l:andform (htitsiope, terrace, etc) m t, pal Slope (96) 2 Local relief (eve, convex, crone) Subregion (LRRJ 71 Lot Long Dahrm Soll Map UnK Nerne NW1 dessuiication Are dimaUrlhydroiogic condllidAs an the slta.typical for this time of year? Yea No (if no, explain in remarks.) Are 'Nomral Ctraanstenees' prasebt on the spa? . . ' Yes No ra Avegetation ❑, San, ❑, or Hydrology i] signillian►1y dtait=bad? Am C Avegetation ❑, Sell, Elor Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? cg needed, explain any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY Ul- FINDINUN — AUBCn sera rnap Snowl santpung potm rocauons, Vansects. wiportam Textures, a= Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes FM No Is this Sempilng Point ry aft a Wetland? ® Yes [ No Hydric Sods Present? ❑ Yes No Wetland Hydrology present? Yes No \ �`�Ar~� VEGETATION — Use scientific names of phaft I Tree Stratum (Plot slza Absolute % Dominant Indicator Cover ? Status • Dominance Test Warksheet b [ YL Number of Dominant Species that ere OBL. FACW, or FAC (A) 1 x 6� i / Total Number of Dominant Species Aaess At Strata: (8) 4. = Tctd Cover SaplktgfShruli Strahm (Wet size Xr� percent of Damkwd Spades that ate OBL. FACW, or FAQ ' WB) t.1,05A,,;Alrf�S W Prevalence Index Wortmheet CAL species Z' 4LV%I. n4, 6 119 4. FACW spades x 2 = FAC spades x 3 = = ToW Cover ! Herb Stratum (Pkd size FACU spades x 4 = UPL apedes x 6 = Column totals lA) B 1.GO cr Prevalence Index = B / A = i 2 3. 'r . .nynriww. 4. My Vegetation Indicators 6. V Dominance test Ia > 60% 6. Prevalence test Is S 3.0 7. Morphological Adaptations' (provide supporting date to remarks or an a separate sheet) 9, 9. Welland Non -Vascular Warta' Ia. Pto!>lernatla HydmpMOc Vegetation - (expleln) 11. . • Indicators of hydric =c0 and netiand hydrology must be present unless dlstufbad or problemalic = Total Comr woody vine Stratum(Not stze I5 Hydrophyae Vegeta0°n Yes f No ❑ Present? l� l 1. M 5 t/►Y 4 2. r 1 s / r = Tare! Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Errgkreers Western Mounfahm Valleys, and Coast — Mferfm Veralon Profile Desch on: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators Depth matrix Redox Features nchesColor molst % Color maist % T Texture Remarks r T n 'Type: C=Cortcsn 1ratkm, D=Deplatlon, RM=Reduced Mabfx. CS=Covered or Coaled Sand (trains rLoc PL=Pore LWng, M=Matrtx tydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all IRRs unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Sous' HLStosol (A1) ❑ Sandy Red= (SS) FM 2km Muds (Al0) Hlstk Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stopped Matrix (SS) FM Red Parent Material (TF2) Black HLsdc (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mhraral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Dow (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sufte (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surfaea (Al2) Redox Dade Surface (FS) . x Indtraign: of hydraphytic vegetation and wetland hydrology irgrst. Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present unless disturbed or probtemadc Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Daprasaions (FB) Restrictive Layer (tf present): Tree - Hydrlc soil prasernt? Ygs ❑ No Depth Qnchesr Rsmw*&: ��11 �-ot s� � n, off' Sti-� � +�� � �� - • NO v► HYDROLOGY Weiland Hydrology indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one requlsd dredr all That apply): sracondary Dora (2.or more required): surface water (At) . Sparsely Vow Concave Surface (69) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (tM M 1; 2, 4A 8 413) High Water Table (A2) WatarSt»tned Leaves (except MLRA 1; 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Seft Cnrst(B11) Dryseaso n Water Table (C2) Water Marks (81) Aquatic bates (B13) Saturation Viafbte on Aerial Imagery (CO) SedimentDeposttw(B2) ___ _ __B- Hydrogen-Sr1Bde-Odor•(C1) __..._..._... ......._...:_ ...... --GaomorphkPosWan-(D2)._ Drift Daposi a (83) .09dtzod Rtdmspheres rdotg Uvktg Roots (0) Shallow.Aquitard (03) Algal Met or Crust (84) Pmsw= of Reduced bon (C4) FAC-Neutral Test (M Iron Deposits (BS) Recent bon Rat In Tilled Solis (CS) Raised Ant Mounds (OS) (LRR A) . Surface Sail Cracks (ES) Stunted br Sires d PWft (01) (LRR A) Frost -leave Hummocks _. Inundation Visible on Amtel Other (explain in remarks) Imagery, (B7) Field Observations Surface Water Pnraent? Water Table Present? Yes No Depth Pnr Yes No Depth pnx Wetland Hydrology Presort? Yes ❑ Soluratlan Present? Yes No Depth (hick (Includes ®Pl4ary king) Describe Reomrded Data (stream gauge, monitoring wall, aerial pho>las, prevlous Ir spacConsr N svallaft RemerkxnrY/ US Army Crops of Empsers Western Moorntahm VaUeya, and Coast— lahnim Version 1887 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual -ProjectSitS:--Sampling Date: .-----`i 29.. --------- AppltcanUOwner. �p�y0 sc Sampling Pofit Invesdgator. " S K city/county: Sudan, TownsMp, Range: State: WA Landibrm (hillstope. terrace, etc) Slope N �.- Local mud(eve, convex, norm) Subregion (LAR) A ILet LongI Deturn Sag Map Unit Name NVVI classifcation F0 Are d;matirfiydrdagtc conditions on the site typlgei for ft ttme of years I 12W Yes 1 11 1 No (if no, explain In remarks.) t A / �( Are *Normal Cinwrnstancee present on the site? . ' Yea No V� . Are Vegetation 0, Shc, 0. or Hydrology ❑ significantly dlstnabeiW Ara Vegetation 0. Sell. O, or Hydrology O naturally problematic9 (If needed, w pram any enswws In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site Map Showing Sarnpung point locations, transacts, important featwes, etc. Hydrophylie Vegetatlon Present? Yes FE-11No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 10 Yes ® No Hydrtc Sob Present? Yea Fffl No Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No Rema*s: VCr2CTATr1tf1 — d Im ��ienMRr emmae n/ manta Tree Sbut um (Plot size 30 1 Absolute % Cover Dominant Spectep Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1440 Vhc-: Number of Domkond Spades that are 08L. FACW, or FAC: (A) z 3 : _ . ` 3. Tatar Number of Dominant -Species A== Al Strati (8) 4. . Sap0ngf8hrub Strabrrir (Plot size IS r , 1- O Toms cover Percent of Dominant Spades Dud are 09L. —Ja---- 1• 1t•, s: p Z D Prevalence Index Worksheat T Cover of yb 081. species x 1= 2 5P{ 3. 4. FACW appdes x 2 a ti FAC spades x 8 = Herb Stratum (Plot size C; ) = Toted Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL spades x53 Gutumn totals A B 1. C. Prevalence Index a 81 A = 2 3. 4. ftdrpphy VeSSItation Indicators 5, DamInance lest to )'- 50% . g• Prevalence test is S 3.0 1. Morphoiogld Adaptations • (p wWa supporting data In remarks or on a separste sheet) g, 9. Welland NmrVasadar Plants ICL I Prnhtemetic Hydrophytic Vegetation ' (exdaln) 11. • Inds of hyddc sell and wetland hydrology must be present unless dkbobed or proWsmatic Wootly Vine Stratum size �S a Toms Cover Present? Vegetation Yes No O 1. o.T rh 0. fJlt S 2 =TomlCover % Bare Ground In Herb Stratum Remefha: US Army Corps of Engineera ' Western A40tatmkM Vallen and, Cost — lmvdm Version Profile Desert on: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicatom. Depth Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color moist % Color moist % Type) 3EJ o s a • o(6/2- - 0 20 o It 3 'Type: C--Concentration, DnDepladon, RWRedueed Matrix, CS-Covared or Coated send Grains 21-oc PL-Pore tiring, MnMalrix H drlc Solt Indicators: (Applicable to all unless otherwise nolad.) indicators for Problematic Hydric Sogs' 0I HWmol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) rUj 2cm Muds (A10) 101 HWIc £Plpaden (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) FM Red Parent Material 072) ❑i Black 1-I19tic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) EM Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Radox Dark: Surface (FB) x krdlcatrirs of hydraphydc vegetation and wsdand Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic hydratagy Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (FB) Restrictive Laver Of present): Tom: Hydrlc so0 present? Yps No D Depth Onchas� Remarks: ' &� r, l s d � s-E-u � bid . aid tr; � 2ce_cj — ��,,:, t `� �v rcr!-c.�{ 0.-}- 9 �, . • r� cppe t a 05An, Ae-0 HYDROLOGY Wettand Hydrology Indhutorm Primary lndicetors (ednkmrm o/one ragxdrad chedf ell that ePPM Secar o&7 fndk�tora (2 err more ragcrbed j Surface water (Al) Sparsely vegetated Concave Surface (BB) WaterStelned.Leavea (119) MLRA 1; 2, 4A & 46) High Water Table (A2) Water -Stabled Leaves (except MLRA 1. 2, 4A &4B) (Bg) Drainage Patterns (810) Sahua w (A3) Salt Crust (B11) DrySesson Water Table (C2) Water Marks (91) Agxmda Invert (B13) SarivaUon Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO)Sed4nentDopasftsQ32)-._.- - - Hydrogen-suifide•Qdor(C1) .__._.__ .... ... ....... ....... ..GeanaphlePasitiorx(Dy)_.....------_._.�___ Drift Deposits (133) L3 -Oxldkwd Rhhmaphares along Living Roots (C3) mow Aqultard (D3) Algal Mat of Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) FAC-Neutral Test (DS) iron Deposits (B5) Recent bon Reduction in Tilled Sails (C6) fialsed Ant Mounds (09) (LRR A) Surface Sall Cracks (136) Stunted or Stowed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Fros6Heava HWnmodo Inundation Visible on Aarial Other (explain In remarks) Imagery (137) Field Observations Surface Water Present? Yea Water Table Present? Yes No Depth Qnk No Depth QnX Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes - No O Saturation Present? Yes D No Depth QnX lames capilla►y frirxge) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspedlonsl Navallable: Remus SVI � /� � yam: !1►�d� i r` l�. r��,. . o O �1 SG✓i C4 i54LO des t US Army caps orErngtnsers western Mowdalns, Valleys, and Coast- bnfedm version 19 '87 COE Wetlands Delineation IylarttrA) - - - Project Site: l n d (It P% Lk4 ` k-k" 41'1 SampMg Date: ZA — C-' Applic:ant/Owner. 04aisn (lq�) Sampling Poirtt: Investigator_ / ClhdCounly. Section. Townstdp. Range: State: WA . LmWr rot (hllWope, terrace. etc) L Slope N Local reW(concave, ranvex, norte) Subiegion (LRR) Let long Darien ' Soil Map Unit Name NWI dasstdratlon (A, ( a Are Wmaticthydn)Wc oortdilion an the sfte.typical far Oft time of year? Yes No (If rlo, explain to remarks.) m Ara'Normal Cirwstances' present an the site? . ' Yes No . ra AVegetation ❑, Sail. ❑, or Hydrology Q signititiardiy dbturi�? Are Vegetation ❑. Sall, ❑, or Hydroogy ❑ naturally problematic? (tf Headed. explain any answers In Remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showt sam >jng point locations, bansect% tinpartant etc. HydrophyUc Vegetation Present? I ty I Yes rM No Is this Sampling Point wWdn a Wetland? ® Yes LX No Hydric Sob Present? PW Yes rM No Wettarld Hydrology Present? M1 Yea rw No Remwkr VC/_RATIMJ _ I lam c I&MMe nninac of ninn/A Tree Stratum (Plot size '/l/ Absdute % Dominant Cover §M80 Indicator Status Dondnance Test Worksheet t p c ,, �.� x b N G Number of Dorrdnant Spedea that are OBI, FACW, or FAC: (A) z ti i Tatat Number of Dominant Spades Across AllShats: (B) 1. 4 5(rtn.�h �% L 51 t SapihMphrub Stratum (Plot atze t =Tots! Cam --ter � oDomhM Species FACW, or FAC. (AM) t S o c f- r '.44-*v Prevalence Index Workshest uM IUoiv by OBL spades x 1- z Z' A Oa ?, t vl^n . 4 sp FACWedes x 2 = ta, FAC species x 3 a f pp kerb Stratum Plot size i` ) = Total Cesar FACU spades x 4 - UPL species X 6 - Cotmfrrtoteis A B 1. i Prevalence Index = B./ A = Z 3. 4 c Vegetation Incilcators 6 Domhumce test Is:-, 60% IL Prevalence test Is s 3.0 • T. Mcrpttdoglml Ada;b mra • Waybia Ong data In remarks or on a separate shoot) 9, 9. - WetJertd NcrrVescular Plants 10. Prablsmaiic Hydmph& Vagetaton • (explain) 11. • Indtcators of hyMe sell and wetland hydrology must be unless disturbed or problematic 1present, Woodv Vbw Stratum lot sba = Tote) Cam Hydmph= Vegetation Yes � No Present? ❑ Z TOW ccvw 9(+ Bere Ground In Herb Stratum Remarks: � US Amry Corps Of Engb eers , Western hbunWnS. Vallays, and Coast - Interim Version Profile Desch ption: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators Depth Matrix Radox Features rxfies Texture Remarks Color % Color moist % T Lae 101.14L. --ro1 1'00 M el - 'Type: CcConcantration, D=Deplation, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains rLaa PL=Pom Llnl4 M=Matrix ftydric Son Indicators: (Applicable to all unless otherwise noted.) IrWeatms for Problematic Hydrlc Sotle r Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) 2cm Muds (Al0) Histic Epipedon (A2) 40 ❑ Stripped Matrix (SO) Red Parent Material (M) Black Hlsdc (AW ❑ "Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fi) (except MLRA 1) FM Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al1) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) 100 Redox Dark Surface (Fe) 3tndkegrs tof hydrophyllc vagetallm and waflandst rturSandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) be presarrt, unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Guyed Matrix (S4) . Redox Depressions (FB) Restrictive Layer (ff present): Type:epth Hydric soft present? Yps �) Remarks hJAL-.�r6 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary irrdk abrs (minlmurn of one raVire& check ag that apply):. Secandary hnetkatars (2 ormare requhed): Surface water (Al) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) WaterStahted Leaves (Bg) (MLRA 1; 2, 4A & 413) High Water Table (A2) WetarSt *W Leaves (except MLRA 1; 2, 4A & 4B) (139) Drainage Patterns (Bto) Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Gust (611) Dry -Season WeterTabte (C2) Water Marks (B1) .Ato kwaRabrates (B13) Saturation Malbb an Aerial imagery (C9) SedlrnentDeposits (82) .. —Hydrogen-SkdBde-Odor(Ct) GeamorphIcPasi1lonj )._--.".--.---._._.._.___._� Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidised des along Living Roots (0) Shatlow.Agrdtsrd (CM Algal Met or Gust (B4) 13 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) FAC'44eutrel Test (D5) Iron Deposits (BS) ❑ Recent Iran Reduction in Tilled Salle (CS) Raised Ant Mounds (DO) (M A). Surface Sall Cracks (BB) Stunted brStressed Pterkb (D1) (LRR A) Frosta•leave Hummocks Inundation Visible on Aerial Other (explain In remarks) Imagery (BT) Field Observations Surface WaterPrasent? Water Table Preserd? Yee Yes No Depth any �1 No Depth pnk Welland Hydrology Preset Yea ❑ Saturation Present? Yes - : --!.No, Depth (lnk L_:J / (includes capillary hinge) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring wait swU photos, previous ksspacd ns� if available: Remarks: V N o US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mo uWakrst Valleys, and Coast — irdedm Versfan WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region C'-tck-*Z'^ City/County. Y_' Sampling Date• A,,ftwownar CA,, k4yyN 1 V-4 r 60 State: ".4h, Sampling ftft Inveriffoar(s): Section, Tawnshtp. Range. Landform (hMsIoM Local relief (concave, convex, noner Slope (%r .Storeglon (LRRr Let Long: Datum Sall Wp Unit' Nww ti G NWI dessiji aw, ,Are climatic hydrologic conditions on the site typical for - this time of year? Yes No - (if qo, explain In. Remarks} Are Vegetation ..Sall or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Am *Nwml Circurnstances" present? Yes _4Z No Are vegetation: :.Sofl or Hydrology naturally Powaff"C? (If needed, explain any answata ba Remarks.) SUMMARY. OF -FINDINGS - Attach site map-zhowing sampling point locations, transectscimportant features, etc- :Hydrcoq* Vegetation Present? yes No Is the Sampled Area Yes_ No vAthin a Welland? Yes No -1 _XL Wedand.H , ydroftjr PrasbW Yes Pro Remad= eA A VOOETOON _ Use scientific names of plants. 1 Tm*§ . Iraturn (Plot alm 30 %Cover Species? SWus r-pxr- 4. I (Plot size: 85 = Total Cover 16 Y LA-C, CV-G-?_rV%0S 06- 10 y 'FA CU. 3. (1210; s* 0_r ex �_LA -Totweaver L)Wy__ - :3. 4t: 7. 8. 10. 11, Wdodi' Vine 'Stratum (Plot =Tow Cover 'FA W Total Cover M7 US Arnty Corps of Erdnaers Number of Dwkgut 088. That Are OBL, FAQA �jdjFAC: (A) Total. Number of Dqmlnan( Species ACFC;;kU strata. L5 (s) Percent of Donalant Species That Are OM, FACK,"6t. PAC: inV (AM) x I:- OBL species FACW.specia: *2= FJOC J1jj'.'jjjjC;jW x - AID_ FACUspachn x4zz_ UPL species. Column TotsW . B) Prevalence tr"-Ii!d.by Morphological A0pte0=..(Prcvjdq.sqpnArg data InAernmis &.-bh.i'saordia sheiii) Wetland Non-Vascular.01snisl PrCmematic.HydrophYL-Vegetallon? P(P.18`10 1 6068 of hydric*jbD jM L - ,dhy nd wellan. be present;.urde!ih disturbed-lbi Proweinatic:- Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?' yes No Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coal - Interim Version, SOIL sampans Polar J>P 7- -U�I" Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or conf rm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist)_ - Color (moist) % _ Tyce _ D-� oYRz 2 IDD _Texture Remarks �„� Gho,rcoal (o —ro I oYFZ 4 14 o.Y 3 It, o! ! 6 10'-4 R 2-/Z 100 'Type: C=Concentra RM=Reduced Ms CS=Covemd or Coated Ssnd Grafts. 2Larag= PL_PoreLkft.,M=MabiL Hydrlc Soil Indicators: (Appticablelo ap;LRRs, unlewethenvise noted.) Indicators for PrrobiemaHdHydrts Soils r _ Hlstosol (Al) _ Sandy:Redox.(SIB) _ 2 cm Muck (AID) _ Hlstic Eptpadon.(A2) _ Stripped: A9" (S8) ^Red Parent Material (TF2): _ Blacic.Hisac (A3) _ Logmy.Nhay. [Vlineraf (F1), (except MLRA 1) _ Other .(Explahn >nRertnarks) _ Hydrogen Suthde (A4) _ Loairiy Played Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface:(A11.) _ Deptetad U hik (F3): _ Think Dark Surface (Al 2) _ _ Redo*Dark:Surfa= (Fe) 'Indicators of hydrophysavegetaffon and ` _ Sandy Mucky INfnarsl.(51). _ Deplete_ d.Dprk Surfim (F7) Welland hydnobW must be:present, _ Sandy Played Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (FS) unless disturbed or..problematic. Restrictive Layer Of present): Type-" Depth pnehes): ._ Hydrie Soll Present? Yea Qio; Remarks;So (As Sa. U Co;�',ck a-k- r( 6Gt c HYDROLOGY Wetland -Hydrology. Indicators:: - Primary Indicators (mintmum.ofone reculred checic.e[I ihaRaoolvl Secondary fndkator's f2:oi'iriora reaiiireeS _, swtace water (tip y —: wa e;.sai�iea ie�►es (Be) (excjpt:4 RA _ Wetr.Sta� eaves . 1 {Pi► M? ;2 _ Nlgh..Water Table (A2) ,l;,2;;4A;'a;td 48) 4A,-wW.4B) Saturation (A3) _ :Belt Cnlsl (811) _ Orafrtttgs-Patterns (81.0) _ :Water I(latks (61) ._.;Aguat}o:kivettt rates'(813) _ Ory-6easbn Wetef.T8*e p2i _ Sedlni�, DBposlls (B2} Hydrogen Sulkde Odor (C1) _ Satural)on:Hisi *-*o a Aer(al..I�MgelY (G9} _ DriR Deposits (B3) _.•;Qiddized:Rtdnbspiteres a1ong U+rbt9 Roots.(0) _ Geartatptttc Positiar(D'2). Algal Mat or Qust.(B4) _ . Pfeserice of Reduced Iron-(C4) _ Shallow Aquitatd' (D3) _ (rori Deposits:(BS) _ ReceaIron-Reduction in 7il1ed:Sd3.(Ce) _ FAC-Nteufrsf:TW-(DS) _ Surface Sall Cracks (PS) _ :Staiite� gr'Stressed Plaids (D1) O-RR A) _ Raised •Ant M o-(QS) (.RR A): _ lmardetion VWbie.on A ifW.hnagery(ER) _:Oltrer'(Errplaln in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave.Fbuiormelrs (1 7): _ Sparsely Vegetated Coonc-m— Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No,..Depth(irtdtes): WaterTable Presto? Yes No.Depth Onclies): Saturation Present? yes. 'ha Qepili'(L" s.): Wetland Hydrology Present? *Yes No nctudes capillary M e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monkoring-riefl, seriafphotos, previous Inspecaons), if available: Remarks: ,Sol15 cic, -4oIL US Amty Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Veralm WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: _ �"� CitylCounty �1` Co :Samp*V Dale: s v Appliwn owmer State Sarrvil tg Point Jp8 - 14" "estigalot(s): SISO M23, section. Township: Range G Landfair (hAisiope. teirace, etc.): M&-uLz Local relief (concave. convex, none): _(''�✓t �,a�L-L Slope (%Y. -Z_ Subregion (LRR): Let Long: n Datum: Soo Map Unit Name: NNWI dassWcatlan .' Y Are dimalic I hydrologic conditions on ire site typical for ft time, of year? Yes No (if no, explain In Remari a ) Are Vegetation . .Sol , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are'Normal CircurnowmaC present?. Yes No Are Vegetation Sall , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed; explain any'ansvrars to Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach Site map snowing sampling point tocattons, transects, important features, etc. 'Hydro0*1c Vegetation Presdni? Yes No is the Sampled Area ' / }lyidric Soil Present? Yes No wMdn a Wetland? Yes V No "Wetland.Hydrology Present? Yes No ISoltoG°�—e G- eC6)U nnr~ (y/ ill- 12 +e&\- Eat c,�- I VEGETATION - Use sciendfic names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size . 30 Cover Scedes? S e s 2 'Pob�...[ a 1�c.1SaMiefa�. �_ _� ! 4. Sactina/Shrub.Stratum: 1. (Plot SimC. 5 Total Cover y_ FAC. . :2.c u r0.t e.r�o��� 5 �! �acu A.- Herti•Siratum? (P{atslze:,. � � -`9 1. Tout Cover 7: 4. 5. 8. 7. 8. . 10. 11: .Wdcdv'lQrie.SkaIum —�S (Plot size: i S 1 _� = Total Cover VAC. 1 r'C c'�c u.5' 2 N_ IN t % Bare. Grmrnd in' Herb Stratum , OM_ -19--= Tote) Cover Number of Dominanf.Speelea �� That Are OBL, FACWf, :or. FAC: (A) Total Number. of Dorrihremt 2 2✓ SpedesAaasa.AQ Stfefa: (B) Percent or Dcmbwrit::Species That Are:OBl, FAC}N oiFAC: 5E' {AIB). .. Tota196.Co�ier'oE',: •. � :_ . = iNuftiolr fir. c OBL spades FACW;spadey.i... ........ . X�ja .. FAC spedas . FACU spades x 4 a . UPL.spedea: x.5= Column Totals: ; (A) (B) Prevalence lgdex = WA =- Dominance Test,is'.>609G ,_ Prevalence tndaiiis 53.0.' _ Mwphoiogtcal Aoiptetkfns'..(Provide supporting data tn. Remarks or on a' -separate meet) _ Weiland Non•VascuIw.Piards' _ Problematic.Hydmpl►ylie Vegetation' (Uptaln) 'Indlcatom of hyddc soil WaW w- ellaitd hydrology dwi be present, urdeis dlstwbed•ct probigmetic. Hydrophyde Vegetation Present? Yes No Lok-S ak vCiGv-s a^ -.I I Gr--�S v/1 &116^^Ol US Army Corps cf F.ggineers Western Mountable• Valleys, and Coast - Interim Version SOIL Sampung Point Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirmdhe absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Regiox Features (inched Color(moisil % Colorlmaist) % _ISM Lc_ TextureRemarks O- _ 0 Y 1 I _Im Sire`^ f o pR ti /3 r b I o `fl~ 31-4 2S G !✓� ��►re�� �i l <1: c v R If 'T e: C=Concentration D= "le .RM=Reduced MCS=Covamd or Coated Sand Gralns. "Locallon: PL=PoM. M=Matdx. Hydric Sall indicators: (Applicable to all LIUL uriiesa:otherwise noted.) Indicators foi Problematic Hydrlc$ol4i., — Hlstosol (41) S**.Rddcfx.(S5) — 2 cm Muds (A10) — Hiptic Epipe4gn.(A2) i�- S)ripped AQetrbc(SBj Red'Parent_ Material (TF2) —.Black Hist1c.(A3) _Loam Nha Cy llAlne;a) (F1}texcePt'MLRA 1I ]iL Other-(Fxpleha-In. Reirrat(cs) — Hy rogeii SulRde.(A4) _9:oarnyi{ileyed tlAabbr (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark:Surface (A11). • = Qepieted Mantic (F3): Thick Deck Surface. (.12) — Redmlftr c,*aface (F6) rindlcators.of hydrophytle:vegetation and — Sandy Mucky Mlneral0l) _ Deptoted Ogtic.Sutface (F7) wettand k*ctogy must k presenL _ Sandy Gleydd Matrix (S4). Redox_ Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or.. prablemath RasMcUve La .yerpf pmsen*- Type- Depth (inches): r Hydric Soil Present? Remarks: HYDROLOGY t Wetiand.Hydrology Indicators;: Primary Indleatcre fmtnimum.of ona m-kid: dtatk4il-Ihst eadtiil tiemrtdery Indicators t2=ar.rriore ienuiredl _ Surface water -(Ai j WeWStainad Leaves (Bo) (except fMLRA — WaterStairied Leaves (80 MLRA jet tgh; Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A; and 4B) 4A, -and 48j _✓ Saturation (A3) _ Sad .Cris# (Bi:1) _ Diatr?age Ptems (B{0). „ . _ Water Marks (B1) _,-Seam. (B13) — Dry.Seam. Water.Tahle (C2� _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydmgen SuJfkf%.-0dor (C1) — SabuaBoit.lAs�le;on:Aerial.lmagEry.(C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _..: : Wires along. Uving Roots (0) — Geomorptdc Poailich (D2). _ Algal Mat or Crust (34) _; Pr'ssw= of Reduced Iron-(C4) — ShallowAgtdtard-(03) _ tron Deposib.(Bs) _ Handal lreri. Redurrtion' In Tilled Solls.(C8) _ FAC44euhsl Test:(D5) _ Surface SoH Cracks (86) —Stunted orStrassed Plants (01) (LRR A) _ Raised Arai Motuids (D8) (LRR A). — Imrndettori Visible on Aerial:trnegagr (BY) _. Other:(Expiain to Remarks) — FtoslMteave.Hramnod.m (DT) — Sparsely.Vegatated Concave,Siirtace (83) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes.. 'Na.�_..Dapth Watar-Table Proseni? Yes ✓ No DepUtQntt=-.):.. } t tf Saturation Preserrt9 Yee, t/ I, Ozpt2i`(tnrlias): "A Wetland Hydrology Present?- . YasNo ncludes capillary faring) Oeseribe.Rscorded.Data (suearngouge. monitwing_wiA:aeft phot*:prevfous Inspections) if evai7abl� Remarks:t J-�oef .� rt�4l �M�fY1_�C�l j StiV 4OLL-e� � K e. w o�-eJ' � 11 'r be.�"d't� s � t•�t�.� +��l� ��"Y �KSC{�r �l✓� Il` l.✓C�T f n") }�yl US Army Carps of Engbreem 1 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Interim Venom WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region proj.ww,: 60,e-4- S4-J,-&-^cuyrmty- Y--jCo Sampling Date: 5/s Appftantfowner (AA-1 Of: State: W _Pr Sampling Point investigatols): spi 'YR-g Section. Township. Range: Landfarm (hMdo Pe. teirece, etc.): Local relief (concave. convex. nona','-A-Y-A(.Q%-AW-, Slope (%r-5— Subregion (LRR c A- Lot Long:_ Datum Soli Map Unit Name:— NWI claltsi Are dhaft I hydrologic condWc=iojn ate site typical for.this Urne of year? Yes—,.,—/ No (tirto. exptaln ln'RenuwkL) Are Vegetation . Soil or Hydrology significantly disturtied? Are'Normal Circumstances! present? Yes V No Are Vegetation -.W or Hydrology naturally pmbl=Wr-? (If needed, explain any.ans1,=In'Rernnrks.) 5ummAKY. up-mNoiNuou - Anacn site map snowing sampling point locations, transem.1important teatums,. etc. Yes V No the Sampled Area Hydric SO-13misdrP Yes. No— whmn a Wetland? Yes No -W6ftqridHydMb" PMSWW Yes No— Reff*ks: Oh ?A r-� L:)f- Wf 4A '-\rj ... ... .... - - Vr-.U.t:IA.!.lUri—use $r4Onmc.names'oT.piants. Tree Stratum (plot Sim PAArlll--- CLA.6<--- Absolute JA G-ver b =iWb, D"driard Indicator Suedes? StBW9 Y :Z. 2-S qA C-. .3. 4. "L". Spe-LA-46i ki S. IDS 10 -2— =TcblCavar T- A C' .Hgrb'-SfttUM- (Plot Btw.- =TOW Cover Y ct.: -2; Pots,8MAN,�,r1 can v.,V'tV 1 t-J FA CV 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 10.- weadv'We"Straturn (Plot size. Tu.-bV-SL cf rrv%e % ax-v—S. TOW COW Y :FAt-u % Bare Grmmd Iry Herb Stratum01JA Total Cover US Army Corps cfErIgbrecrs Nwnbar of Dorrdnant.Specles That Are bBL, FACWji&i. L tAY iolal N' wnber of D-pff d-rant: 5 lei SpedwAcroaiAli*g lift. Percent of Donanant species That Are OB.L. FACW.-&.-FA4- x1- OBL species FACW.zpecIw:.. —..;(2= FAC species'. FACU'apa6fes x4= UPL species x 5 - Cofturin Tdww (A) — (B) pr"ala= index a 61A.m Uit W-:-M Morpt*g1q; Adepiellons'.(Provide supporting A data Ineffewits G"r 6 . hAse prate sheit) Watimul *wWascular.Piantso ProWe.maft-Hydrophyq; Yagetallon? (Expjain) 'Indlc*ata'mofhyddii..airid'wethihd.hdiblogi-imat be presmi�cgsbiunleismbed.-Orpmble'matic.' Hydrophytic vegetation Pmew: Yes No NO Western Mmudains. V80M.WW Coast - Interim Version SOIL Sampling Palm -ProfUe Description: {Describe to.the depth needed to document the indicator or conflnn the absence of indicators.) Depth - M8tFIX Redox Features (Inchesl Color (moist) % Color (moist) % �e �Lqg�_ Texture Remarks LO IO-(V_24i 100 Spa i6--\ 10-115 10-if Z 34i lob 16-14 3/4 'Type: C=ConcenlreUm, D-Deptellm RM=Reduced MaCS--Covered or Coated Send Grains. kocaffam. PL=Pore Lining, M=Matdx Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to, all LRRs, 4niess:40"Iss noted.) Indicators for:Problemalle "ydric "Sous : — Histesol (Al) Sandy.RedDx:(Ss) — 2 cm Muck.(A!O) — Histic Eplpedop.K) - — Red Parent Material (TR) BlacitAlslic,(M). Lai* Muq k _RA 1) yMhwsI(F1)*(exceptM1i _ Other (Explaln:1n.lR Hydrogeh Sulfide (M) F Depleted Below Dark SLrrfsce0- 11.). DepliDepletedMabtt'(F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) . Redo)lIDx*'SUft;e'(F8) 'Indicators of hydmPlwfievegetallon-and- Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) DepIqtpd-Da*.SurIisce (FT) wetland hydrology must-berpresent. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (Sj)� Redox Depressions unless disturbed or. problematic. Restrictive Layer (If presPq: Type; Depth (inches):. Hydric Soil Present? Yei-Z"o. Remarkw. HYDROLOGY Wetland. Hydrology. indicatorw. Primate 'lncfimtoA:"imintrnl6.of one ritioriit 6imil: aec6ndhii. Intfleatori. 0--& mkire:MWre �di tpurL' ace Water. I red -Leaves (Bg except BVr7. ). V Leaves High WSW T" (A2) .1,4, 4& - and 413) -(B 4A,*and,46) Saturation (A3) _ Sett Drainage Water Marks (Bi) _...Aqua1t_ MvTtebrates'(E"3) Dry -Seam Tawb Water Sediment DeposIts (EQ Hydrogen Sulfide 00or (CI) — Drift Deposits (133) _..Q.AAW:RhIzo&pheres Wang Living Roots (0) Geo=rptft Poiffion'(02). — Algal Mat or Crusl,(134) Prissam of Reduced lmn.(C4) Shallow A*Aud (133) — Iran Deposits (BB) Pbout lroh- Redudlon In rilled Sells (CS) FAC-Neutral Test (05) Surface Sall Cmcks (88) S4000 cir'Stressed Plants (DI) XRR A) ur Ralsed-Ard Mo ids (Q%(LRR A).. — Inundation Visible an Aerial imagery (B7)* —.'Other. (Explain in Remarks) Frost -Hem Humawcks (177): — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes Depth, %W Water Table Present? yes No �V. (inches): it .—..Depth (Indies): 1(0 Saturation Present? Yes. V' No Depth Mmhzsj Wetland Hydrology PreaerV -Yes V, m (Indudes capillary fdrw) Descrilm Recorded Date (stream gauge., Previous Inspecilons), jf available: Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Vapys, and Co.ast.- lifth. Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region PM*VSfte: 1w-,-sA- `t'-(�h,o^ `` 1 C41c,"W. �i� fist i� Sampling Date: ApplicanNOwner. �� 1 tGh ;�A W ,.. States la){� Sampling Point P \ �� Investigalor(sy Section, Towmhlp, Range: Landform (hUWope. tehm, air-): Uee�yk Local relief (concave, convex, nonex Slope (%): Subregion (LRRr Let Long: Daturrc Son Map Unit Name: AV C. NWI clasallicallon::' Are dimatk.l hydrologic condition on ilia stte typical for,this time of yea? Yes i/ No of no, explain fn_ Rernarlm /- Are Vegetation . Soil . or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are *Normal CinaurWanoW present? Yes V No Ara Vegetation Soil . or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain arty answers to Remarks.) SUMMARY. OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects,:important features, etc. 'Ffydroph* Yegelafion Present? Yes P/ No ts-the-Sampled Area / Hydrfc Soli Present? Wtlaned Hydrology Pres&V Yes No T�— Yes No - (L witfdn a Wetland? Yes No Remwft VEGETATION y Use scientific names .of plants. r Q Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum. (PlotCA Cover spedw Status -2 3 4. /170 Total cover ROWShrub Stratum, '(Pict sizes • \ C3� �- ) t = Totes! Cover Harb' Stiahrm Make -1. '• 1: 2 3. 4. .. . 6,. 8- 7. 10. r )n Total Cover Woody Vine s mWfn (Plot size: 2. i n = Tow Cover 96 flare Gtound in Herb Stratum Numbar of Dominant Spades l� That Are 6BL. FAt�VU;:or. FAC_. Total Number of ownhtant 7 Spades Across.AD Strata: Percent of Dorr*.wi t. Spades ThatAre,OBL. FACW ctFAC ....S (AJB) Tcts146:C8verot= _... ''MulUoTv tiv x t.= OBCapecies FACW:spedea:.4.. _ . x 2 a FAC spedasi: x 3 FACU sus x-4 =. UPL'.spedes• x 5 'Coluff, Totels : • Prevalence bttl�c = 8!A a. �Garnhtence.7est.ts'.>609G _, ,Prevetenoa (ndaii�is:Si:O� Morphofogteal Adspmtians'. (Pravlde supporting data tn.Remai- atoh.i'separata sheet) _ Weiland Non-Vesarlar,Plarrts' Problematic Flydroftoc Yegetatton' (Explain) 'tndlcators of hydildsod eiid:wetiand hydn9ogy*must: be present; unless dispubed-or problematic. "yorophyde V.egetagon Present? Yas, No liS Army Corps of lErihteem Westem Mtormtairm. VafieAs and Coast - Interim Version SOiL sampling Point: D ! - / D Profile Description: jDascribe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix tore (inchesl Color ist % Color (mobt) �6 _ Twe Texture Remarks V 141 AOO DO1 M\Y` Vim/ `� GILD-YL'0 'Type: C=Concentre-RM=Red1uced'Matrbi'CS-Covered or Coated Send Grains. rl.ocatbn: PL-Pore MF-Mawx H ric:Soil lndicators• (AppII661e to all LRRN uriless:othertwiisO noted. Indicators for Proble natte SW.: _ Ftlstosol (A1) _ Sendy:RedoX(S5) _ 2 an Muck VIA _ Histic Epipedon.(A2) _ Stripped_:Metrix.(S� _Red Parer! Material (TF2) _ ; Btaetc Histic.(A3). _ Loarriy 1&-ky: Nllrrerat tF.1) {e:eept:M1LRA,1) Olher-{Explain. triRemsrks} _ Hydrogen'Sulfide (A4) _ Loakiy`Cileyed Matrix (F'2) _ Depleted BiIM4 Dark. Surfar:e';(A11). _ 6tete8 tUtalr(ic'(F3):_ _ Tlttdc Deck Suriece. (Al2) _ RedoA Dart4'Suihars (F8) 'Indlc�tora:oftiydropttytievegetef2on'and: _ Sandy Mucky AAineral:(S7). — De*ted-DSurface=(F7) Weiland hydrology mudt-bgpresent,. _ Sandy Gleyed Mabix (S4): Redox Deprasslons.(F8) unless disturbed or problematic: Restrictive Layer of present); Types ` Depth opchear Hydrlc Soil Present? Yes 'No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland -Hydrology Indicators:: Primary Indicators (mtntrtiurn.of6a reouired diock•:altttrat,eoahtl° Sarrortdery tndlcalbm•{2�more•regiiiredl Surface ' er...1) .......-..:: :: ..............::.. _ .. (A: ' _ wet -stained: Leaves fag) (excapt.MLRA _ watewtain�.Leavas (88):idAIRA 1, 2; _ Migh Water Table (A2) 1;,,2, 4A;-and 46) 4A,-and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) — :Batt .Caret 011) _ l�rahmge; Patterns {B10), _:.Water Marks (81) — :P�quattc:)mrertebratas'(81.9) _ D6�asal Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Depos9s (82) _ Hyd(—W Sulfide, Odor (CI). _ Saturation visme:ott:Aeilal ham:tco) _ Drtft.Depostts {B3) _.,Qxwtt d:Rtdzwp*m along U tg Roots.(C3) _ Geomorphic PedlOwn(02). Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _. Presence'of Reduced Iran:(CA) _ Shallow Aqukard (D3) _ Iron Deposits.(B5) RecWtt k6h ffi, fion' In Tilled Solts.(CS) — FAC-Noutrel:Testal(D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (64) _'Stunted qr-.Str=ied Plants (01) (LRR A) _ Raised Art( Motkids•(D8) (LRR: A): — Inundation Visible. on Aerial lmagery. (87) Other'{t lain :tn Remarks) — Frost-Heave.H_Wrn d_m (117) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave:Siuf_ace:(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? . Yes Na Dapth(tndresr WaterTablePresent? -Ye9 No Oaplh(fnchosr Saturation Present? Yea. Nd Wetland Hydrology Present?.. Yea No, (includes capillary wMel Desratbe.Recorded pate (stream°gouge: mm torkt8_weU,:e fal pti6tos. pre4lous inspadTorre}..if:eyeltable Remarks. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - bdedm Version :�_O-'__J Ll WETLAND DETERMINATII��ON DATA FORM - Western lMountains, Valleys, and Coast Region '� ProjecMe: �� �i� tic hpt % i. 44D-6--i City/Courrty: t�-t wing Date: s —� 0 Applicent/Owner: C41 lit ti 4,pn I State Sampling Point: 1) Investigetor(s): Sedron. Township, Range. Landform (hlUslope, terrace. etc.): J7i i�lEi1 s[! Local relief (concave, comrax. Honer fiip-mk_ e_ Slope (%y Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Daltuurm Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: A -- Are climatic / hydrologic conditims onVie site typical for this time of year? Yes No (if no. explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation . Soil • of Hydrology soffmantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Clraumstancee present? Yes � No Are Vegetation . Solt , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophygc Vegetation Present? Yes V No the Sampled Area Hydrtc Soil Present? Yes No n a Wetland? Yes _jam No Wetland Hydrofogy Present? Yes No — Remarks: Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. 22 t Absolute Dominant Indlrretor Tree Stratum (Plot size: �l Cotter 'Sj�? Status 1. 1 SG. tM L �ln -; / L 2. _ ��dfA 3. `. 4. 40— U 1 / 1 Q'D - Total Cover oli Sano/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1)� 3. S 1 INA-tS 4. ti cO'I : -tom, _ J T 3t3!>cL 5. Herb Mralu =Total Covet (Plot size: 1. & wlitry `r-r,, t.tYYl 7— 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. tt. t =Total Cover Woody Viine Stratum (Plot site: " 1 1. L 0 �_ fk, 2. � � = % Bare Ground in Harb Stratum TOW Cover Number of Da iriard Species That Are OBL, FACor FAC: W, (A) Tate! Number of Dominant Species Across Ali Strata (a) Percent of Dominant Spades That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheot: Total % Cover of: MuINoN Im OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 - FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (e) Prevalence index = B/A a ' Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is s'3.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Wetland Non -Vascular Plards' PmbWmaltc HomphyOc Vegetation' Mxplaln) 'Indiealms of hydrie soil and wetland hydrology must be present. unless disturbed or problematic Hydrophyue vegetation fxr+osent? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mounlafns, Valleys, and Coast - Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: lk----1 Profile Descrlption: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) 'yj Tvoe L oc� Texture Remarks =I2 100 sC% L b c- C (CH t- � 2 Q -110 to ift- 314 Gr Sr L vw C.�l s 'Type: C=Concentration. D=De RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'localiore PL=Pore Lining. M=Malrix. Hydric Sop indicators: (Applicablo to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soh : _ Histosai (At) _ Sandy Redox (155) — 2 cm Muck (AID) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (SS) _ Red Parent Material (M) _ Black Histic (A3) J\4 Loamy Mucky Mineral (FI) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (FS) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (SI) _ Depleted Dark Surface (FT) wetland hydrotogy must be present. _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (lf present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Sop Present? Yes No Remarks: �ov kerr� a +2j��.J ors HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators f nininnn of one required: cheek all Dial cooly) Secandary indicators f2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water -Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA _ Water-Sla(rted Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 7y 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 40) it Saturation (A3) —San Crust (B11) XDrainage Patterns (BID) _ Water Marks (B1) ,___ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Salvation visible an Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhimpheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomor ftc Position (132) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced iron (C4) _ Shallow Awhard (D3) _ Ion Deposits (85) _ Recent iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CS) _ FAC•Neutral Test (05) _ Surface Solt Cracks (85) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised And Mounds (DB) (LRR A) _ inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hwnmocks (07) _ Sparsely vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes 5_ No Depth (irxhes):1� Water Table Present? Yes _ V Pro Depth (Incitesr Saturation Present? Yes ,:)d— No Depth (inches): CD Wetland Hydrology Pnmont? Yes X No includes capillary firm Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, earia( photos, previous inspections). If available: Remarks: US Army Corps of £ngtneers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version kVd- tL WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Projed/Me: V.41L r Sampling Date: Applicantlowner Re ".1pon Stater Swripung Point: Investigetor(s): A Uthdfwm (WIllstom terrace. etas: 5ectimr. Township. Range: Local relief (concave, convex, nonat CA7r-CIA-W— S1 opa Subregion (LRft T1- Lot Long: Datum: son Map Unit Nam.q: U Are dima flic I hydrologic conditions on bw sills Mkd for -this Ilme of yew? Yes _jZNo (ff 1)0, explain in iumarim) AreVegetation_,.6d or Hydrdogy signCOntly disturbed? AreNormal CirmunsWncee present? Yes Ae No Are Vegetation. ::Sop or Hydrology naltually problematic? (if needed, explain any.answers - InAlamaduo SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map.showing sampling point locations, transectslirnportant features, etc. Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hytlrt $0-Pidsdril? Yes .'VVe*tnd- Hydrology Present? -Yes- No X No — within a Wetland? Yes.— No VEGETATION Use sclen,qflcinam.es:.of plants. I Tm,:Slmwm (p6taw. AbSOU98 Dorritnant try 46Cover Sped"? fttus L A4 1.. PS V4i5 4L� frAw 3. Po fic, .10 TFA -4. J S=Rng1Shnft--Sfttum: (Fiat d.. 70*10 - Total cover I-.— A- se 3 CL $15 Pa 2. .. fig CE wo I&.$ elk 0 3. dA4 10 4.: KA'.Strybini-: (Piot size: Wk - Total Cover i Pot% U lo/h ir.4(-.A .2. eTAQ 3. 4. 1L 3-'IA = TOO Cover -Woody We-Sirahim (Plot 81ta: Total Cover Bare Ground to Herb Stratum Number of DomlnantSpades — Thit AiebBL, FACW,0-M0-. lotaiNumberof-DomInaN Species Across.0 StraW Percent of Doml nant Spade That Are OBL. FAPVV; _brF (A/B) ok species X f.= FACW spacilea: FACUsocies `� x 4 6.- U PL apades. Column TotaW 2, Prevalence Wax - BIA Prevaiince lnd,e*ls sio, W data 6-R- ial Probtamaft:Hydroftrcyegalatlore (Explain) '"Wicataii of hydrics . d orid' -*--99a-hd.l*n-3logy.mUs1 be prese�*.unlesi:disjuibjad: 0--r- Ombleiiaile. Hydrophyft vegetailon Present?' Yes— No US Army Corps of Erigineers Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast - Interim Version SOIL SampMg Pdnnt Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indkator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Rd,Features Onchesl Color (moisll ° , _ Color (moist) �_ _ j�e Texture Remarks 6 `1 toy R 3/z GR L% g-16" (b YQ S/N ----- Sat_ "T : C=Concentratkun D-=De etion..RM?Reduced Matft CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Lacatkuc PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to a111RRs, uniess'otheimise noted) tndkators for Prablematic.Hydric Solis _ Hlstosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S6) — 2 cm Muck (A10) — Falk Eptpe .ot! (A2) — Stripyed;Mebbt (SO) — Red Parent Material (fF2) _ Bladt Histic (A3) _ l oariiy Mucky. Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) — 0dw.(Explaln.In,Re7arks) — Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) — Loimy Greyed Matrrbt (172) — Depleted Below Dark Ssufece (At 1).' _ pepletad Matrik Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redoit DarlcSurrace (F8) �lrtdicatars of hydrophyttcvagetation. a(td — Sandy Musky A4bteral.(S1) — Depleted.Datll:Surface (F7) wetland Mrdrotag)r moat tie:tzasertt, _ Sandy Played Matrix (54). Redox Depr000ns (F8) unless disturbed or. problematic. Restrictive Layer.(if present): Type. Depth (inahesr. Hydrle Soll Present? ds Remarks: Na "..vi1; ,'P l '( t-41 L^-br5 HYDROLOGY Wetlsnd.Hydrology, lndlcstbwa Edmary lndicatcrh 1minlmum.of oiie ienuHeii: r edi:ail that aomv) Seonndary Ind1cM6rsd2 or mere red) — °Surface Water -(Ai) — Water�ed:Leaves_ (BI�.(excep..MLRA — WateF.Stakfed Leaves. (89) (MlLRAl -2 _ 1110..1Nater Table. (A2- : ill, 4 -apo 4B) 4A; and;4Bj — Satlualiorf({13) Safttrryst�81,.1) _ ..Dreiinp8e:t?ettertu(810), —..Wale( Marks (B'f) —.:Ayueth:invertebrstes:(813) — Dr -Seasw Water Table:(C2) — Sediment Deposits (82) _ .Hy t:3uttide.Odor. (C) _ Saluratloir ll the:on:Aer(el lr gety:(C8j — Drift Deposit; (83) --; ed-Mft'spherea along Living Roots (C3) — ' PoaUton (D2j. _ Algai Mat at Ctust.(B4) _ Rmseince of Reduced Imn.(C4) _ She Aqullard (03) _ Iran Depo*s.(BS) _ Receitl h'on Reducdon In Tilted SdIs.((6 _ FAC-Neutral Test:(D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (M) — .Stunted or:Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Retsed Aqt Motiridp (D8) (LRR A). _ Inundation Visible on Aerial.kn4ery.(87) _:Othei (Explain :In Remarks) — Frost -Heave }kiriuncrlcs (137) _ Sparsely Vegetated Con cm Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ..Nn._*<_ ,Depth:Qnchesr Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (irnches): Saturation Present? Yss • Ma _�L CL-ib (inches). Wetland Hydrology Peasant?. Yes No (Includes ea e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, "MIloring wellraerist,phatos. previous Inspectlonsr If avaGable: Remarks li.o'pv+d► 1P�a'4 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Wastem Mountains,.Vatieys, and Coast - Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Westem`M/ountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (�q Projectfshe: h L1V1.% Cfty/Covigy. S Jr`b q ampnng Date: ApplicenUOwner: 4 k—\ Ca State: I A Sampling Point: Investigalor(s): 5 ` Section. Township. Range: Lendtorm (hnlstope. terrace. /e�t_c.): Local relief (eve, convex, none): /,.MSlope (°6): rL Subregion (LRR): !-f Let long: Dah m.- Son Map Unit Name: NtM classification.Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the sift typical for this time of year? Yes No Of no. explain In Remarks_) Are Vegetation . Son , or Hydrology sfgnificantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Cfrmunstances' present? Yes L NO Are Vegetation . Son . or Hydrology natura iy problematic? (11 needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects. imoottant featums. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes v NoIs the Sampled Area Hydrie Sell Present? Yes V No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 1Vo Remarks: \/_ Q &%%" T) VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. ;1 Absolute Dominant fndicafor Tree Stratum (Plot size: VA 1. /l . r� T r — Q / 3. 6 . -IA, �.7� 4. T Tow Cover O = Satin/Shrub Stratum (Plot she: ) 2. V=:10L71n S je, Re. C- b,� Number of DonBnant Spades Thal Are OBL FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across An Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are 08L. FACor FAC: ( ! W, (AlB) Total % Cover of Muniohr by: OBL spedes x 1 a 4. FACW species x 2 a 5. FAC species x 3 a Herb Stratum (Plot she: 5 , = Total Cover FACU species x 4 a 1 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 8. B. 0. 10. 11. f v e (P1W she: 5 (Z l f'J a Tow cover 1. n M--C .t r, 2. y I q Total Cam 96 Bare Graatd In Herb Stratum �D Prevalence Index = WA a �[ Dominenea Test Is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data In Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Wetland Non -Vascular Plards' _ Problematic HydrophyHc Vegetation' (ExPlatn) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wenand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophyth vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, V alleys. and Coast - Interirrr Version SOIL Sampling Point: vo Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Co! moist % Color (mewl Tvoe' Lcc� ©— 1D`i�' 12 I 01D Texture _ Remarks ; 6L- L4 —i ! z 2.5 2 1 D �_,✓ OX, Foot- c.�-&a%neks ) o0 1111 A a ` In V-1 IL y -�- 7-1 O DyfL 1 M.0 rk�l Ir.; r•o tom. l lb -1 -3 L,�, V\,k C�- 'Type: C=Concentration. D=De letion. RM=Reduced Matrix. CS --Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Unin . M=Malrix. Hydric Soil Indicator: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) indicators for Problematic Hydr(c Soils : _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (SS) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matra (56) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) xLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) — Hydmgen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydmphytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) welland hydrology must be present. _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (154) _ Redox Depressions (F6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): tiydric Sall Present? Yes No Remarks:` HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all brat apply) Secondary Indictors (2 or mere required) _ Surface Water (A1) _ Water -Stained Leaves (Bg) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (AY) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (811) _ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (81) ,_ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry -Season Wafer Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial imagery (Cg) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhaospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomaptdc Position (02) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Agpdtard (D3) _ Iron Deposit W) _ Recent bon Reduction In Tied Soils (CS) _ FAC4&i* l Test (05) _ Surface Soil Cmcs (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsey vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (Inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (Inches): 12—_ Saturation Present? Yes —.& No Depth (inches); '_ Welland Hydrology Present? Yes �<' No includes capillary 61n Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring wag. aerial photos. previous inspections). If available'. Remarks: US Army Corps of iEnglneers Western Mountains, Valleys. and Coast — Interim Version WETLAND D1ET,ERAMNATTI�ON DATA FORM — Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast Region) Project/Site: r#,c4- P rN+41'1 K'iT � `City/CountY Sampling Date: ApplicantOwner: m. Vmot 11 lid State: Sampling Point: 'r Investigator(s): , lam' Section. Township. Range. Landtom (hpislope. lerrece. etc.): H^t C*L Local repef (concave. convex. Honer t9+OKC� m.t.m_ Slope (%y -2-- Subregion (LRR): Lae Long: Detum: Sop Map Ural Name: 14y NVN classification: V Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Y No (it no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation . Sop or Hydrology stgnifnaan0y disturbed? Are'Normat Circumstances' present? Yes _ILI'_ No Are vegetation .Sop or Hydrology r>au ragy problematic? (n needed. explain any answers. in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytie Vegetation Present? Vas_ No• Is Ow Sampled Area — Hydric Sop Present? Yes No `f Within Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: DP \ P- C�- C, VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. in 1paturri (Plat size: 1r./ %v Cow S 9 Number of Dominant Spades t • 11A +'t �'►'1 t _% ti That Are OBL, FACW. or FAC: (A) 2. 1 ' r-51..c n Sl 3 Total Number of Dominant Spades Across All Strata: (B) 4. Total Cover SpRibaftrub Stratum (Plot size: ! ! 1 1� 1 Cover 2. , U 3. 4. 5. /7 a Herb Stratum (plot site: t_'jC. Tote) Cover 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 7. 8. 10. 11. t _�= Woody V'me Stratum (Plot size: Cover e• .' S ) C V Vey 2. Q A A C lA4 A.e i�L lii h,.S ' % 9f, Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Cover tum Lf7 � _ Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC:_ (A/B) Total % Cover of: Mullioty by: OSL spades x 1 a FACW specs x 2 = FAC species x 3 a FACU species x 4 a UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index a B/A = Dominance Test Is 3,50% _ Prevalence Index is 93.0' _ Morphological Adaptetlons' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Welland Non-Vasadar Plants' _ PmWeamtk Nomphygc Vegdatian' (Explain) %W[cators of hyddc salt and welland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Nydlophydc Ve"Hon PrasM? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: _VIa Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator orconflrm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Fealures finches) Color moist % Color Imoistl DA Tvoe�r Texture Remarks 0-1 h4la 2 i, QrD O vv1 'Type: C=Concentration. D=Deplelion. RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lininm M-Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 crn Muds (A10) _ Hiistic Eplpeaon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (SB) _ Red Parent Material (M) _ Stuck Hictic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ` Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (FB) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (SI) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) watland hydrology must be present. _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soft Present? Yes No� Re..uu p HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of one reouired: check all 0mt apply) Semmdary Indicators f2 or more rewkedl _ Surface Water (Al) — Water-Slained Leaves (89) (except MLRA _ Wafer -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 40) 4A, and 48) _ Saturation (A3) _ Sell Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry4eeson Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Daposits (62) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drill Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhimpheres along Living Roots (0) _ Geomorphic Position (132) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) — Presence of Reduced iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Ion Deposits (M) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CS) _ FAC-Neutral Test (135) _ Surface Sots Cracks (BB) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI) (L.RR A) _ Raised Ard Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Frost-Hcava Hummocks ocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surge Water Present? Yes No 4 Depth (Inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (Inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Welland Hydrology Presen17 Yes No includes lla Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well. aerial photos. previous inspections). It avallabfe: Remarks: No \AA L r-d US Army Corps of 691neers Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast — interim Version APPENDIX B DRAFT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION (HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. JULY 109 2009) HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. (;eow, hrrical & I'llreruent Engineering • Ilydrogeology • Geoenrironmewai • lnshef troll & lrsturt July 10, 2009 HWA Project No. 2009-05 8-2 1 /Task 3 Carollo Engineers 1218 3`d Avenue Suite 1600 Seattle, Washington 98101 Attention: Ms. Lara Kammereck, P.E. SUBJECT: DRAFT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Task 3. East Renton Lift Station Renton, Washington As authorized in an Agreement for Professional Services, dated April 24, 2009, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) completed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed East Renton Lift Station improvements, as part of the 2009 Wastewater Lift Station Pre -Design Contract that Carollo Engineers (Carollo) has entered into with the City of Renton. Task 3 of three tasks authorized by the Agreement for Professional Services is reported herein, with the remaining two submitted under separate cover and dealing with the Lake Washington Lift Station (Task 2.) and the Lift Station (Task 1.). In general conformance with the scope of work, described for Task 3 of our Agreement for Professional Services with Carollo, this report presents our preliminary geotechnical evaluation related to pre -design efforts for the subject facility. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the East Renton Lift Station is considered by the City of Renton (City) to be a temporary facility until a new gravity sewer is constricted to the south to tie into an existing sewer system. The City wishes to evaluate the feasibility of constructing the gravity sewer through the existing park area to the south at this time. The proposed project involves performing a route analysis to establish the preferred alignment for the replacement sewer, with subsequent abandonment of the existing lift station. The project location is indicated on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1, attached. Figure 2, Site and Potential Sewer Alignment Plan, shows the lift station location and two possible alternative replacement gravity sewer alignments along with site topography, which was developed by PACE through survey of the immediate site area on behalf of Carollo. 19730 - 64th Avenue W. Suite 200 Lynnwood, WA 98036.5957 Tel: 425.774.0106 Fax: 425.774.2714 www.hwageo.com July 10, 2009 HWA Project No. 2009-05 8-2 1 /Task 3 SITE CONDITIONS The existing sewer lift station is situated on the north side of the right-of-way for SE 136th Street, which presently remains undeveloped in the segment extending from the also undeveloped right-of-way for 1481h Avenue SE to the west and 152°d Avenue to the east. The lift station occupies the southwest corner of an existing storm water management pond site that apparently was constructed in conjunction with a residential neighborhood development to the north and east. The existing SE 136th Street right-of-way contains other underground services such as water and gas lines that run in an east -west direction within the right-of-way south of the lift station. Existing east -west sanitary sewer lines connect with the lift station at the present time and also trend east -west in alignment. At the present time, Carollo have developed two alternative and preliminary alignments (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2) through the park area to the south, as indicated on Figure 2. Both of these alternatives lie outside of what appears to be an S-shaped utility right-of-way or easement extending south through the park from approximately the south end of the 1481h Avenue SE right-of-way to the northern terminus of 148th Place SE. As evident from Figure 2, Alternative 1 alignment would extend west from the existing lift station to an existing Manhole #73 in the 1481h Avenue SE right-of-way. From that manhole, it would then head south inside and roughly parallel with the existing west park boundary to about mid -point, and then swing gradually to the east in an arcuate alignment to tie-in to Manhole #12 of the existing sewer system at the north end of 1481h Place SE. About 140 feet south of the existing manhole, in the 148th Avenue SE right-of-way, a small creek and wetland is crossed by Alternative 1, which also crosses the alignment of an existing gas line near its mid -point, roughly 200 feet further south. The gas line alignment also swings to the east and roughly follows the S-shaped easement previously described. The Alternative 1 alignment crosses the gas line again near the end of 1481h Place SE, and also crosses a storm drain that the small creek discharges into at this location. The proposed alignment of Alternative 2 extends south and east on a sweeping arcuate configuration from existing Manhole #72A, which -can be linked by a relay sewer with Manhole #73, and follows higher ground to the east of the existing small creek. This curved alignment section is roughly 500 to 600 feet in length and the southern end will enter a new 60-inch manhole. From the new manhole, the line will continue to curve to the west to terminate in existing Manhole #12. However, it will cross an existing mapped wetland near the point where the creek flows into the storm drain, and mitigation will be required. It is anticipated that stream mitigation will also be required for both alternatives at their southerly terminus, and for Alternative 1 at its initial crossing of the creek. From the topographic mapping provided by Carollo (see Figure 2), it is apparent that the ground elevation at the existing lift station is approximately 396 feet, which is approximately the same Draft Letter Report Task 3.doc 2 HWA GeoSciences Inc. July 10, 2009 HWA Project No. 2009-058-21/Task 3 as the ground elevation at the rim of the existing Manhole #73 in the 1481h Avenue SE right-of- way. From this manhole, the alignment of Alternative 1 follows ground that slopes gently to the south and west and descends to about elevation 376 feet at Manhole #12. From Manhole#72A, Alternative 2 alignment follows the approximate 392 to 394-foot ground contours for the first few hundred feet and then descends in a southerly direction toward the wetlands and Manhole #12. The cross -slope toward the creek to the southwest is more pronounced in this area, but is not steep and appears to be of the order of 6 to 8 percent. Although HWA's reconnaissance of the general area and approximate alignments of Alternatives 1 and 2 was brief and limited, we did not see any immediately apparent evidence of geotechnical issues at this time. Though the park area through which both alternatives run is heavily treed and vegetated with ground cover, some soil exposures were noted and suggested the presence of glacial till soils beneath a covering of topsoil and forest duff. Except for locations immediately adjoining and within the creek channel, there were no significant indications that surficial runoff and erosion instability are presently a problem on this gently sloping forested ground. The dominant surficial conditions apart from the forest cover are the wetlands features, which have been mapped by others, and whose limits are indicated on Figure 2. GEOLOGY According to the Geologic Map of King County, Washington, by Derek P. Booth, and Aaron P. Wisher (Booth et al, 2006), a portion of which is reproduced on Figure 3, the site is underlain by glacial till soils (Qvt on the map) deposited sub -glacially from the Vashon ice sheet. We expect that this deposit is a heterogeneous mixture of silt, sand and gravel, with cobbles and boulders. The glacial till has been over -ridden by glacial ice and is very dense and concrete -like as consequence, in its un-weathered state. When exposed at surface, however, the upper 3 to 5 feet is commonly weathered. As indicated previously, it is evident that a surficial topsoil and organic duff layer appears to overly the glacial till, and it is anticipated that the wetlands features will contain variable thicknesses of organic peaty soils near -surface. However, the wetlands are small and it generally not expected that near -surface organic deposits that may be associated with them would be very deep (less than a few feet). REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA For the purposes of this assessment, HWA also reviewed subsurface data derived from a previously conducted geotechnical investigation within the local area, as referenced below: Final Geotechnical Report, Renton-Stonegate II Sewer System Improvements Project, Renton, Washington, consultant report prepared for Roth Hill Engineering Partners LLC (HWA GeoSciences Inc., 2008). A number of subsurface explorations were recently conducted by HWA in the general area about two miles north of the site (north of NE Sunset Boulevard, between Duvall Avenue NE and 148th Draft Letter Report Task 3.doc 3 HWA GeoSciences Inc. July 10, 2009 HWA Project No. 2009-05 8-2 1 /Task 3 Avenue SE) for other proposed sewer improvements by the City of Renton. The logs of the subsurface explorations considered pertinent to this assessment were reviewed, but since they are somewhat distant from the site are not included herein. Nevertheless, they do provide some indication of soil conditions within the mapped geologic units identified on Figure 3, and probable ground water conditions that may exist on and in close proximity to the sewer alignments. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Review of the exploration data, presented in the report referenced above, indicates that in general the area of the existing lift station and the two sewer alignment alternatives is most likely underlain by Vashon glacial till deposits. The previous explorations north of the project site generally revealed fine gravelly, silty, fine to medium sand, which was in a dense to very dense condition below the upper few feet of weathered zone. Of the explorations closest to the project site, ground water was generally not encountered in these explorations, which extended to depths of up to 14 feet, during the drilling operations. However, one of the shallower borings was equipped with a piezometer that later revealed water at a level of about 5 feet below ground surface. Since glacial till is generally of very low permeability and can serve as a perching layer, ground water may be encountered at or near its surface contact with overlying more pervious cover soils. In this regard, it is anticipated that the likelihood of ground water presence and potential seepage into open excavations will increase as wetlands areas are approached. Certainly, where wetlands are crossed by either of the alternative alignments, ground water presence and seepage is to be expected. Additionally, where the alignments cross over or under any existing services, it is possible that seepage may be encountered at or near the crossings due to the possibility of water having become trapped and/or concentrated in more pervious pipe bedding and backfill materials. In general, however, we do not expect problems with ground water presence and seepage into trench excavations in the uplands areas associated with both options. However, some ground water management may be required if seepage water is encountered in open trench excavations. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In view of existing topographic and anticipated subsurface conditions at and to the south of the East Renton Lift Station site, it is our opinion that the existing station may be replaced with a new gravity line extending south through the existing park area to tie into an existing sewer system at the north end of 1481h Place SE. Either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, as indicated on Figure 2, is considered suitable for construction from a geotechnical perspective. However, we favor the westerly alignment of Alternative 1 over that of Alternative 2, as it would eliminate a wetland crossing and the need for mitigation. Though it does entail a creek crossing, this should be relatively straight forward In general, proximity to wetlands is anticipated to pose a higher risk of encountering ground water and seepage into open trench excavations. This is likely to be of greater concern for the Draft Letter Report Task 3.doc 4 HWA GeoSciences Inc. July 10, 2009 HWA Project No. 2009-058-21/Task 3 Alternative 2 alignment, which crosses the southern most of the wetlands mapped in the area. However, overall, it is expected that ground water conditions will not be problematic for the area. Both alternatives cross one or more existing services on there routes to Manhole #12, and their presence could cause some construction problems, particularly if the services are above the invert levels of the new ewer line. Such utilities may have been bedded and/or backfilled with granular soils which may have trapped or concentrated seepage water since their installation. Such water could seep into an open trench crossing of the utility and also could contribute to the running of saturated backfill into the trench, requiring ground water to be pumped from the trench and possibly some backfill replacement. Pipeline profiles are presently unknown for both alternatives, but it is anticipated that trench depths greater than 4 feet will generally be associated with construction along either alignment. In general, we anticipate that the trench walls will consist of dense to very dense glacial till below the upper few feet from existing ground surface, where topsoil and organic forest duff are expected to comprise the near -surface soils. In or near wetlands, some wet organic soils may also be expected near surface. These surficial materials should be sloped back as required to maintain trench wall stability, particularly where ground water seepage is encountered. We recommend that trench slopes in such materials be no steeper than 1.5 H:1 V in such materials. Where dense to very dense glacial till comprise the predominant material in which the trench is excavated, the walls should be no steeper than % H:1 V, or flatter if seepage water is present. Because of the degree of ground disturbance associated with sloped back excavation walls, we recommend that shoring or trench boxes be employed if it is necessary or desirable to limit the trench widths and amount of soil/vegetation disturbance, while maintaining safe conditions for workers. This will be particularly important if seepage water is encountered in any portions of the open trench. Suitable dewatering methods will need to be employed to maintain trench and localized slope stability. At this time, we anticipate that ground water conditions will not be a major consideration, but this needs to be confirmed by -an appropriate level of subsurface investigation in advance of detailed design of any portion of this project. Typically, pipes should be bedded and trenches backfilled with the appropriate materials meeting the requirements stated in the 2008 WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. However, if suitable moisture conditions in the glacial till (assumed trench excavation material) are confirmed by later investigation of either of the alignment alternatives, and dry weather construction conditions can be ensured, it may be possible to use these materials as trench backfill. Beneath roadway areas, areas to be paved or areas where settlement is a concern, backfill placed above the pipe zone and to within 2 feet of the ground surface should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (MDD), and backfill placed within 2 feet of the ground surface should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor MDD. In general, we believe it desirable to adopt this level of compaction as a minimum standard for all sections of pipe in close proximity to (say 25 feet or less), or within the crossing of, any wetlands area on this project. Compaction of trench Draft Letter Report Task 3.doc 5 HWA GeoSciences Inc. July 10, 2009 HWA Project No. 2009-058-21/Task 3 backfill to this higher density level will reduce the amount of ground water infiltration into the backfill and the potential for its migration along the trench. We recommend that a suitable level of subsurface investigation be performed for this project prior to completion of detailed design, once it is determined what improvements will be performed and their most probable site configurations. CLOSURE We have prepared this assessment for Carollo Engineers and the City of Renton for use in preliminary design of this project. The conclusions and interpretations presented in this report are based upon review of pre-existing field data and should not be construed as our warranty of existing subsurface conditions. No subsurface investigation was conducted as part of this assessment. Experience has shown that soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between exploration locations and may not be detected by a geotechnical study of this nature. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, HWA should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. Sufficient geotechnical monitoring, testing, and consultation should be provided during detailed design and subsequent construction to confirm that the actual conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should conditions revealed during construction differ from those anticipated, and to verify that geotechnical aspects of construction comply with the contract plans and specifications. Our work scope did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or ground water at this site, except to the extent that is discussed in this report in respect to preliminary geotechnical considerations for this project. Your review and commentary on this draft letter report is requested, at your earliest convenience, so that we may finalize the letter report and conclude our input to this preliminary phase of the design work. Draft Letter Report Task 3.doc 6 HWA GeoSciences Inc. July 10, 2009 HWA Project No. 2009-05 8-2 1 /Task 3 We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Lorne A. Balanko, P.E. Principal Attachments: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site and Potential Sewer Alignment Plan Figure 3 Geologic Map REFERENCES Booth Derek P, and Wisher Aaron P, 2006, Geologic Map of King County, Washington. HWA GeoSciences Inc, 2008, Final Geotechnical Report, Renton-Stonegate II Sewer System Improvements Project, Renton, Washington, consultant report prepared for Roth Hill Engineering Partners LLC. Draft Letter Report Task 3.doc 7 HWA GeoSciences Inc. - L �.{ iv d 0 1 A A-M y 1Jdp ]t •^ 5 2nd S Q a $ 3r0 FA 1 1, �C nr- m r—t\ I T n t\ I golk I � HwAGEOSCIENCES INC tze SE Renton EAST RENTON PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP EAST RENTON LIFT STATION RENTON, WASHINGTON c Af . ITE 1 x HOT TO SCALE DRAWN BY EFK FIGURE NO. CHECK BY LB 1 PROJECT NO. DATE 07-09-09 2009-058-21 1 I I I I ALTERNATIVE 1 !-� 0 L- 5'' III X. r rn cr�tc �Y %;.t • >; _' `I 'o EXISTING SSMH #73 00 WETLAND Cuj :'ri c A•>;` WETLAND E ;;: •�` " CJ1 O lop�;;: t� EXISTING LIFT STATION 148 PL SE r� EXISTING SSMH #12 I 1\3 P WETLAND B T91- WETLAND A 110 EXISTING SSMH #72A WETLAND D WETLAND �R I :ERAND s1r1c .4 I V J '�` I' � � i �.r.- � L ,I ,F •t I t ALTERNATIVE 2 � I NEW 60" DIA MANHOLE I '� w 40' 80• 160' FIGVFE h0 SITE AND DRAWN 6Y EFK AE EAST RENTON LIFE STATION POTENTIAL SEWER MINC RENTON, WASHINGTON ALIGNMENT CHECK By B F 0.0.�C• h7. C�?E PLAN 06.17.09 2009-058-21 LAKE WASHINGTON 1 rl c i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 f APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF LIFT —STATION �._ Description of Map Units Nonnladal ➢enoslts (Holocene) O Ow - Wetland deposts 0 Qal - Alluvlum O n or of - Modified lands/Artlfical fill Deooslt of Fraser Glaclatlon (Plelstocene) 0 Qvr - Vashon recessional outwash deposits O Qvt -Vas hon subglaclal neltout till Older placlal and nonglacla( denoslts (Pleistocene) O Qpf - Pre -Fraser deposits, undlfFerentlated Bedrock Tpt - Tukwlla Formatlon This section is from "Geologic map of King County" by Derek, P. Booth & Aaron P. Wisher - February 2006 UVA I � HWAGEOSCIENCES INC NOT TO SCALE iIZ GEOLOGIC MAP I DRAWN BY EFK (FIGURE EAST RENTON LIFT STATION CHECK BY LB PROJECT NO. RENTON WASHINGTON DATE ' 06.17.09 2009-058-21 )-050 WV DWG -FIG 4 ER, Platted 71712009 117 PM APPENDIX C REVISED - EAST RENTON LIFT STATION - PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS (ESA ADOLFSON DECEMBER 7, 2009) r 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW www adolfson com ESA A d o l f s o n Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax memorandum date December 7, 2009 to David Christensen, City of Renton Public Works Lara Kammereck, Carollo Engineers from Sara Noland and Cathie Conolly subject Revised - East Renton Lift Station - Permitting Requirements Introduction The City of Renton Department of Public Works is analyzing a preferred route for a new gravity sewer line crossing through future Maplewood Park in unincorporated King County adjacent to the City of Renton, Washington. The study area for this project is a north -south corridor approximately 300 feet wide located in the central, undeveloped portion of the park. The corridor connects an existing City of Renton pump station located just north of the park to an existing sewer line within 148th Place SE south of the park. ESA Adolfson identified seven palustrine forested wetlands (designated Wetlands A through G) and two streams within the study area boundaries (see Figures la and lb). These critical areas are discussed in detail in the East Renton Lift Station fVetland, Stream, and Wilc life Study (ESA Adolfson, 2009). Maplewood Park is anticipated to be transferred in ownership from King County to the City at some time in the future. The City has requested assistance in evaluating the permitting requirements and mitigation costs associated with disturbance of critical areas on the site (streams, wetlands, buffers, trees). The City would also like to know how the permit requirements for the sewer line may differ depending on whether the park is within unincorporated King County or annexed to the City of Renton. This memo addresses streams, wetlands, and wildlife habitat only. It does not address other types of critical areas that may be present on the site (floodplains, geologic hazards, etc.). All of the tables and figures referenced below are attached at the end of this memo. Project Impacts This memo uses the two alternative sewer line routes developed by Carollo in July 2009 as the basis for the impacts and permitting discussion (these routes are shown on Figures la and lb). Alternative 1 is located on the west side of the stream and Alternative 2 on the east side. The total length of proposed pipeline within the park property is approximately 790 linear feet for Alternative 1 and approximately 950 linear feet for Alternative 2. East Renton Lift Station - Permitting Requirements December 7, 2009 Page 2 The areas of impact to streams, wetlands, and buffers were estimated from the alternative route maps provided by Carollo Engineers (dated July 24, 2009). The area of construction disturbance for the pipeline is assumed to be a 20-foot-wide corridor based on discussion with the City. Alternative 1, on the west side of the stream, would require one stream crossing and would avoid wetlands. Alternative 2, on the east side of the stream, would cross one wetland and avoid the stream. Both alternatives would cross stream/wetland buffers. The area of buffer impact would be substantially greater under County ownership because of the wider buffers specified in the King County critical areas ordinance (Table 1). Table 2 lists the estimated impact area quantities for each route alternative and for each jurisdiction. The impact areas discussed are for a new pipeline only; the City does not anticipate the need for a new access road to the new pipeline. Permitting Requirements Table 1 lists and compares the City and County permitting requirements related to streams, wetlands, and vegetation specific to the study area. The study area does not contain the types of wildlife habitats that are regulated by either jurisdiction. Please note that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife also regulate alteration of streams or wetlands. The state and federal requirements are described in Section 6 of the East Renton Lift Station Wetland, Stream, and Wildlife Study (ESA Adolfson, 2009). These other requirements remain similar under either Renton or King County ownership of the site. King County has recently changed its approach to permitting for utilities. The type of permit required depends on whether the project meets conditions for new utility corridors within critical areas listed in King County Code (KCC) 21A.24.045(D)(34)(b). This portion of the code is provided for reference in Attachment A. If all of the conditions are met to the maximum extent practical, then the County will process the application through a Clearing and Grading Permit. If these conditions are not met to the maximum extent practical, then a Critical Areas Linear Alteration Exception process would be required (KCC 21 A.24.070(A)( 1)). For purposes of this memo, we have assumed that the County process would be a Clearing and Grading permit. This is different than the City permit process, which would require obtaining variances for reduction of standard buffers and other impacts (see Table 1). Permitting Costs Table 3 compares the estimated permit application fees for the City of Renton and King County. These costs include only those local permits related to critical areas. State and federal permit acquisition costs are not included, as they may be required and would likely be similar regardless of the local jurisdiction. The exact costs for permit application and review are difficult to determine at this stage of the project. Some differences between City and County fees are apparent. For example, the City does not charge a fee for pre - application meetings; while King County charges an hourly rate for staff time. Preparing a critical areas mitigation plan will likely also be more expensive for the County because of the County's greater mitigation ratios and wider buffers (resulting in a larger area of mitigation required). East Renton Lift Station - Permitting Requirements December 7, 2009 Page 3 The total costs for City and County staff to process the permit applications are unknown because they depend on the details of the project, the amount of agency staff time required for review, the number of application revisions and rounds of review, and third -party consultant review fees. Mitigation Construction Costs Table 4 presents the approximate costs of constructing and installing mitigation for critical areas impacts. These costs are preliminary and have been developed for planning purposes only. Even though the pipeline would be buried, backfilled, and the construction area revegetated following construction, the regulatory agencies will likely consider the construction area to be permanently impacted at some level. Typically, trees cannot be planted over pipelines, and so the character of the pipeline corridor would change from the current forested condition to a shrub/herbaceous community. This change in vegetation constitutes a change in the functions of the affected areas that would be considered a permanent impact. The following assumptions were used to develop the mitigation cost estimates shown in Table 4: • Impacts to critical areas would be as listed in Table 2. The mitigation ratios in Table 1 would be applied where appropriate. • All mitigation would occur on -site. • We have assumed the pipeline would be trenched through Wetland A (Alternative 2). • We have assumed that the stream crossing will be open -cut. • Costs for earthwork are not included in the estimates. • We have assumed zero (0%) inflation for costs in 2010, due to the current economy. • Additional specific assumptions used to develop costs for each type of mitigation or restoration are presented in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, mitigation construction costs would generally be higher under King County ownership. This is a result of larger stream and wetland buffers, resulting in greater areas of buffer impact; higher mitigation ratios for wetland impacts; and the requirement to provide additional mitigation for buffer impacts. Cost Summary and Comparison Tables 5a and 5b summarize the range of total critical areas permitting and mitigation costs for each jurisdiction and alternative. Overall, Alternative 2 is likely to be more expensive to permit and mitigate because it includes wetland impacts and mitigation. Costs are likely to be higher for both alternatives under King County ownership. As stated earlier, this memo presents only estimated costs. Cost estimates can be refined as more detailed information about the project is obtained. For example, once the City selects a route alternative, the construction footprint can be refined and surveyed, and the areas of critical area impact can be precisely determined (e.g., using AutoCAD to overlay the construction footprint over the critical area boundaries). As discussed above, King County would require significantly more mitigation for wetland impacts than the City, and so the determination of park ownership is also needed to determine the area of mitigation required. Once 3 East Renton Lift Station - Permitting Requirements December 7, 2009 Page 4 these decisions are made, a biologist would need to evaluate the potential wetland mitigation areas shown on Figures la and lb in more detail in order to prepare mitigation designs and planting plans. These designs and plans would specify the amount of earthwork needed to create new wetland area, soil amendment quantities, plant species and quantities, etc. Limitations Within the limitations of schedule, budget, and scope -of -work, we warrant that this study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices, including the technical guidelines and criteria in effect at the time this study was performed. The results and conclusions of this report represent the authors' best professional judgment, based upon information provided by the project proponent in addition to that obtained during the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information to the City. If you have any questions, please contact Sara Noland or Cathie Conolly at (206) 789-9658. 4 East Renton Lift Station - Permitting Requirements December 7, 2009 Page 5 Table 1. East Renton Lift Station — Environmental Permit Matrix City of Renton King County Code Section: Code Section: RMC 4-3-050(L) - streams KCC 21 A.04.045 — allowed alterations RMC 4-3-050(M) — wetlands KCC 21A.24.355, 358 - streams RMC 44-130 — tree removal KCC 21 A.24.318, 325, 340 —wetlands KCC 16.82 — tree removal Wetland Classification: Category 3 Wetland Classification: Category II Wetland Buffers: 25 feet Wetland Buffers: 125 feet Stream Classification: Stream Classification: Class 3 (main channel) Type F (main channel) Class 4(tributary) Type N(tributary) Stream Buffers: Stream Buffers: 75 feet (Class 3) 115 feet (Type F) 35 feet Class 4 65 feet (Type Type of Permit: Tyne of Permit: • Variance for reduction of standard buffers, • If project meets all the requirements of KCC 21A.24.045 wetland/stream impacts, tree removal in critical (alteration conditions for new utility corridors), it will be areas. processed through a Clearing and Grading Permit. • SEPA review. . SEPA and critical areas review would occur as part of the • Clearing and grading permit (obtained Clearing and Grading Permit application. following land use approvals). • If project does not.meet all the above criteria, then a Critical Areas Linear Alteration Exception would be required. East Renton Lift Station - Permitting Requirements December 7, 2009 Page 6 City of Renton King County Submittal Requirements: Submittal Requirements (assumes proiect is processed • Pre -application meeting through Clearing and Grading nermit): • Variance form • Pre -application meeting • Title report • Certification of applicant status form • Land Use permit master form • Affadavit of application • Project narrative • Clearing and Grading Permit application worksheet • Justification for variance request • Fee worksheet • Neighborhood detail map • Site plans • Site plan • Legal description • Flood hazard data • Grading plan • Utilities plan • Erosion control in accordance with King County Surface • Geotech report Water Design Manual • Grading plan • Plan to retain soil moisture capacity • SEPA Checklist • SEPA Checklist • Critical Areas Study • Geotechnical Study • Critical Areas Mitigation Plan • Critical Areas Study • Tree Protection and Replacement Plan • Mitigation Plan Wetland Mitigation Ratios: Wetland Mitigation Ratios: • Restoration or creation - 1.5:1 • Creation - 3:1 • Combination - 1:1 restoration or creation plus • Combination - 1:1 creation plus 4:1 enhancement 1:1 enhancement • Rehabilitation - 8:1 • Enhancement only — not typically allowed • Enhancement only - 12: 1 Buffer Mitigation: Buffer Miti tag ion: Restore disturbed buffers with native vegetation. Restore disturbed buffers with native vegetation. Provide an additional area of compensatory buffer mitigation (1.5:1 mitigation ratio assumed; see Table 4). Review Timeline: Review Timeline: Minimum 12 weeks (approximately three months) Minimum 90 days (approximately three months) following following receipt of complete application. receipt of complete application. East Renton Lift Station - Permitting Requirements December 7, 2009 Page 7 Table 2. Estimated Impact Areas Impacted City of Renton King County Resource Stream and Alternative 1: Alternative 1: wetland buffers . Stream buffer: 75 if on each side of . Stream buffer: 115 If on each side of stream x stream x 20 ft wide = 3,000 sf 20 ft wide = 4,600 sf • Wetland E buffer: Contained within . Wetland buffers: 555 If x 20 ft wide = stream buffer impact area 11,100 sf • Wetland C buffer: 50 If along west Total Alt 1 buffer impact: 15,700 sf side of wetland x 20 ft wide = 1,000 sf Total Alt 1 buffer impact: 4,000 sf Alternative 2: Alternative 2: • Wetland A buffer: 25 If on each side Wetland buffers: 8501f x 20 ft wide = of wetland x 20 ft wide = 1,000 sf 17,000 sf Total Alt 2 buffer impact: 1,000 sf Total Alt 2 buffer impact: 17,000 sf Stream channel Alternative 1: Alternative 1: • 20 If (width of pipeline corridor) . 20 If (width of pipeline corridor) Alternative 2: Alternative 2: None None Wetlands Alternative 1: Alternative 1: None (assumes pipeline can be shifted None (assumes pipeline can be shifted west to west to avoid Wetland C) avoid Wetland C) Alternative 2: Alternative 2: Wetland A: 1001f x 20 ft wide = 2,000 sf Wetland A: 1001f x 20 ft wide = 2,000 sf Upland areas Alternative 1: None (all uplands are within buffers) outside of 585 1f x 20 ft wide = 11,700 sf buffers Alternative 2: 8001f x 20 ft wide = 16,000 sf East Renton Lift Station - Permitting Requirements December 7, 2009 Page 8 Table 3. Estimated Local Permit Fees* Type of Fee City of Renton King County Pre -application meeting Free To be determined by County after meeting is scheduled and deposit collected. County staff time is billed at $140/hour. SEPA review $1,000 Part of Clearing and Grading Permit review Critical areas review 100% of contractor's fee for Part of Clearing and Grading Permit independent third -party review review (Otak) Variance or exception $1,200 for each type of variance Assumed not to be required (e.g., buffers, tree removal, etc.) Clearing and Grading Permit Negligible; counter permit Grading Plan Review: Base fee: $2,173 for less than I acre disturbed Hourly fee ($140) after 17 hours Grading Site Inspection: Base fee: $560 for less than 5 acres disturbed Hourly fee ($140) after 4 hours Prepare wetland/buffer Varies depending on selected Cost likely to be higher than for mitigation plan alternative and contractor fees. City due to larger mitigation ratios Would be higher for Alternative 2 and wider buffers. due to need for wetland mitigation. * Does not include state or federal permits. 8 East Renton Lift Station - Permitting Requirements December 7, 2009 Page 9 Table 4. Estimated Preliminary Mitigation Costs Activity ICity of Renton King County Comments/Assumptions Restoration of Areas Disturbed d ring Construction Stream and wetland buffers Alternative 1: Alternative 1: Per unit cost assumes main restoration effort is to reseed and install native shrubs in Impact area: 4,000 sf Impact area: 15,700 sf disturbed areas. Restoration area: 4,000 sf Restoration area: 15,700 sf Restoring surface soils to match pre -construction grades is assumed to occur as part Restoration unit cost: $3/sf Restoration unit cost: $3/sf of construction. Costs for earthwork are not included in the per unit cost shown here. Total restoration estimate: $12,000 Total restoration estimate: $47,100 Alternative 2: Alternative 2: Impact area: 1,000 sf Impact area: 17,000 sf Restoration area: 1,000 sf Restoration area: 17,000 sf Restoration unit cost: $3/sf Restoration unit cost: $3/sf Total restoration estimate.: $3,000 Total restoration estimate: $51,000 Stream channel Alternative 1: Alternative 1: Per unit cost based on recent project along Swamp Creek in Kenmore involving Impact area: 201f Impact area: 201f restoration of 2,000 if of stream banks. Restoration area: 201f Restoration area: 201f Restoring surface soils to match pre -construction grades is assumed to occur as part Restoration unit cost: $160Af Restoration unit cost: $160Af of construction. Costs for earthwork are not included in the per unit cost shown here. Total restoration estimate: $3,200 Total restoration estimate: $3,260 Alternative 2: Alternative 2: Not applicable (no stream crossing). Not applicable no stream crossing). Wetlands Alternative 1: Alternative 1: Restoration of wetland following trenching is assumed to require both installation of Not applicable (no wetland crossing). Not applicable (no wetland crossing). native shrubs/herbs and either soil amendments or stockpiling and replacement of native topsoil. Alternative 2: Alternative 2: • Per unit costs are assumed to be intermediate between wetland enhancement (planting Impact area: 2,000 sf Impact area: 2,000 sf only) and wetland creation (some earthwork). Restoration area: 2,000 sf Restoration area: • We therefore used the middle of the compensatory wetland mitigation unit cost range Restoration unit cost: $4/sf $ /f Restoration unit cost: $4/sf cost: $2 - $6 per s described in the Compensatory Mitigation section of this table below. ( p � p ry g Total restoration estimate: $8,000 Total restoration estimate: $8,000 Upland areas outside of buffers Alternative 1: Not applicable (all uplands are contained within buffers) • Cost to restore upland areas located outside of buffers (assuming City of Renton Impact area: 11,700 sf ownership) was assumed to be less than that to restore regulated buffer areas. Restoration area: 11,700 sf • This was based on the assumption that restoration of non -buffer areas could be less Restoration unit cost: $2/sf intensive than restoration within buffers. For example, both buffer and non -buffer Total restoration estimate: $23,400 areas would be revegetated with native shrubs, but the density and diversity of shrub plantings could be less within non -buffer areas. Alternative 2: Impact area: 16,000 sf Restoration area: 16,000 sf Restoration unit cost: $2/sf Total restoration estimate: $32 000 East Renton Lift Station - Permitting Requirements December 7, 2009 Page 10 Activity City of Renton King County Comments/Assumptions Wetland mitigation (combination of creation and enhancement at ratios listed in Table 1) Note: This is mitigation outside of the wetland area directly impacted by construction. Potential compensatory mitigation sites are shown on Figures la and lb. Buffer enhancement Note: This is mitigation outside of the buffer area directly impacted by construction. Potential compensatory mitigation sites are shown on Figures la and lb. Alternative 1: Not applicable (no direct wetland impact). Alternative 2: Impact area: 2,000 sf Mitigation ratio: 2:1 Mitigation area: 4,000 sf Mitigation unit cost: $2/sf - $6/sf Total mitigation estimate: $8,000 - $24,000 Not required. Alternative 1: Not applicable (no direct wetland impact). Alternative 2: Impact area: 2,000 sf Mitigation ratio: 5:1 Mitigation area: 10,000 sf Mitigation unit cost: $2/sf - $6/sf Total mitigation estimate: $20,000 - $60,000 Alternative 1: Impact area: 15,700 sf Mitigation ratio: 1.5:1 Mitigation area: 23,550 sf Mitigation unit cost: $3/sf Total mitigation estimate: $70,650 Alternative 2: Impact area: 17,000 sf Mitigation ratio: 1.5:1 Mitigation area: 25,500 Mitigation unit cost: $3/sf Total mitigation estimate: $76,500 Additional Costs Financial guarantees None required. City would provide a Public Agency Security Agreement to guarantee completion of mitigation. A bond number would be assigned, but no financial deposit required. Monitoring Alternative 1: Construction monitoring: $3,000 - $5,000 As -built or record drawing: $3,000 - $5,000 Annual monitoring: $3,000 - $5,000 per year x 3 years = $9,000 - $15,000 Alternative 2: Construction monitoring: $3,000 - $5,000 As -built or record drawing: $3,000 - $5,000 Annual monitoring: $4,000 - $7,000 per year x 3 years = $12,000 - $21,000 Alternative 1: Construction monitoring: $3,000 - $5,000 As -built or record drawing: $3,000 - $5,000 Annual monitoring: $4,500 - $7,000 per year x 3 years = $13,500 - $22,500 Alternative 2: Construction monitoring: $3,000 - $5,000 As -built or record drawing: $4,500 - $7,000 Annual monitoring: $6,000 - $10,500 per year x 3 years = $18,000 - $31,500 • Per unit costs presented as a range because there are several factors that affect the level of effort needed (e.g., amount of earthwork, need for soil amendments, etc.). • The low end per unit cost is based on a recent wetland mitigation project that ESA Adolfson designed for Pierce County Public Works and which was then constructed in April 2008. This project included wetland creation and wedand/buffer enhancement elements. Costs included grading, erosion control measures, plants, seeding, mulch, compost, and wildlife structures (logs and snags). • The high end unit cost is based on actual mitigation costs for a City of Everett mitigation project in 2008. The high end cost estimate assumes more grading and earthwork and a larger requirement for soil amendment. • King County indicated that compensatory mitigation may be required for permanent changes to vegetation communities in buffer areas (forested to shrub). They suggested using the vegetation conversion table in KCC 21A.24.340 as a way to estimate potential ratio requirements. • Mitigation ratio of 1.5:1 represents the lower range of ratios in the KCC vegetation conversion table. • Actual mitigation ratio for buffer impacts would be determined during permit review. • Per unit cost assumes main effort is to remove invasive vegetation, reseed and install native shrubs. • Costs are presented as ranges due to variability depending on type and extent of mitigation. • Construction monitoring costs assumes biologist will be on -site for up to 40 hours during pipeline installation. • Cost assumes three years of post -construction monitoring; King County may require up to five years depending on the project. • Costs for post -construction monitoring assumed to be greater for Alternative 2 due to requirement for compensatory wetland mitigation. • Post -construction monitoring costs under King County ownership are assumed to be 1.5 times higher than those under Renton ownership due to larger County mitigation area requirements. 10 East Renton Lift Station - Permitting Requirements December 7, 2009 Page 11 Table 5a. City of Renton - Summary of Estimated Permitting and Mitigation Costs Item Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preparation of critical Variable Variable; likely higher than for areas mitigation plan Alternative 1 due to wetland mitigation requirement Agency permit review Minimum $2,200 plus staff fees for Similar to Alternative 1 but fees additional variances and third -party potentially more complex (with review of critical areas mitigation higher review fees) due to wetland plan impacts and mitigation Restoration of areas $38,600 $43,000 disturbed during construction (stream, wetland, buffers, non - buffer uplands) Compensatory wetland No wetland impacts $8,000 - $24,000 mitigation Compensatory buffer Not required by City Not required by City mitigation Monitoring $15,000 - $25,000 $18,000 - $31,000 Table 5b. King County - Summary of Estimated Permitting and Mitigation Costs Item Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preparation of critical Variable Variable; likely higher than for areas mitigation plan Alternative l due to wetland mitigation requirement Agency permit review Minimum $2,700 plus hourly staff Similar to Alternative 1 but fees fees for pre-app meeting, and hourly potentially more complex (with fees for grading plan review and site higher review fees) due to wetland inspection that exceed base fee impacts and mitigation Restoration of areas $50,300 $59,000 disturbed during construction (stream, wetland, buffers, non - buffer uplands) Compensatory wetland No wetland impacts $20,000 - $60,000 mitigation Compensatory buffer $70,650 $76,500 mitigation Monitoring $19,500 - $32,500 $25,500 - $43,500 East Renton Lift Station - Permitting Requirements December 7, 2009 Page 13 KCC 21A.04.045.D.34. Limited to the pipelines, cables, wires and support structures of utility facilities within utility corridors if a. there is no alternative location with less adverse impact on the critical area and critical area buffer; b. new utility corridors meet the all of the following to the maximum extent practical: (1) are not located over habitat used for salmonid rearing or spawning or by a species listed as endangered or threatened by the state or federal government unless the department determines that there is no other feasible crossing site; (2) the mean annual flow rate is less than twenty cubic feet per second; and (3) paralleling the channel or following a down -valley route near the channel is avoided; c. to the maximum extent practical utility corridors are located so that: (1) the width is the minimized; (2) the removal of trees greater than twelve inches diameter at breast height is minimized; (3) an additional, contiguous and undisturbed critical area buffer, equal in area to the disturbed critical area buffer area including any allowed maintenance roads, is provided to protect the critical area; d. to the maximum extent practical, access for maintenance is at limited access points into the critical area buffer rather than by a parallel maintenance road. If a parallel maintenance road is necessary the following standards are met: (1) to the maximum extent practical the width of the maintenance road is minimized and in no event greater than fifteen feet; and (2) the location of the maintenance road is contiguous to the utility corridor on the side of the utility corridor farthest from the critical area; e. the utility corridor or facility will not adversely impact the overall critical area hydrology or diminish flood storage capacity; f. the construction occurs during approved periods for instream work; g. the utility corridor serves multiple purposes and properties to the maximum extent practical; h. bridges or other construction techniques that do not disturb the critical areas are used to the maximum extent practical; i. bored, drilled or other trenchless crossing is laterally constructed at least four feet below the maximum depth of scour for the base flood; j. bridge piers or abutments for bridge crossing are not placed within the FEMA floodway or the ordinary high water mark; k. open trenching is only used during low flow periods or only within aquatic areas when they are dry. The department may approve open trenching of type S or F aquatic areas only if there is not a feasible alternative and equivalent or greater environmental protection can be achieved; and 1. minor communication facilities may collocate on existing utility facilities if: (1) no new transmission support structure is required; and (2) equipment cabinets are located on the transmission support structure. 13 NOTES: 4� 0, ,90 FEET PATING LWT STATION r fiv!, 1" ALTERNATIVE 2 -4 "r X SE 130 PL. 0 25 50 100 N Scale in Feet C:1pw_working\projectwisoysaiithl4m763O2TIGURE 1 & 2 7-24-09 08,53am JSmth XREFS V T; T! 1 7.. L; cf v* 'I Al 04. v - , \geMMWMAND n_2 ALTERNATIVE I DIRECTION OF FLOW ALTERNATIVE 2 DIRECTION OF FLOW ESA CONFIRME I NO WETLANDS EXIST EAST OF CONCRETE PAD ON JUNE 19, 200 KING COUNTY REQUIREMENTS CLASSIFICATION BUFFERS RE-S-OURCE WETLANDS A - G CATEGORY 11 125 FEET MAIN STREAM TYPE F 115 FEET TRIBUTARY TYPE N 65 FEET ALTERNATIVES. i . STREAM BUFFER VIOLATED ALONG MAJORITY OF ROUTE THROUGH MAPLEWOOD PAR FQ BOTH ALTERNAIME-5, ,,-:�vj:LTT�NDA CONTINUES OUTSIDE OF SURVEY BOUNDARY MAPLEWOOD PARK BOUNDARY BUFFER RESTORATION STREAM CHANNEL RESTORATION WETLAND RESTORATION POTENTIAL COMPENSATORY WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS POTENTIAL COMPENSATORY BUFFER MITIGATION AREAS FIGURE 1A EAST RENTON SEWER ROUTE ALTERNATIVES KING COUNTY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 2009 WASTEWATER LIFT STATION PRE -DESIGN CITY OF RENTON C CA polio Engormers Worlung Wonders With Water " 9WATING UFr STATIM 47� !uj 14 SE 0 25 50 100 I I N Scale in Feet C:1pw_working\projectwise�smith\jdms763021FIGURE 1 & 2 7-24-09 08 53am JSmjth XREFS ,F. n L PCM.� call ­Qk- Ivp L11 rV v. It. Cj ­,wk uofv L U1 :,LP, IND C.6,- wwn&m ALTERNATIVE I DIRECTION OF FLOW 6� ALTERNATIVE 2 DIRECTION OF FLOW RENTON REQUIREMENTS RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION BUI WETLANDS A - G CATEGORY 111 251 MAIN STREAM TYPE 3 751 TRIBUTARY TYPE 4 351 )9 SUMMARY *MOST OF WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER AVOIDED. )DIT10NAL 11 URVEY At 4EQUIRED 1_;�, '11LANDA CONTINUES EAST. OUTSIDE OF SURVEY BOUNDARY MAPLEWOOD PARK BOUNDARY BUFFER RESTORATION STREAM CHANNEL RESTORATION WETLAND RESTORATION UPLAND RESTORATION (OUTSIDE BUFFERS) POTENTIAL COMPENSATORY WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS FIGURE 113 EAST RENTON SEWER ROUTE ALTERNATIVES CITY OF RENTON MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 2009 WASTEWATER LIFT STATION PRE -DESIGN CITY OF RENTON C Clot" EfWwers WorkrV Wundets Wtth Water APPENDIX D COST ANALYSIS SPREADSHEETS QC•�!E�uoa'e. PROJECT SUMMARY Estimate Class: Project: 2009 Wastewater Lift Station Pre -Design, East Renton PIC: Job #: 8235C00 PM: Location: Renton, WA Date: Zip Code: 98055 By: Reviewed: 4 Brian Matson Lara Kammereck February 12, 2010 Tyler Whitehouse Brian Case NO. DESCRIPTION TOTAL 01 Replace 12 inch with 10 inch $25,472 02 Alternative 1 New 15 inch $157,586 03 Replace 8 inch with 15 inch $37,698 TOTAL DIRECT COST 220,756 Contingency 30.0% $66,227 Subtotal $286,982 General Contractor Overhead, Profit & Risk 10.0% $28,698 Subtotal $315,681 Gross Receipts Tax Based on King County, WA 9.5% $29,990 Subtotal $345,670 General Conditions 15.0% $51,851 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $400,000 The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our professional opinion of accurate costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Carollo Engineers have no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, nor services provided by others, contractor's means and methods of executing the work or of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Carollo Engineers cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from the costs presented as shown. fin: E Rentm Gravity Cost Estimate AR 1.As-PROJECT SUMMARY Page 1 of 1 Printed: 2112/2010.2:11 PM ccs- mil - - - - - - - - - Prolect2009 Wastewater Lit Station Pre -Design, East Renton Job 0:8235000 Location: Renton, WA Estimate Class: - - - - - - Build Cost Matrix i - - - - Capacity: Connected HP: - - - - - - - - - RECAP MATRIX Date : February 12, 2010 By: Tyler Whitehouse - - - - - SPEC. DIVISIONI ELEMENT DESCRIPTION DIV. 01 GEN REQTS DIV, 02 SITE WORK DIV. 03 CONIC DIV. 04 MSNRY DIV. 05 METALS DIV. 06 WOOD i Plastics DIV, 07 MOIST PROTN DIV 08 DOORS 3 WDOS DIY. 09 FINISHES DIY. 10 SPECIAL TIES DIV. 11 EQUIP DIV, 12 FURN DIV. 13 SPECIAL CONST DIV. 14 CONVEY DIV. 15 PLUMBG i. MECH DIV. 16 ELECT/ I i C Div 17 INST. i CONT. ELEMENT TOTALS ELEMENT Xor Toul Oi Replace 12 inch with 10 inch S21 945 S2.104 $1.423 $25.472 11,54• 02 Alternative 1 New 15 inch $121 117 $36.469 S157.586 71.38% 03 Replace 8 inch with 15 inch S29 610 S8.089 S37,698 17.08 Total Direct Cost 0 172,671 2,104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45.981 0 0 s220J5i Percent of Total 0.00% 76.22% 0.95% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.83% 0.00% 0 .00% 100.00• I.UMMtN I J INV I tJ 1 Note that the above costs DO NOT include all of the applicable mark-ups for the total constructan or protect cost Refer to the SUMMARY for these values .., I +.mow... I ­_1 w­ Page 1 of 1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE Project: 2009 Wastewater Lift Station Pre -Design, East Renton Job 0: 8235C00 Date : February 12, 2010 Location: Renton, WA By: Tyler Whitehouse Element: 01 Replace 12 inch with 10 inch Reviewed: Brian Casey SPEC. NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL Division 02 - Site Construction 02000 Plug Exisiting PiPeIiine and Abandon 2.00 LS $394.82 $789.64 02000 Misc Connection Allowance 2.00 LS $581.64 $1,163.68 02000 Misc Site Restoration 12-inch to 104nch 1.00 LS $5.000.00 $5,000.00 02000 Trench Box per Day 20.00 Day $00.78 $1,215.63 02000 Bypass Pumping SSMH 73 3.00 Day $1,000.00 $3,000.00 02000 Bypass Pumping_SSMH 72A 3.00 Day $1,000.00 $3,000.00 02220 Core Dnlli , 16" Diameter - 1.00 LF $305-47 _ $305 02240 10Hp Submersible Pump. 3" Elect. 20.00 DAY $144.42 $2,888 02300 10 Cy Dump Truck, 10 Miles/Round Trip 26.67 CY $9.99 $267 Cat 225 Trackhoe, 1Cy Bucket. Class B (Medium Digging), 02300 0-16' D 106.67 CY $5.52 $589 Imported Pipe Bed 8 ZoneiConfined Structure Backfill, 02300 Class 8 Material 26.67 CY $84.85 S2.263 Native Trench Backfill/Unconfined Struct. Bf. Class B 02300 Material 80.00 80.00 CY $18.29 S1.463 Total Division 03 - Concrete 03000 Coricrele Manhole Fill 13.50 CY $155.85 $2,103.98 Total 1" Division 1S - Mechanical 15265 10' Sdr-35 Pvc Sewer Pipe, In Trench 80.00 LF $17.79 $1,423 - Total $1,423 Grand Total $26,472 rm: E Mason Gmy Cap Em N r 9" 1 Rqr 12 n - 10 n Pape 1 of 1 Form Pt- 20a6aar DETAILED COST ESTIMATE Project: 2009 Wastewater Lift Station Pre -Design, East Renton Job #: 8235C00 Date : February 12, 2010 Location; Renton, WA By : Tyler Whitehouse Element: 02 Alternative 1 New 15 inch Reviewed: Brian Casey SPEC. NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL Division 02 - Site Construction 02000 Misc Site Restoration 154nch 1.00 LS $10.000.00 $10.000.00 02000 Misc Connection Allowance 2.00 LS $581.84 $1,164 02000 Stream Diversion A.Ilowance 1.00 SF $5.000.00 $5,000.00 02000 Utility Relocation Allowance 1.00 LS $10.000.00 $10,000.00 _ 02000 Restricted Access Allowance 1.00 LS $5,000.00 $5.000.00 02000 Trench Box per Day 90.00 Day $60.78 55.470 02220 - Core Drillin , 20" Diameter 1.00 - LF $643.66 - $644 02240 1OHp Submersible Pump, 3" Elect. 60.00 DAY $144.42 $8,665 02300 Cut 8 Remove Tree, 8" Diameter 13.00 EA $415.60 $5.403 02300 Cut 8 Remove Tree, 24" Diameter 9.00 EA $675.35 $6.078 D6 Dom, Class B (Medium Dig), Grade, Cut, Fill 8 02300 Compact, 300' Haul 1.155.56 CY $10.46 $12,088 02300 10 Cy Dump Truck, 10 Miles/Round Trip 303.33 CY $9.99 $3.032 02300 Remove Grass d Shrubs, 4" Depth To 1 Acre 0.36 AC $1,154.03 $415 Tractor/Backhoe, 12" Bucket Class B (Median Dippirp), 0- 02300 5' D 41.48 CY $46.25 $1,918 02300 Hand Excavation, Class B Material To 2.5 5.19 CY $149.52 $776 Native Trench Backfill/Unconfined Struct. Bf, Class B 02300 Material 41.48 CY $18.29 $759 Cat 225 Trackhoe. 1Cy Bucket, Class B (Medium Digging), 02300 0-16' D 1,011.11 CY $5.52 55,584 Imported Pipe Bed 8 Zone/Confined Structure Backfill, 02300 Class B Material 303.33 CY $84.85 $25,738 Native Trench Backfill/Unconfined Struct Bf. Class B 02300 Material 707,78 CY $18.29 $12,946 02666 40 Mil Hdpe Liner, Not Textured - Under 3 Acres 700.00 SF 5.62 $436 Total - - $12111T Division 18 - Mechanical 15265 Fusible 16" Sdr-25 Pvc 780.00 LF $46.76 536,469 Total Ora W Total $1R,iiN nn E R~ arwey Car rwnr N 1.O aW Ar,1r,. ,NM 15 ti Pape 1 of 1 F_ RW. DETAILED COST ESTIMATE Project: 2009 Wastewater Lift Station Pre -Design, East Renton Job #: 8235C00 Date: February 12. 2010 Location: Renton, WA By: Tyler Whitehouse Element: 03 Replace 8 inch with 15 inch Reviewed: Brian Casey SPEC. NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL Division 02 - Site Construction 02000 Mist Site Restoration 84nch to 15-inch 1.00 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 02000 Misc Connection Alknvance 2.00 LS $581.84 $1,164 02000 Trench Box per Day 20.00 Day $60.78 $1,216 02220 Demo Pvc Pipe From Trench, 4" -18" W. Fffings 173.00 LF $4.34 $751 02220 Asphalt Pavement Cutting 1,384.00 inFT $.78 $1,078 02220 Core Drilling. 20" Diameter 1.00 LF $643.66 $644 02220 Remove 4"-6" Asphalt Pavement _ 951.50 SF $.67 S641 02240 10Hp Submersible Pump, 3" Elect. 20.00 DAY $144.42 $2,888 02300 10 Cy Dump Truck, 10 Miles/Round Trip 67.28 CY $9.99 $672 Cat 225 Trackhoe, iCy Bucket, Class B (Medium Dlggirq), 02300 0-16' D 224.26 CY $5.52 $1,239 Imported Pipe Bed 8 Zone/Confined Structure Backfill, 02300 Class B Material 67.28 CY S84.85 $5,709 Native Trench Backfill/Unconfined Struct. Bf, Class B 02300 Material 156.98 CY $18.29 $2,871 02742 4" Pavormo Replaosment On 6" Abc Over Trench 951.50 SF $6.03 $5,736 Total _ $29,610 Division 15 - Mechanical 15265 15" Sdr-35 Pvc Sewer Pipe, In Trench 173.00 LF $46.76 $8,089 Total m089 Grand Total $37.08 rmE R~ a",* CON EWn"M !r , *-W RepIM a r,u, w a na, Page 1 of 1 F_ Rw 1oGtlur QCa! 0�yruu ., ­ PROJECT SUMMARY Estimate Class: Project: 2009 Wastewater Lift Station Pre -Design, East Renton PIC: Job #: 8235C00 PM: Location: Renton, WA Date: Zip Code: 98055 By: Reviewed: 4 Brian Matson Lara Kammereck February 12, 2010 Tyler Whitehouse Brian Case NO. DESCRIPTION TOTAL 01 Replace 12 inch with 12 inch $25,895 02 Alternative 2 New 15 inch $152,869 03 Replace 8 inch with 15 inch $37,698 TOTAL DIRECT COST 3216,462 Contingency 30.0% $64,939 Subtotal $281,400 General Contractor Overhead, Profit & Risk 10.0% $28,140 Subtotal $309,540 Gross Receipts Tax Based on King County, WA 9.5% $29,406 Subtotal $338,947 General Conditions 15.0% $50,842 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $390,000 The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our professional opinion of accurate costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Carollo Engineers have no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, nor services provided by others, contractor's means and methods of executing the work or of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Carollo Engineers cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from the costs presented as shown. Vn: E Renton Gravity Cost Estimate Aft 2.xts-PROJECT SUMMARY Page 1 of 1 Printed: 211212010-4:10 PM cc,..r- , - - - - - - - - - Prolect2009 Wastewater Lilt Station Pre -Design, East Renton Job 0 8235C00 Location Renton, WA Estimate Class: - - - - - Build Cost Matrix I a - _� Capacity: Connected HP: - - - - - - - - - - - RECAP MATRIX Date : February 12, 2010 By: Tyler Whitehouse - - - - - SPEC- DIVISIOW ELEMENT DESCRIPTION DIV. 01 GEN RES DIV. 02 SITE WORK DIV, 03 CONC DIV. 04 MSNRY DIV. 05 METALS DIV, 06 WOOD Plastics DIV. 07 MOIST PROTN DIV, 08 DOORS & WDOS DIV. 09 FINISH DIV. 10 SPECIAL- TIES DIV. 11 EQUIP DIV. 12 FURN DIV. 13 SPECIAL CONST DIV. 14 CONVEY DIV. 15 PLUMBG & MECH DIV, 16 ELECT/ I & C DIV 17 INST. & CONT. ELEMENT TOTALS ELEMENT %of Total 01 Replace 12 inch with 12 inch $21.945 $2,031 $1 919 $25,895 1146 02 Alternative 2 New 15 inch $112.659 _ $$40 209 --5152,869 70.62 3 Replace 8 inch wlth 15 rich $29 610 _ _ $8 089 $37.698 17.4 Total Direct Cost 0 194,214 2,031 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,217 0 0 521C462 Percent of Total 0.00% 75."% 0.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0,00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 23.20% 0.00% 0.00 % 100.00 CUMN1ENiS NUTES 1 Note that the above costs DO NOT include all of the applicable mark-ups for the total construction or project cost. Refer to the SUMMARY for these values. .n ra.+m u..ry cur r.r..r rel r-cosr wrrrui Page 1 of 1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE Project: 2009 Wastewater Lift Station Pre -Design, East Renton Job #: 8235C00 Date : February 12, 2010 location: Renton, WA By: Tyler Whitehouse Element: 01 Replace 12 inch with 12 inch Reviewed: Brian Casey SPEC. NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL Division 02 - Site Cons u-ction 02000 Plug Existing Pipeline and Abandon 2.00 LS $394.82 $789.64 02000 Misc Connection Allowance 2.00 LS $581.84 _ $1,163.68 02000 Misc Site Restoration 12-inch to 12-inch 1.00 LS $5,000.00 $5.000.00 02000 Trench Box per Day 20.00 Da $60.78 $1.215.63 02000 Bypass Pumping SSMH 73 3.00 Day $1,000.00 $3,000.00 02000 Bypass Pumping SSMH 72A 3.00 Da $1,000.00 $3,000.00 02220 Core Drilling, 16' Diameter 1.00 LF $305.47 $305 02240 1 OHp Submersible Pump, 3' Elect. _ 20.00 DAY $144.42 _ _ $2,$N Imported Pipe Bed & Zone/Confined Structure Backfill, 02300 Class B Material 26.67 CY $84.95 $2,263 02300 10 C Dum Truck, 10 Miles/Round Trip 26.67 CY $9.99 $267 Native Trench Backfill/Unconfirrod SVuct. Bf, Class B 02300 Material 80.00 CY $1S.29 $1,463 Cat 225 Trackhoe, 1 Cy Bucket, Class B (Medium Digging), 02300 0-16' D 106.67 CY $5.52 $589 Total __ $21949 DMslon 03 - ConcnM 03000 Concrete Manhole Fill 13.03 CY $155.85 $2,030.73 Total $2,031 Dhrfslon 19 • I ecfwdcal - 15265 12" Sdr-36 Pvc Sewer Pipe, In Trench 60.00 LF $23.99 $1,919 Total sills Grand Total u 04 nn. E nrbi Cw" coo ESWIOD M! 2 A"I ay.o. nch Am 12 r Page 1 of 1 F— ftv 2006Jw Is - Project: 2009 Wastewater Lift Station Pre -Design, East Renton Job #: 8235C00 Location: Renton, WA Element: 02 Alternative 2 New 15 inch DETAILED COST ESTIMATE Date : By : Reviewed: February 12, 2010 Tyler Whitehouse Brian Casey SPEC. NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL 02000 Division 02 - Site Construction Misc Site Restoration 154nch 1.00 LS $10.000.00 $10,000.00 02000 Misc Connection Allowance 2.00 LS $581.54 $1,164 02000 Restricted Access Allowance 1.00 LS $5.000.00 $5.000.00 02000 02220 Trench Box per Day Core Drilling, 20" Diameter 90.00 1.00 Da LF $60.78 $643.66 $5,470 $644 02240 02300 10Hp Submersible Pump, 3" Elect. Cut 8 Remove Tree, 8" Diameter 60.00 20.00 DAY EA $144.42 $415.60 $8.665 S8,312 02300 Cut & Remove Tree, 24" Diameter 15.00 EA $675.35 $10,130 02300 DS Dozer, Class B (Medium Dig), Grade, Cut, Fill 8 Compact 300' Haul 1.274.07 CY $10.46 $13.327 02300 10 Cy Dump Truck, 10 MileslRound Trip 334.44 CY $9.99 $3,342 02300 Remove Grass 8 Shrubs, 4" Depth To 1 Acre 0.39 AC $1,154.03 $450 02300 Cat 225 Traddwe, 1Cy Bucket, Class 8 (Medium Digging), 0-16' D 1,003.33 CY $5.52 $5,541 02300 Imported Pipe Bed 8 Zone/Confined Structure Backfill, Class B Material 334.44 CY $84.65 $28,378 02300 Native Trench Backfill Unconfined Stnut. Bf, Class 8 Material 668.89 CY $18.29 $12,235 TOW $112,M Division IS - MedwwAcal 15265 Fusible 18" Sdr-25 Pvc 860.00 LF $49.70 $40,209 Total $40,209 Grand Total 918209 f'n E R—C.-*, Con E-- N: cad: aRMrlN 2 P - 15 — Page 1 of 1 Form Rar 300&A— cjvrww DETAILED COST ESTIMATE Project: 2009 Wastewater Lift Station Pre -Design, East Renton Job #: 8235C00 Date : February 12, 2010 Location: Renton, WA By: Tyler Whitehouse Element: 03 Replace 8 inch with 15 inch Reviewed: Brian Casey SPEC. NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL Division 02 - Site Construction 02000 Misc Site Restoration 8-inch to 154nch 1.00 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 02000 Misc Connection Allowance 2.00 LS $581.84 $1,164 02000 Trench Box per Day 20.00 Day $60.78 $1,216 02220 Demo Pvc Pipe From Trench, 4- - 18" Incl. Fittings 173.00 LF $4.34 $751 02220 Asphalt Pavement Cutting 1,384.00 inFT $.78 $1,078 02220 Core Drilling, 20' Diameter 1.00 LF $643.66 $644 02220 Remove 4'-6" Asphalt Pavement 951.50 SF $.67 $641 02240 10Hp Submersible Pump, 3' Elect. 20.00 DAY $144.42 $2,888 02300 10 Cy Dump Trick, 10 Miles/Round Trip 67.28 CY $9.99 $572 Cat 225 Trackhoe, 1Cy Bucket. Class B (Medium Digging), 02300 0-16' D 224.26 CY $5.52 $1,239 Imported Pipe Bed & Zone/Confined Structure Backfill, 02300 Class B Material 67.28 CY $84.85 $5,709 Native Trench BackfilWnconfined Sbuct. Bf, Class B 02300 Material 156.98 CY $18.29 $2,871 02742 4' Pavement Replacement On 6" Abe Over Trench 951.50 SF $8.03 $5,736 $29,610 -Tom Division 15 • Mechanical - 15265 15" Sdr-35 Pvc Sewer Pipe, In Trench 173.00 LF $46.76 $8,089 Total $8 089 Grand Total $37 N8 rR E R. rrway Cor Ea-ft A* In W R.prc. a +m . 15 n Page 1 of 1 F— R« 2100& R