No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-06-017_MiscI I I I I I I I I I I Corridor Program a.·~~~ .... o.·· .. · ~· ·~····+ ~~l'if9~ '!C[ 0P~.,1F:NT PL.A!\J~ilf\ "' "~,,;i,-J:1 Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Ftc: 2 i 2rJ06 Wetland Delineation Report REGE.IVED May2005 -2'1 Wa•fllni,ton Stal• D•partmant a,f Trans~Uon I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I iiHlilffii:ll ~y. ii~ A .·. ..... · .+ ~a~ U Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects Corridor Program Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 What is the I-405 Corridor Program? ............................................................................... 1 What is EEI? ..................................................................................................................... 1 How does this report support EEI? ................................................................................. .1 Where is the EEI Mitigation Site located? ....................................................................... 1 How was the wetland study for EEI conducted? ............................................................. .2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 5 UNIT A ................................................................................................................................ 5 UNIT B ................................................................................................................................ 8 UNIT C .............................................................................................................................. 12 UNIT D .............................................................................................................................. 15 UNIT E .............................................................................................................................. 17 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 18 APPENDIX A -WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS ..................................... A-1 APPENDIX B-WETLAND DATA SHEETS ............................................................ B-1 APPENDIX C -WETLAND PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................ C-1 APPENDIX D -WETLAND SURVEY MAPS .......................................................... D-1 List of Tables TABLE 1. CRITERIA FORWETLAND RATING CATEGORIES .......................... 4 TABLE 2. WETLAND SIZE, RATING, AND CLASSIFICATION FOR WETLANDS IN THE SPRINGBROOK CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION BANK .................................................................................................................................. 5 TABLE A-1. DEFINITIONS OF WETLA.l~D PLANT INDICATOR CATEGORIES USED TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OF HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION ............................................................................................................. A-1 Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 -:7.: WaUllflgton Stat. T/# Dapartmenl !If TraMpertallan I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I ilih:141,M e U Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects Corridor Program List of Figures FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF MITIGATION SITES ....................................................... 3 FIGURE 2 UNIT A WETLAND DELINEATION ......................................................... 7 FIGURE 3 UNIT B WETLAND DELINEATION ......................................................... 9 FIGURE 4 UNIT C WETLAND DELINEATION ....................................................... 13 FIGURE 5 UNIT D WETLAND DELINEATION ....................................................... 16 Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 -:,: Waahln1lon Ital• '11 D1111p.rtlnt1nl of Transportation ii I I I I I Introduction What is the I-405 Corridor Program? The 1-405 Corridor, from 1-5 in Tukwila to I-5 in Lynnwood, needs improvement to relieve current and future traffic congestion. The 1-405 Conidor Program is a set of improvements to the 1-405 Corridor designed to address congestion on this important arterial. The proposed improvements will result in some environmental impacts, some of which will be addressed through a mitigation program called Early Environmental Investment (EED. What is EE!? Early Environmental Investment develops mitigation in advance of project impacts. The EEi process will identify, rank, select, design, and permit environmental investment for improving aquatic resources, fish habitat, wetlands, water quantity, and floodplains. This advance selection and creation of mitigation will allow the resources longer to mature before actual project impacts are incurred, reducing the length of time that resource functions are affected. EEI is a cooperative effort, requiring information sharing and partnering among agencies with an interest in the I-405 study area. How does this report support EEi? This report is an investigation of one mitigation site selected under the EEI process. The report provides detailed baseline wetland information on the proposed Springbrook mitigation site. A separate mitigation report will be prepared to discuss details of the proposed mitigation activities at this site. Where is the EEi Mitigation Site located? The Proposed Springbrook Mitigation Site consists of five units (A through E, See Figure!). All five units are within the City of Renton, Washington: Unit A is located southwest of the intersection of SW 27th Street and Lind Avenue SW. It extends approximately 1,200 feet south from the intersection, and approximately 900 feet west to Springbrook Creek. Unit A is in Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East (Willamette Meridian). Unit Bis located southeast of the intersection of SW 27"' Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW (Section 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East). It extends approximately 1,200 feet south from the intersection, and approximately 1,200 feet east to Springbrook Creek. Unit C is located west of Oakesdale Avenue SW, between SW 27"' Street and SW 34"' Street (Section 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East). It extends west from Oakesdale Avenue SW to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad right-of-way. Unit Dis located north of SW 43nl Street, immediately east of the BNSF right-of-way (Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East). It extends approximately 1,300 feet north of SW 43nl Street, and approximately 350 feet east of the BNSF right-<if-way. Unit E is a triangular parcel located east of Oakesdale Avenue SW, approximately 400 feet south of SW 34"' Avenue (Section 25, Township 23North, Range 4 East). Springbrook Creek forms the southeast boundary of Unit E. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 1 How was the wetland study for EEi conducted? The investigation included two steps. The first step was a review of existing documents such as soil surveys, aerial photographs, and other available documents. The second step was the field investigation, delineation, and classification of the wetlands observed on the units. Step I: Review of Existing Infonnation Existing documents that were reviewed for this study included but were not limited to: • Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington (Snyder et al. 1973) • Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Prospectus (Washington State Department of Transportation 2004) • National Wetland Inventory Web site (http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html) (USFWS 2004) These documents provide background infonnation on the soils, hydrology, topography, land use, wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat in the site vicinity. Step 2: Field Investigation Wetland delineations were made using the methods described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology] 1997) and the Co,ps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers 1987). Areas were identified as wetlands if they displayed the necessary soils, plants, and hydrologic conditions. A detailed description of the field methods used in this study is provided in Appendix A of this report, and the wetland delineation data sheets are presented in Appendix B. Delineated wetlands were classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). The City of Renton wetland rating system (Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 4.3.050) was used to rate wetlands. Table I summarizes the wetland rating criteria utilized. A detailed analysis of wetland functions is not included in this report, but has been provided to regulatory agencies under separate cover (Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Information Packet, [WSDOT 2004)). Updated information will be included in the wetland mitigation report to be prepared in 2005. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I • Legend Springbrook Creek Site Boundary N W+E s "' 1,000 1,500 2,000 , .. Everett Edmontls u Sea\Bellevue ~Renton FIGURE 1 Location of Mitigation Sites Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Reggrt j February 2005 I I Category Category I Category II Category Ill Table 1. Criteria for Wetland Rating Categories City of Renton• category 1 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) The presence of species listed by federal or state government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species; and/or (b) Wetlands having forty percent (40%) to sixty percent (60%) pennanent open water (in dispersed patches or otherwise) with two (2) or more vegetation classes; and/or (c) Wetlands equal to or greater than ten (10) acres in size and having three (3) or more vegetation classes, one of which is open water; and/or (d) The presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence; or at the geographic limits of their occurrence; and/or (e) Wetlands assigned the Unique/Outstanding #1 rating in the current King County Wetlands Inventory 1991 or as thereafter amended. Category 2 wetlands are wetlands greater than two thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands greater than two thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees. but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands assigned the Significant #2 rating in the current King County Wetlands Inventory 1991 or as thereafter amended; and/or (e) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as diking, ditching, or channelization. Category 3 wetlands are wetlands greater than five thousand (5,000) square feet which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: • Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and • Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal, and/or compaction of soils; and • May have altered vegetation. (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: • Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and • Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness, and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. (c) All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands . • City of Renton (Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 3, 43.050). Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 4 ' I Results The initial wetland delineation was performed in October and November 2004. Eight wetlands were located in four (Units A, B, C, and D) of the five units. No wetlands were identified in Unit E. Wetland delineation data sheets are provided in Appendix B, and site photographs are in Appendix C. Table 2 summarizes the size, rating and classification of wetlands found within the study area, and Figures 2 through 5 show the wetland boundaries and data plot locations. Note that the second column of Table 2 shows the area of the delineated portion of the wetland (i.e., the portion on the parcel), followed by the estimated overall wetland size in parenthesis. Table 2. Wetland Size, Rating, and Classification for Wetlands in the Springbrook Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Wetland Unit A A-1 UnitB 8-1 8-2 8-3 UnltC C-1 C-2 C-3 UnitD D-1 Delineated area in acres (overall wetland size•) 22.9 24 22.3 22.3 10.0 10.0 0.3 0.3 21.2 33.9 5.8 48.5 0.9 48.5 5.6 6.7 Wetland Ratin~ City of Renton 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 USFWS Classification' Forested, Scrub/shrub, Emergent Forested, Emergent Forested, Emergent Forested, Emergent Forested, Scrub/shrub Forested, Emergent Forested Forested, Scrub/shrub, Emergent Overall wetlands size is estimated based on aerial photograph interpretation. Area of delineated portions of the wetlands is based on instrument survey (Huitt Zollars, 2004-2005). b Wetland ratings are based on Renton Municipal Code, Title 4 Chapter 3. All ratings shown in this table are preliminary and have not been reviewed by the City of Renton or other regulatory agencies. Cowardin et al. (1979). All wetlands are palustrine. d Wetlands C-1, C-2, and C-3 are part of the same wetland complex. Offsite wetlands to the nor1h were calculated with Wetland C-1. anCI those to the south of the property were calculated with C-2/C-3. UnitA Field investigations were performed by project biologists at Unit A on October 20, 2004, and additional data were collected on October 21 and 28, 2004. One wetland (A-1) was delineated within the unit. A summary of the findings at Unit A are presented below. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 -::,:w ............... "f'II D•p b11a11I of Trioa•ffl-->toto ..... n 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I • • WetlandA-1 Palustrine forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent Category 3 22.9 acres in Unit A/24 acres overall Wetland A-1 is riverine wetland located in a low lying area between adjacent roads, developed areas elevated by fill material, and the maintained berm along Springbrook Creek. Wetland A-1 is approximately 24 acres in size, and includes palustrine forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent communities (Cowardin et al. 1979). The forested areas comprise a fringe along the northern, southern, and western edges of Wetland A-1, although portions of the forested component extend into the middle of the unit. The scrub/shrub communities occur as smaller (approximately 0.2 to 1.5 acre) areas scattered throughout the forested and emergent communities. The emergent community covers the eastern Y, of Unit A. Vegetation in the forested areas includes red alder (A/nus rubra) and black cottonwood (Popu/us ba/samifera) in the canopy. These trees are relatively low (generally less than 75 feet tall), with diameters at breast height (dbh) up to approximately 24 inches. The understory includes Pacific willow (Salix lucida var. /asiandra) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). Reed canarygrass (Pha/aris arundinacea) is the dominant herbaceous species and occupies the emergent areas. Soils in Wetland A-1 are mapped as Snohomish silt loam, Woodinville silt loam, and Puget silty clay loam (Snyder et al. 1973). The soils observed in wetland test pits were generally very dark grayish brown ( 1 OYR 3/2) silty clay or silty clay loam. Fine redoxymorphic features were common in most areas. Wetland A-1 is separated from Springbrook Creek by a maintained berm located approximately 20 feet above the water level. Two small ditches, referred to herein as the northern and southern ditches, traverse Wetland A-1 from east to west. The northern ditch crosses the middle of the unit beginning near Lind Avenue SW and extending to the eastern foot of the berm along Springbrook Creek. A culvert carries it under the berm. This ditch is approximately 6 feet wide and 10 inches deep, and reed canarygrass lines the channel and dominates the substrate. The southern ditch is located just north of the south property boundary. The ditch begins at a culvert under Lind Avenue SW, and flows west to Springbrook Creek, where it passes through the berm. The southern ditch is approximately 10 to 15 feet wide, and appears to consist ofa series ofloosely connected areas of shallow inundation. The banks are vegetated with alder, cottonwood, and willows, which provide shade and contribute to organic material. A culvert carries water from the south directly into Wetland A-1. Wetland hydrology in Wetland A-1 appears to derive from elevated groundwater from Springbrook Creek and stormwater flows entering the wetland from culverts to the east and south. Areas of saturated soils and shallow inundation were observed during the field investigations. Fill berms adjacent to the sidewalks along Lind Avenue SW and SW 27th Street extend down to the wetland edge. These areas are dominated by dense thickets of Himalayan blackberry and likely consist of fill material placed when these roads were constructed. With the exception ofa few undeveloped areas, the majority of the parcels surrounding Wetland A-1 are developed (see Figures 1 and 2). An undeveloped lot, potentially consisting of a wetland, is located north Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 6 I I I I I ~ I 9 § ~ • • ~ 0 I ~ • ~ ~ E ,. I C :, ~ C ~ • !• I • ~I ~ ~ 0 .. I ~ ~ a -~ a '5 9 • a I ll • "I 0 0 ~. 0 I ~ ~ a .e I w I ~ d • • I ·e G ~ 0 0 N • " • C i/!. >; ~ '3 • ~ 8 N Figure 2 Unit A Wetland Delineation ? 0 0 u Parcel I a .e ~ 8 0 N " Surveyed Wetland C) Interpreted (off-site) Wetland • 0 0 "' Data Plot "' ~ • 0 ... ..,..,..,.'.0•0 ..,.., ..... 2.i0feet "' • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • of SW 27th Street and east of Springbrook Creek. Due to the presence of the street, this area is not directly connected to Wetland A-1, although it likely was in the past. The parcel south of Wetland A-1 along Lind Avenue SW includes a large building and parking areas. A small stormwater treatment feature, approximately 50 feet wide, is associated with this development and is located between the parking areas and Wetland A-1. Until recently, the parcel to the southwest of Unit A contained maintained pasture grass. This pasture is currently being graded for development. The western boundary of Unit A includes the channelized portion of Springbrook Creek. A large wetland complex is located immediately west of Springbrook Creek (see Unit B description). In summary, Wetland A-I is a large system comprised of multiple vegetation types that contribute to relatively high function. However, its buffers are narrow and disturbed, limited in size and function by surrounding land uses. Although Wetland A-1 is surrounded on three sides by development, a berm adjacent to Springbrook Creek forms the fourth side and is relatively undisturbed. Springbrook Creek provides a hydro logic connection to other habitats upstream and downstream of the site, as well as areas along the BNSF right-of-way and the Green River. UnitB Project biologists delineated three wetlands (B-1, B-2, and B-3) in Unit B on October 19, 2004. Additional data were collected on October 20, 2004. A summary of the wetland investigations is provided below. Wetland B-1 Palustrine forested and emergent Category 3 22.3 acres in Unit B/22.3 acres overall Wetland B-1 is a depressional wetland approximately 22.3 acres in size and includes palustrine forested and emergent communities (Cowardin et al. 1979). The forested areas comprise a fringe along SW z7ili Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW, and also occupy the southern third of the wetland (See Figures I and 3). The emergent community occupies the northeastern third of the wetland. Vegetation in the forested areas includes red alder and black cottonwood in the canopy, with an understory of Pacific willow, Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana), Himalayan blackberry, and red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea). Herbaceous species in the forested areas include bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), scouring rush (Equisetum hymale), English ivy (Hedera helix), and hedge bindweed (Convulvulus sepium). Trees in Wetland B-1 are relatively short (the tallest are approximately 75 feet), with diameters at breast height (dbh) up to approximately 24 inches. Emergent portions of Wetland B-1 are dominated by reed canarygrass, although yellowflag iris, common cattail (Typha latifo/ia), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), waterpepper (Polygonum hydropiper), and mild waterpepper (Polygonum hydropiperoides var. hydropiperoides) are locally dominant. Soils in Wetland B-1 are mapped as Woodinville silt loam (Snyder et al. 1973). The observed soils were generally dark to very dark grayish brown ( 1 OYR 4/2 to I OYR 3/2) silty loam to silty clay loam. Fine redoxymorphic features were common in most of the sample plots. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 -:,:_ ..... T/# D•• b I af Tranepo,t II I 8 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' p ' ! ! ! ! ! ' Figure 3 Unit B Wetland Delineation 0 Parcel ® Surveyed Wetland Data Plot 150 300 Feet I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • Wetland B-1 is located in a depression bordered by SW 27th Street to the north, Oakesdale Avenue SW to the west, developed areas (fill) to the south, and the Oakesdale Avenue SW Mitigation Site to the east Topography within the wetland is quite flat, with a few micro-depressions that trap water. Wetland B-1 is separated from Springbrook Creek by a berm (the Oakesdale Avenue Mitigation Site) and by Wetland B-2. A culvert appears to carry water into Wetland B-1 from the west under Oakesdale Avenue SW; however, no flow was observed during the field investigation and there was no evidence of a channel. Shallow areas of inundation were found along the eastern side of Wetland B-1 near the Oakesdale Avenue SW Mitigation Site. Water appears to directly enter Wetland B-1 as precipitation, and via elevated groundwater levels. In addition to Wetland B-1, two other wetlands (B-2 to the east and B-3 to the north) are located in Unit B. Two vacant parcels (a Boeing site and Unit C) are located to the west of Wetland B-1 on the opposite side of Oakesdale Avenue SW. Southwest 27th Street is located to the north of Wetland B-1, and the properties to the north of the road are occupied by commercial buildings. A newly built strip-mall is located south of Wetland B-1. Vegetation along the road edges is dominated by domestic grasses and non-native forbs. Himalayan blackberry is prevalent along edges and in disturbed areas. Wetland B-1 is a relatively large wetland with multiple habitat types. These habitats are fragmented by roads and development, and the natural vegetation has been altered significantly. Buffers are narrow and disturbed, except on the east. WetlandB-2 Palustrine forested and emergent Category 3 10 acres in Unit B/10 acres overall Wetland B-2 is a riparian wetland IO acres in size, and includes palustrine forested and emergent communities (Cowardin et al. 1979). The forested area dominates the majority of the wetland, and the emergent areas are located in the northeast and northwest comers of the wetland (see Figures I and 3). Vegetation in the forested area is dominated by Pacific willow, although Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) is present in the northern portion of the forested area. Red osier dogwood is the dominant understory plant, although Himalayan blackberry is also present. Herbaceous species in the forest include reed canarygrass, bittersweet nightshade, and hedge bindweed. Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) and yellowflag iris (Iris pseudacorus) are also common in some areas. Emergent portions of Wetland B-2 are dominated by reed canarygrass, but common cattail, and mild waterpepper are also present in areas with seasonal ponding. Soils in Wetland B-2 are mapped as Woodinville silt loam (Snyder et al. 1973). The soils observed in Wetland B-2 are similar to those found in Wetland B-1 ( dark to very dark grayish brown silty loam to silty clay loam with fine redoxymorphic features). Wetland B-2 is located in a depression bordered by SW 27th Street to the north, developed areas (fill) to the south, and berms to the east and west. The topography of Wetland B-2 is relatively flat, with a few micro-depressions that trap and hold water. Shallow inundated areas were fowid in the northern third of Wetland B-2. Wetland B-2 is separated from Springbrook Creek by a maintained berm. A small ditch begins in the forested area on the northern third of Wetland B-2. The ditch extends through the berm to Springbrook Creek. This ditch effectively drains the northern portion of the wetland. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 -2-"-~-..,, D1, b1i.nt ell Tl LQ b&ti N 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J A culvert on Springbrook Creek upstream of Unit B has historically constricted flow of the stream, resulting in flooding of adjacent areas. To alleviate this and associated upstream flooding north of SW 27th Street, the culvert under the road was recently replaced (1999). This replacement subsequently removed the constriction of flow through Springbrook Creek. Since this constriction has been removed, the impact of Springbrook Creek on the hydroperiod of Wetland B-2 is unclear. The remaining buffers of Wetland B-2 are somewhat wider than those of Wetland B-1. The Oakesdale Avenue SW Mitigation Site and Wetland B-1 are located to the west of Wetland B-2, and Springbrook Creek and Wetland A-1 are located to the east. The northern edge of Wetland B-2 extends to the fill slope of SW 27,. Street, which is dominated by domestic grasses, non-native forbs, and Himalayan blackberry. New construction is located to the south of the wetland, and associated parking surfaces extend nearly to the wetland edge. Wetland B-2 is a relatively large wetland with multiple habitat types. The system provides a connection between Wetlands B-1 and A-1 as well as to other habitats along Springbrook Creek, the BNSF Railroad, and the Green River. WetlandB-3 Palustrine forested Category3 0.3 acre in Unit B/0.3 acre overall Wetland B-3 is a relatively small (0.3 acre) palustrine forested wetland (Cowardin et al. 1979). It is located in a swale between Wetland B-1 and SW 27th Street, and extends west to Oakesdale Avenue SW (see Figures 1 and 3). Vegetation in Wetland B-3 is similar to the forested portions of Wetland B-1 and includes a canopy of red alder and Pacific willow, with red osier dogwood in the understory. Himalayan blackberry is also present, particularly in the eastern half of the wetland, and on the road prism of SW 27,. Street. Herbaceous vegetation in Wetland B-3 is sparse, although scattered reed canarygrass and common horsetail (Equisetum arvense) are present. Soils in Wetland B-3 are mapped as Woodinville silt loam (Snyder et al. 1973), and the observed soils are similar to those found in Wetland B-1, although some gravels are present. Wetland B-3 is separated from Wetland B-1 by a berm. It is unclear whether Wetland B-3 was excavated and the berm constructed from the excavated material, or if the berm was constructed from fill material from some other location. Water in Wetland B-3 appears to be provided by runoff from SW 27th Street. Groundwater may also play a role in the hydrology of this wetland. The buffers for Wetland B-3 include Wetland B-1 to the south and the fill slopes for Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 271h Street to the west and north. The eastern buffer is predominantly Himalayan blackberry, and extends along SW 27,. Street to the Oakesdale A venue SW Mitigation Site. The northern and western buffers are narrow (less than 20 feet wide), limited by the presence of the roadways. Wetland B-3 is small and subject to frequent disturbance. Trash is common in the wetland and its buffers. As a result, it provides little habitat for wildlife, and likely has low relative value. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • UnitC Project biologists delineated three wetlands (C-1, C-2, and C-3) in Unit Con October 22, 26, 27, and 28, 2004 and on November 2, 3, and 5, 2004. A sunnnary of these wetlands is provided below. Wetland C-1 Palustrine forested and scrub/shrub Category 2 21.2 acres in Unit C/33.9 acres overall Wetland C-1 is a palustrine forested-scrub/shrub depressional wetland (Cowardin et al. 1979) approximately 33.9 acres in size, 21.2 acres of which are witlrin Unit C. Wetland C-1 is located along the north and east sides of Unit C, and extends northward onto Boeing property (see Figures 1 and 4). Pockets of scrub-shrub connnunities occur within the larger forested connnunity. Most of these shrub connnunities have hydric soils and are dominated by wetland vegetation, although there are several small areas of fill material within the larger wetland matrix vegetated by monocultures of Himalayan blackberry. Vegetation in Wetland C-1 includes a canopy ofred alder and black cottonwood, with an understory of Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), red osier dogwood, and hardback (Spiraea douglasiz). Herbaceous species in the forested areas include a mixture of creeping buttercup, bittersweet nightshade, and reed canarygrass. Shrub connnunities in Wetland C-1 include Pacific willow, red osier dogwood, hardback, and Himalayan blackberry. Soils in Wetland C-1 are mapped as a mixture of Woodinville silt loam and Puyallup fine sandy loam (Snyder et al. 1973). The soils observed in wetland test pits were generally dark grayish brown (1 OYR 4/2) silt loam with fine redoxymorphic features. Previous studies (Parametrix 2002) indicate that some portions of Wetland C-1 may be comprised of fill material. Wetland C-1 appears to receive water from precipitation and from elevated groundwater levels. A ditch crosses Wetland C-1 near the northern property line, but does not appear to provide water to Wetland C-1. Rather, this ditch appears to have been constructed to convey water away from Wetland C-1 and under Oakesdale Avenue SW through a culvert north of Unit C. A shallow swale with no defined channel does cross the central portion of Wetland C-1, traveling from north to south. This swale appears to be a remnant of the original drainage shown on the soil survey (Snyder et al. 1973). Wetland C-1 extends east to the edge of the fill prism of Oakesdale Avenue SW. The road slope is dominated by a dense thicket of Himalayan blackberry adjacent to the wetland. Closer to Oakesdale Avenue SW, the right-of-way consists of mowed grasses with disturbance-tolerant forbs (lance-leaf plantain [Plantago /anceolata], tansy [Tanacetum vulgare], teasel [Dipsacus sylvestris], and tlristle [Cirsium vulgare]). North of Unit C, Wetland C-1 includes emergent areas dominated by reed canarygrass and disturbed upland meadows. The area immediately west of Wetland C-1 is primarily Himalayan blackberry, grading into the emergent portion of Wetland C-2. The areas to the south of Wetland C-1 include dense thickets of Himalayan blackberry and Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), and a surrounding meadow with mixed grasses (bentgrasses [Agrostis spp.J, orchard grass [Dactylis glomerata], and ryegrass [Lo/ium sp.J) and disturbance-tolerant forbs (lance-leaf plantain, St. Johnswort [Hypericum perforatum], tansy, and tlristle) . Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 12 '" z+~ ;; "O a• a~ ~ C: a. "' "' C: "' 0 s :;, Q) "' "O Cl) -.5 C: ·en .!!l :i!: -a; w _£ C a s lo "O "O C: u .2l "' "' ~ >, ;; ai "' 0. Cl) {.) 2: ~ 3: ~ "' "' ::, -(.) 0.. (/) C: ~ a • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • Wetland C-1 is a relatively large wetland with multiple habitat types. Songbirds and raptors (likely red- tailed hawks) were observed in the wetland and in the adjacent uplands, and a raptor nest was observed. Coyotes were also observed in this area. Connectivity to other habitats is very good, making this a desirable location for restoration. Wetland C-2 Palustrine forested and emergent Category 3 5.8 acres in Unit C/48.5 acres overall Wetland C-2 is a palustrine forested and emergent depressional wetland (Cowardin et al. 1979) approximately 48.5 acres in size; 5.8 acres of Wetland C-2 are within Unit C. The forested area occupies the eastern and southern portion of wetland C-2, and the emergent community occurs in the west alongside the BNSF Railroad right-of-way (Figures I and 4). Vegetation in the forested area is dominated by black cottonwood and Pacific willow with an understory of Scouler's willow, red osier dogwood, and Himalayan blackberry. The emergent community is dominated by reed canarygrass. Soils in Wetland C-2 are mapped as Woodinville silt loam and Puget silty clay loam (Snyder et al. 1973). The soils observed in Wetland C-2 are dark grayish brown silt loam with medium-sized redoxymorphic features. As noted above, portions of Wetland C-2 may include fill soils (Parametrix 2002). Topography in Wetland C-2 is relatively flat and evenly sloped, although hummocks are present in emergent areas. Wetland C-2 appears to receive water from precipitation and from elevated groundwater levels. A north-south running ditch divides the forested portions of Wetland C-2 from the emergent communities. This ditch continues north beyond the wetland boundary before turning east and entering Wetland C-1. As noted in the description of Wetland C-1, the ditch appears to have been constructed to convey water away from Unit C. Wetland C-2 extends to the edge of the BNSF right-of-way on the west. The vegetation to the north of Wetland C-2 is dominated by Himalayan blackberry. A large, disturbed upland is located to the east of Wetland C-2 (see description of upland west ofWetland C-1). Wetland C-2 extends south beyond the boundary of Unit C with similar vegetation communities throughout the system. Wetland C-2 is a large wetland with multiple habitat types. Songbirds, raptors, and coyotes were observed in Wetland C-2 and in the adjacent uplands. As noted for Wetland C-1, connectivity to other habitats is very good, making this a desirable location for restoration. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 14 ii • I I I I I I • • • • • • • • - Wetland C-3 Palustrine forested Category 3 0.9 acres in Unit C/48.S acres overall Wetland C-3 is a palustrine forested depressional wetland (Cowardin et al. 1979). It is connected to Wetland C-2, and the wetland complex extends off site to the south. The total size is approximately 48.5 acres (including Wetland C-2), but the portion of Wetland C-3 in Unit C is approximately 0.9 acre. It is located in the southern-central portion of Unit C, north of the BNSF warehouse on Oakesdale Avenue SW (Figures I and 4). Wetland C-3 extends offsite to the south and west, and appears to be connected to Wetland C-2 beyond the Unit boundary. Wetland C-3 has a canopy of black cottonwood and Pacific willow, with an understory of red osier dogwood, Himalayan blackberry, and Sitka willow. Herbaceous vegetation is largely absent. Soils in Wetland C-3 are mapped as Puyallup fine sandy loam (Snyder et al. 1973). The observed soils are dark grayish brown gravelly loam with fine redoxymorphic features. Soils in Wetland C-3 may include fill as noted in Wetlands C-1 and C-2 (Paramctrix 2002). A small drainage formerly traversed Unit C, but it appears to have been buried by subsequent activity on the site. This buried drainage may still provide subsurface water to Wetland C-3. Other potential sources of water include direct precipitation and elevated groundwater levels. A large disturbed upland is located to the north and west of Wetland C-3. This upland is several feet higher than the surrounding wetland and appears to be comprised primarily of fill material. Vegetation in the upland is dominated by invasive species including Himalayan blackberry and Scot's broom, with mixed grasses and disturbance-tolerant forbs (see description of southern buffer for Wetland C-1 ). A disturbed emergent wetland community (primarily bentgrass sp.) is located to the south of Wetland C-3, and a commercial/light industrial site with associated parking is located to the southeast of Wetland C-3 . Although Wetland C-3 is small and relatively disturbed, it provides a valuable pocket of habitat bordered on one side by an industrial area. Wetland C-3 is connected to other relatively large wetlands and uplands to the north and south, and the nearby BNSF right-of-way provides a linear corridor connecting Wetland C-3 to other habitats . UnitD Project biologists visited Unit Don October 21, 2004, and delineated one wetland (D-1). A summary of Wetland D-1 is provided below . Wetland D-1 Palustrine forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent Category 2 5.6 acres in Unit D/6.7 acres overall Wetland D-1 is approximately 6.7 acres in size; 5.6 acres oftbe wetland are in Unit D (Figures 1 and 5). The wetland includes palustrine forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent communities (Cowardin et al. 1979) . The forested areas are located primarily along the BNSF right-of-way and to the south. Portions of the forested wetland extend north off of the site. The emergent community covers the eastern and northern portions of Wetland D-1 . Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 15 • • • • ii ~I ~ ii ~ C ·5. .;:, C ·o " 9 II • ~ i J 0 m Ill o' I D e' ·c • f w !!I ~ ~ d • • $ ~ • 'll" 9- (!j II II '" ~ II I 'o -~ u • e .. -~ Figure 5 Unit D Wetland Delineation Parcel Surveyed Wetland 200 400 Feet I • I • I I • • • • • • • • • • - Vegetation in the forested areas includes red alder and black cottonwood; Pacific willow and Oregon ash in the canopy; and salmonberry (Rubus spectabi/is), red osier dogwood, and hardback in the understory. Reed canarygrass, lady fem (Athyrium filix femina ), and creeping buttercup are the dominant herbaceous species. Vegetation in the emergent community is dominated by reed canarygrass, common cattail, and mild waterpepper. Wetland D-1 is situated in a depression with relatively steep slopes to the east and west Topography within Wetland D-1 is flat, with a few micro-depressions and many hummocks in the emergent area. Soils in Wetland D-1 are mapped as Snohomish silt loam and Puget silty clay loam (Snyder et al. 1973). The soils observed in test pits were generally grayish brown (I OYR 5/2) silty clay to silty clay loam. Fine redoxymorphic features were common in most areas. Water appears to enter Wetland D- I directly as precipitation, and via elevated groundwater. Several areas of bare earth with cracked soil were observed in the emergent areas . Wetland D-1 occupies the majority ofUnit D. The southern third of the unit includes an existing mitigation site, which is bordered on the north by a dense thicket of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). East of Wetland D-1, a narrow, mowed area with planted shrub (primarily oceanspray [Holodiscus discolor] and red osier dogwood) separates the wetland from adjacent parking and commercial buildings. The southeastern buffer is dominated by black cottonwood with a dense understory of Himalayan blackberry. On the west, Wetland D-1 extends to the edge of the maintained BNSF right-of-way. A railroad spur and several undeveloped parcels owned by the railroad complete the northern buffer . Wetland D-1 is a relatively large wetland with multiple vegetation types. The buffers are disturbed, particularly those to the east and west; however, those to the north and south contain relatively extensive areas of open space. The BNSF right-of-way provides connections to other habitats to the north and south. UnitE Unit E is a triangular parcel located east of Oakesdale Avenue SW, approximately 400 feet south of SW 34th Avenue in Renton (Section 25, T23N, R4E). No wetlands were identified on this parcel (Figure 1). The flooded fringe of Springbrook Creek does conform to the wetland definition, however, and is discussed below. Unit E was filled within the last 20 years. The site is roughly 15 feet higher in elevation than the adjacent creek. Unit E is vegetated with ruderal species and colonizing trees and shrubs. Along the stream banks, red alder trees have established a well-developed canopy over most of this section of stream. The understory is dominated by reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. The flooded fringe of the creek is completely dominated by reed canarygrass. Soils are composed of gravelly sandy loam that was placed as fill, and silt loam may represent historic floodplain soils. Hydrology is primarily maintained by the surface water of Springbrook Creek. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 -:,: Wa.Mnwt-Slat. -.-,, D•• 11111e11t ell T,.. Wf ;t.:elon 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I • 1111 References Cooke, S.S. 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwest Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1997. Washington State wetland identification and delineation manual, Publication #96-94. Olympia, Washington. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y- 87-1, Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Greytag Macbeth Corporation. 1994. Munsell soil color charts. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2003. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. U. S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for H ydric Soils. Parametrix, Inc. 2002. Wetland Mitigation Banking Plan for the City of Renton. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc. for the City of Renton. Renton, Washington. Pojar, J. and A MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond, Washington. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1997. Revision of the national list of plant species that occur in wetlands. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Renton, City of. 2004. Renton Municipal Code, Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 4 (available at http://www.mrsc.org(codes.aspx). City of Renton, Washington. Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Russell. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service, In Cooperation with Washington Agricultural Experimental Station. United States Government Printing Office, Washington D.C . USDA, NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. National Wetland Inventory, Renton, Washington Quadrangle. http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html. U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2004. Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Prospectus. Prepared for WSDOT. Olympia, Washington. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 7w........._ ..... .. ,, lt,p t.nMd 11\1 Tr p t II 11 18 I I I I I I I I I • • • • II I II J WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2004. Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Information Packet. Prepared for WSDOT. Olympia, Washington. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 19 I I I I I I Appendix A -Wetland Delineation Methods Wetlands are defined as areas saturated or inundated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and which under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. The methods used to delineate the on-site wetlands conform to methods in Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997). All delineated wetlands were instrument-surveyed and mapped on project base maps. Field data sheets for wetlands are provided in Appendix B. To be considered a wetland, an area must have hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. HDR Engineering, fuc. staff collected data on these parameters in areas representative of typical site conditions. Staff collected additional data in associated uplands as needed to confrrrn wetland and stream boundaries. The wetland boundaries were delineated with numbered, bright pink flagging. Boundaries were numbered in the order in which they were encountered in the field, and numbering does not necessarily I reflect geographic location. I I I I I • • • • ' • - Vegetation The dominant plants and their wetland indicator status were evaluated to determine if the vegetation was hydrophytic. Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as vegetation adapted to wetland conditions. To meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion, more than 50 percent of the dominant plants must be Facultative, Facultative Wetland, or Obligate, based on the wetland indicator category assigned to each plant species by USFWS (Reed 1997). Table A-1 lists the definitions of the indicator categories. Table A-1. Definitions of Wetland Plant Indicator Categories used to Determine the Presence of Hydrophytic Vegetation Wetland Indicator Category Obligate Wetland Plants Facultative Wetland Plants Facultative Plants F acultative Upland Plants Upland Plants Source: Reed (1997) . Symbol OBL FACW FAC FACU UPL Definition Plants that almost always (> 99% of the time) occur in wetlands, but which may rarely(< 1% of the time) occur in non-wetlands. Plants that often (67 to 99% of the time) occur in wetlands, but sometimes (1 to 33% of the lime) occur in non-wetlands . Plants with a similar likelihood (34 to 66% of the time) of occurring in both wetlands and non- wetlands . Plants that sometimes (1 to 33% of the time) occur in wetlands, but occur more often (67 to 99% of the time) in non-wetlands . Plants that rarely(< 1% of the time) occur in wetlands, and almost always(> 99% of the time) occur in non-wetlands. Project biologists used A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwest Oregon (Cooke 1997) and Plants of the Pacific Northwest (Pojar and MacKinnon 1994) as field references to assist with plant identification. Scientific and common plant names follow currently accepted nomenclature. Most names are consistent with Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 A-1 I I • • • Iii • • • • • • • • • • - Cronquist 1973) and the PLANTS Database (USDA 2004). During the field investigation, staff observed and recorded the dominant plant species on data sheets for each data plot (Appendix B). Soils Generally, an area must contain hydric soils to be a wetland. Hydric soil forms when soils are saturated, flooded, or ponded Jong enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (12 inches). Biological activities in saturated soil result in reduced oxygen concentrations and organisms turn to anaerobic processes for metabolism. Over time, anaerobic biological processes result in certain soil color patterns, which are used as indicators ofhydric soil. Typically, low-chroma colors are formed in the soil matrix, and bright-colored redoximorphic features form within the matrix. Other important hydric soil indicators include organic matter accumulations in the surface horizon, reduced sulfur odors, and organic matter staining in the subsurface (NRCS 2003) . Project staff exanrined soils by excavating sample pits to a depth of 16 inches or more to observe soil profiles, colors, and textures. Munsell color charts (Greytag Macbeth 1994) were used to descnbe soil colors . Hydrology Project staff exanrined the area for evidence of hydrology. Wetland hydrology criteria were considered to be satisfied if it appeared that the soil was seasonally inundated or saturated to the surface for a consecutive number of days greater than or equal to 12.5 percent of the growing season. The growing for the area was determined based on the period in which temperatures are above 28 degrees F five years out often (Washington State Department of Ecology 1997). Temperature data from the two nearest stations (Kent and SeaTac, Washington) was reviewed. The Kent station was the more conservative of the two, and lists the growing season as extending from March 8 until November 11 (http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/}. Primary indicators of hydrology include surface inundation and saturated soils. Secondary indicators of hydrology include drainage patterns, watermarks on vegetation, water-stained leaves, and oxidized root channels . Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 -a,:w • ..,.... .. ....., 'fff/1 Dap1rt,,.1ant., TnnapDl'lallon A-2 I I I I I I • I I ' ' ' ' ' \ ' Appendix B -Wetland Data Sheets Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 -i:7: Wullln91011 8tat. -./I ~t ..r Tni,u;p bzllon B-1 , 1 Project/Site: S f(~"J br.,,,, \<. Applicant/owner: DATA FOR"l\11 (Revised) Routine Wetland Detennination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Co s \Vetland Delineation Manual Do Normal Circumstances xist on the site? ~@ Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? II Is the area a potential Problem Area? ~ Ex Janation of a ical or roblem area: yes ~ VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) ~ Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies n1.\.,: 1 ,-.(tr..-r,..A~.,.. ... LI-" # \-1-l\90 PMvJ ' :y \ \D 'rJT--L _.% --s C' \ ~',( lvvi' cl~ I \ \) f4e,\J Date: l D Zt> " County: . f<lj State: 1./ Ir · Sff/R: Stratum % cover Indicator ·~'---------'---L.._----'-----'-------L---'------1------I, HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: .• % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC ! IJ 0 Check all indicators that apply & explain below: .• Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation . Morphological adaptations Technical Literature Hydrophytic vegetation present? . J Rationale for decision/Remarks: • S ;t,. ; > Jo,,.,~~·\,,), 'D HYDROLOGY ' • Is it the growing season? ~no DO Physiological/reproductive adaptations Wetland plant database Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Other ex Jain Water Marks: yes Sediment Deposits: yes on Based on: ____ soil temp (record temp ___ _, Drift Lines: Drainage Patterns: yes V '-lf:::--'~~,;,v',=;==..:O::.:;th~e:::_r..s.=:ex=Ia,,,in,,,_..,;;.=.:...,."'=(·-=cc:'"~:::..!:,J..::C:"*"-=::__--1...,..-c-,--:--c-----+::---,-------'-'--=,-I Dept. of inundation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes !!J(;> Channels < 12 in. es no Depth to free water in pit: __f2_ inches Depth to saturated soil: -12... inches F AC Neutral: yes V Water-stained Leaves yes('.!io.! Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial hoto a hs: Other: ye no SOILS I Map Unit Name 7,d101A,1'>'i4..-'?t' {; Lo~ Pio+ I Drainage Class f9 or 17 &I):{' s (Series & Phase) I Taxonom rt• k,'fl•'-- Field observations confirm Yes No I Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell (Munsell size & contrast structure, etc. profile I moist) moist) (match descril!tion) D-11, J. A ro ~ 12 1/1.. 1.r'1 i/, c,f / f s~ c • I Hydric Soil Indicators: ( check all that apply) _L Matrix chroma ~ 2 with mottles __ Histosol __ Histic Epipedon __ Mg or Fe Concretions __ Su!fidic Odor __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ..25,_ Reducing Conditions __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=I) matrix Other ( explain in remarks) Iydric soils present? r~ no tationale for decision/Remar : \-t }. 1\ ;-k l\1A1:t.-Ji.\s-· C r:+,e_;"~ I r\. Glw e,\...,.....,~ ~ ... J-.. -,4J !,_, Wetland Determination (circle) iydrophytic vegetation present? ~ no G:> Hydric soils present? no Is the sampling point no Iv etland hvdroloiw present? r yes .1 no within a wetland? lationale/Remarks: ~ ~o+ .{:~ \\s .. , , ti.tu.. l-... ; +.2. ..... : ,._ <--A ,5 -tk p_ +,, .r< ..,,;tt,,· .......... ,./~ +\ .. .,.1'. . TOTES: 1, ! i ' I J J J J • • • I .. ~ Revised 4/97 L L I .'roject/Site: Sfr•J b,PD'k l\.pplicant/owner: , i Investigatorfs): IY\ \7:, '?71-t- DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) It Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? I ls the area a potential Problem Area? Exnlanation of atvnical or problem area: yes yes \1EGETATI0N (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) • Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species _ S"' hx Iv.,,, Ja_, + v Lo 7D \ J lD •• Date: \o/z.J/o<f County: k;"'} State: WA: Sfl'IR: !>-o~ T2 '3/..J, Community ID: "Pf'o Transect ID: V\,,'. + A- Plot ID: z_ Stratum % cover HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ··%ofdominantsOBL,FACW,&FAC 'f(C-=-5~/o Check all indicators that apply & explain below: ·~isual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ,Morphological adaptations Physiological/reproductive adaptations W ctland plant database · a'Technical Literature "Hydrophytic vegetation present? ·lati~nale for decision/Remarks: S ,t( ,5 Apm;~.+c...l ~1 HYDROLOGY ~ 1 no Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Other ( cxpiain) Indicator •. ,s it the growing season? ~ no Water Marks: yes no Sediment Deposits: yes ~ ) Based on: soil temp (record temp---"" ,_ I 7 other (explain) ,~ <-...,\ <-,l, .., a..t" J ,.;tr. l,)ept. of inundation: _O_inches j)epth to free water in pit: ....:!::.._ inches ' il:>epth to saturated soil: _Q_ inches Check all that apply & explain below: tream, Lake or gage data: __ ~J erial ohotoo-rnnhs: Other: @=> ~ Vetland hydrology present? Rationale for decision/Remarks: $;.\(_ h,...;5 ,-t,.,J,,A :~.1,:L.-1-:.,,,,,) L no on - Drift Lines: w no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels < 12 iw. ~ 1 no ... FAC Neutral: yes ( no~/ ------ Other ( explain): ' Drainage Patterns: yes (5Y ~ Local Soil Survey: yes (e.9' Water-stained Leaves~ no - SOILS Map Unit Name (Series & Phase) Prof"Ile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors (inches) (Munsell (Munsell moist) moist) C?-1~ A \i) 1 Q.. 'J/1. 7. < '1 'fl~ '1:ydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) --Histosol __ Histic Epipedon --Sulfidic Odor __ Aquic Moisture Regime ~ Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=I) matrix lydric soils present? ,(!5} no _tationale for decision/Remarks: L • ...i C. ~yo,.........._ .. ~~ """-\l'e,, +.-\\ r ~ Wetland Determination (circle) _ Jydrophytic vegetation present? ( ~s--:) no Hydric soils present? C: ves ..J no 1 etland hvdroloi,v present? 7 ves .) no .• ationale/Remarks: s·.-1-l-f~h 0\l -t1,.v.u.-e,y\ k-v ~") "'-~"- ' OTES: 9l 6 .1.-r l , flU,t, ~7-c dfo..,-.d Ord., Drainage Class R,or7 Jr,u ...eJ!.. Field observations confirm Yes No e? Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil size & contrast structure, etc. profile (match description) t' c.-'' f; ~ ' , .. ~·...,_ ~t [,: (_ X Matrix chroma $ 2 with mottles __ Mg or Fe Concretions __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other ( exnlain in remarks) C ,..'.1-..v: 6'-+C>/ h7,A I,',__ 5o: \J @ Is the sampling point no within a wetland? : s 'r\-J-Y eJ,, ,/ L ..1'.+\---\~ " ,.Je-.+I.~~ ~ . Revised 4/97 ' J J J J J J i~ ! i ~ ~ '~ l • DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) ,1,"roject'Site: S°'f•:~) bro,~ I.A 't'I :-1: A l\spplicant'owner: 'I Investigator(s): ~ 'r\-IVlA Do Normal Circumstances bust on the site? ~ no [s the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? @) 'I Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes & Explanation of atypical or nroblem area: VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) 'I Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species .I'.-,.?h.n\l,.Y~S Q--{V'lr..J....·, ... ..._e,.e_"'. \\ C\.D ~ktJ • 4,- j ,.\; 'I< I« ~ ... -c>-..-h ' 7D fAc,LJ (,{r 1:i c "' l.-.~. ,, .. \-\ \ "i) (Ac-\"" ' ' y ,,,,i,l,., \ -~,.,_.,,J;, ,..,,_ _ \ \b f-/'r L, I •• HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: -· '1% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC 1002, Check all indicators that apply & explain below: Date: (i) (1,z IO 1 County: \I'..",~_, State: 4./A S/TIR: ·zo T2'2,,/ Community ID: pfo . Transect ID: \A.~:t A Plot ID: 3 Stratum % cover · iisual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation Wetland plant database , _f orphological adaptations -Personal knowledge ofregional plant communities -echnical Literature X Other (explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? ~ no ' rtionale for dec.ision/Remarks: ~lf""\: .......... ~l,.,C..., f1--'1 Jror\..'1 \•<--"C.J.e-1'-'t:""' EJYDROLOGY ~5" E' Indicator I -- ~ -- Lj s it the growing season? e no Water Marks: yes (!j' Sediment Deposits: yes ei OD Based on: soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes ~ Drainage Patterns: yes e7 I ,/ other ( explain) Loc.._l ~ ........ .d: ..... 6.A_,.~ aJept. of inundation: ------------inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes ev Channels <12 in. ves tli0' -I;~ to free water in pit: ±inches FAC Neutral: -Water-stained Leaves yes~ yes V '--epth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ·-l tream, Lake or gage data: -- ,erial ohotoo-raohs: Other: >t' etland hydrology present? ( yes__:.../ no -f tionale for decision/Remarks: 'S"-t"'"'"' \e.-A s o·,,s \ "-J.\lM+t. we+t,...-J... h.,1 Ax o l c_ 1 '1 I ,-1 SOILS vlap Unit Name 5 .... b, .. Kd ,.,,IA,_ <; ,'/,-Loe-"-'\ :series & Phase) We_-Harid loi-3 Drainage Class "f1o ..-1{ &rn.JnJ Field observations confum Yes No faxonom .......J's. e? Proflle Description )epth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil _inches) (MW1Sell (Munsell size & contrast structure, etc, profile moist) moist) (match descriQtion) . ' . ci''< 4 to 1 p.itz, Lo 1~ 3/1, ("\•~ 11 P. ... I Al\ 1-:"' T' ';i t ( if cl-1 I OC>,.v>\ Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ~ Matrix chroma $ 2 with mottles --Histosol __ Histic Epipedon __ Mg or Fe Concretions --Sulfidic Odor __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ?--Reducing Conditions __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=l) matrix Other ( exolain in remarks) ydric soils present? V DO ationale for decision/Remarks: Lo-J (_ k VO""'" k.,..J-. .,.,,,+lle > -A \l -tk ~J,: ,_ s.;,\_s ~.,: te-~; !) "" Wetland Determination (circle) ydrophytic vegetation present? ~ no <!!!) ':Iydric soils present? no Is the sampling point no 'etland hydrolol!V present? r,;yes } no within a wetland? , ationale/Remarks: - <,;~ ,p,\\ ~ ~~~ '\-Ve>-c.-v~tt-v'." 1 ""'J-. ' +I,._,.. h"<: ""~+-\,,.·,"" \.) e.-+{ ..... J\ \ ' "- Revised 4/97 J J J u ( u u u LJ LJ LJ L L L L L L L L L DATA FORM I (Revised). Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) ' Project/Site: <::p,.., 'j brook. -U"f B. Dale: lo/ 1qjo'/- Applicant/owner: Couniy: K,nJ State: WA ~ Investieator(s): A,( W1'/lcr, /1,/, Bockenkamp, P. Toqher, B. Hof/owa.,1 S/T/R: ?:z:l!:. -TZ "?>N ~47:. Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~ @) Community ID: -PEP-t -' . no I Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes @ Transect ID: /,vi;""1"'-Aµz;, :8-{ Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes ~ Plot ID: it/ . ' Exolanation of aronical or oroblem area: . VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) I Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover . Indicator 5..__ I> v-lvu>'Je,,_ .... 5 20. /7 I '-a.. 1.-)c./ -J-- 'y'l,_,,_\c,_, I 'i,. * -If [35 --f <>--c i,../ A.,ruV'J.1 I ;o \~v )i--Av C::.a.~"-r H ID -/;__1...,T C i-1 ,;. -=<-.,,, v ,f cd..-o r v S. 1-f 10 cJ"BL-- I ' "• HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: '1 % of dominants OBL, F ACW, & FAC JOO]~ 2.(-,_-c lO<> . Check all indicators that apply & explain below: ·, Visual observation of plant species growing in / Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation Wetlana plant database ~ --~ C. Morphological adaptations --Personal knowledge of regional plant communities -- Technical Literature V" Other ( exolain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Q'."SJ no l~ Rationale for dec\sion/Remarks: h3drorh3/ic ve3ef-alio" IS domi n ~n/. l~ HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? Q_~ no Water Marks: yes @ Sediment Deposits: yes ® on '~ Based on: soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes@ Drainage Patterns: yes® . L/ other (exolain) 11.c.f.l\ vl 1"14d.c. tf tr.IL Dept. of inundation: _-_-_'_ inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes@ Channels < 12 in. ves ,CiITY i. Depth to free water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: ~, nil. Water-stained Leaves yes®. Depth to saturated soil: _:i._ inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other ( explain): Stream, Lake or gage data: -- Aerial ohotoi,raohs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? (J~s) no I Rationale for decision/Remarks: pw: r nrf cf h3droph3hc vr3ernnor. ·111(/1( nl,"C:. uJc f-/a n d h!;c/1{)/03'! --rt..,' ·5 SvfPo.--(P..e t1 ' -< ~ 1-J_ S,C-'1--,,,e_ -pos,-t-•<..i,-'._ ~--R--70..... p :--e-:,......,, ,:;,G o-{ ~,,fr,'--So,[s :- __1_,_--c--' 'vvQ5.Ho/Jc:f ~-~{ oi-4-:L J SOILS I Map Unit Name '?r>,oNlY':'.JJ._,1, sr h-ko?,-wj Drainage Class ·g, .. rL Lr(l{.J) (Series & Phase) 7 I Field observations confim1 Yes No ...:T~ax~o~n~om~~5 ~~.d~¥='J~,g,\~d~~~v~vcl~:..::S.~--~~~e~d~~e:.:?'-----------_J IJ I Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors I (inches) (Munsell (Munsell moist) moist) O -II A, /O 'j fl. 4-/ 2. 7 SyR. 4-/ 1,, ' I ' f I -t !1 l. 7. 5)"115/z 7, 5"yp_ 5/, I 0 I Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) --Histosol __ Histic Epipedon _L Sulfidic Odor __ Aguie Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions --;;7 Gleyed or Low-Chroma(= 1) matrix Iydric soils present? @') no tationale for decision/Remarks: ~ /fl !6-W-~A. AA ,J.,.,' ,,; / Wetland Determination (circle) _ fydrophytic vegetation present? ~ no Hydric soils present? no ~ "1etland hydroloi,v present? ( YeS) no .tationale/Remarks: ""-1..J,._ ,J.,( "3 ...;.,_,d), c,,,Jw, f ' OTES: Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil size & contrast structure, etc. profile (match descri11tion) .,,_, ""'n;', {ihe 1 c/i sf-i 11c--t- 5: \;; ,~ f)'l .'] J~I y _, r.oo~se1 ~..., 1' \t t .,,.___. ,i .._..[,. -::,-h' n { .-f . ____:::::_ Matrix chroma :,; 2 with mottles ---2':o__ Mg or Fe Concretions _L High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils _L Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other ( explain in remarks) ;)1 ""--.1-,-., ,,; ~ ... 1= :i ""/ ,.,,,. tfl-c , Is the sampling point 6es""\ no ~---.. _ _.,, . within a wetland? P. ~ ,.,,_,,, ,,). Revised 4/97 IJ u u u u , I ~ I DATA FORM I (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) 11 Project/Site: <::;f,-,·"J brook. _ Uhi-f 8 . Applicant/owner: • I Investigator(s): {:;. Ho /(owa_'f . /0. /3oe,f< (11 k..a mp . l Do Normal -Circumstances exist on the site? ryes") no ! Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes Coo) I Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes @) Exolanation of aivnical or problem area: VEG ET A TI-ON · (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) I Dominant Plant Species , Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies -_;f, "50 Ob) §uvl,·x-fo,:,../,}_n ·• (;.p, lo,b, v~ r J J 'A-:tv>;'... /-1 . 4 II 20. ob I "'vi_.,_ 1._,-t .-..(o L "'"' '' ' -* I Pol:} ,q"'""' pers1w."._ j./. A£ 4-e-w ' ;j<' /J Polq,-.q"""" h'/J OJ'i l)<"fO) J <, Jo ·o-hl I -- """ • <;., I -J .J,.,. " " r-e::L v 3o ~-+ ' I J-4.,(~ ;,;<.,v<. c\~i,,\ ,,.. s fr,:,ce. Ni HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ~ % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC S(h~ 1'3~1" Check all indicators that apply & explain below: Date: /6/;;;.c,/•+ County: J(;r13 State: WA- SITJR: --zc. . Tz:-:,. tv Community ID: f€;J.{. Transect ID: l.,v',crt_.A..(,..,-r:, Plot ID: ffo./-II,;/ Stratum % cover l\ :r lo Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas Of prolonged inundation/saturation x_ Wetland plant database Morphological adaptations -2i..___ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Technical l,,iterature X Other r exolain) ,. Hydropbytic vegetation present? cE9 no Rationale for decision/Remarks: h~ oi nrp f::Jfi C ("if-/vl•-r> 15 d {)mi n,:vi !--. HYDROLOGY R.'-j e: -a -f Indicator £., fr. ~ -- Is it the growing season? ~ no Water Marks: ~no· Sediment Deposits: yes@) on sb._Yub,; Z:, 'efinU'I~· Based on: soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes@) Drainage Patterns: yes@ V other ( explain) lcca,) c,1,-~,~ ~ Dept. of inundation: -f!--inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no Channels <12 in. ves no -· v Depth to free water in pit: 2.}J!L__ inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water-stained Leaves ye@ Depth to saturated soil: _LQ...'.._ inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other ( explain): Stream, Lake or gage data: -- Aerial ohotoe:raphs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? CE> no Rationale for decision/Remarks: y-f. ~+ <;c, -fur a fe cl .><Ji!s-~ ~ pre~,e,r1e,e 1-'-,%,---/e r M ..__, l,_ A,r-c., I ,,.__J ,' C td. Vil, " .• (-6-1 SOILS I Map Unit Name s"-0 4 «MJ'f:i h.., si It ],,-,._""'-Drainage Class :po<>( 1'1 d l"U l'1'1 J (Series & Phase) J J I .J Field observations confirm Yes ~ ..:T~a~x~O:!;n~O'.!;ID~~£lf~'El..dl~~~±!:~~~~·Fv~~::'..':'...'.·~=---------.'.m~a~~e~d2lJ~e:.:?:__ _________ ·c:,y __ J I Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell (Munsell size & contrast structure,· etc. profile I moist) moist) (match descri11tion) ()-Jtf-i. 4 /Dy fl. 3/.:, Common, Pine. Ci/!y c/47 /oa 111 toy12 <f/1,, prory,irJen./- Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) / Matrix chroma $ 2 with mottles ~ Histosol _L___ Histic Epipedon ----2:i__ Mg or Fe Concretions ___x_ Sulfidic Odor --2S__ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils -2Sr Aguie Moisture Regime ___K_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Reducing Conditions __ ?_ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List x Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=I) matrix Other ( exolain in remarks) :lydric soils present? yes no tationale for decision/Remarks: )Xidiuc/ roof c/,o..nn<fr, red IA uy c~n cl,'/ion"i1 /cv,., ~J,rt>Ma. w/ ,nt!Jf/h 5 Wetland Determination (circle) lydrophytic vegetation present? @t, no Hydric soils present? @ no Is the sampling point ~ no vetland hydrolol!V present? ~ no within a wetland? :ationale/Remarks: mu{, .,_I/ 3 -f I,,_,, d. in dico. ron ' OTES: Revised 4/97 i ' .. L L L L L L . . Project/Site:· 5'/7'1 n~ _ 11 . Applicant/owner: VATA tUKJYI lf(Kev,sed) Routine Wetland !Xetermination "' .... , .. (WA State Wetland Delii)'.<;atio'i(Manual or ~' ' .. ~· 1987 Corns Wetland Dellsneatfo'it Manual) (,&,+ (3. Date: /o/~°f o'f- County: ~-"1; State: t,<,,4. \ •11 InvestiE!ator(s): (3. -1/;!/c,w=, IV/. {!,-c.l<Mi/: O-vp 11 Do Normal Ci~umstances exist on the site? l'I!' SfT/R: 2.. 5, T z;-,,,v "K-'le CE) ·n:o:?: Community ID: Wtt/Mltt -fl. B ,-/ ls the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes ~:-. Transect ID: . Is the area a .potentµ] .Problem Area? .• ct8 Plot.JD: f)lof -;!3_ . yes II Explanation of atypical or problem area: ... 'VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herli\;11:-""Yine) ."f. · . . ·. ·11 Dominant Plant Species Stratum o/o cover Indicator Doffiinant Plant S~ecies Stratum % cover Indicator ' ~ J,,G / V i,.p ,£~ v' "-....ye-L,:;: T . 10 (-m<-v-k) 0... ', I i.VY> J T-A I .A./.,,,x: r·.:,br"'--* s /5 +c;_.c.- --· . s Ira.a . +a..c..,___; I c:dr-.;..,,:... . <~ ,..., c..ie µ._ ,·; ~7\'" . !1 rcJ .,>: -~ -''. ' I ,,/ . I I HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION 'INDICATORS: . I % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC o/v= I oa 7o Check all indicators that apply & explain below: ·1 Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptations ----;7 areas of prolonged inundation/saturation --Wetland plant database ' J Morphological adaptations --er Personal knowledge of regional plant communities -- Technical Literature Other ( exolain) I Hydrophytic vegetation present? 8 no Rationale for decision/Remarks: , -I iJ~ .e ....... ~ .. "--.-5 cf.,....,_; '-"A.. Te,J, ~7 y.roF'f/'C-s~'d.A ' HYDROLOGY f0 ls it the growing season? no Water Marks: Cjj},J no -· Sediment Deposits:. yes no . on. ·+ce.(::'s Based on: soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes · no Drainage Patterns: yes no I ,/ othedexolain) /q CL< ~, 1:<'..-EJ"' -1 Dept. of inundation: -1-inches OX:idi,;ed Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no ,, ' Chal'inels < 12 in~ no -I Depth to free water in pit: ~inches FACNeutral: yes no Water-stained Leave~ no Depth to saturated soil: ~inches . Check all that apply & explain below: Otl)er (explain): Stream, Lake or gage data: --- Aerial photographs: Other: . Wetland hydrology present? ~ , . I no .. .. ,., Rationale for decision/Remarks: .-. ,l,,..__ 1N .{ k, · l ~o...-to1 re~1: W Go."[ 5 c=.,jj_ _..c,.. .,_;,..-p ... ,.....-t.tZ.. -I "'-~l.,rr~-l'Z, ,, ,.,f ,' .,,/; ~-1-e.- li1c-(r1.,..,..,iJ ,. {) r-o I c.<!. ,._; ·f~-: ·-;~.: - I " , ? - SOILS I Map Unit Name 1<100)1 n,1,' 11\2., ,s; l-t \o"'-"'-' (Series & Phase) I Taxonom le--#: Vii'"' v....._k~ I Profile Description Depth Horizon (inches) I . , Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) ' I 0-/4t Hydric Soil Indicators:. (check all that apply) __ Histosol __ Histic Epipedon __ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime =:iZ Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=I) matrix Iydric soils present? ~ no Pio+-3: J \\ Drainage Class -Be->o'-'o"--r-'-ilyf-""d"-'ra..i=--<' n_,,_J=-- Mottle aburi&nce ;_~ ..... -.. size & contry1st- :"_.,··. m =J, tnf,i:.\lm, d,sn~d' -· ,'. e? Texture, concretions, structure, et~. /l',iatrix chroma $ 2 with mottles __ Mg or Fe Concretions Yes @. Drawing of soil profile (match description) __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other ( explain in remarks) J J J • _ tationa!e for decision/Remarks: l,o "'-1 c:,l... ...,,.,....A-'i:,a ,' l <,, ,._,/-th., r-J ",1< f ~--t-v rtU;. <'\, ,-e ,Ji vr..:t, u,e,, d '1,d r/ & 'f<n/,; .. ~ Wetland Determination (circle) _ {ydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? Vetland hvdro!ol'V present? .lationale/Remarks: no no no µJ 5 t,,<X.17 ~ ~ J.; C..->._~)Y s w 1""\'1,,.,."" ,..., ...,.rt/ a-n I 'OTES: Is the sampling point within a wetland? €)· no ' {<:,~/o-,, I.$ Revised 4/97 L ~ L L L I I I I . Project/Site:· S,n ':Jbnrtrkc , Applicant/owner: DATA FORM tffRevised) Routine Wetland Ui,termination (WA State Wetland Delif~atio'ii'.;Manual or 1987 Corns Wetland De(i:ne:iiiiih Manual) , 1 Do Nor:mal.Ci~curµstanc~s exist on the_ site?_ . ~ c!.~·:,S. Date: Joj:io/c, -f County: /~ State: wfl. S/T/R: Z.5 T' ~" 1<-'-lt! Community Jb: .t>f8. · . · · , Transect ID: . · Is the site s1gmficantly disturbed ( atypical s1tuat10n)? yes , Is the area a potentjarProblem Area? yes ·@\ ·• Exolanation of atypical or nroblem area: \ \: · Plot.ID: f/0 f 4f;t<-,d::~ '6-/ ' VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb)j,V,.,,, vine) ·, Dominant Plant Soecies ' 1 s,.. I;)'. /1,d/r: ..,,,_,,..- f /.'; ;, ., .9,-;.:_y' Stratum -r 'p0J(._;{~ 'i/;)~/~ ' -J-1 ( µ I •• % cover c;o 15. 85 ~ HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: Indicator v:t Cfb..e-v\ f<>-e,µ/. €-vvJ , ~ % of dominanis OBL, FACW, & FAC / QO 7" -z-/7.,., Check all indicators that apply & explain below: -~'.'. : . ;; Dominant Plant s;ecies . ; :, . Stratum % cover Indicator I ' ·, _,Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation Physiological/reproductive adaptations Wetland plant database J Morphological adaptations , Technical Literature • Hydrophytic vegetation present? ' Rationale for decision/Remarks: ~.· no Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Other ( exnlain) -I t;~.dVdo>"-{<. £.,"""/v-,,,yaf2-by ~ro(71,'- HYDROLOGY _, Is it the growing season? no I Based on: soil temp (record temp ____ ) I v" otheriexolain\ /,,uJ. c.,l,.....,/1.--\>e.- -J)ept. of inundation: _I/-inches I ~epth to free water in pit: 7_li!_ inches ~~pth to saturated so ii: _j!Ji_ inches -Check all that apply & explain below: •Stream, Lake or gage data: __ . IAerial ohotoeranhs: Other: no Water Marks: ~ no on. Drift Lines: yes no Oxi_dized Root (li;:goots) Channels <12 infvesl no FA(>Neutral: yes no :-·· Ot!ier (explain): : .. .. ~ ,-Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decision/Remarks_: · ,., eJ21.,,,,.,,.,J:] J7e.F,., d:s .._.a.,t,e.,-=rt-~ i;,,...rtJ- ~B.::. ---· Sediment Deposits:Q:9 no Drainage Patterns: yes no . Local Soil Survey: yes no Water-stained Leaves yes no I Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors . (inches) (Munsell (Munsell I , moist) moisi) (j -1+-1-A /O jl2 3/:i_ J,5j5/'r. I . I I I Hydric Soil Indicators: ( check all that apply) Histosol -- __ Histic Epipedon --Sulfidic Odor __ Aguie Moisture Regime __ . Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=I) matrix Hydric soils present? ~ no Rationale for decision/Remarks: J-?( Id.A TU. tCrrl{s. ,ve., .... 0 /,c,,e,r.,&. 6...., c-.Gv ,... Cf ..,,...,.e,._, """t:v '"tl'i)< u;,'7L ~)!. Wetland Determination (circle) -Iydrophytic vegetation present? @ no Hydric soils present? @ no :Vetland hvdroloPV oresent? (\/es) no btionale/Remarks: ,t,.l,(_ 3 wol-1 ()vr< J. U,<'<. t!V. e..,.;h,-,. s ..._,__/... ,.,,.,.,,,-t-( ,,..,,,, £ - I/OTES: -~ .. ,, . . '\{/~·-· Mottle abunaance Texture, concretions, J?rawing of soil size & conifust structure, et!=. profile . : ...... ;;/. .. (match descri11tion) /yJ ~· '.f{d; -/,., Cl~ "5>(i" (o~ ..-,....-......... , ·. ·, ' .· ... ;: :L i/tatrix chroma :S: 2 with mottles __ Mg or Fe Concretions __ . High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ . Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other ( exulain in remarks) -{,e,<,-t v~ -~ ... -m,..-1,,.'td,-., c., ,; • ''(,; e,r, 'ftZ.r,o "-· Is the sampling point @ no within a wetland? -·-· T~ ,,,__._r1£_, / ,s u:,;;t. 4 .._, , . ,,v.1~,J1 ,s "'-- ,··· ... Revised 4/97 J J :J J • . i • L L L l i I I I ' I . , 1 Project/Site: frir,Jbrook _ Vnif I_ Applicant/owner: UATA 1-UKM l (J<ev1seaJ •·· Routine WeOand Determination" (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) B 'a' lnvestigator(s): /3. !lol!tJwav P. 'To;;hc,.-, M. !h,fcn, M. Boc.k,-..,. 1:.,,,,,, r, '/ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the Site? § no I Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical siruation)? yes ® , Is the area a potential Problem Area? IJ ·Exolanation of atvnical or problem area: yes @> VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) I Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum o/o cover Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies -*' , Pk.ks tt-.~'n"' ,,Jc. If 85 +o...c µ_.../ I ryp0-/A.--t,'!o t'V If I,.-/_7 1'.Y 'o L ' ' I Fbl'i c,~nv..:. p~,'s, CAf• "-ti /5 L .. , !' ' ' ' ·' r 1 I/...,(. ,. --v~ 1-1 T NL- , I I HYDROPHYTJC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC 1/i, 1=10 Check all indicators that apply & explain below: Date: /o/zo/~ 'f County: /<; h J State: W4. SIT/R: 2.--5 'z:~µ, R--<lt! Community ID: ftl-l " Transect ID: Plot ID: Pio/-., lj ~l'>-'Z.. Stratum % cover Indicator Visual observation of plant species growing in / Physiological/reproductive adaptations -·- areas of prolonged inundation/saruration --Wetland plant database __L__ Morphological adaptations --Personal knowledge of regional plant corrununities C ./ -Technical Literature Other (explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? (§ no Rationale for decision/Remarks: " h'jclrophyh c v<3ehf,on ,, cfominari/. . HYDROLOGY ~ Is it the growing season? CE) no Water Marks: yes @) Sediment Deposits: yes(® on Based on: soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes ® Drainage Patterns: y~ / other (exolain) '"=' cl,,..0.c J «k., C Dept. of inundation: ----*-inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no Channels <12 in. yes no Depth to free water in pit: 7 inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water-stained Leaves ye~ , Depth to saturated soil: ___fl_ inches ><1';,' ofcd o/- ,::-, , r a Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Stream, Lake or gage data: -- Aerial photographs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? ~ no Rationale for decision/Remarks: j r;; OI I '!:er lui·~.,/~cl ' ~ 5 lo nr(' 17.J {A)a-leF If) pil-,,;: al ~urfc,rc ~ ' I SOILS Field observations confirm Yes e? I Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil I (inches) (Munsell (Munsell size & contrast structure, etc. profile moist) moist) (match descrigtion) Common, +:-in'!., Silh, c/ay 0 -/'l--1 A-lo Yll <1-/2 1oy12 5/'l: prrJrni"n~ri +-; I Co'h, n-.on I Fi nc. toy R. '-1-/1,, pro,n1ru:.nf I I Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) v/ Matrix chroma :S 2 with mottles --Histosol __ : _ Histic Epipedon __ Mg or Fe Concretions --Sulfidic Odor __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ~quic Moisture Regime __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Reducing Conditions __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=l) matrix Other ( explain in remarks) 'Hydric soils present? c§) no -Rationale for decision/Remarks: //7 a+ri ;,< cf, rom a_ ,!f, 2 ,_,,; fh ,nolf/es-M~ .4-~r'{c:__ ~o.' I (!,r.'-f (..C"( on_ I Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? GID no Hydric soils present? .··(§) no ls the sampling point ® no Wetland hvdroloov oresent? ~ no within a wetland? Rationale/Remarks: ' /n('d<; ,.!/ 5 lndic.,,f,rs. fr,r a wefl,v,d. ~ So..-,.f /12., I o c.a:;t ; 0 I'\, ,s iv i"tt-..1 I'\. 0...- ().I ..{., ""tlev,...,. JJ . 'iOTES: Revised 4/97 -= ' ! I ' • L L L I I I I I I Project/Site: S I fi11':}brook · I Applicant/owner: DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA Slate Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Date: !Ojzo/of County: ;:,,,J State: W4 I Jnvestigator/s): fl. !kllowaY, /vi, /50,-/:mkam/J ~J Do Normal_Ci~cumstanc~s exist on the_ site?_ . ' (i9I Is the site s,gmficantly disturbed (atypical s1tuat1on)? yes no @ SIT /R: ~ 5 T z.:z, , -.,_ 4 ,'z Community ID: ps~ · ' Transect ID: Plot ID: P/~f-""z. 1 ..,~tv><J 13-Z. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ·11 Explanation of atvoical or oroblem area: (:9 yes 1 VEG ETA TI ON (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H ~ herb; V = vine) ' I ·1· I . I Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum % cover Indicator s .... t. >< lvv,·d.o.., ,p..r. 'I<' ""'; / 11..,s; ..,,..J, ,... .. .5 80 -"~l '1 -t s ~l'--" Co"""'~ ,;e,r-1 r n,, _. 20 -t H 5o. ,tc,_,e, (.L/ 'I Pk.t.,l.,,,-1"' tJwrv,-J...1n · · · ba,-e qro vnd. II so --I I "111-----------..L------'-----'-----'----------..L----'-----'------\ 1 HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC 3 /3 -o-J oo --Z, I Check all indicators that apply & explain below: i Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation Morphological adaptations . Technical Literature I Hydrophytic vegetation present? ryes" no · Physiological/reproductive adaptations Wetland plant database Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Other ( exnlain) Rationale for decision/Remarks: n V<.u ~ .. I\,. :$ cl o,....., ... ~-tedl-by 1-..r& ror"if JC. <(,f€P€-S HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ~ no Based on: soil temp (record temp _) ' / other/exolain) t" < ,__, ~ \,"',ie ·, Dept. of inundation: _2!_ inches Depth to free water in pit: ...l.r1_ inches Depth to saturated soil: / <f inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: __ Aerial pbotoITTaohs: Other: 1 Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decision/Remarks: no Water Marks: ~ no on. Drift Lines: yes<:§) Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. ves no F AC Neutral: . yes no Other (explain): ' Sediment Deposits: yes(iiD Drainage Patterns: (e) no Local Soil Survey: yes no Water-stained Leave~no SOILS Map Unit Name S "'ob,.,,,1,15, k.. ~, (-t lo "-W-., (Series & Phase) WvMa nc1 e;...;i_ Pt ot ~;, 1 J Drainage Class &i,..-1 1 oll',U11,2J Field observations confim1 Yes No IJ L!T~a~XQOn~o~m~~~~~l.:J:~fJ~~l·~·c.,~{~ltvv~~~~s~----~'EE~ed~~ei? ___________ ~J Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell (Munsell size & contrast structure, etc. profile moist) moist) (match de.scriQtion) 0-/th-7 5y'!Z +/1,, many, rncc/iurn, s ;{+1 d"'-'/ A 1oy12f/z. prcmine.nf I I ' 1 Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) _:!'_ Matrix chroma S 2 with mottles --Histosol I __ Histic Epipedon __ Mg or Fe Concretions ----S ulfidic Odor __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils . Aquic Moisture Regime __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils I ~ Reducing Conditions __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List "S,c• Gleyed or Low-Chroma(=!) matrix Other ( explain in remarks) Hydric soils present? @ no I Rationale for decision/Remarks: e.ondifion'S', mcd-ri~ cl,rcm<t ~ .:1. <-(JI ,ncrlf/es oxicliz.e./ .-hizophe:r~, re du<i"J . 1 Wetland Determination (circle) 1 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ~ no ® ' Is the sampling point · Hydric soils present? no no Wetland hvdrolo"" oresent? (yes) no within a wetland? Rationale/Remarks: "'-\ ( '3 0..,-l '-te..ri A--a..r-c... r~--~ s,........rk-lo=.,f,oVI ('i, in "-""'~.:rf-J. dr:rres,;Jor, +hat hole/ s wafer j shrc,b c.anopj cloesn-1-... .II= Vt'Je-k f;,p,1 1-o / qn,w in half of' /'/of-: 7 NOTES: '----; J ' .J u ! I • L L L L L L I I I I Revised 4/97 I I t Project/Site:·. Sf,-f"j brook - I Applicant/owner: DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination orps et an e meation anua (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 C W l d D I' M 1) Uhit--6 Date: lo/:20/04- County: l<1 nJ State: VVA-. · •· Investigator(s): tJ j-J;/(b'W=-, ff/. &t,ke,, k. -~ S/TIR: ').-5. T Z '2...U • P.I..J !; • :I .D<? Normal-Circumstances exist On_the site? C§:, no Community ID: pfo Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes C®, Transect ID: -ls the area a potential Problem Area? yes ~ Plot ID: f ht ~ _3 1 i,..,.c/", .. ,,JL I!,-?_ IJ Explanation of atvnical or problem area: 'VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) I II Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum % cover Indicator 'Sv-19< } ,, <-i1h ... LI A,r-. ...t go ,v:r: 1a....c.,·.,_ ... J.r1, T '~....i,l ' •1 . . '>\' r,,... ___ = <• _;,_LS,._ s 1 +a..&U/ • .. t .. . -t I)., e,, w II 1'\-.o.Jr. rlr 11r,.,J/= -H to l -,. . . -'t ea ..... ·., ,,,,.,, "·-"""' v -z_o >.} I 'I ,; I --!,Ir,,. ,.,,',., ~I ff d.0 - " " I ' • 'i HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: l % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC 3 /1.j :; 7 <§ "7 o 'I . Check all indicators that apply & explain below: '11 Visual obsefvation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptations -:7 areas of prolonged inundation/saturation --Wetland plant database -;;7" Morphological adaptations -;;I-Personal knowledge of regional plant communities -- l.., Technical Literature Other ( exolain) II Hydrophytic vegetation present? CE) no Rationale for decision/Remarks: ~rly-t.e, 11\ V~,d,o.-. ,'<, /1,,,..,,.,...,.± ,,)L -l.7 1'<--1· 'HYDROLOGY I Is it the growing season? €)· no Water Marks: yes no Sediment Deposits: yes no ~ Based on: on soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns: yes no ,_/ other (exolain) lauJ e,f, ~.4,t..L. ).~ '~ Dept. of inundation: +inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no Channels < 12 in. ves no Depth to free water in pit: (,, inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water-stained Leaves~ no · -Depth to saturated soil: ~ inches I Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Stream, Lake or gage data: -- _ Aerial ohoto~raohs: Other: 1 Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decision/Remarks: (YB'j no rofavr c,Jc d. r;-ri I,. =~+ ;(,.,,__ ..v ,e,-;{ =.cP 1<yb• I °J '/ ~,.. '-1.e..r, 0 ,..,_ • ~ ,_ SOILS I Map Unit Name :5Nik,,""'('='k. Si' It (.,,._,.,.. "; (Series & Phase) I Taxonom I Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors I (inches) (Munsell (Munsell moist) moist) I 0-(4f A /0 y /2. '-// el, royR3//p r I Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol -- __ Histic Epipedon --Sulfidic Odor __ Aguie Moisture Reginle _,_··_ Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma (= 1) matrix 'lydric soils present? (5. no .lationale for decision/Remarks. · I..•~ c,l,.....-.... """"' "--' ~o,,,."tri)c: l ._ ''-tl.,.._ "" • tt-1-t {. Wetland Determination (circle) rlydrophytic vegetation present? >~ no '-fydric soils present? no Vetland hvdrolo!N oresent? ( 'eS) no .lationale/Remarks: ~ .J,.(_ 3 -;,.dfv..r, d.. 1 h d) ra..lvY, !OTES: • o+-=#=:3 J Drainage Class :P0or:fy ~/"!:1../111~ J Field observations confim1 Yes No e? Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil size & contrast structure, etc. profile . (match descri!!tion) In a.n y mc.ci i u "1 , , promlnenf-silht C 'OJ /IJo./r) / Matrix chroma :,; 2 with mottles __ Mg or Fe Concretions __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ . _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other ( exnlain in remarks) ,· C ,·~/c.e....."111..1<-, of yr,c:. t;o, l,; • Is the sampling point ® no within a wetland? ,r;..a.... ~r/lL /ocA:f,br,. it; ...,, %1 >-i /1... IM(, -+{,t..,,,,,{. Revised 4/97 J J J J J J J 'roject/Site: (./1,\ ,'t,c_ I f,. Applicant/owner: UA 1 A 11 U KlVl ,l (I\eJJIS~UJ Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Welland Delineation Manual or orps \ et and e meation anua) 1987 C \' l D r M I Date: l O l -i.--0 l "'1 County: r:--' "5 State: "--9'l L [nvestigator(s): ~ -:-r oe.l .,, r M Fso~L. uf,p S/]"/R: Z.-5 T ?_ 7, v . 12. '-l i3 • Do No!Tilal Circumstancd exist on the site? ~ no Communit1'1D: r+o ls the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes ~ Transect ID: Le,-l 1 ls the area a potential Problem Area? yes Plot ID: .,.,_ I I Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) f Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum % cover Indicator I f(J.,C/ >,.,J,,.,(v\ Ot.,\ <CL.,. l..£rP-T '10 t,~;.L c; ,·-r-d,,.,JZN s t " 5 tJo -r/u:,j,./ ~Sci.~ Jo~"'(,.,..,(, '5 '--/0 +~ I ' V /_., rr'\J'!,, c. ,a· 11:.. • • 5 I~ lru-w . ~ . Md-;, -'!7 S<? l-l 90 NL . ' -r fi.-C-, I_. YL...vl # ,-, t "-r 0 I Vl_tl-C,.P(J.. 1-1 l...~ , HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: 1 %~fdominants0BL,FACW,&FAC 'ip 00 lo ~ Check all indicators. that.apply &.explain beiow: ~ Visual observation o:" plant ~pecies gro:"'.in.g in PhysiologicaVreproductive adaptations --:T areas of prolonged mundat10n/satu~t10n ·.--Wetland plai,;t database Morphological adaptations Personal knowledge of regional plant communities -- I Technical Literature v Other{ ewlain l , Hydrophytic vegetation present? ~ no Rationale for decision/Remarks: • J,e,:, ~n...,,-t, ~ ,v'I. . ~ J • ...,,, ,,,_,,,i" .( 1:,7 lyf csrLy+,<'._ srt2a,<2.-, .. 'HYDROLOGY 1 !sit the growing season? (SJ no Water Marks: yes @9 Sediment Deposits: yes @ ~ Based on: on soil temp (record temp · · ) Drift Lines: yes ~ Drainage Patterns: yes & / other (exnlain) loro:J ~-r·;, ;,t'..:=:.---J.,.fa.. ~ Dept. of inundation: ·::..:....:::...:inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil,S.urvey: yes r& Channels <12 in. ves m6' Depth to free water in pit: ..21k.. inches FAC Neutral: ·v/ no Water-stained Leaves(y_es no '• Depth to saturated soil: ..2J:k.. inches 1 Check all that apply & explain below: · Other ( explain): er{ I~ Stream, Lake or gage data: --u::.:.i.~~ts;i. --pd7,-h~,.,_ ! 7r"'J!o-J<..1..,..-1.':7'&Z. L· p Aerial ohotozraohs:. :.. Other: j) "'171, f ...L " r; f,'f. <; l .. -C,-· e,.V "ic SN 1 (..' O:•.f!.Ci ,::__ii'' .A.11 ;on . 1 Wetland_ hydrology present?_:.: . · ' ~-no I Rationale for dec1s1on/Rei'n!!rl<!;, · . t J -1 ..,,,>!~~ :.~'1~-'f-~/-j;1,,: ·,s. (,'s:""'1eL ,7 i,r~ "-<"L-.,,. r=<;=«-~'. ~. : -ye.-: r 1., J-,.,_,,-q .,, - . . ( •• p/ ~.' ~,;,'",..,_WVH ,''{l';.'1,: ·.,.c..,. ·,._-/· '~· {6l-Lk,Sc.,;,p,0 'p,1'7.--.-ic,n _ .. .. '. .. (~·~:tt;q~j~·· ·-_J_ d, /:-·"iefa. f .L · A vf' 5 t,U uf -brr 14 /pt.. . :rl,.:,. !.c)c., 1 .J/1.,. A I 0.1 ~o 5, "· [j SOILS I Map Unit Name IVQct2 ,, ~.,, lie. S,'h: l.•o..:\:::'I (Series & Phase) , Profile Description r Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors (inches) (Munsell (Munsell l moist) moist) r 0-/lot Ii IO 'IR, 'flz 7 ,r: 'IF-5 (it' I -~ .} ,:·'. ' Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) --Histosol __ Histic Epipedon --Sulfidic Odor __ Aguie Moisture Regime __ Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma(=!) matrix lydric soils present? ~ no Lationale for decision/R~ '-'d> u-cl-r,r, "'1,,,...-~ rr~...,,., '-"- ,,..,,,_ -<,( l&'J2 So,'(, Wetland Determination (circle) iydrophytic vegetation present? (p no Hydric soils present? ~ no Vetland hvdrolo<>v oresent? no lationale/Remarks: ti-II --rl-r-...._ e.n·-te.r, c_ ~ resd. ,OTES: Q,-1 Pre+-W-1 Drainage Class f'~ Orn, .. J Field observations confirm Yes No Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil size & contrast structure, etc. . profile (match descri11tion) "1 "'"'1 if, M-,f~'~ "S i/t 1 16~ ... '_j_ Matrix chroma $ 2 with mottles __ Mg or Fe Concretions __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other(exulain in remarks) o-! --e.,,.&.x: ../) ,,._-f ,_;.r ..... 1'5 : -d} 'u,;t; ./ e.. ,-( Is the sampling point tffj5 no within a wetland? -,(,,_ S"'---c ~ /<>cif::u" Y\ • I s j;I., ;-t,L . "'-#--.,._,,t.,~(J.,, Revised 4197 i ' ' l ' ' ' ' J J J J J J J J J J J • I Project/Site: 5~ 1:"' :0( Oo k Applicant/owner: · j I Investi2ator/s): V. '""' I - DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State 'Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 C W I d D r M I) orps et an e meation anua I.A V\ 'r-\-(- il,t' ,<; v ' Do Nonna) Circumstances'ixist on'the site? ~ no Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Date: l\/')/O y County: 1K_ ~ .-. J State: ,.,_/ fr t:!€ S/T/R: -Z."f. TZ-'"?,;..,, t Community ID: , PU Transect ID: C,-I ~ Is the area a poteniial Problem Area? yes &8 yes o Plot ID: 01:i w \ ( C!--1) Explanation of atypical or nroblem area: VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) , Doffii::: Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Lf,n1-L1 k~[c.k:-tLr" ~ qz:, .{:a,-.:., 1 ' ( n/Y>:.,, ~ C..o (,ce" 7 '15 +a_c,.cJ ~S.Oi' (L0 '1.o .. ,J,,i: .:::; L{ ~ L, ,J ' • J I KrW'/N'-'./ . /<reJ.;..,,A ) 1 -+c'.L-<---, w -t<LDv f. L·Vl.t,, VI._, ...... \ ' V' r.e >,; ) , I HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: , .% of dominants OBL, FACW, & F AC \ £)1) Check all indicators that apply & explain below: ' ~ Visua] obser:1ation o~plant ~pecies gro~ing in Physiological/reproductive adaptations 2:C areas Of prolonged mundattoru'saturatwn --Wetland plant database Morphological adaptations --Personal knowledge of regional plant communities -- • Technical Literature ~ Other ( exnlain) I Hydrophytic vegetation present? C: yes .. / no Rationale for decision/Remarks: _ __,, I cl r\ 'I ), y' (; ~ .. ri (_ , i ' j y, . , \/e: .e:-:-r ('\ '· ~;/\ b "'1 . \r, t~ \ ... L '(_ , I ' ' llYDROLOGY G) ~ Is it the growing season? no Water Marks: yes {J) Sediment Deposits: yes tfm7 on Based on: soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes@ Drainage Patterns: yes /rui I V other (exolain) lc.r._,l r I •""" ,t..,_ ,(,d,. i Dept. of inundation: ~inches Oxidized Root (live ro~ Local Soil Survey: yesc, Channels <12 in. yes n<Y ' I Depth to free water in pit: ~inches FAC Neutral: (!j 'no Water-stained Leaves yesJ{?' Depth to saturated soil: ...:z.ia inches 1 Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Stream, Lake or gage data: --,-\111, C, ( \ 1 • Aerial photo2raohs: Other: :>o· S I Wetland hydrology present? (r~/ no Rationale for decision/Remarks: .._,,, ~u .Ln fih.,, 4-' L ./Vie\"~ ;o,-.. ,_. .... ~ ki-1/( . l so;\ s. \ .. ).·Lh4(__ vie.ti, .... il k.-J/c)l,:;1'1 ' ' I I - L SOILS I Map Unit Name :P,,,,6 11.f .{,,.."-5M:i6f l""="'- (Series & Phase) 1 I Profile Description Depth Horizon . Matrix color Mottle colors (inches) (Munsell (Munsell I moist) moist) Cri Pr-IP 'f( 1-J1_ -- I ~-\\\-~1, ID -111:J}z_ lou,q/t I I ' I ' ( check all that apply) ' Hydric Soil Indicators: --Histosol __ Histic Epipedon --Sulfidic Odor __ Aguie Moisture Regime __ Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=I) matrix Hydric soils present? ® no Rationale for decision/Remarks: .]?M-128\JJ-J J Drainage Class IU41..[ £ ni.1 •" bi _,_ I '.-~· =:::;;..·,-· i:..: Field observations confim1 Yes - Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil size & contrast structure, etc. profile ( match descri11tion) ··,. ~ . rll, f, v\ "1 , l D 1111'1)(\ '/, l,--- - ----2{!_ Matrix chroma $ 2 with mottles __ Mg or Fe Concretions __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils v __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other ( exolain in remarks) J J J J J J iJ ' ' l,-ov' (.. \,._y O V'"' "-"'" J\ tv\o'ttle) ',~JI.: C 0,C.. k~),:L,. 50·, t S J J J J J J :J Wetland Determination (circle) {ydrophytic vegetation present? r<") ai\ no Hydric soils present? no ¥ etland hvdrolo1n1 oresent? no , tationale/Remarks: - ~l p-\-t \\~ "1 I( -(hve.,t_. cf::\-t(; (I\ 'iOTES: I l'.)C ;,-\ ( ~ 8 Is the sampling point within a wetland? O viA. ; <; ~ vefu-1 e__ i,,J~~k',,,, .,, no " l,Je. ·+l. .,J_ . Revised 4/97 J J J J I\ Project/Site: 1 (I;"') hr 17 ., k ' Applicant/owner: DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination 7 orps \ et an De meation anua (WA State \Vetland Delineation Manual or 198 C V l d r M l) t.A f\ ,'+ {_.- - Date: H(t/tJcf-. County: /,L~ ';) State: vk= Ii Investi.,ator(s): flA, P,f . SIT /R: 7 .<=. T?. .,_._., t!,z/ cf:. 1 ·Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? no Community fD: f> ~ S Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? es dw" Transect ID: C,,-f ~ Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes ,ig::, Plot ID: ·BB 1 4--C e--1 ) Explanation of atvoical or problem area: VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) ~ Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum % caver Indicator I' Lh~, tif tv-lV\,"C·lA', s 'f) +n-e,v ], h" Is°' v,Jer" 1 S-0 12 -p ,,,,~l"'s I Ui!rv."'t <ov:u'\ s L-D I~ Ci,</ ' rh,,)~v: ~ V1(1.,11J'11'"o1t.£,4 l~ 15 (2 r ._,J 'I ~,,\\y / :t;k ' ......,_, C. .R~1< .i7· 1 .('CL&U/ 1 HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ~%of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC 6G Check all indicators that apply & explain below: I\ Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptations -- areas of prolonged inundation/saturation --Wetland plant database ~ Morphological adaptations --Personal knowledge of regional plant communities --.I Technical Literature ~.,, Other (exolain) I Hydrophytic vegetation present? {!Y no Rationale for decision/Remarks: ~ HYDROLOGY ,, ., ~ Is it the growing season? ® no Water Marks: yes (rwl Sediment Deposits: yes 6!0 on --?"- Based on: soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes CJ,c(. Drainage Patterns: yei!'' n;>) i/ other /exnlain) G, (. , •• .,,_.\ C. j ~ < ._.-· I. lo ~ 1 Dept of inundation: -==-inches Oxidized Root (live ro9 Local Soil Survey: yes /1fci 21@__ inches Channels <12 in. yes , / Depth to free water in pit: FAC Neutral: yes',!'!)> Water-stained Leaves yes-_' no Depth to saturated soil: .211L .inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Stream, Lake or gage data: -- Aerial ohoto,1raohs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes n Rationale for decision/Remarks: ~ N, ,;;/)" 5 rJ( .. }j P-H, I' 11~. ~ ~11)1,(;?1 ; L .,, I -,_ SOILS Map Unit Name 'Pu Ta f(,'f £11 e, ,;....,_, (Series & Phase) loClM,v -I 'Pto+ Bl&-IA J Drainage Class W'l-/l J l"l:t.l i1 £ . J Taxonom I Profile Description Depth . Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors (inches) (Munsell (Munsell I moist) moist) o-~ ~ [O "'{f 7,/z_. .-.....___ 117 \ 1s---r ..a.., 2-.5' 1 )!( .....---.... . I I I Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) --Histosol I __ Histic Epipedon --Sulfidic Odor __ Aguie Moisture Regime __ Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma(=!) matrix Hydric soils present? yes ~ Rationale for decision/Remarks: Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? r;0 s no Hydric soils present? yes <Eiu Wetland hydrolo'1V present? yes ( no:.,' Rationale/Remarks: 'fl o-f Ao"4 ~.Al\'r\\ 't(•€L C>' -\-e;. I\. lk Y.es ~o· 'JJ Field observations confim1 D e? Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil size & contrast structure, etc. profile (match descriQtion) s" L- Gi '")._ L . ___'.'::,_ Matrix chroma :5 2 with mottles __ Mg or Fe Concretions __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other ( explain in remarks) Is the sampling point yes ~ within a wetland? c· \I\ }. : ..'> -\'L.._ ve -b,/e Yio~ ·'-' ;+~ :,i <. we.. -f(.,,,J ./ J J J ,. J J J J J J J J J J i ! J J Revised 4/97 J J • Project/Site: ·5,T~ c... Urt.l /1,. J..'VJ.'-.Jf.l J. !,UC-J'l.)CU/ Routine Wetland Determination (WA State \Vetland Delineation Manual or 1987 C W ti d D l" ti M I) orps e an e mea on anua • 1. Applicant/owner: ", InvestiEator(s): P. T =L~r. JV/., :,tt.,i{.c.,,r... I I Do Normal Circumstance's exist' on the s{te? 119' no Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes rm Is the area a potential Problem Area? • I Explanation of atypical or problem area: yes -t!ff I VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) -Date: /f/~{oy County: f::,,, l'l,j State: "'"'A> S!T/R: :Lr --rz. ?,N FL ft .Jl Community ID: vp lM-icf · Transect ID: t..c,Li· C..-,-) Plot ID: ). S _ ·,J . • I Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cOver Indicator I t ~ . ,,·· i . A<:,C""04'1,<;. 1,.., .. ,z_ ,s }4...,u iz;;.;.{,c;;i, ~ .. i..u,~ i/ '2 I) .. c -I . -' 11 I r( "'""+-1. o l 14-vu l...:to.." I+ -z. s -. -t ,,__.(__, fd..,, f vS L I. • .,,4 rn.. ---,--r .po...C!...- ~ ~ I . ' < ~, I\ "'r•c::.~?~r..foe""tl..."h~ -.p. ~o "L- ·1 l .{',u..J (.• --oc.JA-a...r/ t: r-a..J/-~ i;, -~ . l. 11T~-<-t"'~•"'-Vu-l~..-. 1' / 0 ).), -+ C'.:v-\. i sS\.,s _; c,,-< ,v\ 5 I) UL 'I HYDROPHYTIC YEGETAT!ON INDICATORS: . (j) '2.v~ .to-.. ,.., ~ s •• -f. -p( ot-) %ofdominantsOBL,FACW,&FAC ;;..fr;-" 'to'7o •1 . . Check all indicators that apply & explain below: 11 Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptations "v7 areas of prolonged inundation/saturation --Wetland plant database Morphological adaptations --Personal knowledge of regional plant communities -- Technical Literature Other (explain) lj Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes no Rationale for decision/Remarks: ~ I HYDROLOGY ' Is it the growing season? @ no Water Marks: yes .{ii) Sediment Deposits: yes e> ~ Based on: soil temp ( record temp on ) Drift Lines: yes ti!!) Drainage Patterns: yes ~ t/ other (explain) loca..,\ G\, ....cte_ cX o../Jc./ ~ Dept. of inundation: -· inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes r!J') -- Channels < 12 in. ves "°' Depth to free water in pit: ;, r'S inches FAC Neutral: yes n6 Water-stained Leaves yes I{9i l Depth to saturated soil: 2fB_ inches , Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Stream, Lake or gage data: __ Aerial photographs: . Other: ~ Wetland hydrology present? yes c§) Rationale for de~ision/Remarks: er(' • ...,L r -rd,,.. r .":rr ,.., .. ,' -J.' eAJ:,:r l'"J • " , + / / c--"L"4"J ~ /de.-( 7 yv O r--rC--6 .... ,,-,,. . ( , <.. - L. SOILS I Map Unit Name -'B""")t-4"'-,,1.111--1 .. r?--=fw ....... .___,,,,:;,.,, .,,._0,...'1--( .....:I:.::,"~= (Series & Phase) I Taxonom .Us 1 Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors (inches) (Munsell (Munsell I moist) moist) 0-y A, ID','12.'3(3 - I A, /O'(V. <1,rh l( -,~ ... - I I I Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) --Histosol __ Histic Epipedon --Sulfidic Odor __ Aguie Moisture Regime __ Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=l) matrix iydric soils present? yes e> tationale for decision/Remarks: . ~-f +'cE ~6J ./P/o+-.:JS-U J Drainage Class Ive 1/ L11tiJi2, . I e iJ Yes Field observations confim1 ed e? Mottle abundance · Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil size & contrast structure, etc. profile . (match descri12tion) -j5'- -v,SL- I ' i i --Matrix chroma $ 2 with mottles __ Mg or Fe Concretions __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) ,-,o 1..yJ2,' <-5"c,.'( .' .,,...£, c.,,.;tws. f~~ J J J J J J J J J :.1 Wetland Determination (circle) 1ydrophytic vegetation present? yes ~ Hydric soils present? yes h'etland hvdrolo<>v present? yes oo) btionale/Remarks: /OTES: c,p(o.,...Q.. , "'- Is the sampling point yes within a wetland? fv Revised 4/97 J .J J J J J J I DATA FORM I (Revised)/ Routine Wetla_I1d-~atio11, . (WA State Wetland Deline~tion Manual or I 987 I Dr' M I Corps \Vet and e ineation anua) Proj~ct/Sitr ':J y:> {, ~)b (O ~ /:::_ . -) !A-., ,"I" L . . Date: I D /1-6 /D \ ~ -- Applicant/owner: · >',,• County: K··r) ,. 1,.1,J\i,w;.q !1n;,,-: M--A--. --State: w-J'( ~ Investieatol'{s): h L \t.._...r . SIT/R: ?--~ T1J :z.µ !< '1B I .Do Normal Circumstances exist on the sit~? fuv' ~ Community ID: F,, ·~\U\ \Je.,1-\ "l"i\ ls the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes ~',, Transect ID: · (C~\) · ' · . ~ ls the are'l!. a potential Problem Area? yes ·,; Plot ID: '\9\ oT'S ./ Explanation ofatvnical ororoblem area: . VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) ---_, ~ ·Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum· % cover Indicator l (~ 'tv-(• ,;..J(~~7,'\.1l'i~ ~ .... ..., s ) -kc,c1 '-~~·,1.,-,~ >YM!'.)j.'.,..,,:,.,. r\-.\ i.1 .(tl..G,,;__, .. - ·- , ·),\~·i.:'?"_i :.~,.._ ~tr ,,;·.,b1v,-~,. 5 4-D -ke,.J ~ C,;ru, ri.0v.\[1, )1 i s Lf1> {~....._, ·< Lf?>' -f;;._1;, v/ . {. ,j -J.S--• / .'. ' .. -A!:vi~ \ lv-0vr, ! +:,.~ r r,,<,;..\· C.(J•~· I. h 0 J ,;,()\,\:o," -r· G? +a..e--·, 7~~(h_\1 ') ,-.... _.--;---.. -·- ' ' ·-.... - ' 1 It ]O f'no<.,"' J.)L- . ~ ~ .. .,.., ':\f<>\IIV, 11 -- I HYDROl'HYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ' % of domina~ts OBL, FACW, & FAC '{Ur,,:/;,(; °/"' Check all indicators that apply & explain below: ' Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptations X. areas of prolonged inundation/saturation __ Wetland plarit database Morphological adaptations · f ....... ·,~-~;:,d ro,:i; • f"'J'~,,·,:XPersonal knowledge of regional plant communities -- -- i_ Technical Literature · · X · Other ( exvlain) · · .. T Hydrophytic vegetation present? ~yes') no Rationale for decision/Remarks: :J7oM,~ ~ >11-t o+-I t; ~ ,:'}ljl B0tt•~ ,-~.~; ' [!.y~t~f'V''t ); v0e t,1_\ 'HYDROLOGY . g ... ~ ls it the growing season? no Water Marks: yes cs Sediment Deposits: yes f!y,1. · on -, ' Based o~: soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes (/o Drainage Patterns: yes !11'0 / other/exolain) !oC4....l cl c. J:d'--I -inches r Dept. of inundation: --Oxidized Root (live roo~ Local Soil Survey: yes r, Channels < 12 in. ves Depth to free water in pit: 1.ljL inches FAC Neutral: Q'.;' no Water-stained Le~ves yes!'.96 : 'a Depth to saturated soil: fl~ inches I Check all that apply & explain below: Other (e,:plain): ,f ~J.J,~fif, C, fl',,,,ds; Stream, Lake or gage data: --pr,,..e., "",' V1 ,._,.,,~ L Aerial ohotograohs: Other: 1'N~c.e, ~ £L, JJ _ , ""'"· rwetland hydrology present? o/ no ( Rationale for decision/Remarks: • ~A"f 1'11.~ ve,.'}c_(nl r i r\ J,o,,,-.. "" la.--~,J .. \ \ ~o\) ,,.,,(\y w,1\.,k l-1J, O \~\~ , -il.,.-, ,<, ::J•pfl C ,-/Ai "'·-1.i1 •j ·L ' h -fl--....L -f-<--11,zv-(r,J -r~ ' I 'I ' '( L I . SOILS Map Unit Name ....,Cvo"""',.or£2'Lli 0:i.,,1,,_;.u.l!gg..-~s:~· H::J.-.!l,,.(ll.,v-.="--- (Series & Phase) Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors (inches) (Munsell (Munsell moist) moist) 0-1 A-·' .- to 'I~ -ii?, -~ - ~ -\-~.\ ]1 lo '1 ( ~/z \O~( <J, .. [ Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ~Histosol I __ Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor -- __ Aquic Moisture Regime I -. _. Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=l) matrix Hydric soils present? @ no Rationale for decision/Remarks: -I ) ~.:...._._;= J I Drainage Class Poor-ly o~oat nek. Field observations confirm lf · No IJ .J Mottle abundance Texture, concret~ons, Drawing of soil size & contrast structure, etc. profile I J (match descri11tion) I S:L I I ~u •••. ...-.. si L tr,~~ Jri)r,l"i~ I ;,< Matrix chroma ~ 2 with mottles __ . _ Mg or Fe Concretions · __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ' __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ! __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other (exolain in remarks) I I I t.~"' l,hvtio ~ ,, .. J, ..... '!fk( ....cl-~ v.,..-;Ur~ 'Dh J J J J J J J J J J J J i ' f Wetland Determination (circle) i f Hydrophytic vegetation present? j no # 1, Hydric sojls present? no Is the sampling point no within a wetland? i Wetland hvdroloov oresent? no ! Rationale/Remarks: I ~.t-. Pi,t-. l} ·.-1 . ~ V ~-+\=A.· A-11 +\.,.. e.e.. cv; -lu ;,,. r, ( e. V 1 1V', ,·n I ' :J C-or,....~v • .{ 't'l.o_ L,rri '.,,- NOTES: ~*' I Loo !J Revised 4/97 1 J J i 'roject/Site: Sf r-'"5 \:,r~~ !<- I Applicant/owner: IJAJ A flVK.ln J (.1t.evzseu1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) e~1 Ufl.• 0"t '-' Date: ll fr-Joy County: {,:,.1 "'-1 State: IA/A , avestigator(s): .::>. 'lo"' \'-l.r /}../ • -t vi"~ S/T/R: u-: TZ ~iv'. ;e <./ I? 1 Do Normal Circumstances exis( on the site? (9s no Community ~ P.f O -, the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes ® Transect ID: -/ , the area a potential Problem Area? yes @ Plot ID: ~ S Cv..-{.,'i/-,£ (:,... U IExolanation of atvnical or oroblem area: VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) IDominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Snecies Stratum % cover Indicator ;o.,(,., h...,(,n-A-'~~ --,--z,O -fc--e, I . <,,J,,. ,:::,.. Q1.,,il,..,J"1-'uv, I,_.* s 7.,S l+o-c-- •'2-,orf\ u <. Se,./ C,.tZ.a,,- :t-'5 '10 -J0-c,.,J . • l 1 HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: I lo of dominants OBL, FACW, &FAC 3/3-= 100'7, Check all indicators that apply & explain below: I lisual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptations --areas of prolonged inundation/saturation --Wetland plant database ./ 11:orphological adaptations -:7 Personal knowledge ofregional plaot communities -- l r ecbnical Literature Other /explain) IHydrophytic vegetation present? (19 DO ~tionale for decision/Remarks: '• v "-5,1',,--fa;;t,' •."-, h., ..,l.,,__ s--,j,e,,.. {oe,e:;t.:/D1a Y1... I 'c,, Jo "'-, "'d,;, 12 67 "'1clr-cft~ie-1/w', HYDROLOGY (9 .s it the growing season? no Water Marks: yes r!J Sediment Deposits: yes ~ '1 on Based on: soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes {!;jJ Drainage Patterns: yes fJ L/ other / exolain) lo---l c.l, .. ,-te: .£<etc ,~pt. of inundation: -inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: · yes (!jH' -- Channels <12 in. yes_ /fii5 )epth to free water in pit: ~inches FAC Neutral: &" no Water-stained Leaves yes ~ , )epth to saturated soil: inches "Check all that apply & explain below: Noµ/;: Other (explain): J""'Jl~,_,,'n""'.c.< <Yf-F ,,,,,.u{s ,,_.,ff£ ,tream, Lake or gage data: --T<> ~vr-,,:f., 1 Q.oJ/-t,or1S) i"'~ic,,2 , , l\.erial nhotoITTaphs: Other: {,,,,,, cR. { ,, C-':QI /<,, • IWetland hydrology present? @y no I d ~ationale for decision/Remarks: C.--0 ...,.A. /\A t/r'l-I,. 7 J k.'1,£,r I,_ ,;, (J ,' ( 'c, i, "~ r "14...... r' r"' ,;.e,y, t:."2: '• k.y J,r • '( 7 1,, e-r( ,,,,,,Jv - ,_ SOILS ~:::_--.!_I 1 3 s \1ap Unit Name f"'j o Ovp £'Afl.-<;b,«i£1 iseo:-""- :series & Phase) Drainage Class _~_J_l_J_rru __ n_J __ _ Taxonom .ftv~ic,-o~!ls Field observations confirm Yes No e? Prof"tle Description )epth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil _inches) (Munsell (Munsell size & contrast structure, etc. profile moist) moist) . (match descriI!tion) '--'5 ,( 1 l O 'IV-7,/ z. -7' [e,- -l 'C)-t" A,_ z.,;;'f 'i {z. 7.,~t~ 'fN ',l.{°"_"':f I Md> ,..Ji .... -....... f I' 1-1¥ lrs/,.>C,f . Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) --Histosol ~ Matrix chroma :,; 2 with mottles __ Histic Epipedon __ Mg or Fe Concretions __ Sulfidic Odor __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Aguie Moisture Regime __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Reducing Conditions __ Listed on National/Local Hy<hic Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=I) matrix Other ( explain in remarks) ydric soils present? yes ~ -.tionale for decision/Remarlcs: ,I 7Jt/c.. $0,(>. (...I -e.L., r o ~ft.-""'"" -ti',')(.' .... rte._ f'~o~ ~NS ,, ,. i "' J .'e.,t,;f/ 11.u Wetland Determination (circle) ydrophytic vegetation present? ~ no Hy<hic soils present? no Is the sampling point Cff no 'etland hvdrolol!Y present? ,Tes.,/ no within a wetland? ationale/Remarks: A,/( 1t,.r-,a_ C,r, 'te.,-. ,'c,_. ~ WI ,t,,'O. ~ ~........,rtie.-I o c-«:t.' o n. 1', w,'-tt., ,,_ a.-, vv e,.t{C{,y/ J . )TES: ·J..J.,;T ~ f o-f' f1 "-j "5 7, J J ,J !J :J iJ :,J J J J J IJ J iJ Revised 4/97 1 J J • I • oject/Site: 51 ri:jh Vlh.i/c-- , • pplicant/ owner: I • DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine \Vetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual\ {,{ 11,i/ (_, Date: !0/1-1.-;,'f County: JL-1"' State: '\Iv ,i O lanvestigator( s): f'. ---k... !13 tt /_ l---~ Uoif,w= SrTIR: ::z...; -, z,--:z," n .I./. e: Do Normal Circumstan'e'es exist on the site? " ~ no Community ID: Pel>{ the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes @ Transect ID: ( e.--z-') i;;' the area a potential Problem Area? yes © Plot ID: f /Jf :ti-I xolanation of atvnical or problem area: ' ! 'EGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) koominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator· Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum o/o cover Indicator · .. ~a...1,.s ().r.,~:t,'\o.~t -I+ 1: Joo -( (,c,.G-v.) • -t 6(0. ~l I ,;tt.-riv L .. :rf'c,.,. j ~0 ;,...V ~ c...a Ci -./) .... J /0 fa.-ew II II HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: II 1-of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC -z{i,.,_ 10)/-.> -::heck all indicators that apply & explain below: IVisual observation of plant species growing in PhysiologicaVreproductive adaptations _IL_ areas of prolonged inundation/saturation --Wetland plant database v'.lorphological adaptations -;:; Personal knowledge of regional plant communities -- Ii, fechnical Literature Other fexolain) -Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® no tationale for decision/Remarks: -V "':) ..,;th:t, o >"--,ct ~--~r'<.(, flci ' S, ,.( o"''' ~Jl -17;1 (,~; ... .,~-t,c, ~-VJ- HYDROLOGY , I ' I :s it the growing season? CB no Water Marks: yes ~ Sediment Deposits: yes <i\Q) on '3ased on: soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes~ Drainage Patterns: yes @ ._/ other ( explain) . [oc,,.J C,~' •• -t.-,-J,J;.. . 1Dept. of inundation: --3__ inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes~ Channels <12 in~ no Depth to free water in pit: -%--inches FAC Neutral: <!::.ft fio Water-stained Leaves ye~ la Depth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below:1 Other (explain): Stream, Lake or gage data: -- 1..Aerial photographs: Other: ~Wetland hydrology present? (""yeS ) no Rationale for decision/R<:marks: - • 1--z/' of Tl.&-,Su 1 / r I. /'._f"" e.-1 pr(c;f, O:,c·,.( ,[ .:J., :0,, ~ 1 -f...&r te·'i:. } '<-.-1-v:,... . v~r pl'o;• iR I 1-z.e . ~ ~c.-r· I , '-"'-"J.I I I 7 cln,lo ' ' SOILS. _(l,..-Q,. 8or .1_ ,J I Map Unit Name u ... J.in11,•(k, (./ ft: (.."°"""' Drainage Class Poorlr ID-!~ J ~~&Th~ C , j Field observations confirm {!Y No ) ~T~ax~on~o~m~y~(~s~ub~w~o~u~p~)=~~lf~''£C<~fdJ,~t,ki~t~'/\4'l2J,~~:._-----m~~~pe~d~typr::_e?~-----------J 1 Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell (Munsell size & contrast structure, etc. profile I moist) moist) (match descriQtion) o-J~r ,+ Joyl?f/;i.. 7 · 5 'j rz. 3/'-I /y; Q I f"{ a) '-"Ml ~'lb .f..;........_ ' I'~ I I Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) y"'"' Matrix chroma $ 2 with mottles --Histosol __ Histic Epipedon __ Mg or Fe Concretions --Sulfidic Odor __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Aguie Moisture Regime __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Reducing Conditions __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=I) matrix Other (exolain in remarks) Iydric soils present? ~ no tationale for decision/Remarks: ,-J<>;c -f.i&-rv t ,e..,S Cl.• "-' ' ~ ,' Ut;:f I V('.._, A -,,..,.t,_. {.,c ,,._, e,..l.i...r-o"""""~ 'c,,: I -S {.... .,JZr, ,.e:.,. "i,. ; (. Wetland Determination (circle) Iydrophytic vegetation present? ~ no ~ Hydric soils present? no Is the sampling point Q'.'.::) . no r etland hvdrolo!!V oresent? ~ no within a wetland? _ -ationale/Remarks: C<-I l -;L,..u--C,,..t-;: £..-r , o..-""--"--f'l"C'"~''-'-{ · !Z..,. ... sr.,_...,,,_rk, I <>c.,.::t:, O"" , I:;;. .......... ·,wJ-\_. (,L ,.u.c-t-l evv...Jl - OTES: Revised 4/97 ' i i r ' i J J J J J J J J ,J '.J fJ 'J 1,J :J IJ J I I Project/Site: t' •r · h k I :>,.1,,.)r"1 I Applicant/owner: DAT A FORM l (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Date: 11/5(01 County: jL';';J _ State: VT I, Jnvestigat6r(s): VVI, A . P.'I S/T/R: ;:,,_,~ T2::z, ,u 17 lLI;;- I .Do No!'l1lal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? , Is the area a potential Problem Area? ExolanatiOn of atvnical or problem area: 09 yes yes no ~ VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) ~ Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum % cover Indicator ' S~..,b .. ,v,) {~lt,rt"P5!. S, iv -(Cl.-&() , (2.,, t, \ * S, 1,Q +a-vv O"J vi •. -(._ YI:~(. a,, ', ' Co (nv, , se.r; a"-·~ 5 3o IIC{_i , / I ' ~ (c1"'\.,,, \.~s'"';.hr. \ bO {ct,C/ I ti , s ~ \", f T 1-C: ~ se o~ ! ~r;.~"- I HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: , %ofdominar{tsOBL,FACW,&FAC ":>/r;--C,O"lo Check all indicators that apply & explain below: I Dominant Plant Soecies Community ID: -p.fo ' Transect ID: ('/!.-zi-). Plot ID: ..,J 1. s Stratum % cover I Visual observation of plant species growing in I areas of prolonged inundation/saturation Physiological/reproductive adaptations Welland plant database Morphological adaptations 1a Technical Literature ·1 Hydrophytic vegetation present? Rationale for decision/Remarks: HYDROLOGY {y no Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Other (explain) Indicator 1 ls it the growing season? ~ no ' Based on: soirtemp (record temp ) Water Marks: on yes tJffe Sediment Deposits: yes ~/ • ,, other (exolain) (oo,J d,-0--te d.c/r;.. l Dept of inundation: --=.... inches Depth to free water in pit: 2J:Binches '1 Depth to saturated soil: .::iLt2 inches I Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: __ '• Aerial ohotograohs: Other: f Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decisiorJRemarks: ~ no Oh \,, 'j(?,tofh '1 + t Drift Lines: yes G) Oxidized Root (live root0, Channels < 12 in. yes @ FAC Neutral: yes (!!J;} Other (explain): Drainage Patterns: yes I'.§) Local Soil Survey: yes a Water-stained Leaves yes@ SOILS Map Unit Name -W=Osi:'<'~"'-'-'""'v,._,1 .. l&c"'"'---$"-'''--'' (u.:t_(,_,<'A:\lA-==-- (Series & Phase) Taxonom Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors (inches) (Munsell (Munsell moist moist 0-4 !O ( i 1. S' -Yi,t" ID ( 'i/z., Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) • Histosol I __ H1stic Ep1pedon Sulfidic Odor I __ Aquic Moisture Regime _._ Reducing Conditions __ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=l) matrix Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, size & contrast structure, etc. -·· 5: L l"tl-i "'-"' I '""'"-" S; L E_ Matrix chroma ::; 2 with mottles __ Mg or Fe Concretions Drawing of soil . profile (match description) __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List __ Other ( ex lain in remarks I I I I I ·J 9:lydric soils present? ye no .ationale for decision/Remarks: (.,,"' b o., ·, "' --tk. :g kt,.-·,~"~ "'t ,n,-... ~ 17, ;,.~<; J I .... L_0-1 __ c._1-.._v_o_""_"' __ " ._-,_\ _)_vv~~i\ __ rr_e._'.,e_"<._(, __ "_i_v"l,;)_-tt_l.e.._5 ____________ -j 'J Wetland Determination (circle) , Lydrophytic vegetation present? ~ no :~ Hydric soils present? no ls the sampling point 9 no .:.e::::t:::lan=dc.:hx:dr!.::o:.::lo~...cre::::s:::e:.:.nt:.:.? __ ~__,-S-""-.;;n::::o ____ w_it_hin_a_w_e_t_la_n_d_? _______________ 1 . I ationale/Remarks: a "' I . .1.. r. 1\ · \\ t' · 11 l · • J 1 . ,i-rt.-,.~ 0 0<ll--..l l_'"_"'""_'f_t_r_"'t_-i--_,_..,_A __ lA_v_e_e._L_V_, 1-_~_,_--()._C,_(1_'_1 s_ ... _ "'"'_t _f[)_/_e._V __ ' ____ '_ "~ •~ toTES: \,.()C"\t).. I>'\ I ly-\")5e,~ I Revised 4/97 l~ ~ J I I ·roject/Site: <;., , -r/'f1:.Jbroe,,t. I Applicant/owner: Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) ~c. nvestiirntor(s): ff), To ~L ' , --Jl-1 · 6tn&i:. ~Do Normal Circumstance's exist on the site? Date: l°("'j•f County: 17 State: WA- Sff/R: 7f" 'T27.LJ '12, t. C •s the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? s the area a potential Problem Area? l.r'xplanation of atypical or problem area: ' yes yes u Community iD: · 'f:lpll'#\.e. ,, J. Transect ID: e-z. v1'\....Q... 1.,,,..J2.. Plot ID: /J/ J+ .JI I -VEGETATION (For strati, indicate T =.tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) I., lominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator 1 V 1_,i...;l-.uS-11n,.,1,~-' .. ,. I A"'\ ,.._, 'S'ti <; ,; P- ~ 1llolt urn I :,?f . -lt- s II 5 I-/ H 50 /0 F//Cu FAC u F,4C r TILC.J 1u rl {µ •"'I j ,,,_.,, If 10 · +Aeiu I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--\ IHYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: lo of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC ~",-t,'Jo I . . 1ch~ck all indicators that apply & explain below: Physiological/reproductive adaptations Wetland plant database t /isual observation of plant species growing in I areas of prolonged inundation/saturation \1orphological adaptations rechnical Literature Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Other ( exvlain) 'IHydrophytic vegetation present? yes ® Rationale for decision/Remarks: .· vc{L, \J ~'tj)_,t. o >\.. ; <;. A-<>•~ • -"'.le~ fl_ (,., vf" m,,, L.. V ( .HYDROLOGY :s it the growing season? • Based on: ____ soil temp (record temp ) n ._,,, other {exvlain) /o,:y../ r I, "4,,J·.<-M. 1 1 )ept. of inundation: __Q_ inches Depth to free water in pit: ~ inches , Depth to saturated soil: 2.11::,_ inches ICheck all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: __ Other: Water Marks: on Drift Lines: yes r§J} yes (§v' Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes, (ii! FAC Neutral: yes (!!!T . Other (explain): Sediment Deposits: yes e} Drainage Patterns: yes ~ Local Soil Survey: yes r!Y Water-stained Leaves yes& Aerial photo£raphs: I ,.--~-~~------~==~----==-:-~~-------------------------i IWetland hydrology present? yes z:~) Rationale for decision/Remarks: Lyt,-c f o,J 7, _[ " ' - . SOILS I Map Uoit Name Wog,l:, nv il(e... S, l-t 1.....,., (Series & Phase) I Taxonom , Profile Description 1 Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors (inches) (Munsell (Munsell ' moist) moist) I 6-/t,,+ 4 Io y1u/.f 2 /o y1< '-1/r, I I , ' I Hydric Soil Indicators: ( check all that apply) --Histosol __ Histic Epipedon --Sulfidic Odor __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=I) matrix ~'lydric soils present? @) no uitionale for decision/Remarks: l...-o,_ e-,~ 1'""0..,..,...,-.....,. i;., l ""4..-t"r:~ l,v,·--t-(..... ..._ .,Jl..r, =-"?<> 1' I<; • Wetland Determination (circle) 'lydrophytic vegetation present? yes @ rlydric soils present? @ no Wetland hvdroloPV oresent? ves cm, {!.,-§?{up10,.,d' Drainage Class Poo.-(7 p'll,,l.,.,J Field observations confirm Yes e? No Mottle abundance· Texrure, concretions, Drawing of soil size & contrast structure, etc. profile (match descrii:1tion) many, Am:, dish"ncf silh, ;,, 4/YI.. ~ Matrix chroma $ 2 with mottles __ Mg or Fe Concretions __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other( exolain in remarks) . r-"'620 )(. -t<!A-"t-.,iU% (J.,,·,Z,. ' J. . c,,;t, ~ o-( Is the sampling point yes ® within a wetland? - {ationale/Remarks: f>1'<€$<,MJ I "e.lfl,d,d,.n a,..._J)__ t.rRn,'"7 c,__-ftl,.. 11--,t.. I~,-,,:.., 'T::.• ;, ~ <"-<---,~.,:.,-t( ,t.,,v( r-1., ......... ,t_l:,.~ ' ~ ,;;.......,,,_ 'P{'2.-, I "0t-i::> o ,., i,;. .,r~x. ' . ~OTES: Revised 4/97 J 'J J J ' J J J J u u .u LJ u LJ LI LJ ' u u LJ • .. ,, Project/Site: 'Sp r'. "] k,(P() K . Applicant/owner: DATA FORlVI 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Welland Delineation Manual or 1987 C W tl d D J' ti M I) orps e an e mea on anua ii\": t-L II Investigator/s): M.f::i. ~-1 - I Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 6'.o/ £) .Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes , Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes fj} Explanation of atypical or oroblem area: VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) , Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species ,_ (,-,.( .,_,,..c, S,;,.i1;~ ~ iD L, ,. l ~ '.10 ~~iJ \W, .. -. (A f ~tU\L-\,,. ~ I ·~ SJ;--1 S :tct.,,1: S < Q$' ~C</ ( r Vt ll, \c. l 1,ls~..,-.(e~ l ?...':J -,n..c.., I , '• I HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ,, % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC 1-<; Check all indicators that apply & explain below: ' Date: \ \/) /o 1 County: y::.;") State: 1./ f, S!T/R: ;;i..'5, ,2-31.J, {L<{ e: Community ID: . t'Yl) · Transect ID: L.. -3 · Plot ID: 4-· w (._ e_._ '3 ) Stratum % cover Indicator , Visual observation of plant species growing in PhysiologicaVreproductive adaptations -:;;z--areas of prolonged inundation/saturation --Wetland plant database -- Morphological adaptations ~ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities --11· Technical Literature Other (exolain) I Hydrophytic vegetation present? (!;Y no Rationale for decisiowRemarks: \ HYDROLOGY (9 ,, · Is it the growing season? no Water Marks: yes (Jl{I' Sediment Deposits: yes no on Based on: soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes~ Drainage Patterns: yes M ,/ other (exolain) [Q <O.U.. .,-l,M,._t,:::_, ,0cJ;_. , Dept. of inundation: -inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ye$ no···· .. ) -- Channels <12 in. ves !'iicv '. . , ..... •-- Depth to free water in pit: ~inches FAC Neutral: (!;Y' .. Water-stained Leaves yeC:::, no ~-Depth to saturated soil: 21.:a'. inches ' Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Stream, Lake or gage data: -'-.-'f/R -f Al 0 i /,",,....-(..:>hot""l,..v,._ .. \ 'i A; h.11\1,( 1· Aerial photographs: Other: ~-~. \s I Wetland hydrology present? {? no Rationale for decisiowRemarks: :1 tl' .,I 0) 1 'Y,.:yJ,of\'1~:, Jt)i-\,,,·. o°" 0,~ d'--_ ~'(A' 'L 5;,\, . > { t.. v~\.\.,..,~ I ..., \ . ( o-, ' , SOILS I Map Unit Name Pur ,tf £,,., ..,..,_~ (ct,,w, Drainage Class <.yLJl !l"(<.,1'Lf" I (Series & Phase) • -3,?lo+ 4- I Profile Description I Field observations confim1 Yes @. _T~ax~o'.!.!n~om~~~~l:'.L:!:!~~!!!f;,~~~~!!!'\~:___ _____ ~~~~e:..:.? _______ ___:V~ _ _JJ Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, D111;wing of soil I (inches) (Munsell (Munsell size & contrast structure, etc. . profile moist) moist) (match descri11tion) o,~ Pt-lO'f~ '>(1., G'" L ---· I ' L\ -rot-~1, {I,'( ( iii !Dyr ~,\ F,= .w """"tD'\ J Gi, L I ; . I I 1 Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ~ Matrix chroma$ 2 with mottles --Histosol __ Histic Epipedon __ Mg or Fe Concretions --Sulfidic Odor __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Aguie Moisture Regime __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Reducing Conditions __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=I) matrix Other ( explain in remarks) Iydric soils present? ;a no ,tationale for decision/Remarks , "'"'~le5 i-A;<,,,~t k,J\v: c 5o ·,/ l..o"' C /'1 vo VIC', .>o;\s C,) ;\-l., yve ,_e 11 c...e.._ Wetland Determination (circle) \ . rlydrophytic vegetation "present? (1;) no ~ Lfydric soils present? ~ no Is the sampling point no ¥etland hvdrology present? /Yes.,,,! no within a wetland? J{ationale/Remarks: Plctr. f; \\ s Aq +lve.a--cv· t e v,'\ "'V' J. :<; -+f .,v~-h>.!e w:t-L.,". ~ "' o..Je_ -/{.., .,, J,__ !OTES: -, Lot11-I{.\ 5:, Revised 4/97 ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u u ~ u ' u u ~ ~ ~ w Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Man.ual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) i'roject/Site: sr.--,~ t>r=i:--e..-r-eivi:--/ ""''' r-c Date: u(f"(o'( I Applicant/owner: County: le.., "'5 State: ,.,_, A !nvestieator<s): f.'. T .. , I. ~ ~ 1,U , A .+a"' S/TIR: ch, TZ-3µ tc.'-/2 ' Do Normal Circumstaocas exis( on the site? ff no Community ID: vrf,.,,,,.e/i. 1s the site significaotly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes ~ Traosect ID: C.. -3 · ls the area a potential Problem Area? yes Plot ID: w.e. T/ ..,,,.,..(2. (!,_ l '1 Explanation of atypical or oroblem area: Pf•-t :l!--<.> r VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) -,, Dominant Plaot Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominaot Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator 5crJ:"' .., _\ .I ~ ,£/c * 5 <.-0 t',, .. o.u I ·~\:,-<. ~"'·ia:..., is+ s ~r-fc..c.c.1 "" s sS--be-vJ I ... r,-,. ,c:. .: -I -- ' + ~ -.l. I -o ,__._ 1..\ '-I (J {:'<L-C.- V I I I ,I HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominaots OBL, FACW, & FAC 3(~ ~ 7f"1, l I Check all indicators that apply & explain below: , Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptations _L_ I areas of prolonged inundation/saturation --Wetland plant database Morphological adaptations v Personal knowledge of regional plant communities -- Technical Literature Other ( explain) I I Bydrophytic vegetation present? ®) no Rationale for decision/Remarks: J. =,· vvvf.ef) b. 1J.r11-r-,L/ .' ........ -,t...,q__ \;c,.....,_T'"2.. \ o<,.::d, o i'- , t,,t ~c,t,..<v \/~QC«.,-\-, 0 "-,s '• "HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? @ no Water Marks: yes @l Sediment Deposits: yes e) ' on IBased on: , soil temp (record temp \ Drift Lines: yes @Y' Drainage Patterns: yes @, v other( explain) •--I e,l, =·+<-.J!dr,.. c Dept. of inundation: __==::._ inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Smvey: yes ® I Channels < 12 in. ves ,§ -Depth to free water in pit: 2JJl.. inches FAC Neutral: yes~ Water-stained Leaves yes fu!.) Depth to saturated soil: _-, Io. inches ICheck all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Stream, Lake or gage data: -- Aerial photo=nhs: Other: L tetland hydrology present? yes ® tionale for decision/Remarks: ·~ /U ~ I,.....;,' c.ei...,\Or-S, .f ...,~;ti~ µ," I""' f ,,~ '1' I I ~/ SOILS o+ c::;>-U J \1ap Unit Name f'v1" 1/vp iiAQ., 7'k':l4 {o~ :series & Phase) Drainage Class tutjl Xca , 11 efl Field observations confirm Yes ~ raxonom e? ProfiJe Description )epth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil ~inches) (Munsell (MWJSell size & contrast structure, etc. profile moist) moist) (match descri11tion) )-•~ A 'o Y~'i/r... --Gt St- 'lydric Soil Indicators: ( check all that apply) __ Histosol --Matrix chroma :, 2 with mottles __ Histic Epipedon __ Mg or Fe Concretions __ Sulfidic Odor __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Reducing Conditions __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma (= 1) matrix Other (explain in remarks) ydric soils present? yes @? • _ationale for decision/Remar~r - tVo r .....__ J_/ c.4-'Tet.r--S , 67 cfr. C.-<o a-.'l s- Wetland Determination (circle) __ ydrophytic vegetation present? <;> no Q H.ydric soils present? yes (Dg7 Is the sampling point yes r etland hydrology present? yes "Jib) within a wetland? -ationale/Remarks: ,-• \ +l,..a "'if'-........ ,t{~ -p(.......0ts ""-'<--1' ,-e,,;a,,d.) l,Wc:tla...-.J? ';;,Ol 0 (S ;,....,~ ~ro / '?7 I .,..,ft udol · -" e.. •t.:k~·-~ s .. , ... ,:-p/41Z., /,:,e,,d.' ov. ,. -!.. ",i µi-r:(.._, >'\.. .._ iv(.-rl--.P. I OTES: J !J ' !J J :J J :J J ·~ ·~ w ' -~ w ~ I ~ ~ Revised 4/97 ~ ' Project/Site: Sr ri:)b rool:. , Applicant/owner: DATA FORM lt(Rev!sed) Routine Wetland D)itermination ".i:'' ' • .. · ;·~: (WA State Wetland Dcli~atioi(,Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delli,eatf6'il Manual) -lln i I-D. Date: !6/:2!/of County: J(i"J State: WA. I lnvestigator(s): P. TtJql,er, t3. I!, floway, M. &cfenk,,mp, SITIR.: fft./;: T7-:,,µ 12-'f e; I Do Nonna! Circumstances exist on the site? C]§) Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes 11 Is the area a potentjal ·Problem Area? · yes 1 Explanation of a!Yoical or problem area: VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tn,e; S = sluub; H = herb;-:V,,;,. vine) . ./ ... ·. ' Dominant Plant Specie~ .< DoIThnant Plant sDecies Stratum % cover Indicator ,oJ/J" luc,jJJ.,_, >'._,"-: '( , 1·,, .-;.:,.,,...d r-..._ T 15 -!J-r.C:. · i,.,:j,i'"'., siw,.1,.,r,,, ,~IJ<: /uc,ic!c.--.~. 1 IA.i;t ~.·~:..-'.-A ' S. 5'. . /.I JI. tfo. /5. lo '10 I HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION'INDICATORS: µ:r.(-k,+) +a..c.tv Obi . .&-c.v.J L..,.. ,, % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC 'f /y :;:. l 00/J Check all indicators that apply & explain below: ' > ,.,,,: .i Community ID: p 7 5 Transect ID: "-'L. D -l Plot.ID: f' /Pf " / Stratum % cover 5 ,, Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation Morphological adaptations Physi ologicaVreproductive adaptations Wetland plant database (I Technical Literature I Hydrophytic vegetation present? Rationale for decision/Remarks: V ~a;:h O"-, .,, d,o"""l n.ed eJl HYDROLOGY no Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Other (explain) Indicator ~ 'f Is it the growing season? @ no Water Marks: on yes® -· · Sediment Deposits: yes (jjQ) Based on: soil temp (record temp ____ ) , J other (exolain) [0 .. , , r,.. 0 -'-c.,--r Dept. of inundation: _.ft_ inches Depth to free water in pit: ~ inches ·1 Depth to saturated soil: 7 / L inches 1 Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: __ 1 Aerial ohotographs: Other: I Wetland hydrology present? no Rationale for decision/Remarks: I Drift Lines: yes® Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in.~ no F AC Neutral: {!:;}' no Otl_>er (explain): Drainage Patterns: yes ~ Local Soil Swvey: yes no Water-stained Leaves yes Ciii1'.) SOILS I Map Unit Name (Series & Phase) I Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors (inches) (Munsell (Munsell I , moist) moist) . ()-1.f ()'J •• ;, -- I 'f-1&-t A 10 yR.s/2 /6jR S/1o HydrkSoil Indicators:_ (checkall that apply) --Histosol __ Histic Epipedon --Su1fidic Odor __ Aguie Moisture Regime __ . Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma(=!) matrix lydric soils present? @ no tationale for decision/Remarlcs: c.."""' c...\....r-o-.....a-,._Q "-"o-ftl, ":'.) -~ Wetland Determination (circle) lydrophytic vegetation present? @:) no Hydric soils present? @) no letland hydrology present? ~ no .ationale/Remarks: vJe:tfond b-I , . ro+ #wJ.... J Drainage Class foorl..i J n:u'.,eJ Field observations confim1 Yes No ts e? ;·;:/··· .-~'~.': ,., .. . :.-·;:_-: . Mottle abuti~!lJlce Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil size & contmst structure, et~. profile . ··-·.' (match descri12tion) .. "' ·-\~ ·,., --),. Cuh')mon/An~. f !cf, <f· roaf ,,,,,.,.,. dis-I-inc+. silly d<iy loQrn ·.; .. .. ·.·•·· ... ,/ ifatrix chroma !, 2 with mottles __ Mg or Fe Concretions __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ . _ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other (exolain in remarks) -rk._ (,._~r.c.,. &,,'/ C,r,Lf,z.,,' •" . Is the sampling point ® no within a wetland? ~-- .: . ' ' J J J J J J ,J J J /N.<..4, .,J,( 3 W<,{ ..f &-vn ,,J ~-c~ -it,.._. 6a...-. T ""-t~ (,,,ct,,,..,_ I<;. iu/1k1"1. "-" v-' ...x1.cv,,,Ji . .. OTES: Revised 4/97 • I 11111 '1 '1 Project/Site: · S//;:.JJr•,:,K -{/n;f- Applicant/owner: DATA FORM t;\'Revi,ed) Routine Wetland Ditermination (WA State Wetland De!ifatio11i(!Vlanual or 1987 C W l d D I"' ti -M l) orns et an e me·a (Ji\. anua D ;:::· ·:-: .. {~,;" ' '• !nvestigator(s ): !{ hf,//ou,~' /VI , 15' w ke,, l ,, n-ip ~~i't; Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~ n~:/• ls the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes ~ , Is th.e area a potentijil Problem Area? ' yes @' ~ Exolanation of atvoicai or problem area: :_·. ··- VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb.;'_.V:,'S,vine) ' J . .:· I Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum % cover Indicator Doriiinant Plant Sp-ecies I \ k/flfOl1Nff1 h yd r, ,Olf""" 6h ff 75 OBL r. . -1,- T'yd,;,,_ f__,.,.r:;,,,,,,_ JI-10 0Bl * II /6 (,r( ,v f-'1 l5iqMS cernua.. /5c,.rc tjr6vnd JI /0 ) ... : . ' J I <' '1 J HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ,~%of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC J f;, " io0'7 o Check all indicators that apply & explain below: \ Date: lo/;llj o</- County: /(, "'J State: w,+. S/T/R: ,;-,,._ T-. ".2. ..,. Community ID: p>,t:bJ{ Transect ID: D -I . Plot JD: //,f # .:)_ Stratum % cover r Visual observation of plant species growing in / Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation Wetland plant database Morphological adaptations --Personal knowledge of regional plant communities L• Technical Literature Other (explain) I Hydrophytic _vegetation present? ~ no Rationale for decision/Remarks: k ,.,.,,,, .-,,d a.Q /,1 ·, V"'i:Jtlev-1:/ d"" "'-"t -tk..-.,;o-..-.,_f {.;v l"' ud'·~~ 1 '<;, hyJ.-·rr-t:e-- HYDROLOGY tu.e ' 11,r. 1 lndicator -.;;- v s~I/VI, 1 Is it the growing season? ® no Water Marks: yes no -,Sediment Deposits: yes no on Based on: soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns: Q'9 ·no· I V other (exolainl loc.J r 1, ..+c:_ .f-1,. :_. : .· ~ Dept. of inundation: -7L-inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no Channels <12 in.tres\ no Depth to free water in pit: _zi$. inches F AC Neutral: yes no Water-stained Leaves yes no I Depth to saturated soil: /8 inches I Check all that apply & explain below: Oth,er (explain): Stream, Lake or gage data: --. • Aerial ohotograohs: Other: I Wetland hydrology present? (§ no ... Rationale for decision/Remarks: -.'. ~ ponded cu~,y tf.<fras-li,r, wj;,-, 3~./l Sct,~ ~: Pr<.)~ ... -p.qtCr/'\.5 ~ (J"f, J; vJ? .-l,_f-... I. -t i< -~ ·., n 1,, I~ ' ..I)./_ ~_, _/ '/~ I :-' - ' ' : {· I Vf -: . : .. ·. L.. SOILS Map Unit Name Pvs,Q* <-zl 1±1 ,jfk-( (Series & Phase) Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors '.inches) (Munsell (Munsell , moist) moist) o-,f OrJanic -- '-I-:-I 8 A '"YR 5/~ liJ '/R'i-/~ 'Iydric Soil Indicators: (check .all that apply) _· __ Histosol __ Histic Epipedon __ Sulfidic Odor __ Aguie Moisture Regime __ . Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma(=!) matrix ydric soils present? ~ no .. ationale for decision/Remarks: L •v.J c.i... Ml~&,<.......-'6,. , ts ~,R.r,-v ~.-{s. IVetland Determination (circle) .. ydrophytic vegetation present? Jydric soils present? 'etland hvdroloi,v present? .,ationale/Remarks: no no no Mottle aburi'dtince -.-::::·v-·. size.& contrast:·, .. ·-; .. -:·\:/-: .. ,-.···· f.·.· IJ'1p ny 1 ~tfJIAITi I clishnd. Texture, co~cretions, stmcture, etc: _/_'r$i;trix chroma$ 2 with mottles __ ·_Mg or .Fe Concretions No D_rawing of soil profile (match description) __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ ._ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other ( exolain in remarks) Is the sampling point within a wetland? @ no fh.L.d,.._. µ./ 3 ~ ..,,,;,d ~d,; ~ . • v <-'°ti o-v/2_ ' )TES: ,·'~ .. ··'· Revised 4/97 j J J J J ,J ,J J I I .a.,.r,..I( ,-,._ A. .__,,.I'UTJ.. -';:\J11.C..J'IJC::.U/ Routine Wetland ~terrili~,ation (WA State Wetland Delif/i,ati<in;Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Dej~eatiBn Manual' Project/Site: Srr;':.Jbrc,"k. -UMf-[) ,, Applicant/owner: Date: , o/ ~, / <>'/- County:~ State: 1,VA- SfTIR: ~ -r-z_ ~ A..J t:2._f::l ~ II Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? I Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ls the area a poientjarProblem Area? '• Explanation of atvoical or problem area: yes yes Community ID: -P+o Transect ID: o., /c..,, Plot,ID: . Ph'r -,i< 3 ~e..""t\ r,. "If'\_\ I VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herl,Fv',., vine) '1 Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum 0/o cover I + Po r->"'\v<; \ '-'I<, r,<. t 10 j:',+C . 5. ;J,o f:A C H So 01c vv I-/ !io HK,\/\/ II Ira re , HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATIONlNDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC '-f/LJ "'1 Do 7o ·, Check all indicators that apply & explain below: , Visual observation of plant species growing in , areas of p~olonged in~ndation/saturation __ Morpholog1cal adaptatwns ----;- Technical Literature t/ ,, Hydrophytic vegetation present? Cye~'·.· no Rationale for decision/Remarks: I HYDROLOGY Fi!-( v Physiological/reproductive adaptations Wetland plant database Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Other (explain) ! Indicator Is it the groWing season? Water Marks: yes no on' frees {rt>IJ,nwood) --· Sediment Deposits:. yes no no ' , Based on:-~~-soil temp (record temp ) ct other (explain) lou,I c.A1~-+,c, .. Oa:fy_ Drift Unes: yes . no ,, Dept of inundation: -¢-inches Depth to free water in pit: 2_!B_ inches Depth to saturated soil: 2!L inches 1 Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: __ Aerial photographs: Other: Oxidized Root (live roots) Ch~nnels <12 in,rvesl no F ACNeutral: yes no Other ( explain): I Wetland hydrology present? I Rationale for decision/Remarks: c:§:) no .:,/· .... VJ"-'"'-"=,,__,-""<, ~ ,,.,._, ,fl, z..e{.c I ro,'-z_:;., fC..er-.e .. i,o.-c-~ ~tr Drainage Patterns: yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no Water-stained Leaves yes no SOILS I -N p -'-Map Umt aineu5 pq;,y (Series & Phase) I Taxonom I Profile Description [)epth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors I (in~hes) (Munsell (Munsell , moist) moist) j-/6 A /oy1-?>/'f - lo+ 8 /C,)'/l. 3/~ IOYR 3/t., 'fydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol -- __ Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor -- __ . _ Aguie Moisture Regime __ ·_. Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma (= 1) matrix lydric soils present? ~ no .lationale for decision/Remarks: Lo..., dr-.. -..-.. .-.Q. ..._ii/,~ A.re.- 'Vetland Determination (circle) • lydrophytic vegetation present? @t::i no L!ydric soils present? ~ no \7etland hvdrolo= nresent? rves'> no ,lationale/Remarks: . . ~:- . Drainage Class Pood, d roJ n.,d Field observations confim1 . Yes ed e? ff.~}--·: Mottle abulf\Mr;ce Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil size & con~~' s.tructure, elf: . profile (match descrii;!tion) ·-···,. -·c·· __j~<·~·:: ,;a,ndy loan-, .':~-: · ... -:: ,.,,,,_,,J, Ai,~, d, s fin cf. 5~d.!f lo,un. .• ......... ;~ ;'. '>· .,, \, . ... ' /".'~atrix chroma $ 2 with mottles _·._·_Mg or Fe Concretions __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ . _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ . Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other ( exolain in remarks) ,'J/crlivc... ~ 1--rcPr/c..--~,r.'15 • ls the sampling point ~--no within a wetland? --··, o-.l l '3 e.r,'-te..f"~ t;......-....... ~ ,,,..q . iW-s "'""""-T~ l~c.A, '" 1 'c;. p,.,)/-r{,,t,, .\,_ er.... <vtt le-,,_ jJ . !OTES: ,. ··.: .. · ~- :i:. ~r:·. ~\:'; Revised 4/97 'reject/Site: Sfri':Jbroot.-' Applicant/owner: DATA :FORM l (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination orps e an e nea on anua (WA State W ctland Delineation Manual or 1987 C W tl d D Ii ti M I) C,(~;f-[). Date: /C;/::u;o..f. County: ~d State: W.4 1. _nvesti9:ator(s): /3, fk//Q wau, m, &d:01/:,, lnlJ SIT IR: ~f; ·. T Z}JIJ, I<-'i I! • Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (§) no Community ID: p··:;;s ' ' s the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes Go, Transect ID: w~"t"l...,,__.Q.. D-1 :s the area a potential Problem Area? yes ~. Plot ID: f.7 /pf II ,j- '·Explanation of atvnical or problem area: VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) 'Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator 6~,., ... ~ .s~:UJL-~ 5 fo ~\I) • I ,f- e'.cibv .. "-,r!M.,;../A.d,6t s;. :20 ku ,, :.,.. If 4o (" ir'l,i....! :;,.r, ~ ~r ~,.~ J~. ;:,~. -a.-c.... V . r:--,., ~pfJ,(?), H /r,:,ce. • &5L-= (Je..rl,;..;.. . s Trace. ( .,., pin nv.fe,,-) . ~ • HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: Yo of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC 7 [1-< bb 1.;; • • ,•, Sheck all indicators that apply & explain below: J· Visual observation'ofplant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation --Wetland plant database ~ \1:orphological adaptations 7 Personal knowledge of regional plant communities -- 1.. rechnical Literature Other ( explain) • Hydrophytic vegetation present? ~ no utionale for decision/Remarks: cl~ )',,1-1 1.,'\.l'!~+.e: {2 {_; /91[t-/ ,,-.[. ~\/~ -pL6-t ~""-' /1£$.d:"--~ r o "-' ,, ....... -r('.U2_ . '. • I$: I 1. HYDROLOGY :sit the growing season? C9 no Water Marks: yes no Sediment Deposits: yes no • • on Based on: soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns: yes no ,/ other (exolain) I oc.<L\. n I. .... .G,+,_ Ii Dept. of inundation: --inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no Channels <12 in.!ves\ no )epth to free water in pit: --inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water-stained Leaves yes no ., ..Jepth to saturated soil: inches " Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ,tream, Lake or gage data: -- , 11.erial pbotoOTaphs: Other: 1 Wetland hydrology present? CV no 'htionale for decision/Remarks: ,r _. ;:~o,· I ~ ·7!~.o.:;,-r-_;/" ..-.?-1.g" 1.t.(Q i:>-,,,c-C-,.,..,c.C..,:j:°0 --t. c/.v,-" 1 9 ,,/,;, •"-· .. ....--:-{(_,ca_ \,.. n-...... ~: _ .... /".! ; !' -··-f/uz._ ,,,/1c,d.,:, • : .,,.,.....,.-r-1 r,<..,,;-/ /_. .-,': j',.Q) ti~~- - ( v, l.- SOILS Map Unit Name --ff2c..1.~1f}'>"4'=-"-. _$~' f""'-t'fl---'eJ=y=+~l=tn,"" (Series & Phase) · I yJQ,i-/Qr")C} D -/} . ·Drainage Class f@r-(7 ilii ~ Field observations confirm @ No Taxonom Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions,· Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell ' (Munsell size & contrast structure, etc. profile moist) moist) ( match descriJ;!tiOn) 0 -!'I-+ /?. 5y:!,/.;,.. 7. 5yg .f/r,, = /Tl "77 / fiiic -silly c/"'J /o.._rn · A me d 1 ~=1 pnrrow,f Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ~ Matrix chroma !> 2 with mottles --Histosol __ . _ Histic Epipedon _:!_ Sulfidic Odor n •lly .f.,._,; n /. __ Mg or Fe Concretions __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Aguie Moisture Regime __ · _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Reducing Conditions __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List GI eyed or Low-Chroma (=I) matrix Other ( explain in remarks) Iydric soils present? a§) DO tationale for decision/Remarks: . "",J. ~11 v<t-rl k-y ,:II/, c,,,.- ~ .. -(.... r -o H"'\. ""--..,,/ 1'~0,)<C ~-.fa.A-f V r ,e . .f . 1'$ (__o,.._ k..·1('L... -t ,C-) ~ S,o,(s. Wetland Determination (circle) Iydrophytic vegetation present? c§:> no Hydric soils present? (§::, no Is the sampling point cg)_ no N' etland hvdro]ogy oresent? rvTs5 no within a wetland? fationale/Remarks: /'-rv'~ d-,,,;/-:; s . r ... ,,, .... ,, ,e;i-,,,_,,r s e'l-.... a.. -rf...,.... ,;..,.,,, r I t.e.. / ,::,e""-f., q ,. / ;'I. { ( rt-r ""-· /,,L/t'""'"T'i....., ,,.._. ,,.._, l',/,(_::d a.-vJ), ~OTES: Revised 4/97 J • DATA FORM I (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA. State Wetland Delineation Manual ·or 1987 C W l d D r ti M I) orps et an e mea on anua 1 'roject/Site:.<;, pl"'."'J krovk. I t,._~\f D '\pplicantiowner: Date: to/Z-\/o\ County: v...: "') State: '-/-A, l111nvestigator(s):· '?,.\--fn,ke/, ,')'.1,,1., 4-"'tt:"' S/T/R: "',~ · T''l.oJU. l<,\.l ~ Do Normal Circumstance's exist on the site? ~ no Community lD: F,,.....f-<.<\ t,j,,+J.~,( ; the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes~ Transect ID: V-t ~ the area a potential Problem Area? yes no Plot ID: 1-s C IV\. . (:),-i:. ) xplanation of atvoical or problem area: 1EGETATI0N (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) 'Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator If fD>f -{;,_,. v-' 1tlh-f (<A.br,, ,-,-------· io *-ktZ.--C-l\i,"\nt..•JL·I,, {tf'~' . I ' • <;o,,,t,ib, \; ~ s l 5" * ) 'bk', k+ fh,/,r', f ,:,.. fi,..~,~ ~flfl{t;_,A * 5D1' ~'-'. ' _5 \ t) * +0--vu 5 /2) _:/.-. -/L,,,J .. ""'"'}, .... L.\.I\ ( ~"~ Ctr"''' Sl(,1,e,--.._ ,,, I ; '! \~ci ~vilv"' T 5'.D * (-(?,,__0~-t) uf YV ~',(~~;, l+,Col iP< f;,f/:., 1 ~~ ~f',ie,, J ().,)l.Js',i ,~,s tr; .-v: ~ . 11 f &.fr.~"'> bJ~,nihr, ~ z.v .'f\ -¥--c HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: 11 1, of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC . 7/~ .···' ' .~177"/. ·~heck all indicators that apply & explain below: l!Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiolog_ical/reproductive a.daptations A areas of prolonged inundation/saturation --Wetland plant database .1orphological adaptations >< Personal knowledge of regional plant communities -- 1. [echnical Literature Other (exolain) · -Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Y~ no tationale for decision/Remarks: '1 _';it,,nf! f p),,,t J•Vl'l-,e,h}. b'! J...1},rv f"Y{ ; l , fLL-ice) 'HYDROLOGY s it the growing season? & no Water Marks: yes &f Sediment Deposits: yes~ I . on - '3ased on: soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes '60' Drainage Patterns: yes§/ L/ other (explain) .-l-o<A-l o~ .._ do1<L ~/ 'IDepL of inundation: -incb.~s Oxidized Root (live ro~ Local Soil Survey: yeVno \ -..._ _____ -Channels <12 in. yes no . - )epth to free water in pit: __ mclies FAC Neutral: yes ,ko i Water-stained Leaves yes{;:i,I 'l0epth to saturated soil: inches l ,• .,---._ - Check all that apply & explain below: ( ~_°xplain): ,i--hy)vsf~', / ·, v~ , • .A rt<'"<---,tream, Lake or gage data: --9o""'', ... d·t.t. ·\ f j ,·~ ,l ~ ... , aL. , \erial ohoto£:raohs: Other: oJ \-yJ\,,l (.o, )1 tY { 5,1., .. ,v--<:..Js.e.,.s .. ,._ Wetland hydrology present? (39 no <':-·, lationale for decision/Remarks: ·-~:,.-:> ~. vi I ) • 5e '. (; 1~ ' Vb_.' ... ,-1-.u .. ·t "'yA,orl,1i., ve.J , f i l ,, ,.. '-e__ "1 ,/ ( . ... \:.~:-I ' .. SOILS I Map Unit Name 1c.oJ.1,,,,; /1,. . S: l-1: lo·"-YY'.\- (Series & Phase) lf&+H D~', Plof-172 U Drainage Class P0oc:ly in/' ",)., Field observations confirm Yes No ,J 2.!~~~~~~::l:'.l.=J~;;g;~Ye,~~~~<;.~~----.....!'.5'.~~.1:::.e?'---------~_J J I Profile Description . Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (inches) · (Munsell (Munsell size & contrast structure, etc. profile I moist) moist) (match descri11tion) .o-~ A-, '- Wv.r 5(2-------. 5,C-. I 1-~~ tf i, ~/z.. ID 't, ID'1 Y 5/l P...z. m .. h.,, S; L-"Orcfl'1 ',A,,fl -u:i---i,,...,.... • l\~c-\~'r F ! -.L.. I ~1-'1;1,.~-.11 I f'.:v.e s~ -A, l °"'"" p ID'/v'::/l IO'tr ( ),b J-;1+:~<v I . I Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) _i_ Matrix chroma :,; 2 with mottles --Histosol I __ . Histic Epipedon __ Mg or Fe Concretions --Sulfidic Odor __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils __ Aquic Moisture Regime __ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils __ Reducing Conditions __ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List I . Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=l) matrix . Other (exnlain in remarks) Hydric soils present? { ye~ no Rationale for decision/Remar~ I LocJ (.,,~ .,I'~ lY\,£-. ... ~~ i/Y\ow{.~ ......,.-1-tk GV ~J..u; OY\. I Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? ~· no @no I Hydric soils present? · no ls the sampling point Wetland hvdrolo"" oresent? ~ · no within a wetland? Rationale/Remarks: ...... I 5: + (. 1'1.t.,/1.J' "I I C f • .\ C y; A .. h; e-\,,. ,,-Fz, I'<.. vi;+ L:"' ~ ,.)L 'ti," .J\ ) 'i loo l D-/,. Revised 4/97 • • • • I • I I • • • • • • • • 11111 Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 -:,:'I W•stlln9ton Stlll• .,,, D•P•rtmffl of T,anaportalk111 C-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I • • • • • • A-1 -shrub community on eastern edge of A-1, second photo. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 C-2 I I • I I • • I I I I I II I II II II II .. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 C-3 • • • I • I • • • • • • II • Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 C-4 I I II I • I • I I I I II • II • • • .. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 C-5 II II II II II II II II • It It • II II II II Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 C-6 • I It • It • • • • II II Ill Ill .. B-1 -transition between emergent and forested communities. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 C-7 • II II II II II • • • • • Ill B-1 -transitional area between Oakesdale mitigation site and B-1. ;J's :{;~~·it\· •:~ -:,'~l> .~;:,._;, ./-:,-;,!i?· B-1 -transitional area between Oakesdale mitigation site and Wetland B-1, second photo. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 C-8 I I • • • I • • I • • • • • • • Ill Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 C-9 • • • • • • I I I II I II • II II II • B-1-northern edge of wetland -plot 5. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 -:7: w-,,1npon ••• Y/1 D9putn,9'1t of Tn,..,.rtatlon C-10 • II II II II II II .. B-1 -culvert outfall area, overview. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 C-11 I I • • • • • • • • II II II Springbrook Cre . May 2005 ek Mitigation Site W ti -w :.-::.r:r.-:i ·--of TranepcN'tllllan C-12 and D 1· e meation Report .. I I I I I I • • • • II II .. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 ~ Wadlffl9toll .atll .. T/I , , b, .... ,., Tn.-,.rtallon C-13 II • II II • • • • • • • • • • '.tf. C-1 -wetland upland matrix area, facing north . Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 -:;,: W..tlJngton 9t•t• 'lfffl Dapartment of Tninaportallan C-14 I ii • • • • II II • • • .. C-2 -emergent community facing west. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 I I I I ' I • ' ! ' ' ' ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! @ I - C-l/C-3 -ditch facing south from access road. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 ,·. . ·;\'i • r '-/:J '>, ,.., . 'fj 1 ',. ~.";i I I I I I I I • I • I I I I • • Ill >-;; D-1 -forested community in Wetland D-1. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 -:,: Wnhlnth,ft S1ate "lfll hpartm.nt of Tra11apol'tatk111 C-17 I It • • • • • • • • • • • • • II • .. D-1 -ponded area dominated by Polygonum . Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May2005 _;c,, •• 1,0 --··: .. ,-,_. ;·~:::::1_;.C.:;:;·~-,~· - I II II II II • • II .. ~-x..:tir;· ,~.~,1r r~t,1fii£ "' ·,·~ Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 I • I I I I I I I I Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delineation Report May 2005 -=r-W••lltngton State 'ffllT D•partm•nt of Transportalkm C-20 ¥ ~ [ • i ~ I I I I • I I I ~ . ,, . Cl ~ ).. ~ I I I • I ).. "' • l l l l l l WETLAND & BOUNDARY SURVEY SITE A ';;:ff', 'f'" IN Ir COITERLJNfi OF UNO A'I£ ,t, SW 271H ST f... • ;,"~·~ .. , 1 b -v '.JI..:' •6') !I no,: , ,uzc 1 1091.ar i ~ ..... n. , ~ c,.,., . ':1\; ~ IJ..::-c n., r ,WC SOI ':1S'r.J·w <(' CASC AT CENIDIUN£ OF I/ND Arf .t sir._.., 291H S -- -;::::=·""~----_JUNOAVl'SW_ .. ' ,m-;u'.-,T_ _.,. ... ~ ·~~ ---1, -4--- r~,· ~ I! .. , ~ I ~-·1· a• FOOHD "°" "i CtS£ AT P.C. con,,,,.. OF SW 2TTH ST flLE NAMt nME DATE 0£SICN£D f Y EN_1FR£D BY CHf_CK£D BY PROJ. .f_NGR. REGIONAL ADM. I I ~ .!~· J~~si..iE"~-&i/;J$ftt~f:i:.:-~:::~.r~w:~ct7-~-Z,t"-fs-,,Lcy,}d!f.L.~~:._,,_~ /~~~ ...... -,,. I iln( ,,. I AZ« =-,I~ ,li?E ~ F'OUNO IJON IN ~SC AT CDITUlUN< OF UNO A\£ ,t SW .J41H ST lf£t;:' I ITA1£ ,o IWASH ,,.._,, t'DltlrACT M:1 LCCollJQlrl NO. REVISION OAT£ BY />.C STA.WO - IMft' .... P.L£ ST-M»l ..... .; Washington State -====+-r-z I G 25~ il. FUT HUIIT-K)LJARS 302 South 9th Slree!. &ite 101 Taccma, Waamglon 98402 Phone (25.l) 6V-9131 Fu <253) 627-4730 Hn ' " " ..,,. • • .. • • • FOUNO WON"' i Cl.SE" AT POINT OF INTERSECOON OF SW 27TH ST e :: at:.~ f /ff~ -lij I rouN() ""'"" CASl" AT P.R.C. L ~o·--i ow. r.l.•1 ~---------,.------=.c::,t:-...:::.:0~ C<NTERUNC OF s1r 2nH sr FOOND MON IN CASE' AT POINT OF IN1ERSCCT10N OF SW 271H ST J.~i 1 ;if-f -4i6 """" """" CASE AT P.7; t---uo· CENrrRUNC OF, sw 271H sr FIL£ NAME n"i.il DATE ,! ! Q,i I IXSl(jlj'O BY EN"TF:RED R_Y CHECKED SY PROJ. ENGR. MGIONAi.-ADM. t1:i ~~ • N00·49•10•(' 793.Br CCWJll'-'C1 /IO. REVISION DATE BY ..... w UICil.llCW /IO. Washington State .. ~ ""' f'.LS1.--P,LS.. $1.AJll'/IOZ -""' ·o-r.11~ ~:11n+• -r.J.10 "-2 11111• 0... IJ..1111 FOUNO R£BAR • C/tP A T PRCPERTY CCRNER HUITf-zoLJARS 302 8o<J1h 91h street, &.ite 101 · Tacoma, Wulwlgton 98402 Phone (253) 627-9131 Fu (253) e27-4730 """ ' " " ..,,,. ' L l l l Flag: z z. £1-,t P7.'3 .... ftuC> AK:W IN Ii s OP'7S"R" f" t ~AT a.a, """"""" C/F """"""" ... • SW 271H ff 0 § nL£ NAME ! DESJGFIED BY ENTERED BY CHECKED 8'1' PROJ. ENGR. RCGIONAL ADM. I g,7i1"1-,• w ...... R£1/1SION ·---f1-1 17:,,~----.;. f - a-l,17f ~ ,1:r"""°"; £ OAICESDAU AV• SW -==+=-.-z:--==- .--,, "' Tho FEET ~I STA1!' 10 IWASH -- awnw:r HO. ........ OATE: BY FOUND AION W CASE' A.T F'aNT OF IH~DON OI' 0M0DAL£ A'£" 1lul' PL ST-90:t ,'g .. ~ .-..L.S.STNl'8C111' ...... _.~ L•.J26.IU ~00- 1,,,1'07"16" C8-H0174""2-W a.-Ja.80 ..... w Washington State ~,~ ~ .. ;g ~ • ,.., i'l,~ ~t ~~ • FOUND Rf:BAR • CAP d11' E C/F """°'rr j NOl'Of'13"E: 266.92' NOr'.J0'2.,'"C~ C0RH£R .17,77 ROW OIENl'..,\P5 V05TING PLAT SEE PARCEl. 8 NARRIAmf' FOR ADDITIONAL NORMA 110H FOOHD "'1N W CASl AT ~ CEHTDlLJNC OF -f OAJ<£SOALE A l,£'rl~ f HUllT-zOL.IARS 302 Soulh 9th street, Sule 101 Tacoma. WollNlglon 98402 Phone (253) 627-il131 Fox (253) 627-4730 """ • " " -~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • I I I I I I , .. j.i.:,., ·"' I WETLANOf& BOUNDARY SURVEY ,-,----~ .. .. l::, SITE C FOUNO ltlON IN -,-,------0 1 C4Sf'JIT ~ --· ---I ----~'-:f:~ 0: «i o:i TRACT 12 Q:: Cl' u_ 6!-i.: ~ Ii! _,-..;:. "' s FILE NAMt nu~ DATE: DESIGNED BY EivmifoiJy CHECKEDBY PROJ. ENGi?. REGIONAL AOAI. L~rD1.M nag: J Mil-ii.R-6040.00 F1of: J 11'1 Elo..-17,(J7 p.i,.,t'Ol'2.f·~O-"'·"' , cs-soz~:e, Rav: J •-ZI -,.s.20 '£' ,J 1~] I1 fj ,;- :s_\ 1!" ~,~/ l-~.lff ~oo- bo-J'D7'r6· cs-Nat -z•·~-w a•J26'.80 REVISION """"'" .. DA TE: BY S01'Dl'04-W 2~53· '!L!t'._ MATCH LINE PAGE 6 LOC411Q!f Ml .. ~ ...,., I".£ s, ........ ~ l'.L.£ s,"""' M,,r ..i..P;.if~-w 560.22' -'""'" 11ft n.-, • ..... ig Washington Stole -1 ~ j j j i! 1 j j j j J j 'r-- .-- / ..:,,, FOOND MON W CASE" AT C£HTCRUHE OF OM!SOAI.£ A\IE ~ Sit' .l47H ST ~ Z:--===- ~ ~ 1oonn HUITT-zoLJARS 302 Soulh 9th street, SUie 101 Tacome, Wuhlngton 98402 Phone (253) 6.27-9131 Fu (253) 627-4730 _. ' "' " _,,. • • • • • • • • • . 1 L a. J Ill I. J L .. ii a: ,,; ...... ""--~ ,i.,, JNB if ... ,.,. <ti TRACT 'F:' ('1 ~~ <J ~ "< ~ l;1 lil C)~ __, l;1 i;J @ LOT JJ F1L£ NAM£ TIM£ DA'fE DESIGNED BY ENTERED BY CHECl(_ED BY PROJ. £NCR. REGIONAL ADM. _-. .-,·,<· _._. _:'-. ;> ~r:~<-4Mlw.J ...... 32.0J '11o9, .. H6 ll'f a.."-~ R£'VISl0N I I I ,, :;-:· i/#1,~~i~~" .,~ f:--.')' 0..: 19.lt -- ctJl/f11IM:f llll(l u:x:•JIQlf' NO. DA'fE SY WETLAND & BOUNDARY SURVEY SITE C •Flo,; f"I..Of IS LI n-z.2.14 MA TC__H LINE PAGE 7 ~ w Washington State .. ~ .. ~ l'L S1NIJI> flOK ... .t.~Sf-llO"I( / ; ~ ""~ =~ "°F .JC lrl4 -mn • ~ .JClt'J.J .-30.ll Ro,: .JC Im' ~ J c wro o-..-, . .JIii D.r 11.07 -+.: + • l'Jt>F J C -,r f"1F.JCll'POE!,oor11,0I ";r ~I.OIJ •• n.,: Jc• ~2r . .D .n.,_, .JC "'7 0.. nM no,,: .JC Ill' 0..: ... 21."'5 Ref, ... .JC 11'11 D•~ /11.00 ~ e;:::-n.'!or "' '"'"' HUITT-ZOUARS 302 South 9th street, ruto 10I Tacoma. Wul'rGton 98402 Phone (253) 627-9131 Fax (253) 627-4730 ""' ~ " ...,, • • FILE NAM£ TIME DA1£' DESIGNED BY ENTERED BY CHEQS?D BY PROJ. £!_,lr;R, LOT 33 ---(tlls~Jo."'-•. a-Cite. ~ REGIONAL AOM. ) REVISION WETLAND & BOUNDARY SURVEY SIT[ C NO:J'!}_a'OI~ 1015.60' -' +°""' 24.0ill BNSF RR RIGHT OF WAY -=====+:.--r..:.z OAT< BY b 2; ' -1 $TA1r ~ 10 !WASH ,,. ...... ccw,,ucr /fQ. ;!.,m to::AD(W Ml '"' l'.L sr-BOX P.L.S sr,ua,, IIOX. Fl<>9-• I .f'<"'~ ""' ·~' ...{'""' a •. ,, !1c,p: f ~ ' ru-~ +0-2.ua ~ ., Washington State ,,., ' .. &.< :t1.U 1,, Hll'I EJ-. :t1.:t0 -· ,,.,. U.44 -+- HUITT-zoLJARS 302 South 9th -&ii• 101 Tacoma, Wuoogton 98402 Phone (253) 627-9131 Fu (253) 627-4730 """ ' " M ...,,., • • • • • • • • • • • I, l l l l l l l '--- 1-. i3 ii:: ,:: a c.j CCI l,.J :?; ...J n i.:: ~ FILE NAME nMt: ~ D£SIGN£D-1JY ENTERED BY CHECKED BY PROJ. ENGR. REGIONAL ADM. """ ,~ 0-21,1/J REVISION flDJS: 15 o.~ r11.10 """ :,s • .__ Dto"' zo.~ a 't:~:-":'"c.,.~ n,.: ZO.S7 c!3: ~ri;~~i!~.;-~c· ~-... - 1-. ~ ...J ~ I • a CCI ""C ~ --.I ::c: ~ ~ ~j 51A1!" 10 IWASH -- CCWIRAC1 HO. lo.:<IJICW NtJ. DATE: BY ;. WETLAND & BOUNDARY SURVEY SIT[ D FOUND REBAR Ill: CAP a. ,a· w a a.~· s « PROP<RTY CORNER z ;; u,o"" ,,L ffAW' IIOX .... FJoF I IX S ""',,_,. -"""' P 1..111 S °'""' ;n.'6 l"J.S S1-IIO!l .u.,. ..~ S8751~"r. ,..,. .... w Washington State FOOHO ltlOH IN ~Sf" AT CCHTtRUHE Or SW ,QRD ST .t:-OMESDAI..£ A>£ . ~I• l~ ~ ;11 5'1.2'- I '""'"''"" NOT FWND. CALCV<A>ll) N< CORNER OF AO.WS DLC HnD AS CDITlJ!UN£ OF sw +JRO sr Ii ,e I i a .. ~_!I-.:!_ 4t..o·-,,, -1 -..... F00ND NCH IN CASC j AT tNmr.;ccTION OF SW 4Yl0 ST a 11€:ST """'HWY. HUITT-zouARS 302 Soulh 9th street. Slj\e 10I Tacoma. Wuhrlgton 98402 Phone (253) 627~ Fu (253) 627-4730 HCT • ~ " ... .. C J FIL£ NA.l!_E nAIE: DATf: OCSJGNE:O BY ENTE:RED BY CHEci<fneY PRO.J. ENGR. REGIONAL ADU. LEGEND m NA1URAL CAS VAL VE Iii STORM DRAIN CA.TCK BASIN C STORM ORAIN ClfANOUT @ STORM DRAIN t,IANHOLE -STORM ()R.l,jN OU'l'F.'U. PIPE GUARO POST (m SUPPORT POST ¢-FIRE K'l'DRANT S WATUI: METER H WA.Tm VN.vt 4" WA'Tm w.RKER POST ·" SPOT ELEV. ... ... ~~~l.t..~-,-. ~~":::::.."::._ ' I '-/ ' '-/ '-'-\ ·" ::i ~-i, -_,,_ 1 I \ .,.__-.. I \ ---1 ... I t I -·· ··- / / ,/ / ' TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SITE D sor,m RIM-2s..a1 I( 12" "85 W• 21,91 IE 12" ABS S= 21.91 " -=""- SDMH J:111.t• 26.S.2 1£ 12• ABS Nw-23.12 ~ IE a• DIP E• 22.92 \ ~ ---~ ~ -D1Rtll'Q4a I I ~ I I I /' . -~ ---' -=-·---"''""" ,,.----, ~_.L -.. . .r.:9~ I -·· .• "--------::::: ~ --+-_,...i,_ .---..,. • I ----------~~.,,..,,_-~ ----...=~---<.,t -::;-' ·" U >-' "-: "-I .---. --_,,_ -~ ,, \ \ • !f""',/ 1 ~ ,.,._ I ~!; I ,-.Nd ri ~"' N>, •• ••• l~!i -\ ~ < ~--u=. _ r ' -v.r--.... , ''1 ~ '-'-"'.:::,--==,--.,.. '--\ \ 1,~0t,-.Aj , -, -~,=.. -,,_1 -,...---1'=-,,_ I I 1ce' 1 lfr-, i 1'-~-, r , , ~ , ;r-;)i\ '--/,1!;<~~, • ·--· , I ~" Q<;-~,.>'. I'; I _., J ! r1 ~ ti!"', 1\r: ::0::-,,\ 'o, "!1l,... ,,, ' ~ I ·" I.--_,,._\\ 'I'---/?\''°""'",·,-J. -~ -~ ... / I {_,,... ""',\ \.'-..,,/,, -,,_I(" ,,, ( 'd:.E:;;, • ~~~,1:: ~-. o•• fiilw~ I / •1Li,....-'~"'-1--"-l-..!11 11 J~~,1i •\ '\,.__ I ·,-, -~-,:;, J • .....:::,; r ~'l!•I" -, I -i -,j •o., ... 1 .,,.. 1 \, /'\ /-_.,, , r ~t-: 1 I ( ,) J'-/ I / \. \ ....._ \ ij I -·" \ '--'~ I / /"'I ' "' f t I "'; .•. I / _. ~ ~ , I ·" ·" J _., ... _., • ... ·" ... . .. ·" ·" 41.0"- I HORIZONTAL DA TUM -•--•-CHAINUNK FENCE NAO 83 / 91 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MO.-.UMEliTS, #1.186 AND #5278 WA NORTl-t STATt PLANE PROJECTION ~ B8 11\'AOC'S REVISION VERTICAL DA TUM Hf.VO 88 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF 1JW,1SPORTATIDN MONUWENT f1JB6 El.EV•52.29 UTILITY NOTE THE UNOOIGROUND UTIUTIES ARE SHOWN HEREON BY FIELD UJ(:ATING SURf~E APPURTENANCES. CONrRACTORS Stw.l. VERIFY INFOl'tW.TION REG,l,R01NG THE LOCATION AHO SIZES OF N...l.. UNO£RGROUNO UTIUTIE5 BEfORE COWMEHCING CONS1RIJCl10N. SURVEYOR'S NOTES FIEU) MAPPING COMPl.£TED DEC£M8ER 200t& -.JAJ«»Rt ~. ALL MONUWENTS INDICATED AS FOUND WERE 'll5ITED DURING THIS TIWE. INSTRUMENT USED GEOOIMETER G-800 TOTAL STATION ,!I: ~IMBlf GPS. THIS SURVEY hlE£TS OR r.xcrms TliE REQUIRDIOfl'S Of WIC 3J.2-1J0--090 ~-pr.tit ID jWASH -- COH1'UC1 NO. LGOIIICW IIO. OATf: IBY ~ ii Washington Stole -..,,,, l>L UAW 1Gr l".L..S. ffN#f> IIOI( l '- -~~ --· j HUITT-I)LJARS 302 Soulh 9th street. Sule 101 T ecorna, Waatwlgton 98402 Phone (253) 627--Fax (2153) 627-4730 """ ' ~ • ..,,. MATCH LINE RIGHT BOUNDARY SURVEY FOUND REB.AR SITE £ AND CAP 0.J2' S cl' o.,r• E OF F'ffOP!RTY CORNER " ... NOl30'.Jr"£ -.~ _,. ;s;i_.. .,"""' ·~. ~ /' .• ;; ii ~b ~a ~~ I ~ MATCH LINE ABOVE LEFT ' ~-·" ~ ;~ ... , ~~ ~~ PARC:n C ·-;.. \J z Fl, I .. 100 FEET I FOUND AION IN rotJN0 IION IN OISE' SOl:JO'.Jt-W CASF AT """~ ; 1127.91' """"""'"' OAKE5DAlE A le ,t SW t ~ 341H ST ' ~\£. SW _J_ --"30',lO' £ OAKESIJAU AVE SW " FOUNO J,JON IN ~SC of.PST ST r---' AT CCNTnl.JNC OF' Pllk.•r' ---i ' •• ~.4t£A\(' ~ ---SDr:uw-. _N01~w ~· .,, FILE NAME HU!lT:2DLIARS nME Tl .JTAJr DATo 10 .-IWASH ..... . . ill 302 South 91h street. Sule 101 DESIGNED BY =-Tacoma, Wuhiiglon 98402 """ ENToREO BY Phone (253) 627.jli31 Fax (253) 627-4730 " a:wnui::r NO. =-~ Washington State " CHECKED BY " PROJ. ENGR. &it .... """ REGIONAL ADM. REVISION OATo BY P.C. SIAMI' Ila)( P.LS. S1/IMP «»t GEOTECHNICAL BASELINE REPORT 1-405 SPRINGBROOK CREEK WETLANDS AND HABITAT MITIGATION BANK PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON OCTOBER 4, 2005 FOR 1-405 PROJECT TEAM -.. HLIRTCRoWSER 'oh No. l 7202-00 Geotechnical Baseline Report 1-405 Springbrook Creek Wetlands and Habitat Mitigation Bank Project Renton, Washington Job No. 17202-00 October 4, 2005 Prepared for: 1-405 Project Team 600 -108th Avenue NE, Suite 405 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Anthony Stirbys, P.E. Prepared by: Hart Crowser, Inc. 1910 Fairview Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 Alison L. Armstrong ! Senior Staff, Geotechnical Engineer !EXPIRES 09-09 . :?C,l'f I Barry S. Chen, Ph.D., P.E. Principal, Geotechnical Engineer .. HMTCRoWSER October 4, 2005 l-405 Project Team 600 -I 08th Avenue NE, Suite 405 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Anthony Stirbys, P.E. We arc pleased to submit our rcpurt lilied "Gcotcchnical Baseline Report, 1-405 Springbrook Creek Wetlands and I labitat \litigation Bank Project, Renton, Washington." Our services \Vere completed in general acl'.ordance \Vith those described in our current WSDOT on-call service i\grecmcnt Nr>. Y-8119, Task No. i\D. Preliminary inforrnation, cnnclusiPns and recommendations \Vere provided to the project team throughout the course of thl' prllject. The information presented in this report is consistent with that given prcviou.,dy, We appreciate the opportunity 10 pnn idc gcotcchnical engineering services on this interesting proji.;ct. We arc avaibhlc 1n meet with the project team to discuss the information presented in this rcpurt. Plca::;e call if you have any questions, or if you require additional information. Respectfully submitted, HART CROWSER;Y"C. g /Y:,/c------- ,~;:\:. CII~N, 1'11.D., P.E. Principal J:\Job,;;\ 1 720.::i00\1-·lr:S Springbrook C rc,•k \ \ .. ,1!.111:1,. ·:, :· I)'-, lf't!N doc 19.'11 .1.11,1,,,,v,· /\1-,·11u,· /.,·./ FJ> '/Ji · '.'; '!, :1 Tei '111, :.,.·;'!',ill !\JI( /1()1,1/7( ne11w·r /.UIIIJ /.l,'.·1< f, l'/,it~d,:lphr.i !',,r!/,·,nd CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Site C Site D Site E PREVIOUS WORK BY OTHERS SCOPE OF WORK SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Site C Site D Site E GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Hydraulic Conductivities Estimated Infiltration Rates Other Sources of Seepage Loss Permanent Side Slopes Subsurface Utilities -Site D USE OF THIS REPORT REFERENCES Hart Crowser 17202-00 October 4, 2005 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 10 12 13 1 5 18 18 Page i CONTENTS (Continued) TABLES 1 a lb 1 C 2 3 4 Groundwater Level Observations Surnrner :ioos ·· Site C Groundwater Level Observations S,1111111,'r :'005 -Site D Groundwater Level Observations S,nnnHar :1005 -Siter· Croundwater Level Observations Wint<'I 1'!9S (D&M 199S)-Sites C and E Fstimated Hydraulic ConductivitiPs In-Situ Infiltration and l'ermeabilitv Test Results (D&M 1995) 5 Upper Bound, Average, and Lower 13ound Hydraulic Conductivities Used In Infiltration Analysis 6 7 8 Results of Infiltration Rate Analysis -Site C Results of Infiltration Rate Analysis -Sit" , Minimum Water Retention fstim"1t(•s FIGURES Vicinity Map 2 Aerial Photograph Showing Sit,· locc1liuns 3 Site and Exploration Plan -Sill' "C' 4 Site and Exploration Plan -Sile "D" 5 Site and Exploration Plan -Sile 'T' 6a Generalized Subsurface Cross Se, tions A-A' and B·B' -Site "C" 6b Generalized Subsurface Cross Section C-C' -Sile "C" 7 Generalized Subsurface Cross Sections D-D' and E-E' -Site "E" 7b Generalized Subsurface Cross Sl'ction r-F' -Site "E" 8 Generalized Subsurface Cross Section. Slope Stability Analysis -Site "E" 5 5 :, 6 8 9 9 11 11 12 Hart Crowser Page ii 17202-00 October 4, 2005 CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM BY WSDOT FIGURES A-1 Boring Log SBC-1-05 A-2 Boring Log SBC-2-05 A-3 Boring Log SBC-3-05 A-4 Boring Log SBC-4-05 A-5 Boring Log SBC-5-05 A-6 Boring Log SBD-1-05 A-7 Boring Log SBD-2-05 ;\-8 Boring Log SBD-3-05 A-CJ Boring Log SBl:-1-05 A-10 Boring Log SBE-2-05 A-11 Boring Log SBE-:J-05 A-12 Boring Log SBE-4-05 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM BY HART CROWSER Soil Classification Water Content Determinations Hydraulic Conductivity Testing APPENDIX C FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM BY OTHERS B-1 13-1 B-1 B-1 Hart Crowser 17202-00 October 4, 2005 Page iii GEOTECHNICAL BASELINE REPORT 1-405 SPRINGBROOK CREEK WETLANDS AND HABITAT MITIGATION BANK PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION This report describes tlil' gc'otPc:hnical characterization based on existing information and soil borings ,rncl installation of monitoring wells completed by the Washington State' 1J,,p,1rl1nPnt of Transportation (WSDOT) at the proposed 1-405 Springbrook Creek WPll,rnds and Habitat Mitigation Bank Sites C, 0, and E, located in Renton, Washinglon. A Vicinity Map is presented on Figure I. The Scope of Work comµIPlnl was based on our proposal dated June 3, 2005, and was acco111plished in accordance with the ter111s and conditions of our current WSDOT on-call service .1grPPn1< •nt (Y-8119). PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Site C Hart Crowser Our understanding of 1lw project is based on the scope of work rrepared by WSDOT 1-405 l'rojecl f,,,1111 Office {project tea111) dated May 12, 2005, and our 111eeting and subsequcnl rn,respondcnce with the project team including site, plans. The purpose of our gcoteclrnic.11 investigation was to assess the soil and groundwater characteristics of three of the five sites that make up the 1-405 Springbrook Creek Wetlands .rnd Habitat Mitigation Bank Project. The proposed wetland sites are loc.11ed in south Renton, less than 1/2 111ile east of the Green River (Figure I). Figure 2 is an aerial photograph showing the locations of Sites C, n, and r rel.1tive to each other and other prominent features in the vicinity. Approximately ·r Oto 11 c1crcs 01 the 48-acre site will be excavated G to 'J feet to create a wetland. The site 11 ork will include the rerouting of the existing ditch that enters the site fron, the• south. Up to an additional 4.5 cfs of water will be conveyed through the ditch from Site D. In the current study, five borings ranging in depth from :' I to 21., feet were advanced by WSDOT between June 30 and July 13, 2005. Thre,, ot the five borings had groundwater monitoring wells installed. 17202MOO October 4, 2005 f'age ·1 Site D Site E Site D is located south ot Site• C The discharge from the storrnwater wetpond in the southeast corner of Sitt· D will be conveyed to the northern portion oi Sile D, either through a pipe or thruugh a combination oi pipe and ditch. We understand that the pipe \Viii be no larger than 18-inch diameter, ductile, and will be shallow, only a few feet ol cover and located in the existing roadbed directly east of the wetpond and will ,,xtend approximately 200 feet into an existing wetland where it outle>ts. In the current study, three borings ranging in depth from 15.5 to 21.5 feet we•t<• Mlvanced by WSDOT between June 28 and luly 14, 200.S. No groundwater rncrnitoring wells were installed. The site is approximately l .l.i\ c1ues and is adjacent to Springbrook Creek. The site will be excavated c1ppro,irnately ·11 to 12 feet. The site will be used for wetland creation and prmrde flood storage for Springbrook Creek during high flows. Current site pl,rns show rnultiple openings in the berm to provide communication betwpen Sprii,gbrook Creek and the proposed wetland area to convey water between tlw 1vL'Llc1nd and the creek. In the current study, four borings ranging in depth frorn :'6 to 26.5 were advanced by wsnoT between June 28 and July 12, 2()05. ,'lo groundwater monitoring wells were installed. PREVIOUS WORK BY OTHERS Five test pits were excavated c111d three in situ infiltration tests were performed at both Sit(as C and E as part of c1 previous study conducted by Darnes & Moore (D&M) in 1995. Three piernrncters were installed as groundwater monitoring wells (two at Site C and orrc• c1t Site E). SCOPE OF WORK Hart Crowser The geotechnical work cornple:ed by Hart Crowser included reviewing existing project information and gr•ole•cfo1ical data, visiting the site prior to and during wsnoT drilling activitiPs, 1·p1 iewing soil samples, preparing a laboratory testing program and selecting soil samples for testing to be conducted by WSDOT, measuring water levels in grrnmdwater observation wells installed at Site C on two occasions, performing gr·otechnical engineering analyses and developing recommendations, and pr,,p,iring draft and final p,eotechnical reports summarizing our findings. 17202-00 October 4. 2005 Page 2 Our evaluation of iniiltr.1tion ;111c/ water retention is based on grain size data, laboratory permeabilit,· 1,•sls ,mcl previous infiltration permeability test data, and historical data of precipitat1<ll1 and evaporation. Seepage loss through wetland plants was not consiclerc•cl in our analysis. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Site C Hart Crowser The general subsurface proiil<'s tor each site, devdopecl from our review of soil samples, laboratory tests, arHI boring logs, are surnrnarized below. WSDOT boring logs and laboratmv rvs11l1s are presented in Appendix A. Our laboratory test methods and results arc 1m:sented in Appendix B. Appendix C contains boring logs and laboratorv results by others. Boring locations shown on the Site Plans (l'igures 3 through SI were provided by WSDOT. Borehole elevations were interpreted from the site plans. Subsurface conditions .1t Sites C:, D, and f-can be summarized by the following sections. Sandy Gravel and Sand to Silly Sand (Fill). Medium dense to dense, sandy Gravel and loose, poorlv graded Sand to silty Sand (Fill soils) extend from the ground surface to a dcpth or about 5 feet over much of the site. lnterbedded Silt and Sand. l11tcrbedded layers of soft to stiff Silt, sandy Silt, and loose to medium dense, silty S,111d, and Sand (alluvial deposits) were encountered in the borings berreath the surficial Sand and Gravel. The interbedcled layers arP .1buut I I feet thick and extend to about elevation 10 feet (within the southern pnr1iu11 ol the site) to 13 feet (at the northern half of the site). Poorly graded Sand. Vc•ry loose to medium dense, dark gray to black., poorly graded Sand stratified" ith silty Sand was encountered beneath tl,e interbedded Silt and Sand, extending lo tlw bottom of the borings. Silt. A 5-foot-thick layer ol verv soft, non-plastic, slightly sanely to sandy Silt was encountered in boring SBC-:i al a depth of about '14 feet. Figures 6a and 6b illustr,1te the generalized subsurface cross sections for the proposed wetland at Site C 17202-00 October 4, 2005 Page 3 Site D Site E Hart Crowser Silty Sand and Gravel (Fill). l)ense, silty Sand with gravel and well-graded Gravel with Sand werP enc uunLered at the ground surface in horings SRD-1 and SBD-2, drilled on an exist111g roadway. This layer was not encountered in SBD-3. located in the existing 11 ellanrl in the northern portion of Site D. lnlerbedded Silt and Sand. 1·xplorations encountered interhedded layers of soft to stiff Silt, sandy Silt, and 1wv loose to medium dense, silty Sand and Sand (alluvial deposits) ext,,ncling Lo Lhc bottom of the explorations. Organic Material. ;\ :1-iool-lhick layer of organic: soil was noted in boring SGD-3 at a depth of 18 feet. Tr,,ces nl organic material were noted in several samples from borings SBD-2 ,rncl Slll)-Oi. Sand and Silty to Gravelly Sand (FILL). Fill soils consisting of very loose to medium dense Sand and silly lo gravelly Sand were encountered from the ground surface lo a depth ot cibout 2.5 to 5 feet over the entire site. lnterbedded Sand and Sill with Peat. lnterbedded layers of very soft lo stiff Silt, sandy Silt and Peat, anrl loose lo dense Sand to very silty Sand (alluvial deposits) underlie the fill soils to ,, depth of about 12 feet. The Silt and f'eat deposits within this interbeddcd 1.iver .ippear to he dominant within the northeastern portion of the site, while the Sa:1d to very silty Sand are more common in the southwestern portion of Site r. Poorly Graded Sand. Very loose to medium dense, dark gray to hlack, poorly graded Sand stratified with s,rndy Silt was encountered heneath the interbedded Sand and Silt with Pc,at at ,l depth of about 1 2 feet extending to the bottom of the borings. Silt. Near boring SBl --1, nwdi1H:1 stiff to stiff, dark gray, stratified, very sandy Silt was encountered be1watl1 tlw poorly graded Sand from a depth of about 20 feet to the bottom of the Pxplo,·cition. Figures 7a and 7b illustr,ik till' generalized subsurface cross sections ior the proposed wetland at Sit<o L. 17202-00 October 4, 2005 Page 4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Hart Crowser Tables I a, 1 b, and 1 c st11rnnc1ri,c' the groundwater levels observed at the tirne of drilling and two additionc1I 1·c,Hli11gs measured following the installation of groundwater monitori11g IVl'II,_ Table 2 summari7es water levels as noted by D&M in 1995_ Some of tile 1101,,d water levels may be perched water lenses on the less permeable Silt c1ncl siilv Sand layers_ Table 1a -Groundwater Level Observations Summer 2005-Site C -~ --·------- Boring 6/30-7113105 (ATD) 7127/05 8/15/05 SBC-1 5 2 (13.3) 7(11.8) 6 7 ----,-·-· 3 (112) Groundwater Depth (Elevation) in Feet SBC-2 SBC-3 SBC-4 SBC-5 8.6 (13 2) 6.2 (16.8) 7.6 (15.1) I 14.0 (6 0) --- ----10.3 (12.4) 7.4(126) , -- 89(~ ----10.7 (12.0) ---- Notes: ATD = At Time of I )rillir1g l)t>plh of groun(hvc1.ter is in feet l)('low existing ground surf,Ke {approximc1le elevation b.1<.,f'd 011 'c-i!1_' pl,1n topogr<1phy (NAVD 88)). 1'\Jo monitoring wPlls \Vf'rf_' installf'd in botings SBC-:-2 ,Hld SBC-'.) Table 1 b -Groundwater Level Observations Summer 2005 -Site D Groundwater Depth (Elevation) in Feet Boring SBD-1 --1 f--6/-2-8--7-/1-41_0_5-(A_T_D_)-+---7_0 (19.0) I -~----~=f-~-----SBD-2 SBD-3 7.5(16.7) 3.6(17.1) Notes: ATD = At Time of Drrllrng. l)ppth of groundvvater is in feet below existing ground surface (dµproximale elevation b,1::i'd on <;Jtf' plan topography (NAVO 88)). Table 1 c -Groundwater Level Observations Summer 2005 -Site E Groundwater Depth (Elevation) in Feet Boring 6 :~~~ 1 0_) -~_-_5_:_~--~~~2 ~:~~~ 3 8) 6/28-7114/05 (ATD) r\otes: ATD = Al Time of Ur1;li11g i)i:->pth of groundwater is in fcC't belovv existing ground surface (approximate elevdlion b,1,;(·d 011 \it<.' plan toµogrdphy (NAVD 88)). Page .S 17202-00 October 4, 2005 Table 2 -Groundwater Level Observations Winter 1995 (D&M 1995)- Sites C and E Test Pit 2/1-2/7/95 (A TE) Site 1 TP-1- 5 0 ( - 16 0) Groundwater Depth (Elevation) in Feet T ------------ TP-3-Site 1 TP-5-Site 1 TP-4-Site 2 5_8 (17.2) 2.0 (18.2) 8.0 (12.0) - ----------4------' 5 5 ( 15 5) : --2.5 (17 7) --2/2-2/3/95 2/7-2/8/95 4 5 ( 165) _L --3.8 (164) 8_1 (119) --------- Notes: ATE= At Time of Excavation Depth of groundwater is in feet below existing ground surface (approximate elevation based on site plan topography (NAVD 88)). Sites 1 and 2 are designated Sites C and E. respectively, for the current study. It should be noted that ~.ruundwater levels were measured ;it the times and under conditions stated on the boring and test pit logs. Fluctuations in the groundwater conditions mav occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, season, and other fattors. GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The effect of the subsc11Lio· profile on infiltration and retention of water at Sites C and E is discussed helo\\ along with additional recornrnendations regarding slope/bank stability, scour pmkction of the berm between the site and Springbrook Creek, anrl select inn of Low Permeability Soil (LI'S) to minimize infiltration. Pipe bedding aml side slope recommendations are discussed for Site D. Hydraulic Conductivities We used three empiric1l 111l'tll()ds to estimate hydraulic conductivities for tl1e soils at Sites C: and l. These• mPthods relate hydraulic conductivity to the grain size distribution of soil sc1111plE's. In addition, Hart Crowser conducted laboratory tests on two of the relc1ti,,dv undisturbed samples obtained during drilling. Values of hydraulic co11ductivity are summarized in Table 3 in units of centimeters per seco11d [cm/sec) for individual samples. The first method is prcsc,nte,d in the design manual developed for WSLJOT (Technical Report No. Wi\-1-U) ">78.2 (Massman 2003)). The method considers the following soil parameters: • Drn (grain size that 1 il percent of soil grains are finer); • D,,0 (grain size th,1t bO percent of soil grains are finer); Hart Crowser Page 6 17202-00 October 4, 2005 Hart Crowser • D,10 (grain size that 'JO percent of soil grains arc finer); and • Fraction of fines (trac:tion of soil grains finer than 0.08 111111). The second method, relf'rred to as the Hazen Equation (Hazen 1911 ), relates hydraulic conductivity to the dfectivc grain size, 0 10 • Tlw third method we usprf to ,·strmate hydraulic conductivity considers the fraction of sand-sized p&tich, silt-and clay-sized particles, and clay-sized particles, along with the c·sti111;itc,d porosity of the soil (Rawls et al. l 'J85). Massman (2003) warns thc1t tlH, values given by the equations presented in his manual may have large f'rro:-s for soils having a large percentage of fines, such as the soils at the 1-405 Sp:inghrook Creek Wetlands and Habitat Mitigation Bank project sitf'. The Massman nH•tliod estimated hydraulic conductivities generally 1 or more orders of 111agniturle higher than those determined hy the Hazen Equation, Rawls et al rnethod, Hart Crowser laboratory tests, and D&M's in situ tests. The Hazen Eq,uticrn ,llld the Rawls et al. method provided consistent results, and, as such, th,-Mdss111an method was not used in our iniiltration analyses. Table 3 st1t11111,ll'i/C'S ,,tlues of hydraulic conductivity determined by the different methods used in our analysis. 17202-00 October 4, 2005 Page 7 Table 3 -Estimated Hydraulic Conductivities ' ~ ---- Exploration Sample Number Number -1---- SBC-1-05 D-4 - SBC-2-05 D-5 SBC-2-05 S-3 ~ , SBC-3-05 D-7 - ' SBC-4-05 I D-5 SBC-5-05 D-2 , SBC-5-05 D-7 , SBC-5-05 D-8 , SBD-3-05 D-2 ~ ~ SBE-1-05 D-1 ~ ~- SBE-1-05 D-5 ~~ SBE-1-05 D-8 -- SBE-2-05 S-3 SBE-2-05 D-6 . I----- SBE-3-05 D-4 ~- SBE-4-05 D-3 SBE-4-05 D-8 SBE-4-05 D-9 Sample ! Depth in Feet --- 8 9 4 15 10 2.5 16 17.5 ----+-- 0 11 19 ---- ------- Elevation Sa (NAVD 88) mple D escription ----- 10.5 Silty S 12.8 Silty S 17.8 Silty s 8.0 Silty S 12.7 S,lty S ----- 17.5 ~andy -----f------ 4.0 Saridy 2.5 ~andy 17.7 ~iltyS 19.6 Silty S 8.6 Silty S 0.6 Silty S AND/S AND AND AND AND SILT SILT SILT ANO.IS AND AND ANLl ar-dy SILT -- andy SILT -----~ 6.5 12.3 14 48 9 10 2 5 17.2 18 4.2 20 2.2 SILT SAND - Sandy iS1lty S Silty S Sandy - ,rt --------- andy SILT w:th S SILT AND AND/S SILT/ Siity SAND ~------- Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity in cm/sec ~--- Rawls & Hart Crowser Hazen, 1911 Brakensiek, Laboratory 1985 Tests ~ ----- 2 65E-06 7.14E-05 1.66E-04 1.42E-04 ----------- I 2.1 OE-07 2.12E-03 -------- 4.06E-04 3.88E-03 ------ 6.48E-07 5 09E-05 ------I -- 1.47E-06 ! 6.31 E-06 -~- 5.43E-05 --- 2.50E-05 1.78E-03 6.79E-04 4 16E-05 1.25E-04 1.10E-07 B 82E-03 1.38E-01 - 1 BOE-06 1.14E-05 ------ 3 19E-05 1.23E-03 ----- 1.32E-04 ----I 1.63E-05 -- • Sieve analysis only (no hydrometer) Hart Crowser Hart Crowser conducted twu lc1boratory hydraulic conductivity tests on relatively undisturbed soil samples oht,1i11ed by WSDOT I aboratory results indicate significantly lower hydr,1ulic conductivity than empirical equations. The results are also lower than those cleterrnined from in situ infiltration tests conducted by D&M (1995). It is not unu,rnrnon that values of hydraulic conductivity determined from laboratory tests are lower than those observed in the field. One factor that may contribute to this discrepancy may be the effect of silt/clay lenses in the relativelv srnall s,1r11ple. Results of the previous 111 situ infiltration tests (LJ&M 1995) ar,, surrnnariLed in Table 4. 17202-00 October 4, 2005 Page 8 Hart Crowser Table 4-/n Situ Infiltration and Permeability Test Results (D&M 1995) ~ation I Test-~~~e ------------ Sample Depth Soil Type Hydraulic Conductivity : TP-1-Site 1 ~iltration 1 TP-3-Site 1 Infiltration in Feet in cm/sec -----· 100 Silt 80x10 5 ----· 11.6 Silty Sand 7.5 X 10·4 ' . - I TP-4-Site 1 Perrneabilit y - 3.0 Silt 2.9 X 10·5 ----· TP-5-Site 1 Infiltration TP-1-Site 2 Infiltration -- TP-2-Site 2 Infiltration I 11.6 Silty Sand 1.2 X 10'4 5.5 Silt 5.5 X 10-6 .,, ____ ------ 85 Silt 2.2 X 10'5 .. , ______ ' TP-2-Site 2 Infiltration 8.5 Silt 6.5 X 10'4 -----· Note: Sites 1 and 2 are designated Sites C and E, respectively, for the current study. 8ased on the values pr·esented i11 Table 3, lower bound, average, and upper bound estimates of hvdraulic cu11ductivity were chosen ior each of the soil units at Site,s C and E. Our .1p1Ho,1cl1 provides a r.111ge of hydraulic conductivities (and infiltration rates) that""' likt·ly representative, of soil conditions at the site. Representative hydraulic c0t1cluctivities chosen for our infiltration analysis are summarized in Table S Table 5 -Upper Bound, Average, and Lower Bound Values of Hydraulic Conductivity Used in Infiltration Analysis Hydraulic ~ondu~~~vity in cm/se C Soil Unit at Bottom of - -- ---- - Upper Bound Average Lo wer Bound Pond Very sandy Silt to ve ry Site C silty San_cl.,_ ~- Poorly waded San d Site E Silt to sandy Silt I --t Sand to silty Sand I ----- 7.1x10·5 3.7x 10·5 ..... 3.9 X 10'3 9.7 X 10·4 -----· 1.1 X 10·5 6.6 X 10·5 1.4x10 1 3.7 X 10'2 i -··~--. 3. 2. 1 .8 X 10 6 4 X ,0·3 4. The upper and lower boullll v,1lues of hyrlraulic conductivities presented in Table 5 are averaged v.iluc•s ol soils selected based on the bottom of pond elevation anrl grounclwc11,,, dl'pth and are not the absolute maximum and minimum values proviclr•d i11 I ,1l,le 3. In general, the average values of hydraulic conductivity for each soil u111l c1t Sites C and E are similar to those presented in the 1995 lJ&M study. 17202-00 October 4, 200S Page 9 Estimated Infiltration Rates Hart Crowser One-dimensional infil1rc1tion analyses were conducted to estimate the potential loss of water from the bottom ni the proposed wetlands. We utilized the current wetland plan Lwout ,111d discussions with the project team to evaluate infiltration for a rangP nt sulJSurface and pond conditions. The method used to evaltutc inliltration is that presented in Massman (2003) design manual developed ior tlif' WSDOT, which is also the current method used by the Washington Stal\' Department of Fcology (Ecology 2005). The method considers the folio\\ i11g variables: • Hydraulic conduc:tivitic·s ,rnd thicknesses of soil layers above tl1c groundwater table•: • Depth of standing wat<"r in the pond; • Size of the wetland; ,111d • Shape oi the wctl:rnd. Because the soil stratd , ;iry hoth horizontally and vertically, it is likely that the proposed excavation 11 ill c•xposc both sand and silt, thus varying widely in the infiltration rate throughout illl· wetland areas. Based on limited water level observations, during drv sc•,iso11s, conditions may include relatively low watn levels beneath the prop,N•d gmuncl surface. During wet seasons, groundwater may be at or above the pro1JoS<•d ground surfaces and infiltration will not occur. Our analysis assumed grou11dw.1ter levels similar to current dry season conditions (Tables 1 a, I b, I,. c111d 2). Using the lower hou11d and upper bound estimates of hydraulic comluc:ivity that were calculated for each of the soil units (Table 5) at and bel011 tlic proposed bottom oi pond elevations (refer to Figures 6a, 6b, 7a, and 7b), w,· ,111alvzed infiltration for a range of soil and pond conditions as sur11mdri?L 1 d below: • Silt with little to 110 sand is exposed at the proposed bottom of pond elevation (Silt, lower l1ot111d hydraulic conductivity) and the depth of water in the pond is 0.1 foot idrv ground surface); • Silt with sand is e,pos,·d ,it the proposed bottom of pond elevation (Silt, upper bound hydraulic collrluctivity) and the depth of water in the pond is l feet (high conditions); • Fine Sand or Sand ,,ith silt ,s exposed at the proposed bottom of pond elevation (Sand, low,•r huu11d hydraulic conductivity) and the depth of water in the pond is 0.1 foot ]dry ground surface); and 17202-00 October 4. 2005 Page 10 Hart Crowser • Sand or Sand wilh lilllc· Lu'"' silt is exposed at the proposed bottom of pond elevation (Sand, upper bound hydraulic conductivity) and the depth of water in the pond is 3 tc·c·l (l1igl1 uinditions). The effect of placernc·11l ol " low permeability soil liner was analyzed for each of the cases outlined above•. A soil liner with a hydraulic conductivity of 10 1 ' cm/sec was considered i11 "'" ,111alysis. The results of our analyses drc shown in Tables 6 and 7. As illustrated, placement of a soil liner is cxµc·cted to significantly reduce infiltration rates. Tables 6 and 7 also show th,, vdriation of calculated infiltration rates for placement of soil liners ,, itl, iJ dnd 12 inches in thickness. Table 6 -Results of Infiltration Rate Analysis -Site C Infiltration Rate in Inches/day ------------------·------------ Soil Conditions at Bottom of Pond Without With 6-lnch-Thick With 12-lnch-Thick Lower Bound k Silt Average_k --------~ Sand Upper Bound k Lower Bound k Average k Upper Bo_und k - Soil Liner 1.5x10·2 1.8 X 10-2 5.2 X 10-2 8.1 X 10 2 ---- 4.3 X 10-' 1.6 -- Note: k is hydraulic condudi\ ih· 11! crn/sec. Soil Liner (k=10-6 ) 3.8 X 10-3 - 4.0 X 10-3 -- 6.3 X 10·3 4 6 X 10 3 -~-- 7.2 X 10-3 7.3 X 10 3 ---------- Table 7 -Results of Infiltration Rate Analysis -Site E Soil Liner (k=10-6 ) 2.2 X 10·3 2.3 X 10-3 3.8 X 10-3 2.5 X 10-3 ----- 3.9x 10' 3.9 X 10-3 ------- T Soil Conditions at Bott~lll r Infiltration Rate in Inches/day of Pond : Without __ J With 6-lnch-Thick With 12-lnch-Thick Soil Liner Soil Liner_(k=10 6 ) Soil Liner (k=10-6 ) ---------------------- Lower Bound k 7.5 X 10-4 4.2 X 10-4 3.0 X 10·4 - Silt Average k 2.4 X 10-J 6.5 X 10-4 3.9 X 10-4 ------------- t Upper Bound k Lower Bound k Sand Alierage k Upper Boun_d k -- 9.4x 10·3 1.8x10 3 9.7 X 104 ----·-- 45x10·' 8.3 X 10·' 4.4 X 10·4 --------·-- 7.3 2.0x10 3 9.5 X 104 -- 2.4 X 10+1 l 2.0 X 10·3 9.5 X 10·4 ---·------------------ /\'ote: k is hydrc1ulrc: c:ondt1c t11,·11\ ;r: c1n/src:. Page 11 17202-00 October 4, 2005 Water Retention Water retention valuL's c1rc· C'Stirnates of the minimum time water will be retained, assuming a co11slc111t w.,ter depth in the pond (i.e., no precipitation or other factors raising the depth oi the pond) during dry seasons. We calculated the minimum water 1l'lc11tio11 b.1sed on sandy soil exposed at bottom of pond, as shown in Table 8. l11crcase in fines content significantly increases water retention. For silty soils c;xpused at the bottom of pond or with the use of an amended soil liner, tlw ,111,ilysis indicates that water would be retained throughout the entire rlrv sc•.iso11 ( over 4 months). Our analysis did not consider evaporation1 evapotran..,pir~1tion, or othPr sources of vvater loss. Table 8 -Minimum Water Retention Estimates ~--- Water Depth ~· Minimum Retention in Days ----j in Feet 0.5 __ S_ite C ---+1---S_i_te_E 4 I 0.5 ~ 1 . ------- 2 3 =±~~;5 7 15 22 Other Sources of Seepage Loss Hart Crowser We understand that C<H111m111ic.ition between the creek and wetlands at Sile E will be maintained through sc·vc;ral cuts in the proposed berm. As such, minimal seepage loss through the lwnn is anticipated since differential head is not expected. Climate records i11dicatecl tl,.it "" average of 24 inches of evaporation each year could be expected in the ,icir1itv of the wetlands. Commonly, about 80 percent of the yearly evaporatio11 occurs during the dry season. Assuming a 4-to 6- month-long dry season, this c•quates to 0. ·16 lo 0.10 inch of evaporation per day. This amount of wate1· llJss due• to evaporation is additional to the amount of water lost due lo infiltr<1tiun .rnd should be taken into consideration. Loss of water to plant lifr• w,is not considered in this study but should be considered as a ~ourn• of wl'lland water loss. Page 12 17202-00 October 4, 2005 Selection of Low Permeability Soil Liner f'rimary requiremenl lor ,\ low permeability soil liner material is that it be capable of being compacted In produce a suitably low hydraulic conductivity. To meet this requirement, the lollowing conditions should be met: • Minimum fines crn,tcnt ot :.'O percent (fines arc defined at the percentage, on a dry-weight basis, of rnalerial passing the No. 200 sieve, which has openings of 0.07Srnrn). • Minimum plasticily ir1dcx. (I'll of 10 percent. Soils with Pl greater than 30 to 40 percent are difficult lo work with in the field. • Maximum gravel co11LL·11t nf 10 percent (gravel is defined as material retained on the No. 4 sic•ve. which has openings of 4.76 mm). • No stones or rocks hrgL·r than 1 inch. • Minimum thickness of I foot. • Compact at water content wet of optimum (up to 4 percent wet of optimum). • Compact to 95 p,·1n·11t ol lhe maximum dry unit weight determined from the modified Pro ct, 11 c 0111pdction test. I lydraulic conductivitv nf .1 crnnpactPd soil liner typically ranges from 1 xl O'' to lxlO" cm/sec, accorrling to U.S. environmental Protection Agency ([PA) guidelines (faslem R('se,11cl1 Croup ·1991). Natural soil liner usually has hydraulic conductivity on 1hc mder of 1 xl 0 1' cm/sec. The on-site silt and sandy silt appears to have the ch.11 c1cteristics of a low permeability soil liner and may be considered for reuse. Refer to the EPA guidc-li11cs Im ,,dditional recommendations related to compaction equipment, test111g standards, and construction quality cor1trol. Permanent Side Slopes Hart Crowser Permanent slopes cnnsl.ructecl with compacted structural fill should have a side slope of 2 Horizontal 10 1 Vertll:al (211:1 V) or flatter. Permanent slopes constructed in the n,11ive loosP to medium dense Sands and very soft to medium stiff Silt or Peat should l1c1vc· c1 side slope of 3H:1 V or flatter. To reduce susceptibility lo erosion ,lllll i11crease stability, plant and maintain vegetation on the permanent slope surlclccs. Berm/Slope Stability -Site E To address side slope slahrlrty of the berm between Springbrook Creek and the wetland area at Site t, we h,1ve performed a series of slope stability analyses Page 13 17202-00 October 4, 200S Hart Crowser using the computer prograrn SIOPE/W. We utilized the current wetland plan layout and discussions with the project team to evaluate the slope stability of the site under critical co11ditio11s: static, undrained (rapid drawdown), and seismic (pseudo-static) conditiom . .A generalized subsurface cross section is shown 011 Figure 8. For the purposes of rn11 .111alvses, we considered acceptable factors of safety to be 1.25 for static comlitio11s ,111d 1.1 for undrained and seismic conditions (short- term conditions). We .1sst1111ed a high waler elevation within the berm at elevation 13 feet and ,1 lmv· pond water elevation of 8 feet. Results of our analyses, for side slopes nf .'l 11: IV on the wetland side of the berm, are as follows: • For static, drained conditirn1s, the factor of safety for the critical slope surface was 1.8. • For rapid drawdmrn 1, llllllr;iined) conditions, the factor of safety for the critical slope surface was 1. 1. • For the seismic an,1lysis, using one-half of the site-specific peak ground acceleration (PG.A) , c1lt1e of 0.32 g, the factor of safety for the critical slope surface was 1.1. • No liquefaction, rn1ditiu1;, were considered in our stahility analysis based on our discussions with tlw project team that liquefaction is not a design consideration for this prujecl. The saturated site soils helow groundwater table are susceptihfc, tu liquefaction in the event of a major earthquake. Some liquefaction-i11dw ,,cl ground settlements on the order of several inches are likely to occur. Our analysis indicates th;it sll'L'pening of the berm slide slopes to steeper than 3H:1 V reduces the factor ot sdlety below acceptable limits. We understand that current project plans 111c:luck " berm width of 50 feet. The critical failure surface for each case analyzed w,1s shallow and less than about 3 feet thick. No minimum berm width is r,.'quirl'cl from a geotechnical perspective, although a minimum berm widtl, 111,1y Lie required for maintenance purposes. Scour Protection Slope protection fro111 scour should include placement of quarry spall at the toe of the slope. We reco1111nc11d placing a 2-foot-thick layer of quarry spall (4 to 8 inches) over a 1-foot-th,c k lavc·r of crushed rock at least 3 feet in height from the toe of the slope. Crushed rock should be gravel such as the material specified in Section 9-03.9(3) or <J-IJ l I :'il) nf 2004 WSDOT Standard Specifications (M 41- Page 14 17202-00 October 4, 2005 10) (WSDOT Specs). Quarry spall should meet the requirements in accordance with Section 9-13.6 oi WSDOT Specs. Alternatively, a light rip rap (WSDOT Specs Section 9-13.1 (2)) could be used in place of the quarry spall. Use of a geotechnical separation fabric (e.g., Mirafi 600X) between the crushed rock and the slope material could prevent or minimize migration of fines from the soils through the crushed rock. Subsurface Utilities Hart Crowser Subsurface utilities, including pipe support, trench backfill, and structural fill, should follow Section 2.09 -Structural Excavation (Class B) of WSDOT Standard Specifications. Pipe Support Conventional pipe support at the base of trench excavations generally appears to be feasible, contingent on suitable bedding (i.e., in general accordance with Sections 2.09 and 9-03.12(.3 i of the 2004 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction provided by WSDOT). We make the following recommendations regarding the design and installation of underground utilities: • Provide a firm subgrade, which may require the use of quarry spalls and geotextile as recommended below; • Dewatering may be required during excavation of trenches near the groundwater surface; • Cut the base of the excavation to minimize soil disturbance. Note that caving conditions should be anticipated in these soils and the contractor should be prepared to deal with such conditions; • Separate the subgrade and quarry spalls with a woven separation geotextile (such as Mirafi 600x); and • Place a minimum thickness of 12 inches of free-draining spalls topped by the bedding material to stabilize the excavation bottom, if necessary. These recommendations are based on expected conditions and need to be confirmed in the field. 17202-00 October 4. 2005 Page 15 Hart Crowser • Provide a minimum 6-inch thickness of utility trench backfill of bedding below and above the pipe to reduce detrimental load concentrations. This may be thicker ii the type or class of pipe warrants; and • Remove all soft, loose, organic, or otherwise unsuitable material within 2 feet of the invert elevation of the utility pipe and replace with utility trench backfill. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should meet the requirements for structural fill and be placed according to sections 2.03.3(14)0 and 2.09.3(1 )E of WSDOT Standard Specifications. Reuse of On-Site Soils The suitability of excavated site soils for compacted structural fill will depend upon the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (that portion passing the No. 200 sieve) increases, the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Soil containing more than about 5 percent fines cannot be consistently compacted to a dense non- yielding condition when the water content is more than about 2 percent above or below optimum. In general, surficial site soils are silty, making them moderately sensitive to small changes in moisture content and, therefore, may not be suitable for reuse as structural fill. Because of the moisture-sensitivity, we expect most fill used at the site will need to be imported. The on-site silt and sandy silt appears to have the characteristics of a low permeability soil liner and rnay be considered for reuse. We recommend that an extensive sampling and testing program be conducted to determine the quality and quantity of the site soils for the use as low permeability soil liners. Structural Fill We recommend importing high quality, pit-run sand or sand and gravel with a maximum size of 4 inches and a maximum fines content of 5 percent and otherwise conforming to WSDOT specifications. This will allow the broadest use of the material al the site. Compaction of structural fill should be in accordance with section 2.03.3(14)0 of WSDOT Standard Specifications. Page 16 17202-00 October 4, 2005 USE OF THIS REPORT REFERENCES Hart Crowser The work described in this report is for the exclusive use of WSDOT and its design consultants for specific application to the subject project and site. We completed this study in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. We make no other warranty, express or implied. Dames & Moore, 1995. Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Wetland Mitigation Banking Sites, Renton, Washington. Prepared for the City of Renton. Eastern Research Group, Inc., 1991. Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers. Seminar Publication No. EPA/625/4-91/025 prepared for US EPA, May 1991. Ecology, 2005. Stormwater Management in Western Washington, Volume 111: Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control Design. Publication Number 05-10-31, 2005. Hazen, A., 1911. Discussion of "Dams on Sand Foundations," by A.C. Koenig, Transaction, ASCE, Vol. 73, pp. 199-203. HOR Engineering, Inc., 2005. Memorandum: Geotechnical Services Scope of Work. Prepared for WSDOT 1-405 Project Team, dated May 12, 2005. Massman, Joel, 2003. A Design Manual for Sizing Infiltration Ponds. Prepared for WSDOT, Technical Report No. WA-RD 578.2, dated October 2003. Rawls, W. and D. Brakensiek, 1985. Prediction of Soil Water Properties for Hydrologic Modeling. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers in conjunction with the ASU: Convention in Denver, Colorado, April 30 -May 1, 1985. Watershed Management in the Eighties, eds. Jones, E. and Ward, T. pp. 293-299. J:\jobs\ 1720200\1-405 Springbrook Creek Wetlands Cl-DS-rev2.doc Page 1 7 17202-00 October 4, 2005 Vicinity Map S 144th St S 146th St 150th St 518 (I) " JS 160th St " ~ ~ S 164th St~ g S 166th St "" S 168th St ~ <I> (/) % ~ ':)_ 73rd St 1) C>- 175th St <J> (/) <l' Valley -c Ridge Park ~ ... ~ " (I) 178th S 200th St Foster'' (I) 153 <JJ Minkler Blvd 0 s: ~ ~ i ~ ~ -u :;_ ,.. i{ 2 ,l; J (I) !f r,J Briscoe Park ":> ~ "' Fort Du11 f\irk SW 7th St 167 I Boeing Longacres !ndustnal Park SW 19th St , I I Site~ §: SW 27th St! C: :;:; w ~ " ~ 0. rn C Q_ ~ D a3 ~ ~ 0 " " ~ S 180th SI (/) " > C/) "' " .c > "' "' "' .c 1o "' 181 1/) s 196th St ~ '5 i (/) SW 41st St ~Onllia 1/) ., ~ CD c» : ~ ~,, ! f (/) (/) " 0:: ~ ~,·,· >, ui.' :s 192nd St "' ? SE ,, c,'li w (I) <> 51 ~ I - ~ ~ S 204th St 8, 1@ The Boeing SE 204th SI Ct! EE :to Company : 8 LL ti {3 Ch ., O'Brien S 2µB1'J Cj W ~ (/) 8 S 212th St g;! SE 208th St 0~ ~ Kent Cf) Cf) ~ ~ ~ L __ _laLl211!i!th~Sfil_ __ ::--,-,----,,~S~2c:16:::t!2h...:S:::tc___,i;~..:.. ____ _:S::..:2:.:1.::6,::th:..::St::..._....c..:.. _____ ___:-_____ _,.,,~ Note: Base map prepared from Microsoft Streets and Trips 2005 0 3000 Approximate Scale in Feet -.. 6000 HIJRTCROWSER 17202-00 Figure 1 8/05 Aerial Photograph Showing Site Locations Source: Base map prepared from aerial photo from TerraServer.com. 0 1000 Scale in Feet -.. 17202-00 Figure 2 2000 8/05 Site and Exploration Plan Site "C" 1, , , I I I ~ :111:: , 11111 ; 11 - I ' ' I, . )( --' 11 ' +-lilt: ,Ii 1 11 1,1 I ,: 11 I I I !'iii TP-5-Site 1 INF-3-Site 1 PIZ0-2-Site 1 , ! 11t .1 ~ / , &:rf'-2-Site 1 ~- Source: Base map prepared from survey provided by Washington State Department of Transportation. Note: Site C was designated Site 1 in previous study by Dames & Moore, 1995. ~-=~~-===---o?---- /- ,• 1() " "-----:,'I) 1R ~!oration Location and Number SBC-1 l'B Soil Boring (Hart Crowser, This Study) SBC-2 S Soil Boring with Monitoring Well (Hart Crowser, This Study) ·,_:;, ' '- --------0:::---------e::::-- -----,o ----{}? 9 • " '7 '6 17 16 15 -----~~20 19 1' . ' I CJ ~~. •. " .\'- ,r~~ I -SC-- ~'; __ ............. TP-3-Site 1 !'iii INF-2-Slte 1 T P-6-S ite\ 1 !'iii ~--•;? S SBC-1 . -1:·---d ,f::,· __ ;T __ ; ,;-'-· ,1 SBC-2$ ) I e· ~~ ", ~ I I I "' ·-::- ' ~ .. " I TP-4-Site 1 !'iii l~ ):_:, 0 )'> ~ \ :?r; __ / ·'JI I ,,20,. I \ ,c ...._--\ --- ,TP-1-Site 1 !'iii INF-1-Site 1 , PIZ0-1~fe·\ 1, -··,'o i "" . ) \ ·--) -1\ __ - TP-1-Site 1 !'iii INF-1-Site 1 PIZ0-1-Site 1 J: '~ I :cj------ () Test Pit (Dames & Moore, 1995) Infiltration Test (Dames & Moore, 1995) Piezometer (Dames & Moore, 1995) At tA' -.,, ___ _ .$' 1? .,u....l.!:l 1A Approximate Cross Section Location and Designation Existing Elevation Contour in Feet Proposed Elevation Contour in Feet ' 0 100 Scale in Feet -.. 17202-00 Figure 3 I N I 200 9/05 Site and Exploration Plan Site "D" r-= (f} ::r: t-o co ,.........., I \ r' ' ' t: \. ! < " I I \ / ; /---------_ _L _ w"""~''""" ---------~ EB SBD-1 ' _,,_ -f' """"" EB SBD-2 1'-· IIIIIT A0A0 s "' -----\ \ EB SBD-3'. Source: Base map prepared from survey provided by Washington State Department of Transportation. Exploration Location and Number SBD-1 EB Soil Boring (Hart Crowser, This Study) ------Existing Elevation Contour in Feet \ ----~-= ----~-"--c ~ ----------_;:.-~ ~ 0 100 200 Scale in Feet ------- .--~z-::;;;;i--- -.. 17202-00 Figure 4 8/05 Site and Exploration Plan Site "E" !'!·. p· / I ./ 1, "'"' ) I I BE-3 ~"" ~--TP-2-Sit~ INF-2-Site Zs /0 \I -< ,~\ 0 ,,/ I 100 Scale in Feet TP-3-Site 2 ~ .J,,J: , -. ,? / c--: ,,, :f\ I ; 'r,,~_ /\ -J ~ 5-Sit<{ 2 _N. °' 3-Sitew 15-/ ~,o , / _1 , --;::..=--,o I I 7 / ~ . . ' '~ ., \ <, ' ~ 'o SBE-2EB ,·~ .. ' ,o"/ .. C ,_., ' ,_ - -~-··· ----.-.-"', ~ , ~'s-------------- i z ··.··•·· .. l .. ~ ~<=•~ ~;~:J ~,--~'"'"" ~· -~::--'-~~--- Source: Base map prepared from survey provided by Washington State Department o/Transportafion. Note: Site E was designated Site 2 in previous study by Dames & Moore, 1995. SBC-1EB TP-3-Site 2 ~ INF-1-Site 2 PIZ0-1-Site 2 Exploration Location and Number Soil Boring (Hart Crowser, This Study} Test Pit (Dames & Moore, 1995) Infiltration Test (Dames & Moore, 1995) Piezometer (Dames & Moore, 1995) D t t D' Approximate Cross Section Location and Designation Existing Elevation Contour in Feet Proposed Elevation Contour in Feet 200 -- 17202-00 Figure 5 9/05 Generalized Subsurface Cross Sections A-A' and B-B' Site "C" A Southeast SBC-4 (10' NE) 25~------ ? 20 1i3 Q) LL .!: C 10 .Q cii > Q) w 0 11 12 7127/05 2 8/15/05 8 11 12 C-C' - - TP-6-Site 1 SBC-3 (12' NE) (12.5' NE) ----------Medium dense, sandy GRAVELI -? -- ---?- 15 15 2 4 3 4 11 B-B' B Loose, grayish brown, very silty SAND West Proposed r Existing Ground ::~ --Ground Surface ------?-----~------ Soft to stiff/very loose to medium dense, grayish brown, very sandy SILT/very silty SAND 3.1x10·5 _::k_:: 7.1x10·5 --? A' Northwest TP-5-Site 1 (95' SW) ATE 212/95 2/1/95 ·-----?--------? Very loose to medium dense, dark gray to black, poorly graded SAND stratified with silty SAND 2.4x10 4 .:: k_:: 3.9x10 4 Proposed Ground Surface SBC-3 TP-6-Site 1 (15' N) (50' S) Loose, brown, poorly graded SAND r Existing SBC-5 \ TP-2-Site 1 Ground Surface (55' S) (30' N) 25 -----L..., ,-----J _,,, -----ti---= Medium dense, san~y GRAVE--=--___ I~ ~ -=--=-~~ - SBC-2 (30' S) ------- 20 -Q) Q) LL !: § 10 ~ > Q) w 0 -5 ---=--------~-----------(- ( -' _T -·(-• 15 • - .? ,____ - =\-=: Lo:e. reddish bro::- fine to medium SAND ·2----- -? OVery soft, dark gray, non-plastii:.---- slightly sandy to sandy SILT ?___.,.- ------- 0 Very soft, dark brown, ORGANIC SOIL Notes: 1. Site C was designated Site 1 in previous sl\Jdy by Dames & Moore, 1995. 2. k = hydraulic conductivity in cm/sec. Soft to stiff/very loose to medium dense, grayish brown, very sandy SILT/very silty SAND 3.1x10-5 < k< 7.1x10·5 --?------=----- Very loose to medium dense, dark gray to black, poorly graded SAND stratified with silty SAND 2.4x104 < k< 3.9x10-3 A-A' SBC-1 Exploration Number (35' E) (Offset Distance and Direction) 4 SPT (N Value) in Blows per Foot Water Level ATD = At Time of Drilling ATE = At Time of Excavation Bottom of Exploration 10 ATD 2 -- 4 3 11 ---?----- C-C' Horizontal Scale in Feet 0 100 0 10 Vertical Scale in Feet Vertical Exaggeration x 10 200 -20 8 11 9 ATC -·-? 8 6 5 12 B' East -.. 17202-00 Figure 6a 9/05 1l as ~ m ~ w I Generalized Subsurface Cross Section C-C' Site "C" w Q) LL <::: Existing Ground Surface C SBC-4 / TP-6-Site 1 South (35' E) L (40' W) 25r /-~--., -~ ....... __ 20 l-I -L 11 --- 12 Soft to stiff/very loose to mediu dense, grayish brown, very sandy SILT/very silty SAND 3.1x10·5 < k< 7.1x10·5 3 1-,_r--: ATD ---4 ---- Proposed Ground Surface TP-3-Site 1 (15' W) (D.;;.T sa~yGRAvaT--= ~ -?--i /, ' ' SBC-1 C' (35' E) North ...__ / 2 ATD 47/27/05 B/15105 C 10 Q 7127/05 2 8/15/05 -?_ •-? 1ii > ~ w 0 -5 B 11 12 A~A' Very loose to medium dense, dark gray to black, poorly graded SAND stratified with silty SAND 2.4x104 < k< 3.9x10·3 B-8' SBC-1 Exploration Number (35' El (Offset Distance and Direction) 4 SPT (N Value) in Blows per Foot Water Level ATD = At Time of Drilling ATE = At Time of Excavation Bottom of Exploration Notes: 1. Site C was designated Site 1 in previous study by Dames & Moore, 1995. 2. k = hydraulic conductivity in an/sec. 4 5 5 5 a Horizontal Scale in Feet 0 100 0 10 Vertical Scale in Feet Vertical Exaggeration x 1 O 200 iiil 20 -- 17202-00 Figure 6b 9/05 ~ :is :;: ~ w I Generalized Subsurface Cross Sections D-D' and E-E' Site "E" D Southwest Existing Ground Surface PEAT/WOOD and (medium stiff) sandy SILT 25 SBE-4 ' ~----~ - TP-4-Site 2 (10' NW) SBE-2 (30' NW) TP-1-Site 2 ~ 20 r ? 6 Very loose, grayish brown, silty SAND (FILL) with roots ------------- ., (l) u.. ~ 5 10 ~ > --?---- Medium dense,lbrown, slightly gravelly SAND (FILL) ----?-------- (Soft) SILT and gra~ PEAT 5, -------.!?-=---- Loose to dense, darl< gray SAND to very silty SAND-----..._ ~1-4.4x10-3 .:: k_:: 1.4x10·1 7 ---------- r,lery soft) to medium &tiff, darl< gray SILT to saiioy"SIL T-?- 1.8x10· < k< 1.1x10-5 ----------------- (l) w Proposed Ground Surface 0 -10 E Southeast 25 F-F' --------.....__ 1 Medium stiff to stiff, "-.? dark gray, stratified, very sandy SILT TP-4-Site 2 Very loose to medium dense, dark gray to black, silty to very silty SAND with stratified sandy SILT 4.4x1ff3 .:: k_:: 1.4x10·1 E-E' (15' NE) TP-3-Site 2 SBE-3 TP-2-Site 2 20 [ Existing Ground Surface /--,------------(15'SW) (30'SW) I ----~------=-------- ., (l) u.. C ?L "/ - C 10r --.Q ?"(very soft to soft) ~ ~T~dySILT .9! 4.4x10'3 < k< 1.4x1 O -1 w -- 0 -10 D-0' 25 sz._ ATD Very loose to medium dense SAND to silty SAND (FILL) -,---..!? __ -ood ebris-/' :EA;=--=:::::::::... -:::_ -~ery soft to medium stiff brown to gray, :-51 SILT to silty SAND with sional roots ------ "ATE 2/819--;------- --------(Soft)."darl< grayish brown EAT, ----- Very soft to medium stiff, gray SILT with PEAT 1.8x10-6< k< 1.1x10 -5 Loose to dense, dark gray SAND to very silty SAND 4.4x10·3 < k< 1.4x1 o ·1 Very loose to medium dense, dark gray to black, silty to very silty SAND with stratified sandy SILT 4.4x10'3 < k< 1.4x1 O ·1 ·11 16 19 2 22 F-F' E' Northwest ? ATD 22 ---?-------- 3 (Soft) to stiff, gray SILT to sandy SILT with some roots Medium dense, dark gray, silty SANO --------------SILT ---- 15 15 22 14 15 Proposed Ground Surface D' Northeast SBE-1 (95' SE) 14 18 10 6 29 SBE-3 Exploration Number 12s· W) (Offset Distance and Direction) 19 SPT (N Value) in Blows per Foot Water Level A TD = At Time of Drilling ATE = At Time of Excavation Bottom of Exploration Notes: 1. Site C was designated Site 1 in previous study by Dames & Moore, 1995. 2. k = hydraulic conductivity in cm/sec. Horizontal Scale in Feet 0 100 200 0 10 Vertical Scale in Feet Vertical Exaggeration x 10 .. .. 17202-00 Figure 7a 20 9/05 :,; ~ ~ w r Generalized Subsurface Cross Section F-F' Site "E" a5 <D LL C: F South 25 20 SBE-4 ,,..-6 -------- 6 -? --- 5 Loose to dense, dark gray SAND to very silty SAND - (20' W) Ground Surface SBE-J TP-2-Site 2 TP-5-Site 2 _[ Existing - (70' W) -------~fy~s';iom~mde~--------~------- (Perched) ATE SAND to silty SAND (FILL) 25 ~ ?-----------? __ (Perched} ATD -Very soft to medium stiff, brown to gray SILT · ---------- to sandy SILT wtth occasional roots -----..._ 1.8x10-6 2 k2 1.1x10·5 _..._ b --= 1 -? F' North § 10 ~ > ~ w --~-?-+ --j_--? ,: \_ (Soft), dark grayish brown - ?-- 0 -10 Proposed Ground Surface ------Very loose to medium dense, dark gray to black, silty to very silty SAND with stratified sandy SILT 7 D-D' ---Medium stiff to stiff, dark gray, stratified, very sandy SILT -? SBE-3 Exploration Number (25' W) (Offset Distance and Direction) 4 SPT (N Value) in Blows per Foot Water Level ATD = At Time of Drilling ATE = At Time of Excavation Bottom of Exploration Notes: 1. Site C was designated Site 1 in previous study by Dames & Moore, 1995. 2. k:; hydraulic conductivity in cm/sec. 4.4x10·3 < k< 1.4x10·1 19 PEAT and organic SILT 1.1x10-6 <k< 1.1x10·5 2 22 E-E' Horizontal Scale in Feet 0 100 0 10 Vertical Scale in Feet Vertical Exaggeration x 1 O 200 20 -- 17202-00 Figure 7b 9/05 401 20 0 Generalized Subsurface Cross-Section Site E Slope Stability Analysis Very loose to medium dense, SAND to silty SAND (FILL) ~~/'. ~eight (pcf): 120(Soft) SILT and PEAT c: o \ Unit Weight (pcf): 115 Phi: 25 c:2 Loose to medium dense SAND / Loose to medium dense, SAND to silty SAND Unit Weight (pcf): 120 Phi: 32 c: 0 Very soft to soft, gray SILT to sandy SILT Unit Weight (pcf): 115 ~Phi:25 /~ c: 20 -20 , ____ ..L_ __ ---''------..L_-------"'------~ ---------'---_L_ ___ __i __ -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 §? ~ t~ Horizontal Distance in Feet 140 160 ~ ;j; ~ ~ w I 'g ~ 0 2! N ~ Hart Crowser 17202-00 October 4, 2005 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS BY WSDOT Washington State Departmenl of Transportation LOG OF TEST BORING Job No_XL-234_0 ___ _ SR _4~-- Projecl l-405 Springbrook_Wetlands Development Project Site Address Vic _of _Oaksd~le Ave. sw_ & _SW __ 27 th. St. __ start July 13, 2005 __ Co""'etion July 13, 2005 Station Offset E:.levaton _ tl.f._!!!.l __ WelllO#-AHN-977 Casing __ Jj_9 X __ ;Q_.O & hwt_ 0. 5.0 .. Start Card . f3_~659B_Q __ HOLE No. SBC:-1-0q __ Sheet _J__ of _ _1_ Driller __ J_()~_Ji..!_d_Q__ Inspector . Dave _Nelson __ _ Equipment C_ME 850 _w/ autoh,3~_!Tl~r Method We_t_ ~otary_ Northing 168029 Easting __ 12~34_37 __ _ LRtitrnie Longitude___ _ _________ _ County King _____ subsection SW 1 /4_ of NE 1 /4 __ -1 5 10----3 15- 5 -.-1---:aa:- <;:: Penetration £ i Blows/ft 10 20 ~-t---~---,------ :: I i I I I I I I I I I I '1 I I I 1 I 30 -\I ! 20----~·-~---·_: t--l. __ l _ 40 5 6 6 (12) 5 5 5 (10) 1 2 2 (4) 1 2 2 (4) 2 2 2 (4) 2 2 3 (5) 2 2 3 (5) 0-1 D-2 0-3 0-4 D-5 0-6 D-7 D-8 MC MC IOI MC GS MC HT MC MC MC MC Section 25 Range __ 4 EW_M ___ T O'M'lship 2_J_t_,t -------------~ iG-1 Desctiplion of Material § I j M.C.::: 22% Silty SAND, with roots & mottled, medium dense, greyish brown, moist. Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 fl M.C.::: 30% Silty SAND, with roots & mottled, loose, greyish brown, moist. Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft e ~ "' - 7113/2005 ~ ) M .. C.::: 33%, LOI= 3.8% Sandy SILT, with roots & mottled, soft, greyish brown, moist, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft 7127/2005 8115/2005 ML, M.C. = 46% Sandy SILT with wod fragments, very loose, very dark \ grey, moist, Stratified. _Length R~.s;over~d 1 ~Q _tt_ ______________ _ M_C_ = 29% Poorly graded SANO, loose, black, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft M.C. = 24% Poorly graded SAND, loose, black, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft M.C. =28% Poorty graded SAND, loose, black, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft M.C. = 24% Poorly graded SAND, loose, black, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 fl .', :, :1 : :: <·l-<· ::: - :_::i --: : : -_- :~:~::: Washington State Department of Transportation Joo No_XL-2340 _ ··--· SR __ 405 LOG OF TEST BORING Start Card F-6591}.Q __ . Elevation ft ( m) HOLE No. SBG~1:05_ Sheet ___ L of ___ l _ Projec1 _l_:-~~-5-~_pringbrook Well~~~s Development Pr~ject Dnller Joe Judd ____ _ Lie# .i~54 ~-, € I ~ e 0. • • • 0 " 7 25 ·8 ·9 30 10 35- 11 12 40- "' ~ e "- 10 Standard Penetration Blows/ft 20 30 40 -----,-----· ·r-----r·--r I I I I I I I I I I --1-. --+---+--+· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .r ] __ ~! I I I I I I I -· ..1 ___L_ -_i_ a 11 ~ ~ . . . 1 · . . . SPT I~~ Blows/6" ~ I ~ (N} ~ ~- rn rn I ···-····--i 1 I e ] (!) Description of Material ------'-----------------1---- 3 1 D-9 MC M.C. = 24% 4 6 U.QL I __ Poorly graded SAND, loose, black, wet, Homogeneous. Lenglh Recovered 1.0 ft End of test hole boring at 21.5 ft below ground elevation. This is a summary Log of Test Boring. Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field identifications and laboratory test data. No bail test performed do to sand heaving ·T Washington State Department of Transportation Job No-1<.~~340 __ SR LOG OF TEST BORING 405 --_ Elev<.1tion _!!_i_r:n) ___ _ StartCard __ S-22733 . HOLE No_ SBC-2--0p Sheet_ 1_ __ of _f_._ Project 1-405 Springbrook IJl.'.elfands De_velopm_ent Proje_~t Site Address _Vic, Oaksdale Ave_. S.W. and S.W, 27th St.._ Driller __ Danny H~nders_Qn_ Lie# _274.?:T Inspector. Brian Hil!:s~--- 5 10 15 20 Start June 30, 2~0~----Completion ~-~_ne 30, 2~~~-___ Well ID#--Equipment _CME 55 w/ autoh~~mer Station .-----Offset Casing_ 4"x~ Northing 16775_5 __ _ Easling 1293687 Latitude _______ _ Longitude ___ _ County King r -2 -3 -4 -5 Subsection Standard Penetration BICW\ls/ft 10 20 30 40 SW1/4 NE1/4 ----··-··--- -~ ~ 0 0 SPT ~ z Blows/6~ i • z <i ~ (N) E E m Ji "' . ~----,------ 5 4 4 3 (8) 4 5 6 6 (11) D-1 ii I J i1 /! J \ \ I I I t: I I I: / 1 +i I : ~! I I \I \I \ I I I I I I I I I I I 5 4 5 4 (9) 2 2 2 3 (4) 3 4 4 5 (BJ 2 2 4 5 (6) 4 3 2 4 (5) D-2 S-3 0-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 D-8 l_, -• ___ ___Ll___J I I L i 1· ; lJ 09 __L__ __ l: ~ ~ m " ~ • >- MC MC MC GS MC LOI HT MC MC MC MC Soction ~-Range _'!_~~_M ____ Township __ 23_tl._ Description of Material M.C. = 6% SILT with sand and gravel, medium stiff. brown, dry, Homogeneous. With some hair roots. Length Recovered 0.8 ft, Length Retained 0.8 ft M.C. = 27% Sandy SILT, stiff, dark gray, dry, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 0.8 ft, Length Retained 0.8 ft Sandy SILT, medium stiff, dark gray, moist, Homogeneous. There was wood debris on the bottom of the sample. Length Recovered 1.3 ft. Length Retained 1.3 ft M.C. = 29% Silty SAND, loose, dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. With a trace of hair roots. Length Recovered 0.5 ft. Length Retained 0.5 ft '? 7/30/2005 I AT.D. SM, M.C. = 35%, LOI-= 1.7% Silty SAND, very loose, dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. With some dark brown organics. · \L~th Recovered 1.4 f!, _L,enqth ~tairied 1.!.ft__ M.C. = 32% Poorly graded SAND, loose, very dari< gray, wet, Homogeneous. The top .6' with a trace of silt and wood debris. Length Recovered 1.4 ft, Length Retained 1 .4 ft M.C. = 23% Poorly graded SAND, loose, very dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1 .1 ft. Length Retained 1.1 ft M.C. = 21% Poorly graded SAND, loose, very dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. The bottom .3' with wood debris. length Recovered 1. 7 ft, length Retained 1. 7 ft M.C. = 29% Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, very dark gray, j_ 25-' 30 35 40 45 i + Washington Stale Department of Transportation Joo No .. J<L-234.Q......_ SR _40i1. LOG OF TEST BORING Start Card ~.2.D_~-- Eievation ----1U.!:!!) __ _ HOLE No. SBC-2-Q§__ Sheet ___ i_ of 2 _ Project 1-405 Springbrook Wetlands Dev~opment Project Driller Danny Henden;_Q_rl__ Uc# __ 1Z42T 8 9 10 -11 12 13 ' 10 Standard Penetration Blows/11 20 30 40 ---,-------, ------,-----,--. I I I I I I I I ~·-,---,-,---- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _] __ ···---I_ .L __ .I __ J_ .. ~1 0 ~-iili (N) ~ ~ "' "' 7 8 {1:!)---, J_ Description of Material -----·--·-·--·----------- wet, Homogeneous. length Recovered 1.3 ft, length Retained 1.3 ft End of test hole boring at 21 ft below ground elevation. This is a summary Log of Test Boring. Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field identifications and laboratory test data. After drilling the water table inside the casing was at 9 .2'. We bailed the hole to 13', 15 min. later the water table was at 11.6'. We pulled the casing and the hole stayed open to 10' and the water table was at 8.6'. " • E ~ E ~---· Washington State Department of Transportation Job No._Xb-2340 _ SR 405 ----- LOG OF TEST BORING Elev;ition ft_(&__ __ _ Start Card S-227_}~ .. HOLE No. J:i13C:-3-Q5 Sheet _1_ of _2 Project -~-:105 Springbrook Wetlan~~ _Developm_~nt ~roject Site Address ~_Q~_ksdale Ave. S.W_. _q_11d _ _?_.W. 27tttS.t Driller __ Danny He!}derson Lic#_}-!4.~J Inspector Brian _H,ilt,c>s ____ _ Start ~_une 29, 20~5 WelllD# _ Equipment CME 55 w/ aut~ham.!l!~_r __ Station_ Offset Northing 167723 Easting _E_~~~-Latitude County~--====_'S"o'."bs:ec=tion _ SW1/4 NE1/4 -· -SPT !! ~ §: ]: t e • • 1ii 0 " 5 2 10--f""3 I 4 15- -5 6 20 • ~ o_ -. ' I ' -•. •1 ~l~I _; Standard Penetration Bk>ws/ft __ 10_ __2~--~- / I ://' i -I , I I ' I I I ~ I /I / I 40 'I r ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J - -'. -~-~ I I i I I • \ I \ I \I 't I I _ _l___J __ _J__J_ 0 Blows/6" ' i I I (N) ~i ~ z • ~ a t::_ 5 10 11 15 (21) 8 8 7 9 (15) 5 5 5 6 (10) 0 1 3 5 (4) 1 (2) 1 2 2 2 (4) 1 2 2 (3) 2 1 3 5 (4) 5 6 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 0 !) ro • ~ • >- MC MC GS MC MC MC MC GS MC MC MC Longitude Section 25 Range -~E_WM __ ToVvflship 2.31-L Description of Material M.C. = 5% Gravel with sand, subangular, medium dense, brown, dry, Homogeneous . Length Recovered 1.7 ft, Length Retained 1.7 ft -·--_________ " _____ --------·--·--------'- M.C. = 11% Silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, grayish brown, dry, Stratified., The top .8' was silty sand wilh gravel, the middle .5' was (ML) silt with very fine sand with FeO stains, and lhe bottom .5' was very fine sand. 1 \Leog_Y, Recov.e_red 1.8 ft'-L.flr:igth Ret~Jrie~t.1.a !',. ML, M.C. ::: 25% Sandy SILT, sliff, dark gray, moist, Homogeneous., With some FeO stains. , Length Recovered 1.6 ft, Length Retained 1.6 ft I--------------·------~ M.C. =29% Sandy SILT, soft, dark. gray, moist, Homogeneous., With some FeO stains. Length Recovered 0.9 ft, Length Retained 0.9 ft M.C. =30% Silty SAND, very loose, grayish brown, wet, Homogeneous., With some Feo stains and the bottom .1' - i was dark gray. , Length Recovered 1 8 ft, Length Retained 1 8 ft ~ -------- : 'l 6130105/'C ' M.C. = 32% I Poorly graded SAND, very loose, dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. The morning of 06/30/05 the water !able ' inside the casing was at 10.7'. Length Recovered 1.0 ft. Length Retained 1.0 fl f----=-:-. ·----- 1 SM, M.C. = 29% i Silly SAND, very loose, dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. I Length Recovered 1 .4 ft, Length Relained 1.4 ft --------------------- M.C. = 27% Poorly graded SAND, very loose, dark gray, wet, Stratified., Stratified with silty sand. Length Recovered 1.4 ft, Length Retained 1.4 ft M.C. = 22% Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, very dark gray, - __ ,....J Washington State Department of Transportation LOG OF TEST BORING JooNoL~-2340 __ _ SR __ 4QL_ __ Elevation __ __f!__i_!D} _____ _ HOLE No _ _§__E:!C~3-05_ Sheet _2 __ of ___ L Project 1-405 Springbrook W~ttand~ Development_Project ___ ---·-----Dnller ~nny H~~(l~~Ofl_ 7 25 9 30 10 35 11 }12 40 J 13 '.? Penetration Blows/6" ! -f __g ... Blowslft (N} 5 ~ :--i 1 (/) en C 10 20 30 40 3 j r-----Desrnpb~ m MalMa-1 ----- _. I--Standarn ____ ·rSPT :~ ; ii ~--~~---T --5--_I __ _ +--• I I --11".i-• wet, Homogeneous .. Length Recovered 1.2 ft, length Retained 1.2 ft I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I End of test hole boring at 21 ft below ground elevation. This is a summary log of Test Boring. Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field identifications and laboratory test data. After drilling the water table inside the casing was at 6.2' We bailed the hole to 14' and 15 min. later the water table was at12.8'. We pulled the casing and the hole stayed open to 10.6' and the water table was at (dry hole). Lic# __ 2742T J ~ - 45- I I I I I _j_ I I I I I I I L___ I -_l J Washington State Department of Transportation LOG OF TEST BORING Job No. XL-2_:)_40___ SR 405 Elevation . .fLLnlL_ Start Card _8-6598_0 __ HOLE No. SBC:4-0_5 _ Project 1-405 Springb~ok _Wetlands Development_Project S;te Address Vic of Oaksdale Ave. SW & SW 27th. St. . start _J_uly 13, ?~--Completion ~uly 13, 2005 Well ID# Station Offset ________ _ Northing _!_67 469 _ _ __ Easting _}29346_3 _____ _ Latitude County_ Kin:9 ________ Subsection SW 1/4 of_NE 1/4 __ _ -------,- 5-- -' ,_ -2 ··:1. ;_ 10 3 4 15- 5 -6 20- ( I !1 I : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1: ti ii Standard Penetration Blows/ft 20 30 40 ---~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ _J__ _ _j_ L__ 3 5 6 (11) D 1 I 3 D-2 5 7 (12) 1 D-3 2 1 (3) 2 2 (4) 0--4 0 0-5 1 (2) I.~~ I ' 1 D-7 3 5 (BJ 4 D-8 5 6 (11) MC GS MC MC MC GS MC HT MC MC MC Sheet ____ 1 of __ 2 __ Driller Joe JLJ_Q__Q___ Inspector ___lli!_ve Nels_9:n __ _ AHN-978 Equipment CME __ 850 w/ autohammer _ Method _Wet R!?~---_ Longitude ________________ _ Section 25 Range --~~~--Township 23 N_ Description of Material M.C. = 33% Sandy SILT, w/roots & mottled, stiff, greyish brown, moist, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft ML, M.C. = 12% Sandy SILT, mottled, stiff, greyish brown, moist, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft M.C. = 30% Silty SAND, mottled, very loose, greyish brown, moist, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft ---07/13/2005 M.C. = 17% Poorly graded SANO, very loose, dark brown. wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft ! SM, M.C. = 32% Silty SAND, very loose, dark yellowish brown, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1 .0 ft M.C. = 34% 07/2712005 08/15/2005 Silty SAND, very loose, dark grey, wet. Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft --------------------------·------- M.C. = 32% Poorly graded SAND, loose, dark grey. wet, Stratified, silt and organics. Length Recovered 1.0 ft M.C.::: 23% Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, black, wet, I Homogeneous. __ Le~gth Recovered 1.0 ft _________ ------__ c • E ~ E Washington State Department of Transportation Jab No XL-234_0_,._ SR __!05 __ LOG OF TEST BORING Elevation _ ft ( mL_ ___ _ HOLE No. J3_BC-4-Q5 __ Sheet ---1 .. _ of ___ 2 _ Project _!--405 Springb1"9ok Wetlands D_evelopment ~roject --------- 7 25- 8 g 30 · 10 35 -~" ' 13 _. ~ e .. Standard Penetration Blows/ft 10 20 30 40 I I I I r-~+---+--1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 45 I I _ ____L ____ L _l_ _____l SPT BIO'NS/6" IN) ,-,-- I a,1 n.' ci -:- ~ Z 0 ~ t ! E ~ -g ~ (J) C. I I I D-9 I I I MC End of test hole boring at 21.5 ft below ground elevation. This is a summary Log of Test Boring. Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field identifications and laboratory test data. Washington State Department of Transportation LOG OF TEST BORING Start Card _ R-659iJO __ _ Job No. XL-2l4_0~_ SR Elevation 1_§1_.0 __ ~ mL_ HOLE No. _§B_C:::-5-05 . __ Sheet _1_ of __ 4_ Project l_-405 Springbrook Wetlands Development_ Project __ Site Address V_ic of Oaksdale_Ave. SW & SW 27th. St. Completioo ~uly 12,_ 2005 _ Stat100 ---· ------· Offset Northing _1_67487 ___ _ Easting __ 129265~ __ 5- 10 County _!<_ing_ Subsection --~W 1 /4 of NE 1 /4 -1 2 3 Standard Penetration Blows/ft ' l'ii°~ii . I I I . •• I I I ···· I I •· t1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l____l ___ L. _ __J__ 2 3 4 (7) 0 0 0 (0) 2 2 (4) 1 2 2 (4) 1 2 0 (2) 0 0 0 {O) l ~ ! Well ID# __ Latitude 0-4 0-5 D-6 0-8 GS MC Hl MC MC MC MC GS MC AL GS MC AL Driller ___ Jpe Judd____ Lic#---1~54 __ _ Inspector ~y~ _ _Nolson AHN-979 Method _\/t!._~t Rota.,_ __ _ Longitude _____ _ Section __ 25 Range_ 4 EWM ____ Township_l_J_N_ __ ~--~--·1-1 I Descriplion of Matenal ~ M.C.::: 34% Sandy SILT, mottled, medium stiff, greyish brown. moist, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft ML, M.C. = 26% Sandy SILT, mottled. medium stiff, dark grey/ rust, moist, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft M.C. = 36% Sandy SILT, mottled, very soft, dark grey, moist, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft 7/27/05 M.C. = 38% Poor1y graded SAND, loose, dark reddish brown, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft 8/15/05 M.C.= 31% Poor1y graded SAND, very loose, dark. grey, wet. Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft M.C.::: 41% Poor1y graded SAND, very loose, very dark grey, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft ~--------. _____ om 212005/ ML, M.C. = 49%, LL= 36, NP SILT with sand, very soft, dark grey, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft ML, M.C .= 84%. LL::: 55, NP , e "' 'l ): ::: :::~ ·> -. .. Sandy SILT with wood fragments, very soft, dark greyish brown, wet, Homogeneous. Lerigth Recovered 1 '.0 ft J:: .·. 25 .. 30- 35- Washington State Department of Transportation LOG OF TEST BORING Start Card R-65980 Job Nol<.L_-2340__ __ SR __ 405 __ Elevation ~-0 ft (5.~.!D.L__ HOLE No. __ S BC-5-05 Sheet __ 2_ of _ 2 _ Project__!:±05 Sprin~_brook_'.'Vetlands Development Project __ Standard Ii ~1 ~ '5 Penetration ~ 0.:: Blows/ft " 10 20 30 40 -·,~ {.'.. T-r-; --r- ,, ·:;: _ _11. I I I I ,,,,. ,,1 I I I -=----'---~-+---~-- 1 I I I I I .:-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --a I I I I I 9 -10 -'[• a SPT ~ z Blows/6' I ~ : I (N) ,l ~ ;r i1 j j 1 0 0 0 D-9 r MC Driller _4_@_Judd ___ _ Description of Material lie# 2_4_M_ I C a e " 1--------------' ··--·----M.C. ""323% ORGANIC SOIL, very soft, dark brown, wet, Homogeneous. Length R_e_covered 1.0 ft ___ ---------------. End of test hole boring al 21.5 ft below ground elevation. This is a summary Log of Test Boring. Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field identifications and laboratory test data. Bail from 1.0' Bail to 17.7' Recharge 14.0' 5 min. 16.7' 10min.15.7' 15min 14.0' ~- ' . -11 12 I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I __ _, __ l _ _J I I _J l_. ____ j Washington Stale Department of Transportation LOG OF TEST BORING JooNo XL-2340 __ SR 405 ··-----Elevation ~l..!!!.}_-~ ---·- Start Card .... S-22'?):2_. HOLE No. _fil!Q:1:Q5_ Sheet _1 _ of __ ~-- Project~_5 Springbrook Wetlands Develop~_ent Project _ Driller_ .Danny_Hende~QD_ Uc#_~I.4.-IT. Site Ad:iress Vic. S. 180th_ ~., and_ Oaksdales Ave_,_S.W. Start ~~_ne 28, 20~_ _ Completion ~-ne 28, 2q05 ,--- € t • " 5 StaUon ---·----- Northing __ 16418~---- County __!<inp ___ _ K e ~ • " -1 -2 • " e 0. 10 -1~~-+--r· ••• I l I I I I I I I I I ti I I : l. t: t if I\ : :.·1 I : I I I I 151 ! 5 t: I I I 1 I I t: I I I I I I t J i 20 ~ , __ I ._ .. _. _. __;_ Offsel _____ _ Subsection NE1/4 NW1/4 Standard Penetration Blows/fl: 20 30 40 SPT Blows/6" (N) 1 --~~--- : 1 i ~; :/: I 13 I I I I I I I I I _I __ I I 9 I I (30) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L__I_ 2 2 (2) 1 ' ' 3 (4) 0 ' 3 2 (5) 3 1 (2) 3 3 4 3 (7) 3 3 ' ' (5) ' 1 1 ' (2) Well ID# Casing Lal!tude D-1 MC D-2 MC D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 j_ Inspector _§!L~Jl J:::!_j_!_t_§_ Equipment ~~--55 w~_autoha~~er 4~x22' ____ ., ___ _ Melhod _ Wet ~~~---_ __ _ Longitude ____ _ Section 36 Description of Material M.C. = 9% Silty SAND with gravel, dense, brown, moist, Stratified. The top.2' was well graded gravel with sand dark gray, the middle .9' was (SP) sand with gravel, and the bottom .3' was (Ml) silt, dark brown with some FeO stains. Length Recovered 1.5 fl. Length Retained 1.5 ft M.C. = 29% Silty SAND, very loose, grayish brown, moist, Homogeneous. With some FeO slain and hair roots throughout. The bottom .5' was wet. length Recovered 1.4 ft, Length Retained 1.4 ft SILT with sand, very loose, brown, wet, Homogeneous. With a trace of hair roots and FeO stains throughout. length Recovered 1.7 ft, Length Retained 1.7 ft ~------· --- Sandy SILT, loose, brown, wet, Stratified. The top .9' was (ML) silt, moist with hiar roots. The middle .4' was sandy 'Z__ silt, and the bottom .7' was (SP) sand and wet. With FeO stains throughout. Length Recovered 2.0 ft, Length Retained 2.0 ft ···--------_ _ ___ 6/28/0S_AT.D.j - Silty SAND, very loose, grayish brown, wet, Stratified. With FeO stains throughout. The bottom .1' was dark gray. Length Recovered 0.6 ft, Length Retained 0.6 ft Poorly graded SAND, loose, dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. With a trace of silt. Length Recovered 1.6 ft, length Retained 1 .6 ft Poorly graded SAND, loose, dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1. 1 ft, Length Retained 1 .1 ft Poorly graded SAND, very loose, dark gray, wet, Stratified. The bottom .2' was sandy silt. Length Recovered 1 .8 ft, Length Retained 1 .8 ft J g ~ 15. ~ 25 30 35 40-- 45 Washington State Department of Transportation Job NoJ\l,,2340 ___ _ SR ___ i()_§_ __ LOG OF TEST BORING Elevation ____!L{_m}__ HOLE No . ..§.B_Q.-J,<)L Sheet ~2 _ of _,_2_ ProJect 1-40~ Springbrook Wetlands .Devel.opment_ Proje_ct ~T~Standaaj ___ -s:-T[I ~ Driller _ Danny_ Hend€!I§:.Q!!_ Lie#_ 27 42I_ --·--- e ~ Penetratton * £ B10W5/ft " 10 20 30 -• -T -,---------,---- ! I I I ·7 8 -9 --10 11 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Bl~·1i1~ (N) ~ ~ "' "' 40 ,--· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 13 I i l: ~l :J_ 0 z • n " t::., I n ~ • ~ ~ Description of Material ·-----------··------------ End of test hole boring at 20 ft below ground elevation. This is a summary Log of Test Boring. Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field identifications and laboratory test data. We pulled the casing and the hole stayed open to 13.6' and the water table was at 6.5'. --· ------·-----------. ----- c • E 2 ~ :r ::l w " " ~ b "' _j 0 w ~ 0 ~ u w a ~ 0 ~ z w ~ 0 0 ~ w > w 0 ~ 0 z ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ m " z " 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ Washington State Department of Transportation LOG OF TEST BORING Start Card ___§~2_2732_ ___ _ Job No_ XL-234.Q__ __ SR 405 -----Elevation _ ft .U!!l _____ _ Project_ l-~.05 Springbro<)k W_etlands Development Project _ Site Address Vic._$. 18Dth St. and Oak§_da_leAve. S.W. Sheet _1 _ of 1 Driller __ _Qanny .li~o_d~rsQfL Lie# 27 4_2T_ Inspector ___§f@_o Hilts ··----· start June 28, 2005 ·--Completion June 28, 2005 Well ID# ------Equipment CME 55 wt au_~~hammer __ StaNon ___ _ ___ _ Offset Northing .J 645~ 1 Easting __ 1_2_9?.4_7_1 latitude County ___ King __ _ __ Subsect10n NE1/4 NW1/4 ----r----T-- ·--=· ltl ! ii s ---2 10-3 4 15 -s -6 20 - • " e C .. 'o. " 0 " .a " r:.~ ' i Standard Blows/6" ! ii Cl. i (N) E ~ ~ Penetration Blows/II ·~,(.I)~ r--~H-7 >> ------·---1 I I I I 29 D-1 I I I I 37 I I I I 26 I I I 16 I I (63) I I I t 4 5 0-2 / : + 4 ' (9) I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 3 6 (4) 1 1 2 1 (3) 0 1 1 (2) 0 0 1 3 0-3 ' ~ 0-4 0-5 0-6 u ~---i-· ---,---i----r--(1) 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -· -- I I I I I I I I I __l _l_ _, _J~ MC MC Method __ Wet Rotary __ longitude ___ _ Section . 36 Range 4 EWM _____ Tcrwnship 23._l':L Description of Matena! M.C.::: 12% SAND with gravel, very dense, brown, moist, Stratified. The lop .3' was (SW) sand with gravel and dark gray. The bottom 1.4' was (SP) sand with gravel (sub angular) with a trace of silt Length Recovered 1. 7 ft, Length Retained 1 . 7 ft Silty SAND, loose, grayish brown, moist, Stratified. Laminated. Poorly graded sand stratified and laminated with sandy silt with FeO stains throughout. The bottom .4'waswet. Length __ Recovered 1_ ~4 ft, Length Retained 1_.4 ft ·--·· M.C. ==39% SILT, very loose, dark gray, moist, Stratified. The top .7' was (ML) silt with very fine sand, wet, with FeO stains. The bottom 1.1' was (ML) silt, dark gray with a trace of black organics. (moisture tin obtained) Length Recovered 1.8 ft, Length Retained 1.8 ft Poorly graded SAND, very loose, brown, wet, Stratified. With FeO stains throughout and the boltom .2' was sandy silt dark gray. Possible water table area. Length Recovered 1.5 ft, Length Retained 1 .5 ft Silty SAND, veP/ loose, dark gray, wet, Stratified. The top 1 .5' was silty sand and then made a transition to sandy silt the bottom .5'. Length Recovered 1.0 ft. Length Retained 1.0 ft SILT with sand, very loose. dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. The bottom .3' was (SP) sand very dark gray. Length Recovered 2. 0 ft. Length Retained 2. 0 ft End of test hole boring at 15.5 ft below ground elevation. This is a summary Log of Test Boring. Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field identifications and laboratory test data. After drillinhg the water table inside the casing was at 5.5'. We bailed the hole to 10.1 ', 15 min. later the water table was at 9.5'. We pulled the casing and the hole stayed open to 11.5. The water table was at 7.8'. ' ·----------' V Washington State Department of Transportation LOG OF TEST BORING Start Card _§:_Z2732 Job No _XL-2~Q_ SR _4il§__ __ Elevation _ft( m} Sheet . __ 1 _ of __ ? _ Project 1-405 Springbrook Wetlands Development Project Driller _Jg~ Judd __ _ Site Address Vic of_S._ 180 th & Oaksdale: Ave SW ____ _ Inspector __ Q~ye Nel~9_n __ Start July 14, 2005 __ Completion July 14, 2005 _ .Well ID# Equipment CME 850 w/ a~toham""!!~- Station ____ _ Offset _ HQ x 20.Q Method_ Wet Rotary ___ _ Northing ____!_§_4961 ____ _ Easting 1292444 _____ Latitude________ _ __ Longitude_ g t • Q 5 10 j 15-j 20 County _l'S_i~---- 2 3 4 -5 6 _. ~ e "- ' ' ' Standard Penetration Blows/ft 10 -~--~~-- ' I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I : I I I I I I I I I \ --~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I ____[_ __ L _ _L - Sf'T Blows/6" (N) 2 2 3 (5) 3 2 2 (4) 0 0 0 (0) 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 (0) 1 0 0 (0) 0 0 0 (0) 0 0 1 (1) • ~ ~ • o_ E ro "' __ L 0 z 0 • z o_ • D E 0 ro t:=-"' D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 D-7 D-6 Section 36 Range 4 EW_~----Tmoi,iship 23 N • n ro " ~ • >--I I I & E : Description of Material MC --~ M.C.:;; 31% ----------- GS MC Silty SAND, with roots & mottled, loose, greyish brown, moist, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft ML, M.C. = 32% Sandy Sil T, very loose, greyish brown, wet, Stratified, silt. Length Recovered 1.0 ft 07114/2005 Elastic Sil T, mottled, very soft, greyish brown, wet, Homogeneous. length Recovered 1.0 ft ----- Silty SAND, motued, very loose, dark greyish brown, wet, I Homogeneous. length Recovered 1.0 ft [--~------~---~--~- Elastic SILT, very soft, dark grey, wet, Homogeneous. length Recovered 1. 0 ft I Silty SAND, very loose, dark grey, wet. Laminated, silt. length Recovered 1.0 ft Elastic Sil T. w/ organics, very soft, dark grey, wet, Stratified, organics. Length Recovered 1.0 ft ------------~~-------- ORGANIC SOIL with sand, very soft, dark grey, wet, Laminated, sill. Length Recovered 1 .0 ft '--- Washington State Department of Transportation LOG OF TEST BORING Job No1k2340 ___ _ SR j_05_ Elevation _!LU.!!L___ __ HOLE No. _ SBD-3-05_ Sheet _,'?.._ of .. _2_ Project 1-405 Springbrook Wetland_s D~velop~ent Pr~ject 1-- € a • " 25 g e 2 ~ ~ 2 CL -,1r lli 7 ' -9 30- 10 35 11 c -1 40 }" 13 Standard -~I • i:I ci ~:- 1 SPT I ~I z "i I n Blows/ft (N) ! E :i Penetration Blows/6'' , i I tE ~ ' 5 ! ! 3i ,.'.ii t::_ 10 20 30 40 ·--,-----r -- 1 I I I I I I I --1----+--1--- I I I I 2 3 6 __Jfil_ __ D-9 i Driller _ Joe Ju_c;l_d ___ _ Description of Material Silty SAND, loose, black, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft End of test hole boring at 21.5 ft below ground elevation. This ls a summary Log of Test Boring. Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field identifications and laboratory test data. NO BAIL TEST PERFORMED, HEAVING BLACK SAND 1- I I I I I I I I I I I 45 ____j_ _ _[ __ [_ J_ j__ J • ~ ~ C , 2 " ii E 2 ]! I __ I Washington State Department of Transportation Job No.1"l.::2340 ___ _ SR ~-5- LOG OF TEST BORING Elevation :29.Q ft (8.BJ!!L __ HOLE No. S13E-1-0~- Sheet _ 1 __ of _2_ Project:_ l--405 __ Springbrook Wetlands Develo_pment Project Site Address Vic. S,W. 34th_St. and Oaksdate Ave0 S.W. Driller Danny_Hen_Qerson Lic#-1l42T Inspector Brian ~i_!!§___ __ 5 10 15-- 20 start Jun~ 29, 2005 ___ . Completion ~~n~ 29, 2~_5_ Well ID# -------Equipment CM_E 5~ w/ autoh~mmer _ Station---·----------Offset Casing _4_"x1I'.___ Northing 1664:J_7 ______ _ Easting __!±Q§__!r!___ Latitude Longitude _________ _ County King _______ Subsection SE1/4 SE1/4 Section 25 Range _j __ EWM __ TO'Mlship 2.3_N_ ' 3 --4 5 0 " 2 0. ~ ---·--r-·- Standard I SPT Penetration Siems/ft .10 20 30 I ,-----r------,- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40 I - I I I I I I I I I I I Blows/6~ (N) 3 0-1 2 4 5 (6) .:: I 1 I, I 3 0-2 t /1 \: .~ i\ I I : ti T1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I __ l_ ___ : __ : I I I I I 4 5 4 (9) 4 D-3 4 8 8 (12) 2 D-4 1 1 2 (2) 5 D-5 5 9 10 (14) 6 D-7 11 Ji_~ 08 --! ---------1· I Description of Matenal ,_ , e "' -------------. ···---------------GS MC HT MC MC GS MC AL GS MC MC MC GS MC SM, M.C. = 17% Silty SAND, loose, grayish brown, dry, Homogeneous. With a trace of black organics, roots, and gravel. The top .6' with some FeO stains. Length Recovered 1. 7 ft, Length Retained 1 .7 ft M.C. = 19% Sandy SILT, stiff, grayish brown, moist, Stratified. The top .3' was silty sand with a trace or hair roots. Length Recovered 1 .3 ft. Length Retained 1.3 ft M.C. = 48%, LOI= 8.3% SILT with sand, stiff, grayish brown, moist, Homogeneous, Mottled with reddish brown with brown organics throughout Length Recovered 1.4 ft. Length Retained 1.4 ft 6/29/05 A.T.D. ML, M.C.;:: 57%, Ll=37, NP Sandy SILT, soft, dark gray, wet, Stratified. The top 1.1' was elastic silt dark gray. The bottom .5' was dark grayish brown with a trace of dark brown organics. Le~nqth 8:J!coverecl_!_&_f;tJ. Lengtt) Retc1!ne_d 1 -~_ft __ SM, M.C.::: 28% Silty SAND, medium dense, very dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.3 ft, Length Retained 1.3 ft M.C. = 27% Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, very dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.4 ft, Length Retained 1.4 ft M.C. =26% Silly SAND, loose, very dark gray, wet, Stratified. The top 1' was (SP) sand, and the bottom .8' was stratified with sandy silt and (SP) sand. Length Recovered 1.8 ft, Length Retained 1.8 ft SM, M.C. = 35% Silty SAND, loose, very dark gray, wet, Stratified. The I Washington State Department of Transportation Job No. XL-23'1.Q_ __ SR __105_ LOG OF TEST BORING Start Card _ $-2273j ___ _ HOLENo. SBE-1-05 Sheet _i ___ of . _2_ Project _ l-405 Springbrook Wetl_ands Devel_opment Pr(}ject _ ~-=-=~--_____ Driller Da~~ Hen_derson i~' I ' ' ··---p::.:.:, "'~:.1:6 .1,_~-1 ! f i ~ "· r ' :§_ l'.? e ..,.,..,,, "' "' ..:::: I Descnp\1on of Malenal ~ j a. Blows/ft (N) ! El ~ ~ 1' >-, ti' (/) ~ 10 20 30 40 ---------.. -0-\---;-' --,------------.--------{!31 ·r·, . I HT 1-,-.-m-p~,.-w-as (SP).Sa-nd-Sii--.t-ifi_ed_w_ilh_s_clndy silt with a I \ trace of black organics. Length Recovered 1.4 ft, Length Retained 1.4 fl \ I -7 25- 8 9 30 10 35 11 12 40 13 45 j I, I \ : \, I • I I I I I'··+---'--:-: ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -· _J__ L_ l___ _L__ 8 17 12 12 (29) D-9 L MC M.C. = 25% SAND with silt, dense, very dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.2 ft, Length Retained 1.2 ft End of test hole boring at 26 ft below ground elevation. This is a summary Log of Test Boring. Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field identifications and laboratory test data. After drilling the water table inside the casing was at 6.6'. We bailed the hole to 13.5' and 10 min. later the water table was at 12'. We pulled the casing and the hole stayed open to 13' and the water table was at 9.6'. Lic#_]742T I Washington State Department of Transportation Job No, XL-2340 ____ _ SR 4_0_5_ LOG OF TEST BORING Elevation __ 19.D ft _(5._!3:_m) Start Carel S:~2I_M____ HOLE No. _§_13E-2-Q_5 Sheet . 1 of ___ 2 __ Project 1-405 Springbrook We_~l~nds _ (?evelopment P~oj~£~ Driller Danny_ _Henderson Uc#_ ?7_~J Site Address_ Vic. S.W. 34th_ St. and Oaks.dale Aye. S.W. __ _ Well ID# Equipment_ CME _55 wt autohammer __ _ Station Offset __________ _ __ Casing 4"xll'__ Method Wet Rot~ry__ __ _ Northing _! 66344 _ Easting _ ~-294938 latitude Longitude ____________ _ County King ____________ Subsection SE1/4 SE1/4 _ g I I 5 e i 3 " :, 5 2 10----f 3 15 20 i 4 I i---5 6 m " e Q_ ---~~~ard _____ s~ l!I ~ ~ Penetration Blows/6" , f -[ 2 Blows/ft (N) I E E = ·T~ :]~:: , (22) 11 10 ----,- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I, l /1 I I I / I I i I ii:_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I__ j__ 2 1 (3) 3 7 8 9 (15) 6 7 8 11 (15) 10 11 11 12 (22) D-2 S-3 S-4 0-6 D-7 D-8 Seciion _ 25 _____ Range _ 4 E_WM Township 23 N Description of Material I e " MC M.C.:::7% Silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, brown, dry, Stratified, with some hair roots and the bottom .1' was dark gray. Length Recovered 1.8 ft, Length Retained 1.8 ft ---------------------GS ML, M_C_ = 43%, LL= 35, NP MC Sil T, soft, brown, moist. Stratified, Mottled with reddish Al brown throughout. The top 1 .2' was brown and the bottom .5' was dark gray and wet. length Recovered 1.7 ft, Length Retained 1. 7 ft SILT, soft, brown. moist, Stratified. Length Recovered 1.1 ft, Length Retained 1.1 ft 6/29/05 SILT with sand, soft, dark gray, wet, Stratified. HCI reaction not tested, The top and bottom of the sampe was sand. There might possibly be some silt layers in ! the sample. length Recovered 2.0 ft, Length Retained 2.0 ft __ _ MC M.C .::: 27% GS MC MC MC Poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, very dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. length Recovered 1.4 ft, Length Retained 1.4 ft SP-SM, M.C. = 25% Poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, very dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.5 ft, Length Retained 1.5 ft M.C .= 21% Poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, very dark gray, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 2.0 ft, Length Retained 2.0 ft M.C. = 27% Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, very dark gray, -------, I _j Washington State Department of Transportation Job No. XL-2340 __ _ SR _495 _ LOG OF TEST BORING Elevation _ 19.0 f!..{5.8 m) __ _ Start Card .....§:2_2'?:M.__ HOLE No. _s,BE-2-0§__ Sheet _i___ of __ L Project _l_~~_eringbrook Wetlands_ Develoe'!'_e']_t_P!~l~_t ___ _ g I C e a i • Q " 7 t 9 I 30~ 10 35 11 12 -13 45 Standard • " Penetration e Blowslft CL 10 20 30 40 ' I 1---·1 ·----,--. B B (14) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I + I I , I I •q-····-·· iii ---,--,-- 1 I ' , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. _---1..__. . _l____J_ 6 8 7 12 , (15) ----- 0-9 Description of Material --t-------------,--------------- MC moist, Laminated with brown organics. Length Recovered 1.5 ft, Length Retained 1.5 ft M.C. = 27% Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, very dark gray, 1 wet, Laminated with brown organics. Length Recovered 1.3 ft, Length Retained 1.3 ft --------------- End of test hole boring at 26 ft below ground elevation. This is a summary Log of Test Boring. Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field identifications and laboratory test data. After drilling the water table inside the casing was at 6'. We bailed the hole to 14.5' and 15 min. later the water table was at 11. T. We pulled the casing and the hole stayed open lo 11.4' and the water table was at 8'. Lie# _IJ__ 4_:n_ ~r-~ ~ I E c I 2 e ~ C) • Q :;i: . . j, ~ • r D C 6 • ~ q r u w a " Q r z w , " D a: > w D • D z :l r w • " 8 ffi G z ~ Q • . ~ " • 0 ~ ~ ~ X ~ 6 • Washington State Department of Transportation Job No.2(L-2340 ___ _ SR _495 LOG OF TEST BORING l:.leva!ion _fLLl':r]L_ StartCard __9_::22734 __ _ HOLE No. SBE-3-05 _ Sheet _j__ of _____I __ ProjectJ-405 Springbrook Wetlands Deve_lopment Project Site Address \(ic. __ SW 34th St. and O_~k!,,dale Ave. SW_ Driller _ Da~_i:iy Henderso/}_ Uc# __2]42T Inspector Brian Hil!s __ Start Junl;l!_28, 200~-----Completion ~_une ?~~5 ___ Well ID#_ __ __ Equipment CJv1E 55 w/ autohammer .. Station Offset ____ _ Casing Northing 166393 ____ _ Easting ___ 1_2_9_4_42_8_ Latilude County _King _________ Subsection _S_E!_i4_SE11_4_ ~ e Q. ------~---1··-·· i:.· ci - Standard . SPT ?° 1 2 §_ 10 Penetration ' '1.l ; 810'oVS/6n *-, Q_ .3 Blows/ft 2lJ 30 40 (N) EI E :J J5 Sl C 4"x27' --------Method Wet_ Rotary __ _ Longitude _______ -----·----- Section ~---Range __i EWM __ Township .23..lf_ Description of Material J -,------,-----,---6 I I I I D-1 MC M.C. = 15% I I I I I I I I . L I 15 10 9 (25) S-2 Silty SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, Stratified, The top .4' with hair roots, and the bottom .1' was dark gray with a trace of gravel. At 3' we encountered silt demonstrated by drilling. Length Recovered 1.1 ft, Length Retained 1. 1 ft --------------------------- SILT, loose, dark gray, moist, Homogeneous 5-I Length Recovered 1.2 ft, Length Retained 1.2 ft ;-2 0 D-3 MC 1 M.C. =45% 0 SILT with sand, very loose, dark gray. wet, 1 Homogeneous, (moisture Un obtained) sz 2 Length Recovered 2.0 ft, Length Retained 2.0 ft (1) 6128105 I ' " 0 0-4 GS ML, M.C. = 67% 0 MC Sandy SILT, very loose, dark gray, wet, Stratified, 10 -3 1 HT Stratified with sill and sand with wood debris throughout. 1 Length Recovered 2.0 ft, Length Retained 2.0 ft (1) 3 D-5 MC -------------------- M.C. = 27% 5 Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, very dark gray, 6 wet, Homogeneous 7 Length Recovered 1.2 ft, Length Retained 1.2 ft (11) 4 I 5 D-6 MC M.C. = 27% I I I 7 Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, very dark gray, 15 I I, 9 wet, Homogeneous I I 8 Length Recovered 1.5 ft, Length Retained 1.5 ft I I I • (16) I /1 6 I D-7 MC MC=25% 5 10 Poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, very dark -Y' .. ···· : : 9 !~ gray, wet, Homogeneous, trace of brown organics . 7 Length Recovered 1.6 ft, Length Retained 1.6 ft -I (19} . ( • 1 I I 1~-1JI[ : _j ·-------------__ ,. ___ - 3 l_D-8 MC M.C.:: 37% Sandy Elastic SILT, soft, dark gray, wet. Stratified, The 1 -. 20 _ __l_ __l_ __ ----------- 30 35 40 Washington State Department of Transportation LOG OF TEST BORING JobNo XL-2~--SR 405 -----Elevation _lt_l!!!L HOLE No. __§_BE-3:CJS __ Project_l-405 Springbrook Wetlands Developme_n_l_Project _ -7 8 -9 f ---------Standa:----SPT :iT ~ -;·-I r & Penetration 1--a, z ~ £ Bl(MtSJft 01;'6" I 11 ~ ':'? t!l U) ~ 10 20 30 40 y.-·----T -----,- \ I ' I I ; I I I I ('J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --1--,--,- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I ,- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I 0-9 MC ,l 1 I I I I !----10 I I I I I 11 -12 I I I I I I I I -----13 I I I Sheet __ 2 of-~-~ Driller __Qa_n_ny___tlenders_gn_ Oesaiplion of Material \ top .3' was sand, The middle .2' silty sand, and the bottom 1' was elastic silt with a trace of brown organics. \ \Lengtn Recovered J~~-!::_~ngth Retainl;}_d_1.c_Q__ft ___ _ _E;_iastic silt with a, trace_ of brown organ~. ____ _ M.C. = 18% Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, very dark gray, wet, Homogeneous Length Recovered 1.6 ft, Length Retained 1.6 ft End of test hole boring at 26 ft below ground elevation. This is a summary Log of Test Boring. Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field identifications and laboratory test data. The water table inside the casing after drilling was at 3.4'. We bailed the hole to 14.5', 15 min. later the water table was at 12.3. We pulled the casing and the hole stayed open to 13', and the water table was at 7.3'. I 451 I I I I I I I I I I I _l -" _J_ _J_ _, _ __ L_ '- L<# i7-4ZL L I c • E ] J Washington State Department of Transportation Job No. Xl-:?:),\0 __ _ SR LOG OF TEST BORING Elevation _J!..Li:!!} Start Card S-22n4 HOLE No. _fill_E-4-0i___ Sheet _1_ of _2_ Project_ 1-405 Springbroo_k Wetlands_Develop~ent Project_ Driller J_oe Judd -·---Lie# _24M __ Site Address Vic. of SW __ 34th St._ & Oa~sdale. A_ve_.~W __ Start July 12, 2005 ___ Completion July 12, 2005 _ --Well ID# Equ·,pment _ C_~-~-850 ~/ autohammer Station Offset ________ _ H.Ox25,0 __ Northing ___!£~IQ§__-Easting 1294394 _____ Latitude __ _ Lor,g1tude ____________ _ County~_ ~--Ii-. ~ ~ I l ' i, I 10 20 30 40 y---------r------i-·-~-- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 • 5 3 2 (5) -2 10-· 3 4 15-- 5 ' I ~ / : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 10 15 (25) 2 4 3 (7) 2 3 5 (8) 1 0 0 (0) I ' 1 ll1 ~ ~ D~ D-5 ' 0-6 D-7 D-8 GS MC HT MC LOI GS MC MC MC LOI GS MC Section 25 _ Range _1 EWM __ Toooshfp 23 N Description of Material ---·---------------- M.C.::: 20% Silty SAND, w/roots, loose, dark greyish brown, moist, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft M.C. = 14% Silty SAND, loose, dark greyish brown, moist, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1 .0 ft SM, M.C. = 25% Silty SAND, loose, dark brown, wel, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft M.C. = 39% Silty SAND. dense, dark grey, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft ML, M.C. = 31% Sandy SILT, loose, dark grey, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft --·--- M.C. =29% Silty SAND, loose, dark grey. wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft \ -------~---07/1212005 M.C. =63% Elastic Sil T, very stiff, dark grey, wet, Stratified. Length Recovered 1.0 ft SM, M.C. = 102%, LOI::: 15.1% Silty SAND, medium stiff, very dark brown, wet. Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft }I J € ~ '5. • 0 25 30 35-- 40 Washington State Department of Transportation LOG OF TEST BORING Job No. XL-2340 __ SR _ 4CJ:; Elevat;on fti.!!!L ___ _ Start Card 2.-22734 __ HOLE No. SBE::1,Q§____. Project I e .. ~ 7 ' 9 10 11 -12 13 l-405_Springbrook W~tlands De_vel(!pmenl Prr)ject __ • I Sra~arn [;'! j ~ ! I 1 p,::::" 40 I Bl:"" ! l i f------'.0.----.-----,--------- ' 2 I I 4 I 6 : (10) I I 0-9 I Ii /1 1: 1, GS MC I' I: ., I I I I I I I I I I I I 0-10 I MC I I I -----,-------+---1-j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _L~_l t- i ! Sheet __ --~-of __ 2 _ Driller _ Joe Jud_9 ___ .. ___ Lie# _Z454 O.Scr,pbon of Mate~a~ ---]II -i e j " --· --------- ML, M.C.::: 31% Sandy SILT, w/roots, loose, dark grey, wet, Stratified. Length Recovered 1,0 ft M.C. = 50% Sandy SILT, loose, dark grey, wet, Homogeneous. Length Recovered 1.0 ft End of test hole boring at 26 .5 ft below ground elevation. This is a summary Log of Test Boring. Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field identifications and laboratory test data. Start Bail 7 .8' Stop Bail 15.0' Recharge 15.0' j_J /-/yd.to /;nc Job No. XL-2340 Dale August 19, 2005 ~ Kole No. SBC-1-05 Sheet 1 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State "I Department of Transportatlon 1--Projed 1-405 Springbrook Wetlands Development Project Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Oescriptron MC% LL PL Pl (ff) (m) • o.o 0.00 D-1 See Boring Log Molsture content only 22 ~ 2.5 0.76 D-2 See Boring Log Moisture content only 30 ... 5.0 1.52 D-3 See Boring Log LOJ and Moisture content 33 --·· * 8.0 2.44 D-4 ML See Boring Log SANDY SILT with wood fragments in sample 46 0 10.0 3.05 D-5 See Boring Log Moisture content only 29 - US Sieve Opening In Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3' 3{4" #4 #10 040 #200 100 -i ! "' %Grave! %Sand %Fines Cc Cu " 90 • o.o 10.0 90.0 \ 80 ~ 0.0 10.0 90.0 \ ~ ~. 70 ... 0.0 10.0 90.0 :l: \ ·"' ~ 60 ' * 0.6 49.0 50.3 0.8 42.7 >-"' ;,. 50 0 0.0 10.0 90.0 Q) <= ' ii: r-,... " N ~ 40 GRADATION VALUES Q) l a. \ 30 \.... D60 D50 030 020 010 20 ~ • ' hi 10 ~ I'* ... 0 s • ' 2 10 e ' 4 ' 2 1 • s • ' 2 0.1 B 5 • ' ' 0.01& ' . ' ' 0.001 * 0.107 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.003 Grain Size In Millimeter I I Coarse I Sano I I 0 Gravel I Silt and Clay Medlum Fine Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ~ Hole No. SBC-1-05 Sheet 2 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State r, Department of Transportation Project 1-405 S 3ringbrook Wetlands Development Project Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pl (ft) (m) ' -• 13.0 3.96 D-6 See Boring Log Mofsture content only 24 Ill 15.0 4.57 D-7 See Boring Log Moisture content only 28 ~ -. ... 18.0 5.49 D-8 See Boring Log Moisture content only 24 * 20.0 6.10 D-9 See Boring Log Molsture content only 24 US Sieve Opening In Inches j US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" 314" #4 #10 #40 #200 100 i "' %Gravel %Sand %Fines Cc Cu 90 -• 0.0 10.0 90.0 BO IJ] 0.0 10.0 90,0 70 ... o.o 10.0 90.0 1c ~ -.Q> ~ 60 ' * 0.0 10.0 90.0 >, ID ~ 50 " ·" ll. 'E 40 GRADATION VALUES ~ " Q. 30 060 050 D30 D20 D10 20 • 10 IJ] / ' ... 0 • • 3 2 10 3 ' . ' ' 1 ' 5 • • 2 0.1 e ' . ' ' 0.01a ' . ' ' 0,001 * Grain Size In Millimeter I Sand G""'81 Slit and Clay Coarse Medium Fine . /-/ydl<CJ /frl C Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ..ai.. Hole No. SBC-2-05 Sheet 1 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State r, Department of Transportation Project 1-405 Springbrook Wetlands Development Project Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pt (ft) (m) • 0.0 0.00 D-1 See Boring Log Moisture content only 6 IZ! 2.0 0.61 D-2 See Boring Log Moisture content only 27 . ... 6.0 1.83 D-4 See Boring Log Moistura-conb:!nl only 29 * 9.0 2.74 D-5 SM See Boring Log SILTY SAND 35 0 11.0 3.35 D-6 Soo Boring Log Moisture content only 32 US Sieve Opening In Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS ' 3' 3/tl· #4 #10 #40 #20(] 100 . ... "" \" ! ' i l~~;~vel -I %,Sand %Fines Cc Cu i 90 \ ----,--~--- ' • 0.0 10.0 90.0 ao \ IZ! 0.0 10.0 90.0 70 \ ... 0.0 10.0 90.0 ~ I .2' ~ 60 *, 0.0 62.4 37.6 2.0 6.4 >, "' " 50 ~. . 0 0.0 10.0 90.0 "' u: 11\111 ~ ' -1! 40 1-t-GRADATION VALUES Ef 30 D60 D50 D30 D20 D10 20 ')'I, • i---.. 10 IZ! _, I . " ... 0 ' ' ' 2 10 8 ' ' 3 2 1 • 5 ' 3 0.1 8 ' ' 3 2 0.018 5 ' 3 2 0.001 2 * 0.102 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.016 Grain Size In Millimeter I I Sand 0 Gravel I Coarse I Silt and Clay Medium Ffne Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ~ Hole No. SBC-2-05 Sheet 2 .of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State ,,, Department of Transportation Project 1-405 S rinabrook Wetlands Development Project Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pl (ft) {m) • 14.0 4.27 D-7 See Boring Log Molsturo content only 23 IZl 16.0 4.88 D-8 See Boring Log Moisture content only 21 -... 19.D 5.79 D-9 See Boring Log Moisture content only 29 ·-~· - US Sieve Opening In Inches ! US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 100 ' ' ' ---' "' I I %Gravel %Sand %Fines Cc Cu 90 --------- • 0.0 10.0 90.0 80 - ' IZl 0.0 10.0 90.0 --·-70 ... 0.0 10.0 90.0 :a! ·"' ~ 60 "' m ;;; C 50 ii: "E ~ 40 GRADATION VALUES m C. 30 - D60 D50 030 D20 D10 20 I • 10 rII u ... 0 • 4 3 ' 10 • 5 4 3 2 1 • 5 • ' 2 0.1 a 5 • 3 2 0.018 5 4 ' ' 0.001 I Grain Size In Millimeter sand I Silt and Clay Gravel I Coerse Medium Fine - Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ...... Hole No. SBC-3-05 Sheet 1 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State ,, Department of Transportation Project 1405 Sprin11brook Wetlands Development Project Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pl (ft) (m) • 0.0 0.00 D-1 See Boring Log Moisnire content only 5 11:J 2.0 0.61 D-2 See Boring Log Moisture content only 11 ... 4.0 1.22 D-3 ML See Boring Log SANDY SILT 25 * 6.0 1.83 D-4 See Boring Log Moisture content only 29 0 9.0 2.74 D-5 See Boring Log Moisture content only 30 US Sieve Opening Jn Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3• 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 100 I I -------~--- \" ! %Gravel %Sand %Fines Cc Cu i 90 --I-I----- \ ' • 0.0 10.0 90.0 so 11:J o.o 10.0 90.0 70 ... 0.0 39.1 60.9 ~ ,Q> * 0.0 10.0 90.0 ~ so >, a, I 0 :;; 50 0.0 10.0 90.0 " I Li: ~ " 40 GRADATION VALUES ~ • !l. 30 D60 D50 D30 D20 D10 20 • 10 11:J i i ... 0 ' ' , 2 10 • 5 • ' ' 1 • 5 • , 2 0.1 B ' ' ' ' 0.018 ' . ' 2 0.001 --·-- * Grain Size In Millimeter - I Sand I l 0 Gravel Silt and Ctay Coarne Medium Fine Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ....... Hole No. SBC-3-05 Sheet 2 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State ,., Department o!Transportation Project 1-405 Sprinabrook Wetlands Development Pro/eel Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pl ~ --(ft) (m) -----. • 11.0 3.35 0-6 See Boring Log Moisture content only 32 !XI 14.0 4.27 D-7 SM See Boring Log SILTY SAND 29 ... 16.0 4.88 0-8 See Boring Loe Moisture content only 27 * 19.0 5.79 D-9 See Boring Log Moisture content only 22 I--~·---· - US Sieve Opening In Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 100 - I f-----~ ' ! %Fines i Cc ' %Gravel %Sand Cu 90 .. ' '--+-----. • 0.0 10.0 90.0 1%1 80 ' ~ !XI o.o 71.6 28.4 70 \ A. 0.0 10.0 90.0 l: "' 'iii ;;: 60 \ ' * 0.0 10.0 90.0 :,. ro ~ 50 it i 'E 40 GRADATION VALUES ~ 11111 0. 30 D60 D50 D30 D20 010 20 • 10 !XI D.120 0.10 0.08 I I A. 0 ' 4 ' 2 10 8 ' 4 ' 2 1 • 5 4 ' 2 0.1 a ' ' ' 2 0.01.a ' 4 ' 2 0.001 * Grain Size In Millimeter I I Sand I i Gr.uvel / Coarse I Silt and Clay Medium Fine ,~y~~D I ;rJ C Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ...... Hole No. SBC-4-05 Sheet 1 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State "I Department of Transportation Project 1-405 Springbrook Wetlands Develooment Project Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pl (ft) (m) -. • 0.0 0.00 D-1 s.,,, Boring Log Moisture content only 33 III 2.5 0.76 D-2 ML See Boring Log SILT 12 A 5.0 l 1.52 D-3 See Boring Log Moisture content only 30 * 8.0 2A4 D-4 See Boring Log Moisture content only 17 (i) 10.0 3.05 D-5 SM See Boring Log SILTY SAND 32 US Sieve Opening In Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS I 3• 3/4" #4 #10 /140 #200 100 ! l I -~~ravel %Sand-] %.Fines -··-I ~ \-s "'-I Cc Cu 90 \ e-i • 0.0 10.0 90.0 so III 0.0 12.2 87.7 <\ 70 ' • 0.0 10,0 90.0 :E .!!> ~ 60 \ * 0.0 10.0 90.0 >, Ill ~ 0 0.0 75.2 24.8 2.0 5.3 m 50 I 1 .s 1...--L__.~l....._ u. :E ~ 40 GRADATION VALUES " C. ,o D60 D50 D30 D20 D10 20 • r's,._ k. 10 III ' - -" 0 5 4 > ' 10 O s ' ' ' 1 ' 5 4 ' ' 0.1 8 . ' 3 ' 0.01a 5 4 ' ' 0.001 * Grain Size In Millimeter I -- I sand 0 0.133 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.025 Gravel I Coarn, SUtand Clay Medium Fir.a Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ....... Hole No. SBC-4-05 Sheet 2 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State r, Department ofTransportation Project l-405 Springbrook Wetlands Development Project Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pt (~) (m) • 13.0 3.96 0-6 See Boring Log Moisture content only 34 IJI 15.0 4.57 D-7 See Boring Log Mojsture content only 32 ... 18.0 5.49 D-8 See Boring Log Moisture content only 23 * 20.0 6.10 D-9 See Boring Log Moisture content only 26 -·- US Sieve Opening In Inches j us Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 100 I ~ I %Gravel %Sand %Fines Cc Cu i 90 -~ --------'---- I I I • 0.0 10.0 90.0 eo IJI 0.0 10.0 90.0 70 ... 0.0 10.0 90.0 :E ·"' i!! 80 ' * 0.0 10.0 90.0 >-·-"' ~ 50 -~ "- ~ 1l 40 GRADATION VALUES " a. I 30 ' D60 050 D30 D20 D10 f------20 • 10 IJI I Jo. 0 ' ' 3 2 10 8 ' ' • 2 1 ' ' ' 3 2 0.1 .e 5 ' 3 2 0.015 ' ' 3 2 0,001 --- * Grain Size In Millimeter I Sand Gravel Slit and Clay co ..... Medium Fine 1-1_yd1<~ I Mc Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ...... Hole No. SBC-5-05 Sheet 1 of 2 Laboratory Summary U Washington State 'I Department of Transportation Project 1-405 S ,ring brook Wetlands Develooment Proiect Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pl (ft) (m) -· • 0.0 0.00 D-1 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 34 1:1 2.5 0.76 D-2 ML See Boring Log SANDYSJLT 28 • 5.0 1.52 D·3 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 36 * 8.0 2.44 D-4 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 38 0 10.0 3.05 D-5 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 31 US Sieve Opening In Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" 3/4" •• #10 #40 #200 -100 J "' f----r·· ---r--------" %Gravel %Sand %Fines Cc cu \., 90 . -----· ~ ~·· -. \ • 0.0 10.0 90.0 ... 80 \ lZI 0.0 45.7 54.3 70 • 0.0 10.0 90.0 :le / .Q> --~ ,, 60 * 0.0 10.0 90.0 i'S \ li 50 0 0.0 10.0 90.0 ~ \ -·· 7c ~ 40 i "'\ GRADATION VALUES a. ~ 30 ~ - 060 D50 D30 D20 ! I\ D10 20 l • I'--,...__ 10 lZI 0.020 0.04 0.01 o.oo I I • 0 ' 4 3 2 10 S 5 4 3 2 1 • 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 • • 3 2 0.018 5 • 3 2 0.001 f-~---- Grain Size In Millimeter * -- I I Sand I 0 Gravel I Coarae smand Clay Medium Fine - Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ....... Hole No. SBC-5-05 Sheet 2 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State "I Department ofTransportation Project 1-405 Springbrook Wetlands Develooment Proiect Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pl (ft) (m) • 13.D 3.96 D-6 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 41 111 15.D 4.57 D-7 ML See Boring Log SJLT 49 36 NP NP "' 18.0 5.49 D-8 ML See Boring Log SILT with SAND wood fragments in sample 84 55 NP NP - * 20.0 6.10 D-9 Ses Boring Log Moisture Content only 323 US Sieve Opening In Inches j US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" 314• #4 #10 #40 #200 100 - -. -...., r--,..__ n ~ ·" %Gravel %Sand %Fines Cc Cu 90 .. '~ • 0.0 10.0 90.0 ' 80 IZI o.o 7.3 92.7 -., ~ 70 "' 0.7 28A 70.9 E C, * 0.0 10.0 90.0 I 60 ,., .. "' I ~ 50 ,: u: ~ @ 40 GRADATION VALUES w 0. 30 D60 D50 D30 D20 D10 I 20 • 10 IZI i "' 0 5 4 a 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 • ' . 3 2 0.1 B 5 4 3 ' 0.018 5 4 ' ' 0.001 ! * Grain Size In Millimeter - I Sand Gravel Slit and Clay Coarse Medium Fine Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ...... Hole No. SBD-1-05 Sheet 1 of 1 Laboratory Summary V Washington State ,, Department ofTransporta1ion Project 1-405 Sprln11brook Wetlands Development Project Depu, Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pl (ft) (m) • 0.5 0.15 IJ..1 See Boring Log Moisture content only 9 ' IJ:I 4.0 1.22 D-2 See Boring Log Moisture content only 29 --·· . -- I US Sieve Opening In Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" 3/4" #4 :10 #40 #200 -1 OD ' I "' %Gravel %Sand %Fines Cc Cu 90 ---,_ f---. -, - r • 0.0 10.0 90.0 80 IJ:I 0.0 10.0 90.0 70 :c ·"' ~ 60 6l iil 50 C u: le 40 ! GRADATION VALUES ~ .. ll. 30 --· ' D60 D50 D30 D20 D10 20 • 10 IJ:I 0 ' . ' 2 1 D 8 •• ' 2 1 • ' 4 ' 2 0.1 a ' . ' 2 o.01e 5 • ' 2 0.001 --Grain Size In Millimeter I I sand Grwvel I Coarse I Slit and Cloy Meellum Fina Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 .-._ Washington State Hole No. SBD-2-05 Sheet 1 of 1 Laboratory Summary ... Department of Transportation Project 1-405 S Jrlnabrook Wetlands Development Project -·· Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pl (ft) (m) • 0.5 0.15 D-1 See Boring Log Moisture content only 12 1% 5.5 1.68 D,3 See Boring Log Moisture content only 39 ~ t--~--·- US Sieve Opening In Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" 3/-4" #4 #10 #40 #200 100 ! I 1 ! " ' %Gravel %Sand %Fines Cc Cu 90 ! ~----. I • 0.0 10.0 90.0 OD 1:11 0.0 10.0 90.0 -10 :la ·"' ~ 60 ----it :;; 50 ~ u: 1, 40 GRADATION VALUES @ " ! 0. 30 060 D50 D30 020 D10 ' 20 • 10 1:11 0 5 4 3 2 10 • S 4 3 ' 1 • 5 ' 3 2 0.1 e 5 ' ' 2 0.018 5 • 3 2 0.001 Grain Size In Millimeter I I -·r Sand Silt and Clay Gravel [ Coar1e Medium Fine Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ....... Hole No. SBD-3-05 Sheet 1 of 1 Laboratory Summary V Washington State 'I Department of Transportation Project 1-405 Springbrook Wetlands DeveJooment Proiect Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pl (ft) (m) • 0.0 0.00 0-1 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 31 - 1%1 2.5 0.76 D-2 ML See Boring Log SANDY SILT 32 ---- US Sieve Opening In Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" 314• .. #10 #40 #200 100 - ""' ~ i %Gravel %Sand j ~~~ines Cc Cu 90 ~ I• ' • 0.0 10.0 90.0 I 80 \ IZI 0.1 46.2 53.7 70 :E '--'-· .!a> f 60 iii ~ m " 50 ;;:: -" ~ 40 GRADATION VALUES ~ 30 060 050 030 020 010 20 • 10 IZI 0.086 I a 5 4 ' 2 10 e 5 ' ' ' 1 • 5 4 3 2 0.1 a 5 4 ' 2 0.018 5 4 3 2 0.001 Grain Size In Millimeter I I Sand Silt and Clay Gra1Jel I Coarse l Medium Fine Hyd1<0 / Mc Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ...... Hole No. SBE-1-05 . Sheet 1 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State r, Department of Transportation _£r?ject 1-405 Springbrook Wetlands Development Project Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pl (ft) (m) --• 0.0 0.00 D·1 SM See Boring Log SILTY SAND 17 III 4.0 1.22 D-2 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 19 ... 6.0 1.83 D-3 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 4S * 9.0 2.74 D-4 ML See Boring Log SILT 57 37 NP NP 0 11.0 3.35 D--5 SM See B0rin9 Log SILTY SAND 28 us Sieve Opening In Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" 3/4" ... #10 ... o #200 100 -~ ~ " I %Fines I Cc ~-,._ %Gravel %Sand Cu ~ I"--,o . ~-..... 2.2 73.1 24.7 ' 1.6 37.9 1' • ~ ~ 80 III 0.0 10.0 90.0 ' \ 70 ' \ ... 0.0 10.0 90.0 Jc ~ ~-f I 60 \ * 0.0 15.0 85.0 >-"' II 0 0.0 67.1 32.9 :. 50 . ,!; \ lL ~ 1l. 40 \ GRADATION VALUES " CL 30 I D60 D50 D30 020 D10 '\. --~--~ 20 • 0.220 0.17 0.05 0.02 0.006 '- 10 ~ III r--N t--i--0 a 5 • ' 2 10 • ' . ' ' 1 • 5 • ' ' 0.1 e 5 4 3 ' o.01e 5 ' ' ' (1,001 * Grain Size In Millimeter I I Sand 0 0.119 0.10 Gro!lvct Sitt and Clay Coarse Med/um Fine J-iyJ~o / fJJ C Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ........ Hole No. SBE·1-05 Sheet 2 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State ~r, Department ofTransportation Project 1-405 Springbrook Wetlands Development Project Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pl (ft) (m) -• 14.0 4,27 0-6 See Boring Log Morsture Content only 27 IZI 16.0 4,88 D·7 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 26 --- A. 19.0 5.79 0-8 SM See Boring Log .SILTY SAND 35 * i 24.0 7,32 0-9 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 25 us Sieve Opening In Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" 3/4" •• #10 #40 #200 100 i !--~-- i "' \~ %Gravel %Sand %Fines Cc Cu 90 -· ----------i • 0.0 10.0 90.0 i i ao +-_,,. -- \ 1%) 0.0 10.0 90.0 ,__ -70 . -· A. 0.0 52.7 47.3 1.6 11.4 :I! .2' 90.0 ~ ao * 0.0 10.0 ,. al I ,111 lil if 50 H-I-I 1, ' I\ ~ 40 GRADATION VALUES I\ if I I" " 060 050 D30 020 D10 20 , I \ • ~ 1D 1%) --A. 0.094 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.008 0 5 • 3 2 10 • s • 3 2 1 • s • ' 2 0.1 8 ' • 3 2 0.018 s • 3 2 Q_DC1 * Grain Size In Millimeter I Sand Gravel Slit and Clay Coarse Medium Fina - Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ..iai.. Hole No. SBE-2-05 Sheet 1 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington-State ,., Department of Transportation Project 1-405 Sprlnabrook Wetlands Development Project Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pl (fl) (m) -··· • 0.0 0.00 D-1 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 7 IZI 4.0 1.22 D-2 ML See Boring Log SILT 43 35 NP NP ... 11.0 3.35 D-6 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 27 * 14.0 4.27 D-6 SP-SM See Boring Log POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT 25 ~- 0 16.0 4.88 D-7 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 21 - US Sieve Opening In Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" 3/4~ #4 #10 #40 #200 ' 100 ! I . ~ --i %Gravel %Sand %Fines Co Cu 90 " I • o.o 10.0 90.0 ~ I BO III 0.0 4A 95.6 70 \ ... 0.0 10.0 90.0 ::E! l BO * 0.0 94.4 5.6 1.4 3.1 >, !D 0 0.0 10.0 ~ 90.0 " " 60 u: c 40 ···~ GRADATION VALUES ~ '\ I if 30 D60 050 D30 D20 D10 I 20 • " 10 Cl! ... 0 • • ' 2 10 • • • ' 2 1 • 5 4 • 2 0.1 6 5 4 • ' 0.018 5 4 • ' 0.001 * 0.322 0.29 0.21 0.18 0.105 Grain Size In Millimeter I I Sand I 0 Gravel I Coarse Slit and Clay Medium Fine Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ...... Hole No. SBE-2-05 Sneet 2 of 2 Laboratory Summary ;Ji Washington State r, Department of Transportation Project 1-405 Sprinabrook Wetlands Develooment Project Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color OescripUon MC% LL PL Pl (ft) (m) -·· -• 19.0 5.79 D-8 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 27 iZI 24.0 7.32 D-9 See Boring Log Moisture Content only 27 -- US Sieve Opening In Inches j US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 100 i " I %Gravel %Sand %Finos Cc Cu so -: • o.o 10.0 90,0 80 III 0.0 10.0 90.0 70 ! :le -"' ~ 60 >, ., ~ 50 ii: 'l! 40 I " GRADATION VALUES ~ " a. 30 D60 D50 030 D20 D10 20 • 10 III I 0 5 • ' ' 10 8 s ; ' ' \ . ' . 3 ' 0.1 & ' . 3 2 a.01e. 5 4 ' 2 0.001 Grain Size In Millimeter I I Sand Slit and Clay Gravel I Coarae I Medium Fine Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ...a.. Hole No. SBE-3-05 Sheet 1 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State r, Department of Transportation Project 1-405 S lringbrook Wetlands Oevelopment Proje<:t Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Descrtption MC% LL PL Pl (ft) (m) • 0.0 0.00 D-1 See Boring Log Moisture content only 15 t:I 6.0 1.83 D-3 See Boring Log Moisture content only 46 • 9.0 2.74 D-4 ML See Boring Log SANDY SILT 67 * 11.0 3.35 0-5 See Soring Log Moisture content only 27 0 14.0 4.27 D-6 See Soring Log Moisture content only 27 ~- us Sieve Opening In Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 100 - ~ N---"' I %Gravel %Sand %Fines I Cc Cu . ' ' 90 ' -----' ' ' ' • o.o 10.0 90.0 ll. 80 t:I 0.0 10.0 90.0 ~ 70 • 0.3 32.3 67.4 1.0 17.3 :E ,..,-\ -"' ~ 60 * 0.0 10.0 90.0 >, ' co \ :;;-50 0 0.0 10.0 90.0 ~ \ c 40 GRADATION VALUES ~ . " 0. 30 D60 D50 D30 D20 D10 I" 20 • [ ':I •"--10 IZI .. • 0.031 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.002 o S 4 3 ' 10 • ' . ' ' 1 • • • 3 ' 0.1 a •• 3 ' 0.01a 5 ' ' 2 0.001 i-·-· Grain Size In Millimeter * I Sand 0 GraYel Silt and Clay Coarse Medium Fine Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ....... Hole No. SBE-3-05 Sheet 2 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State ,., Department ofTransportation Project 1-405 Springbrook Wetlands Development Project Depth Depth Sample No. uses (ft) (m) Color Description MC% LL PL Pl .. • 16.0 4.88 D-7 See Boring Log Moisture content only 25 . III 19.0 5.79 D-8 See Boring Log Moisture content only 37 .i. 24.0 7.32 D-9 See Boring Log Moisture content only 18 .. US Sieve Opening In Inches J US Sieve Numbera I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3" :iw ... ttrn #40 #200 100 ; "" I •· .. i %Gravel %Sand %Fines Cc Cu so • 0.0 10.0 90.0 80 IZI 0.0 10.0 90.0 ! ··-70 I .i. 0.0 10.0 90.0 :E -I---------f 60 >, III ~ 50 m C ~-li: 1: 40 GRADATION VALUES ~ " n. 30 . D60 D50 D30 D20 D10 20 • ~ 10 !II ' . I ... 0 5 • ' 2 10 8 • • 3 2 1 • ' . ' 2 0.1 S . ' 3 2 0.01s 5 • 3 2 0.001 ~ ~- Grain Size In Millimeter I Sand Gravel I Coarse Silt and Clay Medium Fine J/_ydRa I Mc Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ...... Hole No. SBE-4-05 Sheet 1 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State r, Department of Transportation Project 1-405 Springbrook Wetlands Development Project -- Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Description MC% LL PL Pl (ft) (m) • 0.0 0.00 D-1 See Boring Log Moisture content only 20 IZI 2.5 0.76 0.2 See Boring Log Moisture content only 14 A 6.0 1.52 D-3 SM See Boring Log SILTY SAND 25 - * 8.0 2.44 0..4 Sae Boring Log Moisture content only 39 © 10.0 3.05 D-5 ML See Boring Log SANDY SILT 31 -1 US Sieve Opening In Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS ' , .. 3/,f' #4 #10 #40 #200 100,: I! ! ; l\" ! i ' ' . " ' %Fines i Cc ' ! i '%Gravel %Sand Cu 90 'I I \ \ ----- '' , • 0.0 10.0 90.0 I BO ----·---\ IZI 0.0 10.0 90.0 ---70 \ 11111 "', 0.4 68.2 31.4 5.0 17.0 :E! .!1' *l ~ 60 0.0 10.0 90.0 \ I >, l!l © .; 50 0.0 47.4 52.6 .E LL E i! 40 GRADATION VALUES " (L 30 - D60 D50 D30 020 D10 "-'--' 20 • I . ~~ i to IZI ' -i-----.. ' .. 0.123 0.10 0.07 0.03 0.007 0 5 4 ' 2 10 B ' . ' ' 1 8 ' 4 ' 2 0.1 s 5 4 ' 2 a.au; ' . ' 2 0.001 * Grain Size In Millimeter I Sand I 0 0.084 Gravel Silt and Clay Coarse Medium Fine Job No. XL-2340 Date August 19, 2005 ...... Hole No. SBE-4-05 Sheet 2 of 2 Laboratory Summary V Washington State Project 1-405 S prlngbrook Wetlands Development ProJect "I Department of Transportation Depth Depth Sample No. uses Color Descciptlon MC% LL PL Pl (ft) (m) • 13.0 3.96 D-6 See Boring Log Moisture content only 29 IZI 15.0 4.57 D•7 See Boring Log Moisture content only 63 ... 18.0 5.49 D-8 SM See Boring Log SILTY SAND 102 ~-- * 20.0 6.10 D-9 ML See Boring Log SANDY SILT 36 0 25.0 7.62 D-10 See Boring Log Moisture content only 50 US Sieve Opening In Inches I US Sieve Numbers I Hydrometer Analysis GRADATION FRACTIONS 3"' :l/4" 114 #10 #40 #.2:00 100 -~ i I'-"' i : I I I %Gravel %Sand %Fines Cc Cu I 90 ----------'"' • 0.0 10,0 90.0 BO -- IZI 0.0 10.0 90.0 \ 70 r ... 0.8 54.6 44.6 :E 1, I 60 * 0.0 35.8 64.2 1ii ' l;; i 0 0.0 10.0 90.0 C 60 ii: 1= I 40 I GRADATION VALUES ~ " a. 30 D60 D50 D30 D20 D10 20 • 10 I IZI 0 ... 0.201 0.11 ' . ' ' 10 8 ' . ' ' 1 ' ' . ' ' 0.1 a ' . 3 2 0,018 • • 3 2 0.001 ! ~ Grain Size In Millimeter * Sand 0 GruveJ Silt and Clay Coac.se Medium Fine WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -MATERIALS LABORATORY PO Box 47365, Olympia WA 98504-7365 / 1655 S. 2nd Ave., Tumwater WA 98512 Chemistry Section TEST OF MISCELLANEOUS CHEMICAL MATERIALS Date Logged In: 08/08/2005 SR: 405 Contract No: Lab. No: Transmittal No: Lab ID No: XL2340 MC-04927 479194 0000313206 Section: SPRINGBROOK WETLANDS DEVELOPEMENT STAGE Bid Item No: ======================s=========================~=========================== Material: SOIL Source: HOLE SBC-1-05 Lot No: Sample No: TEST ORGANICS BY LOI,% )SC Laboratory Mat. File General File iegion construction Project Engineer: DAVE JENKINS 0340 T2LO T2K9 T2Dl l RESULT X X X(2) T48J 3.8 SPECIFICATIONS Material: INFORMATIONAL Remarks: Thomas E. Baker, P.E. by: Jeanne Andreassen JMA Materials Engineer ~ Date 08/12/2005 Telephone 9-5431 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF 'l'R.ANSPORTATION -MATERIALS LABORATORY PO Box 47365, Olympia WA 98504-7365 / 1655 s. 2nd Ave., Tumwater WA 98512 Chemistry Section TEST 0~ MISCELLANEOUS CHEMICAL MATERIALS Date Logged In: 08/03/2005 SR: 520 Contract No: Lab. No: Transmittal No: Lab ID No: Section: SPRINGBROOK WETLANDS DEVELOPEMENT STAGE Bid Item No: XL2340 MC-04926 479182 0000313198 Material: Source: Lot No: Sample No: SOIL SBC-2-05 F-6196 D-5 --------~-----------------~--------~--------------------------------------- rEST RESULT SPECIFICATIONS ----------------------------------------~------------------- )RG.!\.NICS BY LOI.% 1sc Lahoratory Mat. File General File .egion Construction Project Engineer: X X DAVE JENKINS X(2) 0340 T2LO T2K9 T2D1 1 T48J Material: INFORMATIONAL Remarks: Thomas E. Baker, P.E. ~ Materials Engineer f"f'.-. by: Jeanne Andreasson JMA l/ '-.... Date 08/08/2005 Telephone 5431 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -MATERIALS LABORATORY PO Box 47365, Olympia WA 98504-7365 / 1655 S. 2nd Ave., Tumwater WA 98512 Chemistry Section TEST OF MISCELLANEOUS CHEMICAL MATERIALS Date Logged In: 08/03/2005 SR: Contract No: Lab. No: Transmittal No: Lab ID No: XL2340 MC-04923 479185 0000313195 Section: SPRINGBROOK WETLANDS DEVELOPEMENT STAGE Bid Item No: ===== Material: Source: Lot No: Sample No: SOIL SBE-1-05 F-6200 D-3 :==================================================- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TEST RESULT SPECIFICATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------ ORGANICS BY LOI. % 8.3 =--===================--===============--=========-========================== OSC Laboratory Mat. File General File Region Construction 4 Project Engineer: DAVE JENKINS 0340 T2LO T2K9 T2Dl 1 X X X X (2) T48J Material: INFORMATIONAL Remarks: Thomas E. Baker, P.E. Materials Engineer ~· , ' by: Jeanne Andreassen JMA Date 08/08/2005 Telephone 7 · -543 WASHINGTON STATE DEPAR'l'MEN'l' OF TR.A,NSPORTATION -MATERIALS LABORATORY PO Box 47365, Olympia WA 98504-7365 / 1655 S. 2nd Ave., Tumwater WA 98512 Chemistry Section TEST OF MISCELLANEOUS CHEMICAL MATERIALS Date Logged In: 08/03/2005 SR: Contract No: Lab. No: Transmittal No: Lab ID No: XL2340 MC-04922 479183 0000313194 Section: SPRINGBROOK WETLANDS DEVELOPEMENT STAGE Bid Item No: Material: Source: Lot No: Sample No: SOIL SBE-4-05 F-621.9 D-8 --------~-~----------------------------------------------~---~------------- rEST RESULT SPECIFICATION'S --------------~--------------------------------------------- )RGANICS BY LOI. % )SC Laboratory Mat. File General File legion Construction ~roject Engineer: DAVE JENKINS 0340 T2LO T2K9 T2D1 1 X X X(2) T48J 15.1 Material: INFORMATIONAL Remarks: Thomas E. Baker, P.E. Materials Engineer ~ by: Jeanne Andreassen JMA Date 08/0B/2005 Telephone 5431 Hart Crowser 17202-00 October 4, 2005 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM BY HART CROWSER APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM BY HART CROWSER A laboratory testing program was performed for this study to evaluate the basic index and geotechnic.11 engineering properties of the site soils. Both disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples were tested. The tests performed and the procedures followed are outlined below. Soil Classification Field Observation and laboratory Analysis. Soil samples from the explorations were visually classified in the field and then taken to our laboratory where the classifications were verified in a relatively controlled laboratory environment. rield and laboratory observations include density/consistency, moisture condition, and grain size an cl plasticity estimates. The classifications of selected samples were checked by laboratory tests such as grain size analyses. Classifications were made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification (USC) System, ASTM D 2487. Water Content Determinations Water contents were determined for soil samples subjected to grain size analysis in general accordance with ASTM D 2216, as soon as possible following their arrival in our laboratory. The results of these tests are plotted at the respective sample depth on the exploration logs. Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Hart Crowser The hydraulic conductivities of two soil samples ( one at Site C and one at Site E) collected near the proposed bottom of pond were determined by Hart Crowser using falling head, rising tail-water hydraulic conductivity tests in general accordance with ASTM D S084. The falling head, rising tail-water hydraulic conductivity test involves nwasuring the volume of inflow and outflow through a soil sample with time under il gradient imposed by the difference in elevation of the head and tail-waters. Each sample was placed in a 5-cm (2-inch)-diarneter flexible wall permeamcter, and subjected to isotropic consolidation pressures equal to estimated in situ pressures before determining tl1e hydraulic conductivity of soils near the proposed wetland grades. The results of our hydraulic conductivity tests are presented in Table 3, included in the main text of this report. J:\jobs\ 1720200\1-405 Springbrook CrePk \'Vetl;:i,nds GE.DS.doc Page B-1 17202-00 October 4, 2005 Hart Crowser 17202-00 October 4. 2005 APPENDIXC FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING RES UL TS BY OTHERS 1 I ' I O> "' I ..., ci N > '-' J ';l Q 0. :, Ill "' O> "' I "' 0 I "' 0 0 ul 0 Q 0, 0, J 0 ..J 29.5 2.5 7.5 10 12.5 15 l-------'---L----'----'-----'---17.5 NOTE: Groundwater encountered at a depth of 5 feet during e1<cavotion. SM/SP TP-1-Site .'5,f v Surface Elevation: ±17.5 1 [,'\ I GroyJsh brown fine to coor.ie gravel with trq_ce 9f fi(!es and o~casionol cobbles (moist) (fill) ~medium dense) c;roy:Jsh l;>rown silt with trace to some fine sand (moist) (fill) (soft) Gray silt with lenses of block fine to medium sond(wet) (soft) grades very soft and wet Blacti; /ine to medium sand, trace to some fines (wet) medium dense) Peat visible at 14 ft Test Pit TP-1-Site 1 completed at a depth of 14 feet on 2-1-95. Piezometer installed at o depth of 13 feet. lnfiltrCJtion pipe installed at a depth of l O feet. Groundwater encountered at a depth of 5 feet during excavation. LOG OF TEST PIT Dames & Moore Job No. 00699-017-016 PLATE A-1 "' a, I "' . 0 N > "' ~ " a. ::> "' "' "' "' ~ I "' 0 I "' 0 0 iil >, -" " " "' "' .3 I ~ 1 -7 1 TP-2-Site 1 I //1;:i ir'~i:~ Surtace Elevation: ±18 1'------1---+--+---i'---f-O -1..,.,.,r:::-:-,-,:-:-.,-,-.,.-,--,.;---;:--,.-,--;;----:,:-,--------l SM Yellowlph. browp silty fine to medium sand (moist/ (loose/ ~: -t-2.5 - - - - --s - - --7.5 I- I- --10 - - - --12.5 - - - -1-15 I- I- I-------'---'----'----'--_._ 17.5 ' ML Yellowish brown silt (moist) (medium stiff) Seepage at 4 ft Reddish br~n filne to Jfledium sand with trace to some flnu lwet (loose) Test Pit TP-2-Site 1 abandoned on 2-1-95 due to coving at a depth of 7 .0 feel No groundwater encountered during excavation. LOG OF TEST PIT Dames & Moore Job No. 00699-017-016 PLATE A-2 .,. i . -O> O> I "' , ci c,j > i Q. :, /l "' ,, I JO. 6SI: fines TP-3-Site 1 Surface Elevation: ± 18.5 /., ~ It-~~!;, I€' .fl I If .t #F, ,9; ~;t./; ,/1/ i' I It ~ "'I" · t\f; _o-h J'l~.'.~~.:.~ ..... Y'C'G~W--.--::R-od~d~i~ah~b-,-aw_n_r,~,n-o....,.t~-~-a-ra-.-g-,~-.~,-w7it~~---------~ .--ffit$ traca of. fin,,s {moi.stJ lmedlum dense) (fill) I-'~ 32.2 I IHI --10 ~ - I- - -r-12.5 - I- ~ -1-15 I- I- I- ~ Gray fjne to medium sand with trace to some fines (moist (loose) Bro!(_n silty fine to "1.edium sand (wet) (medium dense) Test Pit TP-.3-Site 1 completed ot a depth of 14 feet on 2-1-95. Infiltration pipe installed at o depth of 11.6 feet. Groundwater eneo1,.1ntered at a depth of 5.8 feet during excavation. "' 1--------'---...L.---'---'-----'-17 .5 ' " ' 0 ' :l :, ~ LOG OF. TEST PIT Dames & Moore Job No. 00699-017-016 PLATE A-3 "' "' I "' ci "' > Ii <.:> I '2 " a. ::, II> "' "' "' I ., 0 I .., 0 0 ch }; " " "' "' 0 ....I ' if .;: :,.~ .. ~ /€',~ 'f,.f' ,I,. Q !', !$'~ ._cS' ,ti', I t:.I /icy ~-d14 Surface Elevation: ±17 TP-4-Site 1 p I I 0 11;1,,, -fum-rc:----ir-=--,-~----,---,,,---.,,.,..---,---,.----,---------1 OL p~rk brown org_anJc slit with abundant roots .... ... ,_ ~ ,_ -1-2.5 .... ~ ,_ 29.8 ,_ ,_ ->-5 I- I- - - --7.5 ~ -- - - -... 10 ... - fY1 .... .... -1-12.s ,_ ~ I- I----15 I- I- I-- 1------.L..---'---L--..L. _ _L 17.5 . . 1'1'~1-::-c.,---f-J.1!101st) (topsoil) (soft) SW Brown fine to coanJe sand with trace of fines (moist) (fill) \loose) ... , .. . .. • l ",• I• • I ,, . . . . • t ••• ,• . ' .. . . . ,• 111, 111, It I I OL ML ML. = PT/OL Oar~ bfOW~ organic silt with abundant roots (wet} {soft) (old topsoil) Gray apd browp. layers of silt with occasional roots \moist) \Soft) layer (6 in) of brown medium to coar.ae sand and fine to coarse gravel, occosional small cobblt1 Gray sJlt witb ;iiome mottlin.9 and occasional fine . roots lmoist) tmedium stiff) grades wet and soft Peat and dark gray organic silt (wet) (soft) Test Pit TP-4-Site 1 completed at o depth of 14 feet on 2-1-95. No groundwater encountered during excavation. LOG OF TEST PIT Dames & Moore Job No. 00699-017-016 PLATE A-4 ) ~ a, e I "' 0 "' > "' •o ' ,:! .. a. ::, "' "' a, O> I ' ! ;! I "' 0 0 I~ ,, .. "' y_9 --, TP-5-Site 1 I / / J)·, :~ff.111.~!ff I/ I /'tJ ,s ~ f .f, ~J Surface Elevation: ±18 - ~ - - 25.&t fines 41.5 fJ- - • - Job No. 00699-017-016 0 m--..;t.l:::L--,-:,Yc,•l:::lo""w-.-i9-.-h-:-b-ro-w=n,-s"'ilt:-w-alt""h-ab;-u-n-d'""a-n:-t -,=o=ots;-::------------1 -(wet) \topsoil) (very soft) - - I- 1-2.sl I- ,_ ,_ ,_ '--5 ~ ,_ ,_ I- '-7.5 - ~ ~ ~ 1-10 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1-12.s I- - - - -15 - - I- I- 17.5 ML St.I grades with motUin~ and no roots \moist) (medium otiff) Brown fine to med!um sandy silt (moist) (soft) grades with lenses of brown silty fine to medium sand (moist) (soft) Dork gray silty fine to medium sand (wet) (loose) Test Pit TP-5-Site 1 abandoned on 2-1-95 due to caving at o depth of 11 feet. Piezometer installed at o depth of 10.5 feet. Infiltration pipe installed at a depth of 11.6 feet. Groundwater encountered ot o depth of 2 feet during excavation. LOG OF TEST PIT Dames & Moore PLATE A-5 "' 0, 0, I ~ ,J., 0 0 ~ ~ 1l .9 5.S. fines 6.3 Job No. 00699-017-016 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 T-6-Site 1 Surface Elevation: ±22 Reddish brown aondy fine to coarse gravel with obund~nt cobbles and trace of fines (molsti (dense) Teat Pit TP-6-Site 1 completed at a depth of 3 feet on 2-1-95. LOG OF TEST PIT Dames & Moore PLATE A-6 "' "' I .., 0 o,j > " ';'l .. Q. ::, "' "' a, a, I ., 0 I ..., 0 0 .., "' " .. "' "' j .3 ML 5 7.5 ML/OL 10 12.5 15 1--------L-_.J.. _ _Jc.__...,_ _ _.L 17.5 NOTE: No groundwater encountered during excavation. TP-1-.Site 2 Surface Elevation: ±16 Yellowish brown .fine to medium sand wlt}l some fineto ,poarse gravel qnd trace of fines (wet) (fill) (medium dense) seepage at 2 feet Peat ond wood debris (wet) Reddish Prown sandy silt with abundant roots (moist) (medium stfff) Gray sill with some roots (wet) (soft) Dark grey-fine tp Jnedium sand with trace to some fines(wetJ (looseJ \medium dense) lpterbedded gray silt and dork gray organic slit \moist) (soft) Test Pit TP-1-Site 2 abandoned on 2-7-95 due to caving at a depth of 9.5 feet. Infiltration pipe installed at a depth of 5.5 feet. No groundwater encountered during excavation. LOG OF TEST PIT Dames & Moore Job No. 00699-017-016 PLATE A-7 O> O> I "' 0 "' > ~ ti a. i;l "' I 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 ; I-----_....__ __ ._ _ _. __ _._ __ .._ 17.5 I ... I 8 ~ ML/SM PT/OL TP-2-Site 2 Surface l:]evotion: ±16 Grayish brown fine tq medjum sand ytitt't {OOts ln the upper 6 inches (wet) tvery loose) (fill} l,.oyer of gray sandy silt and silty fllill\ sand {moist) (fill) (stiff and medium ilense/ Dark gray silt with some roots (wet) (very soft) seepage at S ft Peat OJld Qark grayish brown organic silt (wet) \soft) f: lack fine to medium sand, trace fines wet) {loose) est Ptt TP-2-Site 2 abandoned on 2-7-95 at a depth of 11.5 feet due 'to coving. Infiltration pipe installed at a deptli of 8.5 feet. No groundwater encountered during excavation. LOG OF TEST PIT Dames & Moore Job No. 00699-017-016 PLATE A-8 ~ 0, 0, I .., ci "' > 8 , ,:! ~ ::, "' "' 0, ,P I 5.S.. fines Maximum Ory Density 123 pc( a( 10.3": 16.Jsl fines ~~/iJ}/1.!i !;, ~!ti /Jjj ,s NJ ;f.Jijf'j Surface Elevation: *16 _0 -b'f!?,'.;~t~.,.'.:,.-:,s~P~/~S~Mcr-~Y~el~lo-w~ls~h....,.b-ro_w_n--:fi~in-e-l~o-m_e_d~iu_m_s_a_n~d:-w7.lt~h-t~r-ac-e-o~f------l TP-3-Site 2 .----.. ,;,Wl fines anq fine to coarse grovel at ttle ti>.\.}" surface ·(moist) (fill} {medlum dense) ,__ ,1,_W/ ):\:,f. ~ -_ )'fii 14. 7 ·~lt';i. ¥ill 39.1 • :11:J_R: -t-2.5 -PT ~ --ML ~ --ML -,-5 --- ~-- 1-7,5 I-- ,- ML - ~--10 - I- SP ---f-12.5 ,- ,-- f- -1-15 I- I- I- I- Wood debris ~.nd seepage at 2.5 feet. ReddisJ'I j)rown mottled fine sandY. filt (moist) (possible fill) (medium stiff/ Gray silt with some roots (moist) (soft) grades mottled Dork gray fine sand with trace to some fines (wet) (medium dense) Gray silt with seams of peat (wet) {very soft) Block fine sand with trace of fines (wet) (loose) Test Pit TP-3-Site 2 abandoned on 2-7-95 at a depth of 12 feet due to caving. No groundwater encountered during excavation. °'1--------'---'--_J_ __ l_ _ __L_ 17.5 -/ I ., 0 I cl ~ Job No. 00699-017-016 LOG OF TEST PIT Dames & Moore PLATE A-9 I TP-4-Site 2 th~~ i/~i'f~ ti A€'ff I ~-<f'_ ,., Surface Elevation: ±16 , k-~ "'.~ .! F-------1---1---1---1----+-o · nnr.:::-~~:-::--::-;;::-;-----;;:----~-;;;:--.;-;:--::;---:;::~---;::---------1 ML '3eddiajl .Prown fine sandy ,ut with obundont roots "' "' I .., cf N > ,8 ., x_ ::, Vl "' 39.~ fines 33.0 • g: -1-------~-~-- ~ I .., 0 D ~ ~ '\) 0 "' "' -3 Job No_ 00699-017-016 - - - I- I- - --10 - I- I- ~- I- 1-12.5 I- --- - --15 - - - - 17_5 t.lf,l--;c:-;----j-...fJJ1' m·,o-'ist) (topsoil) (very sof!J SM GrQY.lsh ~rOwn mottled silty fine to medium sand (moist) (fill) (medium dense) grodes wet ML/PT Gray silt and peot (wet) (soft) ML Reddish brown staining around abundant root holes Grayish brown fine to medium sand (moist) (loose} Groy silt ( wet) ( ve,y soft) PurP.lish brown silt with some fine sand (wet) (soft} seam of peat at 11 feet Blcick fine to medium sand (wet) (medium dense) Test Pit TP-4-Site 2 abandoned on 2-7-95 at a depth of 12.5 feet due to caving. Peizometer installed at a depth of 12 feet. Groundwater encountered at, a depth of 8 feet during excovation. LOG OF TEST PIT Dames & Moore PLATE A-10 I ;;; O> I "' 0 ..; > " ~ G Q. ::, Ill '.I "' O> O> I ... J I "' 0 C iil J G "' "' .3 TP-5-Site 2 ~,Co~~ Ii~ I ey ~ ~ Surface Elevation: ±17 ~ !,~ ~i~,~~ #1%w!ff 1 O ,llr IIIITTT 11 IIT IM:--;;--L---.-:9:-a-rl<.~b-,a-w-n-s::-:llt-w""lth,-----a7b-u-pd7 a-n7t-ro-ot,-s-----------l .-ttli:H,i=c:-----1--l.ll'•I) (topsoil) (very soft) 20.9-fines 27.4 ~ '-- -'-2.5 '- - '- '- -~s ~ ~ ~ '- - --7.5 - - - - --10 - - - - --15 - - - 1-------.L---'-----'--.L..--L..17.5 1111 SM Dork t,rown fine sand with some silt (loose} (po_ssible fill) (moist) ML seepage ot J feet Dork 9.roy silt with occasional wood debris (wet) (soft) grade, with lenses of reddish brown silt at 1 O feet lmoist) (medium· stiff) Black fine sanp, trace fines (moist) (loose) Test Pit TP-5-Site 2 completed at a depth of 14 feet on 2-7-95. lnfiltrotlon pipe installed ot a depth of 8.5 feet below ground surface. No groundwater encountered during excavation. . LOG OF TEST PIT Dames & Moore Job No. 00699-017-016 PLATE A-11 KEY: Indicates depth of grabbed samples. NOTE: The discussion in this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials. KEY Job No. 00699-017-016 Dames & Moore PLATE A-12 Coarse Grained Solis Morn lhan 50% of Material Is Larger than No. 200 Sieve Size Rne Grained SoRs Morn than 50"/o of Material is Smaller lhan No. 200 Sieve Size Major Divisions Grave4 and Gravelly Soils More than 50% of Coarse Fraction Retained on No. 4 Sieve Sand and Sandy Solis More than 50% of Coarse Fraction Passing through No. 4 Sieve Silts and Clays Silts and Clays Highly Organic Soil Cloan Grawls (little or no fines) Gravels wilh Fines (appreciable amount of fines) Clean Sand (little or no fines) Sands with Fines (appreciable amount of fines) Liquid Limit Less than 50 Liquid Limit Grealer than 50 Note: Dual symbols are used to indicate bordar1ine soil classifications. Graphic Letter Symbol Symbol Typlcal Descriptions GW 0 0 Well-Graded Gravels, Grave4-Ssnd Mixturns, Utde or no Fines 0 oo GP () 0 Poorly-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Mixturns, UU!e or no Fmes. . "' 4 j t 4 4 ., ., 4 . ' . . "' .......... .......... mirr?: GM Silly Grave4s, Gravel-Sand-Sill Mixtures Clayey Gravels, GC Gravel-Sand-Clay Mixturns SW SP SM SC ML CL Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little or no Fu,es Poorly-Graded Ssnds, Gravelly Ssnds, Utlfe or no Anes Silty Sands, Sand-Slit MixlUres Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixrures Inorganic Silts and Very Rne Sands, Rock Flour, SHty or Clayey Fine Sands or Clayey Silts with Slight Plasticity Inorganic Clays of Low to Medium Plasticity, Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean Clays Organic Silts and Organic O L Silty Clays of Low Plasticity Inorganic Silts. Mieaceous or M H Diatomaceous Fine Sand or Silty Soils CH Inorganic Clays of High Plasticity, Fat Clays Organic Clays of Medium to OH High Plasticity, Organic Silts PT Peat. Humus, swamp Soils with High Organic Contents '~ l __________________ u_n_if-ie_ct_s_o_i_l _c_i_assification System . Dames & Moore PLATE A-13 GRAVEL SAND COBBLES SILT OR CLAY Coarse Fine Coa. Medium Fine U.S. Standard Sieve Size In Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer 3 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 100 200 100 '........., "---, L 11 -, ·-. 80 ' I ' . \ ,\ 60 ~ --------------- PASSING BY ------------------·--·---------··· WEIGHT(%) " 40 1 ~ ......__ . - ~ 20 .. ·-----· ---- ' \ " -----·---·-·· ----- /' '\ 0 1111 I I ' ' ;B; nTI I " " ' ' , I " " ' ' . i 11 l I I ! I .d!II ! I ' 1Doo 1 0 1 1 1 01 • GRAIN SIZE (mm) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION SYMBOL BORING DEPTH DESCRIPTION % % % NO. (It) GRAVEL SAND FINES ------------·-------·-------------··---· - 0 TP-6-Site 1 0-3 It Rne to coafse sandy gravel 62.8 31.6 5.6 • TP-3-Site 2 1.5 It Fine to medium sand 5.0 B9.5 5.5 REMARKS: 03-24-1995 Wetlands Mitigation Banking Sites DAMES & MOORE . JOB N0.00699-017-016 PLATE A-14 .COMPACTION TEST 150 \ 140 \ \ 130 "-.... 4 \ ZEROAI VO/DR no ~\ ,-. ""·-.JI 120 _/ ff t.:.J '\. DRY DENSITY "" (pcf) 110 I'-- 100 " / ------..._____ ""- 90 y '- "' 80 ~ 70 0 10 20 30 40 MOISTURE CONTENT(%) SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH DESCRIPTION TEST OPTIMUM LOCATION (ft) METHOD MOISTURE(%) 0 TP-4-Site 1 4 Gray and brown silt 01557A 17.1 • TP-6-Site 1 o-3 Reddish brown fin~ to coarse sandy gravel 01557C 8.1 D TP-3-Slto 2 1.5 Yellowish brown fine to medium sand D1557A 10.3 \ REMARKS: 03-09-1995 Wetlands Mitigation Banking Sites DAMES & MOORE JOB NO. 00699-017-016 PLATE A-15 1 2 3 4 Corridor Program 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project FLOODPLAINS DISCIPLINE REPORT ~rterrnl Road -Tra I -Freeway Lol<e 0 Muruc1pol1t y Park Washington State Department of Transportation Ren ton Nickel Improveme nts Project \ " <I I ~ l ' .... ! I TU KW IL A / ;, \,,fa; ,_, , I , I \ I I I I I I _sw~in St I I I I , 'r~,1~~~~~~~~---*~ 'JJ I I ( I I .J----1 Detail U.S.Department ofTranspor tation Fe d era l Highway Adm ini stration FFt 'n 1.. uO RECa:IVED RE N T O N t _,, October 2005 5 FLOODPLAINS DISCIPLINE REPORT 6 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project 7 8 9 10 11 12 Prepared for 13 Washington State Department of Transportation 14 Urban Corridors Office 15 And 16 Federal Highway Administration 17 18 19 20 21 Prepared by 22 Bruce Jensen and Karen Comings, DMJM Harris 23 24 25 October 27, 2005 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Title VI WSDOT ensures full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by prohibiting discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the provision of benefits and services resulting from its federally assisted programs and activities. For questions regarding WSDOT's Title VI Program, you may contact the Department's Title VI Coordinator at 360. 705.7098. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information If you would like copies of this document in an alternate format-large print, Braille, cassette tape, or on computer disk, please call 360.705.7097. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, please call the Washington State Telecommunications Relay Service, or Tele-Braille at 7-1-1, Voice 1.800.833.6384, and ask to be connected to 360.705.7097. 35 TAB L E O F CONTENTS 36 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... iii 37 Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in this Report ........................................................................ v 38 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 39 What is the Renton Nickel Improvement Project? ........................................................................... 1 40 What is the No Build Alternative? ............................................................................................ .2 41 What is the Build Alternative? .................................................................................................. 2 42 How will stormwater from the project be managed? ................................................................ 12 43 What environmental and utilities issues influenced the project design? .................................... 13 44 What design features help to avoid and minimize project effects? .......................................... 13 45 What benefits will the project provide? ................................................................................... 16 46 How will the project incorporate community design preferences? ............................................. 16 47 How will the project be constructed? ................................................................................... 17 48 Why do we consider floodplains as we plan for this project? ........................................................ 18 49 What are the key points of this report? ....................................................................................... 19 50 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 21 51 What information was collected to identify floodplains? ................................................................ 21 52 What floodplains are present in the study area? ......................................................................... 21 53 What floodplain regulations apply to this project? ....................................................................... 24 54 Potential Effects .............................................................................................................................. 26 55 What methods were used to evaluate effects on floodplains? ..................................................... 26 56 Which floodplains could be affected by the project? ..................................................................... 26 57 How will project construction temporarily affect the Springbrook Creek floodplain? ..................... 27 58 Will the project permanently affect floodplains? ............................................................................ 27 59 What indirect effects result from the direct effects on floodplains? .............................................. 28 60 Measures to Avoid or Minimize Project Effects ........................................................................... 29 61 What has been done to avoid or minimize negative effects to floodplains? .................................. 29 62 How will the project compensate for unavoidable negative effects to floodplains? ....................... 29 63 References ...................................................................................................................................... 30 64 Published Documents .................................................................................................................. 30 65 Websites ....................................................................................................................................... 30 66 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\ 04156\33-06 Renton t\'ickd\ Task 4-DR QA-QC\ 08 FHWA submitt;,J d r ,,f·.~\l~ni~~·d dn,~ from .iuthors\Doc~ for fm"I .ipprovals\ R,·nlon f\:ickd floodplains_fm<1l.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS 67 EXHIBITS 68 Exhibit 1. Project Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................... 1 69 Exhibit 2. Project Overview Section 1 ·················-···············-·················-·································-······ 3 70 Exhibit 3. Project Overview Section 2 ........................................................................................... 4 71 Exhibit 4. Project Overview Section 3 ............................................................................................ 5 72 Exhibit 5. Project Overview Section 4 ·····-·················································-·································-· 6 73 Exhibit 6. Project Overview Section 5 ·······-·································--················································· 7 74 Exhibit 7. Project Overview Section 6 ·········-···············-················--··············································· 8 75 Exhibit 8. Project Overview Section 7 ................. ·········-···············-···············-·················-··············· 9 76 Exhibit 9. Project Overview Section 8 .......................................................................................... 10 77 Exhibit 10. Floodplains within Renton Nickel Improvement Project Study Area .......................... 22 78 79 ii Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33-06 Renton Nickd\ Task 4-DRQA-QC\08 Fll\'-iA subinitta! dr~fts\Rcvbcd doc~ from authors\Docs for final approvals\Rcnton :-.Jickcl floodplains_final.doc 80 100-year flood event Base flood Basin planning programs Box culvert Compensatory floodplain storage Critical areas Falsework Fill Flood Insurance Rate Maps Floodplain Floodway Flow rate Indirect effects lnterlocal agreements Levee system Ordinary High Water Mark iii GLOSSARY A flood having a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given year. A flood having a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given year; also called the 100-year flood. Basin planning programs contain land use recommendations, regulations, capital projects, and programs to reduce and prevent flooding, erosion, and preserve salmonid habitat in a particular basin. A concrete box structure that drains open channels, swales, or ditches under a roadway or embankment. The removal of material from a site in the same floodplain and at the same elevation to compensate for the placement of any fill within the limits of the regulatory floodplain. Critical areas include both hazard areas (such as floodplains and steep slopes) and environmentally sensitive areas (like wetlands and streams). Critical areas also include areas that are important for protecting groundwater. The state Growth Management Act requires counties to protect the "functions and values" of critical areas. Examples of wetland functions are filtering out pollutants, providing wildlife habitat, controlling floods, and recharging groundwater. The temporary frame that supports the weight of a bridge or other structures during construction. Fill refers to materials placed to construct structures within waters of the United States, including streams and wetlands. Fill materials can be rock, sand, or dirt. The insurance and floodplain management map produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These maps identify the areas subject to flooding during a 1-percent- annual-chance (100-year) flood event in a community. Flood insurance risk zones, which are used to compute actuarial flood insurance rates, also are shown. The total area subiect to inundation by a flood, including the floodway. The channel of the river or stream, and those portions of the adjoining floodplains that are reasonably required to carry and discharge the base flood flow. The "reasonably required" portion of the adjoining floodplains is defined by flood hazard regulations. The volume of water that moves by a particular point in one second. The flow rate is measured in cubic feet per second. Indirect effects are defined in the WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual as the "effect caused by the proposed action that is later in time or farther removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems." An agreement between local agencies such as cities and counties. A manmade structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control, or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding. The line on the shore established by the change in water levels and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank or the presence of litter and debris. The presence and action of water generally leaves an impression on the stream bed and banks that makes a distinct separation between the stream and the adjacent areas and indicates the location of the ordinary high water mark. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\ ll4156\ 33-06 Renton Nickd\ Task 4 -DR QA-QC\ US FtW\I A ~ul,rrnllal d,-,,fls\ Tfrv1~ed docs from authors\ Doc~ for final ilpprovals\Ren\on Nickel tlondplain~ final.doc 81 GLOSSARY Peak flows Piers Pump station Side channel Stonmwater detention Tributaries Wetland and Habitat Mitigation bank Zero-rise requirement iv The maximum instantaneous rate of flow during any given storm. For this report, peak flow refers to the 100-year storm event. A vertical support or substnucture unit that supports the spans of an elevated structure such as a bridge. A pump station controls flows to one body of water from another. For this project, the Black River pump station controls flows to the Green River from Springbrook Creek. During flooding, the pump station reduces pumping rates from Springbrook Creek and may suspend pumping entirely if flows in the Green River exceed 12,000 cubic feet per second. This is a secondary stream that splits off the main channel. Storing stormwater in manmade facilities such as ponds and releasing the stormwater at a controlled rate. This process helps control how much and how fast stormwater enters streams and rivers. Controlling the flow of stormwater helps maintain existing base flood levels and minimizes erosion of stream banks. A stream or other body of water that contributes its water to another stream or body of water. A mitigation bank is a project constructed to enhance wetlands and their associated habitat. The concept is that these are completed in advance of planned transportation projects to mitigate for unavoidable effects on wetlands and habitat within the project area. Because these banks are generally sized to provide sufficient mitigation for several projects in one location, the mitigation bank creates more useable habitat and higher functioning wetlands than may be possible on an individual project scale. The zero-rise requirement prohibits projects in Flood Hazard Areas that cause any rise in the base floodplain elevation. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33"06 Renton Nickel\ Task 4 -DR QA-QC\08 FH\NA submittal drafts\lfovis'"d docs from authors\Docs for final appro\'als\Rcnton Nickl'! floodplains_final.doc 82 83 84 BMP cfs css EA EEi EIS FEMA FIRM GP HOV HPA OHWM WSDOT V ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT Best Management Practice cubic feet per second Context Sensitive Solution Environmental Assessment Early Environmental Investments Environmental Impact Statement Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map General-purpose lane High-Occupancy Vehicle Hydraulic Project Approval Ordinary High Water Mark Washington State Department of Transportation Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R \ 0-:\156\33--06 R,·nton t,.J1ckel\Task 4--DR QA-QC\ 08 Fl-lWA '.1bm:l:,1: dr,if:, \ Rcvi~cd doc~ from .iuthor~ \Doc~ for final approvals\RC'nlon t\"Kkcl floodpbi11s fin~] do, 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 vi This page intentionally blank. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\:13-116 Renton Nickel\ Task 4 DR QA-OC\08 Fl TWA submittal drafts\Reviscd docs from authors\Docs for fmal apprnvals\Renton Nickel floodplains_final.doc 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 '114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 INTRODUCTION What is the Renton Nickel Improvement Project? /-405 Project Arteria l Road -Fr eeway Q Municipal,ty Lake Park Th e Renton Nickel Improvement Proje ct is a highway expans ion project that wil l improve mobility and safety through Tukwila and Renton by add ing lanes to 1-405 and S R 167 . On 1-405 , this project begins just east of the 1-5/1-405 interchange in Tukwila and extend s north past t he Cedar Ri ver to the SR 169 (Maple Valley Hi ghway) interchange . The project will build an add ition al lane both northbound and southbound betwee n 1-5 and SR 169 . On SR 167, the project will extend the southbound high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane no rth to 1-405 and add a southbound auxiliary lane fro m 1-405 to the SW 41 st Street off-ramp . These li mits co mprise the study area for the project. Prior to planning this specific project , WSDOT created the 1-405 Corridor Program. This program provides a compre hensive stra tegy to re duce congestion and imp rove mobility throughout the 1-405 corridor. Th e co rri dor begins at the 1-5 interchange in the c ity of Tukwi la and extends northward 30 miles to the 1-5 intercha nge in Lynnwood . The program 's purpose is to provide an efficient, integrated , and multimodal system of transportation solutions . Using the 1-405 Corridor Pro gra m 's Selected Alternat ive as the Master Plan to improve 1-405 , WSDOT developed relatively low cost , congestion relief roadway improvements as an interim st ep in achieving the Master Plan. As part of th is inte rim step WSDOT began to define the Renton Nickel Im prove ment Project. The Renton Nickel Improvement Pro j ect was developed as a first step to provide a focused strategy to improve 1-405 between 1-5 in Tukwila and SR 169 in Renton and SR 167 southbound from 1-405 to SW 41 st Street. See Ex hibit 1 for the loca ti o n of thi s project relative to the 1-405 corridor. This dis cipline report analyzes two project alternatives : th e No Build Alternative and the Build Alternati v e . 144 Exhibit 1. Project Vicinity Map R e nton N icke l Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R-\04156\33--06 Renton 1'.'iC'kl'...'1\ T a<:.\.. .i.-D R QA-QC\08 Fl M 'A subrn1tt.1l d r,\ft ,\){l'n ... ,·d d i-... ... frntn a uth o rc:\Oocs for fmal i.1ppro\'als\Renton \!1 (kd f1oodpb 1n" fmul.dO(' 1 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 /NTRODUCTfON Existing On-ramp 2 On-ramp with proposed auxiliary lane What is the No Build Alternative? T he No Bui ld A lternative assumes that on ly routine activ ities such as road maintenance, repair, and safety improvements wou ld take place over the next 20 years. This alternative does not include improvements that would increase roadway capacity or reduce congestion. For these reasons , it does not satisfy the project's purpose-improve 1-405 between 1-5 in Tukwila and SR 169 in Renton and SR 167 southbound from 1-405 to SW 41 st Street. The No Build A lternative has been evaluated in this discipline report to establish a baseline for comparing the effects associated with the Build Alternative . What is the Build Alternative? The new lanes that will be built under this project are : • An 1-405 northbound general-purpose (GP) lane from 1-5 to the SR 167 off-ramp . • An 1-405 northbound auxi liary lane from the SR 167 to 1-405 on-ramp to the SR 169 off-ramp . • An 1-405 southbound auxiliary lane from the SR 169 to 1-405 on-ramp to the SR 167 off-ramp. • An 1-405 southbound GP lane from the SR 167 to 1-405 on -ramp to the 1-5 off-ramp. • A SR 167 southbound auxiliary lane from 1-405 to the SW 41 st Street off-ramp. In addition , the existing inside HOV lane will be extended north to 1-405 from its present starting point in the vicinity of SW 21st Street. See Exhibits 2 through 9 for deta iled maps of the project features. In addition to adding auxiliary and GP lanes to 1-405 and SR 167, this project will provide the following improvements. Improving Interchanges: Minor modifications will be made to the ramps at the SR 167 interchange: • The one-lane ramp from northbound 1-405 to SR 167 will be widened to a 2-lane off connection, which provides a dedicated lane to southbound SR 167 and one to northbound Rainer Avenue. See Exhibit 5 . • The two consecutive single-lane off-ramps from southbound 1-405 to SR 167 will be revised . See Ex hibit 5 . Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipl ine Report R:\04156\33-06 Renton Nickcl \T•sk 4 -DR <.;>A-QC\08 FHWA submittal drafts\ Revised docs from au thors\ Docs for fina l approvals\Rcnton Nickel fl oodplains fina ldoc D D • D 187 ~ Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Detent,on Pond ~w Pav ement Areas o f Cons t ruction Ea sement Acqu•~tion Parcel Acquisition Ex ist ing ROW Proposed ROW I-405 Northbol.fldbol.fld Improvements: A general -pu r pose lane wi ll be add ed by restriping t he existing povement and adding pavement up to 15 f e et to t he outside at some locatio ns. I -405 Southbound Improvements : A ge nera l -purpose lane will be added by restrip i ng the existi ng povement an d adding pav ement up to 15 f eet to t h e ou t side at some l oca tions. 188 Exhibit 2. Project Overview Section 1 R enton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report 1NTR0DUCTT0N 1-405 NORTHBOUND e·a Existin g e! e a_ Existing e! a 8 ·~ 250 500 t ..... Feet 3 K \041 56\33-06 Kt:ntun \hc:kcl \ r~,!>k "i -DR QA-QC\08 Fl !\·VA ~u b mi ttal d r.itt,\ Rt·, I"'-·~! d P,.., fro m a uthors\ Docs for fi nal a pprov.:t.ls\ Renton Nickl'! Ooodplc1m3 fina l.doc 189 190 INTRODUCTION ·s :...:. s g Existing a e ~ e Proposed -Proposed Ecology Embankment Proposed Ret ain ing Woll D Proposed Detention Pond New Pavement D Areas of Construction Easement Acquisition • Par cel Acquisition D Existing ROW ~ Proposed ROW I-405 Northbo111d Improvements : A general-purpose lane will be added by restriping t he ex isting pa vement and adding pavement up to 15 f eet to the outside at some locations . I-405 Southbound Improvements : A genera l-purpose lane will be added by res t riping t he exis t ing pavement and adding pavement up to 15 feet to t h e ou t side at some locations . Exhibit 3. Project Overview Section 2 4 1-405 SOUTHBOUND 88~ Ex isting 250 500 t -· Feet Renton N ickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04.156\33-06 Ren ton Nickel\ Task 4 -DR QA-OC\08 FH WA su bmitt•l d r•fts\Kcviscd docs fro m authors\Docs for fina l approvals\Rcnlon Nickel fl oodplains_final.doc D D • D 191 ~ ·See Existing ee§ Proposed Retain ing Woll Proposed Detention Pond ~w Pavement Areas of Construction Easement AcquiSition Parce l Acqu,sition Existing ROW Proposed ROW Existing I -405 Northbound Improveme nts: A general-purpose lane will be added by restriping the existing pavement and adding pavement up to 15 f e e t to the ou tside at some loca tions. The existing Springbrook Creek and Oakesdale Avenue bridges will be replaced with a sing le wider structur e . I -405 Southbound Improvements: A general-purpose lone will be added by res t riping the exis t ing pavement and adding pav ement up to 15 feet to the outside at some locations. The exis t ing Springbr ook Creek and Oakesdale Avenue bridges will be replaced with a si ngle wider structure. 192 Exhibit 4. Project Overview Section 3 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report INTRODUCTION 250 500 t Feet 5 R:\04156\33-06 Renton ~ickd\ I a~k -1 -UR QA-QC\08 FH\VA ~l1b111itt.il d r,11t,\_ Rl•\ !""-'d ~h,l ... :rom authors\Docs for final apprnva lc:\ Renton l\'ickcl tlo od pl 1dns fin.al.doc 193 194 I NTROD UCTION -~ Existing I -~ Northbo<a1d :rn,>rovernonts: -Proposed Ecology Embankment A ge,..,ral-purpo s,, lane will be added LI' to t he SR 167 interchong< cr.d on aux,loary '°"' will be added from the SR 16 7 t o I -405 on -rCJTip north. These !er.es wi ll be added by re.striping the exist ing pa vement ond odchng paven-ient up to 15 feet t o t he outside at some locations. ---Proposed Retaining Wall D Propo sed Detention Pond New Paveme nt D Are.as of Construction Easement Acquisi tion Parce l Acquisit ion Ex isting ROW Proposed ROW I ~4Cfi Southboll'\d Iftl)rowrnents: An ooxil,cry IOl\e will be added LI' to t he I -405 to SR 167 on-r Olfl) and o generol -p.irpose laie will be added s outh of the rnte.rchange. These lanes wi U be added by reS1ri ping the existing pavement and adding pav ement up to 15 f t.t:t to the ootside. at some. locations SI. 167 Sou!nbo<a1d Improv<em<nts : An ouxil iQ')' lane will be added by rest r iping exist ing pavement and adding l4' to 19 feet of pavement at t he outside. at some locattOrtS. The e..x tsting HOV la,e will be extended no r th f rMl SW 21st Street t o t he ,nterchange with I -405. Exhibit 5. Project Overview Section 4 ~e e Existi ng ~e e s 250 t .. ... Feet 6 Renton Nickel Improvement P roject Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33-06 Renton N ic kel \ T•sk 4 -DR QA-QC\08 FHVvA s ubrmttal d ra ft s\Rev iscd d ocs from authors\Doco for fin•! opprovals\Renton Nick el flood plains fina l.doc Proposed Retain ing Wa ll D Proposed De ten hon Pond New Pavement D Aret:JS of Cons truct1 on Easemen t A cq uisition • Parcel Acq uisition D Exist ing ROW 195 ~ Proposed ROW e e ~· Existing ~ ~ ~~· SR 167 Improvements: In additio n t o extending the HOV lane north from SW 21st Street, an auxi liary lane wil l be added b) restrip,ng t he exist ing pavement and adding pavement up t o 19 f eet to the outside at some locations. 196 Exhibit 6. Project Overview Section 5 R enton Nickel Improvem ent Project Floodplains Discipline Report I NTRODUCTION 250 1 Feet 7 R-\0-1156 \33-06 Rcntun :\'1<.:kcl\T d~k 4. l)I{ (JA-(...)C\08 FH \o\'A s ubmitta l <.::r,1:t-.\Rl'n .... t•d de..._~ from a uthors\Doc!-fo r final a pprovals\R<'nton \Jt('kd flood p b m ... fin al d oc 197 198 1NTR0DU CT10N SR 167 SOUTHBOUND D D • D ~ ea Proposed Retaining Woll Proposed Detention Pond N e.w Pavement Areas o f Constr uct ion Easement Acquisition Parcel Acquis ition E~isting ROW Proposed ROW Ex isting SR 167 Improve=nts : An auxiliary l ane will be added by restriping the existing pavement and adding pavement up t o 19 feet to the outside at some locations. The new lane will t ie into the existing ramp connection t o SW 41st Street . Exhibit 7. Project Overview Section 6 8 250 500 Feet Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33-06 Renton Nickel\ Task 4 -DR Q/\-QC\08 Fl IW /\ su bmitta l drafts \Rcvisc'<I d oc, from •uthors\ Docs for fina l a pprovals\ Renton N1Ckcl fl oodplains fina l.doc 199 200 -Proposed Ecology Embankment Propo sed Retaining Wa ll D Proposed Detent,on Po nd New Paveme nt D Are.as of Construction Easem ent Acquisit ion • Parcel Acquisition D Ex,st,ng RO W ~ Proposed ROW/Easement I-405 Northbound Improvements: An au xiliary lane wi l l be added by restr1pir g t he ex isting pavemen t and adding pavement up to 15 feet to rhe ,iutsid e at so me location s. I-405 Southbound Improvements: An auxiliary lane will b e added by restr1p ir g the existing pavement and adding pavement up to 24 feet t o t he ou ts ide at so me locat ions . ~nson Rd 5 Improvements: The Bens on Rd 5 ove r pass w1 II be reconst1 uc ted and r ea l igned to t he west of its current location. The new ove ,-pass will have 2 lanes with 5 -foot bi ke lanes on both si des and a 6 foot sidewa lk on t he we st si de. Exhibit 8. Project Overview Section 7 Renton Nickel Tmprovement Project- Floodplains Discipline Report INTRODUCTION l-405 NORTHBOUND S e Ex isting 150 500 1 Feet 9 R \04-156\33-06 R(·nton \!ickC'I\ Tas k-l -DR QA-QC\08 Fl l\'\''A s ubmitt al dr,,ft:-\Rt•\ J'-\.'d d( (-. from ,\uthur~\l)oc~ for fin dl .a pprovals\Rcnlon Kickel fl oodpl,1i n~ fina l.doc 201 1NTR0Dt1CT10N 1-405 NORTHBOUND 6:a Existing 6e Proposed a a ~ Existing 8 ~ ~a -Proposed Ecology Embankment Proposed Retaining Wall D Proposed Detention Po nd D New Pavement Areas of Construct,on Easement Acquisition Parce l Acquisition Ex.st,ng ROW Proposed ROW I -405 Northboi.,d Improvements: An auxiliary lane will be added by restriping the existing pavement and adding pavement up to 15 feet to t he outside at some locations. I -405 Southbound Improve ments : An auxiliary lane will be added by restriping the existing pavement and adding pavement up to 15 feet to the outside at some locations. 202 Exhibit 9. Project Overview Section 8 10 250 1 Feet Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33--06 Renton Nickcl\T ask 4 -DR Q A-QC\08 FHWA submittal d raf1>\Rcv1scd docs fro m authors\Doc, for fmal a pprova b\Rcnton :sl ickcl flood pla ins_fina l.doc 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 1243 244 245 246 247 248 A cross culvert under 1-405. These culverts go under roads, providing a means to move storrnwater from one side of the road to the other. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report I N TRODU CTIO N I111pwuing Benson Road : The Benson Road overpass w ill be re placed and realigned to accommodate the so uth bo und auxiliary lane on 1-405 as well as future improve ments to 1-405 as shown on Exhibit 8 . Im prove ments on Benson Road include a 6-foot s id ewa lk on the west side and 5-foot bike lanes on both sides. The proposed section will match into the improv e ments that the City of Renton plans to co nstruc t on both ends . Wirfc11ing or Repla cin g Bridges: Several bridges with in the study area will be widened or replaced ba sed o n present geometry, cost , life expectancy, and existing soil conditions . To construct the new lanes, the project will : • Widen Talbot Road Bridge on both the northbound and the southbound sides . See Exhibit 8. • Replace Springbrook Creek Side Channel Bridge and Oakesdale Avenue Bridge with a s ing le structure . See Exhibit 4 . The p ro ject will not affect the 1-405 bridges over the Gree n River, SR 181 , Union Pacific and Burlington North e rn Santa Fe railroads, Lind Avenue , or the Cedar River. The project will also not affect the Cedar Avenue or Re nt on Avenue overpasses. The roadway will be restripe d in th ese areas to accommodate the new lanes. The Sp ringbrook Culvert under 1-405 is not planned to be mo d ified. Rctni 11 ing Wnll s: Widening 1-405 and SR 167 will require retaining walls to minimize the construction footprin t and minimize right-of-way acquisition. Retai ning walls will also help avoid and minimize effects to utilities , properties , wetlands , and other sensi t iv e areas. Culver ts : WSDOT anticipates that construction w ill affect some existing cross culverts. Associated culvert improve ments include extending the existing structu res due to widening the roadway and stabil izi ng c ul ve rt ends with rock or retaining walls. The 1-405 T eam will conduct a hydraulic analysis of the culverts to en s ure that the modifications will have no effect on the base flood elevations. See th e Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report for detailed discussion on fish passage and culvert improvements. Noise Wall s : One noise wall will be built on the north bound side of the freeway as shown on Exhibits 11 R:\04 156\33--06 Renton Nil.:kcl\T ,,~k 4 · O R QA-QC\ 08 Fl f'N A subm1H,1.I ~tr-,,fi,.. \ Rt'\ 1-.,·d c,...._..; from a uthors\ Doc~ forfinal .1pprovals\ Rt.'nton '.'Jic kcl floodplo.in!J. fi n .i i.doc 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 1NTR 0 Dl1CT1 0N 12 r ap Fi lter Fabr ic atch to Erosion Blanket ROAD WAY SHOULDER 5 and 8. The wall will begin at Talbot Road and end west of the intersection of South 14th Street and South 15th Street. This wall will be approximately 2 , 150 feet long and 18 feet tall. How will stonnwater from the project be managed? Stormwater from the project will be managed for both quality and peak flows using currently accepted best management practices (BMPs). The 1-405 Team has designed the stormwater man a gement facilities to comply with the following guidelines and procedures : • WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16 , Marc h 2004 • WSDOT Hydraulics Manual M 23-03, March 2004 Stormwater Treatment Facilities The project will add new impervious surface within th e study area , most of which will be within the Springbrook Creek basin . This project will treat runoff for an area equivalent to 100 percent of these new surfaces . Treatment will be accomplished by a combination of facilities . In most of the study area, ecology embankments will be added to capture runoff from the edge of the pavement and provide water quality treatment. The ecology embankments also serve to then convey runoff to the receiving waters or to the flow control facilities as required. The project also includes a combined stormwater quality wetland and detention pond that addresses water quality and flow control in one facility. Exhibits 2 through 9 show the location of stormwater facilities that w ill be built for this project. 1 Match to Ex isting Slope Filt er Fabric Depth Depends on Storage Requ irements Ecology Embankment Cross-Section Fi lter Fabric L ined Trench R enton N i ck e l Improvem ent Projec t Floodplains Dis cipline Repo rt R:\04156\33-06 Renton :--J,ckcl\ Task 4-OR QA-QC\08 HM'A subnuttal d rafts\Rcv iscd docs frum duthur,\Ooc, for fin•I appro,·als\Rcnton Nickel fl oodplains_final.doc 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 Existing spill control pond at the 1-405/SR 169 interchange. A pond liner is included to protect the City of Renton aquifer. Renton Nickel improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report I NTR ODUCTION Drainage Collection and Conveyance Existin g drainage structures and systems will be reta in ed in places where they will not be disturbed by new con struction. Where areas are modified to in cl ud e water quality treatment , existing co lle ction and co nve ya nce will be modified to include or direct flows to ecology embankment BMPs for enhanced treatment of the runoff. Wlza t environmental and utilities issues influ enced the project design? T h ro ug hout the development of the Renton Nickel Improve ment Project design , numerous design refi nements were proposed that helped to avoid or m in im ize negative effects to the environment. Influence on the project design came from : • Soil Conditions : the decision to widen or replace many of the project bridges was largel y dependent on local soil conditions. • Noise : one noise wa ll was added to the project because of projected noise le ve l s . • Wetland Lo cations : retaining walls reduced effects on wetlands. • Utilities: retaining walls were chosen over fill and pond sites were adjusted to minimize impacts to existing utilities. • Historical Sites: a proposed stormwater pond was shifted to avoid a historical site-the Renton Coal Mine Hoist Foundation. What design features help to avoid and minimize project effects? Severa l design features have the benefit of avoiding or minimizi ng potential effects due to the project. The design features are described from south to north be low. I-405, I-5 to SR 167 Be tw ee n the northbound 1-405 on-ramp from the West fie ld Shoppingtown Mall (Southcenter) and the Green River Bridge , the 1-405 Team proposes building a retaining wa ll as shown on Exhib it 2. Building this wall avo ids effects on the City of Seattle's 60-inch 13 R \0-1156\'.\3-06 Rl·nton K ickel\ T ask 4 -OR Q A-QC\08 Fl !'\.VA ,:;nbm itta l dr.1 ft-..·, J{,·,·1,.l'd d, ... -.., fro rn a uthors\Docs fo r fina l a pprovals\Rl'nton '.'JIC h •I flood p lains_fin a l.doc 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 INTRODUCTION 14 water line and also reduces the encroachment on the City of Seattle's 30-foot right-of-way . In addition , the 1-405 Team proposes reducing the width of the northbound right shoulder in this location. Reducing the shoulder width provides more distance between the water line and the retaining wall. The 1-405 Team proposes to construct a retaining wall from the on-ramp at Tukwila Parkway to the Green River. This wall avoids the need to construct a fill slope that would extend into Gilliam Creek. See Exhibit 2. The 1-405 Team proposes providing a narrower outside shoulder on northbound 1-405 at the Green River Bridge. The shoulder will vary from 10 to just over 3 feet at the west abutment of the existing bridge . Narrowing the shoulder avoids modifications to the existing bridge . As a result , the design also avoids effects to the river , the 100-year floodplain , the ordinary high water level , and adjacent riparian zones . At the SR 181 interchange, the bridge and ramp will be restriped to provide the new general-purpose lane and ramp improvements . This approach avoids the need to widen the existing SR 181 Bridge , reconstruct the SR 181 interchange , or modify the Southcenter Boulevard crossing of the Green River. This in turn avoids relocating or diverting the Interurban Trail , which goes under the bridge. See Exhibit 3. The 1-405 Team proposes to construct a narrower exit gore from 1-405 to the northbound ramp at the SR 167 interchange as shown in Exhibit 5. By building a narrower exit gore , the project can be constructed within the existing right-of-way . This has the benefit of avoiding right-of-way acquisition, avoiding effects to the wetland outside the right-of-way, and avoiding effects to the existing Lind Avenue Bridge . SR 167, southbound from 1-405 to SW 41st Street The 1-405 Team proposes to build a retaining wall along a large portion of the west edge of SR 167 southbound instead of an earth fill slope. See Exhibits 6 and 7. The retaining wall minimizes effects on three wetlands. The retaining wall has the added benefit of minimizing right-of-way needs and reduces the effect on existing utility crossings, in particular , the City of Seattle's 60-inch water line and Olympic Petroleum 's two high pressure pipelines, which all cross under SR 167. Renton Nicke l Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33-06 Renton :s!ickel \ T ask 4 -DR QA-QC\08 Fl !WA submittal dra fts\Rcvised d ocs from authors\ Docs for final a pprova ls\ Ren ton Nic kel floodplains~final.doc 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 Renton Coal Mine Hoist Foundation site looking west Renton Nick el Impro v ement Project Floodplains Discipline Report I N TRODU CTION 1-405, SR 167 to SR 169 The 1-4 05 Team proposes to add a lane by restriping 1-4 05 northbound next to the Talbot Hill retaining wall imme diately east of the SR 167 interchange. R estriping instead of widening avoids the need to re co nstruct the existing Talbot Hill retaining wall and avoids effects on properties south of 1-405 in this area. Bet wee n Talbot Road and the "S-Curves", northbound 1-4 05 w ill be widened to achieve standard lane and s ho u lde r widths. Most of this length will be supported by retai ning walls to minimize impacts to Thunder C ree k , adjacent properties , and the existing cut slope so uth of 1-405 . W here northbound and southbound 1-405 passes un der the Renton Avenue and Cedar Avenue overpa sses, the 1-405 Team proposes adding lanes by restr iping. This design avoids replacing the two overp asses; however, the available area does not a llow the standard shoulder and lane widths . T he 1-405 Team proposes using retaining walls to s u pport widening southbound 1-405 south of the Cedar Avenue overpass. Using retaining walls versus a fill sl o pe , avoids encroaching on Cedar Avenue and Main Ave nu e in Renton . T he 1-405 Team shifted a proposed stormwater detention pond 300 feet west of milepost 2.9. This locati o n avoids the existing Renton Coal Mine Hoist F o un d ation site south of Benson Road , which is on the Nati on al Register of Historic Places . To s up port the fill required to widen the roadway on th e no rth side of 1-405 next to the outfall for the o ri g inal Rolling Hills Creek culvert, the design uses a re tai n ing wall. By using the retaining wall , the project improv ements at this location can be constructed wi th o ut affecting the existing culvert. The 1-405 Team proposes a non-standard design for the 1-4 05 to SR 167 exit ramp. The changes from the des ign standards include not providing a recovery lane, narrowing the distance between the through lane and ramp , and providing narrower shoulders. These fe atu re s will avoid effects to the existing Rolling Hills Cree k/Thunder Hills Creek channel located between 1-4 0 5 a nd the Renton Cinema complex as shown in Exh ib it 5 . Using retaining walls along the west side of B en so n Road avoids effects to Rolling Hills Creek and the wetlands east of Talbot Road . 15 R:\0.1156\33-06 l{cntun N ii..h•l\'l a~k -t -O R QA-QC\08 Fl-f\o\'1\ subm1tt,1 J ,ir,,tt ... \ R1·\ 1-.1.·1.l ~111,·..: from a u thon :\ Docs for final a pprova ls\Rcnton Nicke l floud p l,nn~ fin.i i.do<.: 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 I NTRODUCTION This rendering shows the new Benson Road overpass with the 1-405 Urban Design Guidelines applied. 16 What benefits will the project provide? The Build Alternative will benefit the area by reducing congestion at chokepoints , reducing the duration of congestion during peak commuter travel hours , and improving freight movement. This section of 1-405 , from the 1-5 interchange to SR 169, is congested due to large traffic volumes and merging and diverging traffic . The new lanes will help relieve congestion and improve safety by providing motorists with more time and extra room to accelerate or decelerate and move into and out of the stream of traffic when getting on and off the freeway . This provides a smoother transition for motorists getting on and off 1-405 in Tukwila and Renton and helps decrease rear-end and sideswipe collisions . Because the project reduces congestion approaching the SR 167 interchange, it complements the completed southbound 1-405 to southbound SR 167 flyover ramp . This project will construct one noise wall along northbound 1-405 from Talbot Road to the intersection of South 14th Street and South 15th Street. This wall will benefit residents in that area by lowering the overall noise levels . Another benefit of this project is that it begins the application of the Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) design choices made by the communities within the 1-405 corridor. The Benson Road realignment will reflect the most comprehensive application of these design choices as ex plained further in the next section . How will the project incorporate community design preferences? The Renton Nickel Improvement Project is being planned , developed , and designed following guidelines called Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS). These guidelines establish the community design preferences used to design the project features. The 1-405 Urban Design Guidelines Manual , incorporating the communities ' CSS design preferences , developed for use in preparing the Renton Nickel Improvement Project contract documents. The selected 1-405 theme of "Culture , Nature, and Progress ," with nature being the dominant theme , will be carried into corridor-wide and local 1-405 designs. The new Benson Road overpass is the main project feature that will receive CSS treatment. The R e nton N ick e l Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33-06 Renton Nickel\ Task 4 -DR QA-QC\08 FHWA submi tta l d rafts\Rcv iscd docs from a uthors\Docs for fina l appro\"als\Rcnton Nickel flood plains fina l.doc 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 -469 470 471 472 , 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 ,487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 At-grade construction for this project will likely be staged similar what is shown above. Here, the southbound lanes of 1-5 were shifted toward the median and a concrete barrier closed off the shoulder to provide crews a safe work area. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report [NTRODUCTION replacement bridge over Springbrook Creek and Oakesd ale Avenue will also receive CSS treatments . The remaining sections will be designed to match in color and vegetation type only , as many sections will be affected by construction of future Master Plan projects. During future Maste r Plan phases for the overall 1-405 corridor , the 1-405 Urban Design Guidelines will be applied throughout. How will the project be constructed? Construction of the entire Renton Nickel Improvement Project is expected to take two years, beginning in November 2007 and being completed at the end of 2009 . However, construction activity will not be constan t for the entire study area throughout this time, a nd in some locations, the work will take substantially less time than two years. Construction will pose some minor inco nve nien ces because of lo ca lized travel delays due to temporary lane closures and narrowed lanes and shoulders . At-Gra de Construction At-grade construction, which occurs on the same elevatio n as the existing lanes , will be staged to minimize traffic delays and detours. Typically , lanes are sh ifted toward the median. WSDOT then places a concrete barrier to close off the shoulder. This staging allows co nstruction to occur safely without closing lanes fo r the duration of construction. Access to construction areas will occur from the roadway side to minimize property effects. Bridge Construction Construction of the 1-405 bridges will occur in multiple stages to minimize traffic delays and detours. During t he first stage , traffic will be shifted toward the 1-405 median and the existing lanes and shoulders will be narrowed slightly to allow widening of the existing structure or construction of the new bridge depending on the design. In the next stage, traffic will be shifted on t o the new bridge area . If the bridge is being repla ce d rather than simply widened , the old structure w ill be demolished after traffic is shifted to the new bridge. The new Benson Road overpass will also be staged. The new structure will be built to the west, while the existing overpass remains in service. After traffic has 17 R:\04156\JJ-06 Renton ~tckcl\T ask 4 -D R QA-OC\08 Fl f\<\i'A s ubm ttt.il d r,1rt1..\ Rr\ 11..1.·,i ,L'l, fro m il \lthors\f>oc~ for fm al a ppro\'t1ls\Rc-n ton r\'ic kd n ood p l<1 m s fmol d oc I NTRODUCTION 504 been shifted onto the new overpass , the existing 505 structure will be demolished. 506 Staging Areas 507 Construction staging areas along 1-405 and SR 167 508 will be within the WSDOT right-of-way. Potential 509 staging areas ha v e been identified as shown on 510 Exhibits 2 through 9. 511 Traffic Control 512 Detour agreements with the local agencies will be 513 obtained after WSDOT awards the contract. A traffic 514 control plan will be approved by WSDOT prior to 515 starting construction . The plan 's p rimary objectives 516 will be to provide a safe facility , to streamline the 517 construction schedule , and to minimiz e reductions to 518 existing traffic capacity. To minimize effects on traffic , 519 the duration of activities will be minimized and 520 reductions in capacity w ill be targeted to a period 521 when they will have the least effect. 522 Why do we consider floodplains as we plan for this 523 project? 524 Floodplains are important because they convey and 525 store flood water and minimize flood risks during large 526 storm events. These functions reduce flood losses , 527 maintain clean and plentiful water supplies , and 528 generally enhance quality of life in communities. 529 Recognizing the importance and the sensitive nature 530 of these areas is an important first step in planning for 531 this project. By adapting to the natural phenomenon 532 of flooding rather than trying to control floodwaters, we 533 can reduce the loss of life and property , protect critical 534 natural and cultural resources , reduce maintenance 535 and repair costs , and contribute to the sustainable 536 development of our communities . This philosophy is 537 reflected in the Executive Order 11988 that requires 538 agencies to avoid adverse effects and incompatible 539 development in floodplains thereby reserving 540 floodplains as natural floodwater storage areas. 18 Renton Nick e l Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156 \33-06 Renton Nickel\ Tas k 4 . OR QA-QC\OR Fl [\,VA submittal d rafts\Rcv iscd do,:s fro m aulhor s\Docs fo r final approvals\Rcn ton Nickel flood pla ins fin a l.d oc TNTRODUCTIO N 541 Floo d p lain management is influenced by federal , 542 stat e, and local regulations or guidance. However, .543 c ounties and cities bear the primary responsibility for 544 reg ulating the activities allowed in floodplains. For 545 example , the cities of Tukwila and Renton have 546 develo ped specific programs to manage floodplains . 547 Bot h cities have floodplain restrictions in their zoning 548 a nd b uil ding codes as well as in their sensitive area 549 o rdin an ces . These codes prohibit projects that cause 550 any rise in the base flood ele vation for the 100-year 551 fl oo d ev ent within the 100-year floodplains as 552 ident ifie d on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). 553 As th e study area has several 100-year floodplains , 554 th ese re gulations will apply to the project. 555 What are the key points of this report? 556 Thi s rep ort presents two key points : 557 • This project will not raise the existing 100-year 558 floodplain level because any filling within the 559 floodplain will be mitigated for by excavation 560 within the same floodplain , and at the same 561 ele v ation , at the Springbrook Early 562 Environmental Investments (EEi) site. 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 Renton Ni ckel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report • Some temporary piles and falsework may need to be placed in the floodplain during construction. However, any change in elevation due to these structures will also be mitigated for by the excavation at the Springbrook EEi site . T he Fe deral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ide ntifie d several 100-year floodplains in the study a rea along the Green River, Springbrook Creek , Pa nth e r Creek , Rolling Hills, and the Cedar River . Th e p roject's main construction activity that will affect flo odp lains is the replacement of the Springbrook C reek a nd Oakesdale Avenue bridges . The exact constr uction methods and amounts of fill needed for th is pro ject element will be determined prior to con str uction. Regardless of the selected construction me th od, excavation at the Springbrook Creek Wetland and H ab itat Mitigation Bank will provide sufficient flood st orag e to compensate for the fill needed for bridge co n stru ction. WSDOT will perform a hydraulic a nalys is prior to beginning construction to confirm that t he Springbrook site provides adequate mitigation. 19 R:\04 156\3:'\-06 Rcnh>n \J1 c kd\ T a,;;~ 4 · D R QA-Ql\08 F1 Pv\'A s11brn1tt,1l dr,i :t ... \R1,,·1 ... 1·d ,ii"..., t rom m1thors\Docs for fin ,11 a pprovals\Rcnton Nid ,cl fluodp ldi m. fin.i i.doc 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 lNTR O DUCTI O N 20 In addition to the effects on the Springbrook floodplain , some minor fill could also occur on the west side of SR 167 at SW 23rd Street, where the Panther Creek tributary to Springbrook Creek crosses the highway. At th is location , the project design will use conventional engineering techniques to achieve the goal of a zero rise in the 100-year flood elevation . Where encroachment into the floodplain or floodway is unavoidable due to technical or physical constraints , localized loss of flood storage will be alleviated by design ing additional flood storage within the affected floodplain . Renton Ni ck el Impro vem ent Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33-06 Renton >l ickcl\Task 4 · D R QA-QC\08 FHW A submitt.,1 d rafts\Rcviscd d ocs from authors\ Docs for fin al •pprov•b\ Renton N ic kel Oood p la ins_hna l.doc 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 '607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 EXISTING CONDITIONS What information was collected to identify floodplains? T o id en tify floodplains , the team used the Flood Insura nce Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Em e rg ency Management Agency (FEMA). We used th ese maps to evaluate the extent and elevation of the floo d plain . The team also reviewed other related reports and d ocuments. These included a report on the performance of the Black River Pump Station (which reg ulates the flow out of lower Springbrook Creek du ri ng fl ood events) prepared for the City of Renton , and an on-going study to remap the Springbrook Creek floodplain . Th e floodplain remapping study uses updated information . One key change is the Black River pump sta tion is assumed to operate at higher flow rates than w as us ed for the existing FIRM panel. Since the pump in g rate controls the floodplain elevation on Springbrook Creek, this remapping study is expected to sh ow a somewhat lower base flood elevation. Therefore the analysis we present in this report is co nservative as it is based on the existing mapping. What floodplains are present in the study area? Renton Nickel Impro v ement Project Floodplains Discipline Report Th e floodplains identified in the FIRM maps are ass oci ated with the Green River, Springbrook Creek, Pan t her Creek , and Rolling Hills Creek. At the north e nd of the study area , 1-405 also crosses the Cedar Ri v er floodplain. Exhibit 10 shows that the primary floodplain within the study area is associated with the Green River and Springbrook Creek and its tributaries. 21 K \O-n;6\33-06 Rl'nlon N ickel\ T ilsk .i. -OR QA-Q(\08 Fl f\V A <:ubm ittat dr.,t!-.\ l{n·1,,l'd dc>1..·o.: from authors\D ocs fo r fina l a pprovals\Rcn tun N ickel fl ood p ldins_fin,;1.l.d0<.. EXTS TT NG COND1T10NS 629 630 Open Ri ver/Creek. Channel 100 Year Floodplain • 500 Year Floodpla in r7A Spnngbroo~ ~reek Wetland tL..l & Habitat Mitigation Bank Park D Renton D Tukwila 631 Exhibit 1 O. Floodplains within Renton Nickel Improvement Project Study Area 632 Source: FEMA maps published March 15, 1996 633 Multiple efforts have been made over the years to 634 control flooding in the Green River Valley, especially 635 as development has occurred. In late 1961 , the U .S . 636 Army Corps of Engineers completed the Howard 637 Hanson Dam , near the headwaters of the Green River 638 in King County , to contro l flooding . This dam was 639 designed to limit peak flows to about 12,000 cubic feet 640 per second (cfs), which is about a 25-year storm 641 event. 642 A levee system was also constructed on the river . 643 Although the levee reduces the frequency of floods , it 644 el iminates the natural floodwate r storage that 645 floodplains typically provide. 22 Renton Nicke l Tmprovement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R \04 156\33-06 Renton '.\Jickcl\ T ask 4 · DR QA-QC\08 FHWA submitta l d rafts\Rcviscd d oc s fr om a u l hors\Docs for final a ppro va ls\Rcnton Nickel floodplains _fin al doc 646 647 .648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 The Black River pump station 662 controls flows to the Green River 663 from Springbrook Creek. 664 665 666 667 668 669 -670 671 672 673 674 675 676 Springbrook Creek side channel has four 677 rows of piers in the floodway. 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report EXI STING COND1TIONS Springbrook Creek drains into the Green River; however, its flow is controlled by the Black River pump station located north of the project. Operation of the pump station is determined by interlocal agreements and bas in planning programs . The pump station can pump as much as 1,7 00 cfs during high flow events. Th is pu mping rate exceeds the estimated peak flows on Springbrook Creek during a 100-year flood event, which is 1,307 cfs for current land use conditions . However, during f looding , flows on the Green River rise , reducing its capacity to receive additional flows . This decrease in capacity during floods requires that the pumping rat es from Springbrook Creek be reduced . The pump station starts reducing pumping rates when the Green Ri ver reaches flows of 9,500 cfs. If flows in the Green River exceed 12 ,0 00 cfs, then the pump station may stop opera ting completely until flows in the Green River go down . The main channel of Springbrook Creek crosses under 1-405 through a 61-foot-wide box culvert . Th is cu lvert is divided into 5 cells, each approximately 11 feet wide. Adjacent to the box culvert , Springbrook Creek has a side channel (Springbrook Creek Side Channel) that flows under 1-405. 1-405 crosses this channe l with a bridge. This bridge has four parallel rows of 13-inch piers within the floodway. Flooding along Springbrook Creek affects its tributaries. This is because the tributaries are not able to flow freely into Springbrook Creek during a flood and water backs up in the tributaries. In particular, flooding affects Panther Creek , which ponds on both s id es of SR 167. Businesses west of East Valley Road ex perience parking lot flooding in this area. Another tributary to Springbrook Creek is Rolling Hills Creek . This creek has a FEMA-mapped floodplain on t he north side of 1-405 east of SR 167. In this area , flooding is caused by undersized pipes not because t he area is in a natural floodplain . When flooding occurs , it is limited to a large parking lot. The Ced ar River flows beneath two 1-405 bridges at milepost 3.51. The east bridge has two columns within the 100-year floodplain and two columns within the ordi nary high water mark (OHWM). The west bridge has three columns within the 100-year floodplain and one column within the OHWM . A pede strian bridge spans the Cedar River beneath the east highway bridge, connecting the Renton Community Center on the right bank with the Cedar 23 R:\O-l156\33·U6 Kcu t ,.m \h\.kd \ r4!>k "i • lJR (JA-QC\08 FH\VA s ubmittal d r:lfh \l~\1\'!-..l1d lh).., from author<.\O()(s for fm<1l approvc1ls\Rcnton Nickel flo()d pl.un~ find l.doc EXISTIN G CON DITIONS 694 River Trail on the left bank. Two columns are located 695 within the 100-year floodplain, with one column within 696 the riverbed and floodway. 697 What floodplain regulations apply to this project? 698 Floodplain management within the Renton Nickel 699 Improvement Project area is influenced by federal , 700 state, and local regulations or guidance . However, 701 counties and cities bear the primary responsibility for 702 regulating activities allowed in floodplains . 703 The City of Tukwila addresses floodplain regulations in 704 Municipal Code 16 .52 Floodplain Management. The 705 City of Renton addresses floodplain regulations in 706 Municipal Code [4-3-050] Critical Areas Regulations . 707 These municipal codes help the Cities of Tukwila and 708 Renton manage their floodplains . These codes 709 prohibit projects within the 100-year floodplain that 710 cause any rise in the base floodplain elevation . This is 711 known as the zero-rise requirement. As several 100- 712 year floodplains occur within the study area , these 713 regulations apply to the project. 714 These codes also dictate that projects must not 715 reduce the amount of flood storage volume on a 716 floodplain . For any fill placed in the floodplain , the 717 project must compensate by removing equal volumes 718 of fill at equivalent elevations. The cities of Tukwila 719 and Renton will review the project to ensure that these 720 provisions are met. 721 The Floodplain Management guidance, Presidential 722 Executive Order 11988 signed May 24 , 1977, directs 723 federal agencies to avoid development that will affect 724 floodplains. If development will have significant 725 encroachment on the floodplain , then the guidance 726 requires a specific finding that the proposed 727 development is the only practicable alternative. If the 728 project encroaches on a regulatory floodway, then the 729 document should also discuss the consistency of the 730 action with the regulatory floodway. If a floodway 731 revision is necessary , then the document should 732 include evidence from FEMA and local or state 733 agencies indicating that such revision is acceptable . 734 WSDOT's Hydraulic Manual provides guidance on 735 how to conduct engineering , hydrologic, and hydraulic 736 studies to determine 100-year flood elevations , 737 velocities , and backwater conditions that are expected 738 to occur under existing conditions and with the 739 conceptual designs proposed for the Build Alternative . 24 R ent on N ickel Improvement Project Floodplains D i scipline Report R\04156\33.n6 Renton Nickel\ Task 4. DI< (.)A-QC\08 FH WA subnuttal drafts\ Rc\'iscd d ocs fro m authors\ Docs for fi n•I •pprov•ls\Rcnton Nickel Ooodplains finaldoc 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report EXISTING CONDITIONS Although these studies have not yet been completed, the analyses will help determine the effects of encroachment on floodplains, including what compensatory storage will need to be created within the floodplain to meet the cities of Tukwila and Renton regulatory requirements and ensure no adverse effects to flood levels or floodplains. The project will also require a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit, as well as Shoreline Permits. The HPA is issued by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The permit will place timing limitations on any construction work that will affect streams. The cities of Tukwila and Renton will issue shoreline permits once they determine that the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program (see the Land Use Plans and Policies Discipline Report for more information). 25 R:\ O,tJ56\ 33-06 R~nton Nirkel\Tosk 4 -DR QA-QC\OS Fl fWA ~ubmittal d r,1f1<,.J,:~,·1c,,d cl.'" fr<.>m authors\D0<.·~ fur fin.ii appn.wals\ Rm ton Nilkel floodploins_final.doc 758 POTENTIAL EFFECTS 759 What methods were used to evaluate effects on 750 floodplains? 761 The team compared existing conditions with the 762 proposed widening to determine where temporary or 763 permanent construction will require fill to be placed or 764 where bridge piers will be built in the floodplain. 765 To determine how much fill the project will place within 766 the floodplain, the team used the floodplain elevation 767 on the map prepared by FEMA. To maintain the 100- 768 year floodplain elevation, the project design will allow 769 for an equal or greater amount of excavation from 770 within the floodplain at the same elevations. 771 Hydraulic principles were used to evaluate whether 772 the floodplain will be affected by the project. To 773 evaluate the effect on floodplain storage, the team 774 compared how much material is being placed in the 775 floodplain to how much material is being removed. If 776 there is no net gain in floodplain fill, then the project 777 will not affect floodplain storage capacity. 778 779 Which floodplains could be affected by the project? 780 The Springbrook Creek and Oakesdale Avenue Bridge 781 will be replaced to accommodate the new lanes on 782 1-405. The existing bridge will be replaced with a new 783 bridge that spans not only the side channel but also 784 spans the main channel and Oakesdale Avenue. This 785 bridge crosses a 1 OD-year floodplain and construction 786 of the bridge will require placing new piers and fill in 787 the floodplain. 788 In addition to the fill at the Springbrook Creek and 789 Oakesdale Avenue Bridge, some minor fill could also 790 occur on the west side of SR 167 at SW 23rd Street 791 where Panther Creek, a tributary to Springbrook 792 Creek, crosses the highway. The other floodplain 793 crossings at the Green River, Rolling Hills Creek, and 794 the Cedar River will not be affected by this project. 26 Renton Nickel Tmprovement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33-06 R-.,1\ton t-..'ickel\Tdsk 4-DRQA-QC\08 FHWA submitt~I drafts\Revi~o:d docs fron1 authors\Doc~ for final approvals\Rentun '.\lickd floodplains final.due POTENTIAL EFFECTS 795 How will project construction temporarily affect the 796 Springbrook Creek floodplain? 797 During construction, temporary piles and falsework 798 could be placed in the Springbrook floodplain. These 799 structures provide work platforms and support the new 800 structures as they are built. The replacement of the 801 Springbrook Creek and Oakesdale Avenue Bridge 802 may use these techniques. The exact construction 803 methods will be determined by the contractor that 804 WSDOT selects for this project. 805 Depending upon how long it takes to construct the 806 bridge, some of the temporary piles and falsework 807 may need to remain in place through the winter. The 808 Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation 809 Bank is an Early Environmental Investments (EEi) 810 Project. This project will compensate for this 811 temporary construction, because greater volumes of 812 material will be removed from within the Springbrook 813 floodplain at the same elevation in advance of any 814 construction activities. The excavation, which is 815 required to construct the wetlands, will provide 816 sufficient floodplain storage to compensate for placing 817 temporary piles and falsework in the area of the 818 Springbrook Creek Side Channel and Springbrook 819 Creek culvert. Because of the compensatory storage 820 provided by the mitigation bank, the temporary piles 821 and falsework are neither anticipated to affect the 822 hydraulics of winter flows under the bridge, nor raise 823 the floodplain elevation. 824 Will the project permanently affect floodplains? 825 Replacing the bridge over Springbrook Creek will add 826 approximately 11,200 cubic yards of fill to the 827 floodplain. In addition, some piers will need to be 828 placed in the floodplain to support the bridge. 829 Compensation for these additions will come from the 830 Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation 831 Bank. Excavation of material from this site will be 832 more than 11,200 cubic yards and will therefore 833 compensate for the bridge fill by removing more 834 material from the floodplain at the same elevation in 835 advance of any construction activities. Prior to final 836 design and construction, WSDOT will analyze the 837 predicted backwater conditions to verify that replacing 838 the Springbrook Creek and Oakesdale Avenue Bridge 839 will not affect the 100-year floodplain elevation. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\JJ-06 R('nton Nickd\ Ta~k 4 -DR QA-QC\ 08 Fl fl.V' I\ submitLtl d r,1/t, \ R,•1 i,c•d docs from authors\ Doc~ for final approvals\ Renton t\'ickcl flo<J<lplains_final.doc 27 POTENTIAL EFFECTS 840 The box culvert that currently exists in the Springbrook 841 main channel will no longer be necessary once the 842 new bridge is in place. If this culvert is removed from 843 the channel, then it could be counted as additional 844 compensatory storage for the fill and new piers. 845 What indirect effects result from the direct effects on 846 floodplains? 84 7 There are no indirect effects to floodplains anticipated 848 as a result of this project. 28 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\ 04156\33-06 Renton Nickd\ Task 4 -DR QA-QC\08 Fl IV\/ A submitt~l drafts\Rcviscd docs from authors\Docs for final approvals\Rcnlon Nickel floodplain~_final.doc 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 MEASURES TO A VOID OR MINIMIZE PROJECT EFFECTS What has been done to avoid or minimize negative effects to floodplains? In addition to providing compensatory floodplain storage, stormwater detention will also be provided for drainage from new impervious surfaces. Detaining stormwater will help minimize changes to flow patterns of inlet sources to the floodplain. See the Surface Water and Water Quality Discipline Report for more information on stormwater facilities. Bridge piers placed within the floodplain will be designed to minimize hydraulic disturbance to flow. This can be achieved by designing piers that are all the same size and placed in lines parallel to the flow path. How will the project compensate for unavoidable negative effects to floodplains? Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report Adding fill to the floodplain of Springbrook Creek is an unavoidable negative effect. Compensation for this fill comes from the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank, an Early Environmental Investments (EEi) Project where large volumes of material will be removed in order to construct that project. The excavation at the EEi site, which is required to construct the wetlands, will provide sufficient floodplain storage to compensate for the fill placed within the floodplain during construction of the Springbrook Creek and Oakesdale Avenue Bridge. WSDOT will hydraulically analyze the effectiveness of the fill mitigation in order to confirm that no rise will result in the 100-yearfloodplain. If the Springbrook EE I is demonstrated to be inadequate for mitigation, then another site will be found for compensatory storage. In addition, WSDOT will evaluate headloss at stream crossings prior to construction. 29 R\04156\33--06 R~nt,.m Nkkd\ Ta~k 4-DR QA-QC\08 Fl TWA 5ubmilla1 d1,1fl~\l~c,·1ocd d,,,, trum authors\Docs for fmal ;i.-pprow1ls\Rcnlon Nickd fl<.J<.><lpl,1in~_final.doc 885 REFERENCES 886 Published Documents 887 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. 888 2003 Hydrology Analysis for Floodplain Mapping Study of Springbrook Creek, 889 King County Washington 890 891 892 RW Beck 2004 East Side Green River Watershed Plan Technical Memorandum Supplement 893 894 WSDOT 2004 Environmental Procedures Manual. September 2004. 895 896 2001 1-405 Corridor Program NEPA/SEPA Final Environmental Impact Statement 897 Websites 898 http://www.ci.renton.wa.us 899 http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us 900 http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes 901 http://www.fema.gov 902 http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil 30 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Floodplains Discipline Report R:\04156\33-06 Renton Nickel\ Ta~k 4 -DR QA-QC\08 FH\'\,'A submittal dr,db\Rcviscd docs from authors\Docs forfin,tl <1.pprovals\Rl,nton l\'ickcl floodplains_final.doc ~ :,: Washington State ~/I Department of Transportation Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigati on Bank Mitiga tion Ba nk Instrument Decem ber 30, 2005 -Draft Final Corridor Program DF1· -V[fr")r I 'f '_ (I \ Washington State Department of Transportation Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Approved By: Debra M. Lewis Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Daniel Mathis, P .E. Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Gordon White Program Manager for Shorclands and Environmcnlal Assistance Program Washington State Department of Ecology Ken Berg Manager, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ronald A. Kreizenbeck Acting, Regional Administrator Environmental Protection Agency, Region I 0 Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Mayor City of Renton Megan White, P.E. Director, Environmental Services Washington State Department of Transportation Date - Date Date Dale Date Date Date DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Table of Contents List of Acronyms and Abreviations .................................................................................. v Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................... 1-1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIE\V ................................................................................... 1-l 1.1.1 General Mitigation Bank Goal and Objectives .......................................... 1-2 1.1.2 Project Setting ............................................................................................ 1-2 1.1.3 Site Selection Rationale ............................................................................. 1-3 1.1.4 Bank Site Description ................................................................................. 1-4 1.1.5 Unique Urban Setting and Public Access .................................................. 1-8 1.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF BANK SPONSOR AND PARTNERS ............................................................ 1-12 1.2.1 WSDOT Memorandum of Agreement and the Bank Oversight Committee ............................................................................................... 1-13 1.2.2 Responsibility of WSDOT and City of Renton ........................................ 1-13 1.3 SERVICE AREA ............................................................................................. 1-13 1.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS ................................................ 1-15 1.4.1 Section404Permit ................................................................................... l-16 1.4.2 Section 401 Water Quality Certification .................................................. 1-16 1.4.3 Section 402 NPDES ................................................................................. 1-16 1.4.4 CZMA Consistency Determination .......................................................... 1-16 1.4.5 Hydraulic Project Approval ..................................................................... 1-16 1.4.6 Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment ..................................... 1-16 1.4.7 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.. ............................................ 1-17 1.4.8 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Compliance ................. 1-17 1.4. 9 Other Approvals ....................................................................................... 1-17 2.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BANK .......................................................................... 2-1 2.1 MITIGATION BANK PLAN OVERVIEW .................................................... 2-1 2.2 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ...................................................................... 2-2 2.3 GRADING PLAN .............................................................................................. 2-3 2.4 PLANTING PLAN ............................................................................................. 2-3 2.5 WEED MANAGE:VIE:'IIT .................................................................................. 2-5 2.5.1 Existing Site Conditions Favor Reed Canarygrass .................................... 2-5 2.5.2 Reed Canary grass Offers Some Understory Functions .............................. 2-5 2.5.3 Strategy to Manage Reed Canarygrass ....................................................... 2-6 2.5.3 Strategy to Manage Himalayan Blackberry ............................................... 2-8 2.5.3 Strategy to Manage Other Invasive Non-Native Species ........................... 2-8 2.6 MITIGATION BANK PLA:'11 ........................................................................... 2-9 2.6. 1 Units A and B .......................................................................................... 2-10 Table of Contenls_ 12-29-05.doc December 2005 Page i DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 2.6.2 Unit C ...................................................................................................... 2-14 2.6.3 Unit D ...................................................................................................... 2-17 2.6.4 Unit E ...................................................................................................... 2-19 2.7 FUNCTIONAL IMPROVEME!\T ................................................................ 2-21 2.7.1 Watershed Scale ....................................................................................... 2-21 2.6.4 Mitigation Bank Unit Scale ...................................................................... 2-22 2.8 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING .............................................................. 2-22 3.0 PROJECT GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .......... 3-1 3.1 GOAL .................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 ECOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES ........................................................................ 3-1 3.3 PERFORMANCE ST Al\DARDS ..................................................................... 3-1 3.4 CONTINGENCY ............................................................................................... 3-3 4.0 BANKOPERATION ..................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 CREDIT DETERMINATION .......................................................................... 4-1 4.2 USE OF CREDITS ............................................................................................ 4-1 4.3 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ................................................................... 4-2 4.3. l Credit Release Flexibility ........................................................................... 4-3 4.4 ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES AND LEDGER MANAGEMENT .......... 4-5 4.5 SITE COMPLIA!\CE MONITORING ........................................................... 4-5 5.0 SITE PROTECTION AND MA!\AGEMENT ............................................................ 5-1 5.1 PROTECTION MECHANISMS ...................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Conservation Easement .............................................................................. 5-1 5.1.2 Financial Assurances ................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.3 Site Access..... ... . ................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES ........................................... 5-2 5.3 FORCE MAJE URE ........................................................................................... 5-3 6.0 GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................... 6-1 7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 7-1 Table of Contents_ 12-29-05.doc December 2005 Page ii DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek \Vetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument List of Figures Figure 1-1: Project Vicinity ...................................................................................................... 1-18 Figure 1-2: Springbrook Bank Site ........................................................................................... 1-19 Figure 1-3: Service Area ........................................................................................................... 1-20 Figure 1-4: Historical Aerial Photo ........................................................................................... 1-21 Figure 1-5: Unit A Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 1-22 Figure 1-6: Unit B Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 1-23 Figure 1-7: Unit C Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 1-24 Figure 1-8: Unit D Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 1-25 Figure 1-9: Unit E Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 1-26 Figure 1-10: Existing Vegetation .............................................................................................. 1-27 Figure 2-1: Mitigation Types Overview ................................................................................... 2-27 Figure 2-2: Units A and B Mitigation Types ........................................................................... 2-28 Figure 2-3: Unit C Mitigation Types ........................................................................................ 2-29 Figure 2-4: Unit D Mitigation Types ....................................................................................... 2-30 Figure 2-5: Unit E Mitigation Types ....................................................................................... 2-31 Figure 2-6: Units A and B Mitigation Treatment Activities ..................................................... 2-32 Figure 2-7: Unit C Mitigation Treatment Activities ................................................................. 2-33 Figure 2-8: Unit D Mitigation Treatment Activities ................................................................. 2-34 Figure 2-9: Unit E Mitigation Treatment Activities ................................................................. 2-35 Figure 2-10: Units A and B Grading Plan ................................................................................ 2-36 Figure 2-11: Unit C Grading Plan .............................................................................................. 2-3 7 Figure 2-12: Unit D Grading Plan ............................................................................................ 2-38 Figure 2-13: Unit E Grading Plan ............................................................................................ 2-39 Figure 2-14: Units A and B Planting Plan ............................................................................. 2-40 Figure 2-15: Unit C Planting Plan ........................................................................................... 2-41 Figure 2-16: Unit D Planting Plan ............................................................................................ 2-42 Figure 2-17: Unit E Planting Plan ............................................................................................. 2-43 List of Tables Table 1-1: Permit Activities and Environmental Documentation .............................................. 1-15 Table 2-1: Master Plant Materials List ........................................................................................ 2-4 Table 2-2: Mitigation Treatment Type and Acreage Summary by Unit.. .................................... 2-9 Table 2-3: Units A and B: Exiting and Proposed Function Attributes ..................................... 2-23 Table 2-4: Unit C: Exiting and Proposed Function Attributes .................................................. 2-24 Table 2-5: Unit D: Exiting and Proposed Function Attributes .................................................. 2-25 Table 2-6: Unit E: Exiting and Proposed Function Attributes ................................................... 2-26 Table of Contents_ 12-29-05.doc December 2005 Page iii DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Table 3-1: Units A and B: Summary or Performance Standards, Monitoring, Related Objectives Functions and Values. and Function Attributes ................................................. 3-4 Table 3-2: Unit C: Summary of Performance Standards, Monitoring, Related Objectives Functions and Values, and Function Attributes ................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-3: Unit D: Summary of Performance Standards, Monitoring, Related Objectives Functions and Values, and Function Attributes ................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-4: Unit E: Summary of Performance Standards, Monitoring, Related Objectives Functions and Values, and Function Attributes ................................................................... 3-7 Table 4-1: Credit Potential.. ......................................................................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2: Credits Required for Wetland Impacts ....................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-3: Credit Release Schedule for Springbrook Bank ......................................................... 4-4 Table 4-4: Formal Monitoring Schedule ...................................................................................... 4-5 Table 4-5: Informal Monitoring Schedule .................................................................................. 4-5 Table 4-6: Sample Accounting Ledger ........................................................................................ 4-7 List of Appendices Appendix A: Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Monitoring Plan Appendix B: Memorandum of Agreement Appendix C: Conservation Easement Appendix D: Agreement between City of Renton and WSDOT Table of Contents_ 12-29-05.doc December 2005 Page iv AEMRA BA BMP BNSF BOC CBMOA Corps CZMA DAHP DPS DNS Ecology EEi EFH EPA ESA FHWA HGM HOV HPA I IM IP LWD MB! MBRT MOA NAVD88 NE NEPA NLAA NMFS NPDES NRCS RC RCG SEPA SR DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Advanced Environmental Mitigation Revolving Account Biological Assessment Best Management Practice Burlington Northern Santa Fe Bank Oversight Committee Wetland Compensation Bank Memorandum of Agreement U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Zone Management Act Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Distinct Population Segment Determination of Non-Significance Washington State Department of Ecology Early Environmental Investments Essential Fish Habitat Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Federal Highway Administration Hydogeomorphic High Occupant Vehicle Hydraulic Project Approval Interstate Medium Industrial Individual Permit Large woody debris Mitigation Bank Instrument Mitigation Bank Review Team Memorandum of Agreement North American Vertical Datum I 988 no effect National Environmental Policy Act may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect National Marine Fisheries Service National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Natural Resource Conservation Service Resource Conservation Reed canarygrass State Environmental Policy Act State Route Table of Contents 12-29-05.doc December 2005 Page v SSDP USFWS WDFW WFAM WQC WRIA WSDOT DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Shoreline Substantial Development Permit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington State Wetland Function Assessment Methods Water Quality Certification Water Resource Inventory Area Washington State Department of Transportation Table of Contents 12-29-05.doc December 2005 Page vi DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Executive Summary Location: The Springbrook Creek Wet land and Habitat Mitigation Bank (Springbrook Bank) is located in the City of Renton. King County, Washington; Sections 25, 30, and 36, Township 23N, Ranges 4E and SE: Lat 47° 27' 20" Long 122° 14' 24". Portions of the site are adjacent to Springbrook Creek. Springbrook Bank is located in the Green- Duwamish watershed (Water Resources Inventory Area [WRIA] 9). Service Area: The service area of Springbrook Bank includes portions of the Cedar- Sammamish watershed (WRIA 8) and the Green-Duwamish watershed (WRIA 9). Size of Bank: Springbrook Bank will generate 45.69 mitigation credits on the 131.54- acre site. One credit compensates for one acre of Category II wetland. Land Owner: The City of Renton (City) owns the land within Springbrook Bank. Bank Operators: The City and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will operate and manage Springbrook Bank. Type of Bank: Springbrook Bank will generate wetland mitigation credits through the re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement of wetlands; and enhancement of upland and riparian areas. Purpose: The purpose of Springbrook Bank is to provide compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources caused by WSDOT highway construction projects and City mitigation requirements within the service area. Goal: The goal of Springbrook Bank is to increase wetland area, improve hydrologic functions, water quality functions, habitat functions, fish refuge/rearing habitat, and promote environmental education. Objectives: The objectives of Springbrook Bank are to re-establish 17 .81 acres of wetland, rehabilitate 52.92 acres of wetland, enhance 33.61 acres of wetland, and enhance 7.80 acres of upland and 6.88 acres of riparian upland adjacent to Springbrook Creek for a total of 119.02 acres. The proposed restoration and enhancement activities will re-connect floodplain wetlands with Springbrook Creek, re-establish historical wetlands, and improve water quality, hydrologic, floodplain, habitat, and riparian functions in a highly urbanized area. Use of Credits: WSDOT anticipates usmg its credits from Springbrook Bank for transportation projects within the service area. The City will use its credits for projects within the service area. WSDOT Wetland Compensation Bank MOA: The Washington State Department of Transportation Wetland Compensation Bank Program Memorandum of Agreement (WSDOT 1994) provides the principles and procedures for establishing, implementing and maintaining Springbrook Bank. Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument &ecutiveSumma 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page vii DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Mitigation Bank Instrument (MB!) for the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (Springbrook Bank) contains information reqnired for its approval. This document was prepared in accordance with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Wetland Compensation Bank Program Memorandum of Agreement (CBMOA) (WSDOT 1994), the Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Mitigation Banks ( US Army Corps of Engineers et al. 1995), and negotiations with state and federal wetland regulatory agencies. 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW WSDOT and the City of Renton (City) will establish Springbrook Bank to provide compensatory mitigation in advance of unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources from future projects within the Cedar-Sammamish Watershed (Water Resource Inventory Area [WRIAJ 8) and Green-Duwamish Watershed (WRIA 9). Springbrook Bank is being created as an Early Environmental Investments (EE!) project under the Interstate 405 (1-405) Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit projects. Springbrook Bank consists of five units, totaling 131.54 acres, which represent some of the last remaining large tracts of undeveloped land in the Lower Green River Basin. All five units are located in the southwestern portion of the City of Renton, King County, Washington (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). Construction and successful development of Springbrook Bank as described in this MB! will establish 45.69 mitigation credits, once performance standards are met. These credits will become available for use by WSDOT and the City, in increments, as the performance standards specified in Section 3.3 are met and approved by the permitting agencies on the Bank Oversight Committee (BOC), in consultation with the other BOC member agencies. The BOC is analogous to the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT) established by the State of Washington (200 I) and Federal Banking Guidance (US Army Corps of Engineers 1995). Projects that may use the credits from Springbrook Bank include the 1-405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit projects, State Route (SR) 518 improvement projects, and SR 167 15th SW to 15th NW HOV Stage 3 project. A portion of the credits will be administered by the City to meet mitigation reqnirements for other projects within the service area (Figure 1-3). Future WSDOT and City-approved projects within the service area are eligible to use mitigation credits. Portions of Springbrook Bank arc adjacent to the lower reaches of Springbrook Creek. This proximity to the creek will allow the water qnality and hydrologic functions provided in Units A, B, and E to benefit downstream aquatic habitat in Springbrook Creek, the Green River, and Duwamish River and its estuary. Springbrook Creek is one of the few remaining tributary streams to the Green River, making the habitat value of associated natural areas difficult to replicate due to landscape position, water-supply availability, urbanization of the surrounding area, and historic hydrologic manipulation of natural hydrologic systems in the Lower Green River Basin. In a landscape that is nearly Chapter I Introduction and Background MBI Ch1 lntro_12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 1-1 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank lnstrnment completely developed, protecting and enhancing the last remaining natural areas is a high priority. This protection will sustain the viability of remaining fish and wildlife populations. The location of Springbrook Bank adjacent to the habitat corridor of Springbrook Creek, other habitat corridors. and other mitigation sites greatly increases its value within the surrounding landscape and complements existing restoration projects both upstream and downstream. 1.1.1 General Mitigation Bank Goal and Objectives The goal of Springbrook Bank is to increase wetland area, improve hydrologic, water quality, and habitat functions, increase fish refuge/rearing habitat, and promote environmental education. Project objectives are to improve site attributes contributing to: floodplain and riparian functions, water quality improvement, flood storage capacity and other hydrologic functions, wildlife habitat, and restoring site buffers to protect habitat. An interpretive trail will also provide increased environmental educational opportunities for local residents and connect to the existing King County regional trail systems. These functions would be difficult to replicate at another location due to: urbanization of the surrounding landscape, lack of remaining natural areas in the vicinity, connectivity to surrounding habitat, and the potential to provide ecological benefits beyond site boundaries via this connectivity. 1.1.2 Project Setting Springbrook Bank is located within the relatively flat Green River Valley (Valley). Springbrook Creek drains a watershed located on the east side of the Green River known as the Black River Basin and is defined as the "Springbrook, Mill, and Garrison Creek Watershed" (SMG watershed) (Harza 1995). The Black River Basin covers about 15,763 acres (24.6 square miles) and can be delineated into two distinct topographical areas: the valley floor and the foothill zone. Slope gradient in the watershed ranges from O to 70 percent. Elevation in the watershed ranges between 10 and 525 feet above mean sea level (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). All elevations referenced in this document are in the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88). Springbrook Creek is the main water conveyance channel in the SMG watershed, with its tributaries, Mill and Garrison Creeks. entering from the west (in Kent) and Upper Springbrook, Panther, and Rolling Hills Creeks originating on plateaus east of the Valley. Springbrook Creek is approximately 12 miles long (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Downstream of SW 16th Street and 1-405, Springbrook Creek enters the improved portion of the Creek, the P-1 ChanneL which flows to the Black River Pump Station (Figure 1-1). In the forebay of the pump station, water is stored prior to its discharge into the Green River. The pump station and associated infrastructure prevents high flows in the Green River from backing water up into Springbrook Creek, reducing the risk of flooding in adjacent areas. The lower reaches of Springbrook Creek have been historically straightened, deepened, and widened by farmers, local jurisdictions, Natural Resources Conservation Service Chapter 1 lntroduction and Background MBI Ch1 Intro 12-2B-05.doc December 2005 Page 1-2 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument (NRCS), and King County Drainage District #1 (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Springbrook Creek was originally channelized for agricultural drainage purposes with later conveyance improvements made to reduce flood hazards as part of the City of Renton and NRCS East Side Green River Watershed Project (R.W. Beck 1996). Figure 1-4 shows that Springbrook Creek was already channelized by 1936, and the surrounding areas had previously been converted to agricultural use. Existing wetlands within the Valley provide several hundred acre-feet of flood storage during the most extreme events (R.W. Beck 1996). 1.J.2a Current Land Use and Zonin,: Springbrook Bank is located in an area of the City referred to as the Employment Area Valley. According to the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan (Renton 2004), the Employment Area Valley is " ... intended to provide a mix of employment-based uses, including commercial, office, and industrial development to support the economic development of the City of Renton.'· The comprehensive plan objectives and policies specific to the Employment Area Valley are intended to promote economic development. Units A, B, C, and E are zoned as Resource Conservation (RC). Unit D (adjacent to the business park located north of SW 43rd Street) is zoned Medium Industrial (IM). Development is allowed in accordance with the extent of environmentally sensitive area regulations (i.e., floodplains, wetlands and stream regulations found in the City's Critical Areas Ordinance [Renton 2005]). The RC zoning provides a very low-density residential zone that allows residential land use in combination with critical areas or agriculture uses. Examples of RC-zoned land uses include manufactured homes, eating or drinking establishments, day care centers, medical institutions, and veterinary offices. The IM zoning provides areas for medium-intensity industrial actlvttles involving manufacturing, processing, assembly, and warehousing. Examples of IM-zoned land use include City government offices, schools, movie theaters, laboratories, power plants, airplane manufacturing, and vehicle service stations. As with any zoned land, the City can change the zoning and re-designate the areas for higher land use intensities. However, the establishment of a bank on these properties will protect the site in perpetuity through a conservation easement. 1.1.3 Site Selection Rationale The 131.54-acrc site provides one of the last opportunities to create and enhance natural habitat and improve ecological functions within the rapidly developing Lower Green River Valley. Channelization of Springbrook Creek, past agricultural practices, and recent build-out of the area have dramatically altered hydrologic regimes, increased impervious surface, and removed native vegetation over the majority of the surrounding landscape. This will be one of the first urban mitigation banks in Washington State, and upon certification will serve as a model project for establishing banks in similar urbanized areas. Chapter I Introduction and Background MBI Ch1 Intro_ 12·28-05.doc December 2005 Page 1-3 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Opportunities for successful restoration at Springbrook Bank are high for the following reasons: I. The proposed restoration strategy focuses on re-establishing ecological conditions and functions historically provided at or near the site. 2. The Springbrook Creek riparian corridor, surrounding mitigation sites, and adjacent railroad tracks provide excellent "corridors" for wildlife movement. 3. Activities will improve fish and wildlife habitat in a watershed where it has been severely degraded. Ecological restoration activities at Springbrook Bank will address limiting factors for aquatic habitat functions in the Springbrook Creek sub-basin and downstream areas, such as lack offish-rearing and refuge habitat, degraded water quality, hydromodification, and lack of native riparian vegetation (Kerwin and Nelson 2000; WRIA 9 Steering Committee 2005). The opportunity to provide these habitat improvements is limited in the Lower Green River Basin by development pressures and water-conveyance concerns. Springbrook Bank, or portions thereof, also meets the following site-selection criteria supported by the WSDOT CBMOA ( 1994). listed in order of preference: 1. A site where one or more of the three criteria used to determine if a site is a wetland (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology), especially wetland hydrology, have been completely lost and can be restored (Units C and E). 2. A site where one or more wetland functions and values have been eliminated by prior human activity and can be restored to their previous type, size, and vigor (Units A, B, C, and E). 3. A site where wetland functions and values have been severely degraded by prior human activity and can he enhanced to their previous type, size, and vigor (Units A, B, C, and E). 4. A site that is not a wetland, but where a wetland can be created that is adjacent to and has high potential to complement existing wetlands. Examples include areas adjacent to existing riparian corridors, Washington Natural Heritage Sites, Washington State Wildlife Areas, and National Wildlife Refuges (Units C and E). 5. A site that is not wetland, but where a wetland can be created (Units C and E). 6. A site where development, management, and maintenance could appropriately enhance one or more existing wetland functions and values (Units A, B, C, and D). 1.1.4 Bank Site Description 1.1.4.1 Historic Condition The five units, which make up Springbrook Bank, are located in the Eastern Puget Riverine Lowlands Ecoregion (EPA 2002) on a relatively level valley floor. The King County Soil Survey (Snyder ct al. 1973) states that soil types on the Springbrook Bank site are associated with streams and river valleys that naturally support herbaceous species, such as grasses and sedges, and a variety of forest types, with dominant trees Chapter 1 Introduction and Background MBI Ch1 Intro 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 1-4 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, Sitka spruce, western red cedar, red alder, big-leaf maple, black cottonwood, and willow. /\ 1936 aerial photo (Figure 1-4) shows Springbrook Creek being cham1elized by the mid-l 930s with remnants of the original stream alignment present within the boundaries of Units C and E (Puget Sound River History Project 2005). 1.1.4.2 Baseline Conditions The baseline conditions for each mitigation unit at Springbrook Bank are described below. For purposes of this MB!, Units A and B are described together because they are ecologically similar and are both adjacent to Springbrook Creek. Units A and 8 Units A and B encompass 62.8 acres, of which 55.5 acres are currently wetland (WSDOT 2005a) (Figures 1-5 and 1-6). Hydrology: Springbrook Creek flows within a straight, bermed corridor between Units A and B. Precipitation, groundwater, and surface water runoff from off-site tributary areas and adjacent roads and development are the primary sources of existing hydrology. The berms along Springbrook Creek disconnect the creek from its wetland floodplain, except during extreme flood events. A small ditch exists in the northeastern portion of Unit B and is the only existing connection between Unit B and Springbrook Creek. A ditch along the southern property line in Unit A collects stormwater from the development to the south and directs flows to Springbrook Creek. This is the only existing com1ection between Unit A and Springbrook Creek. Vegetation: Areas closest to the creek have substantial native woody cover consisting primarily of Pacific willow (Salix lucida), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), some black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), and red alder (A/nus rubra) in slightly drier areas. Areas farther from Springbrook Creek are dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and cattail (Typha lati/olia and Typha angustifolia) with patchy woody cover provided by willow species. Recd canarygrass dominates the riparian areas on the berms directly adjacent to Springbrook Creek. General vegetation cover is shown in Figure 1-10. Unit C Unit C encompasses 47.9 acres, of which 27.1 acres are currently wetland (WSDOT 2005a) (Figure 1-7). Hydrology: Existing hydrology in Unit C is provided by a combination of precipitation and elevated groundwater. A conveyance ditch entering the site from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) property to the south does not currently provide direct surface hydrology to the majority of wetlands in Unit C. Vegetation: Non-native grasses, common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), and Himalayan blackberry (Ru bus armeniacus) currently dominate the proposed wetland re- establishment area. Black cottonwood, red alder, Pacific willow, Sitka willow, and red- Chapter I Introduction and Background December 2005 Page 1-5 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) mixed with Himalayan blackberry currently dominate portions of existing wetlands and uplands at the site. A matrix of large areas of reed canarygrass and patchy native shrub cover currently dominates the majority of the site closest to the BNSF right of way. Along the eastern edge of the site adjacent to Oakesdale Avenue, disturbance-tolerant grasses and forbs predominate including: common tansy, lance-leaf plantain (Plan/ago lanceolata), teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris), and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare). General vegetation cover is shown on Figure 1-10. Unit D Unit D encompasses 5.6 acres, all of which 1s currently wetland (WSDOT 2005a) (Figure 1-8). Hydrology: A shallow inundated area occurs on the northern portion of Unit D. The inundated emergent area and the forested wetland appear to be supported by precipitation, seasonally high groundwater, and surface water connections from wetlands west of the BNSF mainline. A culvert connects the wetlands west of the railroad track to the inundated area. The entire site discharges to the north, via a culvert under an existing BNSF rail line and an existing conveyance ditch to Unit C. Vegetation: Red alder, black cottonwood, Pacific willow, and Oregon ash (Fra.xinus latijiJ/ia) make up the forest canopy. The shrub layer includes salmonberry (Rubus spectablis), red-osier dogwood, and hardback (Spirea douglasii). A few minor patches of Himalayan blackberry is a major component of the upland and wetland forest understory and open areas in this unit. Reed canarygrass dominates several areas of the existing wetland. Cattails, reed canarygrass. and mild waterpepper (Polygonum hydropiperoides var. hydropiperoides) predominate in the inundated area at the northern end of the site. General vegetation cover is shown on Figure 1-10. Unit E Unit E encompasses 15.2 acres, none of which is currently wetland (WSDOT 2005a) (Figure 1-9). Hydrology: No wetland hydrology currently exists at Unit E. Vegetation: Sections of the site arc dominated by black cottonwood forest with Himalayan blackberry in the understory. Large portions of the site have been impacted by off-road vehicle use and are dominated by non-native grasses, common tansy, and Himalayan blackberry. General vegetation cover is shown on Figure 1-10. 1.1.4.3 Soils The King County Soil Survey maps four soil types at the Springbrook Bank site: Puget silty clay loam, Puyallup fine sandy loam. Snohomish silt loam, and Woodinville silt loam (Snyder et al. 1973). The Puget, Snohomish, and Woodinville series are listed as hydric soils (NRCS 2001). Chapter I Introduction and Background MBI Ch1 Intro 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 1-6 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument In wetland re-establishment areas proposed in Units C and E, geotechnical borings were conducted to examine soils to be exposed through excavation. These soils include sandy gravel and sand to silty sand (fill). interbcddcd sand and silt underneath the areas of fill, and poorly graded sand to silt at the bottom of the soil borings. Peat was also intermixed and discovered in many of the soil layers (Hart Crowser 2005a). Geotechnical borings were also conducted in Unit A along the proposed trail alignment to help inform trail design. These investigations found a layer of silt to sandy silt with scattered organic material along the berm only, underlain along the berm and near the surface in other portions of the site by a layer of organic silt and peat containing fibrous peat in the upper portion, contained within this layer is a layer of soft gray plastic silt, underlain by a layer of silty sand at the bottom of the borings (Hart Crower 2005b). 1.1.4.4 Wetlands Eighty-nine acres of jurisdictional wetland occur on the Springbrook Bank site (Figures 1-5 through 1-9). Each wetland was delineated using the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology I 997) and subsequently rated using the City of Renton Wetland Rating System (Renton 2005). Category I wetlands are of the highest quality while Category IV wetlands are severely degraded and hydrologically isolated. Two wetlands-all of Unit D and portions of Unit C, totaling 26.8 acres-were rated as Category II. Six remaining wetlands-Units A and B and portions of Unit C, totaling 62.2 acres-were rated as Category l!I (WSDOT 2005a). In fall and winter 2004, the Method/or Assessing Wetland Functions Volumes 1 and 2 (WFAM) (Hruby et al. 1999) was used to assess functions and values of wetlands. The WFAM method measures on-site indicators of various wetland functions producing numerical indices as indicators of various wetland functions, scaled from 1 to I 0, with a margin of error of plus or minus one. These indices only address a wetland's potential to provide assessed functions, and are therefore, only relevant when comparing wetlands of the same hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class that share similar opportunities to perform specific functions. This assessment method is based on the HGM approach, described by Brinson (1993) and Smith et al. ( 1995). An HGM class is determined primarily by landscape position, topography, and source of hydrology. The two HGM classes identified within the site are riverine and depressional. The riverine wetlands present in Units A and B are currently functioning similarly to depressional wetlands, due to the berms isolating Springbrook Creek from its floodplain. The principal functions of the riverine wetlands include flow attenuation, reduction of downstream erosion, and removal of excess sediment, nutrients, and metals. The remaining depressional wetlands provide low levels of habitat functions and lack significant hydrologic and water quality functions due to their relative isolation from other wetlands/water sources and an absence of vegetative and/or habitat diversity. I.1.4. 5 Habitat and Wildlife Use There is no high quality stream habitat present on or adjacent to the Springbrook Bank site. Springbrook Creek runs adjacent to portions of the site, paralleling three of the five Chapter I Introduction and Background MBI Ch1 Intro 12-28-05.dac December 2005 Page 1-7 DRAFT :FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument units (Units A, B, and E). Springbrook Creek is characterized by rapid short-duration responses to rainfall events, high sediment loads, high temperatures, and low dissolved oxygen levels. Additionally, riffles, pools, and large woody debris are absent from the creek, providing little habitat for salmonids. Woody riparian vegetation is particularly lacking in the reach adjacent to Units A and B. The lower reach of Springbrook Creek (north of the bank site) is suitable for juvenile salmonid rearing and migration. However, spawning is unlikely in the creek due to the low gradient and lack of appropriate gravel substrate. Steelhead (Oncorhynchus m1Jiss), cutthroat trout (Sa/mo c/arki), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tsawytascha), Cobo salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch. and lamprey (Lampetra sp.) have been documented in Springbrook Creek (Kerwin and Nelson 2000; Harza 1995). Coho salmon had been stocked in the creek from the mid 1970s until 2004 (WSDOT 2005d). The current configuration of the creek and adjacent berms in Units A and B creates a potential for fish standing during flood events (WSDOT 2006). Currently one small outlet is present in Units A and B for fish to enter and/or escape. The creek acts as a wildlife corridor com1ecting the various higher quality habitats along its length, such as the Black River Riparian Forest to the north (Figure 1-1 ). The railroad right-of-way acts as a wildlife corridor, com1ecting habitats and wildlife south of the site to Springbrook Bank (Units C and Dare adjacent to the BNSF rail line). Coyote and red-tailed hawks have been observed at the site. The site is also used by great blue herons that nest at the Black River Riparian Reserve, located approximately two miles north of the site in the Black River Riparian Forest, which is near the Black River Pump Station (Figure 1-1 ). This nesting colony is one of the largest in the Puget Sound Area, with over 120 occupied nests in recent years (Seattle Audubon 2005). No signs of deer or other large mammal use have been observed at the site. 1.1.5 Unique Urban Setting and Public Access This section describes the unique urban setting of Springbrook Bank that creates a basis for including a public access trail. 1.1.5.1 Reasons for Including a Trail at Springbrook Bank The trail is a critical missing link that bas been incorporated in the long-term plam1ing for the local and regional trail system: • The City of Renton made formal commitments to the community to connect the trail system at this location long before the site was proposed as a mitigation bank. The City previously acquired an easement as part of a long-range trail linkage plam1ing effort in the Springbrook Creek area through the City of Renton's Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and Trails Master Plan (adopted June 1992). • The Springbrook Trail through the Green River Valley com1ccts to a larger, regional trail system-King County's regional Interurban Trail and King County's regional Green River Trail. Chapter 1 Introduction and Background MBI Ch1 Intro 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 1-8 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument The urban setting and surrounding land uses favor public access: • Due to the densely urbanized setting and surrounding local land uses, wildlife that may use the bank site has been acclimatized to an urban setting through exposure to a high level of human activities in the project vicinity. Any disturbance related to the presence of the trail would be minor compared to disturbance from the surrounding urban landscape. In a more rural environment, a public access trail would likely cause more disturbance wildlife species occupying those areas, as they are not acclimatized to an urban setting and would be more sensitive to human disturbance. The public expects access to large publicly owned and funded urban natural areas: • Substantial state resources and City lands will be used to develop Springbrook Bank, which will be established in a highly urbanized ecosystem and develop connections between people and local natural resources. • Springbrook Bank will conserve l 31.5 acres of some of the last remaining large tracts of undeveloped green space in the Lower Green River Basin. The trail will provide substantial environmental education opportunities to an urban community: • The unique urban setting of Springbrook Bank, the City's planned trail access, and the relative lack of natural areas in the project vicinity present a rare opportunity to integrate environmental education, public access, and wetland mitigation. Maximizing this opportunity will increase awareness and understanding of the important ecosystem functions that wetlands, streams, and riparian areas provide within an urbanized setting. • By placing the trail near Springbrook Creek, the public will see a diverse environment with connections to wetlands and streams. • Educational opportunities provided by the trail help maximize environmental benefits for the community through education and public support for spending public dollars on environmental mitigation and stewardship activities in the reg10n. • Education and public involvement are vital parts of natural resource management, both initially and on an ongoing basis. The importance of education and public involvement is demonstrated by its inclusion and emphasis in Green Infrastructure planning, Alternative Futures analysis, and the development of comprehensive plans. Education is essential because it provides the public with an accurate understanding of why natural resources are valuable to the community, and to maintain and restore landscape processes. Education and outreach efforts are also key factors to increase enrollment in incentive programs that foster conservation of the land. Likewise, they encourage the public to get involved through voluntary actions either on their own property or by supporting local projects ( e.g., volunteers, monitoring sites). In so doing, education and public involvement can also improve support for regulatory protection. [This text adapted from Wetlands in Washington State -Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetland~ (Washington State Department of Ecology 2005). Chapter 1 Introduction and Background MBI Ch1 Intro 12·28-05.doc December 2005 Page 1-9 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 1.1.5.2 Selection of Proposed Trail Alignment Selection of a trail alignment was an iterative process that incorporated a number of environmental and social factors. The following criteria were used to select the proposed trail alignment: • Align the trail as directly as possible on City-owned property. • Minimize impacts to wetlands, woody vegetation, and riparian areas. • Maximize alignment through existing invasive vegetation. • Incorporate environmental education within a wetland setting. • Complete the missing link of an existing trial as planned in accordance with the City's Master Trail Plan and the King County Regional Trail System. The trail alignment that best meets the selection criteria for Springbrook Bank, which is shown in Figure 2-2, includes an elevated, eight-foot-wide public boardwalk trail, limited to pedestrian use, located near the western edge of Unit A, and roughly parallel to Springbrook Creek. The trail and a 40-foot-wide vegetated buffer on each side will not generate mitigation credits (see Section 2.6. l.4 "Trail Zone" for more details). The elevated boardwalk will connect to the local and King County regional trail systems. Benches will be placed at two locations along the trail to promote passive recreation, such as bird watching. Advantages of the proposed trail alignment include: • No mitigation credits will be generated from an 88-foot 'Trail Zone," which encompasses the trail itself and 40 feet on both sides of the trail to account for any disturbance to the site and/or wildlife using that may result from the trail presence. Removing invasive weeds and planting native trees and shrubs will rehabilitate wetlands within this zone. • The footprint of the trail will be approximately 11,000 square feet (1,365 feet long by eight feet wide), which will affect approximately 0.25 acre of the 26 acres in Unit A. • Constructing the trail as part of Springbrook Bank will allow the remaining 25 acres of Unit A to be restored and protected in perpetuity. The trail will not affect the 105 acres of Springbrook Bank in Units 8, C, D, or E. • The City will convert this section of the trail from a mixed-use trail (as originally planned) to a pedestrian-only trail minimizing human disturbance to wildlife habitat, while offering higher quality birding and other educational opportunities to the pedestrian. • The City will restrict bicycle use on the section of the trail within Springbrook Bank, limiting disturbance to wildlife. The City has existing bike routes established in the area and the trail is not needed for bicycle use. Adequate signage will be posted to direct bike users to the established bike routes. • Aligning the trail generally along the most direct route reduces the potential for unauthorized "shortcut" trails through Unit A. Users are likely to deviate from "authorized" circuitous routes if there is a more direct route. Chapter 1 Introduction and Background MBI Ch1 h1tro 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 1-10 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument • Impacts to wetlands and woody vegetation from a shorter, more direct trail route are estimated to be less than longer alternate routes. Several alternative trail alignments were also considered but were rejected because they did not satisfy the selection criteria for a trail alignment. These alternative trail options and the reasons for rejecting them arc summarized below. Unit A Perimeter Option-This option aligns the trail within the southern, eastern, and northern perimeter buffer of Unit A. This option was rejected because it created a longer alignment that would have resulted in substantially greater impacts to wetlands and woody vegetation than the proposed trail alignment. Unit A Interior Option-This option includes a trail that broadly bends through the interior of Unit A. This option was rejected because it created a longer alignment that would have resulted in substantially greater impacts to woody vegetation than the proposed trail alignment, and would essentially bisect Unit A and disturb the interior. Unit A Berm Option-This option aligns the trail on the berm next to Springbrook Creek. This location was identified in the City of Renton Trails Master Plan (1992) and is consistent with the alignment of existing segments of the Springbrook Trail located adjacent to Springbrook Creek, and within the City's existing Greenbelt easement. This option was rejected because it would directly affect riparian functions by disturbing some existing riparian trees and limit other riparian trees from establishing in the future. Impacts to riparian conditions are undesirable because Springbrook Creek is limited by water quality problems, such as high water temperature and low dissolved oxygen. Oakesdale Avenue Option-This option aligns the trail west along SW 34th Street, north along Oakesdale Avenue SW. and east along 27th Street SW. This option was rejected for a number of reasons. This alignment is indirect and much longer, it would expose the public to safety risks associated with street traffic, it would abandon a portion of Springbrook Trail that already extends to the southern boundary of Unit A, it would not provide suitable environmental education opportunities in a wetland setting, and it would be inconsistent with the City's T rai Is Master Plan ( 1992). No Trail Option-This option was rejected because it would continue the status quo, would not establish the missing link to the existing Springbrook Trail, and would be inconsistent with the City's Trails Master Plan (1992). The City specifically acquired a portion of the property within Springbrook 13ank was for use as a trail. Chapter 1 Introduction and Background MBI Ci11 Intro 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 1-11 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek \Vctland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 1.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF BANK SPONSOR AND PARTNERS Springbrook Bank will be established in accordance with the following federal and state statutes, regulations, guidelines, and policies: • Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 ct seq.) • Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 401, ct seq.) • Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers (33 CFR Parts 320-330) • Guidelines for the Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged and Fill Material ( 404(b )(I) Guidelines, 40 CFR Part 230) • Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b )( 1) Guidelines (February 6, 1990) • Federal Guidance for the Estahlishmcnt, Use, and Operation of Mitigation Banks (November 28, 1995) • National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq.) • Magnuson-Stevenson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (50 CFR part 600) • Coastal Zone Management Act ( 16 l!SC 1451, et seq.) • Council on Environmental Quality Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Part 1500-1508) • Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) • Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ( 16 USC 661 et seq.) • Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy (46 FR 7644-7663, 1981) • Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 ct seq.) • National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 USC 470) • Washington State Environmental Policy Act ('SEPA'RCW 43.21C and WAC 197-11) • Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) and Critical Areas Regulations "Best Available Science" (WAC 365-195-900 to 925) • Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48) • Washington State Hydraulic Code (RCW 75.20) • Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW90.58, WAC 173-200) as amended • Washington State Salmon Recovery Act (RCW 75.46) • Washington State Aquatic Resources Act (RCW 79.90, RCW 90.74) • Wetlands Mitigation Banking (RCW 90.84) • Washington State Draft Rule on Wetland Mitigation Banking (WAC 173-700) • City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance number 5137) Nothing in the MB! shall be construed as altering the requirements and agency responsibilities as specified in existing law, regulation, and policy. Chapter 1 Introduction and Background MBI Ch1 Intro 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 1-12 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 1.2.1 WSDOT Memorandum of Agreement and the Bank Oversight Committee WSDOT entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for wetland banking with state and federal wetland regulatory agencies in 1994. The Washington State Department of Transportation Wetland Compensarion Bank Program Memorandum of Agreement (CBMOA)(WSDOT 1994) provides the principles and procedures for establishing, implementing, and managing WSDOT wetland mitigation banks. Signatories to the WSDOT CBMOA include US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and WSDOT. The WSDOT CBMOA establishes a Bank Oversight Committee (BOC) to review and approve WSDOT mitigation bank proposals. WSDOT is responsible for convening and facilitating meetings of the committee. The "BOC members" for Springbrook Bank are comprised of representatives from the Corps, EPA, USFWS, Ecology, the City of Renton, and WSDOT. The BOC member agencies are the signatories of the Springbrook Bank MB!. The BOC meetings provide a venue for project review and coordination between WSDOT and the various state, federal, and local governments. The BOC members review and comment on all phases of WSDOT bank site development. The Corps and Ecology are the "BOC permitting agencies." When credits are to be withdrawn from the bank, the BOC pem1itting agencies will coordinate the debiting of credits. 1.2.2 Responsibility of WSDOT and City of Renton WSDOT is responsible for development design, permitting, and construction of Springbrook Bank, except for funding construction of the trail in Unit A. The City is providing the land in perpetuity and the fonds for trail construction and interpretive signs along the trail. WSDOT shall be the lead agency for the Short-Term Monitoring and Site Management Period, which includes both formal and informal monitoring of the bank for the first 10 years after acceptance of plant installation (Years 1 to 10), or until all performance standards have been achieved. The City shall be the lead agency for the Long-Term Site Management Period of the bank, which shall commence at the end of the Short-Term Monitoring and Site Management Period. WSDOT will prepare and distribute monitoring reports required during the Short-Term Monitoring and Site Management Period, and maintain and submit the primary accounting ledger to satisfy BOC members' requirements and comply with the CBMOA. The City may maintain its own separate concurrent ledger to track its portion of the credits, but WSDOT shall retain responsibility for the master ledger detailing all debits and credits associated with Springbrook Bank. 1.3 SERVICE AREA The service area of Springbrook Bank includes portions of WRIAs 8 and 9-Lower Green River, Black River, West Lake Washington (within Renton City limits), East Lake Washington, May Creek, Mill Creek Basins, and Lower Cedar River Basin to SR 18 Chapter I Introduction and Background MBI Ch1 lntro_12-28·05.doc December 2005 Page 1-13 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument (Figure 1-3). The portion of the Lower Cedar River Basin southeast of SR 18 has been excluded from the service area because it extends over 7 miles into less urbanized areas. The following rationale is based on criteria outlined in the CBMOA (WSDOT 1994), Federal Guidance for the Establishment. Use, and Operation of Mitigation Banh (US Army Corps of Engineers 1995), and the Washington State Draft Rule on Wetland Mitigation Banking (Washington State 2001 ). The listed criteria were taken into account in defining the service area of Springbrook Bank: I. Springbrook Bank will improve wetland and stream functions. The bank will restore, enhance, and protect watershed processes that create improved wildlife habitat, riparian and floodplain ti.rnctions, and water quality in an area with little natural space left to protect. 2. Springbrook Bank is very low in the watershed. By including sub-basins lower in WR!As 8 and 9, Springbrook Bank will serve as mitigation for wetland impacts much closer to the project areas of candidate projects and within Renton City limits rather than farther away, but within the same WRIA. 3. Similar Ecoregion. The service area includes basins in a similar ecoregion, in which the remaining ecological systems arc relatively uniform within a nearly built-out urban area. Springbrook Bank is designed to function at full watershed build-out to increase its sustainability in a highly urbanized watershed. 4. Watershed-Based Mitigation. The overall ecological benefit of an urban bank exceeds the value of alternatives, which would likely involve the creation of small wetland fragments along the highway right of way as compensation for impacts to small Category II, Ill, and IV wetlands. 5. WSDOT and City of Renton. The credits available to WSDOT from Springbrook Bank will be used for transportation projects, which occur in the bank service area. The credits available to the City will be used for City-approved projects within the service area. 6. WSDOT's Water Resources Program. Springbrook Bank and the Early Environmental Investments (EE!) Program are components of a larger water resources program that includes avoidance and minimization of water resource impacts, on-site stream mitigation where feasible, and other watershed solutions. Springbrook Bank is one of several alternatives for water resource improvement opportunities for WSDOT. Projects located within the service area (Figure 1-3) are eligible for use of credits from Springbrook Bank for mitigation according to the terms of this MBI. Projects outside of the service area will only be eligible in limited circumstances where practicable alternatives do not exist and with special approval of the BOC members. Chapter 1 Introduction an<l Background MBI Ch1 Intro 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 1-14 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 1.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS Environmental documentation and pennits required for this project are summarized in Table 1-1 and described below. WSDOT and the City commit to receiving the required approvals prior to beginning site construction, and cannot proceed prior to receiving the approvals listed below. Table 1-1. Permit Activities and Environmental Documentation Permit/Concurrence Letter Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) Section 401 Individual Water Quality Cert. Section 402 NPDES Permit CZMA Consistency Determination Letter Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ESA Concurrence Letter ESA Concurrence Letter EFH Concurrence Letter Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Critical Areas Approval Floodplain Permit Public Works Construction Permit Section 106 Concurrence Letter Environmental Documentation Wetland Biology Report SEPA Determination of Non Significance (DNS) Biological Assessment Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment Springbrook Bank Prospectus Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Public Notification SEPA Public Notice Corps Corps/Ecology 401, 401, and CZMA Joint Public Notice SEPA Public Notice SMA Public Notice?Corps/Ecology 401,401, and CZMA Joint Public Notice SMA Public Notice? Chapter l Introduction and Background Agency Corps Ecology Ecology Ecology WDFW USFWS NMFS NMFS City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton Tribes, DAHP Date Completed May 2005 January 2006 January 2006 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 Date Issued ? ? ? ? MBI Ch1 Intro 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 1-15 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 1.4.1 Section 404 Permit The Corps will issue a Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) for this project. As part of the Section 404 permit process, the project will obtain approvals for or demonstrate compliance with the Endangered Species Act, Magnuson-Stevens Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. The Section 404 IP will contain permit conditions specified elsewhere within the Springbrook Bank MB!. 1.4.2 Section 401 Water Quality Certification A Section 401 Individual Water Quality Certification (WQC) for this project is will be issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1.4.3 Section 402 NPDES A Section 402 General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) will be issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1.4.4 CZMA Consistency Determination A Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Consistency Determination Letter will be issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) for this project. 1.4.5 Hydraulic Project Approval A Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) will be issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for this project. 1.4.6 Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment WSDOT prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) to address the potential effects of the Springbrook Bank project on species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Listed species in the vicinity of the project include Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus confTuentus). designated bull trout critical habitat, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and designated Chinook salmon critical habitat. After a thorough species effects analysis, WSDOT has determined that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) bull trout, designated bull trout critical habitat, Chinook salmon, and designated Chinook salmon critical habitat. The detennination for bald eagles is No effect (NE). The potential effects to listed species will be minimized through the use of specific best management practices and conservation measures identified in the BA (WSDOT 2006). The project expects to receive a Concurrence Letter from USFWS and a Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Every six months during construction, WSDOT will review the project actlvttles as described in the Biological Assessment and review the updated WDFW Priority Habitat Chapter 1 lntroduction and Background MBI Ch1 Intro 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 1-16 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument and Species data to ensure that the original consultation is still valid. If, prior to project completion, new species arc listed or new listed species move into the project area, WSDOT is prepared to reinitiate consultation with USFWS and/or NMFS. WSDOT also evaluated potential project impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. After a thorough effects analysis, WSDOT has determined the Springbrook Bank project will have no adverse effect on EFH. NMFS is expected to issue a Concurrence with this determination. 1.4. 7 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit As required by the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) will be issued by the City of Renton for this project. As part of the SSDP review process, which includes a critical areas and land use review, the City of Renton, is expected to issue its regulatory approval of Springbrook Bank. 1.4.8 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Compliance A cultural resources survey was conducted to identify and determine the probability of archaeological resources and traditional cultural places in the project area. The survey revealed that there is a low probability for historic period archaeological deposits to occur and that no traditional cultural places exist at the bank site (HRA Cultural Resources 2005). However, excavation will be monitored, especially within the vicinity of an isolated find that included a hunter-fisher-gatherer artifact recovered during a field visit. Monitoring will occur in accordance with the Springbrook Creek Habitat and Wetland Mitigation Bank Project, Cultural Resources Discipline Report (HRA Cultural Resources 2005). WSDOT received letters of concurrence from the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). the Muck leshoot Tribe, and the Corps. 1.4.9 Other Approvals As required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) will be issued by WSDOT for this project. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Corps is expected to issue a Categorical Exemption for this project. Chapter 1 Introduction and Background MBI Ch1 lntro_12-28-05.doc December 2005 Pagel-17 Photo Date: Winte r 2002 (City of Rento n) Legend Spr ingbrook Creek Q Mitigation Unit Project Vicinity Figure 1-1 Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Photo Date: Winter 2 002 (City of Renton ) Legend 0 C:LLL ccc c M it igation Uni t Existing Trail Existing Trai l Easement 250 500 Feel Springbrook Bank Site Figure 1-2 Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank ii 0 I i 0 N .:.: 0 0 Cl) ~ Photo Date: 2002 (King County) Legend 0 WR IA Boundary C) Service Area D Springbrook Bank Ci ty of Renton Mlle!'; -.I"\,-River Freeway Arte ri al N W+E s Service Area Figure 1-3 Sprin gbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank i:i I: :, Legend 0 Mitig ation Unit 250 500 Feet !li L-----==============----:--:---====================--------J Pho to Date : 1936 (Puget Sound Ri ver History Project) Historical Aerial Photo Figu re 1-4 Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habita t Mitig ation Bank I I I I I I I I I I I I "' 0 '° N ~ "' ! C. ::::, .; .:: "' e I "' C: 0 <..> [ .5 < " ::::, .,, -"' ~ "' <;> l!il ~ ' Photo Dat e: Winter 2002 (City of Renton ) Delineated Wetland Unit A= 22 9 we~and acres Interpreted (off-s ite) Wetland 200 Unit A Existing Conditions Figure 1-5 Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Ban k Ph oto Date : Winter 200 2 (C it y o f Ren ton ) Mitigatio n Unit Del ineated We t la nd Unit 8 = 32·6 wetla nd acres 1 Foot Contour 100 200 Feet Unit B Existing Conditions Figure 1-6 Spr in gbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Ba nk Ph o to Date: Winter 2002 (Ci ty of Renton) © Miti gation Unit Delineated Wetland Unit C = 27 .1 wetla nd acres Interpreted (off-si te) Wetla nd 1 Foo t Contour We ll Location 10C 200 Feel Unit C Existing Conditions Figure 1-7 Spr ingbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Ban k ~ 0 i 0 <..) Photo Date: Winter 2002 (C ity of Renton) Mitigation Unit Delineated Wetla nd Unit D ; 5.6 w etland acre s Interpreted (off-site) Wetland 1 Foot Contour N 100 200 W +E l!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil s Feel Unit D Existing Conditions Figure 1-8 Springbrook Wet land and Habitat Mitigation Bank "' u:: "' c;> "' N 6 "' 0 0 N i:: s C " Cl'. 0 Photo Date: Winter 2002 (City of Ren ton ) Miti gation Unit 1 Foo t Contour 100 Feel Unit E = no wetlands onsite 200 I Unit E Exist ing Cond itions Figure 1-9 Springbrook Creek Wetland and Ha bi tat Mitiga1ion Bank - c 0 c <1) 0:: 0 M 0 0 "' ri 0 0 "' ,:..: 0 a <I) ~ ~ ~ ---- Photo Date : Wi nter 2002 (Ci ty of Renton) -------------- Mitigation Un it Catta il s Cottonwood Cottonwood/Willow Distu rbed -Himalayan blackberry Reed ca narygrass -Water Pepper -Water Pepper/Cattail N -Willow W+E s 0 260 520 Feet Existing Vegetation Figure 1-10 Spri ngbrook Creek Wetland and Ha bitat Mitigati o n Bank DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Table 2-3. Existin!! and Prooosed Function Attributes for Snrin!'.brook Bank, Units A and B (Riverine) WATER OUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUNCTION ATTRIBUTES Function Attribute Existine Condition Miti!'.ation Work Vegetation classes Moderate -2 to 3 vegetation classes \.1mv, apply herbicide, create present (Unit A: forested, scrub-micrntopography, and plant trees shrub, emergent; Unit B: forested. and shrubs in large areas emergent). dominated by reed canarygrass, including riparian areas. Understory vegetation Low-Limited understory development Plant native trees and shrubs. Width ratio of wetland to Low -Wetland is 30 to 70 times the Breach 20-foot berm sections stream stream width, but wetlands arc nexl to Springbrook Creek- hydrologically disconnected from 3 breaches in Cnit A; Snrinebrook Creek. 4 breaches in Unit 8. HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS ATTRIBUTES Storage capacity Moderate -Wetland has potential to Rreach berm sections next to store large volumes of stonnwater. Springbrook Creek. Low opportunity to store floodwater from creek because berms restrict connection. Size ratio of wetland to Low -Wetlands represents a small Breach berm sections next to basin portion of total basin area. Springbrook Creek. Ratio of wetland to stream High -Stream extends total length of Breach berm sections next to wetland, but connectivitv is low. Snrin!.!brook Creek. Cover by woody vegetation Moderate -Woody vegetation covers approximately 33 percent of Plant native trees and shrubs. Unit A and 60 percent of Unit B. HABITAT FUNCTIONS ATTRIBUTES Buffer condition Low -Buffers are relatively narrow \Vi thin a 40-foot buffer screen and disturbed. around the perimeter of Units A and B, remove weeds and plant \Vith native trees and shrubs. Plant native trees and shrubs in rinarian enhancement area. Canopy closure over Varies from Low to Moderate -Mow, apply herbicide, create wetlands Woody vegetation covers microtopography, and plant approximately 33 percent of Unit A native trees and shrubs in large and 60 percent of Unit B. areas currently dominated by rec"J canarvi?rass. Canopy closure over stream Low -Very little woody vegetation Mow. apply herbicide, and jute present along stream matting, plant trees and shrubs along riparian corridor currently dominated bv reed canarvE!rass. Number of vegetation strata Moderate -3 strata present (tree, MO\\'. apply herbicide, create shrub. herb). micro-topography, and plant native trees and shrubs in large areas currently dominated by reed canarvi!rass. Number of snags Low-Few or no snags. Jnstal! vertical snags in treatment areas. Number ofLWD Low -Little or no LWD. Install large woody debris and brush riles in treatment areas. Vegetation interspersion Moderate -Most of the areas have a Install native trees and shrubs moderate degree of interspersion. an<l create micro-topography in large areas dominated by reed canarvQrass. Number ofhydrologic Moderate -3 hydrologie regimes Install planting hummocks to regimes (seasonally saturated, occasionally create microtopography in reed inundated, seasonally inundated). canarygrass removal areas. Number of water depth Moderate-2 depth classes (0-8", 8-Install planting hummocks to classes 40"). create microtopography in reed canarygrass removal areas. Species richness Low -Between 4 to 8 species Plant up to 5 additional species present, depending on area. No in rceJ canarygrass removal conifers are present. areas. Mature woody vegetation Moderate-Areas of mature woody Retain existing mature woody vegetation are present. vegetation. Plant native trees and shrubs in large areas dominated hv rce<l canapmrass. Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank Prooosed Condition Moderate to High -Replace large reed canarygrass emergent wetlands with forested and scrub-shrub vegetation classes. Establishing tree and shrub classes in the riparian areas contribute to improving water eualitv in Snrinobrook Creek. Moderate -Area and complexity of understorv ve1.1etation will increase. High -Reconnecting the wetland floodplain to Springbrook Creek substantially increases the effective width ratio of wetland to stream. High -Breaching berm sections increases available storage capacity for floodwaters from Springbrook Creek. Low -The effective floodplain area will be increased, but that increase is relatively small comoared to the basin drainage area. High -No change in ratio, but connectivity will be substantiallv increased. High -Overall cover by woody vegetation will increase in wetlands currently dominated bv reed canarv11 rass. includinl! rinarian areas. Moderate -Weed removal and native woody plantings will improve buffer condition. High -Overall canopy closure by woody vegetation will increase in reed canarygrass removal areas. High -Canopy closure over ~tream will increase replacing reed canarygrass. Moderate Tree and shrub strata will replace the herb layer in large areas dominated by recd canarygrass. High -Number of snags will substantially increase. High -Number of LWD and brush piles will substantiallv increase. Moderate -Increase vegetation interspersion with structurally complex boundaries by re- habilitating forested and scrub-shrub wetlands, and enhancimi rioarian uc lands. Moderate -No change to number of hydrologic regimes, but the wetland area with the various hydrologic regimes will be increased. Moderate No change to number of depth classes, though complexity will increase by creatinl! micro-tonoerar hv. Moderate -Native species richness will increase as a result of plantings. High -Plantings will provide more mature woody vegetation as the site becomes established. CH 2 11x17 12·27-05.doc December 2005 Page 2-23 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Table 2-4. Existin2 and Proposed Function Attributes for Sorin2brook Bank, Unit C (Denressional) WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUNCTION ATTRIBUTES Function Attribute Existin!! Condition Miti2ation Work Vegetation classes Moderate 3 vegetation classes Create foresUscrub-shrub in presenl ( deciduous forest, scrub-wetland re-establishment area; shrub, emergent). Create forest/scrub-shrub wetlands in reed canarygrass removal areas; Create mixed forest by under-planting coniferous trees in deciduous fore:-.t. Understory vegetation Low to Moderate -Limited Plant native conifers in the understury development. Forested understory of existing deciduous areas have shrub understory that is forest. largely Himalayan blackberry. Storage capacity Moderate -Wetland has capacity to faca vale fill to re-establish store additional water. forest/scrub-shrub wetlands. Area seasonally inundated Low -Only small portion of Excavate historic fill expanding wetlands onsite have seasonal wetland area onsite and inundation providing additional areas with seasonal inundation. HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS ATTRIBUTES Storage capacity Moderate -Wetland has capacity to Excavate fill to re-establish store additional water. forest/scrub-shrub wetlands. Size ratio of wetland to Moderate to High -Wetland Excavate fill to re-establish basin represents approximately 15 pen::cnt forest/scrub-shrub wetlands. of sub-basin draina!!c area. Cover by woody vegetation Varies from Low to High -Woody Plant native trees and shrubs vegetation covers approximately 83 percent of the wetlands in Unit C. HABITAT FUNCTIONS ATTRIBUTES Buffer condition Moderate -Buffers are greater than Plant native trees and shrubs 100 meters for 50% of wetland. within a 40-foot buffer screen along Oaksdale Ave. SW and portion of BNSF property to the south. Canopy closure Varies from Low to High -Woo<ly Planl nalive trees and shrubs. vegetation covers approximately 83 percent of the wetlands in Unit C. Number of vegetation strata Moderate --Three strata present Plant native trees and shrubs. (tree, shrub, herb). Un<ler-pJant native coniferous trees in deciduous forest. Number of snags Varies from Low to Moderate -[nstall vertical snags in re- Few or no snags in Wetlands C-2/C-establishment and RCG removal 3; up to 4 classes of snags in Wetland areas. C-1. Number ofLWD Varies from Low to Moderate -Install large woody debris and Little orno L WO in Wetlands C-2/C -brush piles in re-establishment 3, up to 4 classes of snags present in and RCG removal areas. Wetland C-1. Vegetation interspersion Low to Moderate -Most areas have Excavate fill and plant low lo moderate degree of forest/scrub-shrub in wetland re- interspersion establishment area; Establish forest/scrub-shrub wetlands in reed canarn,Tfass remond areas; Create mixed fi.>1-est hy under-planting conifers in deciduous forest. Number ofhydrologic Moderate -3 hydrologic regimes Re-establish new wetland area. regimes (seasonally saturated, occasionally Excavate micro-topography in inundated, seasonally inundated). the" wetland re-establishment and install planting hummocks in recd canarvl!rass removal areas. Number of water depth Moderate -2 depth classes (0-8", 8-Re-establish new wetland area. classes 40"). Excavate micro-topography in lhe well and re-establishment area. Species richness Moderate -From 6 to 8 species Plant up lo 10 additional native present, depending on area. No \Vcliun<l tree and shrub species. conifers are present. Area seasonally inundated Low -Only small portion of Excavate historic fill expanding wetlands onsite have seasonal wetland area onsite and inundation providing additional areas with seasonal inundation. Mature woody vegetation Moderate -Areas of mature woody Retain existing mature woody vegetation are present. vegetation. Plant native trees and shrubs throughout. Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank Proposed Condition Moderate -Same number of vegetation classes, but improved composition ( deciduous forest, mixed forest, scrub-shrub). Reed canary grass-dominated emergent wetlands will be replaced by forest/scrnb-shrub. Under-planting conifers will create mixed forest. Area of forest/scrnb-shrub will be enlarged in wetland re-establishment area. Moderate -Diveristy and complexity of understory vegetation will increase. Moderate -Newly created wetlands will increase storage canacitv. Moderate -Additional wetlands onsite will provide substantial new area of seasonal inundation. Moderate -Newly created wetlands will increase storage caoacitv. Moderate to High -The wetland area will be increased, but that increase is relatively small compared to the sub-basin drainage area. High Overall cover by woody vegetation will increase. Moderate -Plantings will improve buffer condition. High -Overall canopy closure by woody vegetation will increase. Moderate -Tree and shrub strata will develop within the wetland re-establishment and reed canarygrass removal areas. Conifers under-planted in deciduous forest will contribute to near-term development of the sub-canonv stratum. High Number of snags will substantially mcrease. High -Number of L WO and brush piles will substantially increase. High -Increase vegetation interspersion with structurally complex boundaries by re- establishing, rehabilitating, and enhancing forested and scrub-shrnb wetlands. Moderate -No change to number of hydrologic regimes, but the wetland area with the various hydrologic regimes will be increased. Moderate -No change to number of water depth classes, but the wetland area with the depth classes will be increased. High -.'.'Jative species richness will increase as a result ofplan1ings. Moderate -Additional wetlands onsite will provide substantial new area of seasonal inundation. High -Plantings will provide more mature woody vegetation as the site becomes established. CH 211x17 12-27-05.doc December 2005 Page 2-24 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Table 2-5. Existin!! and Pronosed Function Attributes for Snrin!!brook Bank, Unit D (Depressional) WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUNCTION ATTRIBUTES Function Attribute Existin!! Condition Miti!!ation Work Vegetation classes Moderate -3 vegetation classes Create mixed forest by under- present ( deciduous forest, scrub-planting coniferous trees in shrub, emergent). deciduous forest. Understory vegetation Low -Limited understory Plant native conifers in the development unJerstory of existing deciduous forest. Storage capacity Moderate -Wetlands that exist No action planned to increase onsite store water. storage caoacitv. Area seasonally inundated Moderate Wetlands onsite have Add additional water from 43'' seasonal inundation St grade separation project. HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS ATTRIBUTES Storage capacity Moderate -Wetland has capacity lo \lo action planned. store stom1water. Size ratio of wetland to Moderate -Wetland represents \lo action planned. basin approximately 5 percent of the sub- basin drainage area Cover by woody vegetation Moderate -Woody vegetation L'.nder-plant native coniferous covers approximately 60 percent of trees in deciduous forest. the wetland in Unit D. HABITAT FUNCTIONS ATTRIBUTES Buffer condition Low -Buffers are narrow and No action planned. disturbed. Canopy closure Moderate -Woody vegetation Under-plant native coniferous covers approximately 60 percent of trees in deciduous forest. the wetland in Unit D. Number of vegetation strata Moderate -3 strata present (tree. Under-plant native coniferous shrub, herb). trees in deciduous forest. Number of snags Low -Few snags in Unit D. \/ o action planned. Number of L WO Low -Little LWD in Unit D. lnstal I brush piles in the wetland enhancement area. Vegetation interspersion Low -Unit D has low degree of r\o action planned. interspersion. Number ofhydrologic Moderate -3 hydrologic regimes Supplement hydrology with regtmes (seasonally saturated, occasionally surface water from 180111 Street inundated, seasonallv inundated). !.!rade seoaration nroiect. Number of water depth Moderate -2 depth classes (0-8", X-Supplement hydrology with classes 40"). surface water from 1801 h Street grade separation project. Species richness High 15 species present in Unit D. Plant 3 native coniferous tree No conifers are present. species 10 increase native plant divcrsitv. Area seasonally inundated Moderate -Wetlands onsite have Add additional water from 180'" seasonal inundation Street grade :;enaration project. Mature woody vegetation Moderate~ Areas of mature woody Retain existing mature woody vegetation are present. vegetation. Under-plant native coniferous trees in deciduous fi.ffest. Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank Proposed Condition Moderate to High -Increased number of vegetation classes and improved composition ( deciduous forest, mixed forest, scrub-shrub, emergent). Under-planting conifers will create mixed forest. Moderate -Diversity and complexity of understory vegetation will increase. Moderate -No change anticipated. Moderate -Additional water may increase seasonal inundation Moderate -No change. Moderate -No change. Moderate -No change to percentage of woody vegetation, but composition will improve. Low -No change. Moderate -No change in canopy closure, but composition will improve. Moderate -Conifers under-planted in deciduous forest will contribute to near-term development of the sub-canonv stratum. Low -No change. Moderate -Brush piles will increase the amount of downed wood. Low -No change. Moderate -Hydroperiod may be extended. Moderate -No increase to the number of depth classes, but the hydroperiod may be extended. High -Native species richness will improve as a result of plantings. Moderate -Additional water may increase seasonal inundation. Moderate -Conifer plantings will provide mature woody vegetation over Lime. CH 2 11x17 12·27-05.doc December 2005 Page 2-25 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Table 2-6. Existin2 and Proposed Function Attributes for Sprin2brook Bank, Unit E (Riverine) WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUNCTION ATTRIBUTES Function Attribute Existinl! Condition Miti2ation Work Vegetation classes Low -No wetlands are present in Excavate fill and plant native Unit E. The riparian uplands include tre~s and shrubs in wetland re- three vegetation classes ( deciduous establishment area; forest, scrnb-shrub, emergent). Plant native trees and shrubs in riparian enhancement area; Create mixed forest by under- planting coniferous trees in unlan<l deciduous forest. Understory vegetation Low -Limited understory Plant native trees and shrubs, development. including conifers in the understory of existing upland d('.ciduous forest. Width ratio of wetland to Low -No wetlands are present in Excavate fill and plant native stream Unit E. trees and shrubs in wetland re- establishment area. HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS ATTRIBUTES Storage capacity Low -No wetlands are present in Excavate fill to re-establish new Unit E. wetland and connect to Springbrook Creek. Size ratio of wetland to Low -No wetlands arc present in Excavate fill to re-establish new basin Unit E. 1,,vetland and connect to S1Jringbrook Creek. Ratio of wetland to stream Low -No wetlands are present in Excavate fill to re-establish new Unit E. wetland and connect to Springhrook Creek. Cover by woody vegetation Low -Uplands in Unit E have approximately 40 percent cover of Plant native trees and shrubs. woody vegetation. HABITAT FUNCTIONS ATTRIBUTES Buffer condition Moderate -The riparian buffer is Plant 40-fool buffer screen along more than 50 meters wide and is Oaksdale Ave. SW and northern disturbed by off-road vehicles. edge with native trees and shrubs. Plant native trees and shrubs in riparian enhancement area. Canopy closure over Low -Uplands in Unit E have Plant native trees and shrubs. wetlands approximately 40 percent cover of woody vegetation. Canopy closure over stream Moderate -The majority of the Plant m.lditional native trees and stream has mature woody vegetation. shrubs in riparian areas. Number of vegetation strata Low -No wetlands are present in Plant native trees and shrubs. Unit E. Number of snags Low -No snags in Unit E. Install vertical snags in re- establishment areas. Number ofLWD Low -No LWD in Unit E. Install large woody debris and brush piles in re-establishment and portions of the riparian area. Vegetation interspersion Low -Unit E has a low degree of Excavate fill and plant native vegetation interspersion. trees and shrubs in wetland re- es1ablishment area; Plant native trees and shrubs in riparian enhancement area; Create mixed forest by under- planting coniferous trees in uoland deciduous forest. Number of hydro logic Low -No wetland hydrology is Excavate fill to re-establish new regimes present in Unit E. v,.,etland area. Excavate micro- topography in the wetland re- establishment area. Number of water depth Low -No inundation areas are Excavate fill to re-establish new classes present in Unit E. wetland area. Excavate micro- topography in the wetland re- establishment area. Species richness Low -No wetlands are present in Plant 10 wetland native tree and !:nit E. shrub species, and 11 upland native tree and shrub species. Mature woody vegetation Moderate -Mature woody Retain existing mature woody vegetation present over small area. vegetation. Plant native trees and shrubs throughout. Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank Proposed Condition Moderate -The re-established wetlands will include two vegetation classes ( deciduous forest and scrub-shrub). Under-planting conifers will create mixed upland forest. Moderate -Diversity and complexity of understory vegetation will increase. High -The re-established floodplain wetland area will be approximately 45 meters wide and connected to Springbrook Creek. High -Re-established wetlands will increase storage capacity onsite. Low -8 acres of wetlands will be re- established. This represents a small portion of total basin area. High -Re-established wetland will extend the length of stream within Unit E. High -Overall cover by woody vegetation will increase. Moderate -Plantings will improve buffer condition. Moderate -Overall canopy closure by woody vegetation will increase. High -Gaps in canopy closure over the stream be planted with trees and shrubs increasing canonv closure. High -Tree and shrub strata will develop within the wetland re-establishment area. Conifers under-planted in upland deciduous forest will contribute to near-term development of the sub-canonv stratum. High -1'umber of snags will substantially mcrease. High -Number of L WD and brush piles will substantially increase. High -Increase vegetation interspersion with structurally complex boundaries by re- establishing forested and scrub-shrub wetlands, and enhancing riparian uplands. High -Wetlands will be re-established with 4 hydrologic regimes (intermittently flooded, temporarily flooded, seasonally flooded, and semi-permanently flooded). High -Wetlands will be re-established with 2 water depth classes (0-8", 8-40"). High -Native species richness will substantially increase as result of plantings. High -Plantings will provide more mature woody vegetation as the site becomes established. CH 211x17 _12-27-05.doc December 2005 Page 2-26 .. i ! "' ... rt I .. .. w I .. • I I o"' ~· R= ... w ... • I I I = w r ... ... • w i i w I = w ... • I I ... ... = i z I ' I I A 1 I I I I I tit • a. ~;: ~ -~ c·-o ~ ~ ·-• ::J -> 0) &o u: ·--i A & B LEGEND IIETUNO , R£·ESTAIILIStliENT ·~ f\7\7\1 IIETLAIID -~;:ii°:~ R£HAIILITATIIJI ~ RIPARIAN UPLAND ·L.:_J ENHANCEll€NT Y':2::. 7" %• • : IUF'FER FROIII / / • PARCEL BOUM>ARY ·.. . . . . /. ~ IUF'FER FROIII ~ TRAIL PARCEL BOUNDARY • • • • • PROPOSED TRAIL -•-•• EXISTINC TRAIL ~ili7 I '.!] 66 160 96.1 ALE LN..-flfJ .~<! Units A and B Mitigation Types Figure 2-2 Springbr ook Creek Wet l ond and Habi t a t Mitigation Bonk UNIT C LEGEND ~ ~?? WETLAND RE-ESTABLISHMENT WETLAND REHABILITATION FORESTED WETLAND ENHANCEMENT WETLAND ENHANCEMENT TYPE I UPLAND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT BUFFER FROM PARCEL BOUNDARY PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATH PARCEL BO UNDARY RAILROAD TRACK . >---EXIS TING CONVEYANCE DITCH CITY LIMITS Unit C Mitigation Types Figure 2-3 Springb rook Creek Wet l ond end Hobitot Mitigation Bonk UNIT D LEGEND ~ FCIIESl'ED IIETLAIID b=cJ E•MCE•NT W: TUNI> E ... ANCE.IIT TYPE 11 PARCEL IIOUIIOARY EXISTING S TORM SEIIER -ST-ST-PROPOSED S TORM SEIIER RAILROAD TRACK "' -EXISTING CONVEYANCE DITCH --CITY LIMITS -•-•• EXISTING TRAIL Unit D Mitigation Types Figure 2-4 We t l a n d a nd Ha bi t at Mitiga tion Ba n k UNITE LEGEND IIEIUIIO R£ ·ESUIL I SHIENT D RIPARIAN EtatANCE~NT !)'77· (./ ~ BUFFER FROM PARCEL BOUNDARY .............. PROPOSED ORAINACE PATH PARCEL BOUNDARY -•-•• EXISTING TRAIL Unit E Mitigation Types Figure 2-5 Cr e ek Wet l and a n d Habitat Mitigati on Bank ~ REED CAIIAMYGRASS MIGVM.f NYIIIIIILOGIC M.TUAf OIi MD ...........-WILAIID PUNTINC D MED CAIIAMYGRASS RENOVA&. MID IRMD PLMTINC r""1 NYCIRCILDGIC Ld M.TEIIATICIIIS D INVASI Vl MIIOYM. MD UPLAND PI.MTINC D GIUOIIICI NYOAOLOCIC M. TEIIAT OIi, MD IE ILAIIO PUN Tl NC • • • • , flflGtOSED TRA IL -•-•• lXISTING TRAIL 0 VlRTICM. SNAG / LOG 0 PI.MTINC NUIIIIOClt *" IRUSH PILE Units A and B Mitigation Treatment Adivities Figure 2-6 Spr;nqbraak Creek We tland and Hob ;t ot M;t;qot ;on Bonk UN IT C LEGEND D IIIED CMUIIIYGIIASS 11£IIOYAL MD !IPL.ANO IPL.MIT I IIG D INVASIVE 111:IIOYAL AIID 111'1. MD PLMITIIIG D GRADING. HYOROLOCIC M. TtRATION. MD IIETUIID PUN1111G D INVASIVE RlllDVM. MD IIETLMD PLM1111G D NTDICILOGIC Al. T£RATIOII ANO CCIIII Fr.R UIIDlllPUIITI IIG D IIIYASIVE RlllOYAL MD COIi I FEIi UIIIIEIIPLMTI IIG D 111£D CMIAIIIITGIIASS 11£IIOVAL AND IETUIID PUNTING ---RAILROAD TIIACII · · · >--EXIST I NG CONVEYANC£ DITCH ----· CITY LIMITS 0 VERTICAL sue / LOG 0 PL ANT I NG NUlelOClt :,\<=-IIRUSM PILE .... DITCH PLUG "' Unit C Mitigation Treatment Adivities Figure 2-7 Sor inobr ook Creek Wetland and Hob;tot Mitiootion Bonk UNIT O LEGEND D INYASIC ll(IIOYM. MD CGIIF[R 111111£..._UTIIIC D-·· MD 111£TLMD f'I.MflNG D NYDIIGLOIUC AL TERATIOII ~---~ RAILIICMD TRACa ~~EXISTING C01111£YMIC£ DITCH --CITY LIMITS -•-•• EXISTING TRAIL ~ IIRUSH PILE Unit D Mitigation Treatment Adivities Figure 2--8 S pr i ngbrook Cree k Wet l ond and Hobirot Mi tigation Bonk i '\J.!f UNITE LEGEND D INVASI C AEIIOVIL AND UIIUND 111.MTIIIG D CIIUDIIIC. NYIIIIOLOGICIL 11.TPATIOII. MO Ill TI. AND PL MTI 111G D INVASIVE ll!IIOVIL AND CIIIIFU UIIDEll'I.MTING •--·•··•· PIIOf'OKD IIIIAINAGE PATH -•-•• [XISTIIG TIIA IL o CAflCAL SIIIG / LOG Unit E Mitigation Treatment Adivities Figure 2-9 S p,;ngbrook Cr eek We t l ond a n d Hab i t at M;t i go t ion Bank u "' '; ~ "' .. g' 0 0 ~ • • ,:I! ..n ,- LO C QC n UH'..a 0 -,.,, -"' >-L,J ,.._ i:",J ID N'-•N 0 .,_ .., ~ ~.., ~ ....J ::IE I-0 --< ...J L..~CIQ. a y '-.: ;---·.~·~--~-___ .._.,._. ····--~ 0~ o. I I '·. -..C· ;; . -r., ' : I JI - I • • t··.t I ,li ·1 Ii 'l ' ,~, y 80 l 60 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND -C_!'f-- ~FILL-- ·OHW• -OHW• • -,;.--_-~.;.- ' ,~.- M nLL QRDIN,RY HICH lt.l.TER IU.R~ PRDF>OSEO CCNTOORS EX!STIN!. CONTl)JR5 .-.,~-· UNiT B -~?.!Ll!. __ · ___ --' l,. j· UNITiA ., "'' A -.~ ~-......_----.. _____________ . __,.__ __ -~' -""'" "·~;.~·-:;::_ ----. A --· ... ">;')"'.W~,~~'cO:_:c'~f ~CCC. . ~--~ 1./ I -· .cc·-~--, \ .· ·-. ' ' . \ I , · • i \ I . f " 'i . 8 I• I I f;, .::J,' i! ·, i'E i l=l' I I ... ·~--.· i .• r-~ ...... ·. _ I I i/r'~· • : : f ; . \ I ~ ~ 1 ·· \ I . ii :• . ' ' . Ii • _., -' I I ' t'J ,., I ! I i .• I I !. i I 1 I i \ 1 ,, I ·' fl I k~; I \.. MITIGATION i/ !~" / I "._ OAKES01 ~~~TON I : ! . 1 SI TE ! : t.. I :/ ! l ' \ \ 4 ; .I j le!: I I 01 i \. I I : / I J ! 1: / I [ i '1 I I ,.,.j .1 ! I I L~.t; 1. '" L I · i : c I \ I ,i I •. I I : ,t : I ,,, !·;~ '-I "·' I ' I.:! le,·\ , •.• , I bi' ' I : tf 8' WIDE ELEVATED BOARDWALK ~~~-' w ,r~. \ ): : II " I '. t· /' - ' i ', ·;.._ '11,'c . • 'C ii. ~14, I/, ~ {!; I '\ ~ /i /1¥': I \ •. ~ l '.'. t:'·--. -~ -=- I l I, . til· . --+-' -'-cc. ·-.. ····~ ·~.. . . ,, -.-. ' / l _\.·1 .d. aa'c ~~-·--·--,. ~ .. -.. ~ .. --. /.. .. -.. -, -=-. -• -~~ -?.A; . . Plan -. . . . . . . . . .. . iffin \' : ) f I . -•· , : . -. c : . . ·;; -lJ~/,sA -and ~ .Gra Fig~" 2-!0 I ---~.. r "" :::.__.:;:_:__- ---'-~~· -~ -. =~· \l Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bon~ u !:: z :::J I , 1~: I I I I .I' , I'·. 0 IIS ']J\W ]TfOSJllYO -~, -;- • '-~ .. ~ .tj.11 • J·s·N·e ---~----~----=--: .. ::::~~, .. ~•:·"-,:,;,w:"":"'"' Ir ·I • ·-"'C e C) u ~ ! ! ! 11JI • ~ j j ! ..I '!:I'll • ::l'S"N"S AB 031101d SS!J4~ VO goou6u z J 31 s6u1 010 ZJ IQll[ ]Nil Wd 11~ d + 0 + -" 0 I u C 0 u C 0 + • 3 • • L u ts 0 L -" "' C L 0 "' ,-------------------------------------------------~x 0 .. -~ w w ~ ~ 0 mw ~ .. u "' 0 C 1--z ::::> /\ I \ ( \\ I I I I ~ 1, I I I f I I •.. -s ... . "·.t. " I \/ /\ \ •· '\ ,/·. ' I I I • I' ·I) I i I . I I '"' I I \~'\ 1 I s \ II \Jc, : , _ _) fi I: // I I .· j r~-------· ~ '-.. '\ ,/ "'"/ I \ I I , I' L SWHRDST. OJO ~ 11 I 1' ~ l f l :t C N § C 1 "' -NC ICI.. a ~ t C) :, ."' C .9>: ·-u... ::!' "'C B e : C) 5! "O C C a "O .-: C a - C + • ::J 3' X • • L u X a a L D "' C L 0. "' SS!J~~ A8 031101d SOOZ/6l/ZI 31\fO Nd 6£182'1£ ]Nil au! d 3 11.::1 "' " ~ "' ., :,; ~ 0 0 ~ • • ~ i.n ·-<LO C 0" "- .ON U o, -"' >-LL.I Ol C'\l aJ N'- -N Q ~-"' ~ ~ "' ~ ...J ~ I-D --< ...J LLl--00.. 0 60 160 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND -CUT-- -FILL-- •OHW• •OHW• • , .. __ _-_ -n-;;;;- '"' rlLL ORDINARY HIGH IIHER MAR~ LOIi HON CHANNEL PROPOSED CONTOURS EX I ST I MG CONTOURS OISTING R,R, SPUR ·~Y ~. r ! I I ' ~ ,;,'j' W/ .• ,{.: 13>/ /// ;~~~ •/ ,,;,;,,· ~·~'.- ;,,r? ' . UNIT E SIi 39TH ST • Unit E Grading Plan Figure 2-13 Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank <( ,.:.. ·-z :J • r ··. ,. I . ·· / I I I e i le i I , I I / I I . I . I. ,1 I 'I I :·. ' ' ' I ' I '/ ' J , I ' ' ' ' I '1 '· l I ' , I , I 1 I " ~ ~;, • I _r. i ,J ·' J' \ ~ ,, " ' l I i r •,' ,Ji -,, I I• . ' .8 ,0 AS ·~, 01111 ·1:,', I I /1+4,-I I/ I 111,, I Jr I i ! !' ' ' I( ! I 'i !1 ., !' ,/ '' z 0 r .. 0 r --z "0 r wz ~w .. er o- <I> WW ~r ,._ O<I> -. -.. "" - p•51 010 .. z 0 mw ~ .. L> V> 0 _, i !' I ,, {l1 r I :1 ' I - C z ... C) ... --' ' I :1 ' " " ·M.mt.• ' ',,11 ~ I ' ~ - ; ~ ,@: -. · .. 1, ~ i • . l' Ci C 0 "'C C a N ~ ' < ~ + 0 o> "O C 0 + • 3 i • L L> y 0 Q L g, C L a. V> f§§~rn AS 031101d 4++aJJOQ 31V0 ,OOZ/0£/21 501lll8 3Wll WV llj Id u ~ z ::J II "]h¥ ]1¥0S]l!YO 0 -----:;·--- r 0 • .. C • z ... C) ... ..I 0 0 ·11·11 ·;·s·N·e S6u! OtO C LO § DI (I] -NC a. -~ Q) ~ ~ 0 en => .<c> C .Ql .~ ·-u... :.!: -~ C o CJ ~ _o a. i' u -·-C ::J ~++aJJOQ A8 031101d SOOZ/0[/ 2' I 3HO WV6fllJ183Wll au! d 3 lU " C 0 " C 0 - ~ • 3 t • L u 0 0 L _o o> C ·- L ~ ~ "' " "; .; :g, C 0 0 a: C ,:; ,_ ,_ • 2"' L -, 0 L > (1l ~ _g 0. 0" "0 >-., ~ "' _, ""' a .,_ w ~ WW~ ....I ::EI-0 --,C( ....I LL.I-Cid. 0 80 160 SCALE IN FEET B.~.S.F, "lf;lf. r I I I I I I~ l ,..,: r i ".'.~ e UNIT D -=--=---, \ Q V ;, y /1---¥-J ~ . ·--. ---. j ---_.._ ~ ------ CAlESOALE BU!>INE!'.S PARl -------------~---g " ~ ~ .• l .• -· ·" ,, .. .. ~-.....__ > / / / LEGEND ~ [2] )f WETlal,NO TREE/ SHRUB •2 OEClOIOUS FOREST UNDER-PLANTINGS BRUSH PILE Unit D Planting Plan Figure 2-16 Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bonk II.I 1--z ::::, • ~ 0 \ • , - ~ . . , " " • - C . . • . z w -. , " 0 , Ct---. § CI m -NC a.. .o ~ ~ C> :, ."' C .Q>"' ·-LL. ~ -+ C o C : -0 a.. I " LI.I C 0 -" ·-C 0 C - ~ + • 3 ~ • • L u ~ 0 0 L D "' C L 0. "' [jfil ~[]] ~~~ C) w -' I, ii i I : .: 1. I .\.~ t:E±itt+!lD~bb;d:q;g~:L.JJ..:1tt1:CIT.L..Lµ.ll' ';.,bldd~~~-.\ .. ! 0 .. ~ ~ ~ u "' 0 11.s ·3~f ]lfOS]n'O s~u 010 . . 4 i+aJJOQ A9 031101d S00Z/Of/2J 3.LYO WY Jl,181 IA ':liltil d lI.::1 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 2.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BANK 2.1 MITIGATION BANK PLAN OVERVIEW The mitigation bank plan focuses on improving wetland functions within all five units of Springbrook Bank and improving riparian functions in the three units adjacent to Springbrook Creek (Figure 2-l ). Mitigation construction work to be implemented includes extensive site grading in Units C and E; breaching the bem1s adjacent to Springbrook Creek in Units A and B; treating reed canarygrass and blackberry in Units A, B, and C; and installing habitat structures and planting woody vegetation in all units. This work will improve a broad range of ecological functions to increase wetland habitat, water quality, and hydrologic functions. The mitigation plan is based on activities that occur in specific areas as shown in Figures 2-2 through 2-5 and defined as follows. Wetland Re-Establishment Areas: Removal of historic fill material will facilitate the re-establishment of former wetlands in Units A, B, C, and E. The excavation in Units A, B, and E will include removing sections of an existing berm to connect re-established wetlands in these units with Springbrook Creek. Native trees and shrubs, and habitat structures (vertical snags, brush piles. and/or large woody debris [LWD]) will be installed at both units. These activities will restore wetland area, function, and value where historic wetlands previously existed. Wetland Rehabilitation Areas: Improving the hydrologic regime of existing wetlands (e.g., connecting Units A and B to Springbrook Creek, and providing additional treated surface and ground water to existing wetlands in Unit C) will facilitate the rehabilitation of existing wetlands in Units A. B. and C. Reed canarygrass monocultures will be mowed and treated with herbicide. vlicrotopography (planting hummocks) will be installed in Units A and B to provide additional habitat niches and hydrologic regimes, and facilitate tree establishment. Breaching the berms in Units A and B will likely decrease the potential for fish stranding to occur (WSDOT 2006). Native trees and shrubs, and habitat structures will he installed in Units A, B, and C to improve species diversity and habitat structure and complexity. Wetland Enhancement Type I Areas: Existing wetlands in Unit C will be enhanced by increasing plant and habitat diversity in large areas of invasive non-native vegetation (reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry) through a combination of several activities: implementation of aggressive reed canarygrass and blackberry control measures; dense planting of native trees and shrubs; and placement of habitat structures. These activities will increase species diversity and habitat structure and complexity. Wetland Enhancement Type II Areas: Supplemental hydrology will be provided to existing seasonally inundated areas in the northern portion of Unit D. The additional water will be redirected from a stormwatcr/groundwater management facility (constructed as part of the S. 180th Grade Separation Project) at the southern edge of Unit D and then transported via a new conveyance pipe from a treatment pond to the northern end of the unit. Additional hydrology will extend existing hydro logic regimes. Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-1 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Forested Wetland Enhancement Areas: Native coniferous trees will be under-planted in the existing forested wetland portions of Units C and D. This may require the removal of invasive non-native vegetation from the understory in portions of Springbrook Bank. Underplanting will enhance species and structural diversity in both units. Upland Habitat Enhancement Areas: Removing invasive non-native vegetation, installing habitat structures, undcrplanting upland deciduous forests with native coniferous trees, and densely planting native woody species will enhance upland habitats in Units C. Riparian Upland Enhancement Areas: Establishing riparian vegetation through a combination of mowing/herbicide treatment of reed canarygrass, selectively removing other invasive non-native vegetation, and planting native trees and shrubs will increase riparian functions along Springbrook Creek in Units A, B, and E. This treatment is limited to berms adjacent to Springbrook Creek in Units A, B, and E and uplands adjacent to the wetland re-establishment areas in Unit E. Protection Setback (Buffer): Portions of all units, except Unit D, will include 40-foot- wide "buffers" to be planted with native trees and shrubs in both wetlands and uplands. This will promote structural diversity and protect habitat from disturbance from adjacent land uses. This area will not generate wetland mitigation credits. The rationale for establishing protection setbacks at Springbrook Bank is described in Appendix E. Trail Zone: A Trail Zone in Unit A will include an 8-foot-wide trail and a 40-foot-wide protection setback area on both sides of the proposed trail. This will create an approximately 2.66-acre area (88-foot wide by 1,365-foot long) that will not generate mitigation credits. In order to construct the trail, existing vegetation within an 18-foot- wide temporary construction corridor will be cleared, the 8-foot-wide trail constructed, and all the areas not occupied by the trail replanted with native woody vegetation. Areas within the Trail Zone dominated by reed canarygrass will still be mowed, treated with herbicide, and planted as part of the reed canarygrass removal being performed as part of the overall wetland rehabilitation treatment in Unit A. 2.2 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The wetland re-establishment areas in Units C and E, berm breaches in Units A and B, and a small portion of the wetland rehabilitation area in Unit C (to match existing topography) will be excavated and soils amended during the first construction season. Control of reed canarygrass will also begin during the first season. Woody plantings in all units except portions of Unit E will be installed during the first fall and winter planting season. Large woody debris will be installed during and/or after site grading has been completed. A phased construction schedule will be implemented at Unit E. In the first year of construction, the site preparations and erosion control measures will be installed, and all of the area behind the 30-foot-wide berm will be excavated and planted. In the following summer, the breaches in the berm will be excavated, and the entire bem1 and breaches will be planted. Springbrook Creek will be allowed to enter Unit E in the fall of the second construction season. Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-2 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument As-built plans documenting post-construction site conditions will be submitted to the BOC members within six months of project completion and will document the following site conditions: • Locations of plant installation (planting areas, number of plants per area, and on-center spacing). • Locations and acreages of re-established, rehabilitated, and enhanced wetlands and upland areas. (Final as-built grading plans). • Locations, number, and types of habitat structures (L WD, snags, and brush piles) and planting hummock installations. , Site topography (Final as-built grading plans). 2.3 GRADING PLAN Site grading will primarily be conducted to breach the berms in Units A and B; to re-establish former wetlands in Units C and E; to plug the existing conveyance ditch in Unit C; and to install a stom1water pipe to supplement hydrology to Units D and C. Grading work is shown on the Grading Plans (Figures 2-10 through 2-13). 2.4 PLANTING PLAN Vegetation species selection was based on native species known to occur in the project area that will provide cover and value to wildlife, flood-tolerant, and produce the greatest likelihood of success. Tree plantings will include 18-to 36-inch containerized stock for conifers, and 18-to 36-inch bare-root plants for deciduous trees. Shrub plantings will include 12-to 18-inch bare- root plants, or live-stakes for willow species. Table 2-1 provides a list of plant materials. The planting plans (Figures 2-14 through 2-17) indicate the location of each area to be planted. Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-3 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek \Vetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Table 2-1. Master Plant Materials List Wetland Tree/Shrub #1 (wetter\ Oreoon ash (Fraxinus latifolial Black twinberrv (Lonicera involucratal Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus caoitatusl Black cottonwood (Poou/us balsamiferal Nootka rose (Rosa nutkanal Sitka willow (Salix sitchensisl Wetland Tree/Shrub #2 (wettestl Red-osier doqwood (Camus sericeal Oreaon ash (Fraxinus latifolial Peafruit wild rose (Rosa pisocaroa\ Pacific willow (Salix lucidal Sitka willow (Salix sitchensisl Wetland Tree/Shrub #3 lwetl Red-osier doqwood ( Camus sericea I Sitka soruce (Picea sitchensisl Black cottonwood /Pooulus ba/samifera\ Nootka rose (Rosa nutkanal Scouler's willow (Salix scoulerianal Western red cedar /Thuia plicata\ Wetland Forest Under-Plantinas Sitka soruce (Picea sitchensisl Western red cedar /Thuia o/icatal Western hemlock (Tsuga heteroohvfla\ Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank Rioarian Upland Plantinas Bio-leaf maole (Acer macroohvl/uml Red alder (A/nus rubra) Sitka soruce (Picea sitchensisl Douc las-fir (Pseudotsuaa menziesil> Scouler's willow (Salix scoulerianal Snowberrv (Svmohoricamos albusl Uoland Plantinas Biq-leaf maole (Acer macroohvl/uml Serviceberrv (Amelanchier a/nifolial Beaked hazel (Cory/us comutal Oceansorav (Holodiscus discolor! Doualas-fir (Pseudotsuaa menziesiil Snowberrv (Svmohoricarpos a/bus\ Hummock Plantinas Oreoon ash (Fraxinus /atifolial Pacific ninebark (Phvsocarous caoitatus\ Sitka soruce (Picea sitchensisl Black cottonwood (Pooulus ba/samiferal Western red cedar I Thuia olicata\ December 2005 Page 2-4 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek \Vctland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 2.5 WEED MANAGEMENT Weeds will be managed at Springbrook Bank in accordance with King County Noxious Weed Law (King County 2005) and the Washington State Noxious Weed List (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board 2005) with additional emphasis focused on reducing existing reed canarygrass (RCG), limiting additional RCG establishment, and reducing the influence of Himalayan blackberry at the site. Estimated cover of class A and B noxious weeds, reed canarygrass, and Himalayan blackberry will be reported during formal monitoring, along with a record of management activities. Recd canarygrass cover will be limited by high-density planting of native trees and shrubs, mulching immediately following soil disturbance, and mowing and spraying reed canarygrass colonies to reduce competition and aid woody plant establishment. In the long term, shade and competition from woody vegetation will act as a natural RCG control. Himalayan blackberry will be controlled during initial construction, actively managed over the operational life of the bank, and prevented from out-competing planted native vegetation or dominating the site. 2.5.1 Existing Site Conditions Favor Reed Canarygrass Eradication of reed canarygrass at Springbrook Bank is not practical. Variable hydrology, high nutrient load, and abundant upstream seed sources in the Springbrook Creek Basin favor RCG colonization. These conditions will favor RCG growth regardless of the short-term effectiveness of control efforts (Reinhardt and Galatowitsch 2004). • Variable Hydrology -The hydrology in the Springbrook Creek Basin is highly variable or "flashy", resulting in large flood events and low base flows at varying times of year. Variable hydrology creates disturbance that favors RCG growth (Kercher et al. 2004). • High Nutrient and Sediment Loads -Flood events deliver large amounts of nutrients and sediment to the sites because of the prevalence of urbanized landscapes upstream (Maurer et al. 2003 ). High nutrient and sediment loads encourage rapid colonization and growth of RCG (Miller and Zedler 2002; Mauer et al. 2003). • Abundant Upstream Seed Sources -RCG is prevalent in wetlands and riparian areas throughout the Springbrook Creek Basin where dense cover of woody vegetation is lacking. Within the Bank site, RCG is dominant in the emergent portions of Units A and B, along Springbrook Creek, and in the BNSF right of way in Unit C. Grading in Units C and E may create conditions favoring RCG colonization in some areas. 2.5.2 Reed Canarygrass Offers Some U nderstory Functions Reed canarygrass will likely be an understory component at Springbrook Bank, where it can provide functional benefits. RCG provides several beneficial functions, including: • Hydrologic Functions Surface roughness. The large size and dense growth habit of RCG slows surface water velocities during flood events, decreases downstream erosion, and increases sediment deposition. Streambank stability. The dense root system of RCG resists erosion and develops overhanging banks that provide habitat for fish and other aquatic species. Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-5 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument • Water Quality Improvement Functions Surface roughness. The large size and dense growth habit of RCG slow surface water velocities during flood events, encouraging sediment deposition. Nutrient and toxicant uptake. RCG takes up large amounts of dissolved nutrients and toxicants because of its high annual biomass production compared to other herbaceous species and growth in inundated areas where it can be exposed to high levels of nutrients and toxicants in solution (Mauer ct al. 2003). • Fish Habitat Cover for juvenile coho. The growth habit of RCG provides cover and refugia for juvenile coho during flood events. The ability of RCG to persist in standing water allows it to provide coho rearing habitat in stream channels, backwaters, or ponded areas. Malcom (I 998) reported that the densities and sizes of over-wintering juvenile coho in a reed canarygrass-dominated low-gradient stream (Mill Creek, King County, Washington) were comparable to, and at times exceeded, those found in streams rated as having superior habitat based upon standard methods. 2.5.3 Strategy to Manage Recd Canarygrass Because site conditions favor establishment of RCG and its presence is not entirely detrimental to habitat, a management strategy that promotes the long-term establishment of woody vegetation will be applied at Springbrook Bank. The strategy for managing RCG involves mowing, spraying, and dense woody plantings. This strategy initially involves mowing and spraying to suppress the existing RCG colonies in Units A, B, C, and E. This approach is designed to create a window of oppottunity and "capture" the site quickly to prevent a RCG monoculture from re-establishing. Long-term control of RCG at all the units will involve densely planting native trees and shrubs, and "spot-spraying" RCG colonies with herbicides during the monitoring period to ensure long-term success in establishing the desired woody plant community. A short discussion of each phase of this process is provided below. Mowing and Herbicide Treatment • Mowing will occur in June or July as soon as the site is dry enough to allow access, but before seeds are formed to decrease RCG height, reducing herbicide use and making herbicide treatment more effective and efltcient. • Herbicide treatment will be conducted in August and again in September while carbohydrates are being transloeated from the aboveground parts to the roots. This will provide the best possible control of belowground roots and rhizomes (Antieau 1998; Tu 2004; Reinhardt and Galatowitsch 2004). • Mowing and herbicide treatment will minimize soil disturbance, which would expose the existing RCG seed bank to light and trigger seed germination. Both the available literature and personal communications with experts have discouraged soil disturbance as a method of RCG control (Antieau 1998 and 2005; Susan Buis 2005; Monica Hoover 2005). Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-6 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Mulch and Dense Woody Planting • The herbicide treated RCG thatch will act as mulch in the short-term in the RCG removal areas. Woody mulch will be used in areas of soil disturbance to deter the establishment of RCG and other weeds. • Plantings will consist of deciduous woody species that are flood tolerant, native to the project area, and fast growing. A total of 3,000 stems per acre will be planted in these areas. Planting densely has proven effective in competing with RCG (Celedonia 2002). • The installation of planting hummocks at a density of two per acre within RCG removal areas will provide microtopography and locations to establish trees. The hummocks will have approximately a ten-foot diameter. Hummocks will be underlain with a weed-barrier layer (preferably cardboard or other biodegradable material), covered by 18 to 24 inches of imported weed-free compost-amended soil, and planted with two native coniferous trees, two native deciduous trees, and six native shrubs. Establishing trees in the RCG removal areas should discourage RCG in the long-term. Post-Planting RCG Management Post-planting management will consist of spot-spraying any new RCG growth in the treatment areas and replacing dead woody plantings as needed to achieve performance standards for woody cover (see Chapter 3). Spot-spraying and replanting activities will be a direct result of adaptive- management recommendations generated from quarterly and annual site visits conducted by WSDOT. Control will be triggered when it appears that RCG is preventing woody plant establishment or dominating large portions of the site. In the long-term, deciduous and coniferous woody plantings will limit light penetration to the understory, greatly reducing the potential for future RCG colonization. Establishing Woody Vegetation Establishing woody vegetation is critical to improving wetland functions. Woody vegetation provides shade, surface roughness, habitat structure, nutrient uptake, organic matter production, and a source for woody debris. Its establishment will be facilitated in the following five ways: • Reducing competition. In treatment areas, RCG control will be accomplished as described above, allowing a window of opportunity for woody plants to establish and "capture" these areas. • Creating variable topography. Planting hummocks will create varied growing conditions for plant establishment. Creating slightly drier areas will increase the likelihood that tree plantings will have proper growing conditions in these areas and reduce RCG re-establishment. • Densely planting competitive native woody vegetation. Planting densely has proven effective in competing with RCG (Celedonia 2002). Plantings will primarily consist of deciduous woody species that are flood tolerant, native to the project area, and fast growing. Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-7 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek \Vetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument • Replacing dead plants. Failed plantings will be replaced with species from the planting plan if performance standards are not being met or monitoring results indicate that replanting may be necessary to meet future standards. Replacement plantings may be relocated or substituted with other species from the planting plan to improve success. • Monitoring for and minimizing RCG establishment. RCG will be controlled to facilitate the performance standards for woody vegetation being met. Direct controls, both mechanical and/or chemical, will be used to reduce competition with plantings and to limit expansion of RCG colonies. 2.5.4 Strategy to Manage Himalayan Blackberry Himalayan blackberry is not listed as a noxious weed in Washington, but this invasive non- native species poses an ecological threat. It readily invades riparian areas, forest edges, meadows, roadsides, and relatively open areas, including all open forest types. Once it becomes well established, Himalayan blackberry out competes understory native vegetation and prevents native plant communities from establishing. It is currently present in many of the uplands and riparian areas in the various units and as an understory species in Units C and E. A management strategy that promotes the long-term establishment of woody vegetation will be applied at Springbrook Bank (Soll 2004 ). The strategy for managing Himalayan blackberry involves an initial mechanical and chemical treatment, monitoring, and ongoing management. • Initial Treatment. During site construction, all areas of Himalayan blackberry will be treated. In large monotypic stands, treatment will involve mowing the aboveground vegetation and applying herbicide. In areas where blackberry is mixed with native vegetation, treatment will involve targeted spot-spraying or cut-and-treat methods of control. • Monitoring. During the operational life of Springbrook Bank, both formal and informal assessments of the cover of Himalayan blackberry will be conducted. The effects of the blackberry identified during these site visits will be assessed and management actions recommended. • Ongoing Management. During the operational life of Springbrook Bank, Himalayan blackberry will be controlled as often as necessary to ensure that the performance standards are met. 2.5.5 Strategy to Manage other Invasive Non-Native Vegetation Other invasive non-native vegetation occurring at Springbrook Bank will be managed according to King County Noxious Weed Law (King County 2005) and the Washington State Noxious Weed List (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board 2005). Additional measures will be taken to control the establishment of .Japanese knotweed, purple loosestrife, and English ivy at the site. • Initial Treatment. All Japanese knotwced, purple loosestrifc, and/or English ivy identified at the site prior to or during construction will be removed using methods appropriate to the species found. Any Class A or Class 13 noxious weeds designated for control in King County that are identified onsite will also be removed. Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-8 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek \V etland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument • Monitoring. During the operational life of Springbrook Bank, yearly site visits will be conducted to identify any of the target species. If identified, locations will be documented and/or flagged and appropriate staff notified to schedule weed control activities. • Ongoing Management. If and when any of the species targeted are found, they will be removed during the calendar year found using control and removal methods appropriate for the particular species. Additional measures may also be taken to prevent the spread of additional propagules (e.g., early season control to prevent seed set, removal of seed heads). 2.6 MITIGATION BANK PLAN Mitigation treatments for each unit are described below and summarized in Table 2-2. All elevations referenced in this chapter are in the North American Vertical Datum 1998 (NAVD88). Elements of the mitigation bank plan are also shown on the following figures: • Mitigation Types -Figures 2-1 to 2-5 • Mitigation Treatment Activities -Figures 2-6 to 2-9 • GradingPlans-Figures2-!0to2-13 • Planting Plans -Figures 2-14 to 2-1 7 Table 2-2. Mitigation Treatment Type and Acreage Summary by Unit Mitigation Treatment Type Acreage Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit D Wetland Re-Establishment 0.05 0.12 9.27 -- Wetland Rehabilitation 20.30 31.43 1.19 -- Wetland Enhancement -Type I ----4.69 -- Wetland Enhancement -Type II ------2.63 Forested Wetland Enhancement ----23.32 2.97 Riparian Upland Enhancement 0.65 1.49 ---- Upland Habitat Enhancement ----7.80 -- Protection Setback (Buffer) 2.67 3.45 1.63 -- Trail Zone 2.66 ------ Totals 26.33 36.49 47.90 5.60 Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank Unit E 8.37 -- -- -- -- 4.74 -- 2.11 -- 15.22 Total 17.81 52.92 4.69 2.63 26.29 6.88 7.80 986 2.66 131.54 December 2005 Page 2-9 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 2.6.1 Units A and 8 (62.82 acres) 2.6.1.1 Wetland Rehabilitation Area (51. 73 acre.~) Wetland rehabilitation is the dominant mitigation treatment within Units A and B. The creation of hydrologic connections through the existing berms in Unit A and B will reconnect Springbrook Creek to floodplain wetlands and their functions at stream elevations greater than 12 feet. Areas dominated by reed canarygrass will be treated and replaced with native woody vegetation. Habitat structures and planting hummocks for tree establishment will also be installed. The breached berms will allow hydrologic function and floodplain interaction when the water surface elevation of Springbrook Creek rises above 12 feet. This will occur ronghly five days (114 hours) annnally, and one day (23 hours) during the growing season (based on modeling of full build-out watershed conditions). The breaches will allow for flow to enter the sites more frequently and at lower flows than the two-year storm event. Floodwaters from Springbrook Creek will disperse across Units A and B, which are relatively flat, and extend inundation and/or saturation during the growing season. Occasional over-bank flooding from Springbrook Creek is not expected to adversely affect existing vegetation classes or types in Units A and B. For detailed hydrologic analysis, see Springhmok Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank: Springbrook Creek Hydrological Anali'.,is (WSDOT 2005b). 2.6. I. la Construction Elements -Site preparation within 15.6 acres dominated by reed canarygrass, including the riparian area next to Springbrook Creek, will involve mowing and herbicide treatment. The wetland re-establishment areas in the berm breaches will be cleared and grubbed, graded, and planted (see section 2.6. 1.2 for more details on breaches). Approximately three habitat structures per acre (vertical snags, brush piles, and/or LWD) will be placed in reed canarygrass treatment areas and the cattail area in Unit B. Two planting hummocks per acre will be installed in the recd canarygrass removal areas. Figure 2-6 shows all treatment activities for Unit A and B. 2.6.1.Jb Planting -A total of 3,000 native trees and shrubs per acre will be installed within planting areas. Woody species appropriate for the various hydroperiods will be planted as live stakes and bare-root stock including: Oregon ash, red-osier dogwood, Sitka and Pacific willows, and peafruit wild rose (Wetland Tree/Shrub #2, Table 2-1). Containerized Sitka spruce and western red cedar with bare-root Oregon Ash, black cottonwood, and Pacific ninebark will be planted on the constructed hummocks (Hummock Plantings, Table 2-1 ). 2.6. I. Jc Functional Gain -Re-establishing the hydro logic connection between Springbrook Creek and Units A and B will restore the floodplain wetlands to fully functioning riverine Hydrogeomorphic class wetlands while increasing floodplain function. Establishing additional woody vegetation and creating microtopography with planting hummocks will increase surface roughness, slow water velocities during flood events, and increase residence time of floodwater at the site. The increased connectivity will improve the stream's access to available flood storage and may potentially reduce peak flow stream elevation and duration during high-flow events providing downstream benefits. The increased interaction between Springbrook Creek and Units A and B should improve the removal of sediments, nutrients, and toxicants from the creek during flood events. The increase in vegetation classes over portions of the site will provide additional biomass to uptake nutrients and toxicants potentially improving water quality Chapter 2 Establishment of the Flank December 2005 Page 2-10 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument in the stream. Breaching the berm, adding microtopography, installing approximately three habitat structures per acre (vertical snags, brush piles, and/or logs), and establishing trees on planting hummocks will increase habitat complexity and result in more diverse habitat niches (Table 2-3). Units A and B are located adjacent to a lower reach of Springbrook Creek. This proximity to the stream will allow the improvements to water quality, hydrologic, floodplain, and riparian functions provided in these units to benelit downstream aquatic habitat in Springbrook Creek, the Green River, and Duwamish River and its estuary. Allowing areas of cattail (Typha latifolia) to remain in portions of Unit B will allow for greater habitat diversity and may encourage habitat utilization by great blue heron from the nesting colony located in the nearby Black River Riparian Forest. The cattail area will maintain vegetation class interspersion and a third vegetation class in Unit B. Adding LWD, snags, and brush piles in this area will provide additional habitat niches in an area where they are currently lacking. Springbrook Creek is one of the few remaining tributary streams in the Lower Green River Basin, making the habitat value of associated natural areas difficult to replicate due to landscape position, water supply availability, urbanization of the surrounding area, and historic hydro logic manipulation of natural hydrologic systems in the Basin. In a landscape that is nearly completely developed protecting the last remaining natural areas is a high priority. This protection will sustain the viability of remaining fish and wildlife populations. The location of Units A and B along the habitat corridor of Springbrook Creek greatly increases their value within the surrounding landscape and complements existing restoration projects both up and downstream. 2. 6.1.2 Wetland Re-Establishment Area (0.17 acre) The 0.17-acre wetland re-establishment area includes wetlands to be re-established by the removal of seven sections of the berm next to Springbrook Creek. A fisheries biologist reviewed the design for Units A and B to evaluate the effects on fish related to breaching the berms. This evaluation concluded that the proposed site alteration from breaching the berms would restore natural floodplain habitat beneficial to fish and likely result in a decrease in fish stranding (WSDOT 2006). Springbrook Bank will also result in net improvements to fish habitat. 2.6.l.2a Construction -Three 20-foot long by 2-to 3-foot-deep breaches will be excavated in the berm in Unit A and four in Unit B. Soils will be amended with incorporated compost to improve soil fertility and organic matter content. Disturbed soils will be protected from erosion with coir or jute fabric. 2. 6.1. 2b Planting -Native trees and shrubs will be installed at a density of 3,000 stems per acre including: Oregon ash, red-osier dogwood, Sitka and Pacific willows, and peafruit wild rose (Wetland Tree/Shrub #2, Table 2-1 ). 2.6.1. lc Functional Gain -Increasing wetland area and allowing Springbrook Creek improved access to the floodplain will provide substantial increases in wetland function. Replacing existing reed canarygrass with dense native woody vegetation will increase canopy closure over time. Woody plantings will increase the number of vegetation strata in portions of the site, increase vertical stratification over time, and increase the number of native species present onsite (Table 2-3). Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-l l DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 2.6.1.3 Riparian Upland Enhancement Area (2.14 acres) The 2.14-acre riparian upland enhancement area includes the unexcavated area of the berm and embankment next to Springbrook Creek. Existing reed eanarygrass will be replaced with native woody vegetation improving riparian habitat and shading the stream channel. 2.6. 1.3a Construction -Reed canarygrass will be mowed and treated with herbicide. 2.6.l.3b Planting -Scouler's willow. big-leaf maple, red alder, Sitka spruce, Douglas-fir, and snowberry will be planted at a density of 1,500 stems per acre (Riparian Upland Plantings, Table 2-l ). 2.6. l. lc Functional Gain -Increased shade, provided by riparian tree and shrub plantings, will reduce water temperatures and increase dissolved oxygen in Springbrook Creek, which will improve fish and wildlife habitat. Leaf litter from deciduous trees and shrubs will mcrease organic matter export to the stream providing aquatic food-chain support (Table 2-3). 2.6.1.3 Protection Setback Area (6.12 acre.,) A 6.12-acre 40-foot-wide protection setback area will be created around the outer perimeter of Units A and B to protect the wetland from adjacent roads (Oakesdale Avenue SW, SW 27th Street, and Lind Avenue SW) and adjacent developments. The protection setback includes existing wetlands and uplands. Native woody plantings will be established in areas where woody cover is lacking or invasive non-native vegetation is removed. A total of 1,500 plants per acre will be installed. 2.6. l.3a Construction -Himalayan blackberry and other invasive non-native vegetation present within the buffer will be selectively removed in preparation for the planting of native woody species. Three inches of woody mulch will be placed around plantings. 2.6.1.3b Plantings -Protection setback plantings in uplands will include Douglas fir, big-leaf maple, serviceberry, oceanspray, beaked hazel and snowberry (Upland Plantings, Table 2-1). Protection setback plantings in wetlands will include Oregon ash, red-osier dogwood, Sitka and Pacific willows, and peafruit wild rose (Wetland Tree/Shrub #2, Table 2-1). 2.6.l.3c Functional Gain -Planting dense woody vegetation in the buffer areas will protect habitat functions over the larger site from disturbance related to surrounding land use. Units A and B will primarily provide habitat for small mammals, aquatic mammals, invertebrates, and birds. 2.6.1.4 Trail Zone (2.66 acres) A 2.66-acre non-credit-generating Trail Zone will be established around the boardwalk running north-south in Unit A to serve as a buffer between the trail and portions of Unit A. All mitigation treatments that overlap with the trail zone will be applied accordingly. This includes reed canarygrass removal and native woody plantings. The Trail Zone includes the 8-foot-wide trail footprint and a 40-foot-wide protection setback area on both sides of the proposed trail. This will create an approximately 88-foot-wide by 1,365-foot long area that will not generate mitigation credits. Wetland rehabilitation will be performed within the Trail Zone as proposed throughout Unit A. Based on the proposed Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page2-12 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument alignment; the Trail Zone will amount to approximately 2.66 acres being removed from credit generation. In order to construct the trail, existing vegetation within an 18-foot-wide temporary construction corridor will be cleared, the 8-foot-wide trail will be constructed, and all areas not occupied by the trail planted with woody vegetation. Areas dominated by reed canarygrass will be mowed and treated with herbicide as part of the reed canarygrass removal being performed as part of the wetland rehabilitation treatment in Unit A. The trail will provide a significant environmental education opportunity in an urban area under intense development pressure. The trail design and construction will utilize all available best management practices (BMPs) to minimize disturbance to adjacent habitat within Unit A. By removing the 88-foot-wide Trail Zone (2.66 acres) from Springbrook Bank, approximately 0.90 credit will be not be generated. Within the Trail Zone, a net increase of 1.17 acres of woody vegetation will result after trail construction and re-vegetation work. This nearly 100 percent increase in the area of woody vegetation compared to existing conditions is proposed to offset the impacts to woody vegetation and wetlands from trail construction, and provide a substantial increase in wetland function and vegetative structure within the Trail Zone. Additional mitigation will include placing large woody debris in Unit E to provide increased functional benefits and address concerns from the M uckleshoot Tribe regarding potential effects on adjacent habitat. It is expected that the efforts to minimize impacts and enhance vegetation within the non-credit-generating Trail Zone will mitigate the impacts from constructing the trail. Construction of the trail has been carefully designed to minimize environmental impacts. The design team has considered the potential environmental impacts of the trail to Unit A and has incorporated appropriate design features to minimize these impacts as follows. Alignment Change: The City owns an easement along Springbrook Creek for the trail connection. To improve and protect riparian habitat and functions, the City is revising the trail footprint further away from the stream than originally planned for in the easement. This alignment will minimize impacts to established shrubs and trees by aligning the trail through existing patches of reed canary grass to the greatest extent practicable. The trail will run roughly parallel with the creek on the west side of Unit A. Elevated Boardwalk: The trail will be built as a boardwalk, elevated an average of three feet above the existing ground surface, except at the ends where it will connect to the existing trail system, to minimize impacts to the wetland, allow some vegetation to grow under the trail, and maintain connectivity of wildlife and hydrology. WDFW has indicated that they do not expect deer to be present in the area, and site visits by project biologists have noted the lack of any existing game trails on the site. Without the presence of deer onsite, the three-foot vertical clearance should be adequate to allow passage of other wildlife species that may be present. Elevating the trail will minimize flooding of the trail from Springbrook Creek to the greatest degree possible and minimize impacts to sensitive wetland areas. Narrower Trail: By narrowing the trail footprint to eight feet, the construction impacts and footprint will be minimized. The typical width for City of Renton trails is 12 feet. Benches will be located in two designated areas with interpretive signage at one of the two locations. At these Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-13 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument locations the trail may be widened five additional feet to 13 feet in width for sections up to 15 feet in length. Handrails: Handrails will be installed along both sides of the entire boardwalk and be designed to prevent pedestrians from leaving the designated trail, preventing off trail access. Materials: A pre-cast concrete diamond-pier pin foundation system will be used. Using this low-impact foundation system eliminates the need for pouring concrete footings and consequently will greatly reduce the extent or impacts to wetlands. Also, plastic wood will be used to construct the posts and beams. which will be exposed to occasional flooding. Treated timber will be used to construct the decking and railings; the treatment type selected will be the most environmentally friendly possible. Pet Control: Fencing will be incorporated as part of the handrail design along the boardwalk to prevent pet access into the wetland area. Pet stations will also be installed at the northern and southern trail ends to collect pet waste. Dense Vegetation: Dense vegetation will be established and/or existing vegetation will be supplemented adjacent to the trail to deter people from entering the wetland from the trail. Limited Access: Bollards at each end of the trail will deter bicycle and other unauthorized vehicular access. Instructive Signage: Signs posted at each end of the trail will identify the trail for pedestrian use only and include a posting of the City's adopted Park Rules and Regulations. All users must remain on the trail. Dogs must be on a leash (Council-adopted Park Rules and Regulations). Additional signage directing bicyclists to the appropriate alternate routes will also be placed at both ends of the trail and at logical points prior to the restricted use section of the trail. Educational Signagc: Benches will be placed at two locations along the trail to facilitate passive recreation, such as bird watching. In addition, interpretive signs at the designated seating areas will describe the unique natural features and environmental benefits of the Springbrook Creek wetlands. Minimized Construction Impacts: Clearing the minimum amount of desirable vegetation necessary to construct the trail using an 18-foot-wide temporary construction corridor, narrowing the trail footprint, and implementing all available BMPs will minimize construction impacts. Undesirable vegetation immediately adjacent to the trail will be removed and disposed of appropriately. Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native plant materials. 2.6.2 Unit C (47.90 acres) 2.6.2.1 Wetland Re-Establishment Area (9.27 acres) The 9.27-acre wetland re-establishment area is the second largest treatment area in Unit C. Excavation of up to seven feet of existing lt!l will put the finish grade at the 16-foot elevation, where the bottom of the created wetland will interface with seasonal groundwater. In order to have positive drainage and the potential for groundwater interaction the 16-foot elevation was chosen to mesh with existing topography ol' the site, the bottom of the existing conveyance ditch where water is being diverted onto the wetland re-establishment area and the grade at the downstream outlet structure. Additional treated surface and ground water (average of 45,000 cubic feet of water per month) will also be redirected from the S. 180th Street grade separation Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-14 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument project near Unit D via the existing conveyance ditch on BNSF property into the wetland re- establishment area (currently the water from this project is routed to Springbrook Creek). The existing conveyance ditch will be plugged near its entrance to the site and flows will be directed into the wetland re-establishment area. Wetland hydrology will be established below the 17-foot elevation. An adjustable-height weir will be installed at the outflow point from the wetland re- establishment area to ensure saturation and up to two inches of seasonal inundation at the 16.2- foot elevation. This supplemental water will extend the hydrology within the wetland re- establishment area up to five weeks in the late spring and three weeks in the late summer, compared to utilizing only existing flows to the site. For detailed hydrologic analysis, see Springbrook Wetland and Habitat Mitigarion Bank: Unit C Water Balance Memorandum (WSDOT 2005c). In the wetland re-establishment areas, geotechnical borings were conducted to examine soils to be exposed through excavation. The soils range from sandy gravel and sand to silty sand (fill), to interbedded sand and silt underneath the areas of fill, and poorly graded sand to silt at the bottom of the soil borings. Peat was also intermixed and discovered in many of the soil layers (Hart Crowser 2005a ). 2.6.2.la Construction -Excavation and removal of approximately 100,000 cubic yards of fill from historic wetlands will be conducted with heavy equipment. The wetland re-establishment area will be fully cleared and grubbed prior to grading. The lowest finish grade will be the 15-foot contour, directly in front of the adjustable-height weir. The area will be rough-graded to allow for microtopographie variation. After grading, a minimum of three inches of compost will be incorporated to a depth of 12 inches in areas below the 17-foot contour. The existing conveyance ditch will be plugged at several locations. Approximately three habitat structures per acre (vertical snags, brush piles, and/or LWO) will be placed throughout the re-establishment area. Figure 2-7 shows all treatment activities for Unit C. 2. 6. 2.1 b Planting -The wetland re-establishment areas will be planted with native trees and shrubs. The wetter bottom area (below the 16-foot contour) will be planted with Oregon ash, red- osier dogwood, Sitka and Pacific willows. and peafruit wild rose (Wetland Tree/Shrub #2, Table 2-1 ). Fringe wetland areas (between the 16-foot and 20-foot contours) will be planted with Pacific ninebark, black twinberry, Oregon ash, black cottonwood, Sitka willow, and Nootka rose (Wetland Tree/Shrub #1, Table 2-1). Disturbed soils will be mulched with a minimum of three inches of woody mulch to deter reed canarygrass and other weed establishment and control eros10n. 2.6.2.Jc Functional Gain -Removal of fill material in the wetland re-establishment area will increase storage capacity for water delivered to the site from the existing conveyance ditch entering from the south. Planting dense woody vegetation will increase surface roughness and decrease water velocities reducing potential erosion and desynchronizing surface water flows leaving the site. The wetland re-establishment area will provide soil saturation for extended periods, allowing the uptake of dissolved nutrients and toxicants. Increasing the number of vegetation classes throughout Unit C will increase site biomass allowing greater uptake of nutrients and toxicants. Re-establishment of additional wetland area will increase wetland functions (Table 2-4) and increase available wetland habitat for wetland-dependent/associated birds, mammals, and invertebrates and. Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-15 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 2.6.2.2 Wetland Rehabilitation Area (1.19 acres) A 1.19-acre wetland rehabilitation area is associated with portions of the existing conveyance ditch and new drainage path. This area is dominated by existing native trees and shrubs, which will be protected. Native coniferous trees will be under-planted in these areas. 2.6.2.2a Construction -All areas of invasive non-native vegetation will be selectively removed to protect existing woody vegetation. Approximately three habitat structures per acre (vertical snags, brush piles, and/or L WD) will be placed throughout the wetland rehabilitation area. 2.6.2.2b Planting -Conifer underplantings will include Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and western red cedar (Deciduous Forest Under-Plantings, Table 2-1) at a density of 90 stems per acre. 2. 6. 2.2c Functional Gain -Coniferous woody vegetation will increase the quantity and quality of habitat niches. Woody plantings will increase canopy closure, the number of vegetation strata, and provide additional buffering from adjacent land uses. Underplanting conifers will increase species and structural diversity (Table 2-4). 2.6.2.3 Forested Wetland Enhancement Area (23.32 acres) The 23.32 acres of wetland enhancement is the largest treatment area in Unit C. Areas dominated by existing native trees and shrubs will be under-planted with native conifers. 2.6.2.Ja Construction -Areas of existing Himalayan blackberry will be selectively removed. Three inches of woody mulch will be placed armmd plantings. 2.6.2.Jb Planting -Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and western red cedar (Deciduous Forest Under-Plantings, Table 2-1) will be planted in existing forested wetland areas at a density of 90 trees per acre. 2.6.2.Jc Functional Gain -Native conifer plantings will increase species diversity, the number of vegetation strata, and the structural complexity of these areas (Table 2-4). 2.6.2.4 Wetland Enhancement Type I (4.69 acres) Existing reed canarygrass will be removed and native woody plants established. 2. 6.2. 4a Construction -Site preparation within areas dominated by reed canarygrass will include mowing and herbicide treatment. Approximately three habitat structures per acre (vertical snags, brush piles, and/or L WD) will be placed throughout the wetland enhancement area. Planting hummocks will be installed in reed canarygrass removal areas. 2.6.2.4b Planting -Nootka rose, red-osier dogwood, Sitka spruce, black cottonwood, red alder, Scouler's willow, and western red cedar (Wetland Tree/Shrub #3, Table 2-1) will be installed at 3,000 stems per acre. 2.6.2.4c Functional Gain -Establishing woody vegetation in reed canarygrass removal areas will provide an increase in vegetation classes over portions of tl1e site, additional biomass to uptake nutrients and toxicants, and increased habitat structure. Installing habitat structures Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-16 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument (snags, brush piles, and/or LWD) and establishing conifers will increase habitat niches and structural diversity (Table 2-4). 2.6.2.5 Upland Habitat Enhancement Area (7.80 acres) The 7 .80-acre upland habitat enhancement area will occur at various locations in the northern and western portions of Unit C. Replacing invasive non-native vegetation with native trees and shrubs is the main activity in upland habitat enhancement areas. 2.6.2.5a Construction -Areas of existing Himalayan blackberry will be selectively removed. Mowing and herbicide treatment will he used to remove reed canarygrass areas. Approximately three habitat structures per acre ( vertical snags, brush piles, and/or L WO) will be placed throughout the upland habitat enhancement area. Three inches of woody mulch will be placed around plantings. 2.6.2.5h Planting -Douglas fir, big-leaf maple, serviceberry, oceanspray, beaked hazel, and snowberry (Upland Plantings, Table 2-1) will be planted at 1,500 stems per acre in upland areas. 2.6.2.5c Functional Gain -Woody vegetation and habitat structures (vertical snags, brush piles, and/or LWD) will provide vertical habitat stratification that further increases the quantity and quality of habitat niches. Woody plantings will increase canopy closure, the number of vegetation strata, and provide additional buffering from adjacent land uses. 2.6.2.6 Protection Setback Area (1.63 acres) A 1.63-acre non-credit-generating 40-foot-wide buffer will be created to protect the wetland from Oakesdale Avenue SW and development to the south. The buffer includes existing wetlands and uplands. Native woody plantings will replace invasive non-native vegetation. 2. 6. 2. 6a Construction -Invasive non-native vegetation will be selectively removed within the 40-foot-wide buffer area along Oakesdale Avenue SW. Three inches of woody mulch will be placed around plantings. 2.6.2.6b Planting -Protection Setback plantings in uplands will include Douglas fir, big-leaf maple, serviceberry, oceanspray, beaked hazel, and snowberry (Upland Plantings, Table 2-1) planted at 1,500 stems per acre. Protection Setback plantings in wetlands will include Oregon ash, red-osier dogwood, Sitka and Pacific willows, and peafruit wild rose (Wetland Tree/Shrub #2, Table 2-1) planted at 3,000 stems per acre. 2.6.2.6c Functional Gain -Woody plantings will increase canopy closure, the number of vegetation strata, and provide additional buffering from adjacent land uses. The addition of woody species will also provide increased habitat functions within the protection setback areas. 2.6.3 Unit D ( 5.60 acres) 2.6.3. I Wetland Enhancement Type II (2.63 acres) A 2.63-acre wetland enhancement type II area is located at the north end of Unit D. Hydrology will be augmented with an average of approximately 45,000 cubic feet of water per month and conveyed from a stormwater treatment pond (associated with the South 180th Street grade separation) to the inundated area at the north end of Unit D via a new pipe. The stormwater Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-17 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument treatment pond is a combined detention and water quality treatment facility designed to detain and treat surface runoff and groundwater from the Tukwila S. 180th Street Grade Separation Project. The pond was sized for water quality treatment in accordance with the requirements of 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Surface runoff that collects in the roadway and groundwater seepage that collects under the concrete roadway slab is collected and drained to a wet well and pumped to a gravity system before discharging to the detention/water quality pond. The pond discharges to a pipe system that currently discharges to Springbrook Creek to the east of the pond. The new diversion pipe from the treatment pond will be buried in the existing roadbed, which will be restored. This will provide additional water to the Unit C wetland re-establishment area and extend the hydroperiod in the northern portion of Unit D. A permanent easement was granted to the City of Tukwila by the City of Renton allowing all stormwater facilities to be owned and maintained by the City of Tukwila. Because the City of Renton is the underlying owner of the property, the City of Tukwila is obligated to maintain the stormwater facilities in a working condition at all times and in perpetuity. As the property owner, the City of Renton has the authority to require the facility to be maintained in proper working condition. 2. 6. 3.1 a Construction -Installation of a new diversion structure and conveyance pipe from the pump station treatment/detention pond to inundated area at north end of the unit. Figure 2-8 shows all treatment activities for Unit D. 2.6.3. lb Planting-No plantings are planned for this area. 2.6.3. lc Functional Gain -Supplementing wetland hydrology will create additional hydrologic regimes or extend existing regimes (Table 2-5). 2.6.3.2 Forested Wetland Enhancement Area (2.97 acres) A 2. 97-acre wetland enhancement area is located in the middle of Unit D. Invasive non-native vegetation will be removed from the understory of the existing forested wetlands. All other existing native trees and shrubs will be undisturbed. Native conifer trees will be under-planted in existing forested wetlands. The 0.25-acrc area disturbed in constructing the storm sewer will be planted with native trees and shrubs. 2. 6.3. 2a Construction -Clearing, grubbing, and grading will be limited to approximately a 0.25-acre wetland area needed to construct the new pipe conveying supplemental water to the Type TI wetland enhancement area. Brush piles will be placed within the disturbed area. Three inches of woody mulch will be placed around conifer plantings. 2.6.2.4b Planting -Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and western red cedar (Deciduous Forest Under-plantings, Table 2-1) will be used for under-planting in the forested wetlands, at a density of 100 trees per acre. The area disturbed in constructing the storm sewer pipe will be planted with Oregon ash, red-osier dogwood, Sitka and Pacific willows, and peafruit wild rose (Wetland Tree/Shrub #2, Table 2-1 ). 2.6.2.4c Functional Gain -Under-planting will increase habitat complexity in wetland enhancement areas by improving vegetation strata and native species diversity. Woody Chapter 2 Establishment of the !lank December 2005 Page 2-18 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument vegetation and habitat structures, such as brush piles, will increase the quantity and quality of habitat niches (Table 2-5). 2.6.4 Unit E (15.22 acres) 2.6.4.1 Wetland Re-Establishment Area (8.37 acres) The 8.37-acre wetland re-establishment area includes creating riverine flow-through wetland conditions at Unit E by removing historic Ii 11 materials. The lowest elevation will be at the 8- foot contour (base-flow of Springbrook Creek) and will likely be permanently inundated. Three sections of the existing berm will be removed to connect Unit E to Springbrook Creek. Elevations below the 11.5-foot contour will be saturated at least five percent and inundated at least one percent of the growing season (March 1 -October 31). Wetlands are not expected to re-establish at elevations above the 11.5-foot contour. These elevations are based on the number of hours of inundation and saturation in the growing season estimated using a continuous flow model of Springbrook Creek. Low flow channels have been designed to allow water from the unit to flow back into Springbrook Creek as it recedes. These channels will direct floodwaters to Springbrook Creek as the creek recedes precluding the formation of any isolated pools of standing water and preventing fish stranding. The remainder of the wetland re-establishment area will be seasonally inundated. The wetland re-establishment area will be planted with native trees and shrubs. For detailed hydrologic analysis, see Springbrook Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank: Springbrook Creek Hydrological Anall'.l'is (WSDOT 2005b). In the wetland re-establishment area, geotcchnical borings were conducted to examine soils to be exposed through excavation. The soils range from sandy gravel and sand to silty sand (fill), to interbedded sand and silt underneath the areas of fill, and poorly graded sand to silt at the bottom of the soil borings. Peat was also intermixed and discovered in many of the soil layers (Hart Crowser 2005). 2.6.4.la Construction -Approximately 162,000 cubic yards of historic fill will be excavated in Unit E. The wetland re-establishment area will be fully cleared and grubbed prior to grading. Approximately three habitat structures per acre (vertical snags, brush piles, and/or logs) will be placed throughout the wetland re-establishment area. The lowest elevations will be rough graded to allow for microtopographic and water regime variation. A minimum of three inches of compost will be incorporated to a depth of 12 inches in excavated areas. All disturbed soils will be covered with a minimum of three inches of woody mulch to deter reed canarygrass and promote woody plant establishment. Disturbed areas adjacent to the creek will be protected with coir or jute fabric and/or quarry spalls to prevent erosion. Construction in Unit E will likely be phased over two construction seasons to minimize impacts to fish in Springbrook Creek. The majority of the site behind the berm wi II be excavated and planted in the first season. In the second construction season the berm will be breached, allowing the creek access to the new off- channel habitat, and any remaining areas will be planted. Figure 2-9 shows all treatment activities for Unit E. 2.6.4. I b Planting -The wetter bottom area (below the 9-foot contour) will be planted with Oregon ash, red-osier dogwood, Sitka and Pacific willows, and peafruit wild rose (Wetland Tree/Shrub #2, Table 2-1). Fringe wetland areas (between the 9-and 12-foot contours) will be Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-19 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument planted with Pacific nincbark, black twinberry, Oregon ash, black cottonwood, Sitka willow, and Nootka rose (Wetland Tree/Shrub #1, Table 2-1 ). Areas above the 12-foot contour will be planted with red-osier dogwood, Sitka spruce. black cottonwood, Nootka rose, Scouler's willow, and western red cedar (Wetland Tree/Shrub #3. Table 2-1). Woody plants will be installed as live stakes and bare-root at a density of 3,000 woody stems per acre. 2.6.4. Jc Functional Gain -Re-establishing the hydrologic connection between Springbrook Creek and Unit E will increase functions and processes of the wetland floodplain. The re-established wetland hydrology will provide soil saturation for extended periods, allowing the uptake of dissolved nutrients and toxicants. Increasing the ratio of the wetland to stream width will increase the likelihood of water quality improvement as a result of the increased wetland area available for treatment. Establishing woody vegetation and creating microtopography will increase surface roughness and slow water velocities during flood events and increase residence time of floodwater at the site. Off-channel habitat created at Unit E would provide important refuge and rearing habitat for fish in Springbrook Creek, and address a limiting factor for salmon recovery in the Springbrook Creek sub-basin (Kerwin and Nelson 2000) (Table 2-6). Unit E is located adjacent to one of the lower reaches of Springbrook Creek. This proximity to the creek will allow the improvements to water quality, hydrologic, floodplain, and riparian functions provided in Unit E to benefit downstream aquatic habitat in Springbrook Creek, the Green River, and Duwamish River and its estuary. Springbrook Creek is one of the few remaining tributary streams to the Green River, making the habitat value of associated natural areas difficult to replicate due to landscape position, water supply availability, urbanization of the surrounding area, and historic hydrologic manipulation of natural hydro logic systems in the Lower Green River Basin. In a highly urbanized landscape protecting the last remaining natural areas is a high priority, and will sustain the viability of remaining fish and wildlife populations. The location of Unit E along the habitat corridor of Springbrook Creek greatly increases its value within the surrounding landscape and complements existing restoration projects both up and downstream. 2.6.4.2 Riparian Upland Enhancement Area (4. 74 acres) The 4.74-acre riparian enhancement area includes the remammg sections (islands and peninsulas) of the berm next to Springbrook Creek and upland areas surrounding the wetland re- establishment area. A portion of the existing cottonwood stand will be protected and under- planted with native trees and shrubs. Native woody plantings will be established in areas where woody cover is lacking. 2.6.4.2a Construction -Areas of existing Himalayan blackberry and other invasive non-native vegetation will be selectively removed. Approximately three habitat structures per acre (vertical snags, brush piles, and/or LWD) will be placed in portions of the riparian enhancement area. Three inches of woody mulch will be placed around plantings. 2.6.4.2h Planting -Scouler's willow, big-leaf maple, red alder, Sitka spruce, Douglas-fir, and snow berry (Riparian Upland Plantings, Table 2-1) will be installed in areas lacking woody vegetation in the riparian enhancement area at 1,500 plants per acre. Under-plantings in existing deciduous forest will include Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and western red cedar (Deciduous Fores! Under-Plantings, Table 2-1 ). A total of 100 plants per acre will be installed in those areas. Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-20 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 2. 6.4.2c Functional Gain -Increased shade provided by riparian plantings may improve water temperatures and dissolved oxygen in Springbrook Creek, which would benefit water quality and fish. Increased organic matter in the form of leaf litter would increase organic matter export to the stream providing food-chain support. Establishing dense woody vegetation will increase canopy closure, the number of vegetation strata, and species diversity (Table 2-6). 2. 6.4.3 Protection Setback Area (2.11 acres) A 2.11-acre non-credit-generating 40-foot-wide buffer will be created to protect the wetlands in Unit E from Oakesdale Avenue SW and development to the north. The buffer will include existing uplands. To increase the plant diversity, structure, and cover of woody plants native woody plantings will be established. Existing native trees will not be removed. These areas will be under-planted with native conifer species. 2.6.4.4a Construction -All non-native vegetation will be selectively removed within areas dominated by reed canarygrass. Existing Himalayan blackberry within the 40-foot buffer area along Oakesdale Avenue SW and the northern edge of the property will be selectively removed. Three inches of woody mulch will be placed in two-foot radius circles around plantings. 2.6.4.4b Planting-Native woody plantings will be installed at a density of 1,500 stems per acre. Species to be planted include Douglas fir. big-leaf maple, serviceberry. oceanspray, beaked hazel, and snowberry (Upland Plantings, Table 2-1). 2. 6. 4.4c Functional Gain -Establishing dense woody vegetation will increase canopy closure, the number of vegetation strata, and provide buffering from surrounding land uses. 2.7 FUNCTIONAL IMPROVEME1'T Substantial functional improvements are expected from Springbrook Bank at various scales- watershed, mitigation bank unit, and treatment type. Functional gains for each treatment type were summarized in the previous sections. Functional gains at the watershed scale and at the mitigation bank scale are described in the following sections. 2.7.1 Watershed Scale Substantial functional improvements are expected at the watershed level as a result of establishing Springbrook Bank. The proximity of Springbrook Bank to the lower reaches of Springbrook Creek will allow the improvements to water quality, hydrologic, floodplain, and riparian functions provided in these units to benefit downstream aquatic habitat in Springbrook Creek, the Green River, and Duwamish River and its estuary. Springbrook Creek is one of the few remaining tributary streams to the Green River, making the habitat value of associated natural areas difficult to replicate due to landscape position, water supply availability, urbanization of the surrounding area, and historic hydro logic manipulation of natural hydro logic systems in the Lower Green River Basin. In a landscape that is nearly completely developed, protecting and improving the last remaining natural areas is a high priority. This will help to sustain the viability of remaining fish and wildlife populations such as Chinook salmon and the great-blue heron-nesting colony located in the Black River Riparian Forest. Improvements at Springbrook Bank will address limiting factors for the Springbrook Creek sub-basin including: degraded riparian condition, poor water quality, and lack of off-cham1el habitat in the watershed (Kerwin and Nelson 2000; WRIA 9 Steering Committee 2005) Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-21 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek \Vetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 2.7.1.2 Mitigation Bank Unit Scale Significant increases to wetland, stream, nparian, and floodplain functions will result at Springbrook Bank by re-establishing, rehabilitating, and enhancing wetlands; enhancing upland habitat; and improving riparian conditions along Springbrook Creek. Water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions are expected to increase significantly at Springbrook Bank. Tables 2-3 through 2-6 summarize the expected functional "lift" for each unit, by listing the attributes that contribute to wetland function in existing and future condition. The site attributes examined were taken from Methodfor Assessing Wetland Functions (Hruby et al. 1999) and the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (llruby 2004). These methods include comprehensive lists of attributes that contribute to wetland function. Existing and proposed conditions are rated qualitatively using three categories (Poor, Moderate, and High). Work performed at Springbrook Bank will increase the variety of hydrologic regimes, number and structure of vegetation communities, number and diversity of physical structures, and wetland size. Therefore, improvements will result for many attributes used in Hruby et al. ( 1999) and Hruby (2004). • Units A and B -Twelve of the eighteen functional attributes listed in Table 2-3 will be positively affected; three of three water quality attributes, two of four hydrologic attributes, and seven of eleven habitat attributes will be positively affected. • Unit C -Ten of the eighteen functional attributes listed in Table 2-4 will be positively affected in addition to a substantial increase in wetland area; two of four water quality attributes, one of three hydrologic attributes, and seven of eleven habitat attributes will be positively affected. • Unit D -Three of the eighteen functional attributes listed in Table 2-5 will be positively affected; two of four water quality attributes and one of eleven habitat attributes will be positively affected. • Unit E -Seventeen of the eighteen functional attributes listed in Table 2-6 will be positively affected, in addition to a substantial increase in wetland area and fish rearing and refuge habitat; three of three water quality attributes, three of four hydro logic attributes, and eleven of eleven habitat attributes will be positively affected. 2.8 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING WSDOT will monitor site construction to ensure work is completed according to site plan sheets and permit conditions. Site elevations will be surveyed routinely during excavation in Units A, B, C, and E during construction to confirm elevations. As-built drawings will be generated post- construction. Photo-documentation or site construction will be kept on file. Woody habitat structures and plant material will be inspected, properly stored, and installed. Bank performance standards, included in Chapter 3, will measure site success. Performance standards will address as-built condition, grading accuracy, planting success and cover, and installation/retention of woody habitat structures. Monitoring reports will specifically address each aspect of site construction. Chapter 2 Establishment of the Bank December 2005 Page 2-22 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 3.0 PROJECT GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 3.1 GOAL The goal of the Springbrook Bank is to increase wetland area, improve hydrologic functions, water quality functions, habitat functions, fish refuge/rearing habitat, and promote environmental education. 3.2 ECOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES I. Increase wetland area at Springbrook Bank by removing fill material in Units A, B, C, and E to re-establish wetland functions on 17.81 acres. 2. Improve hydrologic functions by increasing wetland area and flood storage capacity in Units A, B, C, and E; extending wetland hydroperiod in Units A, B, C, and D; increasing the connectivity of wetlands in Units A, B, and E to Springbrook Creek; and increasing cover of woody vegetation in portions of all units. 3. Improve water quality functions by increasing wetland acreage; adding additional vegetation classes; increasing the connectivity of wetlands in Units A, B, and E to Springbrook Creek; and increasing the ratio of wetland to stream width in Unit E. 4. Improve habitat functions by increasing canopy closure; number of vegetation strata; number of water depth classes; number of vertical snags, brush piles, and large woody debris {LWD); canopy closure over the wetlands and stream; number of hydrologic regimes; number or native plant species; number of plant assemblages; vegetation class interspersion; improving buffer condition; diversity of plant communities in areas cunently dominated by reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackbeny; and off-channel fish refuge and rearing habitat (Unit E). 5. Improve floodplain and riparian function by re-establishing hydro logic connectivity to Springbrook Creek and increasing woody cover directly adjacent to the creek in Units A, B, and E. 3.3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The performance standards described below provide benchmarks for measuring achievement of the goal and objectives of the Springbrook Bank. Mitigation activities are intended to meet these performance standards within a specified time frame. The performance standards are based on function attributes described in Method for Assessing Wetland Functions (Hruby et al. 1999). These function-based performance standards correlate design, monitoring, and demonstrated improvements in site conditions. Methods to monitor each performance standard are described in general terms. A detailed monitoring plan is included in Appendix A. The performance standards, monitoring methods, related objectives, functions, and function attributes are summarized in Tables 3-1 through 3-4. Chapter 3 Project Goal, Objectives, and Performance Siandards MBI ChJ PerfStds 12-28·05.doc December 2005 Page 3-1 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Grading/Hydrologic Performance Standards The grading/hydrologic performance standards help to document and verify that wetland area and ground elevations are established according to the criteria specified during the design. These performance standards directly relate to Objectives I, 2, 3, and 4. The related functions are water quality, hydrologic, and habitat. Delineating the wetland re-establishment areas at Springbrook Bank will demonstrate that wetland area has increased. After construction, ground elevations will be surveyed and documented on As-Built drawings, demonstrating that site grading has achieved the design elevations necessary to establish wetland conditions and provide intended functions. Delineating wetland area will demonstrate an increase in the related attributes: wetland area, wetland width relative to Springbrook Creek, and wetland size relative to the basin. Increasing wetland area relative to Springbrook Creek and its basin provides a larger area for floodwaters to be stored and treated by vegetation and soils. Documenting hydrology in the early growing season within the Wetland Re-Establishment areas will document that the hydrologic conditions required to establish wetland sin these areas is being provided. Documenting accurate ground elevations in As-Built drawings for Units C and E demonstrates an increase in the related attributes of: flood storage capacity and the number of hydrologic regimes. Lowering ground elevations increases storage capacity and creating microtopography slows floodwaters, which reduces erosion and encourages sediment deposition. Creating multiple hydrologic regimes establishes habitat niches that can be used by wildlife. The creation of off-channel refuge and rearing habitat in Unit E will benefit fish populations present in Springbrook Creek. Monitoring hydrology in the Wetland Re-Establishment areas will demonstrate that these areas have adequate hydrology for wetland development. Monitoring hydrology in Units A and B will demonstrate the improved connectivity between Springbrook Creek and the adjacent wetlands and the change in HOM class from depressional to riverine of the wetlands behind the existing berms. Vegetation Performance Standards The woody vegetation performance standards directly relate to Objectives 2, 3, 4 and 5. The related functions are water quality, hydrologic, habitat, and riparian/floodplain function. Measuring woody vegetation will demonstrate the increase in the related attributes: vegetation classes, cover by woody vegetation, canopy closure, and number of vegetation strata. Woody vegetation provides surface roughness to slow floodwaters, which reduces erosion and encourages sediment deposition. Establishing canopy closure and increasing the number of vegetation strata will provide habitat structure and increase uptake of nutrients introduced to the site by Springbrook Creek. Establishing woody vegetation in the riparian areas in Units A, B, and E will replace a reed canarygrass monoculture and increase shading of the active stream channel. Converting reed cannarygrass areas in Units A and B to native woody plant communities will increase species and structural diversity in areas currently dominated by non- native invasive plant species. Ensuring that a diverse plant community develops in re- established wetlands and areas currently dominated by invasive species will document the increased habitat value at the sites. Reducing the cover of blackberry and actively managing Chapter 3 Project Goal, Objectives, and Performance StandarJs MBI Ch3 Perl Slds 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 3-2 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument high priority invasive species will allow native plant communities to become established providing habitat for other native species. Woody Habitat Structures Performance Standards The woody habitat structures performance standards verify that habitat structures have been installed at Springbrook Bank. These performance standards are associated with Objective 4. Vertical snags, brush piles, and L WO provide habitat by creating niches for wildlife. Measuring habitat structures will demonstrate an increase in the related attributes: vertical snags, brush piles, and LWD. 3.4 CONTINGENCY The contingency listed below will apply to all performance standards listed in Tables 3-1 through 3-4. It will apply in the case that the original performance standard is not met in a timely fashion and either additional work is required, a reduction in credits connected to the standard, or a replacement performance standard is approved or negotiated with the BOC. The City and WSDOT shall propose management activities to correct any issues encountered over the life of the bank. If the monitoring reports, or inspection by representatives of the BOC members, indicate the following: deficient or insufficient wetland area; improper grading; insufficient establishment, cover, and/or survival of woody vegetation; insufficient numbers of habitat structures and/or movement of L W D off of the site. The BOC members may also direct management activities, following consultation with the City and WSDOT, if BOC members identify the need for corrective action and no adaptive management plan is submitted within a reasonable period of time. Alternatively, following consultation with the City and WSDOT, the BOC permitting agencies, in consultation with other BOC members, may decline to direct or authorize any action to correct any grading, wetland area, woody vegetation, or woody habitat structures, and may instead delay, reduce, or deny credit under any of the performance standards listed above for Units A, B, C, D, or E. An adaptive management plan shall specify the corrective activities to be conducted. the schedule of completion of those activities, and a monitoring plan for assessing the effectiveness of the adaptive management. The objective of the adaptive management plan shall be to attain the originally prescribed performance standards, unless the BOC members expressly establish replacement performance standards, following consultation with the City and WSDOT, in light of circumstances and conditions observed at the site. If the City and WSDOT propose to institute replacement performance standards, the City and WSDOT may not initiate activities designed to achieve those replacement standards until the BOC members approve the new performance standard. Chapter 3 Project Goal, Objectives, and Performance Standards MBI Ch3 PerfStds_12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 3-3 Table 3-1 BOC REVIEW DRAFT Sp_i-ingbrook Creek Wetlan~ and_!l!l_bitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Summary of Performance Standards, Monitoring Methods, Related Objectives, Functions and Values, and Function Attributes (Riverine) For Units A and B Units A and B Performance Standards Monitoring Tasks/Methods Related Functions and Objectives Values' Grading/Hvdroloav A/B-1. As-Built drawings will document that site After construction is completed. As-Built drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Wetland Area grading and planting has been completed as will be submitted to document the completion and Hydrologic shown on the Unit A and B plans. accuracy of grading work. Monitoring will confirm Water Quality conditions depicted in the As-Built drawinos. Habitat A/B-2A. In Year 3, inundation or soil saturation Hydrology will be verified by visual inspection of within 12 inches of the soil surface will be present multiple hand-dug pits conducted during multiple within the Wetland Re-Establishment areas site visits in the early growing season. (bottom of the berm breaches of Units A and B) for at least 7% of the growing season (March 1 through October 31), based on an average rainfall vear. A/B-28. In Year 3, the extent of over-bank flooding Site visits during the wet season to correlate crest from Springbrook Creek during late winter and/or gages with the upstream USGS gage station, early spring storm-events (January through automated monitoring equipment. or other March) will be documented in Units A and B. appropriate method will be used to document the extent of over-bank floodina in Units A and B. A/B-2C. In Years 5 and 10, at least 0.12 acre of Wetland conditions will be demonstrated by wetland will be present in the Wetland wetland delineation, performed according to the Re-Establishment areas (bottom of the berm 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation breaches) of Units A and B. Also, a separate Manual and the 1997 Washington State Wetland wetland delineation will be done to verify that Identification Manual, by a qualified WSDOT mitigation actions have not reduced the extent of biologist in Years 5 and 10. existino wetlands in Units A and B. Vegetation A/B-3A. In Year 1, the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting In Years 1 and 3, determine density of living stems 2,3,4 Hydrologic areas will each have 2,500 stems of living native per acre using randomly placed unequal-area belt Water Quality woody vegetation per acre. transects as described by Stehman and Salzer Habitat A/B-38. In Year 1, the Upland and Riparian Upland (2000) or other statistically appropriate method. planting areas will each have 1,200 stems of living native woody veoetation per acre. A/B-4. In Year 3, the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will each have 2,000 stems of living native woody veoetation per acre. A/8-SA. In Year 5, native woody vegetation within In Years 5, 7, and 10, determine woody cover by the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will species in the Wetland Tree/Shrub, Riparian provide 50% aerial cover. Upland, and Upland planting areas using A/B-58. In Year 5, at least 3 native woody species randomly placed sample units and line intercept will provide at least 5% aerial cover each within method as described in Elzinga et al. (1998) or the Wetland Tree/Shrub plantinQ areas. other statistically appropriate method. A/8-SC. In Year 5, native woody vegetation within the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas will provide 30% aerial cover. A/B-50. In Year 5, at least 3 native woody species will provide at least 3% aerial cover each within the Upland and Riparian Upland plantino areas. A/B-6. In Year 7, native woody vegetation within the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will provide 60% aerial cover. A/B-7A. In Year 10, native woody vegetation within Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will provide 75% aerial cover. A/B-78. In Year 10, at least 2 native woody species will provide at least 10% aerial cover each within the Wetland Tree/Shrub plantinQ areas. A/B-7C. In Year 10, native woody vegetation within the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas will provide 50% aerial cover. A/B-70. In Year 10, at least 2 native woody species will provide at least 7% aerial cover each within the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas. A/B-8. In Years 5 and 10, planting hummocks In Years 5 and 10, each planting hummock will be located within the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting visited to verify that one living native tree is areas will have at least one livino native tree. oresent oer hummock. A/8-9. In Years 5 and 10, Himalayan blackberry will In Years 5 and 10, detenmine cover of Himalayan not cover more than 20% of the site. blackberry on the site using randomly placed sample units and line or point intercept method as described in Elzinga et al. (1998) or other statistically aooropriate method. A/8-10. In Years 1 through 10, remove all Japanese Annual visual inspections of the site will locate knotweed, English ivy, and purple loosestrife target species and they will be removed annually. identified within Units A and B. Woody Habitat Structures A/8-11. In Year 1, at least 35 woody habitat The number of habitat structures (vertical snags, 4 Habitat structures (vertical snags, brush piles, and/ or brush piles, and LWD) will be counted and LWD) will be present in Units A and B. documented in monitoring reports in Year 1. ' See Table 2-3 for information on how the perfonmance standards relate to functional lift in the categories listed. "Some attributes listed are not contained in WAFAM, but address variables not considered in the models (i.e., wetland area, education). Chapter 3 Project Goal, Objectives, and Performance Standards Function Attributes from Hruby et al. (1999)" Wetland Area. Width of wetland to stream. Number of vegetation classes. Cover by woody vegetation. Canopy closure over wetland. Canopy closure over stream. Number of vegetation strata. Number of native plant species. Number of plant assemblages. Buffer condition. Mature woody vegetation. LWD. Snags. CH 311x17 _12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 3-4 BOC REVIEW DRAFT Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Table 3-2 Summary of Performance Standards, Monitoring Methods, Related Objectives, Functions and Values, and Function Attributes (Depressional) For Unit C Unit C Performance Standards Monitoring Tasks/Methods Related Functions and Objectives Values• Grading/Hydroloav C-1. As-Built drawings will document that site After construction is completed, As-Built drawings 1, 2, 3, 4 Water Quality grading and planting has been completed as will be submitted to document the completion of Hydrologic shown on the Unit C plans. grading and planting work. Monitoring will confirm Habitat conditions depicted in the As-Built drawings. C-2A. In Year 3, inundation or soil saturation within Visual inspection of multiple hand-dug pits 12 inches of the soil surface will be present in the conducted during multiple site visits in the early Wetland Re-Establishment area for at least 7 % of growing season. the growing season (March 1 through October 1) based on an averaae rainfall vear. C-2B. In Years 5 and 10, at least 9.27 acres of Wetland conditions will be demonstrated by wetland will be present within the Wetland wetland delineation, performed according to the Re-Establishment area in Unit C. 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the 1997 Washington State Wetland Identification Manual, by a qualified WSDOT biolooist in Years 5 and 10. VeQetation C-3A. In Year 1, the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting In Year 1, determine density of living stems per 2, 3,4 Hydrologic areas will have 2,500 stems of living native woody acre using randomly placed unequal-area belt Water Quality vegetation per acre. transects as described by Stehman and Salzer Habitat (2000) or other statistically appropriate method. C-3B. In Year 1, The Upland planting areas will have 1,200 stems of living native woody vegetation per acre. C-3C. In Years 1, 5 and 10; the Forested Wetland In Years 1, 5, and 10 determine the density of Enhancement areas will contain at least 70 living living conifers within the Forested Wetland native conifers per acre. Enhancement areas using randomly placed unequal-area belt transects as described by Stehman and Salzer (2000) or other statistically annrooriate method. C-4A. In Year 3, the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting In Year 3, determine density of living stems per areas will have 2,000 stems of living native woody acre using randomly placed unequal-area belt vegetation per acre. transects as described by Stehman and Salzer (2000\ or other statisticallv annrooriate method. C-4B. In Year 3, the Wetland Enhancement Type I In Year 3, determine density of living conifers per areas will have at least 100 conifers per acre. acre using randomly placed unequal-area belt transects as described by Stehman and Salzer (2000) or other statistically annropriate method. C-5A. In Year 5, native woody vegetation within the In Years 5 and 7, determine woody cover by Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will provide species in the Tree/Shrub planting areas, and in 50% aerial cover. Year 5 in the Upland planting areas using C-5B. In Year 5, at least 3 native woody species will randomly placed sample units and line intercept provide at least 5% aerial cover each within the method as described in Elzinga et al. (1998) or Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas. other statistically appropriate method. C-5C. In Year 5, native woody vegetation within the Upland planting areas will provide 30% aerial cover. C-5D. In Year 5, at least 3 native woody species will provide at least 3% aerial cover each within the Upland planting areas. C-6A. In Year 7, native woody vegetation within the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will provide 60% aerial cover. C-6B. In Year 7, the Wetland Enhancement Type I In Year 3, determine density of living conifers per areas will have at least 75 conifers per acre. acre using randomly placed unequal-area belt transects as described by Stehman and Salzer (20001 or other statisticallv a00 ronriate method. C-7A.ln Year 10, native woody vegetation within the In Year 10, determine woody cover by species in Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will provide the Wetland Tree/Shrub and Upland planting 75% aerial cover. areas using randomly placed sample units and C-7B. In Year 10, atleast 2 native woody species line intercept method as described in Elzinga et al. will provide at least 10% aerial cover each within (1998) or other statistically appropriate method. the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas. C-7C. In Year 10, native woody vegetation within the Upland planting areas will provide 50% aerial cover. C-7D. In Year 10, at least 2 native woody species will provide at least 7% aerial cover each in the Upland planting areas. C-8. In Years 5 and 10, Himalayan blackberry will In Years 5 and 10, determine cover of Himalayan not cover more than 20% of the site. blackberry on the site using randomly placed sample units and line or point intercept method as described in Elzinga et al. (1998) or other statisticallv annrooriate method. C-9. In Years 1 through 10, remove all Japanese Annual visual inspections of the site will locate knotweed, English ivy, and purple loosestrife target species and they will be removed annually. identified within Unit C. Woodv Habitat Structures C-10. In Year 1, at least 50 woody habitat structures Woody habitat structures will be counted and 4 Habitat (vertical snags, brush piles, and/or LWD) will be documented in monitoring reports. oresent within Unit C. • See Table 2-4 for information on how the performance standards relate to functional lift in the categories listed. "Some attributes listed are not contained in WAFAM, but address variables not considered in the models (i.e., wetland area, education). Chapter 3 Project Goal, Objectives, and Perfom1m1ce Standards Function Attributes from Hruby et al. (1999)" Wetland area. Area seasonally inundated. Number of water regimes. Number of water depths. Number of vegetation classes. Cover by woody vegetation. Canopy closure over wetland. Number of vegetation strata. Number of native plant species. Number of plant assemblages. Vegetation class interspersion. Mature woody vegetation. Buffer condition. LWD. Snags. CH 3 11x17 =12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 3-5 Table 3-3 BOC REVIEW DRAFT Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Summary of Performance Standards, Monitoring Methods, Related Objectives, Functions and Values, and Function Attributes (Depressional) For Unit D Unit D Performance Standards Monitoring Tasks/Methods Related Functions and Objectives Values' Grading/Hydroloav D-1. As-Built drawings will document that the minor After construction is completed, As-Built drawings 2,3 Hydrologic grading to constnuct a conveyance pipe to will be submitted to document the completion of Water Quality supplement hydrology at the north end of Unit D minor grading, planting, and pipe installation work. has been installed and is functioning and planting Monitoring will confimn conditions depicted in the has been implemented per plan. As-Built drawings. Veaetation D-2A. In Year 1, the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting In Year 1, determine the density of living native 3,4 Water Quality area (area disturbed by grading and installation of woody species within the disturbed area using Habitat the conveyance pipe) will have 2,500 living stems randomly placed unequal-area belt transects as per acre. described by Stehman and Salzer (2000) or other statistically annrooriate method D-2B. In Years 1, 5, and 10, the Forested Wetland In Years 1, 5, and 10, determine the density of Enhancement areas will contain at least 70 living living conifers within the Forested Wetland native conifers per acre. Enhancement areas using randomly placed unequal-area belt transects as described by Stehman and Salzer (2000) or other statistically annrooriate method. D-3. In Years 5 and 10, the aerial cover of In Years 5 and 10, determine the aerial cover of Himalayan blackberry will not exceed 20% of the Himalayan blackberry on the site using randomly site. placed sample units and line or point intercept method as described in Elzinga et al. (1998) or other statisticallv annronriate method D-4. In Years 1 through 10, remove all Japanese Annual visual inspections of the site will locate knotweed, English ivy, and purple loosestrife target species and they will be removed annually. identified within Unit D. Woody Habitat Structures D-5. In Year 1, at least 2 woody habitat stnuctures Woody habitat stnuctures will be counted and 4 Habitat (brush piles) will be present within Unit D. documented in monitoring reports. • See Table 2-5 for information on how the perfomnance standards relate to functional lift in the categories listed. "Some attributes listed are not contained in WAFAM, but address variables not considered in the models (i.e., wetland area, education). Chapter 3 Project Goal. Objectives, and Performance Standards Function Attributes from Hruby et al. (1999)" Area seasonally inundated. Number of water regimes. Number of vegetation strata. Number of native plant species. Number of plant assemblages. Understory vegetation. Brush piles. CH 3 11x17= 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 3-6 BOC REVIEW DRAFT Springbrook Creek~cthmd and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Table 3-4 Summary of Perfonnance Standards, Monitoring Methods, Related Objectives, Functions and Values, and Function Attributes (Riverine) For Unit E Unit E Performance Standards Monitoring Methods Related Functions and Objectives Values' Gradina/Hvdroloav E-1. As-Built drawings will document site grading After construction is completed, As-Built drawings 1, 2,3,4, 5 Hydrologic and planting has been completed as shown on the will be submitted to document the completion of Water Quality Unit E plans. grading and planting work. Monitoring will confirm Habitat conditions depicted in the As-Built drawings. E·2A. In Year 3, inundation or soil saturation within Hydrology will be verified in Year 3 by visual 12 inches of the soil surface will be present in the inspection of multiple hand-dug pits conducted Wetland Re-Establishment area for at least 7 % of during multiple site visits in the early growing the growing season (March 1 through season. October 31 ), based on an average rainfall year. E-2B. In Years 5 and 10, at least 8.37 acres of Wetland conditions will be demonstrated by wetland will be present within the Wetland wetland delineation, performed according to the Re-Establishment area of Unit E. 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the 1997 Washington State Wetland Identification Manual, by a qualified WSDOT bioloaist in Years 5 and 10. Vegetation E-JA. In Year 1, the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting In Year 1, determine density of living stems per 2, 3,4 Hydrologic areas will have 2,500 stems of living native woody acre using randomly placed unequal-area belt Water Quality vegetation per acre. transects as described by Stehman and Salzer Habitat (2000) or other statistically appropriate method. E-3B. In Year 1. the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas will have 1,200 stems of living vegetation per acre. E-JC. In Years 1, 5, and 10. the Forest In Years 1, 5, and 10 determine the density of Underplanting area will have 70 living conifers per living conifers within the Forest Under-planting acre. areas using randomly placed unequal-area belt transects as described by Stehman and Salzer (2000) or other statistically anoropriate method. E-4. In Year 3, the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting In Year 3, determine density of living stems per areas will have 2,000 stems of living native woody acre using randomly placed unequal-area belt vegetation per acre. transects as described by Stehman and Salzer (2000) or other statistically appropriate method. E-SA. In Year 5, native woody vegetation within the In Years 5, 7 and 10, determine woody cover by Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will provide species in the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas, 50% aerial cover in Year 5. and in Years 5 and 10 in the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas using randomly placed E-5B. In Year 5, at least 3 native woody species will sample units and line intercept method as provide at least 5% aerial cover each within the described in Elzinga et al. (1998) or other Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas. statistically appropriate method. E-SC. In Year 5, native woody vegetar,on within the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas will provide 30% aerial cover. E-5D. In Year 5, at least 3 native woody species will provide at least 3% aerial cover each within the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas. E-6. In Year 7, native woody vegetation within the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will provide 60% aerial cover. E-7A. In Year 10, native woody vegetation within the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will provide 75% aerial cover. E-7B. In Year 10, at least 2 native woody species will provide at least 10% aerial cover each within the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas. E-7C In Year 10, native woody vegetation in the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas will provide 50% aerial cover. E-7D. In Year 10, at least 2 native woody species will provide at least 7% aerial cover each within the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas. E-8. In Years 5 and 10, the aerial cover of In Years 5 and 10, determine the aerial cover of Himalayan blackberry will not exceed 20% of the Himalayan blackberry on the site using randomly site. placed sample units and line or point intercept method as described in Elzinga et al. (1998) or other statistically aooropriate method E-9. In Years 1 through 10, remove all Japanese Annual visual inspections of the site will locate knotweed, English ivy, and purple loosestrife target species and they will be removed annually. identified within Unit E. Woody Habitat Structures E-10. In Year 1, at least 40 woody habitat structures Woody habitat structures will be counted and 4 Habitat (vertical snags, brush piles, and/or LWD) will be documented in monitoring reports. oresent in Unit E. --~ ------ • See Table 2-6 for information on how the periormance standards relate to functional lift in the categories listed. "Some attributes listed are not contained in WAFAM, but address variables not considered in the models (i.e., wetland area, education). Chapter 3 Project Goal, Objectives, and Performance Standards Function Attributes from Hruby et al. (1999)" Flood storage capacity. Number of hydrologic regimes. Wetland area. Wetland width relative to creek. Wetland size relative to basin. Area seasonally inundated. Number of vegetation classes. Cover by woody vegetation. Canopy closure over wetland. Canopy closure over stream. Number of vegetation strata. Number of native plant species. Number of plant assemblages. Vegetation class interspersion. Mature woody vegetation. Buffer condition. LWD. Snags. December 2005 Page 3-7 DRAl<'T FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 4.0 BANK OPERATION 4.1 CREDIT DETERMINATION Credits are the "currency" of a mitigation bank. The value of credits that a mitigation bank generates equates to its net ecological benefit. For Springbrook Bank, the 45.69 credits generated represent the number of acres of impacts to Category II wetlands (Hruby 2004) that the 119.02 credit-generating acres in the bank could be used to compensate (Table 4-1 ). These mitigation credits will become available as performance standards and other measures are achieved (see Tables 3-1 through 3-4 and Table 4-3 below). Table 4-1. Credit Potential Mitigation Treatment Acreage Ratios* Mitigation Credits** Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit D Unit E Total Wetland Re-Establishment 17.81 1:1 0.05 0.12 9.27 --8.37 17.81 Wetland Rehabilitation 52.92 3:1 6.77 10.48 0.40 ----17.65 Wetland Enhancement -Type I 4.69 4:1 ----1.17 ----1.17 Wetland Enhancement -Type II 2.63 5:1 ------0.53 --0.53 Forested Wetland Enhancement 26.29 5:1 ----4.66 0.59 --5.25 Riparian Upland Enhancement 6.88 4:1 0.16 0.37 ----1.19 1.72 Upland Habitat Enhancement 7.80 5:1 ----1.56 ----1.56 Buffer Creation 9.86 -------------- Trail Zone 2.66 -------------- Totals 131.54 --6.98 10.97 17.06 1.12 9.56 45.69 • The ratio of acreage to credits is the number of credits established per acre of mitigation activity in first column . ** The number of mitigation credits that Springbrook Bank ,vii] generate for each mitigation treatment. Each credit can compensate for the loss of a typical acre of Category II wetland. The 131.54-acre Springbrook Bank includes 119.02 acres that qualify for bank credit. The remaining 12.52 non-credit acres have been designated for protection setback and Trail Zone to minimize disturbances from adjacent roads, development, and the trail through Unit A. The protection setback acres will be protected and managed as part of the bank. 4.2 USE OF CREDITS Springbrook Bank credits were developed to compensate at a I: I ratio for adverse impacts (including direct loss or indirect impacts) to a Category II wetland. The number of credits required to compensate for each acre of Category I, III, or IV wetland impact will differ because wetland categories have a different level of function on a per-acre basis (see Table 4-2). Chapter 4 Bank Operation MBI Ch4_Bank0peration 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 4-1 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Table 4-2. Credits Required for Wetland Impacts II Ill IV equired per Case-by~Case 1.0 0.85 0.70 For example, if a proposed project would impact 3 acres of Category II wetland, 3 credits would be withdrawn from the bank to compensate for that impact. If a proposed project would impact 2 acres of Category Ill, 1.7 credits would be withdrawn. Credits may potentially be used as compensation for impacts to non-wetland waters of the U.S. with specific approval of the BOC permitting agencies. Credits required per impact acre would be determined on a per-project basis due to the variability of non-wetland areas. WSDOT and the City reserve the right to develop mitigation credits as compensation for impacts to flood storage and wetland and/or riparian buffer at Springbrook Bank with no effect on the value or number of credits established by this MB!, provided that the generation of such credits will not conflict with the provisions of this MB!. It will be the prerogative of each permitting agency to detennine the appropriateness of the use of such credits and the amount that may be used as compensation. 4.3 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE Springbrook Bank will generate 45.69 credits that will be eligible for release by the BOC permitting agencies, in consultation with other BOC members, as the associated performance standards are met (Tables 3-1 through 3-4), with the exception that no credits may be released until WSDOT and the City complete the development of an MB! and MOA for this bank. The BOC pem1itting agencies may award partial credit for partial accomplishment of a performance standard. Once a credit is released, WSDOT or the City may sell or transfer that credit at any time, subject to the provisions of this MBI. Credits will be released from the bank according to Table 4-3 provided that WSDOT and the City demonstrate success in meeting the subject performance standards and are compliant with the provisions of this MB!. To obtain release of credits associated with a particular performance standard, WSDOT and the City will provide the BOC members with documentation of success, usually as an element of a scheduled monitoring report. The BOC members will expeditiously review the submitted documentation of success. If the BOC permitting agencies determine, in consultation with other BOC members, that Springbrook Bank has successfully met a performance standard and is otherwise in compliance with the terms and conditions of the MB!, then the BOC permitting agencies shall release the credits associated with that performance standard. Within 30 days of delivery of the monitoring report, the BOC permitting agencies will provide a written response to WSDOT and the City stating whether they concur with its documentation and conclusions and the identified scheduled credit release. If no response is received within the specified period the credits shall be considered released. Chapter 4 Bank Operation MBI Ch4 BankOperat1on 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 4-2 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrnment If Springbrook Bank is not able to meet a particular performance standard by the year indicated, WSDOT and the City may submit documentation of successful achievement of those performance standards during a subsequent year, and the appropriate credits will be released without penalty. 4.3.1 Credit Release Flexibility If exceptional circumstances unforeseen during the development and implementation of Springbrook Bank arise such that the public interest would be better served by earlier than scheduled release of credits from the bank, the City or WSDOT may request the BOC permitting agencies approve a modification in the Credit Release Schedule (Table 4-3). In such a circumstance, the City or WSDOT must submit a written request that clearly explains the nature of the exceptional circumstances and demonstrates how the requested change in the credit release schedule would serve the public interest. If the BOC permitting agencies, in consultation with other BOC members, concur that the early release of credits would serve the public interest and not violate existing mitigation banking rules and regulations, then they may approve the banker's request. This approval will become a part of the MB!. Chapter 4 Bank Operation MBI Ci14 BankOperation_ 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 4-3 BOC REVIEW DRAFT Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument ·--·-• -· -·--.. ··-·------··--·-·-·rr··· ,.,-·--·· _ .... : <' ; ·(" '.;' : ··,. · , .;.·\ '.··.·.·.· · · Performance Standard Number of Credits to be Released . ,: ,,, , )!!! ;; ;, , .· Year Year Year Year Year Year Total .. " · ,.., , -·, ,,, ,.., o• 1 3 s 7 10*** Administrative Measures (10 % of total}** Establish Conservation Easement 4,5 4.5 Grading/Hydroloav (25 % of total) A/8-1, As-Built drawings will document that site grading and planting has been completed as shown on the Unit A and B plans. 1.5 1.5 A/B-2A. In Year 3, inundation or soil saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface will be present within the Wetland Re-Establishment area for at least 7% of the orowino season (March 1 throuah October 31 I, based on an averaae rainfall vear. A/B-28. In Year 3, the extent of over-bank flooding from Springbrook Creek during late winter and/or early spring storm-events (November through Marchi will be documented in Units A and B. A/B-2C. In Years 5 and 10, at least 0. 12 acre of wetland will be present in the Wetland Re-Establishment areas of Units A and B. A 0.1 0. 1 0.2 separate wetland delineation will be done to verifv that mitioation actions have not reduced the extent of existino wetlands in Units A and B. C-1. As-Built drawings will document that site grading and planting has been completed as shown on the Unit C plans. 2.5 2.5 C-2A. In Year 3, inundation or soil saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface will be present in the Wetland Re-Establishment area for at least 7% of the growing season (March 1 through October 31), based on an average rainfall year. C-28. In Years 5 and 10, at least 9.27 acres of wetland will be Present within the Wetland Re-Establishment area in Unit C. 1.5 0.4 1.9 0-1. As-Built drawings will document that the minor grading to construct a conveyance pipe to supplement hydrology at the north end of 0.25 0.25 Unit D has been installed and is functionino and plantina has been implemented per plan. E-1. As-Built drawings will document site grading and planting has been completed as shown on the Unit E plans. 2.5 2.5 E-2A. In Year 3, inundation or soil saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface will be present in the Wetland Re-Establishment area for at least 7% of the growing season (March 1 through October 31 ), based on an averaoe rainfall year. E-28. In Years 5 and 10, at least 8.37 acres of wetland will be present within the Wetland Re-Establishment area of Unit E. 1.25 0.39 1.64 Vegetation 58% of total) A/B-3A. In Year 1, the Wetland Tree/Shrub olantino areas will each have 2,500 stems of livina native woodv veaetation oer acre. 1 1 A/8-38. In Year 1, the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas will each have 1,200 stems of living native woody vegetation per acre 0.5 0.5 A/8-4. In Year 3, the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will each have 2,000 stems of living native woody vegetation per acre. 2 2 A/B-5A. In Year 5, native woody vegetation within the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will provide 50% aerial cover. 1 1 A/B-58. In Year 5, at least 3 native woody species will provide at least 5% aerial cover each within the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas. 0.25 0.25 A/B-5C. In Year 5, native woody vegetation within the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas will provide 30% aerial cover. 0. 1 0.1 A/8-50. In Year 5, at least 3 native woody species will provide at least 3% aerial cover each in Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas. 0.1 0.1 A/8-6. In Year 7, native woody vegetation within the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will provide 60% aerial cover. , 2 2 A/B-7A. In Year 10, native woody vegetation within Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will provide 75% aerial cover. , 0.5 0.5 A/B-78. In Year 10, at least 2 native woody species will provide at least 10% aerial cover each in the Wetland Tree/Shrub plantino areas. 1 0. 15 , 0. 15 A/B-7C. In Year 10, native woody vegetation within the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas will provide 50% aerial cover. I ' 0. 1 0. 1 A/8-70. In Year 10, at least 2 native woody species will provide at least 7% aerial cover each in Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas. : 0.1 0. 1 A/8-8. In Years 5 and 10, planting hummocks located within the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will have at least one living native tree. , 0.5 0.25 0.75 A/8-9. In Years 5 and 10, Himalavan blackberrv will not cover more than 20% of the site. I 0. 1 0. 1 0.2 A/8-10. In Years 1 throuqh 10, remove all Jaoanese knotweed, Enalish iw, and ounole loosestrife identified within Units A and 8. C-3A. In Year 1, the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will have 2,500 stems of livinq native woody veqetation oer acre. 1 1 C-38. In Year 1, the Upland plantino areas will have 1,200 stems of livino native woodv veaetation per acre. 0.25 0.25 C-3C. In Years 1, 5, and 10, the Forested Wetland Enhancement areas will contain at least 70 livinq native conifers per acre. 0.55 0.5 0.25 1.3 C-4A. In Year 3, the Wetland Tree/Shrub plantino areas will have 2,000 stems of living native woody vegetation per acre. 2 2 C-48. In Year 3, the Wetland Enhancement Tvne I areas will have at least 100 conifers oer acre. 0. 75 0.75 C-5A. In Year 5, native woodv vegetation within the Wetland Tree/Shrub plantinq areas will provide 50% aerial cover. 1 1 C-58. In Year 5, at least 3 native woodv species will orovide at least 5% aerial cover each within the Wetland Tree/Shrub olantino areas. 0.25 0.25 C-5C. In Year 5, native woody vegetation within the Upland planting areas will provide 30% aerial cover. 0.25 0.25 C-50. In Year 5, at least 3 native woodv sru>cies will orovide at least 3% aerial cover each within the Upland olantino areas. 0. 1 0. 1 C-6A. In Year 7, native woody veqetation within the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will provide 60% aerial cover. 2 2 C-68. In Year 7, the Wetland Enhancement Type I areas will have at least 75 conifers per acre. 0.75 0.75 C-7A.ln Year 10, native woody vegetation within the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will provide 75% aerial cover. 0.5 1 0.5 C-78. In Year 10, at least 2 native woody species will provide at least 10% aerial cover each within the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas. , 0. 15 0. 15 C-7C. In Year 10, native woody vegetation within the Upland planting areas will provide 50% aerial cover. ' , 0.1 1 0. 1 C-70. In Year 10, at least 2 native woody species will provide at least 7% aerial cover each in the Upland planting areas. 1 ' 0. 1 0. 1 C-8. In Years 5 and 10, the aerial cover of Himalayan blackberry will not exceed 50% of the baseline cover of blackberry on the site and the 1 0. 1 1 0. 1 0.2 Year 10 cover will be less than the estimate in Year 5. C-9. In Years 1 through 10, remove all Japanese knotweed, English ivy, and purple loosestrife identified within Unit C. 0-2A. In Year 1, the Wetland Tree/Shrub olantinq area will have 2,500 stems of native livina veaetation oer acre. 0. 1 0.1 0-28. In Years 1, 5, and 10 the Forested Wetland Enhancement areas will contain at least 70 living native conifers per acre. 0.25 0.5 0.25 1.0 , D-3. In Years 5 and 10, the aerial cover of Himalayan blackberry will not exceed 20% of the site. 0. 1 0. 1 0.2 0-4. In Years 1 throuoh 10, remove all Japanese knotweed, Enolish ivv, and ourole loosestrife identified within Unit D. E-3A. In Year 1, the Wetland Tree/Shrub plantino areas will have 2,500 stems of living native woody vegetation per acre. 1 1 I E-38. In Year 1, the Upland and Riparian Upland olantina areas will have 1,200 stems of livina veoetation oer acre. 0.25 0.25 , E-3C. In Years 1, 5, and 10, the Forest Underplanting area will have 70 livino conifers per acre. 0.25 0. 1 0.1 0.45 E-4. In Year 3, the Wetland Tree/Shrub olantino areas will have 2,000 stems of living native woody vegetation per acre. 2 2 I E-5A. In Year 5, native woody veoetation within the Wetland Tree/Shrub clantina areas will orovide 50% aerial cover in Year 5. 1 1 E-58. In Year 5, at least 3 native woody species will provide at least 5% aerial cover each within the Wetland Tree/Shrub plantina areas. 0.25 0.25 E-5C. In Year 5, native woody veoetation within the Upland and Rioarian Uoland olantina areas wiil provide 30% aerial cover. 0.25 0.25 E-50. In Year 5, at least 3 native woody species will provide at least 3% aerial cover each in the Upland and Riparian Uoland olantino areas. 0. 1 0 .1 E-6. In Year 7, native woodv vegetation within the Wetland Tree/Shrub olantino areas will orovide 60% aerial cover. 2 2 E-7A. In Year 10, native woody vegetation within the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will provide 75% aerial cover. 0.5 0.5 E-78. In Year 10, at least 2 native woodv species will orovide at least 10% aerial cover each within the Wetland Tree/Shrub plantino areas. 0. 15 0. 15 E-7C In Year 10, native woody veaetation in the Upland and Riparian Upland plantina areas will provide 50% aerial cover. 0.1 0.1 E-70. In Year 10, at least 2 native woodv soecies will orovide at least 7% aerial cover each in Upland and Riparian Upland plantino areas. 0.1 0.1 E-8. In Years 5 and 10, the aerial cover of Himalayan blackberrv will not exceed 20% of the site. 0. 1 0. 1 0.2 E-9. In Years 1 through 10, remove all Japanese knotweed, English ivy, and purple loosestrife identified within Unit E. Woodv Habitat Structures (7% of total) A/B-11. In Year 1, at least 35 woody habitat structures (vertical snags, brush piles, and/ or LWD) will be present in Units A and B. 0.5 0.5 C-10. In Year 1, at least 50 woody habitat structures (vertical snags, brush piles, and/or LWD) will be present within Unit C. 0.5 0.5 0-5. In Year 1, at least 2 woody habitat structures (brush piles) will be present within Unit D. 0. 1 0. 1 E-10. In Year 1, at least 40 woody habitat structures (vertical snags, brush piles, and/or LWO) will be present in Unit E. 0.5 0.5 Percent of Total Credits 10% 15% 15% 15% 20% 15% 10% Totals 4.5 6.75 6.75 6.75 9.5 6.75 4.69 45.69 Year O indicates as-built site conditions based on site work completed in the second construction year (2007 calendar year). Credits generated by Administralive Measures will be available for release as they are achieved, which may occur prior to Year O. No credits will be released in recognition of meeting the Year 10 pertormance standards until perfomiance standards representing at least 60% of the total Year 10 credits have been achieved. Chapter 4 Bank Operation CH 411x17 12·13-05.doc December 2005 Page 4-4 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 4.4 ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES AND LEDGER MANAGEMENT WSDOT will maintain a master ledger of released and debited credits (Figure 4-1 ). Each year, the City and WSDOT will provide the BOC members with a copy of the Springbrook ledger by March 31, until all credits are expended. The City may maintain its own separate concurrent ledger to track its portion of the credits, but WSDOT shall retain responsibility for the master ledger detailing all debits and credits associated with Springbrook Bank to satisfy BOC requirements and comply with the CBMOA. When credits are to be withdrawn from the bank, the BOC permitting agencies (Ecology and the Corps) will coordinate the debiting of credits through the permit process. 4.5 SITE COMPLIANCE M0:'1/ITORING During the Short-Term Management Period, WSDOT, on behalf of WSDOT and the City, will prepare and submit monitoring reports to BOC members by March 31 following each monitoring year listed in Table 4-4. These reports will document the progress that has been made towards achieving the performance standards, adaptive management actions, and an overview of site progress. A combination of formal and informal monitoring of the bank site will occur during the initial 10-year Short-Term Monitoring and Management Period or until all performance standards arc met, whichever occurs later. Site visits will occur periodically during the Long-Term Site Management Period, which will begin upon completion of the initial Short-Term Monitoring and Management period. Formal monitoring will consist of quantitative sampling techniques to address specific performance standards listed in Tables 3-1 through 3-4, while informal monitoring will consist of visual inspection of the mitigation area to identify any issues and necessary adaptive management actions. Formal monitoring will occur once per specified year (see Table 4-4) between June and September, informal monitoring may occur periodically throughout the year (see Table 4- 5). Additional formal monitoring visits may be conducted in years not listed to address perfom1ance standards not achieved in designated and/or prior years. The monitoring plan provides specific details about methods and reporting requirements (Appendix A). Table 4·4. Formal Monitoring Schedule M ·t ' Y F om onna ear reauencv Year1 Annual Site Visit Year3 Annual Site Visit Year5 Annual Site Visit Year 7 Annual Site Visit Year 1 O Annual Site Visit Chapter 4 Bank Operation Table 4-5. Informal Monitoring Schedule M ·t . Y F om onna ear reauencv Year1 Year2 Year 3 Year4 Year 5 Year6 Year 7 Year 8 Year9 Year10 Quarterly Site Visits Quarterly Site Visits Quarterly Site Visits Quarterly Site Visits Quarterly Site Visits Annual Site Visit Annual Site Visit Annual Site Visit Annual Site Visit Annual Site Visit MBI Ch4 BankOperation 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 4-5 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument WSDOT's Wetland Mitigation Monitoring staff will conduct the formal and informal monitoring of Springbrook Bank during the initial Short-Term Monitoring and Management Period; the City will conduct site visits periodically during the Long-Term Site Management Period using the guidelines outlined in Section 5.2, and consultation with WSDOT, to gauge the need and scope for additional site management activities. The WSDOT Monitoring Program conducts compliance monitoring for many of WSDOT's compensatory wetland mitigation projects. Compliance monitoring provides a means for tracking the development of WSDOT mitigation projects over time, and for determining compliance with permits issued by federal, state, local, or tribal jurisdictions. The Monitoring Program provides an important internal feedback role in mitigation site management and maintenance serving as an essential link in the internal adaptive management process increasing the overall success of mitigation sites. WSDOT's Monitoring Program uses a variety of monitoring methods. Quantitative data collection techniques are based on standard ecological and biostatistic methods. The configuration, placement, and number of sample units ( e.g., belt transects, plots, lines, point-lines, point frames) required to address site-specific performance objectives will be based on characteristics observed in the vegetative community and patterns of plant distribution. Sample size analysis will be used to ensure data from an adequate number of sample units has been obtained to meet the sampling objectives. Monitoring reports will include a description of methods and sampling designs used to monitor the various performance standards for the bank site (See Chapter 3). The City and WSDOT will obtain the approval of the BOC members prior to altering any element of the monitoring plan. The BOC permitting agencies may require additional monitoring, if necessary to demonstrate that certain performance standards have been met. Chapter 4 Bank Operation MBI Ch4 BankOperation 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 4-6 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Table 4-6. Sample Accounting Ledger **Debits are enclosed by parentheses. Chapter 4 Bank Operation Detiits*• , .. ;i: otaJ . ,,,.rid .~edits Cr8iffls Afflabte Comment MBI Ch4 BankOperation 12·28-05.doc December 2005 Page 4-7 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 5.0 SITE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT 5.1 PROTECTION MECHANISMS WSDOT and the City have taken actions to ensure that Springbrook Bank wetland, riparian, and habitat functions and values will be protected in perpetuity. The actions include establishing a conservation easement and encumbering the deed with the signed MB!. 5.1.1 Conservation Easement The conservation easement is intended to restore, protect, manage, and enhance the functional values of the wetlands and other lands. It is also intended to conserve functions and values including fish and wildlife habitat. water quality improvement, floodwater retention, groundwater recharge, open space, aesthetic values, and environmental education. Use prohibitions listed in the casement prevent the site from being used for activities that would be incompatible with the intent of the casement. Appendix C contains a copy of the easement. The City will maintain ownership of all land rights to the property. 5.1.2 Financial Assurances The funding for the Springbrook Bank design, construction, operation, monitoring, and a portion of site management is secured through the 2003 Transportation Funding Package for the WSDOT 1-405 Corridor Program. The City is providing the land in perpetuity and funding the trail construction and a portion of site management. The City of Renton is a full-service municipality with various financial resources that include general fund revenues from taxes and fees and a Surface Water Utility enterprise fund that is funded by utility rates. The City can also issue bonds to fund capital improvements. The revenue from the sale of the City's share of credits from Springbrook Bank will be secured in an account set up specifically to fund all of the City's costs associated with the management of the bank. This funding will be used for monitoring and required site management actions during the initial I 0-year site monitoring and management period and by the City for site management after this I 0-year period. Revenues in the account shall accumulate and be restricted to finance costs associated with operating and managing Springbrook Bank. If the level of funding in the account is insufficient, the City will seek additional funding through its periodic budget requests. The City Parks Division is part of the City's Community Services Department and currently has an established fund for the maintenance and repair of parks and trails within the City. The Parks Division funding source would be used for the maintenance of the trail in the Bank. Funding needed for bank operation will be reviewed annually as part of the City's normal budget process. 5.1.3 Site Access The City will allow, or otherwise provide for, access to the site by BOC members or their agents or designees, as reasonably necessary, for the purpose of inspection, compliance monitoring, and remediation consistent with the terms and conditions of this MB!, throughout the period of bank establishment, operational life, monitoring, and long-term management. Inspecting parties shall provide reasonable notice, of not less than 24 hours, to the WSDOT and the City, prior to inspection of Springbrook Bank. Efforts shall be made to consolidate access requirements for BOC members or their representatives, and not umeasonably disrupt or disturb mitigation activities on the property. Chapter 5 Site Protection and Management MBI Ch5 Manage Maint 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 5-1 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 5.2 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES Site management after the initial IO-year Site Monitoring and Management Period will be conducted by the City to ensure that functional benefits of the mitigation activities are not degraded. Springbrook Bank will be managed to maximize fulfillment of mitigation bank goals and objectives by ensuring the long-tem1 protection of wetland and buffer areas. Long-term management of the site will focus on maintaining native plant communities and wildlife habitat diversity. Site management activities include, but are not limited to, weed control, trash removal, vandalism repair, and structure and/or signage repair. The following guidelines are established to assist in management of the site following the initial 10-year Site Monitoring and Management Period: , Deciduous scrub-shrub and forested areas will remain dominated by native woody target species included in tbe planting plan or currently established on the site. Native woody vegetation appropriate for the site will dominate the reed canarygrass treatment areas in Units A and B, and the wetland re-establishment areas in Units C and E. , Weed control activities at the site will meet requirements of the King County Noxious Weed Control Board. , If hydrologic conditions change within the system providing hydrology to the re-establishment area in Unit C, adjustments to the controls may be made. If excess water threatens woody planting survival, then water from the grade- separation pump station may be diverted to Springbrook Creek via existing infrastructure, or if insufficient water is present, the height of the weir may be raised at the outflow of the re-establishment area to retain more water at the site. All structures and facilities within Springbrook Bank, including fences, the elevated boardwalk, pump-station diversion pipe and structure, the Tukwila stormwater facility, and the stop-log weir, shall be properly maintained in perpetuity or for as long as each is needed to accomplish the goals of Springbrook Bank and achieve the requirements of the MBI. The City will manage the site in perpetuity by fulfilling landowner obligations defined in the Conservation Easement (see Appendix C) to maintain the ecological functions on the site. Chapter 5 Site Protection and Management December 2005 Page 5-2 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek \Vetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 5.3 FORCE MAJEURE Management of Springbrook Bank includes administrative actions to be taken by the City and WSDOT to ensure protection of the site. Any mitigation bank is vulnerable to natural events such as wildfires, climatic instability, and disease that are beyond the control of the City and WSDOT. The occurrence of such an event may necessitate changes to Springbrook Bank, including revision of the MB!, to allow for activities that will offset and counteract the negative environmental impacts of that event. Depending on the circumstances, however, it may be appropriate to let nature take its course, particularly when acceptable environmental conditions will be expected to eventually re-establish. The City and WSDOT, in coordination with the BOC permitting agencies, which will coordinate with the other BOC members, shall jointly determine what changes to Springbrook Bank will be in the best interest of the bank and the aquatic environment. Any change to Springbrook Bank necessitated by natural events beyond the control of the City and WSDOT shall be specified in a revised MB! or other appropriate documents, which will require approval of the BOC permitting agencies, which will coordinate consultation with other BOC members. Chapter 5 Site Protection and Management December 2005 Page 5-3 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 6.0 GLOSSARY Adaptive management: a systematic process for continually improving management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of actions. Related to compensatory mitigation, it involves the applicant and the regulatory agencies discussing the problems occurring on a compensation site and coming to agreement on possible solutions or alternative approaches necessary to bring the site into compliance. Aerial cover: is the percent of ground surface covered by vegetation of a particular species (or suite of species) when viewed from above (Elzinga et al. 1998). Values for aerial cover are typically obtained from point-line, point-frame, or line-intercept data. Aerial cover does not include overlapping cover of separate plants, thus it does not exceed 100%. Bank Oversight Committee (BOC): A committee comprised of signatories to the Washington State Department o(Transporlalion Welland Compensation Bank Program Memorandum of Agreement (CBMOA)(WSDOT 1994) who review and comment on all phases ofWSDOT bank site development BOC members: The BOC agency members are the signatories of the Springbrook Bank MB!. For Springbrook Bank, the BOC members are comprised of representatives from the Corps, EPA, USFWS, Ecology, the City of Renton, and WSDOT. BOC permitting agencies: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington State Department of Ecology are the permitting agencies on the Springbrook Bank BOC. Class: a grouping based on shared characteristics in a classification scheme. In the Cowardin et al. (1979) classification of wetlands a class is the third level in the 'taxonomy' of wetlands whereas in the hydrogeomorphic classification (Brinson 1993b) it is the highest taxonomic unit. Compensatory mitigation: the compensation stage of the mitigation sequence where impacts to the functions and values of wetlands are replaced through creation, restoration, or enhancement of other wetlands. Because regulatory requirements and policies tend to focus on the compensation stage, the tenn "mitigation" is often used to refer to compensation, which is just one part of the overall mitigation sequence. Conservation easement: a restriction placed on a piece of property to protect the resources (natural or man-made) associated with the parcel. The easement is either voluntarily sold or donated by the landowner, and constitutes a legally binding agreement that prohibits certain types of activities from taking place on the land. Corridor: areas that contain relatively undisturbed habitat and/or vegetation that maintain connections for wildlife throughout the landscape. Corridors usually represent linear habitats with the range of environmental functions necessary to permit the movement of animals between larger and more fully functioning habitats. Corridors can include but are not limited to, annual or seasonal migration corridors that connect wintering and breeding habitat, or intrascasonal corridors that connect foraging and nesting habitat or breeding and dispersal habitat. Chapter 6 Glossary MBI CH6 Glossa 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 6-1 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Depressional wetland: a class of wetlands in the hydrogeomorphic classification. These are wetlands that occur in topographic depressions that exhibit closed contour interval(s) on three sides and elevations that are lower than the surrounding landscape. Ecological restoration: "Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed." (From the Society for Ecological Restoration website 2005 http://www.ser.org/) Emergent wetland: a wetland class under the Cowardin classification that is dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous plants. Emergent wetlands include marshes and wet meadows. Enhancement: the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a wetland site to heighten, intensi ly or improve specific function( s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for specified purposes such as water quality improvement, flood water retention or wildlife habitat. Activities typically consist of planting vegetation, controlling non-native or invasive species, modifying site elevations or the proportion of open water to influence hydroperiods, or some combination of these. Enhancement provides a change in some wetland functions and can lead to a decline in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Establishment (creation): the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics present to develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site, where a wetland did not previously exist. Activities typically involve excavation of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod, create hydric soils, and support the growth ofhydrophytic plant species. Establishment provides a gain in wetland acres. Flood storage: the volume available for flood water from a river or stream to occupy outside the channel itself. This storage can reduce peak flows in the channel and desynchronize the movement of floodwaters downstream. Functions: the physical, biological, chemical, and geologic interactions among different components of the environment. See wetlandfimctions. Habitat: the environment occupied by individuals of particular species, population or community. Habitat functions: function provided by a wetland and driven by specific site attributes related to it ability to provide habitat suitable for animals and plants in general or specific groups or species. Habitat structures: structures that increase the number and availability of habitat niches at a site, which may include snags, large woody debris, and brush piles. Hydric soils: a soil that formed umkr rnnd1tions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season tu ck\ clop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification: a system used to classify wetlands based on the position of the wetland in the landscape (geomorphic setting), the water source for the wetland, and the flow and fluctuation of the water once in the wetland. Chapter 6 Glossary MBI CH6 I 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 6-2 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Hydrogeomorphic wetland class; the highest level in the Hydrogeomorphic classification of wetlands. There arc six basic hydrogeomorphic wetland classes including depressional, tidal fringe, slope, riverine, lake fringe, and flat. See class. Hydrologic functions: functions provided by a wetland related to its ability to provide flood storage, reduce peak flows, and reduce downstream erosion. These functions are driven by specific site attributes. Hydroperiod; the pattern of water level fluctuations in a wetland. Includes the depth, frequency, duration, and timing of inundation or flooding. Patterns can be daily, monthly, seasonal, annual or longer term. Hydrophytic vegetation; a plant species that is typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Invasive species: defined by the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) as "(I) a non-native (alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and (2) a species whose introduction is likely to cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health." Jurisdictional wetland: a wetland that is regulated by the provisions of the law under the jurisdiction of one or more federal, state, or local agencies. Not all areas of the landscape that have the biological characteristics of wetlands are regulated or jurisdictional wetlands. Large woody debris (LWD): large pieces of downed wood such as logs, rootwads, and limbs that are in or near a body of water. LWD provides habitat structure for fish and other aquatic organisms. Limiting factor: an environmental factor that limits the growth or activities of an organism or that restricts the size of a population or its geographical range. Microtopography: minor variations in the elevation of the ground surface. Mitigation (or mitigation sequencing); a series of actions that requires addressing each action, or step, in a particular order. This sequence of steps is used to reduce the severity of negative impacts from activities that potentially affect wetlands. Mitigation involves the following: I) 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 affim1ative steps, Sllch as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts; 3) Rectifying ilie impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and Chapter 6 Glossary MBI CH6 Glossa 12-28-05.cioc December 2005 Page 6-3 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek \Vetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 6) Monitoring the required compensation and taking remedial action when necessary (WAC 197 .11. 768). See compensatorv mitigation. Mitigation banking: has been defined as "wetland restoration, creation, enhancement, and in exceptional circumstances, preservation undertaken expressly for the purpose of compensating for unavoidable wetland losses in advance of development actions, when such compensation cannot be achieved at the development site or would not be as environmentally beneficial." 1995 Federal Guidance on Wetland Mitigation Banking (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1995) Mitigation credit: for the purposes of this Mitigation Bank Instrument, one mitigation credit is valued as one unit of mitigation "currency" required to compensate for one acre of Category II wetland as defined by the Washington State Department of Ecology Rating System (Hruby 2004 ). Monitoring: a systematic evaluation of the site by qualified personnel to determine the degree to which the site meets its performance standards, and to determine modifications in management and maintenance of the site needed to achieve performance standards. Formal: quantitative sampling techniques will be used to assess if the site is achieving specific perfonnance standards, which may be tied to the release of mitigation credits. Informal: qualitative visual inspection of the site to identify any issues and necessary adaptive management actions. Performance standards: quantifiable standards capable of measuring the degree of success of a site compared to established goals and objectives. Planting hummock: a raised area to provide topographic variation and facilitate tree establishment in existing wetlands. Protection Setback (Buffer): vegetated areas adjacent to wetlands, or other aquatic resources, that can reduce impacts from adjacent land uses through various physical, chemical, and/or biological processes. Reach: a segment of river or stream and associated riparian area defined by geomorphic features with similar environment and aquatic habitat. Re-establishment: the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former wetland. Activities could include removing fill material, plugging ditches or breaking drain tiles. Re-establishment provides a gain in wetland acres and functions. Compare to rehabilitation. See also restoration. Rehabilitation: the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal ofrepairing natural or historic functions and processes of a degraded wetland. Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain, restoring tidal influence to a wetland, or breaking drain tiles and plugging drainage ditches. Rehabilitation provides a gain in wetland function but does not provide a gain in wetland acres. Compare to establishment (creation), re-establishment and enhancement. See also restoration. Chapter 6 Glossary MBI CH6 Glo 12"28-05.doc December 2005 Page 6-4 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Restoration: the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former or degraded wetland. For the purpose of tracking net gains in wetland acres, restoration is divided into re-establishment and rehabilitation. Riparian: the strip ofland adjacent to a body of water that is transitional between the aquatic system and the upland. Some riparian areas contain wetlands. Riverine wetland: a class of wetlands in the hydrogeomorphic classification. Wetlands that occur in floodplains and riparian corridors in association with stream or river channels where there is frequent overbank flooding. Service area: the geographic area in which the mitigation credits generated at a mitigation bank site may be used to compensate for unavoidable wetland impacts. Site management: activities undertaken at the site to address management needs, may include: vandalism, weed control, replanting, maintaining structures, etc ... Short-term site management: period begins at acceptance of planting and extends for the first 10 years. Long-term site management period: begins at the end of formal monitoring. Stormwater: the water coming from rain or snow that runs off surfaces such as rooftops, paved streets, highways, and parking lots. It can also come from hard grassy surfaces like lawns, play fields, and from graveled roads and parking lots. Sub-basin: a smaller drainage basin that is part of a larger drainage basin or watershed. For example, the watershed of a large river may be composed of several sub-basins, one for each of the river's tributaries. Surface water: water present above the substrate or soil surface. Unavoidable impact: impacts to wetlands or other aquatic resources that have gone through the appropriate steps in the mitigation sequencing process. See mitigation. Upland: any area that does not qualify as wetland because the associated hydrologic regime in not sufficiently wet to elicit development of vegetation, soils, and/or hydro logic characteristics associated with wetlands. Water quality functions: functions provided by a wetland and driven by specific site attributes related to its ability to improve water quality including: removing sediment, nutrients, and heavy metals and toxic organic compounds. Water Resource Inventory Area (\VRIA): geographic area usually corresponding to major watersheds. Washington State is divided into 62 WRIAs for water management purposes. Watershed: a geographic area of land bounded by topographic high points in which water drains to a common destination. Wetland: definition taken from the Vr'ashington State Wetlands Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997). "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do Chapter 6 Glossary MBI CH6 Glossa 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 6-5 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." Wetland functions: the physical, biological, chemical, and geologic interactions among different components of the environment that occur within a wetland. Wetlands perform many valuable functions and these can be grouped into three categories (I) functions that improve water quality, (2) functions that change the water regime in a watershed such as flood storage, and (3) functions that provide habitat for plants and animals. Wetland hydrology: the sum total of wetness characteristics in areas that are inundated or have saturated soils for a sufficient duration to support hydrophytic vegetation. Chapter 6 Glossary MBI H6 Iossa 12·28-05 December 2005 Page 6-6 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 7.0 REFERENCES Antieau, Clayton J. 1998. Biology and Management of Reed Canarygrass, and Jmplicationsfbr Ecological Restoration. Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA. http://www.semw.org/docs/RCG.rtf Antieau, Clayton J. 2005. Personal Communication. Seattle Public Utilities. October 6, 2005 R.W. Beck, 1996. East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for the City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works. Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Tehnical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS Buis, Susan. 2005. Personal Communication. Washington State Department of Transportation. September 29, 2005. Celedonia, M. 2002. BenchmarksfiJ1' Stand Development of Forested and Scrub-shrub Plant Communities at Wetland Mitigation Sites in the Lowlands of Western Washington. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA. http://www. wsdot. wa. gov/ eesc/ des i gn/roadsi de/pdf/mi ti gationbenchmark. pdf Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington D.C. Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations. Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1730-1, BLM/RS/ST-98/005+ 1730. National Business Center, Denver, CO. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps o/Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Draft: Level III and IV Ecoregions of the Northwestern United States. fui_:l/fm.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/or wa id/pnw map.pdf Hart Crowser. 2005a. Geotechnical Baseline Report 1-405 Springbrook Creek Wetlands and Habitat Mitigation Projec/. Seattle, WA. Dated October 4, 2005. Hart Crowser. 2005b. Geotechnical Baseline Recommendations 1-405 Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Project Trail Renton, WA. Seattle, WA. Dated October 26, 2005. Harza. 1995. Final Report-Comprehensive Fisheries Assessment of the Mill Creek, Garrison Creek and Springbrook Creek System. Prepared for the City of Kent, Washington. Chapter 6 References MBI CH? References 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 7-1 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek \Vctland and Habitat Mitigation Bank lnstrnment Hoover, Monica. 2005. Personal Communication. Natural Resources Conservation Service. September 29, 2005. HRA Cultural Resources. 2005. 1-405, Springbrook Creek Habitat and Wetland Mitigation Bank Project, Cultural Resources Discipline Report. Seattle, WA. November 2005. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System.for Western Washington - Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication# 04-06-025. Hruby, T., T. Granger, K. Brunner, S. Cooke, K. Dublancia, R. Gersib, L. Reinelt, K. Richter, D. Sheldon, E. Teachout. A. Wald, and F. Weinmann. 1999. Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions Volume I: Riverine and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington, Pm'/ !: Assessment Methods. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #99-115. Olympia, WA. Hruby, T., T. Granger, and E. Teachout. l 999. Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions. Volume I: Riverine and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington. Pert 2.· Proceduresji)I· Collecting Data. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #99-116. Olympia, WA. Kercher, Suzanne M., Quentin J. Carpenter, and Joy B. Zedler. 2004. Interrelationships ofHydrologic Disturbance, Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), and Native Plants in Wisconsin Wei Meadows. Natural Areas Journal 24(4): 316-325. http://www. botany. wisc.ed u/zedl er/ ima gcs/KercherN AJ. pdf Kerwin, John and Nelson, Tom S. (Eds.). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Repor/, Green!Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and King County Department of Natural Resources. http://salmon.scc.wa.gov King County. 2005. Noxious weed list. www.dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/lands/weeds/laws.htm King County. 1998. King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual. King County Department ofNatural Resources, Seattle, WA Puget Sound River History Project. 2005. http://riverhistory.ess.washington.edu/ Malcom, Roderick W.R. 1998. The Conlrihution of Reed-Canary Grass Dominated Low Gradient Streams to Juvenile Salmon Overwintering Habitat. Muckleshoof Indian Tribe Fisheries Department. Presented at Puget Sound Research Conference, March 1998, Seattle, WA. http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/<)8 proceedings/pdfs/la abstracts.pdf Maurer, Debbie A., Roberto Lindig-Cisneros, Katherine J. Werner, Suzanne Kercher, Rebecca Miller, and Joy B. Zedler. 2003. The Replacement of Wetland Vegetation by Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arnndinaeea). Ecological Restoration, 21 (2): 116-119. http://ipaw.org/symposium/Maurer et al.pdf Chapter 6 References MBI CH7 References 12·28-05.doc December 2005 Page 7-2 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Miller, Rebecca C. and Joy B. Zeldcr. 2002. Responses of Native and Invasive Wetland Plants to Hydroperiod and Water Level Depth. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. http://www.botany.wisc.edu/zed ler/ images/MillerPI.Ecol.pdf Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2001. Hydric soils list, King County Area, Washington. U.S. Department of Ag1iculture [10/30/2001] http://www.wa.nrcs.usda.gov/technjcal/soils/county hydric lists.html Reinhardt, Carrie and Susan M. Galatowitsch. 2004. Best Management Practices/or the Invasive Phalaris arundinacea L. (reed canary grass) in Wetland Restorations. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN. [Final Report, May 2004]. http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/USShorebird/downloads/ReedCanaryGrassReport 2004.pdf Renton, City of. 2004. Comprehensive Plan. Renton, WA. http://www.ci.renton. wa. us/ednspi com pp Ian. htm Renton, City of. 2005. Critical Areas Ordinance. Ordinance number 5137. Renton, WA http://rentonnet.org/internetapps/fi lcsi cdnsp/ 11 77 .pdf Renton, City of. June 1992. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Renton, WA. Renton, City of. June 1992. Trails Master Plan. Renton, WA. Seattle Audubon. 2005. Places to see Great Blue Herons in the Puget Sound Region. http://www.seattleaudubon.org/birding.cfm?id=498 Smith, D.R., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An Approach/or Assessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices. Technical Report WRP-DE-9. US Army Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/pdfs/wrpde9.pdf Soll, Jonathan. Controlling Himalayan Blackberry in the Pacific Northwest. The Nature Conservancy. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/moredocs/rubarmO l .pdf Stehman, Stephen V and Daniel W. Salzer. 2000. Estimating Density from Surveys Employing Unequal-Area Belr Transects. WETLANDS. Vol. 20. No. 3. pp. 512-519. The Society of W ctland Scientists. Ann Arbor, MI. Snyder, Dale E., Phillip S. Gale, Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of the King County Area, Washington. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Tu, Mandy. 2004. Reed Canarygrass: Control and Management in the Pacific Northwest. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/moredocs/phaaruO 1.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al. 1995. Federal Guidance/or the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Mitigation Banks. Federal Register Vol. 60, No.228, p. 58605- 58614. [November 28, 1995] Chapter 6 References MBI CH7 References 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 7-3 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Washington, State of. 2001. Washing/on Slale Draft Rule on Mitigation Banking. WAC 173-700. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/wacl 73700/draftruleeasyread.pdf Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetland~ identification and Delineation Afanua/. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. http://www.ccy.wa.gov/biblio/9694.html Washington State Department of Ecology. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State -Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and lvfanaging Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, WA. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/bas wctlands/volume2final.html Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 1994. Washington State Department of Transportation Vr'etlanJ Compensation Bank Program Memorandum of Agreement. Signatories include U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Federal Highway Administration, Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Depai1ment of Fish and Wildlife, and Washington State Department of Transportation. http://www. wsdot. wa. gov/envi ronment/biology/docs/W etlandMOAFinal 1994.pdf Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2005a. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Site Wetland Delinealion Report. Washington State Department of Transportation, I-405 Office, Bellevue, WA. [May 2005] Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2005b. Springbrook Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank: Springbrook Creek Hydrological Analysis. Washington State Department of Transportation, 1-405 Office, Bellevue, WA. [August 2005] Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2005c. Springbrook Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank: Unit C Water Balance Memorandum. Washington State Department of Transportation, 1-405 Office, Bellevue, WA. [August 2005] Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2005d. Black River Pump Station Fish Passage Biological Feasibility. Washington State Department of Transportation, 1-405 Office, Bellevue, WA. [October 2005] Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2006. Springbrook Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank: Biological Assessment. Washington State Department of Transportation, I-405 Office, Bellevue, WA. [January 2006] Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 2005. Noxious Weed List. www.nwcb.wa.gov/INDEX.htm Watershed Water Resource Inventory Arca 9 (WRIA 9) Steering Committee. 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan -Making Our Watershed Fit fi,r a King. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Forum. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/HabitatPlan.htm Chapter 6 References MBI CH7 References 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page 7-4 Appendix A Monitoring Plan- Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 1.0 INTRODUCTION This monitoring plan describes the framework and methods that Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the City of Renton (City) will use to monitor the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (Springbrook Bank). Monitoring results will be used to document how Springbrook Bank is performing in relation to the project objectives and performance standards documented in the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument (MB!). Documented monitoring results will be used to establish when mitigation credits from Springbrook Bank are eligible for release. 2.0 WSDOT WETLAND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM WSDOT's Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Program (Monitoring Program) staff will conduct the site monitoring at the Springbrook Bank during the initial ten-year Short-Term Monitoring and Management Period (Y car O to Y car I 0). The Monitoring Program conducts compliance monitoring for the majority of WSDOT's compensatory wetland mitigation projects statewide. Compliance monitoring provides a means for tracking the development of WSDOT mitigation projects over time, and for determining comp I iance with permits issued by federal, state, local, or tribal jurisdictions and the MB!. The monitoring data also provide an important internal feedback role in mitigation site management and maintenance serving as an essential link in the internal adaptive management process, which increases the overall success of the mitigation sites. The City will conduct periodic site visits at the Springbrook Bank during the Long-Tenn Site Management Period beginning after Year I 0. or when all credits have been released, to assess the need and scope of any additional site management activities in consultation with WSDOT. 2.1 Monitoring Protocols The WSDOT Monitoring Program uses both formal and informai[HPEIJ monitoring methods. Formal monitoring may include qualitative monitoring and/or quantitative monitoring addressing the performance standards in a given year. A report, which documents whether the monitoring results comply with performance standards, is prepared and submitted to BOC members. Informal monitoring will usually be conducted during years for which there are no performance standards, intending to provide a general idea of how the site is performing, and may only include qualitative monitoring. Informal monitoring may quantitatively address some performance standards, but may be less statistically rigorous than formal monitoring. Results of both formal and informal monitoring will be summarized in Monitoring Reports and submitted to BOC members. During some interim years that neither formal nor informal monitoring is scheduled, internal site inspections will take place with no external reporting. The results of internal site inspections will be used to guide site management activities at Springbrook Bank. The Monitoring Program uses quantitative data collection techniques based on standard ecological and biostatistical methods. The configuration, placement, and number of sample units (e.g., belt transects, plots, lines, point-lines. point frames) required to address site-specific performance objectives will be based on characteristics observed in the vegetative community and patterns of plant distribution. Sample size analysis will be used to ensure data from an adequate number of sample units has been obtained to meet the sampling objectives. Monitoring reports will include a description of the methods and sampling designs used to monitor Springbrook Bank. Appendix A Monitoring Plan Springbrook Monitoring Plan 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page A-l DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrnment Further information on WSDOT monitoring methods is available at: http://www. wsdot. wa. gov/ environmcn t/bi o 1 ogy /docs/Methods WhitePaperO 5 2 004. pdf 2.2 Submission of Annual Reports WSDOT will prepare and submit annual monitoring reports to BOC members, on behalf of WSDOT and the City, during a 10-year period or until all performance standards have been met. The reports will be submitted by March 3 I afier each monitoring year for which a report is required. These reports will document the progress that has been made towards achieving the performance standards specified in the MB!. Reports will also include descriptions of adaptive management actions that have been taken to facilitate achievement of performance standards that are not being met. 3.0 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 3.1 Goal Springbrook Bank will increase wetland area, improve hydrologic functions, water quality functions, habitat functions, fish refuge/rearing habitat, and promote environmental education 3.2 Objectives Springbrook Bank will re-establish 17.81 acres of wetland; rehabilitate 52.92 acres of wetland, enhance 33.61 acres of wetland, enhance 6.88 acres of riparian area, and 7.80 acres of uplands; and result in significant improvements for fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, and other stream and wetland functions in the Black River Basin. The mitigation design includes removal of fill from areas of historic wetlands, re-connecting Springbrook Creek to its floodplain, and improving functions in existing wetlands. 3.3. Performance Standards Performance standards outlined in the MB! (Section 3 .3) are intended to measure the success of Springbrook Bank in meeting the overal I project goals and objectives. Performance standards establish specific parameters that the site must meet in order to detem1ine that the goals and objectives have been met. 4.0 MONITORING SCHEDULE A combination of formal and infom1al monitoring of Springbrook Bank will occur during the initial IO-year Short-Term Monitoring and Management Period following site construction (Tables A-1 and A-2). Site visits will occur periodically after the initial IO years to document changes in the site over time and to provide infonnation to WSDOT and the City (who is the lead entity for long-term site management). Formal monitoring will occur once per specified year between June and September, while informal monitoring may occur periodically throughout the year. Informal monitoring will occur in addition to fom1al monitoring in some years. More frequent monitoring may be warranted because of specific site conditions or site-specific goals. For example, more frequent monitoring may be necessary to track the cover of invasive weeds or report results from management treatments that are needed. The Springbrook Bank will be monitored according to the schedules listed below. Appendix A Monitoring Plan Springbrook Monitoring Plan_ 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page A-2 Table A-1 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Table A-2 Formal Monitoring Schedule Informal Monitoring Schedule --. 1 ·- Monltorlna Year Freauen"" -ri ---, ~--; .~,---Monito na Year J1 •r'Anuenr.v, - Year1 Annual Site Visit Year1 Quarterlv Site Visits Year3 Annual Site Visit Year2 Quarterly Site Visits Year 5 Annual Site Visit Year3 Quarterlv Site Visits Year 7 Annual Site Visit Year4 Quarterly Site Visits Year 10 Annual Site Visit Year5 Quarterly Site Visits Add1t1onal formal monitorrng may be needed to measure site attributes identified in performance standards (see MBI Section 3.3). Year 6 Year? Annual Site Visit Annual Site Visit Years Annual Site Visit Year9 Annual Site Visit Year10 Annual Site Visit 5.0 MONITORING TASKS AND METHODS The monitoring tasks are summarized in Table A-3. The specific methods to be used are discussed in more detail in the text that follows. Table A-3 M T kb Y omtorm• as s IV ear Monitoring Year YearO . . Year1 . . . . . Year2 . . Appendix A Monitoring Plan Monitoring Tasks Expected Site Visits (with Corresponding Performance Standard) Submittal of As-Built drawings depicting the grading, planting, habitat structure Several times during placement, and water routing structures will be submitted to BOC signatories at site construction. the completion of construction/planting (A/B-1, C-1, D-1, and E-1 ). Once upon completion Establish conservation easement and submit (may occur before Year 0) . of site construction/plant installation. Estimate density of living native woody stems in wetland planting areas (A/B-3A, Quarterly informal site C-3A, D-2A, and E3-A). visits. Monitoring Estimate density of living native woody stems in upland and riparian upland activities will occur in planting areas (A/B-3B, C-3B and E-3B). appropriate seasons Estimate density of conifers in under-planted Forest Wetland Enhancement during quarterly site Areas (C-3C, D-2B, and E-3C). visits. Identify any populations of Japanese knotweed, purple loosestrife, English ivy, and other Class A and B noxious weed and remove (A/B-10, C-9, D-4, and E-9). Identify and count habitat structures in all units to confinm installed per as-built drawings (A/B-11, C-10, D-5, and E-10). Conduct informal monitoring visits in quarters other than that of formal monitoring to assess site conditions and identify any issues or problems. Submit formal monitorina reoort and credit ledaer . Identify any populations of Japanese knotweed, purple loosestrife, English ivy, Quarterly site visits and other Class A and B noxious weed and remove (A/B-10, C-9, D-4, and E-9). Monitor for any standards not achieved in Year 1 to assess for credit release . Conduct quarterly informal site visits to assess site conditions and identify any issues or problems. Submit monitorina reoort and credit ledaer. Springbrook_Monitoring Plan_ 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page A-3 Monitoring Year Year3 Year4 Year5 Year 6 Year? DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek \Vetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Monitoring Tasks Expected Site Visits (with Corresponding Performance Standard) , Conduct multiple early growing season monitoring visits to assess if wetland Quarterly site visits. hydrology is present in the wetland re-establishment areas for at least 7% of the Monitoring activities growing season in Units A, B, C, and E. (A/B-2A, C-2A, and E-2A). will occur in , Document the extent of over-bank fiooding from Springbrook Creek during late appropriate seasons winter and/or early spring storm-events in Units A and B (A/B-2B). during quarterly site • Estimate density of living native woody stems in wetland planting areas (A/B-4, visits . C-4A, and E-4) . • Estimate the density of living conifers per acre in the Wetland Enhancement Type I areas in Unit C (C-4B). . Identify any populations of Japanese knotweed, purple loosestrife, English ivy, and other Class A and B noxious weed and remove (A/B-10, C-9, D-4, and E-9). . Conduct informal monitoring visits in quarters other than that of fonmal monitoring to assess site conditions and identify any issues or problems. Submit formal monitorino reoort and credit ledoer. Identify any populations of Japanese knotweed, purple loosestrife, English ivy, Quarterly site visits and other Class A and B noxious weed and remove (A/B-10, C-9, D-4, and E-9). Monitor for any standards not achieved in prior years to assess for credit release. Conduct quarterly informal site visits to assess site conditions and identify any issues or problems. . Submit monitorino reoort and credit ledaer. . Conduct wetland delineations in Wetland Re-Establishment areas in Units A, B, Quarterly site visits. C, and E (A/B-2C, C-2B, and E-2B). Monitoring activities . Conduct wetland delineation of existing wetlands in Units A and B to document will occur in that berm breaches have not adversely affected wetland sin these units. (A/B-2C) appropriate seasons Estimate aerial cover of native woody vegetation in Wetland Tree/Shrub planting during quarterly site areas in Units A, B, C, and E (A/B-5A, C-5A. and E-5A). visits. Determine if three native woody species are each providing a minimum of 5% aerial cover in the wetland planting areas in Units A, B, C, and E (A/B-5B, C-5B, and E-5B). . Detenmine if planting hummocks have a minimum of 1 living tree per hummock in Units A and B (A/B-8). . Estimate aerial cover of native woody vegetation in the Upland and Riparian Upland Planting ar.eas in Units A, B, C and E (A/B-5C, C-5C, and E-5C). Detenmine if three native woody species are providing at least 3% cover each in the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas in Units A, B, C, and E (A/B-5D, C-5D, and E-5D). Estimate density of conifers in under-planted Forest Wetland Enhancement Areas (C-3C, D-2B, and E-3C). . Estimate aerial cover of Himalayan blackberry at Units A, B, C, D, and E, and verify that Himalayan blackberry does not cover more than 20% of the site (A/B-9, C-9, D-3, and E-8). . Identify any populations of Japanese knotweed, purple loosestrife, English ivy, and other Class A and B noxious weed and remove (A/B-10, C-9, D-4, and E-9). . Submit formal monitorino reoort and credit ledaer. Identify any populations af Japanese knotweed, purple loosestrife, English ivy, Annual site visit and other Class A and B noxious weed and remove (A/B-9, C-9, D-3, and E-8). . Monitor for any standards not achieved in prior years to assess for credit release . . Submit report (if prior year standards monitored for credit release) and credit ledoer. . Estimate aerial cover of native woody vegetation in Wetland Tree/Shrub planting Annual site visit areas in Units A, B, C, and E (A/B-6, C-6A. and E-6). Springbrook Monitoring Plan 12-28-05.doc Appendix A Monitoring Plan December 2005 Page A-4 Monitoring Year . . . Year8 . . . Year9 . . Year 10 . . . . . . After Year 10 . Appendix A Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Monitoring Tasks Expected Site Visits {with Corresponding Performance Standard) Estimate density of living native conifers in Wetland Enhancement Type I areas in Unit C (C-6B). Identify any populations of Japanese knotweed, purple loosestrife, English ivy, and other Class A and B noxious weed and remove (A/B-9, C-9, 0-3, and E-8). Monitor for any standards not achieved in prior years to assess for credit release. Submit formal monitorina reoort and credit ledoer. Identify any populations of Japanese knotweed, purple loosestrife, English ivy, Annual site visit and other Class A and B noxious weed and remove (A/B-9, C-9, D-3, and E-8). Monitor for any standards not achieved in prior years to assess for credit release . Submit report (if prior year standards monitored for credit release) and credit ledaer. Identify any populations of Japanese knotweed, purple loosestrife, English ivy, Annual site visit and other Class A and B noxious weed and remove (A/B-9, C-9, D-3, and E-8). Monitor for any standards not achieved in prior years to assess for credit release . Submit report (if prior year standards monitored for credit release) and credit ledaer. Estimate the aerial cover of native woody vegetation in Wetland Tree/Shnub Annual site visit planting areas in Units A, B, C, and E (A/B-7A, C-7A, and E-7A). Determine if two native woody species are each providing a minimum of 10% aerial cover in the Wetland Tree/Shnub planting areas in Units A, B, C, and E (A/B-7B, C-7B, and E-7B). Estimate the aerial cover of native woody vegetation in the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas in Units A. B. C, and E (A/B-7C, C-7C, and E-7C). Detenmine if two native woody species are each providing a minimum of 7% in the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas in Units A, B, C, and E. (A/B-7D, C-7D, and E-7D). Identify any populations of Japanese knotweed, purple loosestrife, English ivy, and other Class A and B noxious weed and remove (A/B-9, C-9, D-3, and E-8). Detenmine if planting hummocks have a minimum of 1 living tree per hummock in Units A and B (A/B-8). Estimate aerial cover of Himalayan blackberry at Units A, B, C, D, and E, and verify that Himalayan blackberry does not cover more than 20% of the site (A/B-9, C-8, D-3, and E-8). Submit formal monitorina reoort and credit ledner . Monitor for any standards not achieved in prior years to assess for credit release. Periodic site visits Submit report (if prior year standards monitored for credit release) and credit ledaer. Springbrook Monitoring Plan 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page A-5 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek VVetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 5.1 Conduct formal monitoring (Years I, 3, 5, 7, and 10). Formal monitoring addresses the site's fulfillment of project goals, objectives, and performance standards. It may include qualitative and/or quantitative monitoring that is summarized in a monitoring report and submitted to M131 signatories. Quantitative formal monitoring will attempt to provide an estimate with a confidence level of 80 percent and confidence interval of 20 percent to address standards requiring biostatistical sampling methods to address. Formal monitoring will be conducted during Years I, 3, 5, 7, and 10, which have performance standards to address. Formal monitoring may also be conducted in additional years not listed to assess performance standards not met in designated years. 5.2 Conduct informal monitoring (Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10). In contrast to formal monitoring, infomial monitoring is intended to provide a general overview of site progress versus a direct assessment of performance standards. A qualitative visual inspection of the mitigation area will be conducted to identify concerns associated with meeting project goals and objectives. Informal monitoring may also quantitatively addresses some performance standards of coming years to assess progress toward meeting future goals, but may be less statistically rigorous than fom1al monitoring. Informal monitoring will be the only monitoring method during years 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 for which there are no performance standards, although qualitative methods will also be employed during some informal site visits in years of formal monitoring. Informal monitoring will also identify any noxious weed of other invasive species issues that need to be addressed at the site. 5.3 Complete monitoring report and submit to signatories (Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10). Monitoring reports will provide a description of site conditions observed during the past year. Reports will include results from formal and/or informal monitoring visits, along with an assessment of site conditions as they relate to the performance standards outlined in the MB!. Results of monitoring will lead to recommendations for any management and/or contingency actions that may be necessary to ensure that the objectives and goals of the Springbrook Bank arc met. The monitoring report will also describe adaptive management activities that may be necessary or have been implemented to meet current and future performance standards. Monitoring reports will be submitted to signatories in Years I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10, additional reports may be submitted in years not specified if unmet performance standards from prior years have been monitored. 5.4 Verify habitat structures still exist per as-built drawings (Year 1) (Performance Standards A/B-1 I, C-10, D-5, and E-10) Locate all habitat structures shown in as-built drawings in Units A, B, C, D, and E in Year 1 to verify they were installed per plan and remain on-site. 5.5 Determine density of native woody stems within Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas in Units A, B, C, D, and E (Years I and 3) (Performance Standards A/B-3A, A/B-4, C-3A, C-4A, D-2A, E-3A, and E-4). The density of living native woody stems per acre in the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas will be determined in Years I and 3 using randomly placed un-equal area belt transects as described by Stehman and Salzer (2000) or other methods determined appropriate for the site. This estimate will include any natural recruitment of native species in addition to planted materials. Appendix A Monitoring Plan Springbrook_Monitoring Plan_ 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page A-6 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek \Vetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Transects will be randomly placed along a perpendicular baseline, with the long axis of each transect running parallel to the strongest environmental gradient. Sampling objectives for this type of monitoring include two components related to the precision of the estimate: • The confidence level. How confident are you that your confidence interval will include the true value? • The confidence interval width. How wide is the range you are willing to accept around your estimated value? The sampling objective is to be 80 percent confident that the true number of woody stems per acre in wetland planting areas at Springbrook Bank is within 20 percent of the estimated density. The estimate generated via sampling will be compared to the relevant performance standards to determine if the standards have been met and if the associated credits are eligible for release. 5.6 Estimate density of native woody stems within the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas in Unit A, B, C, and E (Year 1) (Performance Standards A/B-3B, C-3B, and E-3B). The density of living native woody stems per acre in the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas will be determined in Year l using randomly placed un-equal area belt transects as described by Stehman and Salzer (2000) or other methods determined appropriate for the site. This estimate will include any natural recruitment of native species in addition to planted vegetation. Transects will be randomly placed along a perpendicular baseline, with the long axis of each transect running parallel to the strongest environmental gradient. Results will be compared to the relevant performance standards to assess if the standards are being met and if the associated credits are eligible for release. 5.7 Determine if soils in Wetland Re-Establishment areas in Unit A, B, C and E are inundated or saturated within 12 inches of the surface for a minimum of 7% of the growing season (Year 3) (Performance Standards A/B-2A, C-2A, and E-2A). The wetland re-establishment areas in Units A/B (in berm breaches), C, and E will be visited in the early growing season (beginning the first of March) of Years 0-3 to determine if wetland hydrology exists in these areas. Multiple hand-dug holes will be dug along the edges of these areas looking for saturation within 12 inches of the surface and observations documented. These visits will be repeated in subsequent weeks documenting the duration of wetland hydrology in the early growing season. Wetland hydrology must be documented for at least 18 days in the growing season to meet the seven percent criterion stated in the performance standards. The growing season is assumed to be March 1 through October 31 (245 days). 5.8 Monitor the extent of over bank flooding in Units A and B during or after late- winter/early-spring storm events (Year 3) (Performance Standard A/B-2B). Site visits during the late winter/early spring (January through March) will correlate crest gages with the upstream USGS gage station (USGS 12113346 SPRING BROOK CREEK AT ORILLIA, WA [http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/uv?l2 l l3346]). Looking at the on-line USGS gage data and comparing the peak stage at the USGS gage to the data from on-site crest Appendix A Moniloring Plan Springbrook_Monitoring Plan_ 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page A-7 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument gauges may accomplish this task. By comparing the crest gage water surface elevations with site topography the extent of flooding generated by a specific peak water surface elevation can be estimated. If this method does not prove practical, on-site observations and photos of inundation (such as high water marks, drift lines, and other indicators of hydrology) can be used to indicate the extent of over-bank flooding and meet the intent of this standard. 5.9 Estimate the density of living conifers per acre in the Wetland Enhancement Type I areas in Unit C (Years 3 and 7) (Performance Standards C-48 and C-68). The density of living native conifers per acre in the Wetland Enhancement Type I areas will be determined in Years 3 and 7 using randomly placed un-equal area belt transects as described by Stehman and Salzer (2000) or other methods determined appropriate for the site. This estimate will include any natural recruitment of native conifer species in addition to planted materials. Transects will be randomly placed along a perpendicular baseline, with the long axis of each transect running parallel to the strongest environmental gradient. Results will be compared to the relevant performance standards to assess if the standards are being met and if the associated credits are eligible for release. 5.10 Estimate aerial cover of woody vegetation in Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas in Units A, B, C, and E (Years 5, 7, and 10) (Performance Standards A/B-5A, A/B-6, A/B-7 A, C-5A, C-6, C-7 A, E-5A, E-6, and E-7A) The aerial cover of native woody vegetation in Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas in each unit will be determined in Years 5, 7, and 10 using randomly placed sample units and line-intercept method as described in Elzinga et al. ( 1998) or other statistically appropriate method. Data will be collected by species. Transects wi II be placed perpendicular to the strongest environmental gradient. Sampling objectives will be to be 80 percent confident that the estimate is within 20 percent of the true value. Estimates derived from sampling will be compared to the relevant performance standard to assess if the standards are being met and if the associated credits are eligible for release. 5.11 Determine if three native woody species have 5% or greater cover in the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas in Units A, B, C, and E (Year 5) (Performance Standards A/B-58, C-58, C-78, and E-58) Using the aerial cover by species data collected in Year 5 for the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas in Units A, B, C, and E, determine if three native woody species each provide five percent cover in each unit listed. Results will be compared to the relevant performance standards to assess if the standards are being met and if the associated credits are eligible for release. 5.12 Determine if 2 native woody species have IO% or greater cover in the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas in Cnits A, B, C, and E (Year 10) (Performance Standards A/B-7C, C-78, and E-78) Using the aerial cover by species data collected in Year IO for the Wetland Tree/Shrub planting areas in Units A, B, C, and E determine if 2 native woody species each provide 10% cover in each unit listed. Results will be compared to the relevant performance standards to assess if the standards are being met and if the associated credits are eligible for release. Appendix A Monitoring Plan Spnngbrook_Mon1toring Plan_ 12,28-05.doc December 2005 Page A-8 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 5.13 Estimate aerial cover of native woody vegetation in the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas in Units A, B, C and E (Years 5 and 10) (Performance Standards A/B-SC, C-SC, and E-SC). The aerial cover of native woody vegetation in the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas in Units A, B, C, and E will be determined in Years 5 and 10 using randomly placed sample units and line-intercept method as described in Elzinga et al. (1998) or other statistically appropriate method. Data will be collected by species. Transects will be placed perpendicular to the strongest environmental gradient. Sampling objectives will be to be 80 percent confident that the estimate is within 20 percent of the true value. Estimates derived from sampling will be compared to the relevant performance standard to assess if the standards are being met and if the associated credits are eligible for release. 5.14 Determine if 3 native woody species have 3% or greater aerial cover in the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas in Units A, B, C, and E (Year 5) (Performance Standards A/B-SD, C-5D, and E-SD). Using the aerial cover by species data collected in Year 5 for the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas in Units A, B, C, and E detem1ine if three native woody species each provide three percent cover in each unit listed. Results will be compared to the relevant performance standards to assess if the standards are being met and if the associated credits are eligible for release. 5.15 Determine in 2 native woody species have 7% or greater aerial cover in the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas in Units A, B, C, and E (Year 10) (Performance Standards A/B-7D, C-7D, and E-7D). Using the aerial cover by species data collected in Year 10 for the Upland and Riparian Upland planting areas in Units A, B, C, and E detennine if two native woody species each provide seven percent cover in each unit listed. Results will be compared to the relevant performance standards to assess if the standards are being met and if the associated credits are eligible for release. 5.16 Determine density of living native conifer plantings in the Forested Wetland Enhancement areas in Units C, D, and E (Years 1, 5 and 10) (Performance Standards C-3B, D-2B, and E-3C) In Years I, 5, and 10, the density of living native conifers in the Forested Wetland Enhancement Areas shown on the treatment maps (Figures 2-1 throngh 2-5) will be determined using randomly placed un-equal area belt transects as described by Stehman and Salzer (2000) or other methods determined appropriate for the site. This estimate will include any natural recruitment of native conifer species in addition to planted materials. Transects will be randomly placed along a perpendicular baseline, with the long axis of each transect running parallel to the strongest environmental gradient. Results will be compared to the relevant performance standards to assess if the standards are being met and if the associated credits are eligible for release. 5.17 Determine if at least one living native trees is present per planting hummock in Units A and B (Years 5 and 10) (Performance Standard A/B-8) Locate planting hummocks in Units A and B in Years 5 and 10. Count the number of living native trees per hummock and determine if each hnmmock has at least one living native tree present. Results will be compared to the relevant performance standards to assess if the standards are being met and if the associated credits are eligible for release. Appendix A Monitoring Plan Springbrook Monitoring Plan 12-28-05.doc December 2005 Page A-9 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 5.18 Identify any purple loosestrife, English ivy, and/or Japanese knotwecd and remove (Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) (Performance Standards A/B-9, C-9, D-3, and E-8) Walk through all units to identify existing populations of purple loosestrife, English ivy, Japanese knotweed, and/or any other noxious weeds listed for control by the King County Noxious Weed Board (http://dm.metrokc.gov/w1r/lands/weeds/laws.htm). Mark all invasive species populations needing control with flagging and/or GPS data and notify appropriate WSDOT staff to schedule removal of the target species. Appendix A Monitoring Plan Springbrook Monitoring Plan 12-28-05.dm; December 2005 Page A-I 0 DRAFT FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 6.0 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., and V. Cargter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS 79/31. Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations. Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1730-1, BLM/RS/ST- 98/005+ 1730. National Business Center, Denver, CO. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps ol Engineers Wetland~ Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Stehman, Stephen V. and Daniel W. Salzer. 2000. Estimating Density From Surveys Employing Unequal-Area Belt Transects. WETLANDS. Vol. 20. No. 3. pp. 512-519. The Society of Wetland Scientists. Ann Arbor, Ml. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/9694.pdf Appendix A Monitoring Plan Springbrook __ Monitoring Plan_ 12-28-05.doc December 2005 PageA-11 Appendix B Memorandum of Agreement Appendix C Conservation Easement Appendix D Agreement between City of Renton and WSDOT US Army Corps of Engineers BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR ··• • " 1 200s RE:CtJVEo SPRINGBROOK CREEK WETLAND AND HABITAT MITIGATION BANK January 2006 Urban Corridors 401 2nd A venue South, Suite 560 Seattle, WA 98104-3850 Prepared by: Washington Stale Department of Transportation 1-405 Project Team Fx1xutiv1::' Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habit.it IVlitigation Bank (Springbrook Bank) is a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and City of Renton partnership project that will re-establish, rehabilitate, enhance, and preserve approximately 131.5 acres of wetland, wetland buffer, and riparian a11d upland habitat areas on five parcels of land (Units A, B, C, D, and E) located in Renton, Washington. The Springbrook Bank will provide compensation for unavoidable impacts lo wetlands and other aquatic resources resulting from future WSDOT projects and additional devc•lo,,rnent projects in the City of Renton that are within the bank's service area. The sen·icc arc•,1 of the Springbrook Bank includes portions of select basins in the Lake Washington/CedM/Scirnrnamish (Water Resource Inventory Area [WRIAJ 8) Watershed and the Creen/Duwarnish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) including the lower Green River, Black Riwr, W,·st and East Lake Washington, May Creek, Mill Creek, and Lower Cedar River to State Route lH (SR 18) basins. Credits from the Springbrook Bank may be usc'd to compensate for impacts to category I, II, III, and IV wetlands (per Washington State Department of Ecologv [ Frnlogy] definitions) within the service area. Activities included in the development of the Springbrook Bank include re-establishing, rehabilitating, and enhancing wetlands; ,•stablishing and enhancing upland and riparian buffer areas; and constructing an interpretiv,· trail through Unit A. Wetlands will be re-established on Units C and Eby removing historic fill matl'rial. Improvements to the hydrologic regimes of Units A, B, and C will lead to rehabilitcilion of the existing wetlands located within those units. Existing wetlands in Unit C will be enh,mced by increasing plant and habitat diversity in areas dominated by invasive non-native vegetation, and in the northern portion of Unit D by supplementing existing hydrology lo ex lend Pxisting hydrologic regimes. Wetlands in all of the units will be further enhanced through installing habitat structures (e.g., large woody debris and vertical snags) and restoring native wl'tland plant communities. With the exception of Unit D, each unit will include enhancements to upland and/or riparian habitat areas and establishment of a 40-foot wide setback buffer that will be planted with native woody plant species. In total, the Springbrook Bank will rL·-establish 17.81 acres of historic wetlands, rehabilitate 52.92 acres and enhance 33.61 acres of existing wetlands, enhance 14.68 acres of upland and riparian habitat areas, and enhance and protect an additional 9.86 acres of wetland and upland habitat area by establishing the 40-foot-wide setback buffer. Riologirnl Assessment 1\-1 Jn1111ary 2006 Springbrook Cri!ek iVcllaud and Hnlrila/ Miligatiou /i111:f, Executive Summary Specific habitat improvements resulting trum the project include removal of invasive plant communities and replace1nent of those communities \Vith diverse, native, 111ulti-strata vegetation that will provide increased "f'f'Llrtunity for food and shelter. Reconnecting Springbrook Creek lo its floodplain will provide wider stream margins with slower velocity waters, which will provide off-channel refugia habitat for juvenile salmonids. Placement of large woody debris and other special habitat features within the floodplain of Springbrook Creek and in the uplands will provide cover for prey species and salmonids. Improved groundwater connectivity will increase grrnmd\\'ater recharge and improve ·water quality in Springbrook Creek by contributing cooler, cleaner water. The Springbrook Bank is an Early Envirnnnwntal Investment (EE!) project under the I-405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit l'rojc'cls and is being permitted in accordance with WSDOT's Wetland Co111pc11sation Bank 1Vlcn11•ri111d11111 of Agrconrnt (CBMOA) (WSDOT 1994a), the Fcdcml Guidance fir the Establish111cnt, Use, ,n,d 01•,·mtion of Mitigation Banks (USACF. et al. 1995), and negotiations with stale and federal \\'dland regulatory agencies. This Biological Assessment (BA) addn'ssc•s impacts to Endangered Species Act (F.SA) listed species that may occur in the project's ciction an•a including: bald eagle (Ha/iacctus leucocepha/us), the Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Solc'<'iinus cunfluentus) Distinct Population Segment (DI'S), and the Puget Sound Chinook salmon (CJnn,r/11111chus tshawytsclw) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), all of which are listed as threatened under the ESA. It also addresses impacts to Chinook salmon critical habitat and Essa•ntial Fish Habitat (EFH) within the project's action area. Springbrook Creek is designated as critical habitat for Chinook salmon and is EFH for Chinook and coho salmon. Springbrook Creek is not designated as bull trout critical habitat or pink salmon EFH. This BA does not address impacts to Canada lvm. (Ly11x canadcnsis), griuly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), marbled murrelet (Brnchyra111pli11s 11111r111urntus 111an11orat11s), northern spotted owl (Strix occide11talis caurina), or golden painlbrush (Castilleja lcvisecta) that are listed as threatened; marsh sand wort (Arrnaria paludicola) or gray wnlt (Canis lupus) that are listed as endangered; or fisher (Martes pennanti) a candidate spc'cics, "' these species do not occur in the action area and because no suitable habitat for these species occurs in the action area. Biologirnl Asscssmrnt Springhmot Creek Wetland r111d Habitat Mitigatio11 Biuik Jmrnary 2006 Executive Summary The effects determinations from the projl'ct on listed species and associated critical habitat are as follows: Table ES-1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species That May Occur in the Project Area Soecies Status Puget Sound Chinook salmon Threatened (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (Puget Sound ESU) Bull trout I Threatened (Salvelinus connuentus) (Coastal-Puget Sound DPS) Bald eagle Threatened I Haliaeetus leucocenhalus i LTAA-Likely to adversely affect '.\JLT AA= Not likely to adversely affect ESU = Evolutionarily Significant Unit DPS= Distinct Population St'gment NMFS -National l'vtarinc Fisheries Service USFWS = C.S. Fish and \·Vildlifc Service Aaencv NMFS USFWS USFWS Effects Determination NLTAA l NLTAA No Effect Critical Habitat Designated Designated None desianated Critical Habitat Effects Determination NLTAA No bull trout critical habitat in the action area N/A lt has also been determined that the projffl will have No Adverse Effect on Chinook or coho salmon EFH. Rit1h1girnl Assr•ss111c11f January 2006 Spriugbrook Creek l:\'ctlnnd 1111d l-fobitat lvlitigutiun B.n1k Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... ES-1 1 INTRODUCTION ........................... . ························································································ 1 2 PROPOSED PROJECT ................... . . ..................................................................................... 3 2.1 Project Setting ........................ .. . ....................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 Unit A .............................. . . ....................................................... 5 2.1.2 Unit 8 .................................. . . .................................................................................. 7 2.1.3 Unit C. .............................. . . ............................................................. 8 2.1.4 Unit D .................................... . . ................................................................................. 10 2. 1.5 Unit E ..... ........ .. .................................................................................... 11 2.2 Springbrook Bank Project Description .................................................................................. 12 2. 2.1 Welland Re-Es tab Ii sh men t .. .. .................................................................................. 13 2.2.2 Wetland Rehabilitation ... .. . .. .............................................................................. 13 2.2.3 Unit C Welland Enhancenwn\ ................................................................................ 14 2.2.4 Unit D Wetland Enhancement. ············································ ............................ 14 2.2.5 Forested Wetland Enhancenwn t ............................................................................... 14 2.2.6 Up land I Ia bi tat Enhancement ......................................................................................... 14 2.2.7 Riparian Upland and Upl,1nd Habitcit Enhancement ................................................... 14 2.2.8 Protection Setback Buffer .............................................. .. ..................... 15 2.2.9 Trail Zone ........................................................................................................................... 15 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.4 Construction Activities........... . ................................................................................... 15 Site Preparation.......... . ........................................................................................... 15 Excavation/Grading ......................................................................................................... 16 Planting............................ .. ........................................................................ 17 Weed Management......... . ............................................................................... 18 Staging Areas................... . .............................................................................. 19 Conser\-'ation Measures ................................................................................................... 19 Project Schedule.................... .. ..................................................... 23 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE .. . ................................................................................ 24 3.'I Action Area ........................... . . ............................................................................... 24 ............................................................................... 26 3.1.1 Action Area Description 3.1.2 3.2 3.2.l 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 Noise Considerations..... .. ............................................................................. 26 Physical Indicators................ . ...................................................................................... 27 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 30 Habitat Access................. . ...................................................................................... 30 Habitat Elements............. . .......................................................................................... 31 Channel Conditions and Dvn,1rnics ................................................................................ 32 Flow /Hydrology................... . ..................................................................................... 32 Watershed Conditions ...................................................................................................... 32 4 SPECIES OCCURRENCE, EFFECTS ANALYSIS, AND EFFECTS DETERMINATION ........ 34 Biological A.-;:-;-css111cn/ Ja11unry 2006 Sp1·i11slin1ok Creek Wetla!ld and Hnliilal Miligalion H:r;,,J . .- 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 Table of Contents Chinook Salmon .................... .. Status ................................ . Critical Habitat .................. . lliology and Distribution .. . Direct and Indirect Effects Effects Determination ......... . ................................................................................ 34 ................................................................................... 34 ................................................................................... 34 . ............................................................................... 35 ................................................................. 36 ................................................................................ 41 4.1.6 Critical Habitat Effects Dt'lerminatinn ........................................................................... 41 4.2 Bull Trout................................... . ..................................................................................... 42 4.2.1 Status.................................... .. .............................................................................. 42 4.2.2 Critical Ilabitat .................. . ................................................................................. 42 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 Biology and Distribution. Direct and Indirect Effects Effects Determination ....... ................................................................................... 42 ............................•....•......•.....••.. ~ ..................................................................................... 47 4.2.6 Critical Habitat Effects Determination .................. .. .. .............................................. 47 4.3 !laid Eagle .... . . ................................................................................... 47 4.3.1 Status ................................ . . ................................................................................. 47 4.3.2 Critical Habitat.. . ................................................................................. 47 4.3.3 Biology and Distribution ......................................................................................... 48 4.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................................ 49 4.3.5 Effects Determination........ . ....................................................................................... 49 5 EFFECTS OF L\ITERRELATED A:'-JD 11\:TI r,DEl'ENDENT ACTIONS ................................... 50 6 REFERENCES ................................ . . .......................................... 51 List of Tables Table ES-1 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species That May Occur in the Project Area ............................................................................................................................. ES-3 Springbrook Bank Mitigalinn Restoration Activities and Acreage Summary ...... 13 Springbrook Bank Plant Materials List ....................................................................... 18 Overview of the Envirnnnwntal llaseline Conditions at the Project Action Area Scale and the Watershed Scak .................................................... .. ....................... 28 Overview of Environment,11 llaseline Conditions at the Project Action Area Scale and the Watershed Scale Specific to Bull Trout.. ....................................................... 29 List of Figures Figure I Springbrook Creek Wetl,rnd ,md Habitat Mitigation Bank Springbrook Bank Aerial Photo ...................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 Springbrook Creek Wetbml and Habitat Mitigation Bank Springbrook Bank Action Area .................................................................................................................... 25 Riological Asscssmn1t " Jarnwry 2006 Spri11g/1rook Creek lVc//1111d and H11/Jit11/ A,1iligalion A:u1k Table of Contents ---------------- List of Photos Looking west into Unit A from Lind Avenue SW Boulevard Photo I Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 l'hoto 6 Photo 7 Looking southward at Springbrnok Creek flowing between Units A and B Looking south into Unit fl from SW 27th Street Looking north into Unit C from the historic fill pad Looking west into Unit C from the historic fill pad Looking west into Unit D Looking west from the Cl'nlral portion of Unit E List of Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Springbrook Creek Wetland and I Iabitat Mitigation Bank Construction !'!ans Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Species Lists from NMFS and USFWS DRAFT Fisheries Revic\\' While !'aper Binlogiml A.~.~cs.;;1111'11! .'ii January 2006 Springbrook Creek Vl/cllrmd 1wd Hahital Mitigatio11 Hunk Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION The Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habit,1t Mitigation !lank (Springbrook Bank) is a Washington State Department of Transpmlc1tion (WSDOT) and City of Renton partnership project that will re-establish, rehabilit.1t,,, ,,nJi,rnce, and preserve approximately 131.5 acres of wetland, wetland buffer, and riparian and t1f1l,rnd habitat areas on five parcels of land (Units A, B, C, D, and E) located in Renton, Washington. The Springbrook !lank will provide compensation for unavoidable impacts to wl'll,rnds and other aquatic resources resulting from future WSDOT projects and additional den'lopment projects in the City of Renton that are within the bank's service area. The service area nf the Springbrook Bank includes portions of select basins in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish (Water Resource Inventory Area [WRIA] 8) Watershed and the Green/Duwcimish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRlA 9) including the lower Green River, Black River, West and East Lake Washington, May Creek, Mill Creek, and Lower Cedar River to State' Route 18 (SR 18) basins. Credits from the Springbrook Bank may be used to compensate for impacts to category I, II, Ill, and IV wetlands (per Washington State Department of Ecologv [Ecolugy] definitions) within the service area. Activities included in the development of tlw S,1ringbrook Bank include re-establishing, rehabilitating, and enhancing wetlands; c•stc1blishing and enhancing upland and riparian buffer areas; and constructing an interpretive trail thr<ll1gh Unit A. Wetlands will be re-established on Units C and r by removing historic fill rnatl'rial. Improvements to the hydrologic regimes uf Units A, B, and C will lead to rehabilitcition ot llw existing wetlands located within those units. Existing wetlands in Unit C will be enhancc'd bv increasing plant and habitat diversity in areas dominated by invasive non-native vegetcition, c1nd in the northern portion of Unit D by supplementing existing hydrology to extend existing and/or provide additional hydrologic regimes. Wetlands on all of the units ll'ill be further enhanced through installing habitat structures (e.g., large woody debris and verticc1l snags) and restoring native wetland plant communities. With the exception of Unit 0, t',1ch unit will include enhancements to upland and/or riparian habitat areas and establishment of a 40-foot wide setback buffer that will be planted with native woody plant speciPs. In total, the Springbrook Bank will re-establish 17.81 acres of historic wetlands, rehabilitate ~2.92 Mn's and enhance 33.61 acres of existing wetlands, enhance 14.68 acres of upland and riparian h.1bilat areas, and enhance and protect an additional 9.8h acres of wetland and upland habitat area bv establishing the 40-foot-wide setback buffer. Hiolosirnl 1hscss111c11t Ja1111nry 2006 Spri11g/m){)k Creek Wetland i/llll I labilnl Mitigation fi,iuk lnlroduction Specific habitat improvements resulting from thl' project include removal of invasive plant communities and replacement of thos,· cornrnunities with diverse, native, multi-strata vegetation that will provide increased or1portunity for food and shelter. Reconnecting Springbrook Creek to its floodplain will prn,·ide wider stream margins with slower velocity waters, which will provide off-channl'i rdugia habitat for juvenile salmonids. Placement of large woody debris and other special hc1bit,1t ft,,1tures within the floodplain of Springbrook Creek and in the uplands will provide cnn'r tor prey species and salmonids. Improved groundwater connectivity will increase groundwater recharge and improve water quality in Springbrook Creek by contributing cooler, ckcmcr water. The Springbrook Bank is an Early Environrnental Investment (EE!) project under the 1-405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit l'roj,•cts and is being permitted in accordance with WSDOT's Wct/nnd C0111prnsatio11 Hank M,·111nr,wd11111 of Agrmncnt (CBMOA) (WSDOT 1994a), the Federal Guidance fur the Establishmcnt, U,c, ,wd 0/'crntiun of Mitigation Hanks (USACE et al. 1995), and negotiations with state and federal wetland regulatory agencies. This Biological Assessment (BA) addr,·sscs impacts lo Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species that may occur in the project's ,,ction area including: bald eagle (Halial'l'/11s le11cocepha/11s), the Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Si1h<di1111s ,011flurnt11s) Distinct Population Segment (DPS), and the Puget Sound Chinook salmon (011corh1111ch11s tslrnwytscha) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), all of which are listed as thr<·cit,·ned under the ESA. It also addresses impacts to Chinook salmon critical habitat and Essc'ntial Fish Habitat (EFH) within the project's action area. Springbrook Creek is designated ,is criticc1l habitat for Chinook salmon and is EFH for Chinook and coho salmon (011corhy11ch11s kis11tcl1). Springbrook Creek is not designated as bull trout critical habitat or pink salmon EFH. This t!A does not address impacts to Canada lvnx (Ly11x canadensis), grizzly bear (Urs11s arctos horribilis), marbled murrelet (Brachym111p/111s 111ilrn10rat11s 111arn10ratus), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), or golden paintbrush (Castilleja /cvisecta) that are listed as threatened; marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola) or gr,w wolf (Canis lupus) that are listed as endangered; or fisher (Martes pen11m1ti) a candidate specie's, as lhese species do not occur in the action area and because no suitable habitat for these spccics occurs in the action area. Bi()logical A,;ses.c;,111'1/I Jmrnary 2006 Springbrook Creek Vv'elland a11d lfn.fiilllf Miligalm11 1-luni', Proposed Project 2 PROPOSED PROJECT 2.1 Project Setting The Springbrook Bank site is located in llw southwestern portion of the City of Renton, Washington, Sections 25 and 36, Township 23N, Range 4E; and Section 30, Township 23N, Range SE. It consists of five units (Units A. B, C, D, and E), totaling 131.54 acres, which represent some of the last remaining large tracts of undeveloped land in the Lower Green River Basin. Eight large jurisdictional wetlands totaling approximately 89 acres exist on-site and Springbrook Creek flows through portions of the site, bordering portions of Units A, B, and E (WSDOT 2005a). Figure 1 is an ac•rial photo of the Springbrook Bank site. Biological Assesjn1c11t Spri11:;:/irook Creek Vletf1111d and Haliila/ Mitigatiu11 B11nk January 2006 FIGURE 1 Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Springbrook Bank Aerial Photo Data Srnm.:es State Routes and Str11ams fmm WSDO T 8t 1:24K l ambert Conformal Conic Pm1act,on Washington Stare Plane. North Zofle. US feet Nor1h American Datum 1983 fiOO Feel 1,200 -~ .\ I ·I ·~JfY Spring brook Bank ,...."-Streams Culverts Railroad \ •• ·t '-, ,/ ~:, ,,Jc. • -----< r ------------~ ;----( ( s\ \ / ' I ,/ ,) ~ \l / / C / --{ (l., ,, T/\ :< ·~-~ ( , ___ \ ( '~---~-r-,~'--,.C' Er E /-~"-._..., Proposed Projccl Springbrook Creek is part of the Springbrook, Mill, and Carrison Creek Watershed (SMC Watershed) located on the east side of the Creen River. The SMC Watershed covers about 15,763 acres (24.6 square miles) and c,rn be delineated into two distinct topographical areas: the valley floor and the foothill zone. Slopes in the watershed range from Oto 70 percent and elevations range between 10 ,1 nd 525 feet above mean sea level (Harza 1995). Springbrook Creek is the SMC Watershed's main water conveyance channel, with its tributaries, Mill and Garrison Creeks, coming in from the west (in the City of Kent), and !'anther and Rolling Hills Creeks, origin,,ting on plateaus east of the Green River Valley. The lower reaches of Springbrook Creek h,n e been historically straightened, deepened, and widened by farmers, local jurisdictions, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and King County Drainage District No. 1 to accommodate past agricultural practices, and they continue to be managed lnr flood control purposes (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Springbrook Creek ultimatclv flows into the Black River via the Black River !'ump Station (BRPS). The BRPS and associated infrastructure prevents high flows in the Green River from backing water up into Springbrook Creek, reducing the risk of flooding in adjacent areas. Further information about each of the fi,e units that comprise the Springbrook Bank is provided below. 2.1.1 Unit A Unit A encompasses 26.33 acres and is located between SW 27th Street, and SW 34th Street, west of Lind Avenue and east ,,f Springbrook Creek. The site is bordered along its northern and eastern sides by arteridls serving industrial activities and on the vvest by Springbrook Creek and Unit B. Tlw southern boundary is an undeveloped road right- of-way adjacent to developed industrial /Oned property. Springbrook Creek flows within a straight, bermed corridor between Units A and B. Precipitation and stormwater inputs from adjacent roads and development are the primary sources of hydrology to the site, along with elevated groundwater during wetter portions of the year. A ditch along the southern property line in Unit A collects stormwater from the development [() the south, ponded water from precipitation, and Riologicnl A.s.scss111e11t fmwary 2006 Springbrook Creek ~Vellnud a11d Ha/1ifat Mitig11tio11 ll11n.i. l'roposcd Project season al ly e leva ted g r o und vvatl'r, ,,nd directs fl ows to S prin gbrook C re e k . T h e b e r m s a lo n g Sprin g brook C reek p ro hi bit the cree k fr om accessing thi s u ni t exce pt durin g ex tre m e fl ood eve nts. Vegetation fo u nd in U nit A varil'S lfr~wnd in g o n its prox im ity to Sp rin g broo k C reek. A r eas c losest to th e c r eek h ave subst,mtial n ative w o o d y cover con s istin g prim a ril y o f Pacifi c w il low (Sn/ix /11c idn), S i tL1 willu\,· (511 /ix sit chcnsis), som e b lac k cottonw ood (Pop11l 11s bnls11111ifer11), a nd red a Id er (II I 1111~ rubra). Areas far the r fr o m Sp rin gbrook C re ek arc d o minated b y re cd canarygrn ss (/1/1uluris nrn11d i 11nccn) a n d c at t a il (Typlin /11/ifolia a nd Typlrn 1111gu s tifoli11) vv ith patc h y \,·ood y cove r prov ided by w illow s p ecies. Reed ca n a rygrass d o m inates the rip ari ,rn ,Hl',1 o n the berm d irectl y a d ja c ent t o S prin g brook Creek . l>ho to I s h ows U n i t A as seen frum I ind Avenue SVV ,rnd Photo 2 s h ows S p r ing brook Creek flovv ing between th e ea r then berms t h at sepa ra te U ni ts A a nd B fro m Spri ngb r ook Creek . Photo 1 Looking west into Unit A fro m Lind Avenue SW Hiulogi rnl A,,,e~~111rnf l > January 20()6 S1ni11g/1rook Creek \'\lc//n11d nnd Ha/ii/a/ Mitig11Jio 11 /l:111~ Photo 2 Looking southward at Springbrook Creek flowing between Units A and B 2 .1.2 Unit B Proposed Project Un it l3 e ncompasse s 36.49 acres and is loca ted immediately sou th of SW 27th Street, wes t of a nd ad jacent t o Springbrook Creel-., ,rnd east of Oakesdale Avenu e SW. The s ite is bordered on both Lhe norlh an d snulh b .' indu s trial deve lopm e nt a nd o n the east b y Unit A . As w ith Un i t A, precipitat ion and s lormwa ter inputs fro m ad jacent road s a nd development along w ith dcv a kd ground water during we tte r portions o f t h e year a re the p r ima ry so urces of h y drol ogy Lo Unit B. A s mall ditc h in the eastern po rtion of Unit 1:3 is th e only existin g connecti on Lwlm.'L'n Unil Band Sprin gbrook C reek. A ls o as w it h U nit A, the berms a lo n g S pringbrook C rL'ek prohibi t t h e c ree k from accessing thi s unit except d u ri n g ex treme fl ood e\'l'll h. Vegetation found in Un i t B varies dqw nd ing on its prox imity to S pringbrook C ree k. A reas c losest to the c reek h ave -.u b..,tt1nt ic1 I n.:iti ve woody cover co n s is ting primaril y of P acific a nd S itka wi ll ow, some bl,1ck rn llo nwood, a n d re d alder. Areas fart h er fr om S pring brook Creek arc domin ated by recd canaryg r ass, w ater p epper (Pol ygo 1111111 /1ydropipcroidfs v ar. !1y dropi;w roidc :'-), ,rnd ca ttail with patchy wood y cover provi ded by Biological A,,c.,s111c11/ ]111111ary 2()()6 Spr ingl>ruok Creek vVc!ln11 t! n!ld Fla l>ilnl Mitigali,,11 Bunk Proposed Project willow species. Reed canarygrJss dorni n,1tes the riparian area o n the berm directly adj acent to Springbrook Creek . l'h olo 3 s hows Unit Bas seen from SW 27th Street. Photo 3 Looking south into Unit B from SW 27th Street 2.1.3 Unit C Unit C encompasses 47.90 acres ,rnd i.., lo c ated east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (Br\Sr-) Railroad and west of ().1ke..,cL1ll' :\venue SW. Th e s ite is bordered t o the north b y undeveloped land and to Ll w so uth by both an in dustri a l railroad fac ility and undeveloped land. The entirety of Unit C was once comprised of wetl,mds; ho wever a portion of thi s unit was h istori ca ll y filk·d with up to 7 feet of fill material. Ex is ting h ydrology in U nit C is 1.1ro , idl'd by a combi n ation of precipitation and a seasona ll y hi g h g roundwater t,1bl l'. The wetland re-estab li s hment drL'd o f L11i t C is comp ri s ed predominantly of non-native g ra sses, coff1mon tansy (Tn11nct'/11111 ,'11(<.;11r1')1 a n d Hi malayan blackbe rry (R11bus nn11e11inrns). Ex is ting wetland s ,rnd upl,rnds at the s ite are dominated b y black cottomvood, red alder, Pacific ,,·illu w, Sitka willow, and red -osier dogwood (Corn us scrirn1) intermixed wi th I Iima l<1 yt111 bl,Kkbe rry . The portion of the s ite closest to the HNS F ri ght-of-way consi s ts o f a rnalri\ o f la r ge areas of reed canarygrass and pa t c h y Riolosiml A,.,1',,1111'11/ /a1111nry 20116 Spri11gbr,>ok Creek \-Vetln11d rmd l /n/,ilnt Mit ig ati o11 H,i!lk l'ruposcd l 'rojcc l nzit ivc s h rub cover along wi t h p,1tchc.., of Himala yan b lackberry. A long t h e eastern edge of the s ite adjacent to Oakes d alL· An'lllll', co mmon tansy, lance-leaf p lantain (Pln11tago ln11ccolntn), teasel (LJ1)isncus s 1;/i'1'slri.s), bull thist le (Cirsi11111 v ulRnrc), Hima layan b lackber ry, and other disturbatKL'-tokr,1nt grasses and forbs arc predominant. Photos 4 imd 5 ,vere taken from ,1 hi s tori c fi ll pad located w ithin the southeaste rn corner of Unit C, and show n ortherly zind \\'CSlL'r ly views into Un i t C Photo 4 Looking north into Unit C fro m the historic fill pad Riologicnl A,,;1\,,1111'11/ Jn1111nry 2006 S11ri11gl>rook Creek \Nt'lln11d and I lnl>ilnl Miti.'\alio 11 /11/lik Proposed Project Photo 5 Looking west into Unit C fro m the historic fill pad 2 .1.4 Unit D Unit D encompzisses 5.60 zic r es and is luc<1te d immedizitel y no r th of zin existing sto nn water treatment/detention pun d cun s tru cted by the City of Tukw i la for t h e ·1 sOth Street g rad e -s eparati on prnjecl. On the northern portion of Unit D , t1 sh t1l lo,v in undated area ex ist s th at appears to be s upported by precip itation, seJ son a l groundwater , a n d a surface water co nnecti on (via zi c u lv ert) from wetland s located \\'l'Sl of the BNSF ma inline. Unit D d ischa rges to the north via a cu lv ert under an e x i...;ti ng l)/\SF rail l ine and an exis ting conveyzince d itch to Unit C. The fo re s ted canopy of Un it Di -; compri :-;ed of r e d alder, b lack co tto n wood , Pa c if ic \Nillow , zind Oregon a sh (Frnx i1111s /utifi1/i11 ). The s hru b layer includes sa lmonbe rry (Rulm s spC'Ctn/1/is ), red-os ier dogwood , ,md h,1rdhac k (Spiren do11ilnsii). Vegetation in the inundate d area at the n ort h ern l'nd n l llw s ite consists p r imarily of cattail s, r eed canaryg rass, and mild water p ep p er. ;\ kw pzi tc h es of Hima layan blackberry a n d reed czinarygrass o cc u r in the foreskd portion of the existing wet land. Bio/ogicnl A.;~cs,111c11/ ! I) /a1111ary 2006 Spri11g/1rook Crct'k Wct/11111/ 1111d I /a/>ilal Milig11ti <111 H.111~ Proposed Projocl P hoto 6 s h ows Unit Das seen from the in dustrial property loca ted immediately east of thi s unit. Photo 6 Looking west into Unit D 2 .1.5 Unit E Un i t E encompasses 15.22 acres and is loca ted south of SW 34th Street, ,vest of Springbrook Creek, north of S\\' ..i I c;t S treet, and east of Oakesdale Avenue SW. It is bordered lo the north b y developL'Ll l ight industrial properties. No wetland s currently exist on Unit E. T he enti rety of Unit E vvas once comp ri sed of floo dplain wetlands; however, thi s unit \\·a s historically filled with approximately 10 to 15 feet of fill material. Large portion s of Unit E ha ve Lwt'n imp,1cled by off-road ve hicl e u se. In th ese areas, vegetation is don,inatcd by non -n<1 ti\'L' gr,1ssc s, common tansy, and Hima layan blackberry . The rema ind e r of Unit I-is do rnin aled by b lack collonwood forest with an und e rs tory comprised primari ly of I li rnal ayan blackberry . Photo 7 was taken near t h e cen ll'r of Unit E and s how s a wcstcrlv v iew into this un it . ., Riologicnl A sscss11 1c11/ II /(llll/111'_11 2006 Spri11s/1rook Creek Vl/£'1/1111il ,wt! //11/li /11/ Mitis11tio 11 /!1111 .i. Proposed Project Photo 7 Looking west from the centra l portion of Unit E 2.2 Springbrook Bank Project Desc riptio n Thl' Sp ringbrook Bunk w ill re-estublish, rL'hc1b ili ta te, enhunce, a n d preser ve upproximately 131.:1 acres of we tland , we tl and b u lier, a nd riparian and up land h abita t areas on five parcel s of b n d (U ni ts A, B, C, D, a nd E). ln tot.ii, tlw Springbrook Bank w ill re-est ab li s h 17.8 1 acr es of h istoric wetlands, re h abi litate 5 2 .9 2 ,1 c w s uf ex is ting wetlands, e nh anet.' 33.61 ,1c res of we tl a nd, e nhance 14.68 acres of u pl.--md ,ind r iparian h abi tat areas, a nd e nh ance a nd protect un additio nal 9 .86 uCrl's of wetb n d c1nd upland habitat area b y establishing the 40-foot w ide se tback buffer . W ithin the Sp rin gbrook B,mk projec t limits, ri pa rian corridors along Springbrook Creek w ill be res tored , Sf1rin g brook Creek w il l be reconnected to porti ons of its hi storic floodp la in, hi stori c \Netlan d s will bL' re-estab li s h ed, e x is ting wetlands w ill be e nhan ced, and upland habitat a re.i s \,·ill bl' rdorested ,,v ith nati ve coni fe r species. The res toration activities to occur on each u n it ,HL' detai led in Tab le I . In a ddition to these restoration activities, the Spring b rouk ltrnk inc lu des the deve lopment of a n ew publi c board vva lk trail throu g h Un it A . Biolog ical A ,,e.,,;n1c11/ /2 /n111111n1 2006 Springl>rook Creek Vv'cllrwd n11d l /n/1if nl Miligalio11 1-:1P1k Proposed Project Table 1 Springbrook Bank Mitigation Restoration Activities and Acreage Summary Acreage Restoration Activity ' ' Unit A ' Unit B UnitC UnitD Unit E Total . Wetland Re-Establishment 0.05 0.12 9.70 -8.37 17.81 . Wetland Rehabilitation 2030 3143 1.19 --52.92 ---------. Unit C Wetland Enhancement --4.69 --4.69 . Unit D Wetland Enhancement -----2.63 -2.63 Forested Wetland Enhancement ' ---23.32 2.97 -26.29 ----- Riparian Upland Enhancement 0.65 1 49 --4.74 6.88 Upland Habitat Enhancement --7.80 ----7.80 Protection Setback Buffer 2.67 345 1.63 -2.11 9.86 Trail Zone 2.66 -----286 ---·---------- Totals 26.33 36.49 47.90 5.60 15.22 131.54 Specific restoration activities to occur on Units A, B, C, D, and E are described in greater detail below. 2.2. 1 Wetland Re-Establishment Wetland re-establishment will prim<1rilv occur on Units C and E. Fill material will be removed to allow ground and su rfMl' "<1ters to restore hydrology to the historic wetlands located in these units. After the• fill material is removed, portions of an existing earthen berm separating Unit E from Springbrook Creek will be breached to allow Springbrook Creek to reconnect to its m•wly reclaimed historic floodplain. Native- woody plant species will be installed in both units lo increase plant species diversity. Habitat structures (e.g. vertical snags, brush piles, and/or anchored logs) will be installed to increase habitat diversitv and complexity. 2.2.2 Wetland Rehabilitation Wetland rehabilitation will ocrnr in Units A, B, and C. The historic connection between the floodplain wetlands in Units.'\ ,rnd Band Springbrook Creek will be re-established and additional water will be provided to the existing wetlands in Unit C. This will improve the hydrologic regime and facilitate the rehabilitation of existing wetlands in each of these units. Planting hummocks (a low mound or ridge of earth located in a wetland area used to help establish upland or transitional zone plant species) will be Ri11logicr1! A.;se.".'>!!ll'lll /.l Jr11111ary 2006 Spri11g/1rook Creek Welland a11d Hnl1i/nl lvliti5;ation B1r11k Proposed Project installed to provide additional habitdt niches, enhance hydrologic regimes, and facilitate conifer and deciduous tree estc1blishnwnt to allow for reforestation within these units. Native woody plant species and habit,1t structures will be installed in Units A, B, and C. 2.2.3 Unit C Wetland Enhancement Existing wetlands in Unit C will lw ,·nh.rnced by treating and controlling invasive non- native vegetation (reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry). and increasing plant diversity and habitat complexity. This will be accomplished by implementing reed canarygrass and Himalayan bLickberry control measures, densely planting native trees and shrubs, and installing habitat structures. 2.2.4 Unit D Wetland Enhancement Supplemental hydrology will b,• f'ro, id,·d to existing seasonally inundated areas in the northern portion of Unit lJ. W.1t,•r ,,ill be diverted from an existing stormwater treatment/detention pond outfall pifX' at the southern end of Unit D and transported to the northern end of Unit D via c1 Ill'\\' conveyance pipe. The additional hydrology will extend the existing hydroperiod and/m provide additional hydrologic regimes to Unit D. This additional surface hydrologv will also benefit Unit C since surface hydrology from Unit D drains northward to Un,t C via an existing conveyance ditch. 2.2.5 Forested Wetland Enhancement Wetland-tolerant, native conifer species will be underplanted in the existing deciduous forested wetland portions of Units C. D, and E to allow for reforestation within these units. 2.2.6 Upland Habitat Enhancement Invasive plant species will be rernmed ,md habitat structures installed to enhance upland habitat in Unit C. In addition, Unit C will be densely planted with native-woody plant species to allow for reforestation of these presently degraded upland habitat areas. 2.2.7 Riparian Upland and Upland Habitat Enhancement Native riparian vegetation will lw re-l'st1hlished on Units A, B, and E through a combination of mechanical and chernical treatment of reed canarygrass and Himalayan Biological As5css111n1t Spril1g/1rook Creek lVctfn11d 1111d Ha/Ji fat Mitigatio1; B1i'nl; '' d January 2006 Propos~d Project blackberry, and planting of natin'-wuod,, plant species, In addition, habitat structures will be placed in portions of Unit L 2.2.8 Protection Setback Buffer Forty-foot-wide protection seth.ick htlil<'rs will be established on portions of all of the units, except for Unit 0, These wctl,rnd and upland buffers will be planted with native- woody plant species to promote structur.11 diversity, protect habitat from disturbance from adjacent land uses, and to allow for reforestation within these units, 2.2.9 Trail Zone An elevated, 8-foot wide and a,,erage ,,-foot high public boardwalk trail will be constructed across the western edge uf Lnit A, roughly parallel to Springbrook Creek Use of the trail will be limited to pc•ckstrian foot traffic only, A 40-foot-wide vegetated buffer will be installed on each side of llw trail (the vegetated buffer acreage is detailed as a trail zone in Table 1), The elev,ikd boardwalk will connect to local and regional trail systems including King Countv's rL·gional Interurban and Green River Trails, Benches will be placed at two locations along tlw trail to facilitate passive recreation, such as bird watching, In addition, interprL'tin• signs will describe the unique natural features and environmental benefits of the S11ringhrnok Bank 2.3 Construction Activities 2.3.1 Site Preparation Initially, high visibility fencing W'ill be installed around the perimeter of the site and around the perimeter of all proposed ,,,ork areas to prevent equipment intrusion into areas where no work is proposed, In ,iddition, sill fencing will be installed along the entire length of Springbrook Crc•c•k ,ind a compost berm along the perimeter of all proposed clearing, grubbing, and gr,1ding areas to prevent turbid water from entering Springbrook Creek and adjacent are,is where no work is proposed, Temporary construction entrances and tirl' wLish ,1rt.',1S will be installed on each unit. The construction entrances will be cnnstructl'd using asphalt that will be removed upon completion of construction of the projccL The tire wash water will be discharged to a Baker tank and then either hauled off or discharged into a sanitary sewer, The exact method of removal will be deterrni11L'd Liv the contractor. Biolosicnl A~::;css11101t /., January 2006 Springbrook Creek \Vctfnnd nnd l frihitot A1itigatiou R,1n/,- Proposed Project 2.3.2 Excavation/Grading Site grading and excavation rc•lc11L'd to the project consists of excavating large areas of Units C and E to re-establish historic" l'llands, installing earthen ditch plugs in the existing conveyance ditch in Unit C, 1nste1lling a stormwater pipe to supplement hydrology in Unit D, and breaching the berms in Units A, B, and E to re-establish the historic floodplain connection bl'lwccn these units and Springbrook Creek. Approximately 100,000 cubic y,mis of till from Unit C and 162,000 cubic yards of fill from Unit E will be excavated from areas that were formerly wetlands. Excavation depths in Unit C will range from a fc'\\ inches to 7 feet, and in Unit E from a few inches to approximately 12 feet depending on the location within each unit. Once the excavation is completed, these units" ill be rough graded to provide microtopographic variation (minor elevation changes throughout the graded area). An existing conveyance ditch loc,1it'd on Unit C will be plugged with clean fill material at regular spatial intervals so that it no longer conveys \Vater flovv. The height of the ditch plugs will match the surf,Kc' ,·k,·,1tions on either side of the existing ditch. !'lugging the existing conveyance· ditch ,,ill result in additional hydrology to the newly created wetland on Unit C. The existing earthen berms along Springbrook Creek will be breached along Unit A in three locations, Unit Bin four locations, and Unit E in three locations to reconnect Springbrook Creek with its historic floodplain. The breaches on Units A and B will measure 20 feet wide and approximately 2 to 3 feet deep lo match the ground elevation of the adjacent wetland surface'. In Unit E, the breaches will range in measurement from 20 feet wide to nearly 100 feet" ide and approximately 12 feet deep to a ground elevation of approximately 8 fn,t. lhe bs'rms will not be breached until the grading and excavation within each unit landw,ird of the berms is completed. Breaching of the berms will occur during summer 1011 flows so that no in-water work will be required in Springbrook Creek. At Uni ls A and K disturbed soil areas near Springbrook Creek will be protected with a permanent l'rosion control blanket and, at Unit E, quarry spalls interspersed with plantings will lw 11sl'd to prevent erosion. The quarry spalls at Unit E will be located approximately 5 fl'cl from the toe of the slope and located up the slope a Biological Asse.~s1111'11/ 11, J111111ary 2006 Spri11gbrook Creek iVe//nnd nnd Habitat lvfitigation Fnnk Proposed Proj,xt minimum of 3 feet, be incorporated into the ground surface, and will cover 754 square yards of the surface of the breaclwd lwr111. Site work related to the project will b,· performed with standard construction equipment including, but not limited to, track ,•,c,wators, bulldozers, backhoes, and dump trucks. All excavated material will be rc•mm·ed from the site and disposed at a WSDOT- approved upland site. Site grading and excavation wurk i, dctciiled on the grading plans in Appendix A: Springbrook Creek Wetland and Hcibitat Mitigation Bank Construction Plans. 2.3.3 Planting Native vegetation will be plant,·d on ,ill of the units to increase the number and variety of vegetation communities in the Springbrook Bank. Plant species were selected that are known to occur naturally in the projl'ct area, will provide cover for wildlife, are tolerant to flooding conditions, and hmce c1 high likelihood of success. Table 2 is a list of plants that will be planted at the Springbrook Bank. Biological Assessn1e11t I~ Jmrnary 2006 S1;ri11glirook Creek VVct/aJ1d mid Ha/1ifat lv1itigatio11 R1111k Proposed Project Table 2 Springbrook Bank Plant Materials List Wetland Forest/Shrub #1 wetter Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) Black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata) Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capita/us) Black Cottonwood (Popu/us ba/samifera) Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana) Sitka willow Salix sitchensis Wetland Forest/Shrub #2. wettest Red-osier dogwocx.l (Comus sericea) Oregon ash (Fraxinus iatifolia) Peafruit wild rose /Rosa pisocarpa) Pacific willow (Sa/Jx iucida} Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) Wetland Forest/Shrub #3 wet Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) Black Cottonwood (Populus balsamifcra) Nootka rose /Rosa nutkana) Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana) Western red cedar Thu'a licata Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) Western hemlock Tsu a hetero h th Big leafmaple.(Acer111acrop_hyllum) ... Serviceberry (Amelanchier ainifoiia) _ Beaked Hazel. (Coryulu~_co_111~ta) Oceanspray{Ho/od1scusdisco/or} Qougla_sfir[Pseudotsugarne~ziesiQ .... Snowbe S m horica us a/bus (Jr~qn _as_~_ (Fra_xin_l!_t,_ __ la_f.i(C?!!?J ... Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capita/us) _ SitkaSpruce (Picea sitchensis) Western red cedar Thu"a licata Planting plans for the Springbrook ll,1nk ,ire detailed in 1\ppc11dix J\: Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat l\1itigatiun f-li/11/.:: Ctin'.ilruction JJlans. 2.3.4 Weed Management Weeds will be managed at Springbrnnk Bank in accordance with King County Noxious Weed Law and the Washington Slale ~oxious Weed List, with additional focus on reducing existing reed canarygrc1ss and Himalayan blackberry, and limiting additional reed canarygrass and Ilimalayan blackberry establishment. Reducing existing reed canarygrass and lin1iting additiun .. 1! n't'd canarygrass establishment v.rill be accomplished through a strategy of incrc,1sing the overall amount of large woody plant materials within the Springbrook H,rnk Lo shade out reed canarygrass over the long term. This strategy initially im·ohcs mowing and spraying to suppress the existing reed canarygrass colonies in Units;\, I\ C, and E. Mowing will occur in June or Julv hdnn' reed canarygrass seeds are formed. Spraying (e.g. glyphosate [Rodeo®]) will be conducted in August and again in September while carbohydrates are being translocated trom the aboveground parts to the roots. Biological Assessment 13 January 2006 Spri11gbrook Creek iVetland and l-Iol1itnt Mitigation Ru1,'k Proposed Project Herbicides will be applied in acrnrd,rnc,' with the herbicide label, by a licensed applicator with an aquatic endorsement. This will provide the best possible control of below ground roots and rhizonws (Antiec.u 1998; Tu 2004; Reinhardt and Galatowitsch 2004). This approach minimi7t'S soil disturbance that would expose the existing reed canarygrass seed bank to light and trigger seed germination. Long-term control of reed can,1rvgrc1ss ,it all the units will involve densely planting native trees and shrubs, and "spot-spraying" reed canarygrass colonies during the monitoring period to ensure long-term success in establishing the desired native woody plant community. 2.3.5 Staging Areas Units C and E will be used as staging areas prior to being excavated. In addition, the existing roadbed within Unit D will ,ilsu be used as a staging area for the project. Additional off-site staging areas mav be necessary to complete the project; however, the locations of these additional off-sit,, st,1g1ng areas have not been determined. Any off- site staging area locations will ultim.1tl'iv be determined by the project contractor; however, WSDOT will require the contractor to locate any additional off-site staging areas more than 300 feet from ,rnv "etbnds, ditches, or flowing or standing water. 2.3.6 Conservation Measures Conservation measures will be emplO\·cd to minimize impacts to threatened and endangered species from the proj,'ct. Sp,,cifically, the following conservation measures will be implemented: 2. 3. 6. 1 Environmental Compliance • WSDOT will utilize a commitment tracking system to identify all commitments made during rsA consultation, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design, and p,'nnitting. All project commitments will be clearly c01n1nunicated in the Special Provisions to the contractor, vd10 i;.vill in turn communicate commitments to project office staff and supporting design offices. Commitments \\'ill be tracked throughout the various stages of the project delivery. Bia/ogirnl Assessment January 2006 Spri11ghrook Creek 1!\'eilnnd 11w-f Ha/litat Miligatiou fln!1i', Proposed Projt'ct • A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan for the project, will be prcp&c·d ,111d submitted by the contractor to the project engineer prior to commencing any construction. 2.3.6.2 Erosion Control • Impacts to vvetlands and ~trL'i.11ns will be minimized during construction through the use of WSDOT-approved temporary erosion and sediment control best management pr.ictices (BM l's). • Impacts to streams will be minimized during work adjacent to water through the use of approved Bv1I's. • Prior to the start of construction, all sensitive areas and clearing limits will be marked with high visibility construction fencing, and erosion control devices will be placed to pn·,·c•nt runuff of sediment into areas where no work is proposed (i.e., Springbrook Creek and other wetlands areas). The contractor will confine construction projL'cts to the n1inimum area necessary to complete the project as defined bv the flagged clearing limits. Excavation and grading in Unit E will be conducted in the dry prior to breaching the berm along Springbrook Creek. Breaching of the berm along Springbrook Creek will occur during low flow periods and will nol n'quirc any in-water work. 2.3.6.3 Staging • Temporary material storage stockpiles will not be placed in the 100-year floodplain between October l and May 1. Material used within 72 hours of deposition will not be considered a temporary material storage stockpile. All temporary material storage' stockpiles will be protected by appropriate BMPs to prevent sediments from lc'<>ving the stockpiles. Biological A:N':>:imrnt When practicable, all f11,,ling and maintenance of equipment will occur more than 300 feet from till' nc'arl'st wetland, ditches, or flowing or standing water Fueling large construction ,·quipment such as trucks, excavation equipment, and other similar equiprnL·nt over 300 feet away from standing water may not be practicable. }a1111ary 2006 Springlmiok Creek Wctlmzd muf Habitat Mitisatio1., R11n( Proposed Project 2.3.6.4 Grubbing and Clearing • Vegetation will only be grubbed from areas undergoing permanent alteration and for temporary construction access. All areas grubbed for temporary construction access will Lll' rL•stored when construction is completed. 2.3.6.5 Herbicide Use Herbicides will be applied in accordance with the herbicide label, by a licensed applicator with an aquatic endorsement. 2. 3. 6. 6 Trail Construction • Treated wood will be ins,wcled before installation to ensure that there are not any superficial deposits of prl'Scrvative material on the wood. Treated wood will not b,• slon•d within 300 feet of the nearest wetland, ditch, or flowing or standing wall'r, and will remain covered until used. Non-creosote-treat,·d wood will be treated using the April 17, 2002 revised Amendment to Best M,rnagernent Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments; USA Version-Revised July 1996-Western Wood Preservers Institute. The Western Wood Preserver Institute BMPs for Treated Wood in Aquatic Applications and amendments can be found at the following link: http://www.wwpinstitute.org/mainpages/thebmpswoodinaguat.htm. • Debris resulting from construction of the boardwalk trail will be prevented from entering wetland, ditches, or flowing or standing water through the use of tarps or other containnwnl devices, to the greatest extent possible. 2.3.6.7 Biological As.scss111c11t Lighting No temporary project light. iwluding mobile units, will shine directly on any waters known to contain listed fish outside of the WDFW in-water work window. Within 300 feet of waters known to contain listed fish life, all temporary project lighting will be minimized between sunset and sunrise from November 1 lo Januan· l \ and from March 15 to May 15. January 2006 Spri11slirook Creek V•./ctlm1d 1md H11/1ifat Mitigation B111,,J,_- Proposed Project 2.3.6.8 Fish and Wildlife • Construction equipn1t•nt will not enter any water body without authorization from Washington Dq1.utml'nt of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Equipment shall be operated as for from the water's edge as possible. 2.3.6.9 WSDOT will provide ,ich·,rnce notification to WDFW and Ecology before tvork in an environnH:'ntallv sensitive area commences, in accordance with permit conditions. Bank Protection Living plant material and large woody debris will be incorporated in the bank protection designs ""here appropriate. 2. 3. 6. 10 Restoration and Revegetation Riparian vegetation will be· replanted with species native to the region. Disturbed areas will be replanted with native plant species. 2. 3. 6. 11 Miscellaneous All excess excavated mat.-ric1l will be removed and placed in upland locations ·where it cannot enter waters of the state. 2. 3. 6. 12 Construction Monitoring Biological Assessment WSDOT will monitor site construction lo assure work is completed according to site plan sheets and permit conditions. Site elevations will h,• sun c•ved routinely in Units C and E during construction to assure de\· a tions are completed as sho\vn on the project plans. WSDOT \•vi11 oversee construction to ensure compliance with contract language, special provisions, L'xisting VVSDOT environn1ental procedures, and permit conditions. Woody habitat structures c1nd plant material will be inspected, properly stored, and installed. Jm111ary 2006 Spring/Jrook Creek VVctlnnd nizd f--J.al1itat Mitigtltion /l11n.i: Proposed Project 2.3.6.13 Long Term Maintenance/Compliance WSDOT and the Cit v of Ren ton will provide assurance that all long-term compliance expectations are communicated to the responsible parties. The site will be maintainc•d for a period of 10 years or until performance standards are met, whiclwv,·r occurs later. Maintenance activities include, but are not limited Lo, weed control, trash removal, vandalis1n repair, and structure and/or sign,1ge maintenance. Long-term maintenance (Year 10 through Year 20) will be conducted by the City of Renton to ensurt' Lh,1t functional benefits of the Springbrook Bank are not degraded. All structures and facilities "ithin Springbrook Bank, including fences, the elevated boardwalk, the storm water diversion pipe and structure, and the stop-log weir, shall be propc•rly maintained in perpetuity or for as long as each is needed to acrnmplish the goals of Springbrook Bank. After the 20-year period c•nds, the City of Renton will continue to manage the site by fulfilling lanclm, m•r obligations defined in the Conservation Easement to maintain the ecologic,11 !unctions on the site. These obligations include prohibiting activities that ma,· convert the bank site into vacant land such as burning, dumping, or hcin·c•sting wood. Landowner obligations also include noxious weed control, emergt'ncy control of pests, and n1aintaining fences to restrict human access. 2.4 Project Schedule The wetland re-establishment areas in Units C and E, berm breaches in Units A and B, and a portion of the wetland rehabilitation arl'a in Unit C will be excavated and soils amended during the dry weather season in 2007. BL•rn1 breaches in Unit E will occur during the dry weather season in 2008. Control ot 1n•d rnnarygrass and Himalayan blackberry may begin in the spring or summer of 2007. Woody plantings in all units will be installed during the wet weather season in 2007/2008. I arg,• woody debris will be installed during lhe dry weather season in 2007. All berm breaching associated with Springbrook Creek will occur during the WDFW-prescribed work window of June 15 -September 30. Biolos;icnl Assessment Jmrnary 2.006 Spri11gbro(1k Creek V"ilctlimd 1111d Hn/Jitnt Mitigntion Boin( Environmental Baseline 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 3.1 Action Area The action area is the area to be aff<'cted directly or indirectly by the federal action (50 CFR §402.02). The action area is the defined geographic area potentially affected by the project. For the purposes of establishing basl·line conditions from which to evaluate potential effects of the project, the types of activities to be PL'rformed and physical site conditions were examined and evaluated. l'roject components that pose potential impacts to endangered or threatened species and designated critical habitat are construction noise, turbidity, and sedimentation from construction activities. Figure 2 identifies the action area for the project. Biological 1,s:ic~~111cnt 2-1 Jn1111ary 2006 Springbrook Creek \1Veth111d flll(f l Inbitat Mitigation fl1111k FIGURE 2 Springbrook Creek Wetland and H abi tat Mitigat ion Ban k Springbrook Bank Action Area Data Sources Stme Route~ and Str<Mms from WSDOT iJI 1 24K 1 ambcr1 Conformal C<>mr..-Pro1et:t10n Washmgron Stale Plane. No11/1 lone () S foci North Amer,can Datum 198.1 0 6CO F~et 1.200 -(/;;, -::-; ~ 0.2-M il e Buffer Arou nd Project Area Sprin gbrook Ba nk Streams Culverts Railroad y 'I<'•· -----~ (-----------) / t \ /-\, i "·· 1 C ( -) I T_ I._,." "> '---, '-i "-~,v----~.('~ ''= ~ " Fnvironmental Baseline 3. 1. 1 Action Area Description The action area extends 800 feet from the project footprint. The 800 foot distance is based on the distance at which co11struction noise levels are expected to attenuate to background levels, as discussl'd bl'lo\\' in Section 3.1.2, Noise Considerations. Within this action area, waterbodies rnuld be ,iffected by sediment mobilization from construction activities. Springbrook Crc•ek could be affected by sediment mobilization up to 200 feet downstream of construction activities. The distance of sediment mobilization effects to the abcncLrnc•ntiuned waterbodies is based on established Ecology mixing zones. The action area contains areas designated as EFH (PFMC 1999) and is in an area where environmental effects of the proposed project may affect EFH for Chinook and coho salmon (PFMC 1999). 3.1.2 Noise Considerations The project component with the greakst potential to affect endangered or threutened species is noise generated during construction. For the purposes of this BA, the extent of the action area is based on noise eff,·,·ts extending 800 feet from the project footprint. Beyond 800 feel from the project area, construction noise levels are expected to attenuate to background levels. Sound is defined as a density disturbc11Kc' that propagates through a medium. In-air sound measurements are often rcrnrcfrd in dBA using the A-frequency weighing scale. The A-weighted rating of noise is used because it relates to human interpretation of noise. Peak sound emitted from a sourcL' is called Lmax. All sounds averaged during a measured period of time are rcfcnwi to c1s Leq. Noise attenuates as the distance from the source of the noise increases. A general equation shows noise propagation loss as 6 dBA for each doubling distance in areas of hard ground cover. For example, if sound levels were measured at 85 dBA at 50 feet from the source of the noise, at l 110 feet the sound would have decreased to 79 dB A, at 200 feet it would decrease to 73 dI3A, ill ~IJO feet it would be 67 dBA, and so on. In addition, land masses, buildings, and ,·cgetation between a noise source and the Biulogirnl Assc . .:;snwnt Ja111uin1 2006 Spri11g[1ruok Creek WPlI1md and I Iabitat Mi ligation ll1111k Fnvirnnmcntal Raselint' receptor can greatly reduce rernrd,,d noise levels. l'reeways and buildings can reduce noise from construction by betw,'en l ll ,rnd 15 dllA, respectively (USA CE and Port of Oakland 1998). Additional factors play into noise attenuation at greater distances from a noise source. Atmospheric absorption dfects decrease noise levels by an additional 1 dBA beyond 1,000 feet (USACE and Port of Oakland 1998) and molecular absorption accounts for another 1 dBA b,,yond 2,000 feet (WSDOT 1994b). The loudest construction activitic•s anticipated for the project are from heavy equipment, specifically from heavy trucks. In a "orst case scenario, heavy trucks are expected to generate Leq levels on the order ol 82 -% dBA at 50 feet (WSDOT 2005b). The project is surrounded by dcnsc' industrial and commercial development. Ambient conditions are consistent \vith urb,1nizcd areas and are characterized by heavy truck, helicopter, airplane, train, construction, and other human-induced noise. The site is also in close proximity to the 1-405 ,rnd SR 167 corridors and local high traffic roads such as Lind Avenue SW and Oakesdal,· AH'llllt' SW. These factors, as well as frequent residential, comn1ercial, and industrial construction related noise, increase ambient noise levels well above 70 dBA (Lalonde 2003). Based on the attenuation rates noted ab,1\'e, noise rates from heavy trucks would attenuate to background levels of 70 dBi\ between 400 and 800 ieet from the source. No other noise impacts from the project \\'Ou ld exceed these levels and, therefore, the action area encompasses a \VOrst-case sct'nario for noise related construction impacts. 3.2 Physical lndicators Table 3 provides an overview of thl' environmental baseline conditions rebtive to the project action area scale and the watershed scale. Table 4 provides an overview of the environmental baseline conditions specific tu bull trout, relative to the project action area scale and the watershed scale. Biologiml Assess111r11t }1mu11ry 2006 Spri11s_/)rook Creek lVl'lland and Hahilaf Mitigatio11 H,uii_ Environmental Baseline Table 3 Overview of the Environmental Baseline Conditions at the Project Action Area Scale and the Watershed Scale ' Baseline Environmental Conditions Effects of Project Activities Diagnostic/Pathway • Project Action Project Action Indicators Area Scale Watershed Scale Area Scale Watershed Scale Water Quality Not Properly Not Properly Temperature Functioning/ Functioning/ Improve Maintain Functioning at Functioning at -Unacceptable Risk Unacceptable Risk Not Properly Not Properly Sedimentffurbidity Functioning/ Functioning/ lmprovea Maintain" Functioning at Functioning at ----Unacceptable Risk Unacceptable Risk Not Properly Not Properly Chemical Functioning/ Functioning/ Maintain Maintain Contamination/Nutrients Functioning at Functioning at U_na_cceptable Risk Unacceptable Risk Habitat Access Not Properly Not Properly Physical Barriers Functioning/ Functioning/ Maintain Maintain Functioning at Functioning at _ Unacceptable Risk Unacceptable Risk Habitat Elements "------- Not Properly Not Properly I Substrate Embeddedness Functioning/ Functioning/ Maintain Maintain Functioning at Functioning at ---------Unacceptable Risk Unacceptable Risk Not Properly Not Properly Large Woody Debris Functioning/ Functioning/ Improve Maintain Functioning at Functioning at Unacceptable Risk Unacceptable Risk Not Properly Not Properly Pool Frequency Functioning/ Functioning/ Maintain Maintain Functioning at Functioning at __ tJ~a_cceptable Risk Unacceptable Risk Pool Quality At Risk/ At Risk/ Maintain Maintain Functioning_at Risk Functioning at Risk --- Not Properly Not Properly ' ! i Off-Channel Habitat Functioning/ Functioning/ Improve ! Maintain Functioning at Functioning at I --------Unacceptable Risk Unacceptable Risk Not Properly Not Properly Refugia Functioning/ Functioning/ Improve Maintain Functioning at Functioning at : lJ~,ic;c~p_t,able Risk Unacceptable Risk Channel Conditions/Dynamics - Not Properly Not Properly Width/Depth Ratio Functioning/ Functioning/ Maintain Maintain Functioning at Functioning at -----Unac;ceptable Risk Unacceptable Risk Streambank Condition At Risk/ At Risk/ Improve Maintain _£_un~ioning at Risk Functioning at Risk Biolosical A.~SCSSll1l'!Il Janunry 2006 Sprinsbrouk Creek ivctla!ld and Habilal Mitigalio11 f-!u11/: Fnvironmcntal Baseline . Baseline Environmental Conditions Effects of Project Activities Diagnostic/Pathway Project Action Project Action Indicators Area Scale Watershed Scale Area Scale Watershed Scale ! Not Properly Not Properly i Floodplain Connectivity i Functioning/ Functioning/ Improve Maintain I Functioning at Functioning at I Unacceeta~l.e. Risk Unacceptable Risk Flow/Hydrology --- Not Properly Not Properly Change in Peak/Base Flows Functioning/ Functioning/ Improve Maintain Functioning at Functioning at Unacceptable Risk Unacceptable Risk Not Properly Not Properly Increase in Drainage Network Functioning/ Functioning/ Maintain Maintain Functioning at Functioning at , Unacceptable Risk Unacceptable Risk Watershed Conditions Not Properly Not Properly Road Density and Location Functioning/ Functioning/ Maintain Maintain Functioning at Functioning at Unaccet!tabl2 ... ~ . .i.~~ ... Unacceptable Risk Not Properly Not Properly Disturbance History Functioning/ Functioning/ Maintain Maintain Functioning at Functioning at Unac:cep_tablc Risk Unacceptable Risk Not Properly Not Properly Riparian Conservation Areas Functioning/ Functioning/ Improve Maintain Functioning at Functioning at Unacceptable Risk Unacceptable Risk a Sediment levels will be temporarily degr.:i.ded du ring l·(mstruction; ho\.vever, as J. result of the project, they vvill improve to levels c1bove current condition~ Table 4 Overview of Environmental Baseline Conditions at the Project Action Area Scale and the Watershed Scale Specific to Bull Trout ! i Baseline Environmental Conditions Diagnostic/Pathway 1 Project Action Indicators ! Area Scale Watershed Scale Subpopulation Characteristics within Subpopulation Watersheds Subpopulation Size Minimal documented Minimal docurllented l bull trout utilization bull trout utilization . within the action area within the watershed f----------•---"-c======~ Minimal documented Minimal documented Growth and Survival bull trout utilization bull trout utilization , <Mthin the action area within the watershed Minimal documented Minimal documented Life History Diversity and bull trout utilization bull trout utilization Isolation >----------~v.i_Ih_i_n_th_e~a~c~t~io_n~a_re~a~ within the watershed : Minimal documented Minimal documented Persistence and Genetic Integrity Integration of Species and Habitat Conditions Biological !\,;;;;e::;::;1ne11t j bull trout utilization bull trout utilization L within the action area within the watershed Minimal documented Minimal documented bull trout utilization bull trout utilization within the action area within the watershed Springbrook Creek Wet/mu! 11ml l-lnbif({f A1itig11tiu11 B1111k Effects of Project_Acti'litie_s Project Action Area Scale Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain ' Watershed Scale I Maintain Maintain Maintain - Maintain Maintain January 2006 Fm·ironm~ntal Baseline 3.2. 1 Water Quality 3.2.1.1 Temperature Water temperatures in soml' tributc1ries of the Mill and Springbrook Creek subbasins have been historically high ,md ,ire probably of concern for salmonid rearing (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). 3.2.1.2 Sediment/Turbidity Stream sediment loading within the SMG basin is contributed from two primary sources: soil erosion and stream channel erosion (City of Renton 1993). Soil erosion is caused prin1arily by land ckc1ri11g cictivities associated \Vith construction and development. Sediment deposits in the lower section of Springbrook Creek have reached depths of 5 feet (King Cuuntv 1987; Kerwin and Nelson 2000). 3.2. 1.3 Chemical Contamination/Nutrients Springbrook Creek is currcnll\' on Ecology's 303(d) list for exceeding allowable water quality criteria for iecal coliform (Ecology 2004). 3.2.1.4 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen (DO) le\"l'ls arl' one of the most significant issues for salmonids in the SMG basin. DO for incubdlion ,md rearing is a probable factor of decline for salmonids in several tributaries. parlirnlarly Springbrook Creek (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Springbrook Creek is current!\' on Ecology's 303(d) list for exceeding allowable water quality crik'ri" for DO (Ecology 2004). 3.2.2 Habitat Access 3.2.2.1 Physical Barriers The BRPS is located at the most do\\'nstrearn end of Springbrook Creek. Although it is equipped with upstream ,rnd dn1Vnslream passage facilities, the BRl'S still poses a barrier to the upstream anci do\\·nslrean1 rnoven1ent of salmonids at certain seasons (Harza 1995). The upstream passage facility is normally operated annually from mid-September through the' c•nd of J.muary. The BR.PS also has a downstream passage facility that is oper,1Led 'Vlonday through Friday from early April to mid- June each year, for approximaleh ~ hours per day. Fish attempting to move Bi1,/usica! AsscSS/1/C!/t January 2006 Spring/irook Crcct \Vetlmzd and Hnliitot lV1itigalion /l;11i~ Environmenlal Baseline downstream outside of !hilt opl'rc1tional window are either prevented from exiting the Springbrook system or rnust P"" through the large, unscreened pumps (if operational). Juvenile Chinnnk emerge and begin moving downstream in the Middle Green River system and S,H,s Creek as early as February (Jeanes and Hilgert 2000). Consequently, early downstream migrants would be prevented from exiting the Springbrook system. J\dult sc1lmonids cannot pass downstream via the downstream fish passage facililv <1l the ERPS due to the physical limitations of the existing fish passage facilitv. Chinook salmon have been known to move upstream and become trapped in the Springbrook Creek system, where there is little if any suitable Chinook spawning h;ibit,1t (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). 3.2.3 Habitat Elements Under present conditions, the lack of suitable spawning habitat and questionable rearing capacity due to degraded waler qualilv. especially during warm summer months, results in Springbrook Creek offering little in the way of fish habitat (City of Renton 1993). 3.2.3.1 Substrate Embeddedness The lower reaches of Springbr(l(1k ( ·r,,ek are contained in the slack water pond behind the BRPS. As a result, Springbrook Creek's in-stream substrate consists exclusively of silts from the BBl'S upstream to the SR 167 crossing upstream of the action area (Kerwin and N,,Json 2ililil). 3.2.3.2 Large Woody Debris In Springbrook Creek, the ,1rl'a p,11'c1ll,·l and adjacent to SR 167 (within the action area) consists exclusively of sills ,rnd contains no large woody debris (Harza 1995). 3.2.3.3 Pool Frequency and Quality In the Lower Green River Sub\\ ,1ll"rshed, increased fine sediment delivery from upstream reaches and urbanizl'd tributaries is filling pools and substrate interstitial spaces, thereby reducing the ,1111uunt ,md quality of habitat available for rearing juvenile salmonids (Kerwin and '.\Jelson 2000). Pool habitat makes up less than 1 percent of overall habitat in the lo\\"cr reach of Springbrook Creek (Harza 1995). Bio/osical Asses . .:.1!1e11/ Cf Ja111111ry 2006 Springbrook Creek VVd/1111d and Ha/,ital Milignlio11 f-;,uil, EnvinmmcnLal Baseline 3.2.3.4 Off-Channel Habitat Within the action area, Springbrook flows mostly parallel and adjacent to SR 167. In this area, the creek resembles ,1 drainage ditch used for waler conveyance (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). During site investigations completed for the Springbrook flank, it was observed that this section of Springbrook Creek is entirely contained within levees (earthen berms) for flo,lli control purposes (Koellmann 2005) 3.2.4 Channel Conditions and Dynamics 3.2.4.1 Floodplain Connectivity The entire Springbrook Creek subbasin has been adversely impacted by floodplain modifications, the most significc1nt of which is the BRPS (Kerwin and Nelson 201111). During flood periods on tlw (;rccn River, the pumping station acts as a dam, preventing water from backing upslrc,am into the lower Springbrook Creek subbasin (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). 3.2.5 Flow/Hydrology 3.2.5.1 Change in Peak/Base Flows Extreme volumes of vvater associ~1tcd ,vith stonn events has caused streatnbank erosion, scouring, and sillalion in the SMG watershed (Bortz 1981). Low to moderate downcutting in Springbrook Cru•k h,1s been found in Springbrook Creek (Harza 1995). 3.2.6 Watershed Conditions 3.2.6.1 Road Density and Location Road densities in the SMG watershed are greater than 3 miles of linear distance per square n1ile, with many road-; on the \'alley floor. 3.2.6.2 Disturbance History It is evident tl1at the creeks in tlw Springbrook Creek subbasin have undergone extensive alterations to their hislllric slream channels by their drainage ditch appearance, right angle turns c1long property lines, and straight channel lines (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Riological A.~SCSS/1/Cl!I fmwary 2006 Spri11g/,m(_1k Creek lVc!land and l-fnhilu/ Mitigafin11 H1u!.i, Environmental Baselim' 3.2.6.3 Riparian Conservation Areas There is no functioning riparian h,1bitat throughout the lower reaches of Mill and Springbrook Creeks. The absence nf this habitat contributes to lhe lack of stream channel diversity, complexitv, and ultimately unsuccessful salmonid rearing capabilities (Kerwin and Nelson 20UII). Hiologirnl /\:;;,e:;.,mc,1t Ja1111r1r_1; 1006 Spn11ghrook Creek }Vctl111nl (Ill(/ Ila/ii/al i'v1itigntion H11;1k Spvcics Occurrence, Ffkcls Analysis, and Efrt>cts Ddermination 4 SPECIES OCCURRENCE, EFFECTS ANALYSIS, AND EFFECTS DETERMINATION 4.1 Chinook Salmon 4.1. 1 Status The Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU is listed as threatened. 4.1.2 Critical Habitat On August 12, 2005, the Nationc1I ivlarine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced the impending publication of Final 1\11/,•s /J,•sign11ti11g Critical IIabitatfc,r 12 Euol11tio11arily Significant Units (ES Us) of l'aci/1< S11/uu1111111d Stce/hcnd in Wnsliington, Oregon, and Idaho. These rules were published on Sq.1ll'm bc·r 2, 2005 (50 CPR Part 226 ), and became effective on January 2, 2006. This dcsignation includes the Puget Sound ESU of Chinook salmon, which is currently listed as threc1lened under the ESA. Critical habitat is designated for ,11-ec1s containing the physical and biological habitat features, or primary constituent elenwnts (l'CEs) essential for the conservation of the species or that require special m~rnctgL'tnL'nt considerations. PCEs include sites that are essential to supporting one or mun• lit,· stages of the ESU and which contain physical or biological features essential to thc conservation of the ESU. The relevant l'CEs related to the project area are: 1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate suppurting spawning incubation and larval development. 2. Freshwater rearing sites with w,1lL'r quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth, and mobility; water quality ,md torng,• supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged ,md overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dan1s, aquatic vegl'Lalion, l(1rge rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. 3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with waler quantity and quality conditions and nalur,11 co, <'r such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rncks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. Riological As.sr'is111wt Jn111wry 2()06 Spr111g/Jrook Creek iVi'l!a!ld and f-1ilbitnl Mitigntiu11 l!.1nZ '-i11vLies Occurrence, Hkrls Ana[p.;is, and Effecl.c.; Determination Springbrook Creek is identific•d ,is critic,11 habitat for the Puget Sound FSU of Chinook salmon within the Duwamish Subbc1sin, Unit 11 (HUC 17110013). 4.1.3 Biology and Distribution Puget Sound Chinook salmon are ,111adrr1mous and semelparous. Adult females spawn in redds with suitable gravel size, water depth, and velocity. The female guards the redd for 4 to 25 days before dying (C\IOAA Fisheries 2004). Chinook salmon exhibit great ,·,iriahilitv with respect to the duration and type's of habitats used for rearing. juveniles can spend several dilys to a year in freshwater prior to migrating to the estuary (Heal,·,· 1 'l9 l ). This variability can occur within a single stock, but more typically, stocks an· cl.issified as "ocean type" or "stream type." Ocean type salmon stay in freshwater only bridly (from a few days to several months) and spend a greater amount of timl' fL,l·ding in estuaries than spring type Chinook sahnon. Stream type salmon can spend I to 2 yrnrs in freshwater as juveniles, and migrate rapidly to marine vvaters. Ocean type Chinook saln1on are more common in Puget Sound. Chinook salmon generally require• habitat diversity within a single stream for their spawning, rearing, and foraging ,1cti,·itics. They also require cover for protection from predators. ln small streams, undcrrnl b,rnks with slower water velocities are often used for rearing habitat. ln larger ri,·L·rs, necwshore areas of lower \vater velocity, such as scour pools associated vvith logs ,ind roots, serve as rearing habitat. Foraging is done in faster waters, but access to lowcr-,·docilv areas, such as eddies behind boulders, are important "holding" areas where the s,ilmon can expend less energy while waiting for prey to appear in the faster walt'r (ISl'C 2ll02). Salmonids are closely associated with woody debris, which offers cm·cr from predators (ISPG 2002). Chinook salmon are presumed to use• Springbrook Creek in the action area for rearing, migration, and foraging. Chinook spawning likely occurs upstream of the action area, as little to no suitable Chinook s,1lmon sp,iwning habitat exists within or downstream of the action area. Biological As.;-1's . .;111ent ·'·) Ja1111nry 2006 Spri11g/1rook Creek V/l'flnnd 1111d Ilaliitat Miligalio11 n.,nk SplYics Occurrence, Hf eels Analysis, and Effccls Dclcrn1inalion 4. 1.4 Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects that could result in i111pc1cts to Chinook salmon as a result of the project include temporary construction im,,acls, including increases in sedimentation/turbidity, vegetation ren1oval, noise, and hazardt1us 1naterial spills, and overall in1prove1nents to Chinook habitat resulting from changes to hydraulics, hydrology, and habitat conditions. 4.1.4.1 Sedimentation/Turbidity Excavation and grading cou Id introduce fine sediments into Springbrook Creek through erosion and sedimentation. Excessive fine sediment input into strean1s can result in multiple impacts lo sci\rnonids. Potential i1npacts frrnn erosion and scdi1nentation include sn1olhL'rcd sal111on eggs in gravels and decreased 1nicro and n1acro invertebrate salrnonid prey survival as a result of reduced DO; reduced visual predators' capacity to capture pn·v, damaged gills and increased risk of anoxia (the absence or reduced supply of oxygen in arterial blood or tissues), behavioral changes, and stress that can 1c,c1,l to tish mortality. Sedimentation will be highest in cHec1s where construction activities occur adjacent to Springbrook Creek. Units A. fl. ,ind I will be affected by grading and excavation activities, mowing of invasi\·l' plzmt species, and placement of erosion control measures that may temporc1rilv disturb soil resulting in erosion and sedimentation. The majority of these activiti,•.s will he completed prior to breaching the berms that separate Units A, B, and E from Springbrook Creek, allowing for the berms to contain construction related sPdinwnt from entering Springbrook Creek. Breaching of the berms will occur during sumnwr low flows to further limit sediment from entering Springbrook Creek BMPs, conservation measures, and pcrforn1ance standards ,,vill be i1nplemented to minimize the impacts of sedinwnlation and turbidity. Turbidity levels will not exceed maximums defined bv Fcologv·'s Water Quality Certiiication (WQC). rven wilh BMl's, short-term effects Lo w,1Ln quality from sediment (such as temporary increases in strean1 turbidit:') arl' pn:-.sible, particularly during storm events. Biolosir11/ Asst'S.~!11!'111 la1111ary 2006 Sprinslnaok Creek 'vVetland rmd Habitat Mitigation b11nk Spl'Ul:S OccurrenCL', Effects Analysis, and Efkcts Determination However, in general, these effects arc• expected to be small in magnitude and not likely to cause harm to fish. 4.1.4.2 Vegetation Removal Re1noval of riparian vegetation can .,1ffect fish by increasing streain temperature and potentially reducing DO, reducing the potential for large woody debris recruitment and contribution of organic materi,11 tor macroinvertebrates, eliminating in-and ovcr-strean1 cover, and decn .. ''-lsing bank stability. Temporary riparian impacts ,,·ill occur within Units A, B, and E within the project area when riparian buffers an~ enlic111ced by rnovving invasive vegetation, installing erosion control n1easures, and planting or underplanting vvith native vegetation .. Although existing riparian condition'-. vary, the n1ajority of buffers in the action area are currently moderately In St·verelv degraded. Therefore, many of lhe functions that riparian vegetation pn_)\'idL'S i1rl' illready altered and wil1 not be substantially affected as compared to existint-; conditions (WSDOT 2005c). In areas where vegetation is lernp,n,1rily removed, it will be replaced wilh native plant species appropriate fur thl· project area. In addition, non-native invasive plant species will be removed and/or rnnlrolled throughout the project area. The project will ultimately result in ,1n overall increase in the amount and quality of riparian and upland vegetation in Llw action area, which in Springbrook Creek will ultimately lead to increased shading and reduced water temperatures, increased refugia habitat, and a larger quantity of litter fall. 4.1.4.3 Noise Although effects to fish from ,1bove-watcr construction noise arc not as well understood as the impacts of Llnckrn .iter noise (pile driving), construction noise in general could disturb or displace' fish near the project. Fish that are disturbed or displaced could alter their migrc1lon-behavior through actions such as holding up- or downstream for extended pl'riods. Construction noise can also result in increased Riologicnl Assessment ,. Jn1111ary 1006 S;wi11gl1ruuk Creek VVetln11d mu! !l//bilut Miligatio11 i!iu1k SpL·cics Occurrence, Effects Analysis, and Effects Determination fish predation if fish are displaced from cover or habituated to excessive noise, which could decrease their ,ibilily lo detect approaching predators. Noise impacts will be greatest during construction along Springbrook Creek; however, this area is alreadv exposed to a high level of ambient noise (highways, airport, railroad, and industry). J\ny noise impacts to fish will be minimized by limiting the timeframe associall'd with breaching of the berms next to Springbrook Creek to the \VDFW in-waler work window, when the fewest number of fish are expected to be present, and completing the work during summer low-flow conditions. In addition, pi!,· driving has been eliminated from the design of this project. 4. 1.4.4 Exposure to Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials could k11 ,. kthcil or sublethal effects on fish and micro-and macroinvertebrate prey wilhin llw .1ction area. During construction, oil, fuel, industrial fluid, grease, p8int, solvents, concrete, asph8lt, tar, heavy metals, and other hazardous materials from nmstruction equipment could enter Springbrook Creek. Conta1ninants can be suspt'nded in the \:vater column or settled on the bottom and n1ay adhere to scd i mL'n t particles. Many heavy n1etals and persistent organic compounds such ,is pesticid,•s and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) tend to adhere to solid particles. As tlw particles are deposited, these compounds or their degradation products can bioaccumulate in benthic organisms at much higher concentrations than in the surrounding waters. Contaminants can be assin1ilated into fish tissues by absorption across the gills or through bioaccumulation as a result of consuming contaminated prev or incidental consumption of sediments. Impacts to listed species frnlll rnnsl ruction of the trail include introduction of chemical contaminants (e.g., copper) fro1n ,vood leachate and wood fragn1ents from construction resulting in h,irlll or nrnrtality, avoidance reactions by fish from exposure to contan1inants, iltid imp,icts from noise associated with construction of the trail. Drilling and cutting of lrc•,1Lcd wood may introduce contaminated wood fragments into aquatic habitdt (Ldinw et al. 2001). Exposure to precipitation may result in chemical contamin,rnls from the wood being leached into the surrounding environment. Possible impacls ass,Kiated with avoidance behavior include fish Hio/osirnl Assessmrnt [111wary 2006 Springlmiok Creek VVctlnnd m11i !-iul1ifut A1itigal'iun B1111k I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Spv1.. ii:s Occiirr~nl:'e, Effrcts Andlysis, and Effects Determination avoiding structures and bet'oniing nl\lre subject to predation, or n1oving out of a stream system earlier than tlwv otherwise would, leading to decreased survival. Displaced fish may have lo spend more time and energy procuring food if a structure is installed in a prnducti\'L' 11urse1y area (Poston 2001). Although treated wood contains chemicals that are potentially toxic, studies indiCilte that there are no measurable impccls on aquatic organisms if the wood is properly treated and installed. The pott'ntic1l environmental impact of treated wood can be minimized by specifying th,,t lhc· woud be treated using methods that ensure chemical fixation and prevent tlw formation of surface residues or bleeding of preservative. In addition, rc's,,onsiblc• construction practices, such as storage of treated wood under cover ,1nd cnnL.1inn1ent and collection of construction residue, can further reduce the possibilitv uf negative environmentill impacts (Lebow et al. 2001). Additionally, computt'r modeling and empirical evidence suggest that the use of vvalcrborne wood preservatives in fresh or n1nrine \Vaters is not likely to increase dissolved copper concentrJtions by dl'tectable amounts (Brooks 2004). A SPCC Plan for the project 11ill be ,,repared and submitted by the contractor lo the project engineer prior to conrnwncing any construction. BMI-'s will be implemented during project construction lo reduce or eliminate potential sources of hazardous material contamination, Construction equipment will not enter Springbrook Creek below the welted perimeter ol lhc crc•ek as breaching of the berms on Units A, B, and E will occur during summer low fl,m s. Additional BMI-'s, conservation measures, and performance standards will b,, implemented to avoid, minimize, and control potential discharges of hazardou.s rn.1lerials into the environment. 4.1.4.5 Modifications of Habitat Conditions The project will restore, reh,1biliL1l<>, c1nd enhance wetland and riparian areas, and enhance upland buffers throughout lhe project area. Habitat improvements include removal of invasive plant comrnunilit'S and replace1nent of those comniunities with diverse, native, multi-stralci vc'gl't,1lion that will provide increased opportunity for food and shelter. Reconnecling Sf1ringbrook Creek lo its floodplain will provide wider stream margins with slowl'r, <'iocity waters, which will provide off-channel Biolvgical A~:scssment Jon11an1 2006 Spri11s/1ruok Crf!ek Wdla11d a!l(-f Habitat Mitigafi1t11 n,.,nf. ~}1l'CiL's 0Lcurn:.·nct', Fffrcts /\nalysis, and Effects Dctcnr,ination refugia habitat for juvenile salmon ids. Placement of large woody debris and other special habitat features within Springbrook Creek's floodplain and lhe associated uplands will provide cover lor f""'' species and salmonids. Improved groundwater connectivity (through the n•muv,11 ul historic fill materials) will increase groundwater recharge and impron, water quality by contributing cooler, cleaner water to Springbrook Crec<k. 4.1.4.6 Fish Stranding The berms that presently separ,1k Springbrook Creek from Units A, B, and E will be breached to reconnect Springbrook Creek to its historic floodplain. The berms on Units A and B will be breach,·d ,it ,rn approximately 12 fool elevation to allow inundation during the 2-ye,ir flood e,·ent. Unit E will be breached at an approximately 8-foot clev,1lio11 and ll'ill be inundated during typical Springbrook Creek baseflow. The existing bt>rrns ,il Unils A and Bare designed for flood protection up lo the 25-year flood,., ent (14.5 feet in elevation) and in some locations up to the 100-year event (I 5.ll feel in elevation) per the Hydrological Simulation Program -FORTRAN (HSl'I) mndel dated May 2005. Unit E will be graded such that all waler will directly drain out of the unit as floodwaters recede. However, Units A and B will have are,1s at c'IP\'ations lower than 12 feet that will retain water after the floodwaters recede. During flood events, juvenil,• s,1l111nn, like many small fishes, seek out shallow water areas with low velocities (Ewrcsl and Chapman 1972, Roper et al. 1994, and Bradford and Higgins 2001). Studies on juvenile Chinook behavior in floodplains show that juvenile Chinook scilnwn do not appear to be especially prone to stranding mortality, distribute equalll' Lhrnughout the entire floodplain during flood events, and show no obvious preten•ncc•s for pools, heavy vegetation, or deep water habitats (i.e., depression zones) (Sumnwr l'l ,11. 2005; Sommer et al. 2001). Therefore, natural juvenile Chinook salmon b,·ha,·ior" ill limit stranding in Units A and B. Under existing conditions, in larger Hood events, such as a 25-year or greater event, the existing berms in the Springbrnok system will overtop. These overtopping events will result in juveni!t~ fish seeking shallo,.ver water areas \vith lovv velocities Riolosic11/ Assl'S5!!/l'llf ./() [anuriry 2006 Spri!ls;hrotik Creek VVet/and and Il11bitat A1iti!_{tlfion /l1111.l. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~wl·ic:, Occurrence, F:ffeds Analysis, and F.ffects Delermjrw.tion similar to those found land,\'c1rd of the overtopped berms. As floodwaters recede, the potential for juvenile fish str,mding landward of the berms increases significantly because, once the floodwatc'fs rect·de to below the level of the berms, fish have no opportunity to access Springbrook Creek. In comparison, the built project will contain flood events of this 111c1gniludc within Units A and Band the associated floodwaters will ultimatdv dr,1in out of these units. Therefore, although the potential for stranding still L'xisls. tlw built project will result in a far lower number of stranded fish than under present rnnditions. Additional information on fish str,mding can be found in Appendix D: Fisheries Review VVhite Paper. 4.1.5 Effects Determination The activities described in this BA will not result in long-term, permanent impacts to Chinook salmon populations. Construction activities may result in temporary impacts to water quality, noise increases, ,rnd stream-side vegetation. However, pile driving has been eliminated from this proiect and nll other in-waler work is planned in the action area. In addition, construction acti,·ities immediately adjacent to Springbrook Creek will be performed during the WDflV "ork window when Chinook salmon are least likely to be present. Treated lumber will be used for decking associated with the boardwalk trail in Unit A, but through use of BM l's during construction and Copper Azole treated wood, impacts from treated wood will lw minimized. Over time, the project will result in improved habitat conditions for Chinook salmon through increased floodplain connectivity, improved water quality ,rnd waler quantity conditions, increased habitat complexity, and restoration of native riparian plant communities throughout the project area. Therefore, it is concluded that tlw project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Chinook salmon. 4.1.6 Critical Habitat Effects Determination The action area falls within dPsignc1ted critical habitat for Puget Sound ESU of Chinook salmon. Chinook salmon are presu rned lo use Springbrook Creek in the action area for rearing, migration, and foraging. Th,'rt' is no suitable Chinook salmon spawning habitat, and limited migration, reciring ;111d foraging opportunities exist in the action Biolo:,::irnl Assl'S:,:11101! I/ J1JJ11/flf!/ 2006 Sprius/)mok Creek Wrtlnnd mid f-iabi/11! Mitigati, ,1 f.uut: :-:.p'-'Lics Occurrence, Effects Analysis, and Effects Ddnmination area. Construction activities associatl'd with the project will not degrade critical habitat due to permit timing conditions c1nd the' use of BMPs. Floodplain connectivity, water quality and quantity conditions. ,md tlw amount of in-stream habitat in Springbrook Creek to support rearing and migration will be improved as a result of the project. Natural cover throughout the project ,1rm will be increased allowing for better opportunity for adult and juvenile mobility and survival. Therefore, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon critical habitat. 4.2 Bull Trout 4.2. 1 Status Bull trout are listed as threatened in l'ugd Sound. 4.2.2 Critical Habitat Springbrook Creek has not been design,1ted as bull trout critical habitat. 4.2.3 Biology and Distribution Bull trout are members of the ch,ir subgroup of the salmon family. The anadromous type inhabits upper tributary streams and lake and reservoir systems. Bull trout feed on terrestrial and aquatic insects, and as they grow in size, their diets include whitefish, sculpins, and other trout. Bull truut s11awn from August through November when they reach maturity, bet\veen 4 and 7 year~, and ·when te1nperatures begin to drop, in cold, clear streams. Bull trout can spc1wn repcc1tedly, ,md can live over 20 years. Adults and juveniles return to the marine l'll\ ir011rnL·nt between May and early July. Resident forms of bull trout spend their entire liv,·s in ir,·shwater, while anadromous forms live in tributary streams for 2 or 3 ye,ir..,, bl'turl' migrating to estuaries as s1nolts. Char species are generally longer-lived than salmon; bull trout up lo 12 years old have been identified in Washington (Brown 1992). Bull trout habitat requirements ,ire similar to those of Chinook and coho salmon, but they need slightly colder water tm1pnc1lures for successiul spawning (ISI'G 2002). Bit1/og1rnl As5css111c11l J:?_ ]{11111ary 2006 Sprllzglimok Creek i,Vcth111d and Hnliitnt Mitignlion H1u1k Spt·ciL'S Occurrence, Effccls Analysis, and Effecls Det<:rminalion Bull trout have not been documenkd in the action area. Adult bull trout are the only life history stage likely to occur in Llw <>di,m ,uea, though their presence is unlikely due to the water guality conditions found in Springbrook Creek. Bull trout are also unlikely to be found in the action area during limes where construction will occur near Springbrook Creek, due to high water temperatures during summer low flow periods. 4.2.4 Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects that could result in impacts to bull trout as a result of the project include te1nporary construction i1npacts, including increases in sedi1nentation/turbidity, vegetation removal, noise, and ha;.,,drdous material spills, and overall improvements to bull trout habitat resulting from ch,111gL'S to hydraulics, hydrology, and habitat conditions. There are no in dire, t effects resulting from the built project that will impact bull trout. 4.2.4.1 Sedimentation/Turbidity Excavation and grading could inlroduce fine sediments into Springbrook Creek through erosion and sedin1t.•ntation. Excessive fine sedin1ent input into streams can result in multiple impacts to salmnnids. Potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation include smotherl'd salmon eggs in gravels and decreased micro and macro invertebrate salmon id pn'y survival as a result of reduced DO, reduced visual predators' capacity to capturL' prey, damaged gills and increased risk of anoxia (the absence or reduced supph' of o~ygcn in arterial blood or tissues), behavioral changes, and stress that G1n lead to fish n1ortality. Sedimentation will be highesl in arL'as where construction activities occur adjacent to Springbrook Creek. Units,\, B, ,md E will be affected by grading and excavation activities, mowing of invasi\'l' plzml species, and placetnent of erosion control measures that may temporarily disturb soil resulting in erosion and sedimentation, The majority of these activitiL'S will be completed prior to breaching the berms that separate Units A, B, and!: from Springbrook Creek, allowing for the berms to contain cnnstruction-related scdiml'nt from entering Springbrook Creek. Breaching of the berms will occur durin/', su,n,ner low flows to further limit sediment from entering Springbrook Cre,•k. Biologicr1! Asscs.~111c11t Jn1111ary 2006 Spri11ghrouk Creek lVctland and Hobitnt lv1itignti.:1;i E11n.~ S1--...._ .. j..._,s Occurrence, Ffrcrts Analysis, and Effects Determination BMPs, conservation measures, and performance standards will be implemented to minimize the impacts of sedinwntation and turbidity. Turbidity levels will not exceed maximums defined bv Ecology's WQC. Even with BMPs, short-term effects to water quality from sediment (such as temporary increases in stream turbidity) are possible, particularly during storm e,ents. However, in general, these effects are expected to be small in magnitude and not likely to cause harm to fish. 4.2.4.2 Vegetation Removal Removal of riparian vegetation can ,iffect fish by increasing stream temperature and potentially reducing DO, reducing the potential for large woody debris recruitment and contribution of organic rn<-lll'ri<-11 for n1acroinvertebratcs, elin1inating in-and over-stream cover, and decre~1sing bank stability. Temporary riparian impacts will ,iccur within Units A, B, and E within the project area when riparian buffers ,m• enh,rnced by mowing invasive vegetation, installing erosion control measures, ,111d pL1nting or underplanling with native vegetation. Although existing riparian conditions vary, the majority of buffers in the action area are currently moderately to severely degraded. Therefore, many of the functions that riparian vegetation pro\'ides are already altered and will not be substantially affected as compared to existing conditions (WSDOT 2005c). In areas where vegetation is temporarily removed, it will be replaced with native plant species appropriate for the f>roject area. As a result, the project will result in enhancement of 14.68 acres of upl,md and riparian habitat areas, and enhancement and protection an additional 9.86 ,icres of wetland and upland habitat through establishing the 40-foot-wide setback buffer. In addition, non-native invasive plant species will be removed and/or controlled throughout the project area. 4.2.4.3 Noise Although impacts to fish from abon·-water construction noise are not as well understood as the impacts ut umkr\\'ater noise (pile driving), construction noise in general could disturb or displ,,ce fish near the project. Fish that are disturbed or displaced could alter their migraturv behavior through actions such as holding up- Bioh\i.;irn/ /t::;:st':,,::;//ln1t Tanunry 2006 Spri1Jglnouk Creek VVctlnnd n11d Ha/nfa/ 1\-filigali,1u nun/, ~~?L'cics Occurrence, Effects Analysis, anJ Effects Determination or downstream for extendc•d periods. Construction noise can also result in increased fish predation if fish are disp L,ced from cover or habituated to excessive noise, which could decrease their abilit\ tn detect approaching predators. Noise impacts will be greatest during construction along Springbrook Creek; however, this area is already exposed to a high level of ambient noise (highways, airport, railroad, and industr\'). 1\11\' noise impacts to fish will be minimized by limiting the timeframe associakd \\'ith breaching of the berms next lo Springbrook Creek lo the WDFW in-waler work" indow, when the iewest number oi fish are expected to be present, and cornpkting the work during summer low-flow conditions. In addition, no pill-drivmg is planned for the project. 4.2.4.4 Exposure to Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials could han• leth,il or sublethal affects on fish and micro-and macroinvertebrate prey within the cKlion area. During construction, oil, fuel, industrial fluid, grease, paint, soh·ents, concrete, asphalt, tar, heavy n1ctals, and other hazardous materials from construction equipment could enter Springbrook Creek. Contaminants can be sus1wnded in the water column or settled on the bottom, and may adhere lo sediment particles. Many heavy metals and persistent organic compounds such as pesticides and PCBs tend to adhere to solid particles. As the particles are deposited, these compounds or their degradation products can bioaccumulate in benthic org,misrns ,it much higher concentrations than in the surrounding waters. Contaminants can be assimilated into fish tissues by absorption across the gills or through bio,,ccumulation as a result of consuming contaminated prey or incidental consumption of sediments. Impacts to listed species from cnnslruction of the trail include introduction of chemical contaminants (e.g., copper) frun1 wood leachate and vvood fragments from construction resulting in h,1rtn ur rnurtality, avoidance reactions by fish fron1 exposure to containinants, and in1pacts fron1 noise associated ,vith construction of the trail. Drilling and cutting of trcc1ted wood may introduce contaminated wood fragments into aquatic habitat (Lebow et al. 2001). Exposure to precipitation may result in chemical contaminants from the wood being leached into the surrounding environtnenl. Possible impal"ls clssuciated vvith avoidance behavior include fish Biologirnl A~sc:,.::-:mmf Fi f11ill/l1J'_ll 2()()6 Spriugbrook Crl'ck V•./etlo11d wui Hahitnl l\,1ilig11/i,.11: F1in.l, Spo.._·cic·~ Occurrence, Effects Analysis, and Effects Dckrminalion avoiding structures and becoming mure subject to predation, or moving out of a stream system earlier than llwv otherwise would leading to decreased survival. Displaced fish may have to spc'nd more time and energy procuring food ii a structure was installed in a productive nursery area (Poston 2001 ). Altl1ough treated wood contains chemicals that are potentially toxic, studies indicate that there arc no measurabJ,, impacts on aquatic organisms if the wood is properly treated and installed. The ,1ntential environmental impact of treated wood can be minimized by specifying tk,t tlw \\'ood be treated using methods that ensure chemical fixation and pren'nt tlw formation of surface residues or bleeding of preservative. In addition, rL'sponsible construction practices, such as storage of treated wood under cover c1nd cunl,1inment and collection of construction residue, can further reduce the possibility ol negative environmental impacts (Lebow et al. 2001). Additionally, computer modeling and empirical evidence suggest that the use of \Vaterborne vvood preserv a ti \·es in fresh or n1arine waters is not likely lo increase dissolved copper concentrations lw detectable amounts (Brouks 2004). A SPCC Plan for the project will be 11repared and submitted by the contractor to the project engineer priur to commencing any construction. BMPs will be implemented during project construction to reduce• or eliminate potential sources of hazardous material contamination. Constructiun equipment will not enter Springbrook Creek below the wetted perimekr of the creek as breaching of the berms on Units A, B, and E will occur during summer low flows. Additional BMPs, conservation measures, and performance standards will lw implemented to avoid, minimize, and control potential discharges of hcvardous materials into the environment. 4.2.4.5 Modifications of Habitat Conditions The project will restore, rchabilit,1Le, and enhance wetland and riparian areas and enhance upland buffers throughout the project area. Habitat improvements include re1noval of invasive plant com111unities and replacen1cnt of those con1111unities with diverse, native, multi-strata ,·,·getation that will provide increased opportunity for food and shelter. Reconnecting Springbrook Creek to its floodplain will provide wider stream margins with slo\\'c'r, docity waters, which will provide off-channel llitilogicaf A~sc'.-smcnt -J-6 [a11unr_1; 2006 Spri!lgbrtiok Cr('ek Wetland 1//ul I fabitnf MitiS,nfi(1n B1111k ~pccics Occurrence, Effects Analysis, and Effects Determination refugia habitat for juvenile s;ilmunids. Placement of large woody debris and other special habitat features within Springbrook Creek's floodplain and the associated uplands will provide cover for prev species and salmonids. Improved groundwater connectivity will increase groundw;itcr recharge and improve water quality by contributing cooler, cleaner wall'r to Springbrook Creek. 4.2.5 Effects Determination The activities described in this fl.,\ \\ill nllt result in long-term, permanent impacts to bull trout populations. Construction aclivities may result in temporary impacts to water quality, noise increases, and stn._•am-sidl' vegetation. I Iowever, no pile driving is planned in the action area and no in-w;ikr work will occur. Treated lumber will be used for decking associated with tlw bm1rdwalk trail in Unit A, but through use of BMPs during construction and Copper 1\7olc treated wood, impacts from treated wood will be minimized. Over time, the project will rc·sult in improved habitat conditions for bull trout through increased floodplain cornwctivity, improved water quality and water quantity conditions, increased hc1bitc1l complexity, and restoration of native riparian plant communities throughoul lhe prnj<Yt area. Therefore, it is concluded that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, bull trout. 4.2.6 Critical Habitat Effects Determination Springbrook Creek has nol been designc1led as bull trout critical habitat. 4.3 Bald Eagle 4.3.1 Status Bald eagles are listed as threall'nl'd. 4.3.2 Critical Habitat l\io critical habitat has been designated for bald eagles. Biologirnl A~~cs~111e11t 17 SfJri11g/1ruok Creek ivctlm1d and I /a/Ji fat lv1itignli1111 /;uni- January 2006 '.-,pccics Occurrcnn', Effccls Analysis, and Effects Determination 4.3.3 Biology and Distribution 4.3.3.1 Nesting Nesting occurs from Januan· l to August 15 (USFWS 1986). Abundant food is critical during nesting beGHISl' young bald eagles are less tolerant to food deprivation than adults. Bald eagk nests are frequently associated with water, such as the Puget Sound, and must ottl'n occur close to shorelines. The Pacific States Bald Eagle Rcn",·ry Plan (USFWS 1986) recommends limiting construction activities near bc1ld l',1gle nests during critical wintering and nesting periods. The plan recomn1L'nds construction and disturbance setbacks of 400 meters (1,313 feet) if the nest does not h,I\ L'" line of sight to the proposed construction activity, or 800 meters (2,625 feet) if the nest is within line of sight of construction. The nearest eagle nest is an1roximatl'iy 2.·1 miles from the project area and 1.9 miles from the 0.2 mile action arc,1 boundary. The eagle's territory extends no closer than 1.8 miles to the project area. 4.3.3.2 Foraging Foraging habitat for bald eagles is typically associated with water features such as rivers, lakes, and coastal shorl'ii,ws where fish, waterfowl, and seabirds are preyed upon. Bald eagle foraging is opportunistic and they feed on dead or weakened prey. Their diets include fish such as s,ilmon, catfish, pollock, cod, rockfish, carp, dogfish, sculpin, and hake. They also teed on marine birds and their offspring, and small terrestrial mammals. Thev prdcr high structures for perching such as trees along the shoreline, but will also use other structures such as cliffs, piling, and open ground. They are usually sc't'll Imaging in open areas with wide views (Stalmaster and Newman 1979). The Lake Washington shordine, especially on Mercer Island across the water from the project area, provides good foraging habitat. Piling in the lake, both abandoned and part of actively used structur,•s, furnish above-water perches in many places along the shoreline. The developed area close to the highway is of lower quality, supporting few prey manrn1,1ls ,rnd lacking in suitable perching viewpoints. Biological Asscss111c11t is f111111ary 2006 Spri11gbrook Creek lVctl1111d and l ln/)itnt lviitignfi[)n n,1 .11~ ~Pl..'Lics Occurn.'nU .. ', Efft"cts Analysis, dnd Effects Determini.ltion 4.3.3.3 Perching Perch sites may be used for acti,·itics including hunting, prey consumption, signaling territory occupation, and resting. Perches are most oiten associated with food sources near water and will h,we visual access to adjacent habitats (Stalmaster and Newman 1979). Bald ,·cigl,·s will often choose the highest tree on the edge of a stand, selecting the strongest l.itc,ral branches. Migrating eagles could fly over the site, but are unlikely to forcige or perch there due to the lack oi suitable perching trees and the limited prey availabilitv. 4.3.3.4 Wintering Wintering activities for bald eagles occur from October 31 through March .11. During the winter months, bc1ld L'agk1 s forage, construct nests, and engage in courtship activities. There mav also be bald eagles from outside the region that forage along the coastline of Pugd Sound in the winter. Winter is a high-stress period for bald eagles because• foud is scarce and adverse weather requires the birds to expend more energy lo sun·in•. There is no known bald eagle wintering habitat in the project action area. Tl1L' J1L'arcst eagle territory does not extend to the project action area boundary. 4.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects No bald eagle nesting, foraging. perching, or wintering habitat is documented in the action area and the nearest eagil' tc•rritorv does not extend to the project action area boundary. Therefore, there are no idenlified direct or indirect effects on bald eagles. 4.3.5 Effects Determination The closest bald eagle nest to t11L' fHOjl'ct is located 2.1 rniles away and the nearest bald eagle territory is located 1.9 rniks fron1 lhe action area. In addition, bald eagles are not knovvn to use or depend on habitdt within the action area for perching, foraging, nesting, or roosting. Therefon>, il is rnncluded that the project will have no effect on bald eagles. Riolosicnl A5SCSS111C!l1 Ja1111nn; 2006 Spri11gbruuk Creek ivctland and Habitat Mitiy;afiiin /l:111k Effccls of Inl('rrelated and Interdependenl Actions 5 EFFECTS OF INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS The only interdependent action related lu llw project is the need for any potential additional off- site staging areas. These additional oll-sil,• sl.iging areas may be necessary to construct the project; ho,vever, the locations of these ;_1rc<.1s h,1\·e not been determined. The location of any off- site staging areas will be determined bv the pro1ect contractor; however, WS!JOT will require the contractor to locate off-site staging cin•cis more than 300 feet from any sensitive area. There are no interrelated actions associated with the Springbrook Bank. R10logirnl As.~cs°'111c11t fmrnant 2006 Spri11glirook Creek 'vVctland and Habitat Mitigatiou Bli11( References 6 REFERENCES Antieau, Clayton J. 1998. Biology and Manag,·mmt of Reed Canarygrass, and Implications for Ecological Restoration. Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA. http://www.sernw.org/docs.RCG.rtf Bortz, B. 1981. Streambed, habitat, bent'licial use and recommendations towards enhancement of Kent stream ecosystems. City of Kent !'Janning Department. 58 pp. Bradford, \1. and I'. Higgins. 2001. K1bitc1t-. SPcison-, and size-specific variation in die\ activity patterns of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oworln;nc/111, ts/wwytsc/,n) and steclhead trout (Oncorl,y11cl,11s mykiss). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:365-374. Brooks, Kenneth. 2004. The affects of dissolvc•d copper on salmon and the environmental affects associated with the use of wood preservatives in aquatic environments. Prepared for: Western Wood Preservers Institute. Vancouver, i-VA. Brown, L. G. 1992. Draft management guide for the bull trout Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley) on the Wenatchee National Fon•sl. W ashinglon Department of Wildlife, Wenatchee, Washington. 75 pp. Everest, F., and D. Chapman. 1972. Hcibilcil selection and spatial interaction by juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. J. of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29(1):91-100. Washington Department of Ecology (f.colog\'). 2004. Department of Ecology decision matrix for surface waters listed under section :1Ll3(d) included in 305B report of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Ecology, 01\'mpia, Washington. Ilarza. 1995. Final Report -Comprehensive Fisheries Assessment of the Mill Creek, Garrison Creek and Springbrook Creek SvsL,•111. Prepared for the City of Kent, Washington. Bi0Io5;irnl A.sscss111c11t /anunry 2006 Springhru(_ik Creek Welland and H11/1ifal l'v1itigation Hnnk References Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311-393 in C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds) Pacific Salmon Life Histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (ISl'G). 2002. Washington State Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Program. A joint progr,1rn comprising Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Dept. of Ecologv, ,md Washington State Dept. of Transportation. Jeanes, E.D. and I'. J. Hilgert. 2000. Juvenile salrnonid use of lateral stream habitats in the Middle Green River, Washington. Report prepared for U.S. Arrny Corps of Engineers, Seattle District and City of Tacorn,1 Public Utilities, Tacoma WA. Kerwin, John and Nelson, Tom S. (Eds.). 2000. r !abitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green/Duwarnish ,ind Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon island). Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of Natural Resourn•s. King County. 1987. Basin Reconnaissance report No. 14: Black River basin. Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface· Wat,·r :Vlanagement Division, Seattle, WA. Koellmann, Derek. 2005. Anchor Environnwntal, L.L.C. Personal observation during Springbrook Bank site review, Julv. 2ll1Fi. Lalonde. 2005. Personal communication between Ginette Lalonde of Jones & Stokes and Derek Koellmann of Anchor bwirnnrnl'ntal, L.L.C. September 2005. Lebow, Stan T.; Tippie, Michael. 2001. Cuidl' tor minimizing the effect of preservative-treated wood on sensitive environments. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-122. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fon·st Sc•rvice, Forest Products Laboratory. 18 p. http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/docu rn n ts/pd f2004/fpl 2004 lebow002.pdf NOAA fisheries. 2004. Office of Protected Resources. Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). http://www.nmts.noaa.~c,v/prot res/species/fish/Chinook salmon.html l_iiolugical ;\~:,;c~s111c11t }11!/!l((l"_ll 2006 Sprir1glm1ok Creek i·Vctland 1111d Hnbilnf Mitigafi(III H11n!, R(_'tert"nces Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pf MC). I 999. Identification and Description of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts ,md Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast S,ilmon Plan, Appendix A. PFMC. Portland, Oregon. Poston, Ted. 2001. Treated Wood Issues ;\ssociated with Overwater Structures in Freshwater and Marine Environments. Prepared tor the Washington State Departments of Transportation, Fish and Wildlife, <1nd f'cology. Olympia, Washington. Reinhardt, Carrie and Susan M. Galatowitsch. 2(104. Best Management Practices for the invasive l'halaris arundinacea L. (n•ed c<1nary grass) in Wetland Restorations. Minnesota Department of Trans,inrlalion, St. Paul, MN [Final Report, May 2004]. http://www.fws.gov/shore bi rd p L111/U SShorebird/downloads/Reed CanaryG rassReport20 04.pdf Renton, City of. 1993. Black River Basin Dt"c1fl Water Quality Management Plan. Prepared by R.W. Beck and Associates and l-krrcr<1 Environmental Consultants. Renton, WA. Roper, B., D. Scarnecchia, and T. La Marr. 199.J. Summer distribution and habitat use by Chinook salmon and steelhead \\ithi11 a major basin of the South Umpqua River, Oregon. Transactions of the Anwricdn fisheries Society 123(3):298-308. Sommer, T., M. Nobriga, W. Ilarrell, W. Rath;im, and W. Kimmerer. 2001. Floodplain rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon: e, ,d,,nce nl t'nhanced growth and survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciencl's 58:325-333. Sommer, T., W. Harrell, and M. Nobriga. 2005. Habitat use and stranding risk of juvenile chinook salmon on a seasonal floodpl,1in. North American]. of Fish. Management. 25:1493-1504. Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1979. Perch-site prdcrences of wintering bald eagles in northwest Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43:221-224. Biolosirnl Assf5S}}ICl1f ) ) Jrnwary 1006 Spri11gl1rook Creek lVct/and (/1/d lla/Jifal Mitigali11n /~,11ik 1,1:,ferPnces Tu, Mandy. 2004. Reed Canarygrass: Control am! Management in the Pacific Northwest. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/mored ocs/phaa ru01. pd f U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACEJ ,rnd Port of Oakland. 1998. Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement [-50 foot] Project Environmental Impact Statement 1998- http://www.50ftdredge.com/ElS/ E IS_~.8.html USACE et al. 1995. Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Mitigation Banks. Vol. 60, No. 228, pp 228, pp. 586lfi-58614. November 28, 1995 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1%6. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. Portland, Oregon. 160 pp. Washington Slate Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 1994a. Washington State Department of Transportation Wl'lbnd Compensation Bank Program Memorandum of Agreement. Signatories include US. 1\rmy Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlik Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Federal Highway Administration, \V,ishington Slate Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Washington State Department of Transportation. WSDOT. 1994b. Field note sound lewl mc',1surements, Friday Harbor Wingwall Replacement, December 1994. WSDOT. 2005a. Draft Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank, Mitigation Bank Instrument. October 19, 200~ WSDOT. 2005b. Advanced Training Mcinual. Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects. September 200'i. WSDOT. 2005c. Draft fisheries and AqL1,1tic !\,,sources Discipline Report, Renton Nickel Improvement Project. July 20(Fi. Biologicnl A::,scssmcnt Janunn1 2006 Springbrook Creek ~Vclland and Habitat Mitigati,n1 R1111k APPENDIX A SPRINGBROOK CREEK WETLAND AND HABITAT MITIGATION BANK CONSTRUCTION PLANS The Construction Pbns are Attachment A to the JARl'A. This BA is Atl,1chnwnl D to the JARPA. APPENDIX B ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION Public Law 104-297, the Sustainable Fishl'ril's Act of 1996, amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to ,·stablish new requirements for Essential Fish Habitat (EHI) descriptions in federal fislwrv 111.inagement plans and to require federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Pishcri,'s S,·rvice (NMfS) on activities that may adversely affect EFH. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires all tishery management councils to amend their fishery management plans to describe and idenlil\" 1TH for each managed fishery. The Pacific hshery Management Council (1999; all references cited in Appendix Bare listed in Section 5, References, of the Biological Assessment [BA]) has issued such an amendment in the form of Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan, and this amendment covers EFH for the l'acific salmon (Chinook salmon, coho salmon, ,md pink salmon) under NMFS jurisdiction that will potentially be affected by the project. EFH for Pacific salinon in freshwater includes all strean1s, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other currently viable bodies of freshwater, and tlw substrates within those waterbodies, accessible to l'acific salmon. Activities occurring abon' impassable barriers that are likely to adversely affect EFH below impassable barriers arc subject to thl' consultation provisions of the Magnuson- Stevens Act. EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic 'f't'Cil's includes all waters from the mean high water line along the coasts of Washington upstream lo the extent of saltwater intrusion and seaward to the boundary of the U.S. exclusive c•conornic zone (370.4 km) (PFNIC 1998a and 1998b). Designated EFH for salmonid species in estuMine and marine areas includes nearshore and tidally submerged environments within st.ilP territorial water out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) offshore of Washington (PFMC 1999). The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires consullalinn for all federal agency actions that may adversely affect EFH. EFH consultation with f\.MFS is required by federal agencies undertaking, permitting, or funding acti, ities that may adversely affect EFH, regardless of its location. Under Section 305(b)(4) of llw Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is required to provide EFH conservation and enhance1nenl n.'cnmrrH'ndations to federal and state agencies for actions that adversely affect EFH. Wherever possible-, NMFS utilizes existing interagency coordination Biological A:,;scSti111c11t )a11unry 2006 SpriHg/lrr1ok Cn'f'k Y\lrt!11J1d aud Hii/iilaf MitigaliL,n 1-/uuk processes to fulfill EfH consultations with federal agencies. For the proposed action, this goal is being met by incorporating EFH consult,1lion to the ESA Section 7 consultation, as represented by this BA. Chinook and coho salmon EFH in the action <1rc,1 consists of Springbrook Creek. There is no pink salmon EFH in the action area. The project will restore, rehabilitate, and enh,rnce wetland and riparian areas, and enhance upland buffers throughout the project circa. H,ibitat improvements include removal of invasive plant con11nunities and replaccn1ent of thosl' con1n1unities with diverse, native, multi-strata vegetation that will provide increases opportunity for food and shelter. Reconnecting Springbrook Creek to its floodplain will provide wider stream margins with slower velocity waters, which will provide off-channc•l rdugia habitat for juvenile salmonids. Placement of large woody debris and other special habitat frntures within the floodplain of Springbrook Creek and in the uplands will provide cover for prey species and salmonids. Improved groundwater connectivity vvill increaSL' groundwater recharge and improve \•vater quality in Springbrook Creek by contributing coolc>r, c1,,,11wr water. BMPs, conservation measures, and performann' standards will be implemented to minimize impacts from project construction. In accordance with the actions listed cibow. the project will have No Adverse Effect on coho or Chinook salmon EFH. Bio/11gical A.~.~CSS/1/C!ll fi-2 Ja1111ary 2006 Springbrook Creek iVctlrmd and llnbilol A1itig11li11n I3unl.- APPENDIX C SPECIES LISTS FROM NMFS AND USFWS Sockcye Sa lm o n ( ( )11corln 11c//fl,\ 11erka ) Ch inook Salmon (0. tsha11'\'!.,l'iut) Coho Salmon (0 fo111ch) Chum Salmo n ( ()_ kl'IO) Si eel head (0. m rkiss/ Pin k Salmon 10. gurh11sc lu1/ 2 4 5 (, 7 8 ') 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 27 28 3 0 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 40 -11 -12 -13 44 45 4(, 47 48 49 ~I 52 Endangered Species Ac t Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead Species 1 Sn ake Rl\cr 01c11 c Lake Bake r Ri,'Cr Okanogan Ri\'cr 1.akc \.Vcnatchcc ()uinalr L ike Lake Plca,alll Sac ramcmo River Win ier-run tJ r rcr ( ·o lu mb ia Ri ver Srring-ru n Snake River Spr ing Summer run Snake River Fall -run Puget Sou nd Lo" er Columbia Riwr tJrpcr Wil lamcllc River Cent ral Val ley Spring run ( 'all fo rn ia ( ·oasta l Cent ral Va lley Fall a nd Late Fall ru n Lipper Klamath-Trin ity R ivers Oregon Coast Wa,hinglon Co:1,1 Muidlc Colu mbia Ri\'cr srnng-ru n Up per Co lu mbia Rive r ~ummcr•fol\-ru n Soulhern Oregon and '.\o rthern Cal iforni ,t C ,,a,1 Deschu1cs River ,u mmer:fall-run Cen tral Californ ia Coas t Southern Oregon •Northe rn Cali fo rn ia Orego n Coa,t Lower Columbia Ri,u Southwest Wash mgton Puget Sou nd 'Strait of ( icorgia Olvm iic Peninsula 1 lood Can al Summe r-run Columbia Ri,u Puget Sou n<VSt ra il of ( ico rgia Pacific Coa,1 Suu1hc m Cali fornia E Uppe r Co lu mbia Ri ,u ( ·cnt ra i ( ·a tifornia Coast Sonl h Ccn lral Cali fornia Coast Snake Rive r Ba s in Lower Columbia River Ca liforn ia Cent ral Vallcv Upper W ilbmctle Ri,c·r Middle Columbia Ri ve r No n hcrn California Oregon Coa,t Sou lhwesl Washi n gton O lympic l'cn ,nsula Puget Sound t-: lama th rvlou ntain, Prm incc hen-year Odd-·car IIIIIOIT II 1 01/()) Current Endangered Species Act Listin Status2 I \ . l>': ~,h!Y' •'' ~ -=~ F: . _.,.~ \'m ll'urm11ted .\'ot IVal'l'untul \'01 ,,.arnmred Vot Warm11ted Species of Concern :\/rJt Jl'arnmU>(/ .Vo / Warran/et/ .Vol J l'a r ra111cd ,Vot H 'arrunted ,Vo/ ll'arn1111etl :\lot Jl 'urranted Specie.t of Concern .\01 Jl'a/'/'anled Not ll'urrunred (.:11der Rl't 't('11· Nol JJ'orranted Not ll'a/'/'anil'tl .\iot IJ 'arn.111ted Proposed Endangered Species Act Listin Status ESA Listing Actions Under Review ES/\ Lis tin g S1a1 us : Cri t ical Ha bi tat Designat io n FS1\ lis t ing siatus J The !:Si\ dcl11 1c, a "'specie,· lo include any disli nct population ,c·~ni-·111 Pl :111, ,pccies of vertebrate fis h or wildlife. Fo r Pae ilic: salmon, NO AA Fi s heries conside rs an E,·ulu1ionari ly Signi tica,11 Un it. o r '·ESU." a "species" undc1 th,· I\\ I ,11 l'.1ci lic ,tcd he,1d . J\Oi\:\ Fi,hcri e, has delineated Di ,1i11c1 Pop ub t io 11 Scgmcnls fD PS,t for co ns id era t io n as "spec ies" under the l'S1\ 2 lJ pda lcd fi na l listing dctcrmina11ons for I<, salmon species "ere· i-w _-d 111' lune .'X, 2005 (70 1:R 37 1 (,0). Lpdated final list ing dc1crminat1on , fo r IO We,1 Coast s lc'l'l h ead srec1es we re is,ued o n Jan uary 5 , 201J (, 171 l'R 834 ). (Jn \c•1,1c111h cr ~. 2005. we 1s,ued tinal cnu ca l habi lal design attnns for 19 West Coast sa lm on and stcdhcad ,reeics (70 l·R 52-188 an<l 52630). 3 :\ pe t it io n to lisl Pug el Soun d stccl h ead ,,a, received on Scptrn1b,·r 1.1. 2110-1. I he ,pcci cs is currentl y under review. Page Title: MM List URL: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Marnmals/MM-List.cfm ESA-Listed Marine Mammals Under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries Service that may occur off Washington & Oregon: • Southern Resident Killer Whale (E), Orcinus area • Humpback Whale (E), Megaptera novaeangliae • Blue Whale (El, Balaenoptera musculus • Fin Whale (E), Balaenoptera physalus • Sei Whale (El, Balaenoptera borealis • Sperm Whale (El, Physeter macrocephalus • Steller Sea Lion (T), Eumetopias jubatus Under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries Service that may occur in Puget Sound: (E) = Endangered (T) = Threatened • Southern Resident Killer Whale (E), Orcinus area • Humpback Whale (E), Megaptera novaeangliae • Steller Sea Lion (Tl, Eumetopias jubatus Page· I.hi u;s,l.11nl· ..'!1116-01-12 14:-1-Y:41 Page Title: Turtles List UR I,: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-M ari ne-Species/Other-Species/T urtles-List.cfrn ESA-Listed Marine Turtles Under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries Service that may occur off Washington & Oregon: • Leatherback Sea Turtle (E), Oermochelys coriacea • Loggerhead Sea Turtle (T), Caretta caretta • Green Sea Turtle (E), Chelonia mydas • Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (E), Lepidochelys olivacea Sightings and strandings of these animals are very rare, and there are no breeding beaches in the Northwest Region. (E) = Endangered (T) = Threatened Pa,µ,· I.hi u:1,l.1bl .:11116-111-12 15:20.27 EI\DAI\GERED, THREATENED, PROPOSED, A!\D CA'.'IDIDATE SPECIES, CRITICAL HABIT AT, AND SPECIES OF CO:\CER'.\ I'.\ WESTER:', WASHINGTON' COMMOI\ NAME Endangered Animals Brown pelican Columbian white-tailed deer Leatherback sea turtle Short-tailed albatros~ Endangered Plants Bradshaw's desert-parsley Marsh sandwort Threatened Animals Bald eagle Bull trout (Coastal-Puget Sound and Columbia River DPS) Canada lynx Green sea turtle Gray wolf Grizzly bear Loggerhead sea turtle Marbled munelet Northern spotted owl Oliveridley sea turtle Oregon silvcrspot butterfly Western snowy plover Threatened Plants Golden paintbrush Kincaid's lupine Nelson's checker-mallow Water howcllia Designated Critical Habitat Marbled murrclct Northern spotted owl Western snowy plover (64FR68507) Bull trout (Columbia River DPS) SCIENTIFIC NAME Pelecunm on ic.lentalis Odo(·oi/c11s ,'irginhmus leucurus Dermoc11el1·s (·rwiacea Phoehusrri11 (,!hatrus Lo,mt!ittm hrodshmvii A rcnw·ia Jhli1tdicola Haliucetus !c11cocephalus Sah·eli1111s t'rJ11Jluentus Ly11.r ('(/!11ule11sis Chc!n11io 111\·dcrs Cani\· lu;)l{s (Jrsu,· urdns --U. a. horrihilis Care/Id curc!lu Broch_\ n1111ph1rs marmora/us Strix occidcntolis caw·ina lepidnclw(n olivacea !:)f}l~t·eria ~cn.'lle hippofvta Charadri1t\" alcxcmdrinus nivosus Cas1;//ejo !c,'i\'cCta lupin11s sulph11reus ssp. kincaiclii Sidulcea nel.rnniana Ho1rcl!io ac1uu1i/is RECOVERY PRIORITY NUMBER 9 9c 1 8 2 5 14c 9c 15 I c 3c 3c 7c 3 3 8c 3c 3c 2 9 5 7 Proposed Species and Proposed Critical Habitat Critical habitat for the bull trout (Coastal,Puget Sound DPS) Critical habitat for the western snowy plover (revised) Dollv Varden (Sa!velinus ma/ma) similarity of appearance Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Rev. 12/20/04 COMMON NAME Candidate2 Animals Mardon skipper Mazama pocket gopher Oregon spotted frog Pacific fisher (West Coast DPS) Streaked horned lark Whulge (Taylor's or Edith's) chcckcrspot butterfly Y cllo.w-billcd cuckoo Candidate' Plants Northern wonnwood Animal Species of Concern' Aleutian Canada goose Bcller's ground beetle California bighorn sheep California floater (mussel) California wolverine Cascades frog Cassin's auklcl Coastal cutthroat trout Columbia pcbblcsnail Columbia tonu1l salamander Destruction Island shrew Fender's soliperlan stonefly Fringed myotis (bat) Halch's click beetle Island large marble butterfly Larch Mountain salamander Long-cared myotis Long-legged myotis Makah's copper butterfly Margined sculpin Nc\vcornb's littorinc snail Northern goshawk Northern sea otter Northwestern pond turtle Olive-sided flycatcher Olympic torrent salamander SCIE'.\TIFIC '.\AME Polite,· nwrdon Thonwm.rs mu::wna (ssp. cnuchi, glacialis, /ouici. 111cla11011,·, pugctensis, /acomensi\". fun1uli, yelmensis) Rana pre! iosa lvfartes /Jt)mwnli t.:remuJ)/Jila a!J1t'slris strigata Euph_rdrrus cditlw taylori CoCl~\"~lls ,mu'l"icunus LISTING PRIORITY l\'UMBER 5 6 2 6 6 6 6 Artemis iu ( ·u1J1pcslris ssp. horea/is var. wormskio/dii 3 Branlu cu11ude11sis /eucoporeia Agomrm !1elleri Ovis cwwclcnsi., ca/!f'orniana Anodn11t11 cali j(Jrniensis Gula ,"-!,lllo lutcus Rana cas( odue P1ycluH·(111111h11s uleuticus Oncorl1y11ch11s clurki clarki Fluminicolu columbimws Rhyacolrium kc:::eri Sorex t1·m1·hrid!c.!,ii destructioni So I ipc rl, 1. le 11< le 1 'I A(voti., 1h1·.,.1111r)(/cs Eanm hutclu Euchloe a11sonidn· insulanus P/etlwdo11 lal'.''ldli Myotis c\·oti,· .Myolis 1 ·olm1.', LJ,·cac1111 mllriJJOSil char/ottensis Cottus !lhtrginutus A /gamonlu 1w11 ·< ·omhiana Accipih't· gcntilis F.nh_w/r(I !utris l1enyoni J:::mys ( ( '/cmmys) marmorata marmorala Crml0/!/1\' COO/h'ri Rhyacot1·iton 0~1mpicus Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 2 Rev. 12/20;04 COMMON NAME Plant Species of Concern 3 Rarrctfs bcardtonguc Clackamas corydalis Clustered lady's sl ippcr Columbia yellow-cress Cotton's milk-vetch Footsteps of spring; bear's foot sanicle Frigid shootingstar Gorge daisy Howell's daisy Obscure paintbrnsh Oregon sullivantia Pale blue-eyed grass Pale larkspur Pink sandvcrbcna Queen of the forest Rose checker-mallow Sccly's silenc Stalked moonwort Tall bugbanc Torrey's pcavinc Triangular-lobed moonwort White mcconclla White-top aster SCIF::\TIFIC i\AME fJcnstc11um harrettiae ( ·or\'dalis uquae-geliclae C :1 /J/'if)cdi 11111 fGsciculatum Rorip;w columhiae ..ls!rugulus australis var. ol_rmpicus ,.\anicula w·ctopoides n(u/('(·( ,therm cmstn?fi-igidwn tiigcron oreganus Frigeron howe!lii ('ustil/cju c·r;ptantha Sul/ii·(rn!ic1 oregana Sfq·1·i11chi11m sarmentosum De/phi11i11n1 !e11cophae11m .-,J hroniu wnhcl!ata ssp. ocutalata Filifh'lllllllu occidentalis .r..;iduln'(t malv!flora ssp. virgata 5;i/cnc scelt'i /J( 111:1 ·c ·Ii i11111 pedzmcu/osum Cimic 'i,h1ga elala J,otlnn1s torreri Rr11n·t·hi11n1 ascendens .:\feconelia oregana A.'ifer ('ll/"lus 1 Hypcrlinks arc provided for electronic recovery pL111, "here available. Only recovery plans revised or finalized since 1989 are available electronically. Alternate hyperlink to final rnle listing the species is substituted where available, or hyper link connects to status infonrn1t ion. 'Candidate species are those species for which c\VS ha, ,ufficicnt information to propose for listing. Hyperlinks arc provided where available for electronic candidate fo1111S or Federal Register notice of petition finding. · 1 Spccics of concern arc those species whose conscrvntiou status is of concern to FWS, but more information is needed. NOAA Fisheries threatened and endangered species list: http://www. nrnfs. noaa. gov /prot res/ specics/E SA_ SJJ cc 1 cs. html Information for eastern Washington species can be ruund on the Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office web page and for all listed species on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Home Page. \\iestem \Vashington Fish and Wildlife Office 3 Rev. l 2!20/04 APPENDIX D DRAFT FISHERIES REVIEW WHITE PAPER The Fisheries Review White l'a~1er is Attachment E to the JAR!' A. This BA is Attachnwnt D to the JAR!' A.