Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SWP273223(3)
Biological Assessment SW 341h Street Culvert Replacement Project—Fish and Wildlife Habitat Report R.W. Beck Associates ■ December 2005 M Jones&Stokes Biological Assessment SW 341h Street Culvert Replacement Project Fish and Wildlife Habitat Report Prepared for: R.W.Beck Associates 1001 41h Avenue,Suite 2500 Seattle,WA 98154-1004 Contact:Michael Giseburt,P.E. Prepared by: 0-41 Jones&Stokes 11820 Northup Way,Suite E300 Bellevue,WA 98005 Contact:Andy Wones 425/822-1077 December 2005 w . This document should be cited as: Jones&Stokes. 2005. Biological Assessment. SW 34"'Street Culvert Replacement Project—Fish and Wildlife Habitat Report. December. (J&S 05287.05) Bellevue,WA. ' •1 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction....................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2. Project Description........................................... 2-1 2.1. Project Area........................................................................2-1 2.2. Action Area.........................................................................2-1 2.3. Project Purpose..................................................................2-1 2.4. Design Criteria....................................................................2-3 2.5. Culvert Design....................................................................2-4 2.6. Hydraulics...........................................................................2-5 2.7. Construction Sequence.......................................................2-7 2.8. Staging Areas...................................................................2-10 2.9. Construction Access.........................................................2-10 2.10. Construction Equipment....................................................2-10 2.11. Construction Methods.......................................................2-11 2.12. Erosion, Sediment, and Pollution Control..........................2-11 2.13. Conservation Measures and BMPs...................................2-12 Chapter 3. Existing Environmental Conditions ................ 3-1 3.1. Environmental Baseline......................................................3-1 3.1.1. Salmonid Habitat Conditions....................................3-1 3.2. Species Occurrence in the Project Action Area ..................3-6 3.2.1. Bull Trout..................................................................3-6 3.2.2. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon.................................3-7 3.2.3. Bald Eagle................................................................3-9 3.2.4. Other ESA-listed Species.......................................3-10 Chapter 4. Analysis of Effects............................................4-1 4.1. Salmonids...........................................................................4-1 4.1.1. Direct Effects............................................................4-1 4.1.2. Indirect Effects.........................................................4-2 4.1.3. Effects of Interdependent or Interrelated Actions.....4-2 4.2. Bald Eagles.........................................................................4-2 4.2.1. Direct Effects............................................................4-2 4.2.2. Indirect Effects.........................................................4-3 4.2.3. Effects of Interdependent or Interrelated Actions.....4-3 r—� December 2005 SW 3411 Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment Chapter 5. Determinations of Effect...................................5-1 5.1. Chinook Salmon................................................................. 5-1 5.2. Bull Trout............................................................................ 5-1 5.3. Bald Eagle.......................................................................... 5-2 Chapter 6. Evaluation of Essential Fish Habitat ...............6-1 Chapter 7. References.........................................................7-1 R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) Contents List of Tables Table1-1. Project Contacts ..................................................................................................1-2 Table 2-1. Excavation and Fill Volumes(cubic yards)..........................................................2-5 Table 2-2. Hydraulic Performance of Culvert Replacement Alternatives under Future 100-Year Conveyance Event...............................................................................2-6 Table 2-3. Predicted Maximum Velocities at SW 34th Street Culvert for 2-Year Event.........2-7 Table 3-1. Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of the Proposed Action on Relevant Salmonid Habitat Indicators....................................................3-2 List of Figures Figure 2-1.Regional Vicinity Map of Project Area..................................................................2-2 Appendices Appendix A. Project Drawings Appendix B. Fish Exclusion Guidelines Appendix C. Photographs of the Project Area Appendix D. NOAA Fisheries and USFWS Species Listing Information fli December 2005 SW 3411 Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment Acronyms BA biological assessment BMPs best management practices BRPS Black River Pumping Station cfs cubic feet per second CMP corrugated metal pipe Corps U.S.Army Corps of Engineers DPS distinct population segment EFH essential fish habitat ESA Endangered Species Act ESCL erosion and spill control lead ESGRWP East Side Green River Watershed Plan ESU evolutionarily significant unit FEQ model full equations model fps feet per second HPA hydraulic project approval LSOG late successional old growth LWD large woody debris mg/I milligrams per liter NHP Natural Heritage Program NOAA Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NTU nephelometric turbidity units NWFP Northwest Forest Plan PFMC Pacific Fisheries Management Council PHS priority habitats and species Project SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project RM river mile SPCC spill prevention, control, and containment USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources WRIA water resources inventory area R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) Chapter 1 . Introduction This biological assessment(BA)was completed to facilitate interagency consultation required under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act(ESA) for the City of Renton(City)SW 34`h Street Culvert Replacement Project(Project). The Project will include temporary impacts to Springbrook Creek and associated wetland areas and will require coverage under a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Corps)404 Permit. The Project is scheduled for construction during the summer of 2007. The City proposes to replace the SW 34`h Street culvert across Springbrook Creek to improve streamflow capacity at this crossing and reduce flooding in the Renton Valley. Replacement of this culvert was identified in the City's East Side Green River Watershed Plan(ESGRWP)as a drainage need for the City(R.W. Beck 1997). The existing crossing consists of four side-by-side 72-inch-diameter corrugated metal pipe(CMP)culverts. These culverts have insufficient capacity for high flows and cause water to back up behind the culvert and even to overtop the road during peak flows. In addition to overtopping SW 34`h Street,the conveyance restriction at SW 34'h Street contributes to upstream flooding at SW 43`d Street and Lind Avenue. Several projects identified in the ESGRWP have been completed, including the SW 27`h Street Culvert Replacement Project in 1999. The SW 34`h Street culvert replacement is the next highest priority project in the valley area. Improving conveyance at this crossing will correct overtopping of SW 34`h Street and lower upstream water levels so that other future planned projects will provide flood protection in areas upstream in the Renton Valley. The existing SW 34`h Street culverts would be replaced by a single 30-foot-wide and 10-foot-tall four-sided concrete box culvert. Although the existing crossing is not currently a barrier to fish passage, future conditions are predicted to increase peak discharge velocity to up to 5 feet per second(fps)(R.W. Beck 2005). Replacement of the SW 34"' Street culvert will reduce velocity at this crossing,reduce flooding December 2005 SW 3P Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment upstream,and provide an improved fish habitat condition in the culvert vicinity. The new crossing will have natural substrates, improve conveyance of high flows and associated debris,and reduce contact of stream water with roadway surfaces that may contribute vehicle-related pollution to the stream. Key contacts involved in the design and permitting of this Project are listed in Table 1-1. Table 1-1. Project Contacts Agency/Firm Role Contact Phone/email Address City of Renton Lead Agency, Allen Quynn, 425 430-7247 City of Renton,Public SEPA Review, P.E.,Project aquynn@ci.renton.wa.us Works Department, Shorelines Manager 1055 S.Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055 R.W.Beck Consultant Michael 206 695-4607 1001 Fourth Ave,Suite Team,Project Giseburt, mgiseburt@rwbeck.com 2500, Manager P.E. Seattle,WA 98154- 1004 R.W.Beck Consultant Lisa Gorry, 206 695-4757 1001 Fourth Ave,Suite Team,Project P.E. Igorry@rwbeck.com 2500, Engineer Seattle,WA 98154- 1004 Jones&Stokes Consultant Andy Wones 425 893-6447 11820 Northup Way, Team,Permit awones@jsanet.com E300,Bellevue,WA Application 98005 U.S.Army Corps Susan (206)764-5527 Seattle District Corps of Corps of Project Powell Engineers Regulatory Engineers Manager,404 Susan.M.Powell@ Branch,CENWS-OD- Permit NWS02.usace.army.mil RG Attn:Susan Powell, P.O.Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 Washington Area Habitat Lary Fisher 425 649-7042 c/o Dept.of Ecology Department of Biologist, fishldf@dfw.wa.gov 31901600,Ave SE Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Bellevue,WA 98008 (WDFW) Project Approval (HPA) R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) 1 2 f Ass,— Figure 2-1. Regional Vicinity Map of Project Area : 34Ih SeeBl 7 ' 24 I ,.lw46 *01 Id- 1a�'mi� � � ICI r I'llp ' a •. k�tali E i�lj�ti` •as• 36 i ( ■ I .. /--,-(j .�. - r .. a �0 Saucy. USGS 7.5 Quadrang)e-Renton, U - TerraServer. USA-Aenal Photo Date-WI3r2002 ! o d Miles •T..! 1 g Map Prepared May 2005 ESGRWP,a target criterion that allows no more than 0.1 foot of head loss (water elevation rise)through culverts for the future 100-year flow was used. This criterion was originally developed with input from the Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS, formerly Soil Conservation Service). Other Project goals include cost-effective construction, meeting environmental permit requirements,coordination of Project construction with any future roadway improvements, and improving fish passage. RW Eack hs5 c`.•.tos(05287.05) 2.2 Chapter 2. Project Description 2.1. Project Area The Project is located in the Renton Valley at the crossing of SW 34`h Street and Springbrook Creek. The Project area is at the boundary between Township 23 N, Range 5 East, Section 30 and Township 23 N, Range 4 East, Section 25. See Figure 2-1 for a map of the Project vicinity. 2.2. Action Area The Action Area for noise effects of the Project includes a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area, due to the potential for loud noise during construction activities. Instream effects would include an Action Area 100 feet upstream and 300 feet downstream of the SW 34`h Street/Springbrook Creek crossing. The Project disturbance area and a buffer area of 100 feet in each direction of the disturbance footprint is the Action Area for listed plant species. However,this area was closely examined during the wetland delineation, and no suitable habitat or individuals of the two listed plant species occurring in King County(golden paintbrush [Castilleja levisecta] and marsh sandwort [Arenaria paludicola])were found. 2.3. Project Purpose The primary objective of the Project is to increase conveyance capacity through the SW 34`h Street crossing at Springbrook Creek to eliminate roadway overtopping and reduce upstream water levels during flood events. Through the development of the 2.1 Derember 2005 Project Description 2.4. Design Criteria General criteria and issues considered when reviewing alternatives were: • Traffic capacity—The replacement culvert must also be designed to handle HS25 traffic loading. • Cost—A lower cost alternative is preferred. • A method of construction that allows quick progress is preferred in order to comply with WDFW approved in-water construction windows(June 15 through September 30). ■ The work area at the Project site is limited. A type of construction that does not require a large lay-down area is preferred. ■ It is preferred to limit the amount of ground dewatering required. • Traffic Impacts—The City desires the option of having phased construction to keep at least one lane of traffic open. ■ It is preferred to limit the impact of construction on local businesses. ■ Utilities Relocation—Several utilities cross above the existing culverts. Raising the top of the new culvert above the top of the existing culverts would require relocation of the existing utilities. The option of not relocating these utilities is not possible because the construction of the replacement culvert below the location of these utilities would limit the height of the culvert and would not provide enough hydraulic cross section through the culvert to meet the Project criteria. • Temporary Stream Diversion—Diversion of creek flow will be required during construction. It is estimated that a minimum diversion flow of 140 cubic feet per second (cfs)with 1 foot of freeboard will be required(R.W. Beck 2005). ■ Groundwater Control—Control of groundwater will be required during construction for constructability and to assure an adequate foundation. Wells and/or sumps will be required to draw the local water table below the earthwork elevation. • Fish Passage—Alternatives that provide the largest open area, lowest streamflow velocities, natural bottom conditions, and open water surface are generally preferred. When a four-sided box culvert is used, the bottom of the box is set 20%, or about 2 feet, below the grade of the stream and infilled with appropriate substrate material(clean, well-rounded cobble and gravel). ■ Foundation Type and Settlement—A closed-bottom four-sided box culvert provides a more forgiving structure regarding possible settlement issues as compared with the three-sided box with separate footings because of the wide, continuous footing created by the bottom. 11 trs December 2005 SW 34!^Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment Based on the combination of these criteria, a single four-sided box culvert, 30 feet wide by 10 feet high, was selected for this Project. 2.5. Culvert Design The Project would install a single 30-foot-wide by 10-foot-high by 80-foot-long box culvert. Project drawings of this alternative are shown in Figures A-3 and A-4 of Appendix A. A single culvert can be utilized because the extra height allows a free water surface through the culvert during the 100-year design flow and meets the head-loss criteria. The actual culvert height from footing to top of culvert would be 11.5 feet to provide below-grade depth to the footing. Footings will be precast, continuous full-width spread footings approximately 18 inches thick. The box culvert would require the road grade to be raised approximately 2.3 feet above the existing road. To minimize the amount the existing road is required to be raised,the road pavement could be placed directly on the culvert's precast top. Tapering the raised road back into the existing roadway with vertical curves would require reconstruction of approximately 300 feet of SW 34t' Street. Reconstruction would include adjustment of driveways, manhole covers, curbs and gutters, sidewalks,and landscaping. New low points along SW 34`h Street would be created and would require the installation of new stormwater catch basins. An existing 8-inch-diameter sanitary sewer line would be relocated and routed approximately 900 feet east to Lind Avenue. A water supply line would be routed along the downstream face of the culvert in a carrier pipe. This water line would be housed inside of a protective 22-inch-diameter pipe. Gas, electric,and communications lines would be routed under the culvert. During construction a temporary pipeline would be required for Springbrook Creek diversion. Earth embankment cofferdams with impervious lining would be installed, and two 48-inch-diameter pipes would be installed to route flow around the construction excavation(see Figure A-5 in Appendix A). This approach was successfully employed on the SW 27`h Street Culvert Replacement Project in 1999. Culvert installation will require temporary disturbance of approximately 5,331 square feet(0.12 acre)of wetland and associated stream area. In addition, 6,387 square feet (0.15 acre)of wetland and stream buffer would be temporarily disturbed. No permanent loss of wetland or stream habitat would occur. Excavation and fill volumes are shown in Table 2-1. R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) 2� Project Description Table 2-1. Excavation and Fill Volumes (cubic yards) Location Total Excavation Below Total Fill Fill Below Excavation OHWM OHWM Entire Site 5848 99 3268d 0 Wetland 1 Buffera 275 NA 0 NA Wetland 1e 81 19 0 0 Wetland 2 Buffer 192 NA 0 NA 1 Wetland 21 80 80 0 0 Notes: OHWM = ordinary high-water mark a Wetland buffer defined as 50 feet to either side of delineated wetland boundary. b Wetland 1 includes stream and adjacent wetland area upstream(south)of SW 341h Street. Wetland 2 includes stream and adjacent wetland area upstream(north)of SW 341^Street. c 'Fill quantity includes 277 cy of spawning gravels. 2.6. Hydraulics Hydraulic analysis was performed using the Full Equations(FEQ)model that was developed during the ESGRWP and since updated in the ESGRWP Technical Update Supplement—Draft(R.W. Beck 2004). The analysis simulations reflect the future land use condition, 100-year conveyance condition flow, and future conveyance system as recommended in the ESGRWP. The future conveyance system was used as opposed to the existing conveyance system to ensure that when all valley improvements are fully implemented these improvements will work together to meet the flood protection goals and target water surface elevations identified in the ESGRWP. The key future improvements include both downstream and upstream improvements including: ■ Removal of the private bridge north of SW 27`h Street, • SW 39d'Street to SW 43`d Street pipe system improvements, • Renton wetland mitigation project,and ■ Oakesdale(SW 415`Street) culvert replacement. As part of the ESGRWP, two types of potential flood events were analyzed: a storage scenario,which includes events that produce very high water surface elevation at the Black River Pumping Station(BRPS)due to pumping restrictions, and a conveyance scenario,which includes events that exhibit maximum peak flows into the pump station forebay(severe local flood event). At the SW 34th Street culvert,the water surface elevations for the 100-year storage scenario are actually higher than the conveyance scenario. However, the conveyance event is the critical event for 2-5 December 2005 rr SW 3411 Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment consideration of the culvert replacement because of significantly higher flows. For this reason the comparison focused just on the 100-year conveyance event. Table 2-2. Hydraulic Performance of Culvert Replacement Alternatives under Future 100-Year Conveyance Event New SW 34th Street Crossing(2) Downstream Upstream Change in Water Water Surface Water Surface Elevation Elevation Surface (head loss)(ft) AlternativeM Elevation Existing Conveyance—Future Flow 17.30 19.1 1.7 One 30-by 10-ft Box Culvert 17.07 17.13 0.06 Source: R.W.Beck 2005. Note the clear open area is specified. The actual height would be increased by approximately 1.5 to 2 feet to allow a natural substrate for fish passage. 2 Elevation Datum: NAVD 88. In addition to considering the 100-year future condition for flood control,additional analysis was conducted to assess stream velocities through the culvert to meet fish passage requirements. This was done by determining the stream velocity through the culvert for the 2-year event. Typically,WDFW requires consideration of the 10% exceedance flow(i.e., the flow that is exceeded 10% of the time)for current land use conditions. Since the 10%exceedance flow is typically 35-45%of the 2-year flow, using the 2-year flow for the analysis provides a conservative estimate of high velocity. Table 2-3 compares the predicted velocities for the existing and proposed culverts under existing and future land use conditions. Installation of the proposed culvert would reduce peak velocities,which could be significant for fish passage,especially under future land use conditions. The proposed design would meet WDFW passage criteria for adult trout and salmon under all flow conditions, whereas the existing culvert would exceed the velocity criteria for passage of adult trout under expected future conditions. R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) 2 6 Project Description Table 2-3. Predicted Maximum Velocities at SW 34th Street Culvert for 2- Year Event Existing Land Use Conditions Future Land Use Conditions Peak Water Peak Peak Water Peak FIow3 Surface Velocity FIow3 Surface Velocity Alternative (cfs) Elevation2 (fps) (cfs) Elevation (fps) Existing Culvert 318 13.9 2.8 561 15.7 5.0 (four 72-inch culverts) Alternative 2 318 13.7 1.9 561 14.9 2.7 One 30-by 10-ft Box Culvert' Source: R.W.Beck 2005. Note the clear open area is specified. The actual height would be increased by approximately 1.5 to 2 feet to allow a natural bottom for fish passage. 2 Elevation Datum: NAVD 88. 3 Source: FEQ modeling results from East Side Green River Watershed Plan Supplement,R.W.Beck 2004. Draft. 2.7. Construction Sequence The anticipated construction sequence is listed below. The actual sequence will be determined by the construction contractor. The sequence below assumes that one lane will remain open through the duration of construction. However, it is possible that the entire road will be closed. If the road is closed,the north and south (westbound and eastbound)portions of the Project would be constructed together rather than separately, as described below. 1. Hold preconstruction conference with City. 2. Mark construction limits. 3. Install erosion control best management practices(13MPs), including silt fencing and storm drain filter inserts. 4. Construct sewer extension to route existing sewer service east to connect to existing sewer main near Lind Avenue and abandon existing sewer over the culvert. 5. Install temporary block netting upstream and downstream of the work area. 6. Remove fish from the isolated culvert area according to fish exclusion guidelines (Appendix 13). 7. Install temporary bypass culverts(two 48-inch-diameter CMP culverts). 2 7 December 2005 SW 34t,Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment 8. Install temporary earthen cofferdams with impervious linings upstream and downstream of the construction area to divert flow to the bypass culverts and isolate the construction area. 9. Place traffic control to move traffic to north half of road. 10. Install sheet piles near roadway centerline to allow excavation of south half of road. It. Install dewatering system measures. 12. Remove existing pavement,sidewalks,and roadway fill from eastbound lane of the crossing(south half of crossing). Dewater as excavation proceeds. 13. Coordinate excavation with removal/relocation and, if required,temporary service for underground utilities(gas, water, electric, communications). 14. Excavate and remove existing 72-inch culverts from south half of crossing. 15. Excavate sediment to below existing road grade in south half of crossing as well as excavation for wing wall. 16. Haul excavated soils off-site or stockpile reusable soils,if allowed based on final design, at least 150 feet from Springbrook Creek. 17. Install relocated underground utilities that are to be placed under the south half of the new culvert crossing. 18. Install and compact crushed rock or controlled density fill below culvert foundation elevation to provide suitable foundation. 19. Install precast culvert bottom. Note the bottom section will include a knee-wall (short vertical walls integral to the precast culvert bottom section) in south half of crossing. 20. Construct south wing walls. 21. Place streambed material in bottom of the culvert and in and around new wing walls. 22. Install culvert top in south half of crossing and grout in place. 23. Backfill around culvert and compact. R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) 2 8 Project Description 24. Construct curb and gutter, sidewalk,and initial roadway pavement improvements on south half crossing. Improvements include transitions to existing road as a result of raising the road higher than existing conditions. 25. Revise traffic control to south side of road, including pedestrian traffic. 26. Revise placement of sheet piling to allow connection between first phase of culvert and second phase. 27. Remove existing pavement, sidewalks, and roadway fill from westbound lane of the crossing(north half of crossing). Dewater as excavation proceeds. 28. Coordinate excavation with removal/relocation and, if required, temporary service for underground utilities(gas, water, electric, communications) 29. Excavate and remove existing 72-inch culverts from north half of crossing 30. Excavate sediment to below existing road grade in north half of crossing as well as excavation for wing wall. 31. Haul excavated soils off-site or stockpile reusable soils, if allowed based on final design, at least 150 feet from Springbrook Creek 32. Install relocated underground utilities that are to be placed under the north half of the new culvert crossing. 33. Install and compact crushed rock or controlled density fill below culvert foundation elevation to provide suitable foundation. 34. Install precast culvert bottom. 35. Construct north wing walls. Extend existing drainage piping to connect to creek through wing walls. 36. Place streambed material in bottom of the culvert and in and around new wing walls. 37. Install culvert top in north half of crossing and grout in place. 38. Backfill around culvert and compact. 39. Construct curb and gutter, sidewalk, and initial roadway improvements on north half crossing. Improvements include transitions to existing road as a result of raising the road higher than existing conditions. 2.9 December 2005 SW 3411 Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment 40. Install fish habitat improvements(two pairs of root wads)upstream and downstream of culvert 41. Perform final lift of asphalt roadway improvements. 42. Remove cofferdams and temporary pipe diversion,allowing creek to flow through new culvert. 43. Hydroseed and plant disturbed areas. 44. Remove storm drain filter inserts. 45. Remove silt fence and other temporary erosion and sediment control(TESC) BMPs when seeded areas have stabilized. 2.8. Staging Areas Project construction will require closing at least one lane of SW 34rh Street to traffic. Therefore,the roadway will be used for Project staging. Excavated soil may be temporarily stockpiled on the roadway or at an upland site away from the construction area during culvert installation. All soil stockpiles and vehicle fueling and equipment staging areas will be located at least 150 feet from surface waters. 2.9. Construction Access Construction access will be by SW 34th Street. No off-road travel will be required. 2.10. Construction Equipment Construction equipment will include the following: ■ Excavator ■ Dump truck ■ Flatbed truck ■ Mobile crane ■ Drilling rig ■ Dewatering pumps ■ Generator ■ Vibratory compactor ■ Paver R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) 2.10 'a Project Description 2.11. Construction Methods The construction area will be clearly marked, and all ground disturbance and equipment use will occur within the marked construction boundaries. Erosion and sedimentation BMPs will be used to control erosion and the potential for silt and turbidity to reach Springbrook Creek. These BMPs will include(but are not limited to) installation of silt fences and temporary storm sewer filter inserts. All instream work will be completed within the approved(Fisher 2006)construction window(June 15 through September 30). Prior to beginning any instream work, National Marine Fisheries Service(NOAA Fisheries)fish exclusion protocols will be implemented to remove and exclude fish from the work area. Following fish removal and exclusion, cofferdams will be installed to isolate the construction area. The Project will divert Springbrook Creek around the existing and future culvert location. The diversion will be through two 48-inch-diameter CMPs installed for this purpose. The new culvert would be installed in two phases in order to maintain one lane open to traffic during construction. One lane would be closed off,the existing culvert excavated from that side of the road, and the new culvert installed under that half of the roadway,then paved over. In the next phase,the other half of the stream would be closed off and the process would be repeated to complete the other half of the Project. The culvert and wing walls would be made of precast concrete sections. These sections would be lifted into place by means of a mobile crane. A backhoe would be used to place imported bed substrate material and backfill material around the new culvert. Some temporary storage of bed and backfill material may occur on the closed portion of SW 34'h Street. Backfill material would be compacted by rolling or using a vibratory compactor. 2.12. Erosion, Sediment, and Pollution Control Cofferdams installed to isolate the Project from Springbrook Creek will prevent sediment that was disturbed during culvert installation from affecting Springbrook Creek. Silt fences will be used if there are areas on the sides of the construction area that drain beyond the cofferdams. Because some soil stockpiling may occur on the SW 341h Street roadway, storm drain sediment filters will be used to prevent contamination of road runoff with turbidity and suspended sediment. 2-11 December 2005 SW 34�1 Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment 2.13. Conservation Measures and BMPs To the greatest extent possible, impacts to fish, wildlife, and habitat will be avoided. The following conservation measures will be used to avoid or minimize the potential for impacts to fish, wildlife, water quality,and habitat. 1. Timing. In-water construction will be conducted only during the approved (Fisher 2006) in-water work window(June 15 through September 30). No in- water work will be conducted between October I and June 14. The Project is scheduled to be constructed during 2007. 2. The City will comply with WDFW guidelines for fish passage, HPA conditions, Corps guidelines for culvert replacement, and the terms and conditions of the Corps permit. 3. Clearing limits will be clearly marked prior to construction. 4. Fish removal and site isolation will occur prior to diverting water around the Project and will follow NOAA guidelines(Appendix B). 5. In consideration of the existing site conditions and the level of noise activity required for construction, no specific conservation measures are needed or proposed for the protection of bald eagles. 6. Water withdrawn to dewater the Project site will be re-injected into the ground downstream of the Project to ensure no interruption of flow in Springbrook Creek downstream of the Project during construction. 7. All soil stockpiles and vehicle fueling and equipment staging areas will be located at least 150 feet from surface waters. 8. The construction contractor will designate one individual as the erosion and spill control lead(ESCL). The ESCL will be responsible for installing, monitoring, and maintaining erosion and sediment control BMPs and maintaining spill containment and control equipment. The ESCL will be responsible for construction compliance with local, state, and federal erosion and sediment control requirements. 9. All silt fencing and staking will be removed upon Project completion. 10. Protective covering will be placed over exposed soil areas. No disturbed ground shall remain exposed for more than 7 days between May 1 and September 30 and no more than 3 days between October 1 and April 30 if construction activities are not occurring in that area. Protective covering will be clear plastic sheeting, straw mulch,jute matting, or erosion control blanket per Washington State Department of Ecology requirements. R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) 2.12 Project Description 11. Exposed soils will be seeded and covered with straw mulch after construction is complete. Any temporary construction impact areas will be revegetated with native plants. 12. A Spill Prevention,Control, and Containment(SPCC)Plan will be prepared,and all equipment will be properly maintained to successfully implement the plan. All equipment will be inspected and maintained, and absorbent material will be kept on-site. Personnel will be knowledgeable and trained in the implementation of the SPCC Plan and in associated equipment and materials necessary to correctly implement the SPCC Plan. Emergency contact information will be available on-site, in the event that a spill of hazardous materials does occur during construction. Measures that will be included in the SPCC Plan include: a. The contractor will be required to prepare and adhere to a SPCC plan. The SPCC Plan will consist of the following elements for the prevention,control, and containment of an accidental spill of hazardous materials. i. All hazardous materials will be stored on land in containers clearly labeled with the contents and appropriate for the specific material. Containers shall be stored in areas with appropriate safeguards(under cover, on an impervious surface). ii. No fueling or maintenance of construction equipment will occur within 150 feet of surface waters. iii. Personnel who transfer or otherwise handle hazardous materials will be trained in the safe handling of the materials and have knowledge of the SPCC Plan and procedures and equipment necessary to initiate control and containment of a spill. iv. Inspections of equipment and hazardous materials storage areas will occur on a daily basis. v. If an accidental spill were to occur, personnel on-site will immediately initiate measures to control the source of the spill and contain the spilled material. vi. Materials necessary for the control and containment of a spill of hazardous materials will include,but may not be limited to, oil-absorbent booms, oil-absorbent rags, and other appropriate absorbent materials. vii. All materials necessary for the control and containment of hazardous materials will be kept within the Project corridor, and personnel will be knowledgeable of their locations and their manner of use. viii.If an accidental spill of hazardous materials were to occur, the appropriate agencies will be notified. ix. Control and containment efforts will take precedence over all other Project-related work. Work will not resume until a spill has been 2-13 December 2005 SW 341 Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment contained and cleaned up and the cause of the spill identified and measures taken to rectify the problem. x. Materials used in control and containment efforts will be collected and disposed of at an approved facility designed for the safe handling of hazardous materials. R.W.Beck Associates(05287,05) 2-14 Chapter 3. Existing Environmental Conditions The existing environmental conditions were determined through the review of published data sources,databases, and direct observations in the field. Information on the currently listed species was obtained from NOAA Fisheries and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)web sites on November 29,2005 (Appendix D). Information on site use by ESA-listed and WDFW-managed species was obtained by review of WDFW priority habitats and species(PHS) database and Washington State Department of Natural Resources(WDNR)Natural Heritage Program(NHP)data. Other sources included the Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA)9 salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors analysis(Kerwin and Nelson 2000)and other sources cited in this document. Direct observations of habitat characteristics were made during a site visit on April 5,2005, by Jones& Stokes biologists. 3.1. Environmental Baseline 3.1.1. Salmonid Habitat Conditions The discussion below addresses the existing conditions within the Action Area of the Project. For salmonids the discussion is focused on those elements of the environment identified by the USFWS in the document titled A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998)and Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale prepared by NOAA Fisheries(National Marine Fisheries Service 1996). These matrices were developed by the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries to analyze the effects of activities on federal forestlands in the Pacific Northwest and are rated relative pre-development optimal 3-1 December 2005 SW 3411 Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment habitat conditions. This matrix was developed to analyze the effects of activities at the watershed scale and in a wide range of environmental conditions. Please refer to Table 3-1 for an overview of the environmental baseline conditions for each system. Table 3-1. Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of the Proposed Action on Relevant Salmonid Habitat Indicators Effects of Project Actions on Baseline Environmental Conditions Environmental Conditions Diagnostic/Pathway Properly Not Properly Indicators Functioning At Risk Functioning Improved Maintained Degraded Water Quality Temperature X X Sediment X X (local short-term impact) Chemical X X Contamination/Nutrients Habitat Access Physical Barriers X X Habitat Elements Substrate Embeddedness X X Large Woody Debris X X (LWD) Pool Frequency X X Pool Quality X X Off-channel Habitat X X Refugia X X Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio X X Streambank Condition X X Floodplain Connectivity X X Flow/Hydrology Change in Peak/Base X X Flows Drainage Network X X Increase Watershed Conditions R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) 3-2 Existing Environmental Conditions Effects of Project Actions on Baseline Environmental Conditions Environmental Conditions Diagnostic/Pathway Properly Not Properly Indicators Functioning At Risk Functioning Improved Maintained Degraded Road Density and X X Location Disturbance History X X Riparian Reserves X X Subpopulation Characteristics Specific to Bull Trout Subpopulation size N/A X Growth and Survival N/A X Life History Diversity and N/A X Isolation Persistence and Genetic N/A X Integrity Environmental Baseline Sources: Kerwin and Nelson 2000;Washington State Department of Ecology 2005. Checklist and criteria for functional ratings from National Marine Fisheries Service 1996 and U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service 1998. Water Quality Temperature Water temperatures in Springbrook Creek basin in excess of 180C have been recorded(Harza 1995; Kerwin and Nelson 2000). The Springbrook Creek system has two excursions of temperature criteria on the 1998 303(d)list but has been removed from the 303(d)list in the latest(2002-2004)version(Washington State Department of Ecology 2005). This indicator is considered to be not properly functioning. Sediment and Turbidity Turbidity levels within the Springbrook Creek subbasin have exceeded water quality criteria for Class A waters. Mean absolute turbidity values ranged from 16 to 42 nephelometric turbidity units(NTU) at five sites in lower Springbrook and Mill creeks, while maximum values at these sites ranged from 104 to 197 NTU (Harza 1995). Streambank conditions along Mill Creek, a tributary of Springbrook Creek, show evidence of severe downcutting. Streambank erosion likely contributes to elevated sedimentation and turbidity in Springbrook Creek. Other sources of turbidity could include road and parking lot runoff from this urbanized watershed. This indicator is considered to be not properly functioning. 43 December 2005 SW 3411 Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment Chemical and Nutrient Contamination The Springbrook(Mill)Creek system is on the 2002-2004 303(d) list for excursions of water quality parameters, including dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform (Washington State Department of Ecology 2005). In addition, temperature,pH, Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and copper have shown occasional excursions, resulting in a Category 2 listing. Springbrook Creek was formerly(1998) 303(d) listed for several other toxic metals,but recent testing has shown Springbrook Creek to meet standards for these substances. Although water quality appears to have improved, dissolved oxygen and bacteria continue to exceed standards. Therefore this indicator is not properly functioning. Habitat Access Physical Barriers The BRPS, located downstream near the confluence of Springbrook Creek and the Green/Duwamish River, is a partial barrier to fish migration. Adult salmonids are able to pass upstream of the BRPS,while juveniles cannot negotiate upstream past the BRPS. Once above the BRPS,adult salmonids cannot migrate back out of the system downstream of the BRPS, while juveniles are able to migrate out. On occasion,adult chinook salmon have strayed into Springbrook Creek,where there is little suitable spawning habitat,and have been unable to return to the Green River (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Dense reed canarygrass(Phalaris arundinacea)may also impair passage where it spans shallow portions of the channel(Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Water quality in Springbrook Creek and lower Mill Creek(tributary to Springbrook Creek)may pose a barrier to fish migration under certain conditions. Harza(1995) noted that chinook salmon entered the BRPS between September 17 and October 22 of 1994. During this time water temperature reached 20.2°C at the BRPS. At the same time, dissolved oxygen at the Mill Creek U.S. Geological Survey(USGS)gage averaged 4.5 milligrams per liter(mg/1),ranging from 0.9 mg/1 to 10.1 mg/l. Similarly,percent saturation of dissolved oxygen ranged from 9.2%to 86.1%, averaging 42.5%. These levels indicate that conditions in lower Mill and Springbrook creeks were often lethal to salmonids during this time period (Harza 1995). These conditions likely pose a significant obstacle to migrating salmonids. This indicator is considered not properly functioning. Habitat Elements Substrate Embeddedness Springbrook Creek sediments are dominated by fines in the Project vicinity. The low gradient of this stream contributes to low stream velocity,and fine sediment is not as readily transported as it would be in a higher gradient stream. Harza(1995) indicated R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) 34 Existing Environmental Conditions that severe downcutting was occurring in Mill and Garrison creeks and low to moderate downcutting was occurring in Springbrook Creek. Erosion from these sites and urban runoff upstream may contribute fine sediment to Springbrook Creek. This indicator is not properly functioning. Large Woody Debris Within the Action Area, LWD is absent. LWD is also absent from much of Springbrook Creek. Woody riparian vegetation is lacking at the Action Area, and recruitment of wood into the stream is limited to certain areas. Due to the low gradient and velocity of this stream,wood is not readily transported downstream. This indicator is not properly functioning. Pool Frequency The Springbrook Creek channel has been modified in many areas, including the Action Area,where the channel is a straight trapezoidal channel with little internal complexity and almost no sinuosity. As a result the channel has a relatively consistent depth. The channel does include deepwater habitat,however,and low velocity due to the low gradient of this stream. Mill Creek,a major tributary of Springbrook Creek,also has a modified channel with little pool development. This indicator is not properly functioning. Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio Although some portions of Mill Creek(upstream of Springbrook Creek)are downcut, altering the naturally occurring width/depth ratio(Jones& Stokes 2004), the width/depth ratio generally is less than 10 as it is in the Project vicinity. Therefore the width/depth ratio is properly functioning. Streambank Condition Streambanks in the Project vicinity are heavily vegetated with reed canarygrass. While this invasive species is detrimental to habitat condition, it appears adequate to maintain channel stability in the low-energy environment of Springbrook Creek. Streambank conditions within the Mill Creek subbasin are significantly degraded. The level of development within the subbasin,relocations and channelization of streams,and removal of riparian vegetation have caused severe downcutting of the streambanks within the subbasin(Harza 1995). While the specific percentage of stable versus unstable streambanks is unknown, this indicator is likely functioning at risk. 3.5 December 2005 SW 3471 Street Culvert Replacement Project Sicogical Assessment Floodplain Connectivity The Springbrook Creek subbasin has been isolated from the Green/Duwamish River floodplain by the BRPS and dikes and levees along both the Green/Duwamish River and streams in the Springbrook Creek subbasin. The streams in the Springbrook Creek subbasin, including Mill Creek, have been significantly modified as evidenced by their lack of meandering and uniform trapezoidal morphology. This indicator is considered to be not properly functioning. Flow/Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flow The level of development within the Springbrook Creek subbasin is significant and has caused an increased flashiness to streamflow, with higher peak flows and reduced base flow as the amount of impervious surface area within the subbasin has increased. This indicator is considered to be not properly functioning. Increase in Drainage Network Due to Roads The drainage network in the Springbrook Creek subbasin is significant due to the level of development. This indicator is considered to be not properly functioning based on the level of development. Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location The road density within the Springbrook Creek subbasin is significantly greater than 3 miles per square mile and includes valley-bottom roads in close proximity to stream channels. Therefore this indicator is not properly functioning. Disturbance History The Springbrook Creek subbasin is an urbanized setting and does not meet the Northwest Forest Plan(NWFP)standard for Late Successional Old Growth(LSOG) retention that is a criterion for determining the rating of this indicator. The Project is not located in a forested setting,and the equivalent clearcut area is much greater than 15%of the subbasin. This indicator is considered to be not properly functioning. 3.2. Species Occurrence in the Project Action Area 3.2.1. Bull Trout Bull trout of the Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment(DPS)were listed by the USFWS as threatened under the ESA on November 1, 1999(64 FR 58910). All naturally spawning populations of bull trout in the continental United States are R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) 3.6 Existing Environmental Conditions included in the listing. On January 9,2001 (66 FR 1628), Washington stocks of Dolly Varden(Salvelinus malma)were also listed as threatened because they are similar in appearance to bull trout. Stocks in the Project Vicinity A sustainable population of bull trout is not known to occur within the Green/Duwamish River basin(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998); therefore,the indicators specific to bull trout subpopulation characteristics are not applicable. Although no bull trout have been documented in the Springbrook Creek subbasin,they have been recorded occasionally in the Green/Duwamish River (Goetz 2004)and could, therefore, enter Springbrook Creek. Habitat Requirements and Ecology Bull trout of the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS exhibit four life history strategies: resident(nonmigratory), fluvial(migrating within a river),adfluvial(migrating between rivers and lakes in a watershed),and anadromous (migrating between freshwater and marine environments). Bull trout prefer cold water and structurally complex habitats. The Coastal/Puget Sound population is the only bull trout DPS in which anadromous individuals occur. Bull trout spawn in the fall, and fly typically emerge in late February or early March. Cold,clear water and clean gravel are required for successful reproduction and rearing. Fry prefer habitat with abundant cover,and juveniles seek out cool water when water temperatures begin to exceed 59°F. Rearing occurs for several years before fish move into larger water bodies to mature. Designated Critical Habitat Critical Habitat for the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS was designated on September 26, 2005,and includes the mainstem of the Green River downstream of Springbrook Creek(70 FR 185:56212-56311). Compliance with Recovery or Management Plan Springbrook Creek is not within the Core Management Areas defined in the Draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). As such, the recovery criteria and specific goals of the plan do not apply to Springbrook Creek. 3.2.2. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon The Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit(ESU)of Chinook salmon was designated as threatened on March 24, 1999(64 FR 14308),and reaffirmed on June 28,2005 (70 FR 37160). This ESU includes all naturally spawned spring, summer,and fall runs of Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound region from the North Fork Nooksack River to the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula, inclusive(Myers — December 2005 SW 34�1 Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment et al. 1998). Trends for the ESU are predominantly positive for the South Sound,as compared to the North Sound and Hood Canal,both of which have a predominantly negative trend. Stocks in the Project Vicinity The Green River chinook salmon run has remained relatively stable,while other Puget Sound stocks have declined(Kerwin and Nelson 2000). It is estimated that the average run size during 1968-1997(those that spawn and those captured)was approximately 41,000. Approximately 5,700 fish per year are estimated to spawn naturally. However, natural reproduction may be masked by strays from the large hatchery returns in this watershed(Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Small numbers of adult Chinook salmon have been known to enter the Springbrook Creek system and attempt spawning in the vicinity of the SW 27`h Street culvert located about 0.5 mile downstream from the Project. It is not known if any of these fish have spawned or reared successfully(Kerwin and Nelson 2000)in the poor quality habitat of Springbrook Creek. Habitat Requirements and Ecology Adult summer/fall chinook salmon migrate into their natal streams to spawn in September and October. Chinook salmon require clean,cool water and clean gravel for spawning. Eggs are deposited and buried in gravel nests where they incubate. Eggs reside in the gravel until hatching in 90 to 150 days, depending on water temperature. Chinook salmon from the Green River typically leave freshwater within the first year of life. After hatching, fry rear in their natal streams for up to 5 months. Rearing occurs from February through June. The best rearing habitat is generally associated with pools and wetland areas where woody debris and overhanging vegetation can provide cover and protection. The young fish begin their migration to salt water March through July,with peak migration occurring in June. The salmon then mature in marine waters until between 2 and 6 years old,when they return to their home system to spawn. The average age of Chinook spawners is 4 years(Myers et al. 1998). Designated Critical Habitat Critical Habitat for Puget Sound chinook salmon was designated on September 2, 2005,and will become effective January 2,2006 (70 FR 52630). This habitat includes the Black River and Springbrook Creek. Compliance with Recovery or Management Plan Chinook salmon recovery planning is being managed in conjunction with a coalition of salmon management interests called the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. These interests include NOAA Fisheries, USFWS,the governor's office,Puget Sound treaty R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) 3 8 Existing Environmental Conditions tribes, state natural resources agencies, local governments, and key non-governmental organizations. A draft plan has been completed(Shared Strategy for Puget Sound 2005). The draft plan is guidance rather than a regulatory document. This Project is consistent with the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound draft plan(Shared Strategy for Puget Sound 2005)and complementary,with a conceptual project proposed in that plan(Project LG-19). Project LG-19 would rehabilitate habitat for rearing and off-channel refuge on Springbrook Creek at river mile(RM) 1.0 (downstream of SW 34 h Street). No part of the SW 34rh Street culvert replacement would prevent implementation or effectiveness of Project LG-19. In fact,the root wads that will be installed upstream and downstream of the culvert are precisely the type of improvement called for in the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound draft plan (Shared Strategy for Puget Sound 2005). Therefore the SW 34`h Street culvert replacement is consistent with salmonid recovery planning. 3.2.3. Bald Eagle The bald eagle is listed as threatened by the USFWS; however, the bald eagle has been proposed for removal from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife (64 FR 36454-36464). The species breeds across much of Canada,the Pacific Northwest, throughout the Great Lake states,and along the eastern and Gulf coasts. Bald eagles are recovering as a breeding species in other areas of interior North America. Washington hosts one of the largest populations of wintering bald eagles in the lower 48 states as well as one of the largest populations of nesting pairs. The majority of nesting bald eagles in Washington occur west of the Cascade Mountains (Smith et al. 1997). Early declines in bald eagle populations were attributed to human persecution and destruction of riparian,wetland, and conifer forest habitats. However,the widespread use of organochlorine pesticides that caused eggshell thinning and subsequent reproductive failure was the most important factor in the decline of the species(Detrich 1985). Various legal and management measures, including restrictions placed on the use of organochlorine pesticides in 1972,development and implementation of the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986),and local bald eagle management plans,have contributed to the continuing recovery of bald eagle populations. Target numbers of nesting pairs in the region have been met (64 FR 36453-36464). Stocks in the Project Vicinity Bald eagles may occasionally visit the site, although there are no records of eagles at this location. The closest known bald eagle nest is approximately 2 miles away and is located along the Green River(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ra December 2005 SW 34�1 Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment 2005). There are no bald eagle nests in the Project vicinity or within line of sight of the Project. Occasionally,bald eagles may forage on waterfowl in the Project vicinity; however, there are no records of this activity. Sycamore trees located several hundred feet upstream of the SW 34`h Street culvert could potentially be used by perching bald eagles. However,during winter months, eagles are more likely to forage along the Green River due to the presence of sizable salmon runs and more numerous suitable perch trees. Habitat Requirements and Ecology Bald eagles typically nest in stands of old-growth trees near large water bodies. Nests are often constructed in the largest tree in a stand with an open view of the surrounding environment. Nest trees are usually near water and have large horizontal limbs. Snags and dead topped live trees may be important in providing perch and roost sites within territories. Because of their large size, eagles require ready access to an abundant supply of medium to large fish during breeding(Johnsgard 1990). Freedom from human disturbance is probably another important component of suitable nesting habitat(Rodrick and Milner 1991). Bald eagles winter along rivers, lakes,and reservoirs that support adequate fish or waterfowl prey and have mature trees or large snags available for perch sites. Bald eagles often roost communally during the winter, typically in a stand of mature trees with an open branching structure and well-developed canopies. Winter roost areas are usually isolated from human disturbance (Johnsgard 1990). Although Springbrook Creek does attract waterfowl, and a run of coho salmon, there are no mature trees or snags in the Project vicinity suitable for bald eagles to perch and no sand bars,a favored foraging habitat. Designated Critical Habitat The USFWS has not designated or proposed Critical Habitat for the bald eagle(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). Compliance with Recovery or Management Plan The proposed action will not violate the recommended protection measures for bald eagles as outlined in the Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). 3.2.4. Other ESA-listed Species There are no recorded sightings or suitable habitat for the other ESA-listed species that may occur in King County(Appendix D) in the Project Action Area. These R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) 3-10 Existing Environmental Conditions species(as identified by the USFWS) include Canada lynx(Lynx canadensis),gray wolf(Canis lupus), grizzly bear(Ursus arctos), marbled murrelete(Brachyramphus marmoratus),northern spotted owl(Strix occidentalis caurina),marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola),and golden paintbrush(Castilleja levisecta). None of these animal species are normally found in urban environments such as the Action Area. The ESA-listed plant species are have not been observed in King County is recent years and require conditions (acidic bog habitat for marsh sandwort and open grassland for golden paintbrush)not found in the Action Area(Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2005). Neither of these species was found in the Action Area during wetland delineation and site reconnaissance surveys. 3-11 December 2005 Chapter 4. Analysis of Effects 4.1. Salmonids Salmonids present in Springbrook Creek at the time of construction may be subjected to direct effects related to isolation and dewatering of the work area. Following completion of the Project,other(indirect) effects are expected. The long-term effect of the Project will likely be beneficial to salmonids in Springbrook Creek. This would affect primarily coho salmon,which are managed under the Magnuson- Stevens Act(see Essential Fish Habitat evaluation in Chapter 6),but would affect chinook salmon if and when they are present in Springbrook Creek. 4.1.1. Direct Effects The potential direct effects to fish and fish habitat from the Project include the following. ■ The temporary diversion of streamflow may temporarily increase sediment transport and deposition to areas downstream of the Project site. ■ Excavation and grading may increase the likelihood of sediment transport and deposition to areas downstream of the Project site. ■ Dewatering and excavation of the Project site may increase sediment transport and deposition to areas downstream of the Project site. ■ An accidental spill of hazardous materials could occur; however, such an occurrence is highly unlikely. ■ Relocation of fish from the construction area will require handling(seining, electrofishing,and dip netting), which may stress the fish involved. However, approved fish removal methods (Appendix B)will be used to minimize the �� December 2005 SW 3411 Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment potential for fish injury. Because this work will be completed during the approved in-water work window(July 1 through August 31), it is anticipated that only coho salmon and cutthroat trout will be present. Conservation measures, including isolation of the in-channel work area, adherence to timing restrictions, use of a Baker Tank for treating dewatering discharge as necessary,and erosion and sediment control measures, are anticipated to minimize the potential for these impacts. 4.1.2. Indirect Effects Indirect effects include effects that may occur during operation of the facility subsequent to Project completion. Indirect effects may also occur should primary prey species be affected. Operation of the culvert will improve fish passage by reducing stream velocity during high-flow events. Operation of the culvert would also have the beneficial impact of reducing roadway overtopping events upstream, which would reduce pollutant exposure to stream water and the potential for fish stranding. Root wads and associated alcoves that will be installed upstream and downstream of the new culvert will add habitat complexity and provide refuge during high-flow events, benefiting salmonids. No adverse indirect effects from the proposed Project have been identified. 4.1.3. Effects of Interdependent or Interrelated Actions No interdependent and/or interrelated actions have been identified. 4.2. Bald Eagles 4.2.1. Direct Effects Direct effects include those that may occur during Project construction. Potential direct effects associated with the proposed action would be disturbance of foraging or perching bald eagles as a result of Project-related noise and activity. Because the Project area does not contain suitable bald eagle nesting habitat,disturbance would not occur to nesting bald eagles. There are no large snags or other perch sites in the Project vicinity. The largest trees in the Project vicinity are a row of several approximately 12-inch-diameter sycamore trees south of the Project on the east bank. These trees have few branches large enough for bald eagle perch sites. There are no sand bars in the Project vicinity. The only trees that will be removed in construction of the Project are a few willows(less than 6-inch diameter). Because of the urban/industrial environment of the Project environs, it is likely that any bald eagles that may occur in the Action Area would be acclimated to noise and R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) 4-2 Analysis of Effects would not be negatively affected by the construction noise and activity associated with the proposed Project. In consideration of the limited habitat value of the Project site, the small area of impact,and the temporary nature of the construction, the Project is not considered to have a direct effect on bald eagles. 4.2.2. Indirect Effects Indirect effects include effects that may occur during operation of the facility subsequent to Project completion. Indirect effects may also occur should primary prey species be affected. No potential indirect effects from the proposed Project have been identified. 4.2.3. Effects of Interdependent or Interrelated Actions The proposed action has not been linked to any other actions that could affect protected species,nor is it expected to cause or contribute to any such actions. Thus, no interdependent and/or interrelated effects have been identified. December 2005 Chapter 5. Determinations of Effect 5.1. Chinook Salmon Because chinook salmon in the Green River watershed typically migrate out to salt water before the in-water work window when in-channel construction would occur, and because the in-channel construction would be isolated from the stream with temporary cofferdams,the Project is expected to have no direct effect on chinook salmon. The Project would improve habitat conditions slightly in Springbrook Creek by reducing impoundment of floodwater behind the culvert, reducing the frequency and extent of flooding upstream,and through the installation of rootwads and alcove habitat with shading vegetation upstream and downstream of the Project. Therefore, the Project would have a beneficial effect on habitat, which has been designated as Critical Habitat for Puget Sound chinook salmon. Therefore the Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect chinook salmon or designated critical habitat. If chinook recolonize the Springbrook Creek basin at some date in the future,the Project will have a beneficial effect for this species. 5.2. Bull Trout Bull trout are not known or expected to inhabit Springbrook Creek. This low-gradient, low-elevation highly modified channel does not have habitat suitable for bull trout. In addition,all in-channel work would be conducted within the isolation of cofferdams upstream and downstream of the Project. Springbrook Creek is not designated as Critical Habitat for bull trout. Therefore, the Project will have no effect on Coastal\Puget Sound bull trout. �� December 2005 SW 3411,Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment 5.3. Bald Eagle There are no bald eagle nests or roost trees in the Project vicinity,and no trees greater than 5 inches in diameter would be removed for the Project. Although bald eagles may occasionally fly over the site and could on occasionally forage for waterfowl near the site,they would be more likely to be concentrated along the Green River located approximately 0.75 mile west of the Project. Considering the lack of perching habitat, the existing urban/industrial condition of the area,and the temporary nature of the construction,the Project is considered to have no effect on bald eagles. R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) 5 2 Chapter 6. Evaluation of Essential Fish Habitat Public Law 104-297,the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996,amended the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to establish new requirements for Essential Fish Habitat(EFH)descriptions in federal fishery management plans and require federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on activities that may adversely affect EFH. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council(PFMC)has designated EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery, federally managed groundfish, and coastal pelagic fisheries (Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999). The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires consultation for all federal agency actions that may adversely affect EFH. EFH consultation with NOAA Fisheries is required by federal agencies undertaking,permitting, or funding activities that may adversely affect EFH, regardless of their location. Under Section 305(b)(4)of the Magnuson- Stevens Act,NOAA Fisheries is required to provide EFH conservation and enhancement recommendations to federal and state agencies for actions that adversely affect EFH. Wherever possible,NOAA Fisheries uses existing interagency coordination processes to fulfill EFH consultations with federal agencies. For the proposed action,this goal is being met by incorporating EFH consultation to ESA Section 7 consultation, as represented by this BA. The EFH designation for the Pacific salmon fishery includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands,and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington,Oregon, Idaho, and California except above the impassible barriers identified by PFMC(1999). Activities occurring above impassable barriers that are likely to adversely affect EFH below impassable barriers are subject to the consultation provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In estuarine and marine areas, proposed designated EFH for salmon extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial waters out to the full extent of the exclusive &1 December 2005 SW X4 Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment economic zone offshore of Washington,Oregon,and California north of Point Conception(Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999). The Pacific salmon management unit includes chinook,coho,and pink salmon. EFH for chinook salmon and coho salmon does occur within the Project Action Area. EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species does not occur within the Project Action Area. The Project could potentially result in temporary effects to water quality during culvert removal and installation(as described in Chapter 4). However, replacement of the culvert will help reduce roadway flooding upstream and therefore will reduce contact of stream water with roadway pollutants. The Project will include habitat improvements with the installation of root wads and associated plantings and will reduce peak-flow velocity at the SW 34`h Street crossing. No permanent adverse effects to EFH for Pacific salmon will occur. Therefore,the Project will have no adverse effect on EFH for Pacific salmon and will benefit coho salmon by improving habitat quality accessibility of habitat upstream of the culvert. R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) &2 Chapter 7. References Detrich, P.J. 1985. The Status and Distribution of Bald Eagle in California. M.S. thesis. Chico, CA: California State University, Chico. Goetz,F. A., E.Jeans, and E. Beamer. 2004. Bull Trout in the Nearshore. Preliminary Draft. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Seattle District. Seattle, WA. June. Harza. 1995. Final Report: Comprehensive Fisheries Assessment of the Mill Creek, Garrison Creek and Springbrook System. Consultant report prepared for the City of Kent, Environmental Engineering. Kent, WA. Johnsgard,P.A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles,and Falcons of North America. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Kerwin, John,and Nelson,Tom S. (eds.). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island). December. Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of Natural Resources. Myers, J.M.,R.G.Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer,T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grand,F.W. Waknitz, K.Neely, S.T. Lindley,and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status Review of Chinook Salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. (NOAA Tech. Memo,NMFS-NWFSC-35.) U.S. Department of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service(NOAA Fisheries). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch. December 2005 SW 341 Street Culvert Replacement Project Biological Assessment Pacific Fishery Management Council(PFMC). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan, Appendix A: Identification and description of Essential Fish Habitat, adverse impacts, and recommended conservation measures for salmon. Available: <http://www.pcouncil.org>. Accessed: February 26, 2001. Portland, OR. R.W. Beck, Inc. 1997. East Side Green River Watershed Plan. Prepared for the City of Renton. R.W. Beck, Inc. 2004. Draft FEQ Modeling Results for the East Side Green River Watershed Plan. Prepared for the City of Renton. R.W. Beck, Inc. 2005. SW 34'"Street Culvert Replacement Project. Final Pre- Design Report. Prepared for the City of Renton. November. Rodrick, E., and R. Milner(tech. eds.). 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington Priority Habitats and Species. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Wildlife. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound(SSPS). 2005. Draft Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. Seattle,WA. June 30. Available: <http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org>. Accessed: December 8,2005. Smith,M.R.,P.W. Mattocks,Jr., and K.M. Cassidy. 1997. Breeding Birds of Washington State. Volume 4 in K.M. Cassidy, C.E. Grue, M.R. Smith,and K.M. Dvornich(eds.),Washington State Gap Analysis—Final Report (Publications in Zoology No. 1). Seattle, WA: Seattle Audubon Society. Streamnet. 2005. Streamnet salmon distribution online database. Available: <http://www.streanmet.org>. Accessed: December 8,2005. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. Portland, OR. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). 1998. A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus). Puget Sound Management Unit(including the Chilliwack River and associated tributaries flowing into British Columbia, Canada). Portland OR. May. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 1998. Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory:Bull Trout and Dolly Varden Appendix. Olympia,WA. R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) 7.2 References Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology). 2005. Washington State's Water Quality Assessment[303(d) &305(b)Report]. Final 2004 Submittal. Available: <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2002/ 2002-index.html>. Accessed: December 5,2005. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2005. Priority Habitats and Species database. Renton Quad. Washington State Department of Natural Resources(WDNR). 2005. Natural Heritage Program. Available: <http://www.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/>. Accessed: December 12, 2005. 7.3 December 2005 Appendix A Project Drawings FOUND Y BRASS CAP N CONCRETE DOWN 0.4'M L CASE AT THE CENTER OF NEERSECIION WITH Sw 34TH SKEET AM O7•SDAIE AVE SW. SNNEY CONTROL DATA BASE PONT 0J6198. PUBUSHM 1 ELEWION 19501 US.SURVEY FEET. a "m OW2 a a a RIM 1 RN 1912 E E 13.54 E A ,348 CHANNELED 'SET PK NAIL ' TAT FRONT Of WALK AT HN. (::L NO TES iEcc Im116u FEET .wax att HORIZONTAL DATu RON EII NORTH AMERICAN DA"UM 83/91.HELD NORTH 01-35'48-EAST BETWEEN MONUMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LIND AVENUE wm E w 17.86 Q, • SW AND SW 30TH ST(NOT OPEN)AND LIND AVENUE SW AND SW 23RD ST(NOT OPEN). o �„ F WL 17A6 a CONCRETE 3; ASPHALT ECC _ 90T 15e2 ECC VERTICAL DATUM; " W .. ... _U ASPHALT NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 88.HELD CITY OF RENTON MONUMENT NO. 1861 AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF LIND AVENUE TR SW AND SW 30TH ST(NOT OPEN)ELEVATION 20.00 FEET AND MONUMENT NO. 1551 AT LIND AVENUE SW AND SW 23RD ST(NOT wv t 3A CASE EL 18.67 OPEN)ELEVATION 21.32 FEET. , BOLT EL 1529 _ " - BH-2 OF91 BM+1: TOP NORTHWEST BASE BOLT OF LIGHT STANDARD E126 FEET EAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK ON NORTH SIDE OF 34TH STREET SOUTHWEST. ELEVATION 18.92 FEET CONCRETE 50' WETLAND BUFFER DHA SM12: CHISELED SQUARE AT SOUTHEAST CORNER CONCRETE TRANSFORMER,t175 FEET WEST OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK cc 50 WETLAND BUFFER CENTERLINE AN)12D FEET NOI�H OF BACK OF WALK ON NORTH SIDE SOUTHWEST 34TH STREET. ELEVATION 21.10 FEET ECC TOPOGRAPHIC MPPPING NOTES: - - THE MAP SHOWN HEREON IS THE RESULT OF A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY DUANE HARTMAN k ASSOCIATES,INC.(DHA) -' - ,- - - COMPLETED ON APRL 21.2005. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN HEREIN WERE FIELD TIED AS A RESULT OF A UTILITY • SON PAINT-OUT DURING THE COURSE OF THE FIELD SURVEY. DUANE HARTMAN&ASSOCIATES,INC.(DHA)ASSUMES NO LIABILITY g o RN 19.45 FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE UTILITY PAINT-OUT. DHA ASSUMES NO LIABILITY,BEYOND SAID DATE,FOR ANY FUTURE SURFACE WETLAND 1 BORE NOLE z E w 11.89 ENE 11N FEATURE NODIFlCATIONS OR WNSTRUCTIOy ACTIVITIES THAT MAY OCCUR WITHIN OR ADJOINING THE PERIMETER OF THIS SURVEY. -.. .." o WL 12.30 CONTACT DFiA(425/483-5355)FOR STTf^UPDATES AND VERIFICATIONS. `` WATER SURFACE Z ` BUT 11.25 WETLAND 2 __.... - ON 0 FEET ON 4/,B/zaas n LEGEND 12.0 T - -.- -. = - ROAD CENTERLINE S MONUMENT IN CASE i - � � �t era" � -� •�" �1 - - - __ _.__ ROAD I AY-- - - RIGHT � PROJECT BENCHMARK iE 8.20 72" CMP STORM CULVERT - IE=7.58 _ IE=791 - _ ®-0 BUILDING )A PK NAIL(CONTROL) t - IE 8.09�8 72*CMP STORM CULVERT . 0 - WATER SURFACE 11.0.1 FEET o -------- -- FENCE LINE o REBAR AND CAP SPRINGBROOK CREEK uI SPRINGBROOK CREEK ,LATER SURFACE 10.97 FEET ON 04/19/2005 IE b 8.12D 9 72'CMP STORM CULVERT- ---� AT 240 PAL ON 04/19/2005 --_ ---- - - CONTOUR INTERVAL(2 FEET) `e CULVERT ' - 1' I E=8.20 IE 8.19 - N H - ..-_. --_.- .... ❑ STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN 72"CMP STORM CULVERT E-8-3a CONTOUR INDEX(10 FEET) 4 Ap.. 9-m STORM GRAN E=E8 4,317 _.._5 • STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT =T __ _.. --'.^ F _! - ._ BLOC BUILDING ® STORM DRAIN MANHOLE CB TYPE I BORE CLF CHAIN LINK FENCE CONIFER TREE RN 1734 _.. _ N13.66 9 v SP-2 E/- WL 1354 ,� CB TYPE i -._. __, -5 CONIC CONCRETE DECIDUOUS TREE d d - , so 1154 BH-2 TIE S 1341 E - _ _.. I I N 132J s ASPHALT TWA ® 0 WL 122t ---- _ GNP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE JZ SIGN FOLIO REBAR AND CAP 0.5' BOUARDS IN, -.'BOT 1313 ECC EXTRUDED CONCRETE CURB IR ASPHALT 7WL CE 27329' E1 RN i8.1a ® POTHOLE '_. .74 Brti.._ -. �.,"�� - - a.. _E 8t076 .-_ .. - .. - --X15E7 PK NAIL ORIN ORNAMENTAL SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE E _ r '`""'"'-"' •V 'SET fi(NAIL �" B�O_T 8.74 __ N 1 K MAN. 20 D 20 40 O u CASE Fl 1&60 AT NE.END ASPHALT FOOT --- IE 1,167.13&n43 UTILITY POLE WITH LIGHT n BOLT EL 1 PATH NEAR&LIc a WALK -- - :-.--- -- -ELMTION I&P FEET 1"=20�-0" OHW ORDINARY HIGH WATER - --- �� ! sswH - -� -ECC -- Scale Feet PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE N Ia5.5411966 52 g R _ '�, �� ' •.� ��. , c 1,ATION 18.57 .� RIM 21.04 # LIGHT POLE ELEVATION 18.57 FEET E E 14.99 -50 WETLAND BUF B"wT; e. SP SOIL PLOT j,� WATER HYDRANT 0 61 ICW IMWV � SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE pd WATER VALVE ._. L .... PoM t ,:9.9J WHEELCHAIR RAMP CONCRETE SCALE SSYEcc H SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE o ESE 15.51 a N 15.47 ASPHALT 50' NWETLAND BUFFER P WETLAND FLAG -, CHANNELED: - �' BlDO m 18.11 ASPHALTN14.64 UTILITY POTHOLE RESULTS: 62 156 1�'9 IM 20�t - ._ _ DATE 05/12/2005 o CONCRETE SCALE SET PK NAIL i aVM1ELED ;E E I&M o N 16Ma0.6890 K wT'17�.05 TARGET DEPTH TO TOP OF DEPTH TO BOT OF PIPE CONDUIT SUBSURFACE E1,295.610.6890 =` 2-STORY ECC ELEVATION 18.90 FEET)! CONCRETE POfT10lE m UTIV UTILITY IN INCHES UTILITY IN INCHES SIZE IN INCHES PIPE MATERIAL HUB ELEVATION COMPOSITION TILT-UP 1. i P2 FBUILDING Pi IT R 41' 49' 2 2 4- PVC 18.12' ROCKY P3 PO 44 71' 2 2 ' PVC 18.16' ROCKY T1 .L 37 64 27 WIDE CDF DUCT 18.44' ROCKY T2 25 51 25 WIDE CDF DUCT 18.47 ROCKY T3 0 54 25 WIDE CDF DUCT 18.21 ROCKY 1 43 4 PE 1 18.31 ROCKY 4 Pt I1KWKT NO705'S0 E LIND AVENUE SW E NO7'35'18-E 2591.76'FOUND EAn N TACK on.10 it) LA I KWKT N CONCRETE DOWN FOLIO TALK M iFIO N CONCIETE 0.8,N m MONUIIETIT•DOWN O.Y N CASE FOLIO TACK N LEAD N CONCRETE DOWN I CITY OF RENTON MONUMENT NO.1861 0.6'N CASE. CITY OF RENTON MONUMENT ELEWTON 20.00 FEET NO.1551. ELEIWna 21M FEET NE 1/4, SE 1/4, S 25, TWP 23 N, R 4 E k NIT 1/4, SW 1/4, S 30, TRP 23 N, R 5 E, W.M. .; ...�la t� 1•=20' "°" =jv"' � CITY 0� SW 34TH STREET 05-18-05 CULVERT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT L.L. RENTON FIGURE A-1 DATUM - Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. EXISTING SURVEY 05-757 - NO. REVISION BY DATE APPIR ""'"0L"0"•' MAP "�" 1 "1 d A - NNNNAA d� d a Q. Z 12" WATER PSE POWER DUCT SIDEWALK PSE 4" GAS 6'0 CMP CULVERT w 0 8" SS a QUEST COMMUNICATION DUCT 44' ROADWAY 000 000 00 3 F V W N X \i\... .. i\\\i\\\i\\\i\\\i\. � I co 4 i rn SECTION rA SCALE: HORIZ 1"=5' — VERT 1"=5' m u o' 0 a 0 u 0 u o: Y ° V N a M O C ° Q• O n m N O u m K a U ° 'o o` 3 z a. i� I E rn m 5 2.5 0 5 10 N Scale Feet 0 0 N CITY OF SW 34TH STREET �6--15-05 REN TON CULVERT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT_ , CAD FIGURE A-2 Planning/Building/Public Wcrks Dept. EXISTING SECTION 0 - N0. REVISION BY DATE rAPPR A - NNNNAA { 1 B IG ' LEGEND / WETLAND 50' WETLAND_ t I WETLAND - - BOUNDARY ER MONUMENT INCASE BOUNDARY RE84R,�CAP PO50' WETLAND 1 _ cuivERr BUFFER STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN STORM ORNN MANHOLE COWIfER TREE Z DECID000S TREE LW WINGWALL SIGN_--SPRINGBROOK CREEK TRAIL I RECONSTRUCTION DATA PLOT . CO- SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE S4NlrARY SEWER C(fAN OUT EX'ST 36"-Sb - NE WINGWALL uTam PCY£WITH LMIN CUT FLUSH I[/ - I - LIGHT POLE NE7,Af MALL M EXIST., 60° STORM WATER HWRW DRAIN, CllT FLUSH W/ WATER wolf NEW WALL WHEf am RAMP WERAND f7AG ' BLDG BUILDING T'r W CONC CONCRETE RELOCATED WITARY CaW C'OWrATED METAL PIPE . - - - _ - __._ _- OWN 04N/MENTAL . . . . . . ._ - ._ - OHW ORDINARY HIGH WATER _ I SEW S FIGURE 6 . . . . . . 3 ,;.7i . . _. PVC POL YWtW CHLORIDE PIPE I . . .. . . . I CATCH BASNS AT ' I .. = NEW 'NEW CATCH BASINS WIDEx10' HIGH ROAD LOW POINTSP SOIL PLOT i AT ROAD LOW POINT /� BOX CULVERT SDMH STORM DftN MANHOLE w �. _. . .. SS I __ _-SS U SSMH SNITARY SEWER MANHOLE d o I LIMIT . . . . . . . ..... .ao. . RELOCATED am OF 3 R�ONSTRUCTION AD 1 '-- �— -.— 1 12" WATER > ` LIMIT OF ROAD — I - RECONSTRUCTION T� t ` c "U,- ROAD CENTERLINE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY BUILDING Ln FENCE LINE 1 ' - HIGH WATER MARK n SW WINGWALL _ 1 UNDERGROUND GAS rj UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC - !SE WINGWALL UNDERGROUND SANTARY o ' ;WETLAND UNDERGROUND STORM N ;BOUNDARY UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND WATER 50' WETLAND 50' BUFFER NO TES . . _ 1APHIC FEATURES SIS SURVEY THEY REPRESENTS E STEDON SIZE AS OF A�L 21, 2005. �� 40' 1 SPRINGBROOK CREEK TRAIL AT � ONE NCH _ :. WETLAND ' KING C NTY - BOUNDARY DRAINAGE�ISTRICT 15 o is 30 i + ' ROW' I ' Scale Feet NE 1/4,SE 1/4, S 25, TFP 23 N, R 4 E k NW 1/4, SF 1/4, S 30, TWP 23 N, R 5 E, F.N. SW 34TH STREET �6--15-05 CITY OF �� E N TON CULVERT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT E U° i oAruu FIGURE A•3 .� $_ _ m Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. PLm 19 NO. REVISION BY DATE APPR A- NNNNAA z 50' VC 150' VC 50' VC w cn a v rn o N o o z + a + n a o c4 + + + N N + N N O r7 O ? C)CD +I X r7 Q � Q N O Q O O+ � r Q C' Lo cO H c0 W tD N O) N O� '� H N fn Do F--- 00 — N W ad Ln 40 N N N m > w w w m w N > w 2.3' MAX GRADE RAISE N w w m w j w N w w w +2.0% -2.0% Z w EXISTING GRADE a O TEMPORARY TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION DIVERSION PIPES EXCAVATION SPAWNING GRAVEL FOUNDATION MATERIAL w SECTION A N r SCALE: HORIZ 1'=10' FIG 7 a VERT 1"=10' I 0 i� c v i a 1 9 0 0 0 m ,E, PEDESTRIAN —- GUARDRAIL n 3 RELOCATED WATER o N o EXISTING SW WINGWALL SIDEWALK I o I GRADE SIDEWALK t — NW WINGWALL n a' CREEK INVERT RELOCATED GAS o , RELOCATED Y COMMUNICATION DUCT BOX CULVERT BASE o RELOCATED ELECTRICAL DUCT V U O Z SECTION i SCALE: HORIZ 1"=10' FlG 7 VERT 1"=10' 0 12 10 5 0 10 20 Scale Feet w CITY OF CULVER S �;6-15-05 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT �+ R E N TON a rAo � FIGURE A-4 DATUM y - _ Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. P t NO. REVISION BY DATE APPR SECTKNJS n A - NNNNAA SSMN mm 19.22 E E 10.54 NOTES: E w 1146 atomem 1. THIS FIGURE SHOWS A SCHEMATIC PLAN TO TEMPORARILY SET PK I �,A \ DIVERT FLOWS IN SPRINGBROOK CREEK. FINAL PLAN WILL ' AT FRONT OF WALK •\ BE DESIGNED BY THE CONTRACTOR. IN .982 25 ORIYEWp - _ 'E 1.295.J55.660T A N.W. QRNER CONCRETE ELEWTNIN NIA2 FEET wAtX I W 1930 w n.fifi CONCRETE ASPHALT 7 DDT 15.82 / / - ASPHALT W CA OAST EL 18.67 Q BOLT FL 15.89E ' z - BH-2 CONCRETE 50' SUFFER�UFFER . BUFFER . 50 ......... _ � W FFN D WETLAND BUFFER - 7 .,n-' WETLAND SDMH -- BOUNDARY WETLAND 9 .BORE o 4s .BOREHOLE N 0 E w 1 I.89 48" DIA TEMPORARY _ - w z WARY DIVERSION PIPES WETLAND FLOW.._ y " FLOW ' - CD _.__ 1E 8.20 m o - TEMPORARY 72" CMP STORM CULVERT - IE-7.58 �"-- R _ 10 4 - 8 COFFERDAM IE 8.09 � 72"CMP STORM CULVERT --_ - € �^ IE=7.91 ATM 719 t1'O SPRINGBROOK CREEK 9 IE 8 12 SPRINGBROOK CREEK SDwE b' 72"CMP S_T_0_RM_ CULVERT ' IE=8.20 —_ MPORARY Ar uo Px 04/1 " COFFERDAM - N _ - IE'8.19 72"CMP STORM CULVERT ASP 8'm STORM ORAN - a WETLAND ce TYPE i w� aoR[ o sP-z - -_. " .BOUNDARY - RIM 17b4 _ 13.66 wL n I y �'. L a i BOT us4 F . -..., _ ®-6 .54 , 11.54 BH-2 E S is.I ASPHALT mAa o_ I rA IE N 13 WETLAND . FOUND RE80R AND CAP ® OS'SOaME BOLLARDS _ - •L 1221 - - - SOW 'BOT 132J BOUNDARY.-. —2✓_ _ - _..... .. _... __. ._... 1 RN18.16 T TRNL v B - -- w'L 1a76x PK NAE - 0 ,SET PK MAILC q" BDT 8.74 _ LT EL--BO 60 AT N D T MATH Sz E 129S,545.5859 . ' _ _ - -_ • �. (:N 166.966.605T pp � .-- E1EWTgN 18.&FEET —� ' •'� IN 105-41,8269 'S SSIIN' _ p -- - 'El1VA1K1N 18.57,FEET „ /}c , RY 21.04 5V 50, W 0 BUFFER\,.' B RD E u.99 WETLAND WETLAND EY. awwvE SD��BUFFER SSMH i CONCRETE SCALE BUFFER RIM 19s3 , E SE 1 E 5.51 .,� E - _ \\\\� --.. E15.47: .' #, ASPHALT _ CHAN0vUEDa j H 50' NWETLAND BUFFER \ e oc H -ASPHALT RN 1e.14 ) u E 14.64 .' _ _ CB TYPE I ,r CONCRETE SCALE l :R i E 14.59 RIM 20..85 � i SET PK N4E �. ! �. MLEIAA ... N 166,960..3218 i . - _- --- E I M.610.6690 !; K' DDT 8_355 H - EIETwIgN 18.90 FEET X. 2-STORY CONCRETE Rum ri PLAN SCALE: 1"=20' it 3 ti E NOTES NE 1/4, SE 1/4, S 25, TFP 23 N, R 4 E k NW 1/4, SF 1/4, S 30, TFP 23 N, R 5 E, F.M. tz Y THIS SUR 1,EY R£PRESEN TS THE TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES __ AS THEY EXISTED ON SITE AS OF APRIL 21, 2005. "=10' Xp1�p1""•" �' CITY OF SW 34TH STREET 6-TS-OS 8 20 0 20 40 REN TON CULVERT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ��� DATUM FIGURE A-5 c o. CAD no- $ c Scale Feet - ;' „a� Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. TEMPORARY DIVERSION PLAN �..• NO. REVISION BY DATE APPR '014'm°O10L +.ur A - NNNNAA ' ' B Planting Notes: 1. Seed mix to be hydroseeded over all wetland and - FIG - x wetland buffer areas to be disturbed by mitigation WETLAND 50' WETLAND - activities including planting and installation of rootwads. I WETLAND - BOUNDARY / B•kFER 2. Rootwods shall be anchored prior to planting. - BOUNDARY 3. Willow species to be planted as 60" dormant 50' WETLAND - - cuttings. BUFFER 4. Dogwood species to be planted from 1-gallon size containers. / 5. Black Cottonwood shall be minimum 6' in height, multi-branched, with single, dominant leader. F I L) �fVW WINGWALL o SPRINGBROOK CREEK TRAIL a ' _ RECONSTRUCTION LEGEND EXIST 36"S� - 5� NE WINGWALL CUT FLUSH W/ ' - MONUMENT IN CASE EXIST 60" STORM NEW WALL M RfELW AND CAP DRAIN, CUT,FLUSH W/ CULVERT NEW WALL STORM DRAW OUCH BASIN STORM DRAIN MANHOLE W ._____ -. _. CONIFER TREE A DECIDUOUS TREE Pcor SIGN ` SEWER, SEE FIGURE 6 DAM - L CATE SANITARY - Co- SANITARY SEWER MWNOLf SANITARY SfWfR CLFw OUT NEW CATCH BASINS AT NEW CATCH BASINS I IDEx10' HIGH ROAD LOW POINT UTILITY POLE W/THLIGHT AT ROAD LOW POINT BOX CULVERT a .- -- LIGHT POLE I SS I SS u WATER HYDRANTCD LIMIT I O° RELOCATED WATER VALvf OF 12" WATER wHEEccHaR RAMP ROAD LIMIT OF ROAD NERAND FLAG N RECONSTRUCTION -` - ., I I RECONSTRUCTION eLDc Bu¢aNc teat cavcRfTf _-_ _ _. ..__ _� _. - _ _-.- _. CORIG. CORRIGATED METAL PIPE -- ORN ORNMIENTAL Xi ORDINARY NIGH WATER _X PVC POL YVINAL CHLORIDE PIPE ®® So SOIL PLOT ■, SDMH STORM DRAIN AAANHOLf SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ROAD CENTERLINE PLANTING SCHEDULE nSYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME I COMMON NAME SPACING QUANTITY SW WINGWALL - POPULUS BMSWIFERA BLACK COTTONWOOD 1L1 2 _ ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 0 SPP.TRICHoasPA ' - - ' - -\� BUILDING O SAID%SRCHENSIS I$IfKA WILLOW 20 FENCE LINE CORNUS STOLONIFERA RED-OSIER DOGWOOD A•o.c. e - SE WINGWALL N SEED MIX WETLAND HIGH WATER MARK v BOUNDARY UNDERGROUND GAS i SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON WVAE 7C COVER gUANTITY `. '_ UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC u FESTUCA RUBRA VAR.RUB RA RED FESCUE 3O7C 0.2 LBS ACRE m CAREX SRPATA DEWEY S DGE AOX 0.2 LBS ACRE WETLAND UNDERGROUND SANITARY gNIX OEWFYANA DEWeI Sf77CE }mL 0.6 LBS ACRE " 50' , < 50' BUFFER •o - A -- __-- - - UNDERGROUND STORM UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE 40`. SPRINGBROOK CREEK TRAIL UNDERGROUND WATER -. - - .,WETLAND _ - .. N 80UNDARY KING C lJ`NTY NOTES : 15 0 15 30 DRAIAGE LISTRICT - THIS SURVEY REPRESENTS THE TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES — 1 ROW.. ' AS THEY EXISTED ON SITE AS OF APRIL 21, 2005. Scale Feet 8 , NF. 1/4, SE 1/4, S 25, TYP 23 N, R 4 E k NW 1/4, SW 1/4, S 30, TWP 23 N, R 5 E, 11X d oNENCH 15-W. CITY OF SW 34TH STREET CULVERT M ROV MENTPROJECT 'a-os �... AT FULL SCALE lF NOT ONE NICH CAD i R E N TON FIGURE A-6 Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. PLANTING PLAN scALEAccoarpNCLr Jones&Stokes NO. REVISION BY DATE APPR s«i DATUM A - NNNNAA Appendix B Fish Exclusion Guidelines Appendix B: Fish Exclusion Guidelines B.1. Fish Removal and Relocation and Stream Dewatering Protocol Prior to work adjacent to or over Project creeks,a fisheries biologist will walk the stream reach immediately above and below the work site and conduct a visual survey for fish. Should fish be observed to be present, work will cease until they can be removed from the area. No ESA-listed species are likely to be present during the anticipated timing of the Project(late summer/low flow). Prior to dewatering the site, aquatic life(all vertebrate species)are removed and relocated out of the work area. Fish exclusion is done under the supervision of environmental support staff. The sequence for fish exclusion is as follows: ■ Isolate the area(block nets)upstream and downstream. ■ Remove as many fish as possible using seine or dip nets. ■ Gradually dewater the work area. ■ Remove as many remaining fish as possible using dip nets. ■ Electroshock, if required by permit, to avoid any stranding. Any permit specifying electroshocking will be reviewed by NOAA Fisheries/USFWS in accordance with the draft Memorandum of Agreement establishing fish removal and relocation protocols (National Marine Fisheries Service 2000). ■ Keep records of fish exclusion activities. ■ Fish and other wildlife removal from the work area is allowable under a special relocation permit required by WDFW,which includes several conditions Appendix 6 intended to minimize harm to fish. A copy of the permit must be in the possession of any persons authorized to collect wildlife,food fish, and/or shellfish. ■ In order to reduce any impacts to the affected species that are handled during this process, several techniques are used. Removal of fish and other vertebrates will follow these basic steps: B.I.I. Isolate the Area Install block nets at up and downstream locations to isolate the entire affected stream reach. Block net mesh size, length,type of material, and depth will vary based on site conditions but will be installed to block fish and other aquatic wildlife movement into the work area. Generally,block net mesh size is the same as the seine material (9.5 millimeters stretched). These block nets are then left in place throughout the period of work and checked regularly to ensure that they are functioning properly. Crew supervisors, leads, and/or crewmembers following initial oversight by environmental staff may check these nets. Block net locations require leaf and debris removal to ensure proper function. The amount of leaves and other debris collected on the net will determine how often the nets need to be checked. An individual must be designated to monitor and maintain the nets. Block nets are installed securely along both banks and in the channel to prevent failure during unforeseen rain events or debris accumulation. Some locations may require additional block net support such as galvanized hardware cloth or additional stakes or metal fence posts. 13.1.2. Fish Removal and Dewatering Once the stream reach has been isolated,all attempts to remove fish and other aquatic life are made in a manner that involves the least amount of handling. Aquatic life is captured by hand or with dip nets and immediately put in dark-colored 5-gallon buckets filled with clean stream water. ■ Fish screens will be used around pump(s)so fish are not sucked into pipes and diversion pipe(s). Pumps shall not cause impingement on the screens. ■ The stream will be dewatered in two or three stages to allow fish within dewatering section to leave with lowering water. ■ All available methods will be used to capture fish within the section of the stream to be dewatered. ■ Seining should be first used to capture fish within the stream. This method may not work if substrate is large,reach contains deep pools,or if there are undercut banks or heavy vegetation. a.2 Appendix B ■ Electrofishing should be conducted after seining. A minimum of three electrofishing passes should be conducted until no fish are caught or observed. The following are measures to minimize impacts to fish during electrofishing. — NOAA Fisheries and USFWS in Lacey, Washington, will be provided written notification 10 working days prior to the initiation of electrofishing. — All capture, retention, and handling methods shall be implemented at times that will avoid temperature stress of fish being sampled. — All collection and sampling methods shall be implemented at times that will avoid disturbance of spawning fish. Any purposeful take of fish that are actively spawning or are near fish spawning sites is prohibited. — Electrofishing will be conducted following the NOAA Fisheries' June 2000 Backpack Electrofishing Guidelines or WDFW Electrofishing Guidelines. — Electrofishing will be conducted only by qualified and experienced individuals. A minimum of four individuals will be used for electrofishing. — Electrofishing anodes will not be used as nets. Injury and/or death can result from fish being exposed to the electrodes. Separate nets will be used to capture fish. • If fish are captured or handled: — All live fish captured shall be released as soon as possible and as close as possible to the point of capture. — The period of time that captured fish are anesthetized shall be minimized. The number of fish that are anesthetized at one time shall be no more than what can be processed within several minutes. — If fish are held, a healthy environment for the stressed fish must be provided, and the holding time must be minimized. Water-to-water transfers; the use of shaded, dark containers; and supplemental oxygen should all be considered in designing fish handling operations. — Prior to conducting activities that may involve handling fish, individuals shall ensure that hands are free of sunscreen, lotion,or insect repellent. 13.1.3. Information Logs Each species and year class is recorded in bound field notebooks. Year class designations will be used to allow a rapid estimate of length to minimize fish handling time. Salmonids with fork lengths approximately 60 millimeters or less will be classed as 0+age fish,and fish over 60 millimeters will be classed as 1+age fish. In addition to the species information, field notes will also include other information such as date,personnel, time,general site conditions, weather, stream temperature, conductivity, length of stream reach, methods used, and any other general comments. Data collected is used for research purposes,and clear/concise documentation is important. 63 Appendix B B.1.4. Fish Release All collected specimens are to be released unharmed upstream of the isolated stream reach. e-d Appendix C Photographs of the Project Area Sp .w t Photo 1.Inlet to SW 341h Street culvert from left bank. A Photo 2.Inlet to SW 341,Street culvert from right bank. Photo 3.Outlet to SW 3411 Street culvert from right bank J j Photo 4 Outlet to SW 341,Street culvert from left bank. Photo 5.Northwest comer of the site from the south side of SW 3411 Street. r' Photo 6.Northeast corner of the site from the south side of SW 341h Street. t� � t .i r_ s Photo 7.Southeast comer of the site from the north side of SW 341h Street. �* y _ - r —r Photo 8.Southwest corner of the site from the north side of SW 341h Street. X ,y 4 I� a _ c Photo 9.Springbrook Creek upstream from SW 341h Street. Photo 10.Springbrook Creek downstream from SW 3411 Street. Appendix D NOAA Fisheries and USFWS Species listing Information Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead Current Proposed Salmonid t Endangered Endangered ESA Listing Actions p S ecies Evolutionarily Significant Unit(ESU) Species Act Species Act Under Review Listing Statusz Listing Status 1 Snake River ESU Sockeye Salmon E (Oncorhynchus 2 I Ozette Lake ESU nerka) 3 Baker River ESU ( Not Warranted 4 j Okanogan River ESU 3 Not Warranted 5 Lake Wenatchee ESU j Not Warranted 6 Ouinalt Lake ESU Not Warranted i 7 Lake Pleasant ESU Not Warranted 8 Sacramento River Winter-run ESU 9 Upper Columbia River Spring-run ESU Chinook Salmon 10 Snake River SpringJSummer-ntn ESU (O. tshawytscha) 11 Snake River Fall-rnn ESU 12 Puget Sound ESU 13 Lower Columbia River ESU 14 Upper Willamette River ESU 15 Central Valli Spring-run ESU 16 California Coastal ESU i 17 Central Valli Fall and Late Fall-nun ESU Species q/fConcern i 1 18 Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers ESU Not Warranted 19 Oregon Coast ESU Not Warranted i 20 Washington Coast ESU Not Warranted 21 Middle Columbia River spring-run ESU Not Warranted 22 Upper Columbia River summer/fall-run ESU 3 Not Warranted Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal 23 ESU Not Warranted 24 Deschutes River summer/fall-run ESU Not Warranted i 25 Central California Coast ESU i 26 Southern Oregon/Northern California ESU Coho Salmon i • ESA Listing Status; f (O.kisutch) 27 Oregon Coast ESU Threatened • Critical Habitat Designation f 28 Lower Columbia River ESU I j 29 Southwest Washington ESU Not Warranted 30 Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU Species of Concern 31 Olyrnl2ic Peninsula ESU Not Warranted Chum Salmon 32 j Hood Canal Summer-run ESU (O. keta) 33 Columbia Rivcl ESU 34 Puget Sound/Strait ofGeorsia_F_.SI1 Not Warranted 35 Pacific Coast ESU Not Warrunted 36 ! Southern California ESU • ESA Listing Status t O. mykiss 37 Upper Columbia River ESU ESA Listing Status (steelhead) • ESA Listing 38 Central California Coast ESU g Status 39 South Central California Coast ESU • ESA Listing Status 40 Snake River Basin ESU • ESA Listing Status 41 _Lower Columbia River ESU • ESA Listing Status 42 California Central Valley ESU ESA Listing Status Upper Willamette River ESU • ESA Listing Status 43 { _ 44 { Middle Columbia River ESU ESA Listing Status 45 Northern California ESU • ESA Listing Status 4 46 Oregon Coast ESU Snecies of ron.vrr 47 [ Southwest Washington ESU Not Warranted 1 48 Olympic Peninsula ESU Not Warranted a 49 Puget Sound ESU Not Warranted • ESA listing status 50 Klamath Mountains Province ESU Not Warranted Pink Salmon 51 Even year Not Warranted (O.gorbuscha) 52 Ocld- ear Not Warranted 1 An Evolutionarily Significant Unit,or"ESU',is a distinctive group of Pacific salmon or steelhead. NOAA Fisheries considers an ESU a"species"under the ESA 2 Updated final listing detenninations for 16 salmon ESUs were issued on June 28,2005(70 FR 37160). On September 2,2005,we issued final critical habitat designations for 19 West Coast salmon and steelhead ESUs(70 FR 52488 and 52630). 3 The final listing determinations for the Oregon Coast coho ESU and ten Oncorhynchits mykiss ESUs have been extended for 6 months until December 12,2005. See the announcements published in the Federal Register on June 28,2005(70 FR 37217,and 70 FR 37219). 4 A petition to list Puget Sound steelhead was received on September 13,2004. The ESU is currently under review. http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/se/se—list/KING.htm LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN IN WESTERN WASHINGTON AS PREPARED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WESTERN WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised October 8, 2004) KING COUNTY LISTED Wintering bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occur in the county. Wintering activities occur from October 31 through March 31. There are five bald eagle communal winter night roosts located in the county. There are two bald eagle wintering concentrations located in the county along the Skykomish- BF '-ler-Tye Rivers and Foss River. There are 38 bald eagle nesting territories located in the county. Nesting activities occur from about January 1 through August 15. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) occur in the county. Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) may occur in the county. Gray wolves (Canis lupus) may occur in the county. Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos = U. a. horribilis) may occur in the county. Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) occur in the county. Nesting murrelets occur from April 1 through September 15. Northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) occur in the county throughout the year. Mayor concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to lis,_.t species include: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/se/se_list/KING.htm(I of 3)1 1/29/2005 3:34:29 AM http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/se/se—list/KING.htm 2. Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from project activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise levels, increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat) that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. Arenaria paludicola (marsh sandwort) may occur in the county. Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush) may occur in the county. Major concerns that should be addressed in a Biological Assessment of listed plant species include: 1. Distribution of taxon in project vicinity. 2. Disturbance (trampling, uprooting, collecting, etc.) of individual plants and loss of habitat. 3. Changes in hydrology where taxon is found. DESIGNATED Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl has been designated in King County. Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet has been designated in King County. PROPOSED Critical habitat for the bull trout (Coastal-Puget Sound distinct population segment) has been proposed in King County. CANDIDATE Fisher (Mantes pennanti) (West Coast distinct population segment) Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/se/se_list/KING.htm(2 of 3)l 1/29/2005 3:34:29 AM http://www.fws.gov/westwafwolse/se—list/KING.htm � ♦,s w SPECIES OF CONCERN Be,..cr's ground beetle (Agonum belleri) California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchi) Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Northwestern pond turtle (Emys (= Clemmys) marmorata marmorata) Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) V .y silverspot (butterfly) (Speyeria zerene bremeri) Western toad (Bufo boreas) Aster curtus (white-top aster) Botrychium pedunculosum (stalked moonwort) Cimicifuga elates (tall bugbane) http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/se/se_list/KING.htm(3 of 3)11/29/2005 3:34:29 AM Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan SW 341h Street Culvert Replacement Project ■ R.W. Beck Associates ■ February 2006 OD2 Jones& Stokes Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project Prepared for: R.W. Beck Associates 1001 4th Avenue,Suite 2500 Seattle,WA 98154-1004 Contact:Michael Giseburt,P.E. Prepared by 45�p55 f� Jones &Stokes 11820 Northup Way,Suite E300 Bellevue, WA 98005 Contact:Andy Wones 425/822-1077 February 2006 This document should be cited as: Jones&Stokes. 2006. Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan. SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project. February. (AS 05287.05). Bellevue,WA. Prepared for R.W. Beck. Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................ 3 ProjectImpacts .......................................................................... 3 ProjectMitigation....................................................................... 4 MitigationGoals.................................................................................4 Mitigation Objectives.........................................................................5 Mitigation Sequence..........................................................................5 Avoidance...............................................................................5 Minimization ...........................................................................5 Restoring Temporary Loss.....................................................6 Compensation........................................................................6 Monitoring and Maintenance ..................................................6 Performance Standards..........................................................7 References.................................................................................. 8 SW 34' Street Culvert Replacement Project Tables Table 1. SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project Wetland Impact Areas (square feet)...........................................................................................................4 Figures Figure1. .........................................................................................Follows Page 8 Acronyms OHWM ordinary high water mark Project SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project RMC Renton Municipal Code R.W.Sock Associates(05287.05) �� Introduction This wetland mitigation plan was prepared to address wetland impacts associated with the SW 34`h Street Culvert Replacement Project(Project) proposed by the City of Renton (Jones& Stokes 2005a). The Project's wetland delineation report(Jones & Stokes 2005b) identified the following two wetlands associated with Springbrook Creek in the Project vicinity: Wetland 1, located upstream, and Wetland 2, located downstream of SW 34`h Street. The purposes of the Renton Municipal Code(RMC)wetland regulations are described in RMC Chapter 3, Section 4-3-050.A.7: "Wetlands: The purposes of wetland regulations are to: a. ensure that activities in or affecting wetlands do not threaten public safety, cause nuisances, or destroy or degrade natural wetland functions and values; and b. preserve, protect,and restore wetlands by regulating development within them and around them; and c. protect the public from costs associated with repair of downstream properties resulting from erosion and flooding due to the loss of water storage capacity provided by wetlands; and d. prevent the loss of wetland acreage and functions and strive for a net gain over present conditions(Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005)." Project Impacts The Project will result in a net increase in wetland area since the proposed culvert will result in removal of the existing culverts and concrete at the inlet and outlet and replacement with a shorter structure. Wetland area will also be gained on the west side of the channel where the banks will be excavated and root wads added to enhance instream habitat. However,although the net effect of the Project will be an increase in wetland area (approximately 600 square feet[0.01 acre]),there will be a temporary impact to 5W 3V,Street Culvert Replacement Project wetland and wetland buffer area associated with ground disturbance. Affected areas of wetlands and associated buffers are shown in Table 1. Table 1. SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project Wetland Impact Areas (square feet) Wetland Wetland Area Below Wetland Area Above Wetland Buffer OHWM OHWM Wetland 1—Prior to 2,593 290 3,544 Construction(existing area) Wetland 1—During 2,593 290 3,544 Construction(Temporary Impact) Wetland 1—Following 2,893 290 3,544 Construction(new area) Wetland 2—Prior to 2,448 0 2,843 Construction(existing area) Wetland 2—During 2,448 0 2,843 Construction(Temporary Impact) Wetland 2—Following 2,748 0 2,843 Construction(new area) Total Permanent Gain +600 0 0 following Construction Note:OHWM=ordinary high-water mark Project Mitigation The project will not result in a loss of wetland area,but will actually increase wetland area. Areas that are temporarily disturbed during construction will be replanted with native wetland vegetation,restoring or enhancing wetland function.Therefore,the project will require no compensatory mitigation. Project mitigation described in this plan is intended to achieve the following goals and objectives. Mitigation Goals The goals of this conceptual mitigation plan are to: ■ restore currently degraded wetland and stream buffer,and • enhance instream habitat of Springbrook Creek. R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) d SW 341`street Culvert Replacement Project Mitigation Plan Mitigation Objectives The objectives of this plan are to: ■ increase stream habitat area by replacing the existing culvert with a shorter culvert, ■ remove invasive vegetation within wetland and stream buffer and replant with native herbaceous, shrub, and tree species, ■ grade and stabilize the streambank, and • enhance instream habitat value by installing root wads in created alcove pools and planting adjacent banks with overhanging woody species. Mitigation Sequence Mitigation follows the following mitigation sequence(from RMC Chapter 3, Section 4-3-050.M.8): a. avoid any disturbance to the wetland or buffer, b. minimize any wetland or buffer impacts, c. restore any wetlands or buffer affected or lost temporarily, and d. compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts. Avoidance Due to the nature and location of the Project, it will not be possible to avoid impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers. Minimization Impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers will be achieved through the following measures. ■ The use of equipment in wetlands and streams will be confined to the minimum area necessary to construct the Project. This area will be outlined on construction drawings. ■ The limits of construction will be staked, fenced, or flagged as no-work areas to minimize temporary impacts from construction equipment. ■ Temporary erosion and sediment control measures and a Spill Prevention, Control, and Containment Plan will be in effect to ensure conformance with requirements of the City of Renton,the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. s February 2006 SW 34'h Street Culvert Replacement Project ■ Contaminants associated with construction equipment(e.g., lubricants,fuel)will not be allowed to enter wetlands. The construction contractor will provide a Spill Prevention, Control, and Containment Plan that designates equipment refueling areas that are designed to contain any fuel spills and isolate them from streams and wetlands. Restoring Temporary Loss The Project will result in temporary disturbance of 5,041 square feet(0.12 acre)of wetland below OHWM(stream habitat), 290 square feet(0.01 acre)of wetland above OHWM(palustrine emergent habitat), and 6,387 square feet(0.15 acre)of buffer habitat. This disturbance will be restored by the following measures: ■ invasive nonnative vegetation will be removed; • all disturbed areas above the active(wetted)channel will be replanted with native herbaceous, shrub, and tree species in the wetland and stream buffers; ■ disturbed areas in the roadway vicinity will be hydroseeded for rapid revegetation; ■ the stream channel will be widened to form alcove pools on the west bank upstream and downstream of SW 34`h Street; ■ root wads will be installed in the constructed alcove pools to enhance instream habitat value; and • overhanging vegetation will be planted adjacent to the alcove pools to provide shade, cover, and bank stability. Figure 1 shows planting locations, species, quantities,and details. Compensation Because wetland and buffer impacts will be limited to temporary impacts that can be restored, no compensation will be required. Monitoring and Maintenance A monitoring and maintenance program will be developed to evaluate the success of the project and determine if the goals and objectives are being met. Mitigation monitoring will be according to the following 2-year schedule: ■ at the time of construction, ■ 30 days after planting, ■ early in the growing season of the following year, • at the end of the growing season of the first year, R.W.Beck Associates(05287.05) s SW 34"Stroet Culvert Peplacernent Project Mitigation Plan ■ early in the growing season of the second year, and • at the end of the second growing season. Sampling sites will be established to determine survival rates. If mitigation fails, measures will be taken to correct the mitigation problems. Performance Standards Performance standards for plant survival and community composition are critical to evaluating the success of this mitigation project. The performance standards listed below are for the wetland enhancement area to rectify wetland and stream buffer impacts. All performance standards were determined from the best professional judgment of qualified biologists. For this project,the following performance standards have been established to meet the mitigation objectives. Plant Survival At the end of the first year, 100% of the total number of plants installed should be surviving. The contractor installing the plants would be responsible for replacing all plants that die. Plants that die would be replaced with native species that appear to be best suited for the site to maintain the 100% survivorship. Any replanting would use several different species to maintain plant diversity.At the end of year 2, at least 80% of the planted and desirable volunteer species should be surviving. Desirable volunteer species(i.e.,native shrubs and trees) would be counted toward the number of live plants. Streambank Conditions As part of the monitoring plan, streambank conditions will be examined. "As built" construction plans will be drawn and used as a basis for determining streambank stabilization success. Over the 2-year monitoring plan,photographs will be taken from designated points to visually document the streambank conditions. Success determination will be based on bank conditions,such as vegetation success and density, slope, and bank movement. February 2006 SW 34:1 Street Culvert Roplacement Project References Jones& Stokes. 2005a. SW 34`h Street Culvert Replacement Project. Joint Aquatic Permit Application (JARPA). Bellevue, WA. (J&S 05287.05 600). Prepared for R.W. Beck and the City of Renton. December. Jones& Stokes. 2005b. SW 34`h Street Culvert Replacement Wetland Delineation and Stream Reconnaissance Technical Memorandum. Joint Aquatic Permit Application(DARPA). Bellevue, WA. (J&S 05287.05 600). Prepared for R.W. Beck and the City of Renton. December. R.W.Beck Associates(05287,05) 8 Figure 1 . Planting Plan Figure 1 . Planting Plan Planting Notes 50' WETLAND/ 1. Seed mix to be hydroseeded over all wetland and FI B I'G BUI_FER wetland buffer areas to be disturbed by mitigation Z Z activities including planting and installation of rootwods .ZZ-1,"ile and placement and removal of temporary creek bypass WETLAND ......... BOUNDARY pipes. 50' WETLAND 1,' WETLAND I 2. Rootwods shall be anchored prior to planting. BOUNDARY 3. Willow species to be planted as 60 dormant BUFFER cuttings. V 4. Dogwood species to be planted from 1-gallon size containers. V, 5. Block Cottonwood shall be minimum 6' in height, Z multi-branched, with single, dominant leader. NW WING'WAL 0 SPRINGBROOK CREEK TRAIL x: h `( 0 RECONSTRUCTION i N., LEGEND NE WINGWALL vXIST 36 SDj Si MONUMENT IN CASE EXIST 60" STORM D CUT FLUSH W�! �z( RERAR AND CAP DRAIN CUT FLUSH W/ NEW WALL CULVERT NEW WALL STORM DRAIN CATCH 84S#V -7- STORM DRAIN UWHOLf 30' WIDEx'10' HIGH _';L BOX CULVERT CONIFER FREE ............... ........ . ........................ ........ ............... ..... ....... .?., .......... DECIDUOUS MEE ............. ------------ . ............................................. ............... RELOCATED;SANITARY DATA PLOT SEWER, SE( FIGURE 6 ....... .......... coo SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT NEW CATCH BASINS AT ROAD LOW POINT NEW CATCH BASINS AT UTILITY POLE W17H LIGHT .......... ROAD LOW POINT LIGHT POLE 0I. WATER HYD)UNT Lo O 00 WAFER VALVE LIMIT WHEELCHAIR RAMP OF ---ROAD --- WETLAND FLAG LIMIT OF ROAD .............. RECONSTRUCTION RECONSTRUCTION &DG BUILDING L CONC CONCRETE ............. ....... CORIG CORRrAZED METAL PIPE ............... ........ ORN ORNIMENIAL -777-... ........ OHW ORDINARY HAGH WATER _j POLKIA14L CHLORIDE PIPE SW WINGWALL 7 P 4_ 4- PVC _T: /Z /All SP SOIL PLOT j j RELOCATED SO&H STORM DRAIN MANHOLE 12" WATER SSMH SANITARY SEWER MAWaf PLANTING SCHEDULE --------- ....... ROAD CENTERLINIF SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME I SPACING OUANTITY POPULUS BAL SAMIFERA BLACK COTTONWOOD NA 2 ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY SPP. TRICHOCARPA ZZ LZ BULD#VG SAUX SITCHENSIS SITKA WILLOW 4' D.C. 20 . II 41.. ....• ....... ..... CORNUS STOLONIFERA RED-OSIER DOGWOOD 4, D.C. a FENCE LINE HIGH WATER MARK SEED MIX WETLAND 1 if UNDERGROUND GAS j SCIENTIFIC NAME 1 COMMON NAME I% COVER QUANTITY ( BOUNDARY SE WIN WALL UNOERGROUND ELECTRIC FESTUCA RUBRA VAR. RUBRA I RED FESCUE 30% 1 15 LBS/ACRE G it CAREX STIPATA SAWBEAK SEDGE 40% 1 12 LBS/ACR 50' WETLAND .................................. ............ UNDERGROUND SANITARY 2 CAREX DEWEYANA DCWEY SEDGE 12 LBS/ACRF I t':\C KING COUNTY 0" ORA114AGE DISTRICT BUFFER .................. UNDERGROUND STORM 4n' UNDERGROUND rELEPHOAF Row SPRINGBROOK CREEK TRAIL UNDERGROUND WATER ':WETLAND E N0 TES 15 0 15 30 T N BOUNDARY THIS SURVEY REPRESENTS THE TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES I AS THEY EXISrED ON SITE AS OF APRIL 21, 2005. Scale Feet NE 1/4. SE 1/4, S 25, TWP 23 N, R 4 E & NW 1/4, SW 1/4, S 30, TWP 23 N, R 5 F, W.M. 1 30' CITY OF SW 34TH STREET 12-14-05 ONE INCH CULVERT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RENTON FIGURE 1 2 AT IIAL SCALE.IF NOT ONE imcm CAD SCALE ACCORDIN4GLY Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. PLANTING PLAN 9 Jones Stokes REVISION BY DATE APPR NO. JAI-INININ NIAIA Technical Memorandum City of Renton — 34th Street Culvert Replacement Wetland Delineation and Stream Reconnaissance Prepared for: R.W. Beck 1001 4th Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 Prepared by: IR Jones&Stokes 11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 Bellevue, WA 98005 May 24, 2005 City of Renton - 34th Street Culvert Replacement Wetland Delineation and Stream Reconnaissance Technical Memorandum Prepared for: R.W.Beck 1001 4th Avenue,Suite 2500 Seattle,WA 98154-1004 Contact:Michael Giseburt Prepared by: �S Jones&Stokes 11820 Northup Way,Suite E300 Bellevue,WA 98005 Contact:Andy Wones 425/822-1077 May 24,2005 This document should be cited as: Jones&Stokes.2005. 34th Street Culvert Replacement Wetland Delineation and Stream Reconnaissance Technical Memorandum. May 24. (AS 05287.05.)Renton,WA. Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction.......................................................... 1 Chapter2. Methods ................................................................ 1 2.1. Waters and Wetlands............................................................. 1 Chapter3. Results.................................................................. 2 3.1. Wetland 1...............................................................................2 3.1.1. Vegetation.................................................................3 Hydrology..........................................................................3 Soils..................................................................................3 UplandConditions............................................................3 3.2. Wetland 2...............................................................................3 3.2.1. Vegetation.................................................................4 Hydrology..........................................................................4 Soils..................................................................................4 Upland Conditions............................................................4 3.3. Stream Reconnaissance........................................................4 Chapter 4. Regulatory Issues................................................ 5 Chapter 5. References............................................................ 6 May 24,2005 List of Figures Following Page Figure 1 -Regional Vicinity Map of Project Area.......................................................................2 Figure2.Site Drawing...............................................................................................................2 List of Appendices Appendix A. Corps Data Forms Appendix B. Ecology Wetland Rating Forms r� City of Renton u Chapter 1 . Introduction This technical memorandum describes a wetland delineation conducted for the City of Renton, along Springbrook Creek where it crosses 34th Street. The project area is located in Section 30,Township 23N, Range 5E; and Section 25,Township 23N, Range 4E(Figure 1). The purpose of this work is to provide baseline information for environmental permits required for replacement of the culverts at 34th Street. Two wetlands were identified and delineated along each side of Springbrook Creek, upstream and downstream of 34th Street. Springbrook Creek was straightened in this area, and the wetlands run along both sides of the stream. Both wetlands meet the Washington Department of Ecology(Ecology)definition of a Category III wetland, for which the City Code(4-3-050)requires 50-foot buffers. The ordinary high water mark(OHWM)was delineated along the banks of Springbrook Creek 100 feet upstream and downstream of 34th Street. The delineation methods and both wetlands are described in detail below. Chapter 2. Methods 2.1. Waters and Wetlands On April 19,2005,Jones&Stokes biologists conducted a wetland delineation along Springbrook Creek, 100 feet upstream and downstream of 34th Street. The biologists used delineation methods from the Corps' Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987)and the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual(Washington Department of Ecology 1997). Both manuals require the presence of wetland indicators for vegetation,hydrology, and soils before an area is considered a wetland. Orange flagging was hung to indicate the edge of the wetland area. Red and white striped flagging was hung to indicate the location of sample plots. Flags were numbered in sequence on each side of the stream. May 24,2005 34th Street Culvert Replacement Wetland Delineation and Stream Reconnaissance Technical Memorandum Wetland habitat types are based on the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) wetland classification system(Cowardin et al. 1979),which categorizes wetlands according to plant community types and hydrologic regime. This system is commonly used by local jurisdictions to help determine wetland functions and values. Wetlands ratings were based on Ecology's Washington State Wetlands Rating System—Western Washington(Ecology 2004)and the City of Renton's wetland classification system(Renton Code 4-3-050). The OHWM along Springbrook Creek was delineated based on evidence of frequent inundation, including: scour,water-stained vegetation,water staining of culverts,and deposition of drifting vegetative debris. The regulatory definition of ordinary high water, is found in RMC 4-11-150: "On lakes and streams, that mark found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland..." Chapter 3. Results Jones&Stokes biologist identified and delineated two wetlands within the project area. Both wetlands are narrow, straight riparian wetlands along Springbrook Creek. The biological and physical features associated with both wetlands are described below. OHWM followed very closely to the wetland boundaries.Wetlands and OHWM are shown graphically in Figure 2. 3.1. Wetland 1 Wetland 1 is a narrow riparian wetland that runs along both sides of Springbrook Creek upstream of 34th. Wetlands on both sides of a narrow stream(less than 50 feet)can be considered one unit,with the creek a characteristic of the wetland(Hruby 2004). In the project area,the wetland is dominated by palustrine emergent(PEM) habitat. Wetland hydrology is supported by high flows of Springbrook Creek and groundwater. Wetland 1 meets Ecology's definition of a Category III wetland and the City of Renton's definition of a Category 2 wetland because it is greater than 2200 square feet and is not isolated(associated with Springbrook Creek). Wetland 1 is not City of Renton L ? `l` Partc� C D bri nr ' .. �I J Black-Rlu^ V umpin° Sta .�,," - �- `�•Y�'"'``���' '� i � 34th Street _ Ell 024 ` s g beta ■• �!� ` � ��� ',� � ,., �� ' ,err; 46 t , t 5 � � r1 � �l'11�1• I I .� L I �1/ ,�`,/,��'r; t\ ' ?,,r'� ••�t {t`�� ; i4 f < ' ` _. '• I ! 1 a \ . Ij� r C...r l E IL i21 i ' 143 UU '� t I tom' I r ( --•i t ,...r�Z�:r yA' jig a subs -RAA In 81 Source: USGS 7.5'Quadrangle-Renton; 1 TerraServer USA-Aerial Photo Date:6/13/2002 1 1 I U N _ O U Miles N 0 0.5 1 J. a Map Prepared: May 2005or I '� 9Sn Jones & Stokes Figure 1 - Regional Vicinity Map of Project Area SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project r°°ND 2 BRA55 DW IN CONCRECT DOWN°.SW THE NORTHEAST OF THE SOUTHEAST OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST AND CAST AT THE CENIFR OF INTERSECTION wt1H SW 34TH SIR El AND OAKSDALE Arc SW. SORVET I EL°EVV0.4 195 4 U PONT.S.SUIS WEEY FEET. PDB`�HFD THE NORTHWEST OF THE SOUTHWEST OF SECION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. m ! CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON iBMf2 a 1 L SSMH IN 19.22 IE E 13.54 IEW138 CHANNELED LK Al FROM OF WALK Al.N.W. OR1N:R CONCRETE U7MWAT NOTES I ( IN 166,982.0625 NOTES IE 1,295,}51882 wa•LK HORIZONTAL DATUM; !ELEVATION 18.82 FEE7 NORTH AMERIGW DATUM 83/91.HILL)NORTH 01.3548-EAST BETWEEN MONUMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAND AVENUE 2.ORN RN 11L6E W 17.6fi SW AND SN 30TH Sf(NOT OPEN)AND LAND AVFNLIE SW Mm SW 23RI1 ST(NOT OPEN). WL 17.66 BUT 15.82 VERTICAL DATUM; R ~+' ASPHALT NORTH AMERMAN VERTICAL DATUM B&HELD CITY OF RENTON MONUMENT N0. 1861 AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF Ulm AVENUE SW AND SW 30TH ST(NOT OPEN)ELEVATION 20.00 FEET AND MONUMENT NO.1551 AT LIND AVENUE SW AND SW 23RD ST(NOT WMAND BUFFER (50 FEET) I CASE EL 18.67 OPEN)ELEVATION 21.32 FEET. \ BOLT EL 15.89 DNA BLI/1: LOP NORTHWEST BASF.BOLT OF UGFff STANDARD E126 FEET EAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF SPRRHGBROOK CREEK CONCR 1 ff ON NORTH SIDE OF 34TH STREET XUTHWEST. O"ATKRJ 18.92 FEET s 1 0 WETLAND BUFFER (50 FEET) DHA BM/2: CHISELED SQUARE AT SOUTHEAST CORNER CONCRETE TRANSFORMER.t175 FEET WEST OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK .-- _- _ .•aRN`y 2ORN Ecc CENTERUNE AND 12.0 FEET NORTH OF BACK OF WALK ON NORTH SIDE SOUTHWEST 34TH STREET. ELEVATION 21.10 FEET ORNa'CR, 4;Ra roR�_ Te=` FIR R AP i • •'�. .i�yl�: •�'• TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING NOTES: '70__ -/ - _ THE MAP SHOWN HEREON IS THE RESULT OF A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY DUANE Mm"3 ASSOCIATES,INC.(OKA) COMPLETED ON APRIL 21,2005. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN HERON WERE FIELD TIED AS A RESULT OF A UTILITY S i3ORF H.o.E �It Rlu Is.4s � �,...*•• PAWL-OUT DURING THE COURSE 0=THE FIELD SURVEY. WANE HARTMAR d ASSOCIATES,INC.(DWI)ASSUMES NO LNBILf(Y FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE URp1P'PAINT-OUr. DNA ASSUMES NO LIABILITY,BEYOND SAID DATE FOR ANY FUTURE SURFACE IE NE 11.83 FEATURE MODIFICATIONS OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES THAT MAY OCCUR WITHIN OR ADJOINING THE PERIMETER OF 7HIS SURVEY. WERAND T WL 12,30 CONTACT DHU(425/483-5355)FOR SITE UPDATES AND VERIFICATIONS, ,..m.....�. r� IWATER SURFACE - W� x) BUT 11.25 f11.00 FEET 4 ONON M/�9/2DO5 , t e7 t �� WEti1�ND 2 LEGEND _~• ROAD CENTERLINE 8) MONUMENT IN CASE �,,.a.•^•• IE e2 I 72- 6F STORM CULVERT 1 p _t"" \�- ao- "�. ".-..� ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 4b- PROJECT BENCHMARK �,,,�„ b•"'•"`!• .- _� "'+' mI t `4 i"'" IE-7.SB __ro sP a BUILDING X PK NAIL(CONTROL) "•+.��. ®.��' _R.8 72' WATER SURFACE9/211 11.03 rELI _ .,,.m „A SFRsIGBROOK rnmc FENCE LINE W REBAR AND CAP ON M 19 2005 E 81 L� WATER SURFACE 104/ /20 / / o CULVERT 1 1411 IE-820 -_� AT 2'20 P.M.ON 04/19/2005 ... -,.. CONTOUR INTERVAL( '•r` CULVERT i6 '72•CMP STORM _.m,.'¢ A _ ® .,.....+. 0.8..�s• ®e _._..m. IE e.1 ._"t „4< 'R•.®" . . 2 I72:MP<TORrA DAV_ERT- 1 I`j�^[$� F IE=a34 - +^"" '^ ..., CONTOUR INDEX(10 FEES Ll STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN �„ 0""•��. ---yam E B•VJC STORM DRAIN K` 1 =8.4E=I22] a _�10 ___-_ ¢. STORM DRAIN CLE44OUT $$ - "~^`'•` s WEIIAND BOUNDARY 4 ./ ��'�����... •..J��a��.,�, "�' �a ,,•"�W"""'� "_•,_,•• •••_•u-•"-"_' �t cs TwF 1 �oaL 1°L) �.'arE�17 •► "-�-3w-ie .•.•.•.•. WETLAND BUFFER(50 FTC STORM DRAIN MANHOLE ---•.�„_� SE'""`�� -� �^+...- _j RNA 1724 -- 1G SLDG BUILDING CONIFER TREE iE N 1].66 c" CB 7YPE * ..�..•� """"'• WL t354 RIN 1747 ��' CLF CHAIN LINK FENCE DECIDUOUS TREE BOT 11.54 �u it S 1},4t q, K N 1123 JL SIGN TRAIL ® -WL 1211 �.. ��� - �' '��• CONIC CONCRETE IFOUND REBAR AND CAP 0.5'SOUARE BOLIAR'3S SDMH BOT 13.23 m 'BCE 27328• E RIM 1B.16 ASPHALT IRVL T e•CLF 6"PIN NE a IE 8,74 ��- ^ALP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE POTHOLE N_ N1' SET PN-L WL!0.76 SET PK wvt ECC EXTRUDED CONCRETE CURB 0 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE (CASE EL I8.60 AT NE.END ASPH/.T FOOT B0!8.74 ,��. �•N 167,138.7943 •ECC kl _m 01 L E 1.295,Se5.5859 SCALE `�g!9�' T EL 16.84 PATH NUR.BACK6052 OF WALK. y.[�q � k t66.966.6csz � o ��� � ElEVA�.N,B.64 FEET DRN ORNAMENTAL ,Jugs' UTILITY POLE WITH LIGHT ��• ��YB'Fr E 1,295,541.8269 SSMH ECC ��.. ELEVATION 1&67 TOOT „ '���AswuL-� • '.oa O OHW ORDINARY HIGH WATER LIGHT POLE .�• 4.ORN B. 4. WEiLAND BUFFER (50 FEET) k S 14.89 • •�� oRN It�W C1FD PVC PoLYVWIL CHLORIDE PIPE � WATER HYDRANT It WETLAND BUFFER (50 FEET) ;P solL PLOT VALVE SSMH D" CONCRETE SCALE WM 19.93 WHEELCHAIR RAMP IE SE 15.5t A / SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE IE N 15.4 CHANNELED \ s4H SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE r WERAND FLAG `171D0 ASPHALT t EM 1&14 t I N 14.64 CB TYPE 4.5 1/ IE w,4s RIM 218.3 U77LlTY POTHOLE RESULTS: CONCRETE SCALE SET PK HVL CHANNEIE 0.85 IE E 18.33 N 166.960.3219 - "" 1e� DALE 05/12/2005 E 1,195,610.6890 K Kg BOT 17.D5 LFVAIII 10,11 I- C04C Y EET CCC COkCRETE Tlti-11p TARGET DEPTH N LOP OF DEPTH TO IBaTNC OF PPE CONCUR COMPOSITION POTHOLE ID UTILITY MITIY W INCHES 11TILITY W INCHES SIZE W INCHES PPE WIEFIAL HlN!FJEYATION COMPOSffION P1 POWER 42' 89' 2 2 PVC 17.70' ROCKY P2 POWER 41, 1. 2 2 PVC 18.12' ROCKY fff P3 POWER 44 71 2 2 PVC 18.16 ROCKY T1 TEL 3r 64 27 WIDE CDF DUCT 18.44 ROCKY T2 TEL 25 51 25 WIDE CDF DUCT 18.47 ROCKY 1 T3 TEL 3) 5r 25 WIDE CDF DUCT 1821 ROCKY NozoS's0'E UNO AVENUE SW GI GAS 35 4 18.31 ROCKY FOUND LEAD IN ICI( '35'4a•� 2594.7- 5'_,-® Ik CONCRETE DOWN I017.10' FOUND TACK IN tFAO M CONCRETE -1 0.8'IN CASE MONUMEM,DM 0.7'IN CASE FOUND TICK IN LAD IN CONCRETE DOWN CRY OF RENTON MONUMENT NO.1861 0.6'IN CASE CITY OF RENTON MONUMENT ELEVATION 20.00 FEET 30.1551. ELEVOM 21.32 FEET SURVEYED SCALE Al CITY OF RENTON 34TH ST. DWG_DATE DESIGNED 1 CULVERT BOOK DRAWN DATUM RENTON REPLACEMENT PACE CHECKED �1� Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. PROJECT DING NO. REVISION 13Y DATE APPR �PPRmm ZO1 SHT Figure 2. Site Drawing 34th Street Culvert Replacement Wetland Delineation and Stream Reconnaissance Technical Memorandum severely disturbed(Category 3 wetland),and does not possess the high quality attributes of a Category 1 wetland. The City of Renton requires that Type 2 wetlands are given a 50-foot buffer. 3.1.1. Vegetation The wetland is completely dominated by reed canarygrass(Phalaris arundinacea) with occasional stinging nettles(Urtica dioica). In two field sample plots, over 50% of the dominant vegetation had a wetland indicator status of"FAC"or wetter. This field indicator meets the Corps requirements for evidence of wetland hydrophytic vegetation. Hydrology The hydrology of Wetland 1 is associated with a high groundwater table and high flows of Springbrook Creek. One sample plot was saturated to the surface while another was saturated to the surface with standing water 8 inches below the surface. Standing water and saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile meet the Corps requirements for evidence of wetland hydrology. Soils Two soil samples were taken along the wetland delineation boundary. One sample had a low chroma value of 1 in the upper 10 inches of the soil horizon. The other sample had a chroma value of 1 in the top 10 inches with mottles. Chroma values of 1 with or without mottling in the upper 10 inches meet the Corps requirement for hydric soils. Upland Conditions Upland conditions around Wetland 1 begin with a change in vegetation that coincides with the topographic break at the toe of the hillslope that runs the entire length of Springbrook Creek. Upland habitat is dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor)on the west side,and various invasive herbs and shrubs on the east side. Vegetation observed includes Himalayan blackberry,stinging nettle, reed canarygrass, catchweed(Galium aparine), bitter nightshade(Solanum dulcamara), poison-hemlock(Conium maculatum), and silver cottonwood(Populus alba). 3.2. Wetland 2 Wetland 2, similar to Wetland 1, is a narrow,riverine, flowthrough wetland that runs along both sides of Springbrook Creek downstream of 341h Street. Like Wetland 1, Wetland 2 is considered one unit. In the project area, the wetland is dominated by palustrine emergent(PEM) habitat. Wetland hydrology is supported by high flows of Springbrook Creek and groundwater. s May 24,2005 34th Street Culvert Replacement Wetland Delineation and Stream Reconnaissance Technical Memorandum Wetland 2 meets Ecology's definition of a Category III wetland and the City of Renton's definition of a Category 2 wetland because it is greater than 2200 square feet, is not isolated(associated with Springbrook Creek), is not severely disturbed (Category 3 wetland),and does not possess the high quality attributes of a Category 1 wetland. Type 2 wetlands in the City of Renton are given a 50-foot buffer. 3.2.1. Vegetation Wetland 2 is completely dominated by reed canarygrass. Therefore, in the two field sample plots,over 50%of the dominant vegetation had a wetland indicator status of "FAC"or wetter. This field indicator meets the Corps requirements for evidence of wetland hydrophytic vegetation. Hydrology The hydrology of Wetland 2 is associated with a high groundwater table and high flows of Springbrook Creek. One sample plot was saturated to the surface while another was saturated to the surface with standing water 4 inches below the surface. Standing water and saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile meet the Corps requirements for evidence of wetland hydrology. Soils Two soil samples were taken along the wetland delineation boundary. One sample had a low chroma value of 1 in the upper 10 inches of the soil horizon. The other sample had a chroma value of 2 in the top 10 inches with mottles. Chroma values of 1 and chroma values of 2 with mottling in the upper 10 inches meet the Corps requirement for hydric soils. Upland Conditions Upland conditions around Wetland 2 begin with a change in vegetation that coincides with the topographic break at the toe of the hillslope that runs the entire length of Springbrook Creek. Upland habitat is dominated by Himalayan blackberry on the west side,and mostly mowed/bare ground on the east side. Vegetation observed includes Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. 3.3. Stream Reconnaissance Washington State has designated Springbrook Creek a Shoreline of the State(WAC 173-18-210).As a Shoreline of the State, Renton classifies Springbrook Creek as a Class 1 stream with a standard buffer width of 100 feet. In the vicinity of 341"Street, Springbrook Creek is a modified straight, trapezoidal,channel. Riparian vegetation is limited,dominated by reed canarygrass. Several small(1-to 5-inch diameter) willows grow to the north of 34`" Street,between 34`"Street and the outlet of the City of Renton 4 34th Street Culvert Replacement Wetland Delineation and Stream Reconnaissance Technical Memorandum existing Sprinbrook Creek culverts. Stream gradient is low,and habitat is essentially one long glide.In places,reed canarygrass has invaded the active channel. Stream substrate is primarily a mixture of gravel and sand with some finer sediment. The existing culverts at 34`h Street are low gradient and do not appear to impair fish passage under normal flows. Salmon and trout are known to spawn upstream of the site. Kerwin&Nelson(2000)report chinook salmon,coho salmon,cutthroat trout, and steelhead trout all use Springbrook Creek and its tributary Mill Creek, located well upstream of 341h Street. Although velocity through the existing 34th Street culverts would be highest during peak flows,it is likely that even at peak flows,the culverts do not prevent fish passage. However,no velocity measurements have been taken to confirm this supposition. As is typical of modified urban streams, Springbrook Creek contains little woody debris or other habitat forming structure.No large woody debris was found in the stream or along its banks for at least 200 feet upstream or downstream of 34`h Street, on April 19,2005. Chapter 4. Regulatory Issues Several federal, state,and local regulations affect activities in wetland areas and their buffers. Agencies that have jurisdiction over activities in wetlands include,but may not be limited to: ■ Corps • Ecology; and ■ City of Renton. The Corps administers Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials into Waters of the United States, including wetlands.For projects requiring Section 404 Permits, the Corps makes the final determination as to whether the area meets the definition of a jurisdictional wetland. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires applicants for Section 404 permits to obtain 401 water quality certification from the appropriate certifying agency. In Washington,that agency is the Ecology. Section 401 certification ensures that projects discharging to Waters of the United States, including wetlands, fall within specific water quality standards. Conditions of the 40 1 Certification become y May 24,2005 34th Street Culvert Replacement Wetland Delineation and Stream Reconnaissance Technical Memorandum conditions of the Corps 404 Permit.Project information should be submitted to ) Ecology for approval. Applicable City of Renton regulations include RMC Title IV-Development Regulations: Chapter 3 (Environmental Regulations)and Chapter 4(Property Development Standards). Section 404 and 401 Permits require the submittal of a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application(JARPA)to the above-mentioned agencies for approval before initiating any activities within the wetland identified on-site. Depending on the proposed activity that occurs in the wetland,a wetland report and wetland mitigation plan are typically requested by the Corps,Ecology,and the local jurisdiction, as part of the JARPA submittal. Chapter 5. References Cowardin,L. M.,V. Carter,F. C. Golet,and E. T.LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United States. (FWS/OBS-79/31.)U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. (Technical Report 4-87-1.) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,MS. Hruby,T. 2004. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington— Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-025. Kerwin,John and Nelson,Tom S. (Eds.). December 2000. "Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report,Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds(WRIA 9 and Vashon Island)."Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of Natural Resources. Reed, P.B.,Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: northwest (Region 9). St. Petersburg,FL. Prepared for U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service wetland inventory,Washington, DC. Renton, City of. Municipal Code Chapter 4-3-050—Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts. Washington Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington state wetlands identification and delineation manual. (Publication No. 96 94.) March. Olympia,WA. City of Renton 6 Appendix A Carps Data Forms DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION ( (1987 COEE Wetlands Delineation Manual) �! Project/Sde: .1/ Iytrf Op QCeAl-(,qt Date: . 'L/'�/ Applicant/Owner: �le d County. _K1�<5 investigator(s�: .S....... Do normal circumstances exist on site? Yes No Community ID: P tM is the site significantly disturbed(atypical situation)? Yes ANo Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? If needed,explain on reverse. Yes Plot ID: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 2.UCLC_.d gioic4 2 r° Gfi 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Dorninarrt Species Percent of dominant species that are OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-. /• ! �Q� /^ Remarks: /�(�L� C.ew "51:�/ hD�K C� ►r—GC �, "(All j� ' —J Cl HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators _Stream, take,or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs _Inundated Other ✓Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks No Recorded Data Available _Drift Lines _Sediment Deposits _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Field Observations: Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _Oxidized Root Channels In Upper 12 Inches _Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: _ (in.) _Local Soil Survey Data _FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Solt: S t i". (in.) _Other(Explain In Remarks) Remarks: / (-,' ���r�vt f ��/^ f1 /g/'l �r�"''.f/.S' �( f i"D�/� �� f i ll q Cj d C''l"!� �✓�C �, SOILS Map Unit Name ( / (Series and Phase): i )( Drainage Class: Taxono Field Observations „ my(Subgroup): Confirm Mapped e? Yes No Profile Descriptions: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle inches Horizon Munseli Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Texture Concretions Structure etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: Hlstosol Concretions Hisbc Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List �Reducing Conditions listed on National Hydric Soils List Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(Explain In Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No (Circle) (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland? Yes No Remarks: Q A �!V-(it l 1 LL ✓,� �V [ A J"1 do a Ory� %N� ,Q�f r�+g c�tv,' e!Y ern/ { /� Vc{ r� ti/� '' /� / �✓ Vf' �cYt PYe G+ �TA/l/t-4� � ' Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION 1YA / (19877�COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: S t^! �11 6,k_� �[`eplq r°I J� Date: Applicant/Owner: C R�iK 1 p County. alf I/c-I Investigatof(s�_. �Ci� f� State: Oo normal circumstances exist on site? Yes No Community 10: Is the site significantly disturbed(atypical situation)? Yes Transect ID: �^n Is the area a potential problem area? It needed,explain on reverse. Yes No I Plot ID: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 2. (GtMar ra SS /a 10. { ! 0° /( 3. f. DG(l oj0 f� � /'iG 11. �o 4.G M �{tfA � H rr Za S. 01 fin t1 PA r"4 Itta-fry'a.1 ei !P , 13. 6. CONUM r l 14. P7. pf.jigs aiAg �o 15. 8. 16. Dominants Species fib! (l r7 ttivl�P /LPr d��f�1d d. oil 4' q f'A T ....... .............P................................................... ... ... .........�..�J.- ---------------....-_.........._............................................................................ Percent of dominant species that are 08L FACW or FAC(excluding FAG-). Remarks: �d�t I1� a�rp°at� i N V C� r� VC HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators _Stream,Lake,or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs _Inundated _Other _Saturated in Upper 12 Inches —Water Marks IN,Recorded Data Available _Drift Lines _Sediment Deposits _Drainage Pattems in Wetlands Field Observations: Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water: _ (in.) _Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _Local Soil Survey Data _FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: /(in.) _Other(E)plain In Remarks) Remarks: /\1O k y"y ' 0/C"�� SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): /`���' jf„ Drainage Class:(�h �ld�' Field Observations Taxonomy(Subgrou�a�. Confirm Ma T ? Yes No ..................PPS..YF?..._............................ Profile Descriotions: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle inches Horizon Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Texture Concretions Structure etc. e7`l& Dh ti- GrlVely �oaM Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosot Concretions Histic Eplpedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(Explain In Remarks) Remarks: 'V �i 7r,r S , WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophybc Vegetation Present? Yes (Circle) (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 1,N0 Hydric Soils Present? Yes o Is this sampling point within a wetland? Yes No Remarks: fa�'✓P �C `�, 1,,c cam` we-tj-w,P 9a-e- .->i . f S Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: �W �� -��7Ct lyzr�- ���� C��'�t Date: Applicant/Owner, / ! County. � y/,t�r4 Do normal circumstances exist on site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed(atypical situation)? Yes AN, Transect ID: Is the area a tential roblem area? It needed,ex lain on reverse. Yes Plot ID: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. _&AriS Gig/U.N Eytrl f� 9. 2. 10, 3. 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. ...Dominant Species............................. Percent of dominant species that are OBL FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-. Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators _Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: —Aerial Photographs _Inundated Other *Saturated in Upper 12 Inches —Water Marks _No Recorded Data Available _Drift Lines _Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Field Observations: Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _Oxidized Root Channels In Upper 12 Inches —Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _Local Soil Survey Data _FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: ��✓�- l f (in.) _Other(Explain in Remarks) r Remarks: FC SOILS Map Unit Name 1� f (Series and Phase): s ��^.'r�-(r� t r f 1 &ep;(� l f Drainage Class: t`t'1ri f�Glt�kti Field Observations Taxonomy(Sut�roup. Confrrm Ma PP T ? Yes No...yP..e... Profile Descriptions: Depth MatriK Color Mottle Colors Mottle finches Horizon Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Texture Concretions Structure etc. /.s" 'D t /t TITi I6 P-3 .sf S; t Hydric Soil Indicators: Hlstosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(Blain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No (Circle) (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? No Hydric Soils Present? es No is this sampling point within a wetland? C) No Remarks: S�-t . l q Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: eI k e- Date: yZ7 Applicant/Owner: t County. 1�'..L4/ Slate:Investi�ator(s�; State. VV . .....a .. Do normal circumstances exist on site? No Community to: L— Is the site significantly disturbed(atypical situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is the area a tential problem area? If needed,explain on reverse. Yes o Plot ID: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator /o D 1. U�u G�\Sco�Br S s. � 10. 2.�1 a t !5 ccfwl ac r'Q __ 3. 11. 4. 12. S. 13. 6_ 14. 7. is. 8. 16. Oorrunent Species i'.(C�1/�✓> 1` f^x: .1............................................................. ........................................... ................�............._................_.(.�.._...... � Percent of dominant species that are OBL FACW or FAC excludin FAG. G Remarks: �/a��' �f.(� ���>�2f: -�l �`.`- f1-� ,_?�/�,' '^� ? c�' `._,2 �''•��'� HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators _Stream,Lake,or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: _Aerial Photographs _Inundated Other _Saturated in Upper 12 Inches —Water Marks _No Recorded Data Available _Drift Lines _Sediment Deposits _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Field Observations: Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _Oxidized Root Channels In Upper 12 Inches _Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: _(in.) _Local Soil Survey Data _FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _Other(Explain In Remarks) f f Remafks:N 6 �/�� /1� n c Y.' f ,� SOILS Map Unit Name r J (Series and Phase): b 3. �.�1/,; r !/ ,� r�vN Drainage Class: ar PetlHfc Field Observations Taxonomy{Sut�rou��: Confirm Ma T 7 Yes .._....PP ....YPe NO......._ Profile Descriptions: Depth Matra Color Mottle Colors Mottle inches) Horizon Munsell Moist Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture Concretions Structure etc. Zeq 44 Hydric Soil Indicators: Hlstosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content In Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Strealdng In Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(Explain In Remarks) Remarks: f WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytk Vegetation Present? Yes (Circle) (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland? Yes No Remarks: W e Yf"4() pla,1? ��'y vt VaS"i V(-' ,t� �w�/�`` /•^ter Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: f4 t tlhdu Dater Applicant/Owner: �— �d County C✓T Investiva i:w: D ! ..State:_ Do normal circumstances exist on site? No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed(atypical situation)? Yes N Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? If needed,explain on reverse. Yes Plot ID: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator ('' 1 9. 2. 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. - 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. ..Domine..t Species................ 0 Percent of dominant species that are OBL FACW or FAG(excludingFAC- . G C7 D HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators _Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: _Aerial Photographs Inundated Other �aturated in Upper 12 Inches —Water Marks _No Recorded Data Available _Drill Lines _Sediment Deposits _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Field Observations: Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _Oxidized Root Channels In Upper 12 Inches _Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data _FAG-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: s �� (in.) _Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: i�' !/t i✓ �r �'/ y ! l - F r a rill N r/ �'".r i SOILS Map Unit Name i, /��� (Series and Phase): �/�/ F ld �l l_� r// �DCi' J.l Drainage Class: for a,J;C* Field Observations Taxonomy{Subprou�Z. Confirm Ma T ? Yes No PJ ..YP?................................ Profile Descriptions: Depth Matra Color Mottle Colors Mottle (inches) Horizon Munsell Moist Munseil Moist Abundance/Contrast Texture Concretions Structure etc, Hydric Sal Indicators: Hlstosot Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content In Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List E2'Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(Explain In Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? {,,. No (Circle) (Circle) Welland Hydrology Present? { No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No is this sampling point within a wetland? Yes , No Remarks: ��`✓,Ot!rL{ (�/��//�kl� /�i s�G/C?���'/ .i� �17 �1_n d�" C/�t�t- j� . l Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (198-7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ProjecUSite: ��7 �7.>>61w/ AC-P`r l"A Date: Applicant/Owner. —rif/t4`� County: Do normal circumstances exist on site? Y No Community to: Is the site significantly disturbed(atypical situation)? Yes �4 Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? If needed,explain on reverse. Yes N Plot ID: s VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. ZQallS r ' ? t 9. 2 / ,i<,J� (r 9fr.l�v!� tfCr"C/t, l-/ 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. - 5. 13. 8_ 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Dominant S cies !/ r 1t+�✓lt I /,�itw" DGn'�^. � rS .... ......�...�.(..:..................................... �I a ....................... ..................................................................................�,._.......:.................. ... .. Percent of dominant�species that arre��OBL FACW or FAC(excludingFAC-. /' Remarks: ��ti(/ ' L(/(/�'� �-i' .a? �{/ r" ,.•:�r'4 (�-e t y a HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators _Stream,take,or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: _Aerial Photographs _Inundated _Other _Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _Water Marks _/NoRecorded Data Available _Drift Lines _Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Field Observations: Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _Oxidized Root Channels In Upper 12 Inches _Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): IL�� 't-!i�`�f �{ - )�! LOOM ��,.,� /,91� � Drainage Class:PC dx d Field Observations .Confirm Ma T 7 Ye ..................PP.�--- Profile Descriptions: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle inches Horizon Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Texture Concretions Structure etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content In Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(Explain In Remarks) Remarks: ' WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (Circle) (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this sampling point within a wetland? Yes �N ) Remarks: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: J(,J 2 t/ (t _ ? (!'r1,1 r Dale: Applicant/Ov ner. C r -riot Irt7 County: r G Investi W* G State' W ...at :.. l Do normal circumstances exist on sde? Y No Community ID: i Is the site significantly disturbed(atypical situation)? Yes ANo Transect ID: t i Is the area a potential problem area? It needed,explain on reverse.) Yes Plot ID: i _ 4 i VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 2. 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. i 6. 14. T 15. B. 16. Dominant Species ....................... ................. .......... .................. .................................__.................................................................................................................... . . . .... .. Percent of dominant species that are OBL FACW or FAC (excluding FAC- . / v Remarks: �o rti h u/aG� f/ 1 r •� : t j f� t r'�.r . HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Welland Hydrology Indicators _Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs _Inundated Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _Water Marks _/N.Recorded Data Available _Drift Lines _Sediment Deposits —Drainage Patterns In Wetlands Field Observations: Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water: i (in.) _Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: —T(in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: S G c (in) _Other(Explain In Remarks) !/ F F SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):�G°dRirt '/r �r �� ' /®fX/Y� lOg�t ff i` I Drainage Class: / �t Ir°i0' Field Observations Taxonomy(Subgroup. Confirm Ma T ? Yes........................PP ...Yf?:.........._....._.N9.... Profile Descriptions: Depth Matra Color Mottle Colors Mottle inches Horizon Munseli Moist) Munseli Moist Abundance/Contrast Texture Concretions Structure etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: - Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content In Surface Layer In Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(Explain In Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No (Circle) (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland? Yes No Remarks: �i ;✓o,,r�� �,u-����Ss`v�-1 a�JC� '.,�� S� � '�r �-t.aa�� �2,�-c�� G Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: ' Date: Applicant/Owner: + County. Invesli ator s : G ~��✓ State: LV Do normal circumstances exist on site? No Community ID: t Z Is the site significantly disturbed(atypical situation)? Yes l r ) Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem areal If needed,explain on reverse, Yes N Plot ID: S Tr (07 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 9. 10. 3. Y' ' it. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14, 7. 15. 8. 16, nt Domina Species .............nt .....................•.... Percent of dominant species that are OBL FACW or FAC(excluding FAG-). h.4eat Remarks: { J y HYDROLOGY I Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators Stream,Lake,or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs _Inundated Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks _ZN.Recorded Data Available _Drift Lines _Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands i Field Observations: Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _Oxidized Root Channels In Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) `Local Soil Survey Data _FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil. (in.) _Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: //V© SOILS Map Unit Narrie (Series and Phase): C. 5, f /oA'Ir/ � ' Drainage Class: �'� t Field Observations --" Taxonomy(Sub�rouP�: Confirm Ma T ? Yes ..._._P.P....__YP - ..e....................No Prorrle Descriptions: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Cinches Horizon Munsell Moist Munseil Moist Abundance/Contrast Texture Concretions Structure etc. or� �3 - yv _........................................................................................................................................................_...............................................__ Hydric Soil Indicators: Hlstosol Concretions Histic Eplpedon High Organic Content In Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: l '✓® t � r f S dr,�f�l�!./' ::v�.��';�_ �L pf �r �� /`�lC��,?-'I /'Lv WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes r ft19 (Circle) (Circle) Wetiand Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes tNo Is this sampling point within a wettand? Yes No Remarks: r ljv' 'd 1 d1+1 d';/5 �v 3^� / i/ if %�?' f,r/' '?� t./r r1 ' '- Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Appendix B Ecology Wetland Rating Forms i Agoie WETLAND RATING FORM—WESTERN WASHINGTON 1�1 ,e Name of wetland(if known). Location: SEC: 30 TWNSHP. RNGE:�C(attach map with outline of wetland to rating form) ` Person(s)Rating Wetland: aJ Affiliation: Date of site visit ; '"� `'� i i DRAFT SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III N Score for Water Quality Functions f Category I= Score >70 l Category H= Score 51-69 Score for Hydrologic Functions ; Category ill= Score 30-50 Score for Habitat Functions Cateaory IV= Score<30 TOTAL score for functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I H Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Estuarine De ressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 1 August 2004 j i Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland ' according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. z1 C��ck List forY �tlands4'l~htiveed Special Proteetr�n,end,i� ' y NO x'' ��, , ;t.� ,�. �;. 3���„",� {�Th�t Are l\1`t►t=�nc uded In the:�.attn � � � , � � � � �' � I SP1. Has the wetland been documented as a habitatfor any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the f r appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the a pro riate state database. SP3. Does the wetland contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. i To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. I Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 2 August 2004 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington Wetland Name: Date: 1. the water levels in the wetland usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO go to 2 YES—the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt(parts per thousand)? YES—Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO—Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term"Estuarine"wetland is kept. Please note,however,that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2.Is ke topography within the wetland flat and precipitation is only source(>90%) of water to it. NO7 go to 3 YES—The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a"Fiats"wetland,use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water(without any vegetation on the surface)where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); -( At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft(2 m)? NO 1 go to 4 YES—The wetland class is Lake-fringe(Lacustrine Fringe) 4.Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope(slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction(unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks(depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO,, go to 5 YES—The wetland class is Slope 5. Is the wetland in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river? The flooding should occur at least once every two years, on the average,to answer"yes." The wetland can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. ._ NO - go to 6 YES-, The wetland class is Riverine Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 3 August 2004 6. Is the wetland in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the i4wland. NO—go to 7 YES—The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no stream or river running through it and providing water. The wetland seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO—go to 8 YES—The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland seems to be difficult to classify. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. Sometimes we find characteristics of several different hydrogeomorphic classes within one wetland boundary. Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% classify the wetland using the first class. 33�MC'Xasestthtri cr.pelrtaealed let?and 8aur�d y4'� „Clash to l} rn Ratr - Slope+Riverine Riverine Slope+Depressional Depressional Slope+Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional +Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional +Lake-fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your.wetland, or ydtA have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as�Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 4 August 2004 a hwat, Txdal ixng R exlaia� s �"° �'� �.y8r�-"`r �ra^�• 's'�. " Y'�` ��u� �'x� y � d � 4� a � f a^�c,r •r;,•.��.:- �" agg MR �.. .a.. ,.����e�-��ro,..�'y�F.�..r+/'_,�.T^`.�.r�'E v����. ., .;..x�..u"Y Y"'.<.,�i's:P' "� �� '�4F�,��:„4f•+k�tw, v"R3„ R R 1.Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 52) R R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover>3/4 area of wetland points=8 Depressions cover> 1/2 area of wetland points=4 Depressions present but cover< 1/2 area of wetland points=2 No depressions present points=0 =' i R R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Forest or shrub>2/3 the area of the wetland points= 8 Forest or shrub> 1/3 area of the wetland points=6 Ungrazed, emergent plants>2/3 area of wetland points y6 Ungrazed emergent plants> 1/3 area of wetland points= 3 Forest, shrub,and ungrazed emergent< 1/3 area of wetland points= 0 R Add the points in the boxes above R R 2.Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland?Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields,roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas,golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland — The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality multiplier — Other u. ("YES `}multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL-Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R 1 by R 2 7 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 7 August 2004 >.�as "ki,�F � � vrYneuc �resbateryYdalFnge'R�etTarz t ikZ+r ,z xt dy e e Es °t .,t`r f�a 3ya ' °� 's,•��^�S'�q'`,3,,.�e"'� .�.x. f.< # � �fir.w'%�� i�'� %�`'��. r �' �n:� `'"``�1�. -�� �� L�" �a ���3YBRbY,{)CrTC,��UNGTIOI�T� F'lndicat4rs thatwerlanc�funct�tansrtt�reduce,�r�� ,� ��" ��� 4�- `� ••&�.arf£`��,r"��F�� sU z�s€, '. S�`9hi n L°,�,.. i z°� �•"� �` �»,,,�r � is��"�C k ek, �:,�z��a��yk"'3,I?k:_'•�`w�y"�k.S,.�,.s`St�.k Y�aS��� •sue -:u�. ;zE-T�t,, <°��� -��,�,.�1flodlIi and;stream erosro�fr �, v ^c �� s��u��w�•.a.�as�-F a�`�,.�4.'��'i�u���° -�i�,"�'.��y�"x: �'���'�.�a,� � 3� 9 R 3.Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? �,� , (seep. 54 ����E ;•:ti R R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel(distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (width of wetland)/(width of stream). If the ratio is more than 20 ,2 points=9 If the ratio is between 10—20 points=6 If the ratio is 5- <10 points=4 If the ratio is 1- <5 points=2,-. If the ratio is < 1 points 1 R R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as `forest or shrub". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. Forest or shrub for>1/3 area OR Emergent plants >2/3 area points Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR Emergent plants> 1/3 area points=4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria points=0 R Add the points in the boxes above R R 4.Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 57) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities downstream(roads, buildings, bridges, farms)that can be damaged by flooding. — There are natural resources downstream(e.g. salmon redds)that can be multiplier damaged by flooding — Other (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R 3 by R 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 8 August 2004 i �a�T�ABTTA�aPf�C3'�ONS`�'`� d�.cat�r th`�at�wetTand�fim�tior�s to r� e.�trt ha$� `` ' .N ''��; s. 3 >��£ � � gf-Kr'Y`o ��� iz- Fk��` ✓�a'�3�`�a'R'�3°�' �a�� k n�� ' stet °a x ^. �z��Szg;�,a' vs H 1.Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure(seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present(as defined by Cowardin) if the class covers more than 10%of the area of the wetland or acre. quatic bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub(areas where shrubs have>30% cover) Forested(areas where trees have>30% cover) Forested areas have 3 out of 5 strata(canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs,herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: 4 types or more points=4 3 types points=2 2 types points= 1 type points ; 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods)present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10%of the wetland or '/ acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points=3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present 'points=2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present pointol aturated only Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to,the wetland Lake fringe wetland =2 points Freshwater tidal wetland=2 points H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species(seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points=2 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points— <5 species points 0 Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 13 August 2004 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between types of vegetation (described in H 1.1),or vegetation types and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high,medium, low, or none. None 19oints Low= 1 point Moderate=2 points RAP a3 3F .0 i4r x��oi 2"•�`x.F.� � �..n [riparian braided channels] High =3 points NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water the rating is always "high". H 1.5. Special Habitat Features:fteep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number ofpoints you put into the next column. Large, downed,woody debris within the wetland(>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags(diameter at the bottom>4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft(2m) and/or overhanging vegetation / extends at least 3.3 ft(lm) over a stream for at least 33 ft(10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated(structures for egg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants H 1. TOTAL Score- potential for providing habitat e Add the scores in the column above Comments Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 14 August 2004 H 2.Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? � 1 . H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See textfor definition of"undisturbed." — 100 m(33Oft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas,or open water >95%of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also. means no-grazing) Points=5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points =4 — 50 m(170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points=4 — 100 m (33Oft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas,or open water >25%circumference, . Points=3 — 50 m(170ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas, or open water for>50% circumference. Points=3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m(80ft)of wetland> 95%circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points =2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for>50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points=2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points=1 — Vegetated buffers are<2m wide(6.6ft)for more than 95% of the circumference /j(e.g. tilled fields, paving,basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points=0. ` L Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points=1 H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland)that is at least 150 ft wide,has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie,that connects to estuaries,other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads,paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES =4 points (go to H2.3) O go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor(either riparian or upland)that is at least 50ft wide,has at least 30%cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland,if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES =2 points (go to H2.3) O H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km)of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a greater than 20 acres? S 1 point NO= 0 points Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 15 August 2004 H 2.3 Near or adiacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft(100m)of the wetland? (s9e text for a more detailed description of these priority habitats) Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha(2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m(25 ft)high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old-growth forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 20 trees/ha(8 trees/acre)> 81 cm(32 in)dbh or>200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm(21 in)dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence,numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80- 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m(0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess,void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that D would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha(10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi-enclosed by land but with open,partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low-energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean-derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags,mature trees, dunes, meadows)that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function(e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment,nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats=4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats=3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat= 1 point No habitats=0 points Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 16 August 2004 i H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y2 mile,and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with g some boating,but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads,fill, fields, or other development. points=5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake- fringe wetlands within '/z mile points=5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile,BUT the connections between them . are disturbed points C% The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake- fringe wetland within%2 mile points=3 There is at least 1 wetland within %2 mile. points=2 There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile. points=0 H 2. TOTAL Score- opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores in the column above Total Score for Habitat Functions —add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on P. 1 Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 17 August 2004