The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWP272862(5) is ' * r �\1,W I L A 0 J z �S �O * 1908 j South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan Submitted to City of Tukwila Public Works Department Tukwila, Washington Prepared by BERGER/ABAM E N G I N E E R S I N C. Job No. A00084 January 2001 i SOUTH 180TH STREET GRADE SEPARATION WETLANDS STUDY AND MITIGATION PLAN Submitted to City of Tukwila Public Works Department Tukwila, Washington January 2001 Submitted by BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. 33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300 Federal Way,Washington 98003-2600 Job No.A00084 ' SOUTH 180TH STREET GRADE SEPARATION WETLANDS STUDY AND MITIGATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 SiteDescription ............................................................................................................... 1 ProjectDevelopment ...................................................................................................... 4 ProjectPurpose and Need ................................................................................... 4 ProjectDescription ............................................................................................... 4 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 5 WetlandDefinition ................................................................................................ 5 WetlandDelineation Requirements .................................................................. 5 Review of Existing Information ......................................................................... 7 WetlandInvestigation and Determination ............................................................... 15 WetlandA ................................................................................................................. 15 WetlandB ................................................................................................................ 17 WetlandC ................................................................................................................ 18 Wetland D ................................................................................................................ 19 HerreraWetland A ................................................................................................ 19 HerreraWetland B ................................................................................................ 20 Wetland Impacts .............................................................................................................. 21 WetlandFunctions and Values .................................................................................... 23 Flood/Stormwater Control .................................................................................. 23 Base Flow/Groundwater Support Functions .................................................. 23 Erosion/Shoreline Protection Functions ......................................................... 23 Water Quality Improvement Functions•::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 24 Natural Biological Support Functions . 24 OverallHabitat Functions ................................................................................... 24 Specific Habitat Functions.................................................................................. 25 Cultural/Socioeconomic Functions ................................................................... 25 RegulatoryFramework.................................................................................................. 26 Wetland Regulation and Classification............................................................ 26 City of Tukwila Wetland Regulations ............................................................... 26 MitigationGoals and Objectives ................................................................................. 28 WetlandMitigation Plan ................................................................................................ 28 South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works ii January 2001 Biological Assessment ..................................... 30 ............................................................... Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 31 References ......................................................................................................................... 32 LIST OF FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map 2 Project Study Area 3 National Wetland Inventory Map' 4 City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Map 5 City of Renton Wetland Inventory 6 City of Kent Wetland Inventory 7 Commuter Rail Project Wetlands (Herrera) 8 King County Soil Survey 9 Project Area Wetlands and Riparian Corridor 10 Wetland Impacts 11 Wetland Mitigation Site LIST OF TABLES 1 Wetland Indicator Status 2 City of Tukwila Wetlands Rating System APPENDICES A List of Plant Species Found in the Project Area B Wetland Data Forms C Ecosystems Technical Memorandum-Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail Project D Wetland and Buffer Functional Assessment Forms E Planting Plan and Details South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works iii January 2001 INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of a wetland delineation and impacts analysis, and a mitigation plan prepared by BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. (BERGER/ABAM) for the South 180th Street Grade Separation project. The project is located at the intersection of the northwest corner of the city of Kent, the southwest corner of the city of Renton, and the eastern boundary of the city of Tukwila, Washington, in the vicinity of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks (in Township 23N, Range 4E, north half of Section 36). A vicinity map is provided as Figure 1. Along South 180th Street, the study area extends 200 feet north and south of the roadway from 72nd Avenue South on the west side to 80th Avenue South on the east side. Along the BNSF and UP railroad tracks, the study area extends 1,000 feet north and south of the tracks and within 100 feet of the railroad right-of-way. A map of the study area is provided as Figure 2. In compliance with federal regulations and local wetland regulations for Kent, Renton, and Tukwila, BERGER/ABAM completed this study in order to determine the presence, extent, and characteristics of wetlands in the study area. In addition, BERGER/ABAM has completed an impacts analysis and provided a mitigation plan, in conjunction with J.A. Brennan Associates, in order to mitigate for unavoidable filling and disturbance of wetlands, wetland buffers, and riparian buffer areas within the study area. A wildlife study and stream study have also been prepared for the South 180th Street Grade Separation project under separate cover, entitled South 180th Street Grade Separation Project Wildlife Study and South 180th Street Grade Separation Project Stream Study(BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., 1998). SITE DESCRIPTION Land uses within the project study area include a mix of commercial, office park, and light industrial uses. Other land uses on the north side of South 180th Street include: an undeveloped property belonging to the City of Renton and located immediately east of the BNSF right-of-way, and the Oakesdale Business Campus site east of the undeveloped property and extending to 80th Avenue South. The Creekside Self-Storage building is located immediately east of the BNSF railroad tracks. The Interurban Trail, Puget Sound Energy power lines, fiber optic cable, and a gas line cross the project study area in a north-south direction. Springbrook Creek flows from south to north in the eastern portion of the project study area. Mill Creek flows northeast under a bridge over the BNSF railroad tracks to a confluence with Springbrook Creek in the southeastern portion of the site (see Figure 2). The project study area is generally flat, with elevated grades for the roadway and the railroad tracks. Vegetation within the project study area includes the following. ■ Scrub-shrub wetland areas dominated by willows and open water between the BNSF and UPRR tracks and between the UPRR tracks and the Interurban Trail, on the northern side of the roadway ■ Blackberry thickets along the Interurban Trail along both sides of the roadway and in the southern half of the undeveloped site on the northern side of the roadway, adjacent to the BNSF railroad tracks ■ Weed and reed-canary grass-dominated areas on the south side of the roadway between the BNSF and UP railroad tracks South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 1 January 2001 tiw North 405 5 Renton 518 Sea-Tac International Project Airport Area = S 180th Tukwila 161 167 S 212th Kent 5 161 167 Source: Vicinity Map BERGER/ABAM Engineers, 1998 South 180th Street Grade Separation Figure 1 � N = Tal V • i b ••• 25 30 'Tukwila I o JM Green f •-- - -- _ Os ------- - r Q I t — coRP-- , ,. Project Area ,. 443 , I _ .... ' � i • it OPT � i `' I � N Subs � I am r •.. F • A M i7=11 •• � r Not to Scale North Source: Project Study Area U.S.G.S. Renton,Washington Quadrangle, 1994 South 180th Street Grade Separation Figure 2 ■ A small forested area dominated by bigleaf maple within the northwestern portion of the Oakesdale Business Campus site, and a small forested area with bigleaf maple and locust south of the public storage site ■ A willow-dominated corridor adjacent to Springbrook Creek on both sides of the roadway A list of the plant species found within the project study area is shown in Appendix A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Project Purpose and Need The City of Tukwila is initiating a grade separation on South 180th Street between vehicular traffic and railroad tracks owned by BNSF and UPRR(see Figures 1 and 2). The approximate area of construction is 20 acres. The corridor is classified as a principal arterial facilitating east-west vehicular traffic in the Tukwila, Renton, and Kent areas of the Green River Valley. The existing four-lane roadway serves not only local connections between State Route (SR) 181 (West Valley Highway) and East Valley Highway, it is also part of a central corridor feeding SR 167. Currently, South 180th Street is the only major crossing of the railroads for 3.5 miles between Interstate 405 U- 405) and South 212th Street. As a result, the existing roadway experiences high traffic volumes. The existing north-south rail corridor currently contains three sets of tracks, two BNSF and one UPRR. These lines are heavily used for both freight and passenger service, with upwards of 60 trains per day. The intersection of these two heavily used corridors results in not only extensive traffic delays,but also in numerous accidents. From 1996 through 1998, 24 accidents were reported on South 180th Street. One of the accidents in 1998 resulted in two fatalities when a train hit a car. In addition, the Interurban Trail crosses South 180th Street just west of the UPRR tracks. The trail is widely used as a walking and bicycle path. Project Description The project is described in the Design Report, Volumes 1 and 2 (BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., 2000) and will consist of the following. ■ Vehicular traffic will divert under the existing railroad tracks. The tracks will be tressled on the south side of South 180th Street within the City of Kent and bridge piers will be installed where necessary to support the railroad ■ The tracks will be shooflied (detoured) temporarily to allow for construction of the underpass. The shooflies will impact a total of 1.11 acres of wetlands within the cities of Tukwila and Kent. Mitigation for these impacts is proposed on land within and owned by the City of Renton immediately east of the BNSF tracks and north of South 180th Street. Following discussions with the City of Renton, it was determined that the impacted wetlands will be mitigated at a 1.5:1 ratio in accordance with mitigation standards of the cities of Tukwila and Kent. ■ The existing roadway will be widened slightly to allow for safe travel for bicyclists. ■ The project will add approximately 0.5 acre of new impervious surface to the site and will be treated at 140 percent of new impervious surface. Stormwater runoff will be collected by catch basins at the gutter on both sides of the roadway. A 12-inch mainline will convey the flow through an underground pump station to a detention pond/wet pond located on the same parcel of land on which wetland mitigation is proposed. The detention pond will consist of two cells separated by a berm. Treated water will be discharged to Springbrook Creek by means of an South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 4 January 2001 outfall structure. No trees will be removed for construction of the underpass, pond, or the outfall structure Approximate quantities of cut and fill are 75,000 cubic yards and 22,000 cubic yards, respectively. In studying alternatives to meet the project's goals, four main issues were evaluated. They included the number of lanes for the new roadway, method of separation (vertical alignment pass under or over the existing tracks), maintaining traffic during construction, and meeting overall project budget. METHODOLOGY Wetland Definition Wetlands are formally defined as"... those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." (Federal Register; 1980, 1982). Wetland Delineation Requirements The wetland delineation was conducted using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) (Corps manual) as required by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the cities of Tukwila, Renton, and Kent. In February 1997, the Washington State legislature adopted the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology manual)and require its use by local jurisdictions. This new manual is consistent with, although not identical to, the Corps manual. According to both manuals, an area must exhibit indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology to be considered a wetland. These criteria are mandatory and must all be met for an area to be identified as wetland, except under circumstances when a wetland is considered a disturbed area or problem wetland. These criteria are discussed below. Vegetation Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil, or substrate that is periodically deficient in oxygen. For each plot, the percent areal coverage is estimated for each plant species present, and dominant species is determined. Species are assigned a Wetland Indicator Status (Reed, 1988), which is based on the estimated probability of each plant species'occurrence in wetlands or nonwetland (see Table 1). The indicator status of the dominant species within each vegetative unit (tree, shrub, herb) is used to determine if the plant community of an area is characterized as hydrophytic. If 50 percent or greater of the dominant plants in a unit have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC, the vegetation is considered to be hydrophytic in both manuals. Common plant names are used throughout this text. Scientific nomenclature of all plant species encountered follows that of Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock& Cronquist, 1973). Where the taxonomic names of plant species have been changed since 1973, plant names follow the 1988 list of synonymies(Reed, 1988; revised 1993). South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGERAABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 5 January 2001 Table 1:Wetland Indicator Status Estimated Probability of Wetland Indicator Being Found in a Status Description Wetland OBL Obligate: species that almost always occur in > 99% wetlands under natural conditions FACW Facultative Wet: species that usually occur in 67% > 99% wetlands but are occasionally found in nonwetlands FAC Facultative: species that are equally likely to 34% > 66% occur in wetlands or nonwetlands FACU Facultative Upland: species that usually 1% > 33% occur in nonwetlands, but are occasionally found in wetlands UPL Obligate Upland: species that almost always < 1% occur in nonwetlands under normal conditions NL Not Listed: species that are not listed and are resumed to be upland s ecies NI No Indicator Status: species that have not yet been evaluated (Adapted from Reed, 1988) Soils The King County Soil Survey(Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle, 1973) and Hydric Soils list (Soil Conservation Service, 1985)were consulted for the presence of mapped hydric soils within the project area. Soils were assessed in the field by examining soil for hydric indicators to a minimum depth of 18 inches with a soil auger. Soil characteristics examined include hue, value, and chroma, as identified on a Munsell soil color chart (Munsell Color, 1992). Hydric soil indicators include mottles, low soil chroma, gleying, and high organic content. Mottles are spots or blotches of contrasting color occurring within the soil matrix. Gleyed soils are predominantly neutral gray in color. Hydrology Wetland hydrology is defined as permanent or periodic inundation or soil saturation, to within 12 inches of the soil surface, for a significant period (usually a week or more) during the growing season (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Where positive indicators of wetland hydrology are observed, it is assumed that wetland hydrology occurs for a significant period of the growing season. Direct indicators of wetland hydrology include areas of ponding or soil saturation. Indirect indicators include dry algae on bare soil, water marks on soil or leaves,drift lines, oxidized root channels associated with living roots and rhizomes, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns. Duration of inundation and/or soil saturation for the Ecology Manual is based on the number of days during the growing season that are at 32°F (0°C) or above. Wetlands in the Pacific Northwest area must have 26 days of continuous saturation or inundation within the growing season to meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. Within the study area, direct and indirect indicators of wetland hydrology were recorded on data sheets and described. South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGEWABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6 January 2001 Method The"routine on-site determination method"was used to delineate wetlands within the study area. This method is used for areas equal to or less than 5 acres in size, or for larger areas with relatively homogeneous vegetative, soil, and hydrologic properties. A combination of field indicators, including vegetation, soils, and hydrology, were used to determine wetland edges. Sampling results for the three criteria were analyzed to make a wetland determination for each plot. Based on the results of plot determinations and visual observation of site characteristics, an overall assessment of the area was conducted and wetland boundaries were located. For all wetland plots identified, data for a corresponding upland plot was collected to confirm the edge of the wetland. Wetland Data Forms are included as Appendix B. Wetland boundaries were identified with sequentially numbered pink colored flagging. Wetland flagging was surveyed by CTS Engineers, Inc. Review of Existing Information Prior to conducting field evaluations, existing literature, maps, and other materials were reviewed to identify potential wetlands within the study area. This information included the following. City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Maps (City of Tukwila, 1997) City of Renton Wetland Inventory Maps (City of Renton, 1991) City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps (1996) Renton,Washington topographic quadrangle (USGS, 1994) National Wetland Inventory Map, Renton quadrangle (USFW, 1988) Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington (Snyder, et al., 1973) Hydric Soils of the State of Washington (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1985) Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Information System Database (1998) Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Non-Game Priority Habitats and Species Database (1998) Ecosystems Technical Memorandum: Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail Project (Herrera Environmental Consultants, 1997) Preliminary Site Plan, Oaksdale Business Campus(CNA Architecture, 1998) Preliminary Draft Grading and Storm Drainage Plan, Creekside Storage Park (Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 1997) Wetland Mapping National Wetland Inventory The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapped portions of three wetlands within the study area (Figure 3). A Palustrine Forested Temporarily Flooded wetland (PFOA) lies within the northwest portion of the study area; a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Seasonally Flooded, Excavated wetland (PSSCx) lies between the railroad tracks; and a Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded wetland (PEMC) is associated with Mill and Springbrook creeks. City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Maps The City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Maps, dated 1997, depicts one wetland (Wetland 12) within the study area (see Figure 4) extending from the eastern right-of-way of the UPRR tracks, north and west of the project area. South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGERABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 7 January 2001 rr ; 'AI PFO, . REM; V PEMC w`< b r s • } �� P55C p" Ail, m PFOG PSSG ►FOA PFOC xxr t le J PEM1C 5 »' 1 r P$$C • � PEMA I i i PFOCPAS iSSC MC j f r,•+ FCC +« Jf3 f PE / g �i *• it .4�);�. PUCK .Oriia� Projecto �' i Area . . - r if PEIACr*%- �' Mall 35C =4 1 .' ` 1 ... •�• w PS PEl1C PtwK � - W + ( PACE. '• PEMtx �4 i fiEMt �r' PFOC 23 N, COD PSSA PEMC c ■ '", PEKC LEGEND PFOA—Palustrine Forested Temporarily Flooded PSSCx—Palustrine Scrub Seasonally Flooded,Excavated North PEMC—Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded Not to Scale Source: National Wetland Inventory Map U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988 South 180th Street Grade Separation Figure 3 i M m m w M w i Maoam � c') cn z 0 0 cn CD go daisit _ o �� o I • ` jr rb , n T2ND A%E $ IL .�� 1, _ �f��"0a� rc [� or j. V� _ .. ) Yy.+ �)►•c� it :)D � I e . y)Rl►jlr )rlit ), } 1i)Y: ►►�. O = l� r — YDOWt},triyyYl►t'}1}y)r )3r)tFs 13- ! T ► �)Iil}}}►.►)r iff f )} !jhtY' i r1r}}.> IY►)yrll }}.y } y. r))*,.--- `� t�l'}yYr)f}11)IfY J� 1ifr►7+ *� Y' 00 i�irtlft. }? y 1}1)}►krlliETr}rfr i t Y f >' Y r ;13}rf;j}Irfy�}YYf� u1 C "=,'Q� 1 :111►) 1 }} f }F r 4') "" :cn i)-)Y}` t � j�)(D Cny r ) t) t',r i }}}r3,►_- � � � � � � � � � ■i � i zl r r1 > r) r tt , )> li y r Y �, jr r+ (D rC - -`^ 1;444))►NlOWNS li � f>1 ►t1►; F�}1�f►,Ily'k}yiY1) f))}rl}1.7 ri1.YY�t Cn D ��•�� st�RtNiO'�.�a.��t.�..•tr�±sle+*M�*� CD CD O w --- --H- - - --■ { ■ _ 1 ■ ■ :W,7 -•-r^ - _ -ram= �..�-_ _ ---� _,-- -- -- �! RLING' HERN NORPA 19 CD INDUSTRIAL. City of Renton Wetland Invento Ma s The City of Renton Wetland Inventory Map (Jones& Stokes, 1991) and the City of Renton Wetland Inventory Update (Jones& Stokes, 1996), depict Wetland 45 within the project area located on the north side of South 180th Street and on the east side of the BNSF railroad right-of-way (Figure 5). This wetland corresponds to"Herrera Wetland A"(see below). City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps The City of Kent Wetland Inventory (City of Kent, 1996), depicts a wetland associated with the riparian corridors of both Springbrook Creek and Mill Creek within the study area(Figure 6). Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail Project Wetlands Two wetlands were previously delineated within the study area north of South 180th Street and east of the BNSF railroad right-of-way and described in a report titled Ecosystems Technical Memorandum: Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail Project(Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., 1997). These wetlands are referred to in this report as"Herrera Wetland A"and"Herrera Wetland B"and shown in Figure 7. Both wetlands were delineated on 30 September 1997 using the Corps manual and are described in Section 4.0 below. A summary of the Herrera report is attached as Appendix C. �i King County Soil Survey The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service), defines hydric soils as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil profile (SCS, 1987). The NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, has compiled lists of hydric soils of the United States(SCS; 1985, 1987). These lists identify soil series mapped by the NRCS that meet hydric soil criteria. The Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington (Soil Survey) maps Woodinville silt loam (map symbol—Wo) as the dominant soil within the study area(Figure 8). Other soils include Puget silty clay loam (map symbol—Pu) in the northern portion of the study area, Newberg silt loam (map symbol—Ng) in the southeastern portion of the study area, Puyallup fine sandy loam (map symbol— Py) along the Springbrook Creek riparian corridor, and Urban Land (map symbol—Ur) in the southwestern portion of the study area. The Woodinville series consists of poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium on stream bottoms with a typical profile as a gray silt loam with layers of peaty muck extending from the surface to a depth of 38 inches. Permeability is moderately slow, runoff potential is slow, erosion hazard is slight, and flooding potential is severe unless flood protection is provided. Available water-holding capacity is high and there is a seasonally high-water table at or near the surface (Snyder, et al., 1973). Woodinville silt loam is classified as a hydric soil(SCS; 1985, 1987). The Puget series consists of poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium with a typical profile that is dominantly mottled dark grayish brown and grayish brown silty clay loam from the surface to a depth of 60 inches. Permeability is slow, runoff potential is slow to ponded, erosion and slippage hazard is slight, flooding potential is severe, and available water-holding capacity is high (Snyder, et al, 1973). Puget silt loam is classified as a hydric soil(SCS; 1985, 1987). South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 10 January 2001 -° S 32 13A : � 41 �► W-7N W 38 1 « _� w ,� ,S I W- 16 1 _ W- 12� } 'r -13C _ c W W-44 _. ---------- ----- ' 'M "�. • W-32 'j' � W-35 W 3 36 S-8r-- -� S-28 �- t i W-+34 o I Project Area .,-. I �', U� --------� W— `p W Not to Scale North Source: City of Renton Wetland Inventory City of Renton, 1991 South 180th Street Grade Separation Figure 5 WETLAND INVENTORY NW 36-23-04 SHEET 351NW 000! Pk -p If F I E Ejc. N 0 i iYk A 11 .. .. ............ (L ------ -------- I fc A "A \11\ SA 1 r f 6 M LEGEND —20-96 1/4 SECTION UIRZ PRINTED: 06 w•ww..•N.«w .w«N .n. •tw«t*^ NORTH mNNnnN nwNn KENT CITY UMITS F- WETIAND co~vwvv I-5 R. mlookw-c sm camro SCALE: I"=300 hpobo—w(qvvm I"183mo., Not to Scale Source: City of Kent Wetland Inventory City of Kent, 1996 South 180th Street Grade Separation Figure 6 Centerline Westerly • ;<— The wetland extends further to the east. BNSF Mainline Adjacent property Owner to provide the wetland delineation for this extension. Wetlands Area "B" 5 Acres(Approx.) i ■ :1 o :l ;1 Centerline Easterly 1 BNSF Mainline 1 �� (not surveyed) 1 1•. 1 LEGEND 1 ........... Wetland Boundary 1 Railroad Centerline Wetland Symbol 1 � 1 07 Existing Pavement Edge 1 z 1 U 1Cr ll co • rn :1 Wetlands Area "A" 1/4 Acres(Approx.) ao N t Project Limit Existing Crossingzo Signal and Gates h�67—►I North Pavement Edge of South 180th Street Not to Scale Source: Commuter Rail Project Wetlands Herrera Environmental Consultants, 1998 South 180th Street Grade Separation Figure 7 # 1 t o rC $ t L d J� Elk � �w 4$ +S+.�a '^.� •� 3y #•P a' y_ { } � � #mY d Rr* M S Tim 77 Py Ur i c Ng - rnt P S1� \"'d➢. R� a a�°�' 4P fir: t'a dy} 5� Project Area Y� Owl �J 4 A } {}jj4 w r MW Al Ng Ur a ti Wes. Ld i } � "�Y: � iJ•�(� ��ai 3.3 Y � "" t s r LEGEND WO—Woodinville Silt Loam Py—Puyallup Fine Sandy Loam Pu—Puget Silty Clay Loam Ur—Urban Land �N Ng—Newberg Silt Loam 4 W Not to Scale North Source: King County Soil Survey U.S.D.A,Soil Conservation Service, 1973 South 180th Street Grade Separation Figure 8 The Puyallup series consists of well-drained soils that formed in alluvium with a typical profile as very dark grayish brown and dark grayish brown fine sandy loam from the surface to a depth of 34 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid, runoff potential is slow, erosion and slippage hazard is slight, flooding potential is slight to severe, and available water-holding capacity is moderately high (Snyder, et al., 1973). Puyallup fine sandy loam is not classified as a hydric soil (SCS; 1985, 1987). The Newberg series consists of well-drained soils that formed in alluvium with a typical profile as very dark grayish brown silt loam and very fine sandy loam from the surface to a depth of 20 inches: Permeability is moderate, runoff potential is slow, erosion and slippage hazard is slight, flooding potential is slight to severe, and available water-holding capacity is high (Snyder, et al., 1973). Newberg silt loam is not classified as a hydric soil(SCS; 1985, 1987). Urban land is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial and housing installations. In the Green River Valley,the fill ranges from about 3 to more than 12 feet in thickness, and from gravelly sandy loam to gravelly loam in texture. The erosion hazard is slight to moderate (Snyder, et al., 1973). Urban land is not classified as a hydric soil (SCS; 1985, 1987). Natural Heritage Program Data Base Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program data base was searched for information on significant natural features within the study area. No records for rare plants or high-quality ecosystems were found for the study area vicinity. Priority Habitats and Species Data Base The Washington State Department of Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species data base was examined for endangered, threatened, or sensitive wildlife species; species of concern; and priority habitats within the project area. The results of this investigation are discussed in the Wildlife Study prepared for the project (BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., 1998). WETLAND INVESTIGATION AND DETERMINATION A field survey to identify and delineate wetlands within the study area was conducted by Senior Ecologists Gail Brooks and Keith Fabing on 16 and 20 July 1998. Observations of topography, vegetation, soils, and hydrology identified four wetlands within the study area boundaries. Two formal data plots were established within relatively uniform areas of vegetation for each wetland within the study area. Data forms, which correspond to formal data plots, are provided in Appendix B. The wetlands found within the study area are shown in Figure 9. Wetland A Wetland A is located in the city of Tukwila on the north side of South 180th Street within a wide swale that runs north/south between the BNSF and UPRR rights-of-way and extends north beyond the study area boundaries. The total area of Wetland A is estimated to be greater than 1 acre. The wetland is represented by Data Plot#Al in Appendix B. Vegetation The dominant vegetation species within Wetland A include Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis, FACW) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera, FAC) in the tree layer. The shrub layer was dominated by Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii, FACW). Broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia, OBL), water smartweed (Polygonum amphibium, OBL), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus, FAQ, and field horsetail South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 15 January 2001 City"of Tukwila Wetland 12 ti (Approximate_ Location) cc W m � � Herrera Wetland B Herrera •. Wetland A Wetland C Project Limits Project Limits Wetland L � �� .. ... B e . Wetland Protect Limits„' �� •• : Project Limits k" Wetland C Springbrook Creek Riparian Corridor Mill Creek Riparian Corridor •- cc ,k Cr ii U. • r ° :3 Z � i F , Not to Scale North Source: Project Area Wetlands and Riparian Corridor BERGER/ABAM Engineers, 1998 South 180th Street Grade Separation Figure 9 (Equisetum aruense, FAC)dominated in the herb layer. Based on a dominance of species rated Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered hydrophytic. Soils Soils in Wetland A were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder et al., 1973). The soils sampled in the wetland at 10 inches in depth within the A-horizon were dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silty clay with yellowish brown mottles from the surface to a depth of 18 inches. Grey gleyed (N5/) silty clay soils were observed below 18 inches in depth. These soils were considered hydric due to a low chroma with mottles within 10 inches of the surface. Hydrology The sources of hydrology to Wetland A include direct precipitation, surfacewater runoff from adjacent areas, a high groundwater table, and potential stormwater from north of the study area. A culvert is located at the southern end of the wetland, adjacent to the South 180th Street railroad crossing. The wetland was inundated in areas to depths varying from several inches to 2 feet at the time of the site investigation. Soils sampled within the data plot were moist to the surface. Classification and Rating According to the wetland classification system established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Cowardin, et al., 1979), which is the current federal standard for classifying wetland habitat, Wetland A is classified as a palustrine scrub-shrub/palustrine emergent (PSS/PEM) open- water wetland. This wetland would likely be classified as Type 1 wetland by the City of Tukwila, because it is estimated to be greater than 5 acres in size and has three wetland classes, one of which is open water(City of Tukwila, 1997). Wetland B Wetland B is located in Tukwila on the north side of South 180th Street within a wide swale that runs north/south between the UPRR right-of-way and the Interurban Trail and extends north beyond the study area. The total area of Wetland B is estimated to be greater than 1 acre. The wetland is represented by Data Plot#131 in Appendix B. Vegetation The dominant vegetation species within Wetland B include red elderberry(Sambucus racemosa, FACU), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, FACU), and red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera, FACW) in the shrub layer; and reed canary-grass(Phalaris arundinacea, FACW) (Polygonum amphibium, OBL) and bigroot (Marah oreganus, NL) in the herbaceous layer. Based on a dominance of species rated Facultative or wetter,vegetation in the wetland is considered hydrophytic. Soils Soils in Wetland B were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder, et al., 1973). The soils sampled in the wetland at 10 inches in depth within the A-horizon were grey gleyed (N4n muck from the surface to a depth of 18 inches. These soils were considered hydric due to low chroma and gleying within 10 inches of the surface. South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGEWABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 17 January 2001 Hydrology Like in Wetland A, the sources of hydrology to Wetland B include direct precipitation, surfacewater runoff from the adjacent areas, a high groundwater table, and potential stormwater from north of the study area. The wetland was inundated throughout much of its area within the study area to depths varying from several inches to 2 feet at the time of the site investigation. Soils sampled within the data plot were saturated. Classification and Rating ' According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin et al, 1979), Wetland B is classified as a palustrine scrub-shrub/palustrine emergent(PSS/PEM) open-water wetland. This wetland would likely be classified as a Type 2 wetland by the City of Tukwila,because it is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 acre in size within and beyond the study area, is subject to disturbance, and has no critical habitat or threatened/endangered species (City of Tukwila, 1997). Wetland C Wetland C is located in Kent on the south side of South 180th Street within a depression that runs north/south between the BNSF and UPRR rights-of-way. The wetland is represented by Data Plot #C1 in Appendix B. Vegetation The dominant vegetation species within Wetland C are field horsetail(Equisetum arvense, FAC), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), and bigroot(Marah oreganus, NL) in the herbaceous layer. Based on a dominance of species rated Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered hydrophytic. Soils Soils in Wetland C were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder, et al., 1973). The soils sampled in the wetland at 10 inches in depth within the A-horizon were very dark graysih brown UOYR 3/2) silty silt loam with yellowish brown (lOYR 4/6) mottles from the surface to a depth of 18 inches. Dark graysih brown (10YR 4/2) silty silt loam soils were observed below 12 inches in depth. These soils were considered hydric due to a low chroma with mottles within 10 inches of the surface. Hydrology The sources of hydrology to Wetland C include direct precipitation and surfacewater runoff from the adjacent areas. Soils sampled within the data plot were dry at the time of the field investigation. However, given the low matrix color with the presence of mottles and the sustained dry summer weather conditions,wetland hydrology during the growing season was assumed to be sufficient to meet the wetland hydrology criteria. Classification and Rating According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin, et al., 1979), Wetland C is classified as a palustrine emergent(PEM) wetland. This wetland would likely be classified as a Category 3 wetland by the City of Kent,because it is equal to or less than 1 acre in size and has two or fewer wetland classes(KCC 11.05). South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGERJABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 18 January 2001 Wetland D Wetland D is located in Tukwila on the north side of South 180th Street within a wide swale that runs north/south between the Interurban Trail and the commercial/industrial properties beyond the western boundary of the study area. Wetland D extends towards the west and north beyond the study area boundaries. The total area of Wetland D is estimated to be greater than 1 acre. The wetland is represented by Data Plot#D1 in Appendix B. Vegetation The dominant vegetation species within the shrub layer of Wetland D include Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, FACU), with Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra, FACW+) and sitka willow in the northern portion, and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), field horsetail(Equisetum arvense, FAC), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense, FACU+) in the herbaceous layer. Based on a dominance of species rated Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered hydrophytic. Soils Soils in Wetland D were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder, et al., 1973). The soils sampled in the wetland at 10 inches in depth within the A-horizon were dark gray (10YR 4/1) silty muck with dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) mottles from the surface to a depth of 18 inches. These soils were considered hydric due to a low chroma with mottles within 10 inches of the surface. Hydrology The sources of hydrology to Wetland D include direct precipitation, a high groundwater table, and surfacewater runoff from the adjacent areas. Soils sampled within the data plot were saturated to the surface at the time of the field investigation. Classification and Rating According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin, et al., 1979), Wetland D is classified as a palustrine emergent (PEM/PSS)wetland. This wetland would likely be classified as Type 2 wetland by the City of Tukwila, because it is greater than 1 acre, is subject to disturbance, and has no critical habitat or threatened/endangered species(City of Tukwila, 1997). Herrera Wetland A Herrera Wetland A is located in Renton in the southeast portion of the parcel located east of the BNSF and north of South 180th Street. The area of this wetland was estimated to be approximately 1/4 acre in size. This wetland is described as an isolated scrub-shrub wetland that is confined to a swale paralleling the railroad tracks (Herrera Environmental Consultants, 1997) (see Appendix Q. Vegetation The dominant vegetation species within Herrera Wetland A were reported as Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra, FACW), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera, FACW), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, FACU), and reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW). Based on a dominance of species rated Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered hydrophytic. South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 �i City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 19 January 2001 Soils Soils in Herrera Wetland A were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder, et al., 1973). The soils sampled in the wetland data plot were reported as dark gray(10YR 4/1) silt with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) mottles from the surface to a depth of 16 inches. These soils were considered hydric due to a low chroma soils (10YR 4/1 with mottles). Hydrology Herrera Wetland A hydrology was assumed through observation of indirect indicators of saturation within the wetland such as watermarks, drainage patterns, sediment deposits, and water stained leaves. Classification and Rating According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin, et al., 1979), the Herrera Wetland A is classified as a palustrine scrub-shrub/palustrine emergent (PSS/PEM) wetland. This wetland would likely be classified as a Category 2 wetland by the City of Renton, because it is greater than 2,200 square feet and is not a Category 1 or 3 wetland (City of Renton, 1992). A large blackberry thicket dominates the southcentral portion of the site between Herrera Wetland A and Herrera Wetland B. Site topography and observed soil characteristics suggested that fill material was placed in the location of the Himalayan blackberry thicket, separating Herrera Wetland A from the larger Herrera Wetland B complex. Herrera Environmental Consultants speculated that a house with ornamental plants used to occupy this fill area, as evidenced by the presence of cherry trees, English ivy, red elderberry, and blackberries(Herrera Environmental Consultants, 1997). Herrera Wetland B Herrera Wetland B is located in Renton and is part of a large wetland system that extends north beyond the study area, where it encompasses shrub/scrub, emergent, and openwater vegetation classes that are hydrologically connected to Springbrook Creek. The area of the wetland was estimated to be approximately 5 acres within the study area(Herrera Environmental Consultants, 1997) (see Appendix Q. Vegetation The dominant vegetation species reported within Herrera Wetland B include Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia, FACW), Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera, FAC), red-osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera, FACW), and reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), with invading Himalayan blackberry(Rubus discolor, FACU) and hardhack(Spiraea douglasii, FACW) also present. Based on a dominance of species rated Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered hydrophytic. Soils Soils in Herrera Wetland B were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder, et al., 1973). The soils sampled in the wetland data plot were reported as very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silt with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4)mottles from the surface to a depth of 16 inches. These soils were considered hydric due to a low chroma soils with mottles. South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 20 January 2001 Hydrology Wetland hydrology within Herrera Wetland B was assumed through observation of indirect indicators of saturation, such as with watermarks, drainage patterns, sediment deposits, and water stained leaves. Classification and Rating According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin, et al., 1979), the Herrera Wetland B would be classified as a palustrine scrub-shrub/palustrine emergent (PSS/PEM) wetland. This wetland would likely be classified as a Category 2 wetland by the City Renton, because it is greater than 2,200 square feet and has minimum evidence of human-related physical alteration (City of Renton, 1992). WETLAND IMPACTS �I A total of 1.11 acres of wetland (a portion of Wetland A and all of Wetland C within the study area boundaries)will be filled and 0.9 acre of wetland buffer will be filled as a result of the development of the temporary detours, or shooflies, for the BNSF and UPRR tracks. No impacts to wetlands are expected to occur as a result of the roadway and underpass construction. Impacts are shown on Figure 10. Prior to and during construction, Best Management Practices (BMPs)would be used to protect critical areas from development impacts. The following general measures are recommended to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands and streams and their associated buffers during project construction: ■ A preconstruction meeting on site with the construction contractor, City of Tukwila personnel, and a professional biologist to discuss the construction sequencing ■ Installing orange construction or other fencing approved by the City of Tukwila on the outside edge of the wetland buffer prior to any construction activity on the site to ensure that no activity occurs within the wetland, stream, or associated buffer ■ Confining all machinery, stockpiled soils, fill material, waste materials, and construction activity to the construction areas designated and approved by the City for construction-related operations ■ Hydroseeding of any disturbed areas with an approved native seed mix specified in the planting plan. The purpose of rapid revegetation is to prevent invasion of exotic species, retain the integrity of the plant association and wildlife habitats, reduce erosion of denuded soils, and minimize sedimentation into the study area and downstream wetlands and streams ■ Maintaining erosion control measures until the area has been successfully planted (approximately 1 year) and approved by a qualified professional biologist ■ Storing hazardous materials outside of the study area ■ Restricting the clearing of vegetation to the minimum necessary to complete the project ■ Establishing temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures and other BMPs as required by the City of Tukwila, including, but not limited to South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGERABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 21 January 2001 W WETLAND AREA "D" WETLAND AREA "B" 0 _m ens WETLAND AREA D, — ---- — _._ ------ — —'— —..._.—.—. ` ..., .+r..—._. ----._._.—.—.—.—.-..—.—.4 —.—.y._.—...—.—._._.—--.—.—.y.—.—.—.—.--- J W D B v NSF SHOOFLY 1 AND r. t.:xm,...,,,... e•.,:a`.t,`,;,..t.:,^r>'s:>i::.:t.::a<:W- F- _.: k J.PPROXIMATE SLOPE LIMITS ---------------- : Y; IN WETLAND = 722 sq ft y_ _ y — _ I HERRERA WETLAND A J WETLAND AREA "A" r.� — _ _ ...... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l I _ — \ I HERRERA WETLAND B \ 1 IN WETLAND = 47,550 sq ft > � ......... I I � II \ \ ----------- TOTALS FOR WETLANDS W IN WETLAND 48,272 sq ft (1 .1 acre) : . -.-.-._.- L\ r/ Scale: 1"= 120' North Source: BERGER/ABAM Engineers, Inc. 1999 Wetland Impacts Figure 10 South 180th Street Grade Separation 9 — Filter fabric fencing and/or straw bale barriers along the edge of construction areas to capture suspended sediments in construction site runoff discharging into the wetlands — Collection of sediments and other fine-grained materials deposited on the road surface periodically during construction to prevent washoff into sensitive areas by precipitation WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES Wetlands are known to play significant functional roles in their respective ecosystems and have uses that are valued by society. These intrinsic features are complex, often inseparable, and difficult to assess and quantify. Evaluations of the functions of individual wetlands are necessarily qualitative and dependent upon professional judgment. A wetland functions and values assessment was conducted for impacted wetlands within the study area(Wetlands A and C) using the Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi-Quantitative Assessment Methodology, Draft User's Manual (Cooke, 1996). Using the Semi-quantitative Assessment Methodology (SAM), ratings were assessed for eight categories of wetland functions based on a number of variables that were evaluated for each category listed below. Functional assessment data forms are included in Appendix D. Flood/Storm Water Control Wetlands serve in flood/stormwater control through detention of peak flows within a wetland system and the slow discharge of the water to downstream receiving waters. The efficiency of a particular wetland system in performing runoff control is based upon the storage capacity and outlet discharge capacity of the wetland relative to the magnitude of the inflow. The value of wetlands in reducing downstream flooding increases with an increase in wetland area, the magnitude of the flood, the proximity of the wetland to the flooded area, and the lack of other storage areas. Base Flow/Groundwater Support Functions Wetlands can recharge an aquifer, discharge to a downstream wetland, and/or attenuate surface water flows. Wetlands can provide groundwater recharge or discharge, or provide both, at different times of the year. The majority of wetlands serve predominantly for groundwater discharge and only a few are recharge systems. Groundwater recharge replenishes aquifers and filters water. With later discharge elsewhere (often in other wetlands), it provides a perennial water source for wetlands and provides dry season stream flow, benefiting stream dependent species. Erosion/Shoreline Protection Functions Erosion control is closely linked with other wetland functions and is most often of concern in wetland systems with water flow sufficient to resuspend and transport sediments, or in wetlands that have been physically disturbed. Decreased water velocity, vegetative structure, soil root-binding properties, and substrate type will lessen the effect of water-related erosion. This function is especially present in shallow, flood plain wetlands where velocities are slow and vegetation is dense. Such vegetation is composed of species that provide for effective trapping of sediments and which impede or slow water flow so that sediments settle out. Erosion and shoreline protection is especially important in riparian corridors where the vegetation can have strong root systems to hold sediments together and prevent loss of stream banks. This function is not present in isolated wetlands that do not have water flowing through them. South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGERlABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 23 January 2001 Water Quality Improvement Functions The morphology of freshwater wetlands provides simple physical processes that remove sediment. Flood plain morphology, the length and width of the wetland, landscape characterization, vegetation community structure, and productivity have a great influence on the water velocity, type of sedimentation, and rate of sedimentation. Particulate materials are removed through settling, which is controlled by water velocity, particle size, and the residence time of water in the wetland, through physical filtration by vegetation, and substrate. Wetlands remove excessive nutrients, heavy metals, and certain organic compounds through a variety of physical and biological processes. The ability of a wetland to perform these functions is closely related to other functions such as sediment removal, water quality parameters, wetland hydrology, and vegetation community composition, density, richness, structure, and productivity. The ability of a wetland to perform these functions varies with the nature of the wetland, the degree of disturbance of the wetland, and according to unusual events and seasonal cycles. Water quality parameters such as dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and total suspended solids(TSS) influence the chemical form and fate of nutrients, metals, and organic compounds in wetland systems. Nutrients, and other pollutants that often bind with suspended sediments, are incorporated into the soils through sedimentation. Nutrients, metals, and organic materials stored in the soils are taken up by vegetation as biomass, buried in the sediments as peat is deposited, or exported out of the wetland. Natural Biological Support Functions Wetlands generally are characterized by high primary productivity (food production that fuels the food chain). Primary production within wetlands can be important to wildlife and fish that spend part or all of their lives within wetlands. There are two major energy flow patterns in wetlands: the grazing food chain which involves the consumption of living green plants, and the detrital food chain composed of organisms that depend on detritus and/or organic debris for their food source. Areas with surface flow have the potential to export decomposed photosynthetic products beyond the boundary of the wetland. Nutrient cycling in wetlands occurs in both plants and the sediments. Nutrients can be stored in sediments by being bound to organic compounds and clays. Nutrients that are incorporated into plant tissues are unavailable to the ecosystem as long as the plant material is alive. Annual growth in deciduous plants usually dies back at the end of the growing season and the biomass ends up falling to the ground. The biomass either decomposes and releases the nutrients as dissolved compounds, or stays bound to organic matter in saturated conditions until conditions become conducive for decomposition. Once the nutrients are released, they become available for uptake by other plants, can be stored in the sediments, and the cycle continues. Many species of wildlife are adapted to or require wetland habitats for at least a portion of their life cycle. The variety of vegetation, substrate types, hydrologic regimes, and the sizes and characteristics of the edge between habitat types are critical factors for wildlife. The association between adjacent habitats is especially important in riparian areas that are crucial to many species of wildlife. Overall Habitat Functions Plant species occur in distinct communities that are identifiable and often repeated across the landscape. Most species of both plant and wildlife have preferred habitats in specific zones associated with physical gradients such as light, moisture, hydrologic regime, and elevation. High plant species'richness is often associated with areas that have multiple habitats in close proximity. Mature wetland systems are characterized by the presence of many niches accounting for high plant and animal diversity. Rare, large, or unusual habitats are valuable and are often set aside as South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 24 January 2001 �j sanctuaries. The rareness of a wetland community"type"may be due to the lack of a particular set of environmental factors or species distributions in a particular watershed or region. The rarity of a wetland-associated species may be due to the fact that the species is adapted to a specific set of environmental conditions, which may not be present in very many places. The opportunity for the species to have appropriate conditions for living may therefore be rare. Wetlands may also be differentially lost and rare in a region,because particular wetland types have experienced more development pressure or are especially sensitive to human impacts. Specific Habitat Functions ' Invertebrate Habitat Wetlands near aquatic habitats can be considered to have aquatic invertebrates (insects), even if none are directly observed. Examples of invertebrate habitat are muddy shallow water areas where water velocities are slow, there is no fine sediment build-up, and thin-stemmed emergent plants, such as sedges, rushes and some aquatic herbs, are present. Amphibian Habitat Water depth is important, with individual species preferring specific depths. In general, shallow water zones between 1 and 2.5 feet of water are ideal. Urbanized wetlands where bullfrogs are present are less likely to have a rich amphibian fauna due to their competition with native species. ' Fish Habitat It is assumed that if a stream associated with a wetland has good gravels, permanent moving water, 1 and overhanging vegetation along the banks of the stream is present to prevent water temperatures from getting too high, it has high fish habitat potential. If the same conditions exist, but an obstruction over 15 feet long is present downstream, then the habitat potential is only moderate to low. Mammal Habitat High habitat potential is where a large, very structurally diverse habitat is present within the wetland or adjacent buffer boundary that is at least 100-feet wide. The presence of houses and domesticated pets decreases the likelihood of the presence of native small mammals. Bird Habitat High habitat potential is available in seasonally flooded agricultural fields, large structurally diverse wetlands, or lacustrine (lake or large pond) systems with associated wetland and buffer habitats. Cultural/Socioeconomic Functions Cultural and socioeconomic characteristics are evaluated from a purely value-based perspective. Most of the human-use opportunities can be quantified by determining the ownership of the wetland and associated buffer, and the proximity of the wetland to humans who could potentially use the wetland for recreational or commercial purposes. Not all wetlands provide all of the functions and values listed above. It should be noted that four wetlands within the study area extended beyond the study area boundaries and were not investigated beyond these boundaries. Functions and values discussed in this report represent only the portions of the wetlands within the study area. South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 25 January 2001 ' For ease of discussion purposes in this report, the numbered rating for each category has been converted to a high, moderate, or low rating as follows. ■ High = 75-100 percent of maximum score ■ Moderate = 50-74 percent of maximum score ■ Low = <50 percent of maximum score Based on these ratings, each wetland was given an overall low, moderate, or high rating. Wetland A functional values rated R MODERATE for flood and stormwater control; ■ MODERATE for base flow and groundwater support; ■ LOW for erosion and shoreline protection; ■ HIGH for water quality improvement; ■ MODERATE for natural biological support; ' ■ HIGH for overall habitat functions; ■ HIGH for specific habitat functions; and ■ MODERATE for cultural and socioeconomic values. ' Wetland C functional values rated ■ MODERATE for flood and stormwater control; ■ MODERATE for base flow and groundwater support; ■ Erosion and shoreline protection did not apply; ■ MODERATE for water quality improvement; ' ■ LOW for natural biological support; ■ LOW for overall habitat functions; ■ LOW for specific habitat functions; and ■ LOW for cultural and socioeconomic values. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ' Wetland Regulation and Classification ' The primary federal laws that regulate activities in or near wetlands are Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Section 401 of the CWA mandates that federally permitted activities in wetlands comply with the CWA and state water ' quality standards. The Washington State Department of Ecology is responsible for administering the Section 401 regulations in the state of Washington. Under Section 404 of the CWA, the Corps has been given the responsibility and authority to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters and adjacent wetlands of the United States (Federal Register, 1986). City of Tukwila Wetland Regulations ' Wetland impacts are under the jurisdiction of the cities of Tukwila and Kent, and will be mitigated within the City of Renton. The three cities have agreed that mitigation will be performed according to the City of Tukwila standards. The City of Tukwila, through the adoption of the Sensitive Areas ' Overlay(Chapter 18.45, Tukwila Municipal Code), regulates development activities within and adjacent to wetlands and other sensitive areas. South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 26 January 2001 ' Regulated wetlands are defined as"those ponds or lakes 30 acres or less and those lands subject to the"wetland"definition..."in the Methodology Section of this study. Constructed wetlands are not ' considered wetlands. Isolated wetlands that are less than 1,000 square feet or smaller in area may not require compensatory mitigation (Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Municipal Code). The City of Tukwila classifies wetlands according to the system developed by USFWS (Cowardin, et al. 1979). Wetlands are rated by the City of Tukwila according to three categories, as shown in Table 2. ' Table 2. City of Tukwila Wetlands Rating System Wetland Class Wetland Buffer Type 1 Wetlands: Those wetlands that meet any of the following criteria: a) The presence of species listed by the federal government or the 100 feet State of Washington as endangered or threatened, or the presence ' of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those species; b) Wetlands having 40 to 60 percent permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation; or ' c) Wetlands equal to or greater than 5 acres in size and having three or more wetland classes, one of which may be substituted by permanent open water. Type 2 Wetlands: Those that meet any of the following criteria: Wetlands greater than 1 acre in size; ' a) Wetlands equal to or less than 1 acre in size and having three or 50 feet more wetland classes; b) Wetlands equal to or less than 1 acre in size, that have a forested wetland class comprised of at least 20 percent coverage of the total surface area; c) The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; or d) The presence of native plant associations of infrequent occurrence. Type 3 Wetlands: Those wetlands that are equal to or less than 1 acre 25 feet in size and that have two or fewer wetland classes. (Chapter 18.45.020.C.,Tukwila Municipal Code,City of Tukwila, 1997) According to City of Tukwila classification,Wetland A would likely be classified as Type 1 wetland, because it is equal to or greater than 5 acres in size and has three or more wetland classes, one of ' which is open water. Type 1 wetlands require a 100-foot buffer. Wetland C would be classified as a Category 3 wetland by the City of Kent because it is equal to or less than 1 acre in size and has two or fewer wetland classes. Type 3 wetlands require a 25-foot buffer. rA mitigation plan must be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling, alterations, and relocation of wetland habitat allowed in TMC 18.45.080A, 080B, and 080H. The mitigation plan is ' developed as part of a sensitive area study by a specialist approved by the planning director. Wetland an/or buffer alteration or relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan clearly demonstrates that the changes would be an improvement of wetland and buffer quantitative and qualitative functions. The plan must follow the performance standards of TMC Chapter 18.45 and ' show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland quality would be improved. South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGEWABAM,A00084 ' City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 27 January 2001 ' In order to achieve the City of Tukwila's goal of no net loss of wetland functions and acreage, alteration of wetlands require the applicant to provide a restoration, enhancement, or creation plan ' to compensate for the wetland impacts at a ratio of 1.5 to 1 (area created:area impacted). For this project, the City of Tukwila will require compensation at a ratio of 1.5 to 1. MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES For this project, the project design team considered all practical efforts to avoid and minimize potential impacts that could occur to wetlands and streams. Impacts to Wetlands B, D, and Herrera A and B and their associated wetland buffers will be entirely avoided. Mitigation measures will rely on wetland creation along with buffer enhancement as compensation for impacts to Wetlands A and C. A minimum of 1.67 acres of wetland replacement is required. Wetland mitigation goals for the project are as follows. ' ■ To achieve no net on-site loss of wetland and wetland buffer functions and values within the Springbrook Creek drainage basin ' ■ To compensate for loss of Wetland C and the filled portions of Wetland A ■ To avoid habitat fragmentation The objective of the mitigation plan developed for the project is to create a mitigation wetland with several habitat types to compensate for the lost functions and values of Wetland C and the filled portions of Wetland A and its buffer, and to provide connectivity to existing habitat corridors. The ' created wetland will be consistent with mitigation requirements as stated in the Tukwila Municipal Code by providing a minimum of a 1.5 to 1 replacement ratio for wetland areas. Based upon the existing functions of the wetlands and wetland buffers to be filled, the created mitigation wetland area would provide at a minimum a net gain in the following functional wetland ratings to the following levels. ■ HIGH for flood and stormwater control; ■ HIGH for base flow and groundwater support; ■ MODERATE for erosion and shoreline protection; ■ HIGH for water quality improvement; ■ HIGH for natural biological support; ■ HIGH for overall habitat functions; ■ HIGH for specific habitat functions; and ■ HIGH for cultural and socioeconomic values. WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN The above stated goals and objectives for on-site mitigation will be accomplished by creating a new wetland complex with palustrine forested, scrub-shrub, emergent marsh, and seasonal open water ' components. The wetland will be located adjacent to Herrera Wetlands A and B,within the parcel of land in Renton just east of the BNSF tracks and north of South 180th Street (Figure 11). South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 28 January 2001 ' Herrera Wetland B ,10 Wetland A Wetland Mitigation ' m Area CC z L In _ �FH Herrera AL Wetland A So. 180th St. .9.. � r Not to Scale North Source: Herrera Wetlands Mitigation Site BERGER/ABAM Engineers 1999 South 180th Street Grade Separation Figure 11 The criteria for selecting this wetland creation and restoration site included the following considerations. ' ■ A preference for sites located within the same drainage sub-basin ■ Sites located within areas with sufficient hydrology to support wetland vegetation and seasonal ' amphibian habitat ■ The potential for connectivity to existing habitat corridors The created wetland will incorporate at least one shallow, seasonal open-water feature which can provide seasonal amphibian breeding and rearing habitat, and emergent marsh, scrub-shrub, and forested components. The mosaic of created vegetative communities will result in a net increase in wetland functions over their current levels, and may increase the cumulative functional value of the adjacent sensitive areas due to the greater diversity of vegetation and habitat structure. Planting plan, plant list, and grading details were prepared by J.A. Brennan Associates, and are shown in the ' attached Appendix E. The mitigation wetland will form a continuum with adjacent and nearby habitat corridors, which will result in a combined net gain in wildlife habitat function for all associated systems. Since the wetland will be created adjacent to and in close proximity to other wetlands and the Springbrook Creek corridor, wildlife habitat fragmentation will be avoided. ' Within the created wetland and buffer areas, shrubs and trees would be planted in groups designed to duplicate and supplement the plant communities in the existing wetland areas to be filled and, if applicable, in the adjacent wetland areas. Planting in the wetland creation area would be done by ' hand or using small mechanized equipment that would not compact soils. Within the created wetland, a variety of native tree, shrub, and emergent species will be planted at appropriate elevations with respect to seasonal water levels. Plant species to be used in all mitigation would be commercially available from local sources and native to the Puget Sound region. As mutually agreed by the cities of Renton, Tukwila, and Kent, the created wetland would, at a minimum, be a Type 2 wetland (Renton categorization), and would have a 50-foot protected buffer. The created wetland complex will be located adjacent to and north of the proposed detention pond for the project. If necessary, clean water from the detention pond may be directed into the wetland complex area to maintain wetland hydrology during extremely dry periods. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Species lists for the project was received from USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The lists indicated the potential presence of the following species within the project area: Species Scientific Name Federal Status Bald eagle Halieetus leucoce halus Threatened Bull trout Saluelinus con uentus Threatened ' Chinook salmon Oncorh nchus tshaw tscha Threatened As required under the Endangered Species Act, a biological assessment (BA) was prepared for the project by the City of Tukwila (City of Tukwila, 2000). The project is receiving federal funding, therefore, the lead federal agency for the BA is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA submitted the BA to the NMFS in May of 2000 and has received a biological opinion on the project. South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 30 January 2001 LIMITATIONS ' Within the limitations of schedule, budget, and scope of work, BERGER/ABAM warrants that this study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices, including the technical guidelines and criteria in effect at the time this study was performed, as outlined in the Methodology section. The results and conclusions of this report represent the authors'best professional judgment, based upon information provided by the City of Tukwila, the City of Renton, and the City of Kent, in addition to that obtained during the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 ' City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 31 January 2001 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M.,V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and ' Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Publ. #FWS/OBS- 79/31. 131 p. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and ' Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76 pp. plus appendices. Federal Register. 1980. 40 CFR Part 230: Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites of Dredged or Fill Material. Vol. 45, No. 249, pp. 85352-85353, U.S. Govt. Printing ' Office,Washington, D.C. Federal Register. 1982. Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter II, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Vol. 47, No. 138, p. 31810, U.S. Govt. Printing Office,Washington, D.C. Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330:Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers;Final Rule. Vol. 51. No. 219. pp. 41206-41260, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1997. Ecosystems Technical Memorandum: Tacoma-to- Seattle Commuter Rail Project. Prepared for Adolfson Associates, Inc. and the Regional Transit Authority. October 30, 1997. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973.Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle. Jones& Stokes, Inc. 1996. City of Renton Wetland Inventory Update. Prepared for the City of Renton. Seattle,WA. ' City of Kent. 1993 Kent City Code. Adopted May 19, 1993. City of Kent. 1996. Wetland Inventory. City of Kent Geographic Information System. Printed June 20, 1996. Munsell Color. 1988.Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, MD. Reed, P.B.,Jr. 1988.National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands:National Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington, D.C. Biol. Rpt. 88(24). 244 p. City of Renton. 1991. City of Renton Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. Renton, Washington. City of Renton. 1992. Critical Areas Inventory, City of Renton Wetlands and Stream Corridors. Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates in association with R.W. Beck and Associates. Bellevue, Washington. South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 ' City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 32 January 2001 City of Renton. 1992. Critical Areas Maps. Long Range Planning, Planning/Building Public Works, Technical Services. Renton,Washington. ' City of Renton. 1998. Title IV, City of Renton Building Regulations. Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. U.S. ' Soil Conservation Service,Washington, D.C. Soil Conservation Service. 1985.Hydric Soils of the State of Washington. U.S. Department of ' Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Hydric Soils of the United States. In cooperation with the National Technical committee for Hydric Soils. U.S. Soil Conservation Service,Washington,D.C. City of Tukwila. 1990. Sensitive Areas Maps City of Tukwila. 1997. Tukwila Municipal Code. Washington Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication#96-94. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia,Washington. r South 180th Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM,A00084 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 33 January 2001 APPENDIX A ■ List of Plant Species Found in the Project Area 1 1 1 Plant Species Observed within the South 180a'St.Grade Separation Study Area TREES Scientific Name Common Name WIS Acer macrophyllum big-leaf maple FACU Alnus rubra red alder FAC Betula papiryfera paper birch FAC* Malus fusca Pacific crabapple FACW Populus balsamifera black cottonwood FAC Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir FACU Robinia pseudoacacia black locust FACU Sorbus aucuparia mountain ash NL Thuja plicata western red cedar FAC SHRUBS Scientific Name Common Name WIS Cornus stolonifera red-osier dogwood FACW Cytisus scoparius Scot's broom NL Holodiscus discolor ocean spray NL Prunus spp. Plum(ornamental) CULT Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry FACU Salix lasiandra Pacific willow FACW+ Salix sitchensis Sitka willow FACW Sambucus racemosa red elderberry FACU Spiraea douglasii Douglas' spiraea FACW Symphoricarpos albus snowberry FACU HERBS Scientific Name Common Name WIS Cirsium vulgare bull thistle FACU Equisetum arvense field horsetail FAC Galium aparine bedstraw FACU Hypericum perforatum common St.Johns wort NL Iris pseudacorus yellow flag OBL Lotus corniculatus birdsfoot-trefoil FAC Marah oreganus bigroot NL Plantago major common plantain FACU+ Polygonum amphibium water smartweed OBL Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed NI Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup FACW Solanum dulcamara climbing nightshade FAC+ Tanacetum vulgare common tansy NI Taraxacum off cinale dandelion FACU Veronica americana American brooklime OBL GRASSES,RUSHES,AND SEDGES Scientific Name Common Name WIS Agropyron repens quackgrass FAC- Agrostis tenuis colonial bentgrass FAC Festuca arundinacea tall fescue FAC- Glyceria elata tall mannagrass FACW+ Holcus lanatus common velvetgrass FAC Juncus effusus soft rush FACW Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass FACW Typha latifolia common cat-tail OBL Verbascum blattaria moth mullein UPL O A 44 Z W � aA DATA FORM 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicantp Application Project Name: CCGz ft��f3 11..*t IA Number: Name: State: County: Legal Description: Township:2 3 N Range: Date: a-'!(p $ Plot N Jo.: DP A-I Section: 2f T Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1. 7. f �, pgt� 2. Pl' '.a�_i�_S O,Yn ;}tic��tltm �v � 3. 9. (C�a.� drY. .•. 5 SAC. ' Saplings/shrubs Woody vines ,/ �1i l�'�u�til n I Uf'►1$� +`1C- 10. 5• 11. 6. 12. 2 of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: (C>D . Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No Basis: { Soil Series and phase: W01n .,'gip Sr In On hydric soils list? Yes ✓ ; No Mottled: Yes ✓ ; No Mottle color: In 5,e '°/3 ; Matrix color: I D �S �11+ SrC�Cleyed: Yes ✓ No Other indicators: t- ln. !VS�CIq C6 . tr/'r I32l�, Hydr.ic soils: Yes No Basis: �! �.� r �C� �F,y�q rnb Ykt tQv"J L L3 �j / Hydrology Inundated: Yes No ✓ Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes ✓ No Depth to saturated soil: ►ri&D sf- 4o SL-ti 1A - Other indicators: Libl tti;r�,f /4-4 ;,p P :!_ { Udtq.t-t- Wetland hydrology: Yes ✓ No V Basis: Sri'tt ft, Atypical situation: Yes ; No Normal Circumstances? Yes ✓ No Wetland Determination: Wetland ir'� Nonwetland Comments: I " ✓ _ ^rI r Determined by:CL F Ltc, ' 1 EEb, S pa. C� � v DATA FORM 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant 1`" Application Project S gb ► v� .Name:• ry� U_e N?i ,n Number: Name: State. County: t4S Legal Description: Township:2 31J Range: ± E J Date: ��l(��r� Plot NO.: Section: 2� Vegetation [list the threc dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1 1. 7. TA`��'�f F u r^ lJ k tvl f� �!_ 2. 8. �c'FALCCNI ��E1�./`,Ll =�rrl NL 3. 9. Saplings/shrubs Moody vines 4. � tr,g'N.t' .�- �+�.�j0 10. 5. 6. 12. S of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 0 . Other indicators: ' Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No —. Basis: LAt teak_ Soil p Series and phase:l�r�r^r .L-ri_t`�r'i e t�0 On hydric soils list? Yes No Mottled: Yes No ✓ . Mottle color: Matrix color: !' Cleyed: Yes No ✓ Other indicators: Hydric soils: Yes No ✓; Basis: Hydrology Inundated: Yes No ✓ Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes No ✓. Depth to saturated soil: Other indicators: Wetland hydrology: Yes �; No Basis: �r� fir�1� fa J Atypical situation: Yes No J Normal Circumstances? Yes No Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments: Determined. by: DATA FORM 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Name: Ct L Lt.; LCIi Number: Name: S (&!)fft S4' State: (:t) County: kt �l1 _Legal Description: Township: 23 M Range: 4 Date: 7:�-�I CQ Plot No. : —I)IP- 13-I Section: AS— Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1. 7. �t��ft5 q�U tic pace �lAG1r\1 2. 8. �pttp 1t1n1 arrD�1�,�.um �6L 3. 9. Cn afe,L 0 f e�A w-ui S KX- dings/shrubs Woody vines 4. rn��tce�� f`?cttvY:t NACU 10. t U 11. 6. COfY10S 2 of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: -4/5 . Other indicators: ' Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes ✓ No Basis: InC�tCa�r� Soil Series and phase:(�� r r. '�a 5:1^ On hydric soils list? Yes No Mottled: Yes No ✓ Mottle color: Matrix color: /U y rkty-k Gleyed: Yes No Other indicators: S,9 )Jo ter, IHydr.ic soils: Yes ✓ No ; Basis: SALUgl ,, -, f to,,-t- Hydrology Inundated: Yes No k-� Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes ✓ ; No Depth to saturated soil: SLI(CAee Other indicators: od I'`t @=,,,< 0?1r., , Wetland hydrology: Yes ✓ ; No Basis: U fQ1.t.^w Atypical situation: Yes No ✓ Normal Circumstances? Yes ✓ No Wetland Determination: Wetland ✓ Nonvetland Comments: Determined, bv: �� DATA FORM 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant I Application Project Name: '� , C�TU�wti10. Number: Name: S /$O S�, 1 State: (3 t� County: 1<,�_Legal Description: Township: 23n1 Range: 9-15' Date: _ 111PJ JS Plot No.: z Section: Z5_ Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only l or 2 layers)). Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 2. s. �Pl��ni�, c�(u�-c .F�lgceq �1CL1 3. 9. tom!urn SJLyI ,(�- ;7'P1CU ' Saplings/shrubs Woody vines a-. -t i sLkj Sc, ppnf,u_s ML- 10. 'i�i�ti�acc�uwt vu R r- 5, 1,4 t.�_ rt�;ct> . ( AC_J 11. 5�tillwm AD44VY)t, 6. S YI-'LLAUt� rf�CU 12. u C 2 of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 4 S a Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No ✓. Basis: (.,{.. trir ^_ Soil -\ �� 64 F�� Series and phase: aCY^ct( y 1T!l�rt. SiIb On hydric soils list? Yes l- No . Mottled: Yes No Mottle color: Matrix color: 10 Y)� `/13 Gleyed: Yes No Other indicators: ��{ :,. 1Q �,2� -J S' Hydric soils: Yes No ✓ ; Basis: h/, Yxr,tt!I? !.,fJ<S 1 QLaa XA Hydrology Inundated: Yes No ✓ Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes No✓ Depth to saturated soil: Other indicators: Y Wetland hydrology: Yes ; No ✓ . Basis: (vA jIn �[ +;�{�L{� ��..�,�LfQ co Atypical situation: Yes No Normal Circumstances? Yes '-' No Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonvetland Comments: Determined_ bv: K 1 DATA FORM 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Name: CL4 Y,1 txV"(L Number: Name: srf f�em� State: W County: K.1Y) Legal Description: Township: 2 3M Range: L'}E Date: Plot No.: Section: �S Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)). Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1 4 1. 7. 'Q Y�s �.�U.r=1L I to 4, F19GW 2. 8. �ui5e� uvn G�'fVfti�se � 1 'L 3. 9. MRYek In MA4 yt,.uS l� Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. 10. 5. 11. 6. 12. I of species that are OBL. FACW, and/or FAC: 2 3 . Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No Basis: ►n(4,tai£Lp Soil r ✓; No Series and phase: Vur_�'n��,y.+�,fEs" Sifa On hydric soils list? Yes '�. Mottled: Yes ✓ No Mottle color: 10 VW 4/&; Matrix color: )0 Y� 3/2 a4 !p' Gleyed: Yes ✓ No •Other indicators: ,� YR `�o of /7 ` 10Y)2 4 Z a+ ! 2" Hydric soils: Yes No Basis: rky-r) :k Yy,�a++,"S Hydrology Inundated: Yes No Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes No ✓ Depth to saturated soil: Other indicators: �D:��- ;.?�r>•.<+'. P.ttn, ttlCtr-� i+'^.�1`r �'i��'r : 1�1,.., Sttf�BL�nn,�cn Uq�� Wetland hydrology: Yes No �� Basis: J U Atypical situation: Yes ; No V �EtU� 1:v +dtj Normal Circumstances? Yes ✓ No Wetland Determination: Wetland ✓ Nonwetland Comments: Determined. by: DATA FORM 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Applic t Application Project l r Name: 7, ( ,�t l k`t�Gi. Number: Name: 6 1 State: County: Legal Description: Township: 231J Range: 4195- J Date: - CJ t Plot No.: �P G-z Section: ZS' Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs I ff 3. 9. C.t J 1, 1,,J. ttW Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4• CV 10. 6. 12. 2 of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC:3/�. Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes ✓ No Basis: I,nit eq,*, TL[t z Soil Series and phase: ��T' -.ta:+ ��i�•� On hydzic soils list? Yes �; No Mottled: Yes No Mottle color: Matrix color: Cleyed: Yes No Other indicators: Hydr.ic soils: Yes No ✓ Basis: 1>L' Ynn < ND jG.t-S Hydrology Inundated: Yee ; No ✓ Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes No '— Depth to saturated soil: 1 Other indicators: Vl its r- Wetland hydrology: Yes ; No tom . Basis: Atypical situation: Yes No Normal Circumstances? Yes V No Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments: i Determined, bv: !�4' � DATA TORM t WETLAND DETERMINATION Applie t Application Project (�+ Name: Numbar: Name: S a -4 C IA Fz- State: ounty:VJLsgal Description: Township:2ffU—nSd1:UJWL- Data: I� Flat No.: Section: Vegetation (list the three doiainsat tpeeiss in each vegetation layer (S if only 1 or 2 layers)). Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator species Status S e� Status Trees Herba 2, ( )Q "P a 3. 9. Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 10. S. 11. 6. 12. I of species that are OIL. FACW, and/or ZAC:7a. Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes ;� No Basis: Soil Series and phase:U ONIL1.r On hydric soils list' Yes ; No �j tom. Mottlad: Yas)L.C_; No Mottle color: matrix color: Cloyed: Yes _ No Other indicators: 1 Hydr"ic soils: Yes _ No ; Basis: �. Hydrology / 1 Inundated: Yes ; No X . Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes : A Depth to saturated soil: ?,C� ►F;r Other indicators: Wetland hydrology: Yes : No Basis: Atypical situation: Yes ; No-V—`. Norsal Circumstances' Yes X No Wetland Determina'lon: Wetland Nonwatland Coaments: Determined" by:�y •y OCT 5 ' 98 15 : 25 206 T21 3428 PAGE.002 DATA FORM 1 WETLAND DMERMIAATION Applica� i� Application Project K � ... West s P� Nuubar: NSA*: State: Gounty: 1'V Legal Description: Township• Ample= Sf 1 plot Section: Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or Z layers)). Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees herbs 2, s. ,t1S ►'�'� tom-\tc.-'r•i SC7 3. Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 6, 12. Z of species that are OEL. FACW, and/or FAC: Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No basis: Soil Series and phase:t,,t�)01 0-li On hydric�ssails list' Ysr Mottled: Yes : No _ hottle color:,..J_ l it Matrix color:�� Cltyed: Yes No Other indicators:: Hvdrl sc soils: Ye tie : basis: Hydrology Inundated: Yes No,. Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes ; NO- Depth to saturated soil: Other indicators: Wetland hydrology: Yes ; No basis: Atypical situation: Yes ; No X Normal Circumstanceal Y.s __ 140 y� Wetland Determination: Wetland Nommtland ✓ Comments: Determined by: ` OCT 5 ' 98 15 : 26 206 T21 3428 PAGE.003 1 APPENDIX C Ecosystems Technical Memorandum Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail Project 1 ECOSYSTEMS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail Project Prepared for Adolfson Associates Inc. 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Seattle, Washington 98107 and Regional Transit Authority 1100 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 601 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206/441-9080 October 30, 1997 Tacoma-io-Seattle Commuter Rail Project—Ecosystems Introduction The purpose-of this technical memorandum is to provide the results of natural resources site investigations for a portion of the proposed Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail project. The project, which is sponsored by the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), would involve operation of commuter rail service between Tacoma and downtown Seattle on approximately 40 miles of existing Burlington Northern Rail Road (BNRR) track. Commuter rail trains would provide service to stations in Seattle,Tukwila, Renton, Kent, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup, and Tacoma. The RTA is currently evaluating ten potential station sites for inclusion in the project. This memorandum describes existing conditions and potential impacts on significant and sensitive ecosystems, wetlands, and endangered species at ten sites proposed for development of commuter rail stations and park-and-ride facilities. Several additional project elements (station sites and track improvements) are still being considered by the RTA for inclusion in this project. and are not addressed in this memorandum. Following the RTA's issuance of a final project description, these additional project elements will be analyzed in a future technical memorandum. Potential mitigation measures will be included as part of the additional analysis to be conducted after the project description is completed by the RTA. The findings of this and future technical memoranda will be combined into a final ecosystems report document. This report summarizes pertinent background information and presents the findings of site reconnaissance. General site conditions, significant and sensitive ecosystems, wetlands, and endangered species are described for each of the ten station sites. The findings presented in this technical memorandum will be summarized in the NEPA Environmental Assessment for the Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail project. This technical memorandum draws on information presented in the Preliminary Assessment of Ecosystems, Wetlands, and 17ndangered Species (Herrera 1994) that was prepared for the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority for its South Corridor Commuter Rail project. A total of 30 station and park-and-ride sites as well as five track improvement areas were analyzed in the 1994 report. This memorandum provides an update of the previous work at nine of those sites that were selected for inclusion in the Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail project. It also includes the results of field investigations for a new station and park-and-ride lot at S. 1801h Street in Renton that was not analyzed in the 1994 study. .p! 9lbTerAwe—Veco—do< October 30, 1997 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail Project—Ecosystems Study Methods and Assumptions ' The methods used to identify existing conditions, sensitive areas, and threatened and endangered species at the 10 proposed commuter rail station sites include a combination of site reconnaissance and review of background information. Each site was visited to determine if conditions have changed since previous studies for the South Corridor Commuter Rail project were conducted in 1994 (Herrera 1994). Observed changes in site conditions are noted in the station descriptions presented in this technical memorandum. Because the 180`h Street Station site in Renton had not been previously studied, it was evaluated in more detail to determine the presence and exact boundaries of wetland areas that could affect station layout and design. Wetland delineation field forms and the boundary survey map for this site are included in Attachment A. Wetland delineations were conducted in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (U.S. COE 1987) as required for . federal and local government permits. Sources of background information used to describe existing environmental conditions at the proposed station sites included National Wetland Inventory maps, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Program data, Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program data, and maps of environmentally sensitive areas provided by local jurisdictions (e.g., King County, Pierce County, and the cities of Renton, Tukwila, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup, and Tacoma). Existing information on environmentally sensitive areas and significant natural resources at the selected sites (e.g., threatened or endangered species or priority habitats) is summarized in Table 1. Observations made during site reconnaissance, together with available background information, were used to confirm the presence or absence of sensitive areas and important natural resources at the selected sites. WPl 9/6hrcMr+derarvmtidot , October 30, 1997 2 Herrera Environmental Consultants Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Pail Project—Ecosystems Table 1. Summary of impacts on ecologically sensitive areas, endangered species, and wetlands resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail project. Ecologically Endangered Approximate Wedand Wetlands Impacts from Station Sensitive Areas Species Wetland Size Buffer Classification Constfuction and Operation King Street Station None None NA NA NA None Georgetown Station None None NA NA NA None Boeing Access Road Station Wetlands None Approximately I to 4 acres,depending on 50 feet Type 2 Will be evaluated in light rail station location EIS Longacres Station Wetlands None 6 acres 50 feet Type 2 None 180'h Street Station Wetlands None 5.25 acres North Kent Station None None NA NA NA None Auburn Station None None NA NA NA None Sumner Station None None NA NA NA None Puyallup Station None None NA NA NA None Tacoma Amtrak Station None None NA NA NA None Notes This table will be updated in the final technical memorandum to reflect additional site information still be developed by the RTA. NA Not applicable. I f/AArrA.vwdrrnna..dor October 30, 1997 3 Herrera Environmental Consultant.q Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail Project—Ecosystems 1801h Street Station Existing Environmental Conditions The proposed 1801h Street Station is located immediately east of the BNRR tracks at their intersection with 180`h Street (Figure 7). Site investigations indicate that three wetland areas occur in the area intended for station development(Figure 8). However, the exact station layout for this site is still being developed by RTA and is not included in this technical memorandum. Impacts to natural resources at this site will be analyzed when the station layout becomes available and will be included in a future technical memorandum to the RTA. Because the site is comprised of several properties, the wetland information presented in this report is an aggregate of two separate field investigations conducted at the request of the property owners. Herrera staff delineated wetlands A and B on September 30, 1997. The wetland delineation data forms and boundary survey map are included in Appendix A. Wetland C was . ., delineated by Watershed Dynamics (1996). The parcel to the south of S. 180`h Street may be proposed for future parking lot expansion but, at the request of RTA, was not included in the field investigations for this report. Areas to the north of S. 1801h Street that are proposed for station development encompass several distinct plant communities. Wetland B is part of a large wetland system that extends off-site to the north, where it also encompasses scrub/shrub, emergent, and open water classes that are hydrologically connected to Springbrook Creek. Dominant vegetation in the portion of wetland B that occurs on the station site includes a tree canopy of black cottonwood, Oregon ash, and red alder; a shrub layer of red-osier dogwood, Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, salmonberry, hardhack, and red elderberry; and herbaceous species such as reed canarygrass, creeping buttercup, field horsetail, herb Robert, and bittersweet nightshade. A fringe of emergent wetland vegetation occurs along the southern edge of this forested wetland that is comprised of reed canarygrass and scattered Oregon ash trees. Wetland A in the southwest corner of the site is an isolated scrub/shrub wetland that is confined to a swale paralleling the BNRR tracks. The dominant vegetation in this wetland includes Pacific willow, red-osier dogwood, hardhack, and reed canarygrass. It is being invaded by Himalayan blackberries. Surface water runoff collects in this swale and is contained by the steep banks for South 180th Street and the railroad tracks. A large blackberry thicket dominates the south central portion of the site between wetlands A and B. Site topography and observed soil characteristics suggest that fill material was placed where the Himalayan blackberry thicket exists, separating Wetland A from the larger wetland B complex. It appears that a house with ornamental plants used to occupy this fill area as evidenced by the presence of cherry trees, English ivy, red elderberry, and blackberries. A forested wetland (wetland C) to the east of the existing access road likely was also connected to the larger wetland B system before the access road was built. A mature row of poplar trees along the east side of the access road appears to be approximately 50- to 75-years old, indicating that these wetlands have been functioning as separate systems for a long time. / 9/ri4ecMr�rnn+u.dor October 30, 1997 15 Herrera Environmental Consultants , I ' I I I I INKLER t0 I 1 Z I I ' J 38TH � I I ,AMDLA D 180th Street 39TH I Station I 1 I 'SAXON O 41ST I TRILANd I , 1 I � 180TH co _ a DR '- 43RD D � r; 81ST i 1 1 I 1 1 � 1 1 , R RSlDE 182ND ' 1 1 1 � � 1 ' , I � 1 y v 184T1-I � I o ; 1 sE B a GLACIER ' 186TH I ' I ' 1 ' 188TH ' 8TTH 1 ' 1 ' I ' 1 ' 1 ' . 190TH I N C=q HERRERA Source: Thomas Bros. Maps 1996 �caysuiiwis Figure 7. 180th Street Station location. N — JIL— IL - �� I i _ ,11-WGnarid B—' et m Cr z a m -o: G 0 o, t �o ttan(C 7�I Sou th h 1 80 t h Stre et Legend d Boundary.. f •'€ o area considered for station .......... i development r HERRERA 0 200 feet Wetlands F� S Approximate scale ' Figure 8. Locations of wetlands at 180th Street Station. Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail Project—Ecosystems ' Because wetland B is a large forested and open water wetland complex that extends offsite to the north, it provides excellent habitat for numerous small birds, mammals, and amphibians. Two great blue heron rookeries are identified within 1.5 to 2 miles of the site and it is likely that these large wading birds use the more northerly parts of this wetland system where shallow water and adjacent shrub cover provides habitat for the heron's favored prey of frogs, small fish, mice and aquatic inseams. Wetlands A and C are of lesser quality for wildlife habitat because of their ' smaller site The 180`h Street station site is located in close proximity to Springbrook Creek, a tributary to the Black River and part of the Green River drainage. The creek is located immediately to the east of the station site in a steep-banked channel that meanders in a northerly direction to its confluence with the Black River. Springbrook Creek is identified by the Priority Habitats and Species map (WDFW 1994) as providing important fish habitat for anadromous fish runs. The Catalog of, Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization (WDF 1975) identifies Springbrook Creek as habitat for Coho salmon. The station is also within 1,500 feet of the Green River, which is also ' important anadromous fish habitat and supports listed resident fish species. ' Potential Environmental Impacts Impacts to natural resources at the 180`h Street Station will be analyzed in a future technical memorandum when the final station layout is completed. r _Y/ 9/MecMe�en mwdo October 30, 1997 18 Herrera Environmental Consultants Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail Project—Ecosystems ' References Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1994. Preliminary Assessment of Ecosystems, Wetlands and Endangered Species. Regional Transit Authority South Corridor Commuter Rail. August 1994. U.S. COE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1 Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. USFWS. 1987. National wetland inventory map for South Seattle q Washington quadrangle. g USFWS. 1988. National wetland inventory map for Renton,Washington quadrangle. Watershed Dynamics. 1996. Wetland delineation map for Zelman Properties Company. Prepared by Watershed Dynamics and Barghausen Consulting Engineers, October 15, 1996. WDF. 1975. A catalogue of Washington streams and salmon utilization. Volume 1, Puget Sound. ' Washington Department of Fisheries, November 1975. WDFW. 1994. Priority habitats and species and Natural Heritage wildlife data map for Renton, ' Washington quadrangle. Washington Department of Wildlife, Habitat Division, Olympia, WA. r r _Pl 9/b1KMendKOTmdoc October 30, 1997 33 Herrera Environmental Consultants w M� MI E"', i " ' DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Field Investigator(s): V (r- KF—: q— Pro /Si R 30—`17 ' Project/Site: T A Sf-&:rl o Date: j ►.v. 1 8 D t1l �-t State: l•J�r County: Applicant/Owner:. G fv of (Z�,,,{-o Plant Community#/Name: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do ------------------- ' normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes Has the vegetation soils,anii!or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No (if no, explain on back) ------------------------------------------- ---yes,explain on back) VEGETATION Dominant Plant 5pee d'cat % Dominant Stratum . Dominant Plant nat �F Vk o.f r s ae rp'CU Stratum R s A 'srol r_C KIna S Percent of dominant species that are OBL,FACW,and/or FAC !/o ' Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No Rationale: R,,/rl .....eru�r. ssiY60.[�p.t�s (aNer eL, It �pf/BPS SOILS , Map Unit Name(Series/phase): Vv ed o d,ny ('e Oxidized Rhizospheres: Histosol: Histic epipedon: Mottles: Concretions: Gleyed or low-chroma colors: _ X Sulfidic odor: Matrix and Mottle Color: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No ">G Rationale: 1� ► aar r. / r^� o-- ', f,l 1 HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: ' Is the soil saturated? Yes No X Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Saturated in upper 12 inches: Water marks: t Drift lines: Sediment deposits: Drainage patterns: x Secondary Indicators: Waterstained leaves: Local Soil Survey data: Oxidized root channels: Other indicators: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: rl r- Lie / J Is the wetl nil hydrology criterion met? Yes No Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE ' Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No x Rationale for jurisdictional lecision: 1__7°'0 Pii ti DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION ' Field Investigator(s): D 6-- K E Date: q— 3� —� �Project/Site: 12'T _ 54-a t ij h e,, 1 R o p, 5 State: W Applicant/Owner:. C, +� c e ,,` -s,� —� County: K ►. Plant Community#/Name: -- ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------No — --------------------------- - ------------ n Do normal enviromCDtal_conditions exist at the plant community? Yes � Has the vegetation soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No (if no,explain on back) (if yes,explain on back) ' VEGETATION % Dominant Plant Species dicat a Stratum Dminant Plant Species ciat DFPC min Stratum O X CDYN to S S 71'01 0-11 t ivQXsLFAL WU 0 S X R .�� S �. S<.OIOr L_ EL ll1. /O pv vJ q 0 �— �'a�.a�a Percent of dominant species that are OBL,FACW,and/or FAC Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Zc _ No Rationale: PP ' SOILS Map Unit Name(Series/phase): VJ0 o A i A V t I(e- 'S p a t ti Oxidized Rhizospheres: Histosol: Histic epipedon: Concretions: Mottles: !o YK `l q Gleyed or low-chroma colors: X Sulfidic odor: -Matrix and Mottle Color: ' Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes k No ' Rationale: I nvJ c,- � w, „-{-f-/„ui e; HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No x Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No X' Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Saturated in upper 12 inches: Water marks: 1>G Drift lines: Sediment deposits: Drainage patterns: >_1 Secondary Indicators: Waterstained leaves: >I:f, Local Soil Survey data: Oxidized root channels: Other indicators: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: St I V1 +f c ' Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes k No Rationale: ' JURISDICTIONAL DE TERMINATION AND RATIONALE ' Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: r e-1^s ct,� 3 it �"�r •c DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Field Investigator(s): E- Date: -.30 —1 7 ' Project/Site: K TPA S}-a io -\. I To � �, State: (�/n4- County tK Applicant/Owner:. GI nJ Of (Zp y-�,�---------------------- Plant Community#/Name: 5P - '3 (n/o ------- --------------------------- -- o normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes No Has the vegetation soils,-and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No Has no, explain on back) ----------------------------------------- - --------- (if yes,explain on back) ---------------------------------------------- VEGETATION (� i a ant ec'e n icat Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator ' f nOwfs ba.(s:a�+, a G Dominant Stratum X �r1x%�us 11 ' SAC W L 5 T 3C r'y"z-5 02,�n-4i,-,k A 6 2 97 C7 - S R.,luS r105ca( 0Ir Lt,� / S r I fF S ELI Percent of dominant species that are OBL,FACW, and/or FAC 0 Y ' Is the hydrophytis vegetation criterion met? Yes �_ No Rationale: NII �r,w�� ' SOILS Map Unit Name(Series/phase): ►'V OOd 1 0 V1 51 ��' Oxidized Rhizospheres: Histosol: Histic epipedon: Concretions: Mottles: Q5G2 V Gleyed or low-chroma colors: �c Concr Concr c odor: Matrix and Mottle Color: ' —16 '' 1 0 �1 2 4 1 s, I ..j, Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes _� No Rationale: &v,j i ' HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No x Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No X Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Saturated in upper 12 inches: Watermarks: Drift lines: Sediment deposits: Drainage patterns: K Secondary Indicators: Waterstained leaves: __ XC Local Soil Survey data: Oxidized root channels: Other indicators: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: ' Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes __�G _ No Rationale: S S 12 ly�,�„ 1 n q u / S �Yp s t� I h In/ ✓t, S G a So r JURISDICTIONAL DE TERMINATION AND RATIONALE ' Is the plant community a wetland? Yes x No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: �P.O 0 -3 N-,ra rr e__ DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Field Investigator s): - K E Date: 30 -7 ' Project/Site: Tpt 5+, -i oti on 1 g p�c` S State: County: k Applicant/Owner:. Plant Community#/Name: S P— ( L_*"M ------------------------------------------ -- Do normal environmental-conditions exist at the plant community? Yes x No (if no, explain on back) Has the vegetation soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No —�— (if yes,explain on back) ------------------------------------ ----------- ------------------------- ------- ------- —-- --------- —-----—-------------------------------------- VEGETATION % Dominant Plant C ilu ladLcLat Dominant Stratum Dominant Plant Species ladLca fo uju. (o J_Wf fi. FAG 190 _ Dominant Stratum F -211H tts t X ,fn Li5 6h fen,fe � oft 5 l o►' Fk'G1�1 _ t,�O � LAI D i Gertro� -Drw-osa (=E}{.K 3 O H Percent of dominant species that are OBL,FACW,and/or FAC /d 4 �a Is the hydrophyti vegetation criterion met? Yes ems_ No / Rationale: o.Yt7� SOILS Map Unit Name(Series/phase): Wn nrb K III(I1° s� f" Gt U� Oxidized Rhizospheres: ' Histosol: Histic epipedon: Concretions: Mottles: 10Y/& " / Gleyed or low-chroma colors: X Sulfidic odor: -Matrix and Mottle Color: Other hydnc soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: WL l�tit,o I K G HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No �_ Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No 1,L Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Saturated in upper 12 inches: Water marks: Drift lines: _)e Sediment deposits: x P Drainage patterns: X Secondary Indicators: Waterstained leaves: Local Soil Survey data: Oxidized root channels. Other indicators: List othf r field evidep ce of surface inundation or soil satura ion: Swtil E ' dL- AJIIO L Yn .�61- a.►1d_-(A ��P Ci� awn o r . Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _ `)C No Rationale: r JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes k No Rationale for junsdictio al decision: at I DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Field Investigator(s): Date: 9—30 --q 7 ProjecdSite: T 5i-k�t'roh ova 1$0i-"N Sl- State: County: r►1 Applicant/Owner:. C r UU n� P.e �- ` �. Plant Community#/Name: --------------------------------- - ------ -' --------------------------------------------------- ________ ______________________- -Do normal environ No (if mentai conditions exist at the plant community?- Yes - Has the vegetation soils,and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes no,explain on back) ---------------------------------------------------- (if yes,explain on back) VEGETATION Z, � la eci at % Ik � 2ina Stratum Dominant Plant S ecie dicat r Dom'nan atut c o o r INC� 1 n 'n I t� Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW,and/or FAC Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No Rationale: U SOILS Map Unit Name(Series/phase): WoM 14 Vt ile 5 t 1f- (oat,, ' Histosol: Hi Oxidized Rhizospheres: stic epipedon: Concretions: Mottles: 10Y(Z U�Gleyed or low-chroma colors: Matrix and Mottle Color: Sulfidic odor: 1)- 1 4 1 o s < ►�- r, tin r S Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes �_ No Rationale: J HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: ' Is the soil saturated? Yes No >C Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Saturated in upper 12 inches: Water marks: Drift lines: Sediment deposits: Drainage patterns: Secondary Indicators: Waterstained leaves: Local Soil Survey data: Oxidized root channels: Other indicators: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturat' n: ' DO 510mv'l' - Is the wetland 'ydrology criterion m t? Yes k No Rationale: Y�_P�o I►� kt� wteT S,eGc o v� JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes x No Rationale for jurisdictional,decision: hale hV Ar tL 5 a I SEC. 36, T.23N., RA E., W.M. 1 iEXISTING CROSSING SIGNAL CENTERLINE EASTERLY BNSF MAINLINE (NOT SURVEYED) AND GATES CENTERLINE WESTERLY BNSF MAINLINE 60' SOIL PR No. 2 LU ad :WETLAND AREA A LO 6 770' — s :V4 ACRES (APPROX.) 64' SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SOIL PR No. 1 NO SOIL PIT No. 3 LL O SOIL PIT No. 5 p w WL WETLAND AREAD ' ::E �\L[. 5 ACRES (APPROX.) 352' Q 58 ..............• SOIL PIT No. 4 ...................................h................................ O ACCESS ROAD (NOT SURVEYED) Z \ �1L 1 THE WETLAND EXTENDS FURTHER TO THE EAST. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO PROVIDE THE WETLAND DELINEATION FOR THIS EXTENSION. LEGEND WETLAND BOUNDARY ......••••• RAILROAD CENTERLINE ' SOIL PIT SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE c, WETLAND SYMBOL ' EXISTING PAVEMENT EDGE 0 50 100 SCALE IN FEET ruGer INFRASTRUCTURE It -toSuevErE� er R.E.HEFT 1o/1v9T I�x CONSULTING „�_ `ta WETLAND SURVEY MAP w�l 'o E3fTER� B1 D.C PUTMM! 10/15/9T amtm er J.N>uws�6ATRA l0/16/97 CORPORATION Regional Transit Authority PROPOSED COMMUTER RAIL STATION ENGINEERS — SURVEYOR, >a�r 3100 176TH Si4-Ef SURE 200 SOUTH 180TH ST./SW 43RD ST. DATE 1 DATE REVISION I BYI suuC wA,w8fi �ccTz 1 1 r r r r APPENDIX D Wetland and Buffer Functional Assessment Forms r r r r r r r r r r r _r Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland# A Staff KF Date 3/17/99 Location: Section 36 Township 23N Range 4E Criteria Function Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Flood/Storm X size<5 acres size 5-10 acres size>10 acres Water Control _ riverine or lakeshore wetland _ mid-sloped wetland X_ depressions, X <10%forested cover = 10-30%forested cover _ >30%forested cover -points: 9 unconstrained outlet semi-constrained X_ culvert/bermed outlet (max 15) X_ located in lower 1/3 of the _ located in middle 1/3 _ location in upper 1/3 of drainage of the drainage the drainage ' Base Flow/ X size<5 acres size 5-10 acres size>10 acres Ground Water — riverine or lakeshore wetland _ mid-sloped wetland X_ depressions, Support X_ located in lower 1/3 of the _ located in middle 1/3 _ located in upper 1/3 of drainage of the drainage the drainage temporarily flooded or saturated _ seasonally or semi- X_ permanently flooded or ' permanently flooded saturated,or or saturated intermittently exposed points: I 1 — no flow-sensitive fish _ low flow-sensitive fish X_ high flow-sensitive (max 15) populations on-site or populations on-site or populations contiguous downstream downstream with site in highly permeable strata Erosion/ — sparse grass/herbs or no veg _ sparse wood or veg — dense wood or veg Shoreline — along OHWM — along OHWM along OHWM Protection wetland extends<30 m from wetland extends 30-60 — wetland extends>200 OHWM in from OHWM m from OHWM points: N/A — highly developed shoreline or _ moderately developed _ undeveloped shoreline subcatchment shoreline or or subcatchment (max 9) subcatchment ' Water Quality — raoid flow throueh site moderate flow throueh X slow flow throueh site Improvement <50%veg cover X— 50-80%cover >80%veg cover — upstream in basin from wetland _ #50%of basin X_ >50%of basin ' points: 11 is undeveloped upstream from upstream from wetland (max 12) wetland is developed is developed holds<25%overland runoff _ holds 25-50% X_ holds>50%overland overland runoff runoff N/A=Not Applicable,N/I=No information available Draft Wetlands Study Appendix C South 180th Street Grade Separation C-2 April 1999 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment Criteria Function Group 1 1 Pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Natural X_ size<5 acres _ size 5-10 acres _ size>10 acres Biological _ ag land,low veg structure X_ 2 level veg _ high veg structure Support _ seasonal surface water _ permanent surface water X_ open water pools ' _ one habitat type _ two habitat types X_ 3 3 habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PAB POW PEM PFO EST PSS PFO EST _ low plant diversity(<6 species) X_ moderate plant diversity _ high plant diversity (7-15 species) (>15 species) >50%invasive species _ 10 to 50%invasive X_ < 10%invasive low primary productivity X_ moderate primary _ high primary low organic accumulation X_ moderate organic _ high organic points: 25 X_ low organic export _ moderate organic export _ high organic export (max 36) _ few habitat features — some habitat features X_ many habitat features X_ buffers very disturbed buffers slightly disturbed buffers not disturbed isolated from upland habitats X_ partially connected to _ well connected to Overall X_ size<5 acres _ size 5-10 acres _ size>10 acres Habitat _ low habitat diversity X_ moderate habitat _ high habitat diversity Functions X_ low sanctuary or refuge _ moderate sanctuary or _ high sanctuary or ' points: 4 (max 9) Specific — low invertebrate habitat — moderate invertebrate X= high invertebrate Habitat low amphibian habitat moderate amphibian X high amphibian Functions N/A low fish habitat _ moderate fish habitat _ high fish habitat = low mammal habitat X_ moderate mammal _ high mammal habitat points: 11 (max 12) low bird habitat moderate bird habitat X_ high bird habitat CulturaU — low educational opportunities X_ moderate educational _ high educational SOcioeco- — — opportunities opportunities nomic low aesthetic value moderate aesthetic value X_ high aesthetic value X_ lacks commercial fisheries, _ moderate commercial _ high commercial agriculture,renewable resources fisheries,agriculture, fisheries,agriculture, renewable resources — renewable resources - X_ lacks historical or archeological historical or important historical resources archeological site or archeological site lacks passive and active _ some passive and active X_ many passive and recreational opportunities recreational opportunities active recreational points: 14 opportunities (max 21) X_ privately owned _ privately owned,some _ unrestricted public — public access access - not near open space some connection to open I X_ directly connected to Notes: Draft Wetlands Study Appendix C South 180th Street Grade Separation C-3 April 1999 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland# C Staff KF Date 3/17/99 Location: Section 36 Township 23N Range 4E Criteria ' Function Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Flood/Storm X size<5 acres size 5-10 acres size>10 acres Water Control _ riverine or lakeshore wetland _ mid-sloped wetland X_ depressions, X_ <10%forested cover 10-30%forested cover >30%forested cover M _ unconstrained outlet = semi-constrained X_ culvert/bermed outlet points: 9 (max 15) X_ located in lower 1/3 of the located in middle 1/3 location in upper 1/3 drainage of the drainage of the drainage ' Base Flow/ X size<5 acres — size 5-10 acres size>10 acres Ground Water riverine or Lakeshore wetland mid-sloped wetland X_ depressions, Support X_ located in lower 1/3 of the _ located in middle 1/3 _ located in upper 1/3 of drainage of the drainage the drainage X_ temporarily flooded or saturated _ seasonally or semi- _ permanently flooded permanently flooded or saturated,or or saturated intermittently exposed _ no flow-sensitive fish _ low flow-sensitive fish X_ high flow-sensitive points: 9 populations on-site or populations on-site or populations (max 15) downstream downstream contiguous with site in highly permeable strata Erosion/ — sparse grass/herbs or no veg _ sparse wood or veg _ dense wood or veg Shoreline along OHWM along OHWM along OHWM Protection N/A wetland extends<30 in from _ wetland extends 30-60 _ wetland extends>200 OHWM in from OHWM in from OHWM highly developed shoreline or _ moderately developed _ undeveloped shoreline points: N/A subcatchment shoreline or or subcatchment (max 6) subcatchment Water Quality rapid flow throueh site X moderate flow throueh slow flow throueh site Improvement _ <50%veg cover _ 50-80%cover X_ >80%veg cover _ upstream in basin from wetland _ #50%of basin X_ >50%of basin points: 9 is undeveloped upstream from upstream from (max 12) wetland is developed wetland is developed X_ holds<25%overland runoff _ holds 25-50% _ holds>50%overland overland runoff runoff N/A=Not Applicable, N/I=No information available r Draft Wetlands Study Appendix C South 180th Street Grade Separation C-4 April 1999 r Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment Criteria Function Group 1 1 Pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Natural X_ size<5 acres _ size 5-10 acres _ size> 10 acres Biological X_ ag land,low veg structure _ 2 level veg _ high veg structure Support X_ seasonal surface water _ permanent surface water _ open water pools ' X_ one habitat type _ two habitat types _ 3 3 habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PAB POW PEM PFO EST PSS PFO EST X_ low plant diversity(<6 species) _ moderate plant diversity _ high plant diversity (7-15 species) (>15 species) X_ >50%invasive species _ 10 to 50%invasive _ <10%invasive X_ low primary productivity _ moderate primary _ high primary X_ low organic accumulation _ moderate organic _ high organic X_ low organic export _ moderate organic export _ high organic export points: 12 X_ few habitat features — some habitat features — many habitat (max 36) X_ buffers very disturbed buffers slightly disturbed buffers not X_ isolated from upland habitats _ partially connected to _ well connected to Overall X_ size<5 acres — size 5-10 acres — size> 10 acres Habitat X_ low habitat diversity moderate habitat high habitat Functions X_ low sanctuary or refuge _ moderate sanctuary or _ high sanctuary or points: 3 (max 9) Specific X_ low invertebrate habitat _ moderate invertebrate _ high invertebrate Habitat X_ low amphibian habitat _ moderate amphibian _ high amphibian Functions N/A low fish habitat _ moderate fish habitat _ high fish habitat X_ low mammal habitat = moderate mammal = high mammal points: 4 (max 12) X_ low bird habitat moderate bird habitat high bird habitat Cultural/ X_ low educational opportunities _ moderate educational _ high educational Socioeco- opportunities opportunities ' nomic X_ low aesthetic value _ moderate aesthetic value _ high aesthetic value X_ lacks commercial fisheries, _ moderate commercial _ high commercial agriculture,renewable resources fisheries,agriculture, fisheries, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources X_ lacks historical or archeological _ historical or _ important historical resources archeological site or archeological site points: 8 X_ lacks passive and active _ some passive and active _ many passive and (max 21) recreational opportunities recreational opportunities active recreational — — opportunities X_ privately owned privately owned,some unrestricted public public access access not near open space X_ some connection to open _ directly connected Notes: r Draft Wetlands Study Appendix C South 180th Street Grade Separation C-5 April 1999 ' APPENDIX E ' Planting Plan and Details 4 -2 _ __i _ _ BNSF RAILROAD 2• 0 0 WET MEAIX41 WET t-TAPVW 0 a LLJ Ext 41 J —um K7 0 00 0 0 0 011 0 0W Tu —a• tw C44 1 F�ACCESS ROAD 0 20 40 SCALE 1'*=20'-0" by date CONSULTANTS \\)o I L ]PLT1131,11CZ' WORKS IE)IEIP-r- designed rw/CK)1/04/01 L— 00 drawn DC )1/04/01 o D. —ENGINEERING—STREETS—WATER—SEWER—PARKS—BUILDING— 333(1 9TH AVENUE SOUTH PLANTING PLAN sheet-- of -- checked JB )1/04/01 0000) FEDERAL WAY,WASHINGTON job no I.A. BRIERRIAR proj en CW MC"IABAM 9W,3-2600 ASS001011.PIRO proj dir VOICE:(206�431-2300 scale I" = 20' 19oB 1"4100600 stabikou I FAX (206)431-2250 SOUTH 180th STREET LANDSCAPE PLAN /pleam"I 41d bk no 111111mor I I no Idate revisions date 01/04/0 H l� PROJECT LIMITS PROJECT LIMITS OPEN WATER EXISTING 5NS1 I FOREST SWAMP SCRUB/SHRUB HUMMOCK TO ENABLE LET MEADOW SCRUB/ SHRUB WCCH EMERGENT HUMMOCK TO ENABLE FOREST SWAMP WET MEADOW I EXISTING WETLAND ACCESS RAIL LINE I ZONE ZONE CONS PLANTING ZONE ZONE SHOREL�E PLANTINGS CONIFER PLANTING ZONE ZONE I HABITAT ROAD "LANTING ~` HABITAT SNAG ; A EXISTING " GRADE k 1 . r: R, . 9 . f: \ G / SUJ 9 IaOTH WETLAND MITIGATION T- '-F ICAL SECTION SCALE 1"=201 H w by date CONSULTANTS �J`wl`A I I TBLIC WORKS DEFT• designed 1,%/o 9 `P= drawn [� 33301 9TH AVENUE SOUTH WETLAND SECTION —ENGINEERING—STREETS—WATER—SEWER—PARKS—BUILDING— sheet of checkec Jg 426/O' z FEDERAL WAY,WA3HINGTON 6 0 SUM. BROW proj eng CW BERGER ABAM M=3-2600 job no �s N~ iusooi�ms.'lW proj dir VOICE:(20W)431-2300 SOUTH 180th STREET LANDSCAPE PLAN Cole ' t909 IwMee�earNilwo FAX: (206)431-2250 //M�NM field bk no no date revisions date PLANT LIST CONIFEROUS TREES HERBACEOUS & WETLAND PLANT MIX BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE CONDITION SPACING INDICATOR BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE/CONTAINER DEPTH STATUS ABIES GRANDIS GRAND FIR 4'-5' B&B/CONT. AS SHOWN UPL PLANTING MIX 1 (SHALLOW FRESH MARSH PLANTS) PICEA SITCHENSIS SITKA SPRUCE 2'-3' B&B/CONT. AS SHOWN FACU PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESI DOUGLAS FIR 4'-5' B&B/CONT. AS SHOWN UPL \ ALISMA PLAN TAGO-AQUATICA AMERICAN WATER PLANTAIN 6-12" HEIGHT/BAREROOT 0"-6" THUJA PLICATA WESTERN RED CEDAR 4'-5' B&B/CONT. AS SHOWN FAC \ *CAREX OBNUPTA SLOUGH SEDGE 6-12" HEIGHT/BAREROOT 0"-6" THUJA PLICATA WESTERN RED CEDAR 2'-3' B&B/CONT. AS SHOWN FAC *SCIRUS MICROCARPUS SMALL FRUITED BULRUSH 4" POT 0"-6" ELOCHARIS PALUSTRIS SPIKE RUSH 6-12" HEIGHT/BARER00T 0"-6" LYSICHITUM AMERICANUM SKUNK CABBAGE 4" POT O"_6" DECIDUOUS TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE CONDITION SPACING INDICATOR PLANTING MIX 2 (SHALLOW FRESH MARSH PLANTS) STATUS ELOCHARIS PALUSTRIS SPIKE RUSH 4" POT 0 -12 ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE 2'-3' B&B/CONT AS SHOWN UPL *JUNCUS ENSIFOLIUS DAGGER LEAF RUSH 4" POT 0"-10" ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 2'-3' B&B/CONT. AS SHOWN UPL *SPARGANIUM EMERSUM NARROW LEAF BURRED 6-12" HEIGHT/BAREROOT 1"-10" CRATAEGUS DOUGLASII DOUGLAS HAWTHORN 2'-3' B&B/CONT. AS SHOWN FAC VERATRUM CALIFORNICUM CALIFORNIA FALSE HELLEBORE 4" POT 0"-6" FRAXINUS LATIFOLIA OREGON ASH 2'-3' B&B/CONT. AS SHOWN FACW POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 2'-3' B&B/CONT. AS SHOWN FAC PLANTING MIX 3 (SHALLOW FRESH MARSH PLANTS) PYRUS FUSCA WESTERN CRABAPPLE 2'-3' B&B/CONT. AS SHOWN FAC+ *JUNCUS BALTICUS BALTIC RUSH 4" POT O"-10" JUNCUS ENSIFOLIUS DAGGER LEAF RUSH 4" POT 0""-10"' SHRUBS OENANTHE SARMENTOSA WATER-PARSLEY 6-12" HEIGHT/BAREROOT 0"-12" INDICATOR *POLYGONUM AMPHIBIUM WATER SMARTWEED 6-12" HEIGHT/BAREROOT 0"-10" BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE CONTAINER SPACING STATUS PLANTING MIX 4 (STRICTLY SHALLOW.FRESH MARSH PLANTS) AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA SERVICEBERRY 1 GAL. CONTAINER AS SHOWN FACU ALISMA PLAN TAGO-AQUA TICA AMERICAN WATER PLANTAIN 6-12" HEIGHT/BAREROOT 1"-6" CORNUS SERICEA RED TWIG DOGWOOD 1 GAL. BR/TRANS.GRD AS SHOWN FACW CAREX OBNUPTA SLOUGH SEDGE 4" POT 0"-6" HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR OCEANSPRAY 1 GAL CONTAINER AS SHOWN UPL *JUNCUS BALTICUS BALTIC RUSH 6-12" HEIGHT/BAREROOT 0"-10" LONICERA INVOLUCRATA BLACK TWINBERRY 1 GAL CONTAINER AS SHOWN FAC *SCIRPUS MICROCARPUS SMALL FRUITED BULRUSH 4" POT 0"-6" MYRICA GALE SWEET GALE 1 GAL CONTAINER AS SHOWN FACU OSMARONIA CERASIFORMIS INDIAN PLUM 1 GAL. CONTAINER AS SHOWN UPL PLANTING MIX 5 (DEEP MARSH PLANTS) PHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS PACIFIC NINEBARK 1 GAL. CONTAINER AS SHOWN FACW *CARDS AC LATIFOLIA ARROWHEAD,BULRUWAPATSH 6-12" HEIGHT/BAREROOT 1"-18" RIBES SANGUINEUM RED FLOWERING CURRANT 1 GAL. CONTAINER AS SHOWN UPL SCIRPUS A ALIDUUTUS HARDSTEM BULRUSH 4" POT 1"-18" SALIX HOOKERIANA HOOKER'S WILLOW 1 GAL. CONTAINER AS SHOWN FACW- *SCIRPUS VALIDUS SOFTSTEM BULRUSH 4" POT 0"-24" SALIX LUCIDA SSP. LASIANDRA PACIFIC WILLOW 1 GAL. CONTAINER AS SHOWN FACW+ PLANTING MIX 6 (DEEP MARSH PLANTS) SALIX SCOULERIANA SCOULER'S WILLOW 1 GAL. CONTAINER AS SHOWN FAC SALIX SITCHENSIS SITKA WILLOW 1 GAL. CONTAINER AS SHOWN FACW - N CIRPUPHAR PVALIDU ALUM YELLOW POND LILY 1 GAL. POT 0"-24" SAMBUCUS RACEMOSA RED ELDERBERRY 1 GAL. CONTAINER AS SHOWN FACU *SCIRPUS VALIDUS SOFTSTEM BULRUSH 4" POT 0"-24" VIBURNUM EDULE HIGHBUSH CRANBERRY 1 GAL. CONTAINER AS SHOWN FACU ABBREVIATIONS: SMALL SHRUBS O.C. - ON CENTER BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE CONTAINER SPACING INDICATOR STATUS HERBACEOUS PLANTING NOTES: CORNUS SERICEA RED-TWIG DOGWOOD LIVE STAKE CUTTING 24" O.0 FACW * BEFORE TEXT INDICATES PRIMARY SPECIES WITHIN EACH PLANTING MIX. MIX IS TO BE COMPRISED GAULTHERIA SHALLON SALAL 1 GAL. CUTTING 24" O.0 FACU OF 70% PRIMARY SPECIES, SPLIT EVENLY WHEN THERE ARE TWO SPECIES. THE REMAINING 30% ROSA GYMNOCARPA SALDHIP ROSE 1 GAL. CONTAINER 24" O.0 UPL OF THE MIX IS TO BE SPLIT EVENLY BETWEEN THE OTHER SECONDARY SPECIES ROSA PISOCARPA CLUSTERED ROSE 1 GAL. CONTAINER 24" G C FAC ROSA NUTKANA NOOTKA ROSE 1 GAL. CONTAINER' 24" O.C. FAC PLANT INDIVIDUAL SPECIES IN GROUPS OF 10-20 PLANTS WITHIN EACH PLANTING AREA SALIX SCOULERIANA SCOULER'S WILLOW LIVE STAKE CUTTING 24" O.C. FAC SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS SNOWBERRY 1 GAL. CONTAINER 24" O.C. FACU VACCINEUM CAESPITOSUM DWARF BLUEBERRY 1 GAL. CONTAINER 24" O.C. FACW Inv M.vN�mi 0 20 40 wo Ea SCALE 1"=20'-0" h by date CONSULTANTS �JV-WILA � PUBLIC WORKS DEPT- designed , 4 9s drawn DC 1/04/01 PLANT LIST a Z � FEDERAL AVENUE SOUTH sheet-- of — o —ENGINEERING—STREETS—WATER—SEWER—PARKS—BUILDING— checked JB 1/04/01 FEOERAL ALWAY,WASHINGTON S.A. BRERAAA ro en CW job no-- � / /�/� ! �■.w P i e BERGER/.4BAM 98W8-26D0 �S 0 Allool s.pw PrOJ dl( E N 8 i N F E■E 1■e. VOICE:(2W)431-2300 scale 1' = 20' SOUTH 180th STREET LANDSCAPE PLAN * 1908 * field bk no FAX ( 1"�� no date revisions date Ot/04/Ot P y — rc - -- - - --_ - .- - ,' y x -_ -_ - � ..__ a __ _ __. - I __ BNSF RAILROAD ' - -- --- SCIS ..l_' - .. .. -_ :.: __ A - --\ r - ■ '� — x — ( 22.2 ` - s —r ' ; - N 22.2 jr, a f 22.2 V a is v✓ ------ 0 j r A L, aV � ti v r� ll ++ t r Cr, ui f r" 1 l I 2 P {1(I '` ✓` _ I � r r c ------------- II r 1 I� , '- w r : : r � � r F ` a-a a rs •-- J - �.. ACCESS ROAD r r-�. cu eau.'ra 0 20 4-0 i r1Omaorea JY6 A®BMIN SCALE 1"=20'—0" PUBLIC WCJRKS DEFT.I l by date CONSULTANTS designed L— 00 q !y / i/04/OY 4 p Z drawn DC 1/04/0.1 GRADING PLAN o - —ENGINEERING—STREETS—WATER—SEWER—PARKS—BUILDING— 333019THAVENUESOUTH sheet-- of -- > checked dB t/04/Ot FEDERAL.WAY,WASHINGTON y I.A. dRF.AAAA proj erg Cw BERGER/ABAM 9B003-261)0 job no-- - nssoolms.IKW proj dir f °E e F °r. VOICE:(206�431-230o SOUTH 180th STREET LANDSCAPE PLAN — revisions scale a 20' 1908 ` IaedroapearohlMe4 �. FAX: (206)431-2250 - Jplo��ev field bk no no date date 01/04/01 15 BRANCHES MIN. 3-8cm DIA. MIN. CUT 6 CAVITIES s v (PROJECT TOTAL) Q v n AS DIRECTED BY PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT vD q o OWNER. BALL IS EVEN WITH THE ip Z NEW SNAG TREE FINISHED GRADE uj CEDAR, SPRUCE OR DOUGLAS FIRvi w of a > 2 STRAND TRISTED 12 GUAGE q PROVIDE: GAL. WIRE ENCASED IN 3cm DIA. v 1/3 OF TOTAL SNAGS fin+ 10m HEIGHT, 60cm DIA. RUBBER HOSE 1/3 OF TOTAL SNAGS @ 7m HEIGHT, 50cm DIA. STAKES 1/3 OF TOTAL SNAGS ® 5m HEIGHT, 45cm DIA. PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT LODGEPOLE PINE DRIVEN (MIN. 18"NE FIRMLY BALL IS EVEN WITH THE Q FINISHED GRADE INTO SUBGRADE PRIOR TO BACKFILLING — FINISH GRADE BARK MULCH I FORM SAUCER STAKE ABOVE FIRST BRANCHES II I II I III III COMPACTED SOIL OR AS NECESSARY FOR FIRM FORM MULCH SUPPORT SAUCE Hill 1 _ ICI-1II�iI — I— ICI—III�II =1 i i—III i 1=I I I—i"— I I—III I I=f I� I I I E I I II I I I II I II I I- SPECIFIED PLANTING MIX _ _ — — SPECIFIED PLANTING MIX — — WATER & TAMP TO =1 lI 15cm WATER & TAMP TO —I i I �I-I -I I II iI I �_I _- -I __ —III— I I III—III III—I I I1 REMOVE AIR POCKETS I I-1 I I�I I=III—III—III- REMOVE AIR POCKETS I I=I I I I I I—I I a I I �- E —IIII III—III III—III— I=1 I I=1 I I�—�I I I I I I I I I I I —III-1 I I I I I O — I III—�I-1.1�- I I I I- i I I III—III III— VARIES, SEE NOTE 2 X BALL DIA. 2 X BALL DIA. 60cm MAX. q HABITAT SNAG TREE g CONIFER TREE PLANTING C TREE PLANTING AND STAKING SCALE: NOT TO SCALE SCALE: NOT TO SCALE SCALE: NOT TO SCALE NOTE: MULCH COMPLETELY USE OF ON SITE TREES BETWEEN ALL PLANTS EXCEPT REMOVED AS PART OF IN SEEDED AREAS CLEARING REQUIREMENT #5 BAR DOWEL MIN. 2 PER LOG — IS ACCEPTABLE. PROVIDE DRILL & DOWEL LOGS AT OVERLAPPING POINTS CEDAR, FIR, OR SPRUCE TO SECURE LOGS LOGS. PROVIDE MYLAR RIBBON ON BAMBOO STAKES MULCH TO PROTECT NEW PLANTINGS FROM WILD— #5 BAR—DRIVE THRU LOG AT ANGLE 45cm — 6OJcm DIA. x 5-8m LOGS. LIFE CO UMPTION AS REQUIRED_ TO ANCHOR LOG IN PLACE LOCATE AS SHOWN ON PLANS MIN. 3 PER LOG — BURY LOGS TO ANCHOR _ _ _ _ 3' MULCH SLOPE VARIES POND — I— I�I I—III~I FORM SAUCER WITH SEE PLANS >1 .I I 3" CONTINUOUS RIM POND ELEVATION n� I— — II' CONTAINER PLANTING — I I— , FIRMLY EMBEDED IN MUD BURY LOG PLACE STRIPPED TOPSOIL (FROM WETLAND) I II �I I I III �I I I� TO ANCHOR /! II —I OVER WETLAND SUBGRADE AT A DEPTH OF 8cm I "THEN PLACE 8cm OF IMPORTED TOPSOIL" SPECIFIED PLANTING MIX I USE CHICKEN WIRE PROTECTION IF REQUIRED WATER & TAMP TOREMOVE AIR POCKETS PRUNE LIMBS BACK TO TUBERS CORMS, AND ROOTS WHEN WILDLIFE CONSUMPTION IS A PROBLEM 1 WITHIN 30cm OF TRUNK (TYPICAL) PLANTED & WEIGHTED WITH 8d NAIL SEE PLANT LIST FOR AQUATIC PLANTING DEPTH CHART 1(— SUBGRADE 2 X BALL DIA. D LOG HABITAT DETAIL E AQUATIC PLANTING DETAIL F SMALL TREE/SHRUB PLANTING a� SCALE: NOT TO SCALE SCALE: NOT TO SCALE SCALE: NOT TO SCALE ELSez n BID wurMc ao.w .0.on" BW"E Wk.l by date CONSULTANTS PUBLIC WORKS DEFT_ L- 00 designed 1 04 Ot a —ENGINEERING—STREETS—WATER—SEWER—PARKS—BUILDING— ddra n d D 7/0044/01 `� 33301 9TH AVENUE SOUTH LANDSCAPE DETAILS sheet-- of -- z FEDERAL WAY,WASHINGTON ti i.e. 00E2111106 proj eng CW HERC,ER/AHAM 98003-2600 job no-- �S w�� mmolo f.mw proj dir VOICE:(2M)431-2300 scale 1' — 20' • 1908 ,,�,"of*membw � FAX: (��1-2250 SOUTH 180th STREET LANDSCAPE PLAN YYlr// field bk no no date revisions date 01/04/01 RAISED PLANTING AREA GRADE TO BE 12-18" #5 BAR-DRIVE THRU ABOVE FINISHED GRADE LOG AT AN ANGLE TO ANCHOR LOG IN PLACE MIN 24" IN LENGTH WITH o fir' GROVE OF CONIFERS TO BE A MIN OF 3 PER LOG. PLANTED PER PLAN LOGS FROM ON SITE CLEARING TO BE 10-20' IN LENGTH AND MIN. OF 12" IN DIAMETER. LOGS FROM ON SITE CLEARING #5 BAR-DRIVE THRU LOG AT AN SLOPE VARIES TO BE 1D-20' IN LENGTH AND ANGLE TO ANCHOR LOG IN PLACE I, SEE PLANS MIN. OF 12" IN DIAMETER. MIN. 3 PER LOG — — _ 1/3 DIA. OF LOG �I��'II, IIHII-II1= / HIHIIII� IL �IIII III�I- o o RAISED PLANTING AREA GRADE TO BE 12-18" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE SUBGRADE LOG HUMMOCK PLAN DETAIL H LOG HUMMOCK SECTION ' -- SCALE: NOT TO SCALE -- SCALE: NOT TO SCALE immq I I urt is m by date CONSULTANTS ��` q PUBLIC WORKS DEFT• designed , 04 01 L- 00 4s � —ENGINEERING—STREETS—WATER—SEWER—PARKS—BUIt_DING— drawn 221 04 01 � 333019TH AVENUE SOUTH LANDSCAPE DETAILS sheet— of — f Z checked JB 1/04/01 FEDERAL WAY,WASHINGTON JI.A. �AA prof eng Cw BERGER/ABAM 98003-2E00 job no-- � } E451rEFP51- �r. 1908 asswims.pw proj dir VOICE:(1.06}131-2300 SOUTH 180th STREET LANDSCAPE PLAN scale 1' - 21Y k�MW FAX: (206)431-2250 1l 0► field bk no no date revlslans date 01/ /01