HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LVAIO-OU,
Wetland Delineation Report
for the Short Plat of the
"JERICHO A VE. PROPERTY"
Site located at
126xx Jericho Av. NE, Renton, W A 98506
Tax Parcel No. 1023059069
City Of C>
Pr· •. 'lfN}to Situated in the
SE y" of the SE Y. of
Section 10-T23N-R5E, W.M.,
King County, Washington
Prepared for
Andy Cairnes (Owner/Applicant)
Cairnes Construction LLC
14845 SE 264'h St.
Kent, W A 98042
Cell: 206-200-6370
Voicemail/Fax: 253-639-7909
E-mail: cairncsllc0lcol11cast.net
Jauuary 22, 2010
Prepared by
JOHN COMIS ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Ronsulting for Wetlands, Streams & Mitigation Designs since 198~
2106 Pacific Ave, #200
Tacoma, W A 98402
Phone: 253-272-6808
Mobile: 253-686-4007
E-mail: icolllis(iPjobncomisassociates.com
See our webpage at www.johncornisassociates.com
(leA lob #09(203)
dlnill) " n 9 /) 1I/1'sl' . on
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~JOHN COMIS ASSOCIATES, Inc.
R:onsulting for Wetlands, Streams & Mitigation Designs since 198~
2106 Pacific Ave. #200
Tacoma, W A 98402
Phone: 253-272-6808
Mobile: 253-686-4007
E-mail: icomis({i;.johncomisassociates.com
See our webpage at www.johncomisassociates.com
January 22, 2010
CITY OF RENTON
Development Services Division
lOSS South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98057
Attention: Loraine Nicola, Planner, 425-430-7294
SUBJECT: Wetland Delineation Report (or the Short Plat ofthe Jericho Ave. Propertv. located
at 126xx Jericho Av. NE, Parcel No. 1023059069, situated in the City of Renton in the SE Y< of the SEY< of
Section 10-T23N-R5E, W.M., King County, W A (JCA Job#091203)
To Whom It May Concern:
This report and the wetland delineation are prepared by John Comis Associates (lCA) at the
request of Andy Cairnes, Cairnes Construction LLC (Owner/Applicant), for the Short Plat of the
2.96 acre property located at 126xx Jericho Av. NE, Parcel No. 1023059069, and situated in the
City of Renton (see Figure 6 for proposed Site Plan).
JCA has completed a routine on site delineation of Wetland "A" that exists within the site
boundary.! The onsite delineation includes standard requirements for critical wetland areas in
accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) for Critical Area Regulations (RMC
4-3-050). The field investigation included delineation and rating of the "regulated wetland"
within 315 feet l of the project site.
The enclosed Field Note Sketch Map (FNSM, see Appendix 2) shows consecutively numbered
data points around the boundary of the delineated wetland. The field notes also show other
points such as sample test plots (TP), habitat features such as vegetation lines, landmark trees,
houses, fences, drainage patterns, and various other site-specific information (see attached sketch
map for details).
1 Wetlands are delineated using the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, March 1997, prepared by
the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOI::: Publication #96-94). This State Wetlands Manual is required to be used by all
state agencies in the application of any state la'W~ and regulations as well as any city or county in the implementation of any
regulations under the Gro'Wth Management Act. This methodology is consistent with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual. [see Appendix I, Methodology, for details]
2 The 315-foot distance is the maximum butTer width for the highest rated Category I wetland. This represents a distance from
which a "regulated activity" should not impact a "'regulated wetland" (see RMC for definitions, exemptions and buffers).
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Com is Associates
Date: 01/2211 0
Page I of 5 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Please note that Wetland A extends ofrsite to the north and south of the subject property. The
onsite portion is delineated by JCA as shown on the FNSM (Appendix 2). These data points
have been located as shown on the Wetland Delineation Map (Figure 5). These points are land
survey located by Dan Touma of Touma Survey.
The Site Plan Map (Figure 6) is prepared based on this information by Offe Engineers. It shows
details of the building lot layouts, setbacks and buffer boundary fencing and sign locations that
will be completed for the final plat after the preliminary plat is approved by the City.
At this time, the wetland boundary points (A#) and sample test plots (TP#) are survey located
and plotted to scale (I "=50 feet) on a Wetland Delineation Map (Figure 5). Please note that all
the surveyed flagged points are located as close to the actual flag location as possible. This
corresponds to a point on the ground directly below the actual flag location.
The surveyor has computed the size of the onsite portion of wetland for this study. JCA has
computed offsite portions of wetland areas by approximate methods that we have used to prepare
the wetland analysis and rating.
WETLAND SURVEY
The data points are flagged with colored ribbon marked as follows:
• "WETLAND DELINEATION-number" (pink ribbon, tied to vegetation, see circled numbers and
points on sketch map)
• "TEST PLOT -number" (blue and green ribbons, tied to vegetation, see triangles on sketch map)
The data points are marked and numbered as follows:
• Wetland 'A' (#Al to #A43)
• 8 Test Plots (TPI thru TP8)
[Note that other test holes were examined in various onsite and offsite locations by JCA, but
these are not required for survey (see site visit by lCA, 3110105)]
Please note that other flags were found tied to vegetation in this area but they appear to consist
mostly of blue ribbons and a few old delineation flags (faded pink ribbons). These approximate
locations are indicated on our filed note sketch maps (FNSM).
SUMMARY OF WETLAND FINDINGS
The onsite and adjacent offsite wetland unit is designated by this study as Wetland "A".
Generally, the study unit for Wetland A is small, hydrologically connected to a large storm drain
system that flows into the wetland from the west under Jericho Av and out to the south under 4th
Ct NE, and into a regional storm water detention pond facility that is owned and maintained by
the City. The adjacent storm water control facilities and storm drains are exempt from Renton
Municipal Code (RMC) regulations for 'critical wetland areas'. However, the on site and
adjacent offsite portions of Wetland A are found to be a "regulated wetland".
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/22110
Page 2 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Vegetation classes within the regulated wetland area are evaluated in accordance with the RMC
requirements. These are generally characterized in accordance with Coward in et al ' as follows:
WL: SYSTEM CLASS WATER REGIME (abbreviation)
A Palustrine Forested! scrub-shrub/ emergent seasonally flooded, (PFO/ss/emCd)
partially drained
I have checked other parts of the site and adjacent offsite areas and there do not appear to be any
other regulated jurisdictional wetlands onsite or within 300 feet ofthe site boundary.
SUMMARY OF WETLAND RATING AND BUFFER REOUIRMENTS
All of the on site and adjacent offsite wetland area is rated by JCA in accordance with the RMC
requirements, using the current WDOE "Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western
Washington", August 2004 and revised 2006 (WDOE Pub #04-06-025).
Wetland A is classified as "depressionaf' by the WDOE hydrogeomorphic classification system.
Wetland A is categorized (or rated) Category 3 by this method having a total score for functions
at 46 points; water quality functions score at 22; hydrologic functions score at 8; and habitat
functions score at 16. This rating is based on our field observations of wetland conditions that
exist at the time of this study. (See Appendix 3 for details and a copy of the WDOE rating form
completed by JCA on 12111/09).
In accordance with RMC 4.3.050.M.l.a.ii, the wetland is not rated Category 2 because it meets
one or more of the following criteria:
(c) The wetland is located at the headwaters ofa watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or
seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel; andlor
(d) The wetland has existing evidence of human-related physical alteration. There is evidence of
an old driveway or road crossing the wetland near delineation point's #A23 and #A30 with filling
across the wetland corridor and 2 existing 12" diameter culverts, with the associated
channelization of drainage through this area.
In accordance with RMC 4.3 .050.M.l.a.iii, the wetland is rated Category 3 because it meets one
or more of the following criteria:
(a) The wetland has been severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet
the following criteria:
(I) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as
diking, ditching, channelization andlor outlet modification [The wetland is part of an artificial
pond and drainage system established by the City for storm water control]; and
(2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal andlor compaction of soils
[See the old roadway fill crossing Wetland "A" with 2-12" dia culverts near #A30]; and
(3) May have altered vegetation.
(b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are:
(I) Wetlands occurring on top offill materials; and
(2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by
wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and
Black River Drainage Basin.
3 US Fish and Wildlife Service's "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States", FWS/OBS-79!31
(Cowardin et ai, 1979)
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/22110
Page 3 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(c) 1\11 other wetlands not classified as Category I or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands
[This is applicable to Wetland "A" in this area as it is fed from the west by the subdivision
drainage and culvert under Jericho Av NE, and drains south into a storm sewer system under
NE 4th Court to a stonn water detention pond along the north side ofNE 4'h St.]
The standard buffer width is required to be 25 feet for this category of wetland in accordance
with the RMC 4.3.0S0.M.6.a.iii, and 4.3.0S0.M.6.c.i. Wetland buffers are required to be retained
in their natural condition. Category 3 wetland buffers of twenty five feet (2S') are required to be
fully vegetated with native species. Otherwise buffer widths may be increased to protect
functions and values. [The 25-foot buffer around the onsite portion of Wetland "A" is densely vegetated
with a variety of native plant species that do not require restoration or enhancement with a more diverse
plant community than already exists in this area.]
The measurement of the buffer boundary shall be from the surveyed wetland boundary as
established in the field pursuant to the requirements of subsection M4a of the Methodology
Section (RMC 4.3.060.M.6.b.). Buffer boundaries shall be measured horizontally from the
flagged wetland delineation points nearest to the new plat development (see Figure 6 for the
details of building lot layout and buffer plan).
The standard buffer width is determined according to the wetland category. If the standard
buffer width cannot be met, and a buffer reduction cannot be accomplished per RMC Subsection
M.6.e, and buffer averaging cannot be accomplished per RMC Subsection M.6.f, then a variance
to buffer requirements may be requested per RMC 4.3.0S0.N, Alternates, Modifications and
Variances, and RMC 4.9.2S0.B, Variance Procedures. If the criteria in subsection M.6.d are
met, standard buffers may be increased.
To protect the buffer functions in accordance with RMC 4.3.0S0.M.6.c.ii, the Reviewing Official
"shall condition permits as appropriate to the nature of the development". Conditions of
approval may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Fencing pursuant to subsection E4e, and signage pursuant to subsection E4f, shall be
constructed along the buffer boundary in the areas nearest to new lot development as shown on the
final site plan to limit disturbances. [See Figure 6 for proposed fence and sign locations. Note that
the fencing is only proposed along the buffer boundary in the areas nearest to new lot
development.]
(b) Directing lights from buildings or parking areas, or noise-generating activities, away from the
wetland. [See Figure 5, which shows all of the wetland and buffer area orientated along the rear of
each lot and no new roadways in this area. Therefore no lights from new residential buildings or
vehicular traffic will be directed toward the wetland.]
(c) Implementing water quality treatment measures required in RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface
Water) Standards; [See the separate engineered drainage plan by Offe Engineers for stonn water
runoff control and treatment measures. These will be designed prior to final plat approval to be in
accordance with the current surface water drainage standards.]
(d) Avoidance of buffer disturbance and retention of the buffer in a natural condition consistent
with subsection M6a of this Section. [This requirement is met by the proposed buffer and wetland
preservation plan.]
No buffer modification is proposed at this time to decrease (or modifY) the standard buffer width.
The wetland buffer and its respective critical area shall be preserved and maintained as a separate
"no disturbance" open space tract as shown by this plat plan. A title notice shall be recorded
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0 1I221l 0
Page 4 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
with the County Auditor to provide notice in the public record of the presence of the critical area
and buffer within this site.
No regulated activity including building, clearing, filling or grading is permitted within
designated critical area, except as may be approved by the City for such reasons as hazard tree
removal or flood control. All regulated activities shall occur only in areas outside the final
buffer boundary.
Buffer boundaries shall be marked by a land surveyor, fences and signs shall be posted along the
boundary at locations indicated on fhe Site Plan Map (Figure 6). Typical sign and fence details
and construction infonnation are provided with the report in Appendix 4.
Responsibility for maintaining the onsite wetland and buffer areas shall be in accordance with
RMC requirements for native growth protection easements or tracts. The ownership of the
wetland and buffer tract shall be held by a homeowners' association, abutting lot owners, the
pennit applicant or designee, or other appropriate entity, as approved by the City.
Maintenance within the designated Critical Areas may include removal of invasive or noxious
weed species designated as noxious by the State of Washington such as Tansy ragwort (Tanacetum
vulgare) or Purple loosestrife (Lylhrumsalicaria). Invasive species include introduced and non-
native plants such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor or Rubus lociniatus), Scotch broom (Cytisus
scoparius), Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) or
English ivy (fledera spp.). Removal of invasive and noxious plants must be by hand methods such
as pulling, cutting or other approved method as may be allowed by the City. Disposal of plant
residue must be done in areas outside the regulated Critical areas and buffers.
STANDARD OF CARE
Please be advised that JCA has provided professional services that are in accordance with the
degree of care and skill generally accepted in the perfonnance of this environmental evaluation,
including wetland determinations, delineations, classifications, ratings and other analysis. This
should be reviewed and approved by the local government agency with pennitting authority and
potentially other agencies with regulatory authority prior to extensive site design or development.
No warranties are expressed or implied by this study until approved by the appropriate resource
and pennitting agencies.
The wetlands described in this report correctly represent detenninations and delineations made
by me or under my direct supervision. The findings and recommendations expressed in this
report are based on my professional judgment together with onsite and offsite investigations that
include data obtained from various sources as indicated in this report.
Please note that the Wetland Delineation Report is prepared for submittal to the City of Renton.
The report appendices include a detailed discussion of the methodology used including
applicable wetland regulations for the City of Renton, field data sheets, wetland rating fonns, and
other details. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, our findings or
recommendations, or if you need additional copies, please feel free to call me at your earliest
convenience.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 5 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WETLAND SPECIALIST CERTlFICA TlON
This report and the enclosed Wetland Delineation Map correctly represents the wetland
delineation made by me or under my direct supervision at the request of Andy Cairnes, Cairnes
Construction LLC, for the Short Plat of the Jericho Ave, Property located at 126xx Jericho Av.
NE, Parcel No. 1023059069, situated in the City of Renton in the SE 'j, of the SE", of Section
10-T23N-R5E, W.M" King County, WA.
"7 .....
n G. Comis, S ~-"
Certified Wetlands Speclahst
File: \Caimes@JerichoRpt.doc
Cc: Andy Cairnes, Owner! Applicant
Cairnes Construction LLC
14845 SE 264'" St.
Kent, WA 98042
Cell: 206-200-6370
Voicemail!Fax: 253-639-7909
E-mail: cairnesllc@comcast.net
Darrell Offe, PE, Project Engineer
Offe Engineers
13932 SE 159th Place
Renton, Washington 98058-7832
Office: 425-260-3412
Fax: 425-988-0292
E-mail: darrell.offe((vcomcast.net
Dan Touma, Touma Engineers & Land Surveyors
6632 South 191 Street Place, Suite E-102
Kent, WA 98032
Phone: 425-251-0665
Fax: 425-251-0625
E-mail: mhtoumarfilaol.com
FIGURES:
Dale t
Vicinity Map (Google satellite imagery, 2008)
(JCA Job#091203)
Figure I.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Parcel Map (Google imagery with overlay of King County GIS data, circa 2007)
Soil Survey Map (USDA NRCS, 1979)
Topography and Drainage Basin Map (USGS 7.5' Quadrangle, marked by JCA 2009)
Wetland Delineation Map (by leA, Offe Engineers and Touma Engineers & Surveyors, 2010)
Site Plan Map (by Offe Engineers, 20 I 0)
APPENDICES:
Appendix I. Methodology for Determination, Delineation, Regulations and Buffer Standards
Appendix 2. Field Note Sketch Map (FNSM) and Field Data Forms
Appendix 3. Wetland Rating Form
Appendix 4. Typical Details for Buffer Boundary Fence and Signs
Appendix 5. Resumes for Wetland and Wildlife Consultants
Appendix 6. References for Wetland Analysis
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Com is Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 6 of 55
I ,
· -..r.-;.,
" 0" '_~
I
I
I _~ ,'f-
I
I
Client/Owner:
I Cairnes Plat @ Renton
~ JOHN COMISASSOCIATES
Consulting tor ~t1ands. str ea m; & MIt ;g at iO n
[)(>sl(Jn s Since 1989
2106 PaclficA\lSn ue #200
Office (253) 272-6808
Fax (253) 683-2886 I
LEGEND
Ye ll ow = Project site boundary
Red = 315' Radi us
Andy Carines (Owner/C lient), Cairnes Construction LLC
For a new single -famil y resident ial plat in the C ity of Rento n
I Ta x Parcel No.1 023059069
J Site Address : 126xx Jeri cho Av. NE , Renton , WA 9 805 9
J Site Location : situated in the SE X of the SEX of Section 10 -
T23N-R5E , WM ., King County, Wash i ngton
MaD Sou rce : a portion of the "Google Earth " Aerial Photo Image
I (2007) and overlaid with NWI Data .
VICINITY MAP
o 500 1000
1"=1000
Fig:
1
I
I
I
I
,.. ,
Client/Owner:
Cairnes Plat @ Renton
~ JOHN COMIS ASSOCIATES
Cons un ing lor Wetlands , Strearrs & Mtig a tion
Desig ns s ince 1 989
2106 Pacific Aven ue #200
'e' Office : (2 53 ) 272-6808
Fa x: (2 53) 6 83 -2 8 86
LEGEND
Yellow = Project site
Map Sou rce: a portion of the King Co unty "iMAP"
GIS data base ; includes 2002 aerial photo w ith
parcels, streets and shows known wet lands and
st reams in this area .
~, :~l ~A~
o 50
1 "=1 00'
Fig:
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I LEGEN D
Yellow = Project site boundary
[Soils mapped in the project site by King County Soil Survey]
~B = "'derwood grave ll y sandy loam , 0-6% slopes I
A;)C ;; AJderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 -15% s lo p es
[Inclusions of other so il s that may be found in the 'AgB'-map unit
per King Co . Soils Survey m a y be up to 15 % poorly dra ined]:
N o = N o rma fine sandy loam , fla t-concave (h ydric) *
B h = Be lli ngham si lt loam , fl at <1 % s lopes (hydric) * I
8m = Shalcarmuck .
Tu = Tukwila muck'
[Other soils shown on the map in this vicinity]
EvB;; Eve rettgrave ll ysa n dy l oam , 0-5 % slopes I
• N ote : Hydric soils are b ased on the l ist p e r "H yd ric So ils of Ki n g Co u nty" by N RCS .
In clusi ons of o ther so il types may occur w ithin a map u nit. See Ki ng County So i l
Cli e nt/Owner: Survey report for soil descriptions .
Map Source: a portion of sheet 11 , Soi l Survey of Ki ng Cou nty, U SDA N RCS ,
Ca irnes Plat @ Renton Novem ber 1973
JOHN COMIS ASSOCIATES
, Cot1sl~1 "'1oI 1 Of 'NBllMr.ds 5" .. " ..... /I. Mltg'''oor> ~ Deos igns slf1c .. 1080 ~Oll ~~RVfY MA~ 2 1 0(1 P .. c;~c I\vanuo 11 200
O1ficn (253) 272·6600
F~x: (2'3) 603 ;WOO
0 SOO 1 DOO
~ 1"=1000'
Fig:
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C lie nt/Owner:
Cairnes Plat @ Renton
~ JOHN COMIS ASSOCIATES
, CO nsu ~lng f o r 'Netla nd s . St r e an"'6 8. Mt jga t ion
D:!S l{Jn s Since 1989
2106 Pacific A vnn ue #200
Offic e (25 3) 2 72 -6808
Fax (253) 683 -2886
Ye llow = Project Site Boundary
EI = Ca1ch basin
~ =Culvert
---=stream
~ = Surfoce dra inage pattErn
an enlarged pa1ion 01 the USGS Quadrangle Map from the
Geographic "TO PO!" da1. base@20-foot&10-foot
contour intervals .
lO~OGRA~HY & ~RAINAG~ MA~
o 500 1000
1 "=1 000'
Fig:
4
.~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SE 1/4, SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.
:394'
HE 5TH PLACE
r--~~--1 ----I ... I I I i ~-----7 " /~/ :~ , co" i 'lil: CO' 5 " ,/~,~<(.//,"~~~"<Jm~<7;;; ~ I I I I 0'" ::/"':>~0'/ /.' /' 'l/'~
....., _______ J I I ///': /// // /.. / .y/;' .. " //.A.·
L.. -r=-=:TIlIJ'::-=-=-------_~--...\1-f>!...---j /~-,/j/ //. : ___ ~f>/--,l// Ii"
g . : ~ ,_CC __ , ~ ... /i!7. ·5}P:>/}/ %
&": 1:2 I \..Oi~ i r-: I ///;;;%'~;:S:(/v ,~///>
ri! l_ '·1 ., 'co" : b ,;;;.0~.~~/~··./</'::t>// .. · o~ ------" I, " , ' . W:,/,,/ . '//%///// /J I I I' / / /~' //// ~ ~_~=_~=_-oC_'1 ' .. '. ,'V //./. // .•. 5'§)/;// ..... . !Ii ~ 100' +-.: ,=,w.----' . //~'//. "~</X:f%2;r?fi.:'/' 0 ~ § ~~_=====_! , r-=.:;--'/~.'/ /.//:%.' .//X;.~.. ' .. '.' /1 ::::» w ,,~ I I I' //~-.~: jR7/,./ /// ~ w ,-------, I' ': 'x:: ~";~'/ V ~/ '/' 11 g ~: ,,-011. : ; I _J I \..Oi1. : ,~/ -/('/'; .. '/./~~----': /A/'//.· •. :>/; >' I~' " :;::t;://x./,''/';; ~ ~ l__ :. R : ~'. ~<;% .. , .:/;?j, ,/;%/;'/
cl. _--===-"---'1;90'----.1 ,---~-----,'" '//-:); -/V" /:>~ iii ~ • io/"~ _ .. r -7',,' 7/ . V/%::>/;«// J "~ ""'G']://~~'/""'/;:::".;'.'~//:/"/"/" .. j(,'~." .' ;'~:';';Y;~"'./ 0~ .. ~/ ));" .... // .. ~ .. '~~~;/;';:'7////('; . ;:::a.s;{//,,;0/ ;:. ~~#'~/. /:/// ... // .,,:';//,;j)W';:: W//:/<. "%1///' ~./x.:'. -// %/:> ''l;!j ://< "/ -.c,'? _ _ ~ /~;;:;:/)/0:~;0: .;/ /> /:/< ;/:;;:;:/;::~
I
, :"'~\ ;;<;~;>///#~;/// /:>;<::::: //%£;,;;
£ 'CO" \ ,,/;///'/,;,~./%,., ,',~/@,,;,/ '////%///'
-j---J. '''>'' ... ,,//7. ,./ /,'/,/, ;'j// ... //,/.,.> .. /./ // ..... ! ~, . //. ;:::' / ,.y/':f5' //@// --ws'--_J / )'-/5«/ / <~,j(// ).// ~>-_// ", .. ,. ',_ -' ".',.'/ )V//, > // / /),'::
10 394'
HE 4TH COURT
!Ii
i ~
~
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED "" 38,703 SQ. FT. (30%)
Or:!;, S~A:-X P:-:".'iCEC 71,.381 SC) ,~T (55%)
DENSITY WORKSHEET:
Total Area = 129,010 sq. ft. (2.96 ocres)
Sensitive Area = (28,217 sq. ft.)
<Wetland A>
Access Road = (5.716 sq. ft.)
Dedicated R/w -(3,290 sq. ft.)
NET AREA = 91,787 sq. ft. (2.'1 acres)
PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS = 7
NET DENSITY = 7/2.11 = 3.32 DU!ACRE
OWNER: CAIRNES CONSTRUCTION, LLC
ATTN: ANDY CAIRNES
14845 SE 264th STREET
KENT, WASHINGTON 98042
(206) 200~6.370 OFFICE
(25.3) 639~7909 FAX
KC PARCEL NUMBER 1 02305~9069
•
GRAPHIC SCALE
o 25 50 100
REVISION 1/19/2010
I I; I
, Inch ~ 50 , •• f
I
~ c~~" .. ·····'··!'!~ ~""P~ .,,~, .;[f~!"i(" {,'&~~:'B!~
'.:ifli; ...... J/$ ~'-.
I
~ ~ p
o
I
II~
g
~I~
~ ..:lei '" 0 ~~ :.; ~ g
~f"~ @ 1'0 0 ~H~ 5
..:I z ~
:::!I i L
(if • I:' ~ • ~
5 ~ Z
...I :5 , z A. A. 0
~ 8 z
0
0 ::) 5 cr:: ::c Ii; U) Z U
U) 0 .... ..... I&.I·U A. Z II) A. D:: 1&1 III( Z S cr:: I
,1&.1 S ~D:: uA. ~ ~
u ~
DATE 12/22/2009
~~1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 1
METHODOLOGY FOR WETLAND
DETERMINATION, DELINEATION,
REGULATIONS AND BUFFER
STANDARDS
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/22/10
Page 70f55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
METHODOLOGY
A. APPROACH USED FOR WETLAND DETERMINATION
"Wetlands" are identified using the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual,
prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE), Publication #96-94, dated March
1997. The WDOE 1997 Wetlands Manual is required to be used by all state agencies in the application of
any state laws and regulations as well as any city or county codes in the implementation of critical area
regulations under the Growth Management Act.
The US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District has reviewed this manual and approved it as a version of
their Corps o{Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, January 1987. The
WDOE Wetlands Manual incorporates the amendments and clarifications in the 1991 and 1992 COE
documents that reflect more current technical information developed since the original COE Wetlands
Manual was published. It is the intent of the WDOE Wetlands Manual to have the same results occur in the
identification and delineation of wetland areas as would occur using the COE Manual.
The criteria which an investigator must use to detennine if a sample test plot is in a "wetland" or "non-
wetland area are limited to the presence of all 3 wetland criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
wetland hydrology. This means that to make a positive wetland determination, all 3 criteria must be
positive. The absence of one, two, or all three of the criteria should result in a non-wetland determination.
The presence or absence of "field indicators" is used to detennine if a criterion is met. Ifa field indicator is
absent, then an indirect indicator may be used. For example, the absence of inundation or saturation during
a dry summer field investigation could result in the hydrology criterion not being met. However, the
presence or absence of encrusted detritus on twigs or blackened leaves on bare ground in a depression may
be used to help verify sufficient inundation during a wetter period of the growing season.
The State Manual stipulates 3 key provisions of the definition of wetlands include:
a. Inundated or saturated soil conditions resulting from permanent or periodic inundation or
saturation by ground water or surface water (saturation within 12 inches of the surface for at least 20 to 30
consecutive days during periods in the Mesic growing season [March thru October]).
b. A prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (hydrophytic
vegetation).
c. The presence of "normal circumstances".
The selection of a specific method and procedure for identifying wetlands may follow one of the following
methods:
• the "routine detennination method" for undisturbed and non-problem area wetlands;
• the "offsite determination method" for areas within 300' oftbe site boundary; andlor
• the "disturbed area and problem area wetland determination procedures" for areas with disturbed or
atypical vegetation, soils or hydrology. If an area is disturbed, then a higher level of analysis such as a
"Comprehensive" detennination method may be required.
The preferred and simplest method is the "ROUTINE Determination Method" for tyjili:ill, generally
undisturbed areas with normal environmental conditions. The routine method is used in areas where the
vegetation, soils and hydrology condition can be readily observed.
For areas that are complex, atypical, disturbed or altered environmental conditions, a
"COMPREHENSIVE Determination Method" may be used. The comprehensive method employs transect
sampling procedures that may require deeper test holes to be dug in areas that have been filled or graded.
Generally, the investigator is looking for a portion of the site (called a test plot) where a "typical condition"
exists--where a well established plant community is present with no evidence of recent clearing, grubbing,
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/2211 0
Page 8 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
filling, grading, or soil drainage activities. This situation should occur during a period when "nonnal
circumstances" are present. That is during periods of the year when nonnal environmental conditions such
as moderate rainfall and average antecedent moisture conditions (AMe) exist within a wetland or a
watershed area.
For the hydrophytic vegetation criterion to be met, a dominant number (i.e. more than 50%) of"OBL,
FACW and/or FAC" indicator species must be present in the sample plot (see the discussion of these
abbreviations in a later section of this appendix). The vegetation analysis is based on the 3 dominant
species in each of 4 vegetation layers (or strata: trees, saplings/shrubs, herbs/grasses, and woody vines). Or
if only 1 or 2 vegetation layers exist at the test plot, then 5 dominant species are used to make the
detennination.
If a test plot has no well established vegetation due to recent clearing and grubbing, or the soils have been
severely disturbed due to excavation, filling or grading activities, the test plot is called an "atypical
situation". In atypical or disturbed situations the wetland determination may be based only on soil borings
into the undisturbed soil stratum below the fill line and by hydrology criteria. If an area is disturbed, then a
higher level of analysis such as a "comprehensive" determination method may be required.
The procedure used for each test plot is indicated on the individual data sheets. The environmental
conditions that exist at the site on the day of the field investigations are indicated in field notes and marked
in the appropriate "normal" (or not normal) blank at the top of the data sheet. If the vegetation, soils or
hydrology are found disturbed, this is explained at the boltom of the sheet. The results for each test plot are
recorded on data forms and included with this report in Appendix 2.
B. KEY DEFINITIONS USED
For this study, "wetlands" are defined using the adopted State o(Washington's Growth Management Act
definition:
"Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water 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 soils conditions. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." (Corps of Engineers Regulation 33 CFR 328.3,1988)
"Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites,
including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention
facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands
created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result ofthe construction of a
road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from
non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands."
Another key definition used for this study is for "Ordinary High Water Mark" or "Line" (OHWM). As
defined in the Washington Joint Aquatic Resources Permits Application (JARPA),
"OHWM means the visible line on the banks where the presence and action of water are so
common as to leave a mark upon the soil or vegetation: Provided that in any area where the
ordinary high water line cannot be found the ordinary high water line adjoining saltwater shall be
the line of mean higher high water and the ordinary high water line adjoining freshwater shall be
the elevation ofthe mean annual flood."
Other key definitions may also apply which are defined in the adopted City of Renton Municipal Code
(RMC) for Critical Area Regulations, (RMC 4-3-050) [See Section "E" in this appendix for details]
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/2211 0
Page 9 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C. WETLAND DELINEATION CRITERIA
By Vegetation:
For "normal' site conditions, this study primarily used vegetation criteria, along with soils and hydrology
criterion, to delineate the edges of identified wetland areas. This was due to the general lack of
disturbances within the forested areas of the site. For wetland plant community delineations, we used
vegetation that exists along the wetland margins where plants were well established and represent typical
and normal conditions between hydrophytic and upland conditions.
Plant communities were analyzed in detail and vegetation data were documented on Field Data Sheets for
the individual test plots (TP, or sample plots) shown at locations on the report figures and on our field note
sketch maps. The onsite analysis test plot data were extrapolated into the areas shown by lCA as "upland"
on the Field Note Sketch Maps (FNSM, see Appendix 2).
For this study, a species is considered dominant in a test plot if more than 10% of the plants growing in that
area appear to be the same species. This is an estimate of the relative density ofa species in a sample area.
By routine methods, this is usually made by visual inspection of the dominant plants in a representative
sample area. As defined in the 1997 State Manual, a dominant species exerts a controlling influence on or
defines the character of a plant community. Dominance on the other hand is used as a descriptor of
vegetation that is related to the standing crop of a species in an area, usually measured by height, aerial
cover, or basal area (for trees). This should not to be confused with a vegetation class that must comprise
more than 30% of the aerial cover in the entire wetland (or upland).
If more than 50% (i.e. 51 or more percent) of the dominant plant species in a test plot are OBL, FACW and
FAC, then the hydrophytic vegetation criteria is said to be met and it is marked "yes" on the field data form.
The specie identifications are based on available plant keys such as Hitchcock and Cronquist'S Flora of the
Pacific Northwest (1973). To determine whether plant species exhibit hydrophytic adaptations, if they are
native or non-native (introduced), and which strata (tree, shrub, herb) they normally occupy, we use the
National List ofP/ant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9), published by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service, May 1988. The indicator statuses for the various species found in the area are
determined based on the National List together with the December 1993 supplement for the Northwest
Region.
The indicator status describes the estimated probability of a plant species occurring in wetlands. Indicators
are:
OBL ~ Obligate Wetland species ("almost always occurs", >99% probability)
FACW ~ Facultative Wetland species ("usually occurs", 67-99% probability)
FAC ~ Facultative species ("equally likely to occur", 34-66% probability)
FACU ~ Facultative Upland species ("usually occurs in non-wetlands", 67-99% probability)
UPL ~ Upland species ("almost always occurs in non-wetlands", >99% probability)
NI ~ No Indicator assigned (If a species does not occur in wetlands in any region of the National List, then
"no indicator is assigned".)
+ ~ Slightly more frequently found in wetlands
-~ Slightly less frequently found in wetlands
* ~ Tentative assignment based on either limited information or conflicting reviews from the 1993
Northwest Supplement of the National List.
Parenthesis ( ) around an indicator signifies the status is assigned by lCA, and a question mark (7) after an
indicator signifies it is tentative based on our (JeA) field experience & observations.
By Soils:
For wetland (or "hydric") soil determinations, we use the hydric soil criterion prescribed in Part III of the
1993 Washington State Wetland Manual. Hydric soils are defined as "a soil that formed under conditions
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 10 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic
conditions in the upper part" (USDA-NRCS 1995, Federal Register, 7/13/94, Vol. 59, No. 133, pp. 35680-
83). The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) has established the 'criteria' for soil
classification and 'field indicators' for hydric soil determination. In general, a hydric soil determination is
made based on primary soil color indicators and secondary indicators in representative sample test plots that
we examine onsite in the upper 12" to 16" of the soil profile. If a soil is saturated long enough, then that
soil may be determined as hydric based on its color indicators.
Notice that the hydrology criteria usually means that the soil remains saturated for at least 20 or more
consecutive days during the early growing season when soil temperatures are above biologic zero (41 of) as
measured at a depth of 16" below the soil surface.
In general, "organic hydric soils" develop as a result of prolonged anaerobic conditions with long periods of
saturation impeding decomposition (peat or muck) and have greater than 16" of organic matter in the
surface layer (Histosols). "Mineral hydric soils" have less than 16" of organic matter (if some is present,
then it may have a 'histic epipedon'). They are saturated for more than 15 consecutive days during the
growing season (the period when soil temperatures are above biologic zero, 41 OF, as defined by "Soil
Taxonomv", 1975; usually March-October), and contain dominant gleying and/or redoximorphic features.
The soil color andlor presence of redoximorphic features 4 or gleying in a sample are primary field
indicators of whether a mineral soil is either hydric or non-hydric soil. Non-hydric soils are generally a
dark brown to rusty red or yellowish brown in their matrix color. Hydric soils are generally black, very
dark brown, grayish brown to gray, or washed out in color. A field indicator for a saturated organic hydric
soil is a rich black matrix color of say 211 or 2/2. A field indicator for a saturated mineral soil is a leached
matrix color of say 311 or 411 or 5/1 or 611). A hydric mineral soil may have a low chroma color feature (at
least I ifno redoximorphic features are present or a chroma 2 if prominent redox features are present in the
soil matrix).
G1eying and prominent redoximorphic features are color indicators of prolonged saturation and indicate that
anaerobic conditions probably exist for sufficient periods of time to develop wetland soils. G1eyed soils are
generally bluish-green to grayish-green in color throughout the soil mass or in mottles (spots or streaks)
interspersed within the dominant soil color (matrix color) in a layer (soil horizon). Gleying results from the
leaching of the dissolved (reduced) iron and manganese minerals out of the soil matrix. Soils gleyed to the
surface or to the surface layer of organic material are generally considered hydric. Soils that are saturated
throughout the year are usually uniformly gleyed to the surface (Tiner and Veneman 1987).
Redoximorphic features or "mottles" are generally yellow to reddish brown blotches or spots accumulating
in mineral soil due to a fluctuating water table during the growing season. The size, number and color of
redox features reflect the duration of soil saturation and thus whether the soil is hydric. Redox features in
hydric soils should be "distinct" or "prominent" in the upper horizon. Mineral soils that have a dark grayish
matrix color (chroma 2 or less) with distinct or prominent redox features are hydric if the features are not
relic. Mineral soils with a predominantly brown or yellow matrix color (chroma of3 or more) and light
gray redox features are not usually hydric. 5
The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils has developed criteria for identifYing hydric soils and a
list ofthe Nation's hydric soils is maintained by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS
4 "Rcdoximorphic features" arc fonned by the processes of reduction, translocation, or oxidation of Fe and Mn oxides
(fonnerly called mottles and low chroma colors). Redox concentrations (reddish mottles) occur as pore linings along
root channels and ped faces (Vepraskas, 1994). "Distinct" and "prominent" are defined in the glossal)' of the reference
text Field Indicators of'Hydric Soil!>· in the United States.
5 Hydric Soils Guidebook, Washington State Department of Ecology, Pub #90-20, July 1990
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/2211 0
Page II of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[formerly Soil Conservation Service, SCS], 1987). A federal manual has also been published by the
USDA-NRCS that describes methods and limitations for identirying hydric soils for the National and State
lists.
The NRCS maintains the list of hydric soil map units for each county in the US. The list is used for
identirying which soils are hydric based on the local soil series descriptions. These soil series descriptions
for soil map units are indicated by this study as within or associated with the project site. The soil
descriptions for the mapped areas may be found in the 1973 [NRCS] Soil Survey of King County (see the
References appendix for soil survey report information).
By Hydrology:
For the wetland hydrology determination, we use the presence of inundation and/or saturation for a
sufficient "hydroperiod" to determine whether hydrology criteria are met. The depth to freestanding water
in a pit or soil probe hole must be less than 12" in wetland margins where hydric and upland soils and
vegetation are transitional. Topographic elevations, encrusted detritus or debris, silt lines, hydraulic
gradients, capillary fringe, or a drainage analysis of offsite and onsite tributary areas are other means and
indicators that may be used to help determine the presence or absence of sufficient hydrology for a positive
wetland determination.
After a wetland determination is made, the wetland area is analyzed to determine if it is a high quality
wetland or if it has any of several irreplaceable ecological functions. The wetland is then analyzed for any
significant habitat values such as size, classifications, plant species diversity, structural diversity, special
habitat features, buffer conditions, and connection to streams or other habitat areas.
D. WETLAND CLASSIFICATION
Wetlands identified by this study are classified using a hierarchical multi-level approach developed by the
US Fish and Wildlife Service for their scientific classification system. The classification system is
published in the report titled Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats o(the United States,
FWS/OBS-79/31, by Cowardin, et al. (December 1979).
The system of classification divisions is based on habitats that share the innuence of similar hydrology,
geomorphology, chemical, or biological factors. The wetland systems involved in the project site are
generally limited to "Palustrine" systems. Palustrine wetlands (these are the only wetlands identified within
this study area) are divided into 9 classes with 24 different subclasses. These are determined by either the
substrate material or the 'dominance vegetation' associated with a respective non-tidal area. The classes of
non-tidal palustrine systems are as follows:
CLASS [NON-TIDAL]
(RB) Rock Bottom
(UB) Unconsolidated Bottom
(AB) Aquatic Bed
(US) Unconsolidated Shore
(ML) Moss-Lichen
(EM) Emergent
(SS) Scrub-Shrub
(FO) Forested
(OW) Open Water (unknown bottom)
The subclasses are not identified in this study area but if assigned they would be based on the substrate
material or 'dominance vegetation' associated with the non-tidal area. 'Dominance types' may also be
characterized within freshwater Palustrine Systems based on different invertebrate fauna that typically
inhabit these areas.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Com is Associates
Date: 0 I 12211 0
Page 12 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Water regimes are assigned for each class based on the hydroperiod or duration of flooding (inundation) or
saturation associated with the non-tidal area. These are defined for non-tidal (freshwater) areas as follows:
WATER REGIME [NON-TIDAL]
(A) Temporarily flooded: flooded (inundation by surface water) for brief periods during growing season but
the water table is athen-vise well below the soil surface
(B) Saturated: substrate is saturated for an extended period during growing season but surface water is
seldom present
(C) Seasonally flooded: flooded for extended periods during the growing season, but usually no surface water
by the end of the growing season
(D) Seasonallv flooded/well drained
(E) Seasonally flooded/saturated: flooded for periods, but usually saturated by groundwater at or near the
surface thru most of the growing season
(F) Semipermanentlv flooded: flooded throughout growing season in most years, when surface water is
absent, water table is at or near the surface
(G) Intermittently exposed: flooded throughout year except in years of extreme drought
(H) Permanently flooded: flooded (water covers land surface) throughout the year in all years
(1) Intermittently flooded: surface is usually exposed with surface water present for variable periods with no
seasonal pattern
(K) Artificially Hooded
(W) Intermittently flooded/temporary
(Y) Saturatedlsemi-permanentlseasonal
(Z) Intermittently exposed/permanent
(U) Unknown
SPECIAL MODIFIERS
(b) beaver
(d) partially drained/ditched
(f) farmed
(h) diked/impounded
(r) artificial substrate
(s) spoil
(x) excavated
Other modifiers for water chemistry and soil may also be employed to more adequately describe the wetland
and deepwater habitats. These may be applied at the class or lower level in the hierarchy. The farmed
modifier may also be applied to the ecological system.
The class of a particular wetland describes its general appearance in terms of either the dominant vegetation
or the substrate. When over 30% cover by vegetation is present, a vegetation class is used (e.g.,
"emergent", "scrub-shrub" andlor ''forested''). When less than 30% of the substrate is covered by
vegetation, then a substrate class is used (e.g., "unconsolidated bottom", "aquatic bed", or "moss-lichen").
Typical demarcations of these classes of palustrine wetland systems are shown in the Cowardin repon.
[Also reference is made to the current (1988) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map and legend.]
Wetlands that have a single vegetation species that dominate 90% of the total wetland area are called a
"mono-type". This may occur where more than the one species is present but the total area of their
coverage is less than 10%. If another vegetation class or species dominates more than 10% of the wetland,
then it has higher habitat diversity. This can be based on the number of plant species found in a class, the
number and quality of the structural layers and the interspersion of classes which creates increased "edge
effect" and habitat diversity. This may also result in a higher wetland "rating".
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Com is Associates
Date: 01/22110
Page 13 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E. CITY OF RENTON WETLAND REGULATIONS AND REOUIREMENTS
The standards adopted for wetland regulation by the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) are included in
Title 4, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, which includes Chapter 3, ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS. This chapter was last amended by Ord. 5472, July 13,
2009. The following code sections are taken from the current code and are specifically applicable to
"regulated wetlands" that are located within or near the project site. The standard requirements include
categorizing or rating, buffer widths, fencing, signs, etc. [http://www.codepublishing.com/wairenton/j
Sections:
4.3.050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
A. PURPOSE
7. Wetlands: The purposes ofthe wetland regulations are to:
a. Ensure that activities in or affecting wetlands do not threaten public safety, cause nuisances, or
destroy or degrade natural wetland functions and values; and
b. Preserve, protect and restore wetlands by regulating development within them and around them; and
c. Protect the public from costs associated with repair of downstream properties resulting from erosion
and flooding due to the loss of water storage capacity provided by wetlands; and
d. Prevent the loss of wetland acreage and functions and strive for a net gain over present conditions.
(Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005)
B. APPLICABILITY -CRlTICAL AREAS DESIGNATIONS/MAPPING
k. Wetlands: Categories 1,2 and 3.
C. APPLICABILITY -EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITlES
D. ADMINISTRATION AND INTERPRETATION
E. GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND ALLOWED ALTERATIONS
d. Marking During Construction: The location of the outer extent ofthe critical area buffer and areas
not to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit shall be marked with barriers easily visible in the
field to prevent unnecessary disturbance by individuals and equipment during the development or
construction of the approved activity.
e. Fencing: The City shall require permanent fencing of the native growth protection area containing
critical area and buffers when there is a substantial likelihood of human or domesticated animal
intrusion, and such fencing will not adversely impact habitat connectivity.
f. Signage Required: The common boundary between a native growth protection area and the abutting
land must be permanently identified. This identification shall include permanent wood or metal signs on
treated or metal posts. Sign locations and size specifications shall be approved by the City. Suggested
wording is as follows: "Protection ofthis natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is
prohibited by law."
g. Responsibility for Maintenance: Responsibility for maintaining the native growth protection
easements or tracts shall be held by a homeowners' association, abutting lot owners, the permit applicant
or designee, or other appropriate entity, as approved by the City.
F. SUB MITT AL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES
G. SURETY DEVICES
H. AQUIFER PROTECTION
I. FLOOD HAZARDS
J. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
K. HABITAT CONSERVATION
L. STREAMS AND LAKES
M. WETLANDS
I. Applicability: The wetland regulations apply to sites containing or abutting wetlands as described
below. Category 3 wetlands, less than two thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet in area, are exempt
from these regulations if they meet exemption criteria in subsection C of this Section.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/22/10
Page I40f55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a. Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the purposes of
regulating wetlands in the City. Wetlands buffer widths, replacement ratios and avoidance criteria
shall be based on the following rating system:
i. Category t: Category I wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following
criteria:
(a) The presence of species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or
threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species; andlor
(b) Wetlands having forty percent (40%) to sixty percent (60%) permanent open water (in
dispersed patches or otherwise) with two (2) or more vegetation classes; andlor
(c) Wetlands equal to or greater than ten (10) acres in size and having three (3) or more
vegetation classes, one of which is open water; and/or
(d) The presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence; or at the geographic limits of
their occurrence; and/or
ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more ofthe following
criteria:
(a) Wetlands that are not Category I or 3 wetlands; and/or
(b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category I wetlands;
andlor
(c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, Le., a wetland with a
perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not
Category I wetlands; andlor
(d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as
diking, ditching or channelization; andlor
iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following
criteria:
(a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which
meet the following criteria:
(l) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such
as diking, ditching, channelization andlor outlet modification; and
(2) Have soils alterations such as the presence offill, soil removal andlor compaction of
soils; and
(3) May have altered vegetation.
(b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are:
(l) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and
(2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally
by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River
Valley and Black River Drainage Basin.
(c) All other wetlands not classified as Category I or 2 such as smaller, high quality
wetlands.
b. Maps and Inventory:
L The approximate location and extent of wetlands in the City is displayed in subsection Q ofthis
Section, Maps. The map is to be used as a guide to the general location and extent of wetlands.
iL Wetlands which are defined in subsection M I a of this Section, Classification System, but not
shown on the Renton Wetlands Map Inventory, are presumed to exist in the City and are also
protected under all the provisions of this Section.
iii. The actual presence or absence of the wetland criteria listed above, as determined by
qualified professionals, shall govern the treatment of an individual building site or parcel ofland
requiring compliance with these regulations.
c. Delineation of Wetland Edge: For the purpose of regulation, the wetland edge should be
delineated pursuant to subsection M4 of this Section.
d. Regulated and Nonregulated Wetlands: Refer to subsection Mia and M Ie of this Section for
applicability thresholds for regulatory and nonregulatory wetlands.
Cairnes, Jericho A ve. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 15 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e. Performance Standards: In addition to general standards of subsection E of this Section, the
following performance standards apply to all regulated wetlands.
i. Regulated and Nonregulated Wetlands -General: Wetlands created or restored as a part of
a mitigation project are regulated wetlands. Regulated wetlands do not include those artificial
wetlands intentionally created ITom non wetland sites for purposes other than wetland mitigation,
including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention
facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm pond, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands
created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a
road, street, or highway. The Department Administrator shall determine that a wetland is not
regulated on the basis of photographs, statements, and other evidence.
ii. Nonregulated Category 3 Wetlands: Based upon an applicant request, the Department
Administrator may determine that Category 3 wetlands are not considered regulated wetlands, if
the applicant demonstrates the following criteria are met:
(a) The wetland formed on top offill legally placed on a property; and
(b) The wetland hydrology is solely provided by the compaction ofthe soil and fill material;
and
(c) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined that they will not take jurisdiction
over the wetland.
2. General Standards for Permit Approval: Permit approval by the Reviewing Official for projects
involving regulated wetlands or wetland buffers shall be granted only if the approval is consistent with
the provisions of this Section. Additionally, approvals shall only be granted if:
a. A proposed action avoids adverse impacts to regulated wetlands or their buffers or takes
affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts; and
b_ The proposed activity results in no net toss of regulated wetland area, value, or function in the
drainage basin where the wetland is located; or
c. A variance process is successfully completed to determine conditions for permitting of activity
requested including measures to reduce impacts as appropriate.
3. Study Required:
a. When Study Is Required: Wetland assessments are required as follows:
i. Wetland Classification: The applicant shall be required to conduct a study to determine the
classification ofthe wetland if the subject property or project area is within one hundred feet
(100') of a wetland even ifthe wetland is not located on the subject property but it is determined
that alterations of the subject property are likely to impact the wetland in question or its buffer. If
there is a potential Category I or 2 wetland within three hundred feet (300') of a proposal, the
City may require an applicant to conduct a study even if the wetland is not located on the subject
property but it is determined that alterations of the subject property are likely to impact the
wetland in question or its buffer.
ii. Wetland Delineation: A wetland delineation is required for any portion of a wetland on the
subject property that will be impacted by the permitted activities.
b. Study Waived: The wetland assessment shall be waived by the Department Administrator when
the applicant provides satisfactory evidence that a road, building or other barrier exists between the
wetland and the proposed activity, or when the buffer area needed or required will not intrude on the
applicant's lot, or when applicable data and analysis appropriate to the project proposed exists and
an additional report is not necessaty.
4. Delineation of Regulatory Edge of Wetlands:
a. Methodology: For the purpose of regulation, the exact location of the wetland edge shall be
determined by the wetlands specialist hired at the expense of the applicant through the performance
of a field investigation using the procedures provided in the following manual: Washington State
Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Washington State Department of Ecology, March
1997, Ecology Publication No. 96-94.
b. Delineations -Open Water: Where wetlands are contiguous with areas of open freshwater,
streams, or rivers, the delineation shall be consistent with the Washington State Wetlands Rating
System: Western Washington, Second Edition, Washington State Department of Ecology, August
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0 I 122/10
Page 16 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1993, Publication No. 93-74, Appendix 5, or another accepted Federal or State methodology, subject
to City review.
c. Adjustments to Delineation by City: Where the applicant has provided a delineation of the
wetland edge, the City shall review and may render adjustments to the edge delineation. In the event
the adjusted edge delineation is contested by the applicant, the City shall, at the applicant's expense,
obtain the services of an additional qualified wetlands specialist to review the original study and
render a final delineation.
d. Period of Validity for Wetland Delineation:
i. Within City Limits: A final wetland delineation, for properties within the city limits at the
time the delineation was prepared, is valid for five (5) years, unless the Administrator determines
that conditions have changed.
ii. Outside City Limits: The period of validity of wetland delineations for properties, which
were unincorporated at the time of the delineation, will be determined by the Administrator.
Following a review of a wetland delineation prepared for an unincorporated property, since
annexed into the City, the Administrator may require adjustments be made to the study or a new
study prepared, per subsection M4 of this Section, Delineation of Regulatory Edge of Wetlands.
S. Determination of Wetland Classification: Wetland studies shall detennine the appropriate wetland
classification according to subsection MI of this Section, Wetlands. The City may accept a dual wetland
classification for a wetland exhibiting a combination of Category I and 2 features or a combination of
Category I and 3 features. The City will not accept a dual rating for a Category 2 wetland, such as a
combined Category 2 and 3 rating. Dual ratings for a Category I wetland shall be consistent with the
Washington State Wetlands Rating System: Western Washington, Second Edition, Washington State
Department of Ecology, August 1993, Publication No. 93-74 or as thereafter amended or updated.
6. Wetland Buffers:
a. Buffers Required:
i. Wetland buffer zones shall be required of all proposed regulated activities abutting regulated
wetlands.
ii. Any wetland created, restored, or enhanced in conjunction with creation or restoration as
compensation for approved wetland alterations shall include the standard buffer required for the
class of the wetland being replaced.
iii. All required wetland buffer zones shall be retained in their natural condition. Category 3
wetland buffers of twenty five feet (25') require the buffers be fully vegetated with native species
or restored; otherwise increased buffer widths to protect functions and values may be required.
iv. Where buffer disturbance has occurred during construction or other activities, revegetation
with native vegetation may be required.
b. Measurement of Buffers: All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed
in the field pursuant to the requirements of subsection M4a of this Section, Methodology.
c. Standard Buffer Zone Widths:
i. The width of the required wetland buffer zone shall be detennined according to the wetland
category. The buffer zone required for all regulated wetlands is detennined by the classification
of the wetland. If standard buffer widths cannot be met, and butfer reductions per subsection
M6e of this Section and buffer averaging per subsection M6f of this Section cannot be
accomplished, a variance to buffer requirements may be requested per subsection N of this
Section, Alternates, Modifications and Variances, and RMC 4-9-250B, Variance Procedures. If
the criteria in subsection M6d ofthis Section are met standard buffers may be increased. ,
Wetland Category
Category I
Category 2
Category 3
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: a IInlI a
Page 17 of 55
Standard Buffer
100 feet
50 feet
25 feet
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ii. To protect the buffer functions, the Reviewing Official shall condition permits as appropriate
to the nature of the development. Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(a) Fencing pursuant to subsection E4e of this Section, plant materials, and signage pursuant
to subsection E4f ofthis Section, to limit pet and human disturbance;
(b) Directing lights from buildings or parking areas, or noise-generating activities, away from
the wetland;
(c) Implementing water quality treatment measures required in RMC 4-6-030, Drainage
(Surface Water) Standards;
(d) Avoidance of buffer disturbance and retention of the buffer in a natural condition
consistent with subsection M6a of this Section.
d. Increased Wetland Buffer Zone Width: Each applicant shall document in required wetland
assessments whether the criteria in subsections M6d(i) through (iv) ofthis Section are or are not met
and increased wetland buffers are warranted. Based on the applicant's report or third party review,
the Responsible Official may require increased standard buffer zone widths in unique cases, i.e.,
endangered species, very fragile areas, when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetlands
functions and values. Such determination shall be attached as a condition ofproject approval.
Analysis shall be prepared as directed in subsection M6d(v) of this section, and notification shall be
given pursuant to criteria in subsection M6d(vi) of this Section.
i. The wetland is used by species listed by the Federal or the State government as threatened,
endangered and sensitive species and State-listed priority species, essential habitat for those
species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees or
evidence thereof; or
ii. The subject property, or nearby lands to which the subject property drains in route to a
wetland, are susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion control measures will not effectively
prevent adverse wetland impacts; or
iii. The subject property or nearby lands to which the subject property drains in route to a
wetland have minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than fifteen percent (15%) and
conditions cannot be restored to prevent adverse wetland impacts; or
iv. Wetland-dependent wildlife species are observed to be present in the wetland, and may
require larger buffers based upon the evaluation in subsection M6d(v) ofthis Section; and
v. For proposals meeting any of the criteria in subsections M6d(i) to (iv) ofthis Section, buffers
are established using a site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon
The Science 0/ Wetland Buffers and Its Implications/or the Management a/Wetlands, McMillan
2000, Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Guidance/or Protecting and Managing
Wetlands, Appendix 8C (Hruby, et aI., 2005), or similar approaches; and
vi. Notification is given consistent with subsection F8 of this Section.
e. Reduction of Buffer Width: Based upon an applicant's request, the Administrator may approve a
reduction in the standard wetland buffer zone widths on a case-by-case basis for Class I and 2
wetlands where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with subsections M6e(i) and (iii) or (ii)
and (iii) of this Section. Such determination and evidence shall be included in the application file
and public notification shall be given in accordance with M6e(iv) ofthis Section. Conditions may be
applied in accordance with subsection M6e(v) of this Section.
i. The buffer area land is extensively vegetated and has less than fifteen percent (15%) slopes and
no direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated wetlands, as
determined by the City, will result from a regulated activity. The City's determination shall be
based on specific site studies by recognized experts. The City may require long-term monitoring
ofthe project and subsequent corrective actions if adverse impacts to regulated wetlands are
discovered; or
ii. The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and substantiates that
the enhanced buffer will be equal to or improve the functional attributes ofthe buffer. An
enhanced buffer shall not result in greater than a twenty five percent (25%) reduction in the
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Com is Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 18 of 5 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
buffer width. Greater buffer width reductions require review as a variance per subsection N3 of
this Section.
iii. The proposal shall rely upon a site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy
based upon The Science a/Wetland Bujfers and Its Implicationsjor the Management q(
Wetland" McMillan 2000, or similar approaches. The proposed buffer standard is based on
consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is
an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
iv. Public notification of the buffer reduction determination shall be given as follows:
(a) For applications that are not subject to notices of application per chapter 4-8 RMC, notice
of the buffer determination shall be given by posting the site and notifYing parties of record,
if any, in accordance with chapter 4-8 RMC.
(b) For applications that are subject to notices of application, the buffer determination or
request for determination shall be included with notice of application. Upon determination,
notification of parties of record, if any, shall be made.
v. The Reviewing Official shall apply conditions of approval equivalent or greater than those
identified in subsection M6c(ii) of this Section to ensure that the reduced buffer width protects
the functions and values of the associated wetlands.
f. Averaging of Buffer Width: Standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by averaging buffer
widths. Upon applicant request, wetland buffer width averaging may be allowed by the Department
Administrator only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
L That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical
improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and
ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values; and
iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that
contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and
iv. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science 0/
Wetland Buffers and Its Implications/or the Management a/Wetland" McMillan 2000, or
similar approaches have been conducted. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration
of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of
valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
v. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) of the
standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet (25') wide. Greater buffer width reductions
require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B; and
vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case-by-
case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land
development characteristics.
vii. Notification may be required pursuant to subsection F8 ofthis Section.
7. Wetlands -Native Growth Protection Areas: As a condition of any approval issued pursuant to
this Section for any development permit, the property owner shall be required to create a separate native
growth protection area containing the areas determined to be wetland and/or wetland buffer in field
investigations performed pursuant to subsection M4 of this Section, Delineation of Regulatory Edge of
Wetlands, and subsection MS of this Section, Determination of Wetland Classification. Native growth
protection areas shall be established pursuant to subsection E4 of this Section.
S. Wetland Changes -Alternative Methods of Development: If wetland changes are proposed for a
non-exempt activity, the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using
the following criteria in this order and provide reasons why a less intrusive method of development is
not feasible. In determining whether to grant permit approval per subsection M2 of this Section, General
Standards for Permit Approval, the Reviewing Official shall make a determination as to whether the
feasibility of less intrusive methods of development have been adequately evaluated and that less
intrusive methods of development are not feasible:
a. Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer;
b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts;
c. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; and
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Com is Associates
Date: 01/2211 0
Page 19 of 5 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d. Compensate for any pennanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following methods:
1. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland characteristics
to compensate for wetlands lost;
ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and
iii. In addition to restoring or creating a wetland~ enhancing an existing degraded wetland to
compensate for lost functions and values.
9. Compensating for Wetlands Impacts:
a. Goal: The overall goal of any compensatory project shall be no net loss of wetland function and
acreage and to strive for a net resource gain in wetlands over present conditions. The concept of "no
net loss" means to create, restore and/or enhance a wetland so that there is no reduction to total
wetland acreage and/or function.
b. Plan Requirements: The applicant shall develop a plan that provides for land acquisition,
construction, maintenance and monitoring of replacement wetlands that recreate as nearly as possible
the wetland being replaced in tenns of acreage, function, geographic location and setting, and that
are equal to or larger than the original wetlands.
c. Plan Performance Standards: Compensatory mitigation shall follow an approved mitigation
plan pursuant to subsections M8 to Ml 0 of this Section and shall meet the minimum performance
standards in subsection F8 of this Section.
d. Acceptable Mitigation -Permanent Wetland Impacts: Any person who alters regulated
wetlands shall restore or create equivalent areas or greater areas of wetlands than those altered in
order to compensate for wetland losses. Enhancement of wetlands may be provided as mitigation if it
is conducted in conjunction with mitigation proposed to create or restore a wetland in order to
maintain "no net loss" of wetland acreage. Subsections MIO through M12 provide further detail on
wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement.
e. Restoration, Creation, or Combined Enhancement Required -Compensation for Permanent
Wetland Impacts: As a condition of any penn it allowing alteration of wetlands andlor wetland
buffers, or as an enforcement action, the City shall require that the applicant engage in the
restoration or creation of wetlands and their buffers (or funding ofthese activities) in order to offset
the impacts resulting from the applicanfs or violator's actions. Enhancement in conjunction with
restoration or creation may be allowed in order to offset the impacts resulting from an applicant's
actions. Enhancement is not allowed as compensation for a violator's actions.
f. Compensating for Temporary Wetland Impacts: Where wetland disturbance has occurred
during construction or other activities, see subsection C5f(ii) ofthis Section.
g. Mitigation Bank Agreement -Glacier Park Company: Pursuant to the Wetland Mitigation
Bank Agreement between the City and the Glacier Park Company, King County recording number
9206241805, wetland alteration and wetland mitigation shall be conducted in accordance with the
agreement.
10. Wetland Compensation -Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement: The applicant may propose
a mitigation approach that includes restoration or creation solely or combines restoration or creation
with enhancement. The City may require one mitigation approach in favor of another ifit is determined
that:
a. There is a greater probability of success in ensuring no net loss of wetlands acreage, functions,
and values; and
b. The mitigation approach can be accomplished on-site rather than off-site.
11. Wetlands Creation and Restoration:
a. Creation or Restoration Proposals: Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to
restore wetlands or create new wetlands, with priority first for on-site restoration or creation and then
second, within the drainage basin, in order to compensate for wetland losses. Restoration activities
must include restoring lost hydrologic, water quality and biologic functions.
b. Compliance with Goals: Applicants proposing to restore or create wetlands shall identifY how
the restoration or creation plan confonns to the purposes and requirements of this Section and
established regional goals of no net loss of wetlands.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 20 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c. Category: Where feasible. created or restored wetlands shall be a higher category than the altered
wetland. In no eases shall they be lower. except as follows: For impacts to Category 1 shrub-scrub
and emergent wetlands, if it is infeasible to create or restore a site to become a Category 1 wetland,
the Administrator may allow for creation/restoration of high quality Category 2 wetlands at one
hundred fifty percent (150%) oflhe normally required creation/replacement ratios of Category I
shrub-scrub or emergent wetlands, within the basin.
d. Design Criteria: Requirements for wetland restoration or creation as compensation areas shall be
determined according to the function, acreage, type and location of the wetland being replaced.
Compensation requirements should also consider time factors, the ability of the project to be self-
sustaining and the projected success based on similar projects. Wetland functions and values shall be
calculated using the best professional judgment ofa qualified wetland ecologist using the best
available techniques. Multiple or cooperative compensation projects may be proposed for one
project in order to best achieve the goal of no net loss. Restoration or creation must be within the
same drainage basin,
e. Acreage Replacement Ratio: The ratios listed in subsection Mlle(i) ofthis Section, Ratios for
Wetlands Creation or Restoration, apply to all Category 1,2, or 3 wetlands for restoration or
creation which is in-kind, on-or off-site, timed prior to alteration, and has a high probability of
success. The required ratio must be based on the wetland category and type that require replacement.
Ratios are determined by the probability of recreating successfully the wetland and the inability of
guarantees of functionality, longevity, and duplication of type andlor functions.
i. RATIOS FOR WETLANDS CREATION OR RESTORATION:
Wetland Category Vegetation Type Creation/Restoration Ratio
Forested 6 times the area altered.
Category I Scrub-shrub 3 times the area altered.
Emergent 2 times the area altered.
Forested 3 times the area altered.
Category 2 Scrub-shrub 2 times the area altered.
Emergent 1.5 times the area altered.
Forested 1.5 times the area altered.
Category 3 Scrub-shrub 1.5 times the area altered.
Emergent 1.5 times the area altered.
f. Increased Creahon/RestoratlOnlReplacement RatIOS: The Revlewmg OffiCIal may mcrease the
ratios under the following circumstances: uncertainty as to the probable success of the proposed
restoration or creation; significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland
functions; projected losses in functional value; or off-site compensation. The requirement for an
increased replacement ratio will be detennined through SEPA review, except in the case of remedial
actions resulting from illegal alterations where the Administrator or Environmental Review
Committee may require increased wetland replacement ratios.
g. Decreased Creation/Restoration/Replacement Ratios:
i. Category 1: The Reviewing Official may decrease the ratios for Category I forested and
scrub-shrub wetlands to 2.0 times the area altered, and to 1.5 times the area altered for emergent
wetlands, provided the applicant has successfully replaced the wetland prior to its filling and has
shown that the replacement is successfully established for five (5) years.
ii. Category 2: The Reviewing Official may decrease the ratios for Category 2 forested and
scrub-shrub wetlands to 1.5 times the area altered provided the applicant has successfully
replaced the wetland prior to its filling and has shown that the replacement is successfully
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 21 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
established for two (2) years. Ratios for Category 2 emergent wetlands may be reduced to 1.25
times the area altered provided the applicant has successfully replaced the wetland prior to its
filling and has shown that the replacement is successfully established for two (2) years.
iii. Category 3:
(I) The Reviewing Official may decrease the ratios for Category 3 emergent wetlands to 1.0
times the area altered provided the applicant has successfully replaced the wetland prior to its
filling and has shown that the replacement is successfully established for twelve (12) months.
Ratios for Category 3 scrub-shrub and forested wetlands may be reduced to 1.25 times the
area altered provided the applicant has successfully replaced the wetland prior to its filling
and has shown that the replacement is successfully established for two (2) years.
(2) If the applicant can aggregate two (2) or more Category 3 wetlands, each less than ten
thousand (10,000) square feet, into one wetland, the replacement ratio shall be reduced to
1:1. If the combined wetland would be rated as a Category 2 wetland as a result of the
combination, the buffer requirement may be reduced to twenty five feet (25') minimum
provided the buffer is enhanced.
h. Category 3 Replacement Option: The applicant, at hislher expense, may select to use accepted
Federal or State methods to establish the functions and values for the Category 3 wetland being
replaced in lieu of replacement by acreage only. A third party review, funded by the applicant. and
hired and managed by the City. shall review and verifY the reports. Dependent upon the results of the
functions and values evaluation, a Category 3 wetland may be replaced by assuring that all the
functions and values are replaced in another location, within the same basin.
i. Minimum Restoration/Creation Ratio: Unless allowed by subsection Mil g of this Section,
restoration or creation ratios may only be reduced by modification or variance pursuant to subsection
N of this Section, Alternates, Modifications and Variances, and RMC 4-9-2508, Variance
Procedures. and RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures. In order to maintain no net loss of
wetland acreage, in no case shall the restoration or creation ratio be less than I: 1. This minimum
ratio may not be modified through the modification or variance process.
12. Wetland Enhancement:
a. Enhancement Proposals -Combined with Restoration and Creation: Any applicant
proposing to alter wetlands may propose to enhance an existing degraded wetland, in conjunction
with restoration or creation of a wetland in order to compensate for wetland losses. Wetland
enhancement shall not be allowed as compensation if it is not accomplished in conjunction with a
proposal to restore or create a wetland.
b. Evaluation Criteria: A wetland enhancement compensation project may be approved by the
Reviewing Official; provided, that enhancement for one function will not degrade another function
unless the enhancement would provide a higher functioning wetland with greater or multiple
environmental benefits. For example, an enhancement may degrade habitat for one wildlife species
but overall it may result in a wetland that provides higher function to a wider variety of wildlife
species. Wetland function assessment shall be conducted in confoomance with accepted Federal or
State methodologies.
c. Wetlands Chosen for Enhancement: An applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to
enhance an existing Category 2 or 3 wetland. Existing Category I wetlands shall not be enhanced to
compensate for wetland alteration unless the wetland selected for enhancement is a Category I
wetland only by virtue of its acreage and three (3) vegetation classes, where the existing vegetation
is characterized partly or wholly by invasive wetland species.
d. Mitigation Ratios: Wetland alterations shall be created, restored and enhanced using the
foomulas in subsection M 12d(i), Ratios for Wetland Restoration or Creation plus Enhancement. The
following is an example of use of the formulas below:
If one acre of Category 2, forested wetland, were proposed to be removed, the
creation/replacement ratio (subsection Mlle(i) of this Section) requires that three (3) acres of
forested Category 2 wetland be restored or created; if wetland enhancement were proposed
(subsection M 12d(i) of this Section) for the Category 2, forested wetland, 1.5 acres offorested
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01122/10
Page 22 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Category 2 wetland would have to be created/restored and two (2) acres offorested Category 2
wetland enhanced, possibly in a different part of the same wetland.
i. RATIOS FOR WETLAND RESTORATION OR CREATION PLUS ENHANCEMENT
Wetland Category Vegetation Type Restoration or Creation Ratio Enhancement Ratio
Forested 3 times the area altered plus 3.5 times the area altered
Category 1 Scrub-shrub 1.5 times the area altered plus 2 times the area altered
Emergent I times the area altered plus 1.5 times the area altered
Forested 1.5 times the area altered plus 2 times the area altered
Category 2 Scrub-shrub 1 times the area altered plus 1.5 times the area altered
Emergent 1 times the area altered plus 1 times the area altered
Forested 1 times the area altered plus 1 times the area altered
Category 3 Scrub-shrub 1 times the area altered plus 1 times the area altered
Emergent 1 times the area altered plus 1 times the area altered
.. e. RatIO ModIficatIOn and MinImum Restorallon/CreatlOn Ratio:
i. An applicant may propose an increased creation or restoration ratio and a decreased
enhancement ratio if the total combined ratio is maintained overall. Restoration/creation or
enhancement ratios shown in subsection M 12d of this Section may only be reduced by
modification or variance pursuant to subsection N3 of this Section, Alternatives, Modifications
and Variances, and RMC 4-9-250B, Variance Procedures, and RMC 4-9-250D, Modification
Procedures. In order to maintain no net loss of wetland acreage, in no case shall the restoration or
creation ratio be less than 1: 1. This minimum ratio may not be modified through the variance
process.
ii. The Reviewing Official may increase the ratios under the following circumstances: uncertainty
as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation or enhancement proposal;
significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions; projected
losses in functional value; or off-site compensation. The requirement for an increased mitigation
ratio will be determined through SEPA review, except in the case of remedial actions resulting
from illegal alterations where the Administrator or Environmental Review Committee may
require increased mitigation ratios.
13. Out-of-Kind Replacement: Out-of-kind replacement may be used in place of in-kind compensation
only where the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Reviewing Official that:
a. The wetland system is already significantly degraded and out-of-kind replacement will result in a
wetland with greater functional value; or
b. Scientific problems such as exotic vegetation and changes in watershed hydrology make
implementation of in-kind compensation impossible or unacceptable; or
c. Out-of-kind replacement will best meet identified regional goals (e.g., replacement of historically
diminished wetland types).
14. Off-Site Compensation:
a. When Permitted: Off-site compensation may be provided in lieu of on-site compensation only
where the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Responsible Official that:
i. The hydrology and ecosystem of the original wetland and those abutting or adjacent land
and/or wetlands which benefit from the hydrology and ecosystem will not be substantially
damaged by the on-site loss; and
ii. On-site compensation is not feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, or other factors; or
iii. Compensation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses;
or
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/22110
Page 23 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
iv. The proposed wetland functions at the mitigation site are significantly greater than the
wetland functions that could be reasonably achieved with on-site mitigation, and there is no
significant loss of function on-site, i.e., at the development project site; or
v, Established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland
functions have been addressed and strongly justify location of compensatory measures at another
site.
b, Locations: Any off-site compensation shall follow the preferences in subsections MI4b(i) to (iii)
of this Section, Basins and subbasins are indicated in subsection Q of this Section, Maps:
i, Off-Site Mitigation within Same Drainage Subbasin as Subject Site: Off-site mitigation
may be allowed when located within the same drainage subbasin as the subject site subject to
criteria in subsection Ml4a of this Section;
ii. Off-Site Mitigation within Same Drainage Basin within City Limits: Off-site mitigation
may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin within the Renton City limits if it
achieves equal or improved ecological functions within the City over mitigation within the same
drainage subbasin as the project, and shall be subject to criteria in subsection M 14a of this
Section;
iii. Orf-Site Mitigation within the Same Drainage Basin Outside the City Limits: Off-site
mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin outside the Renton City
limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over mitigation within the same
drainage basin within the Renton City limits and it meets City goals, and shall be subject to
criteria in subsection M 14a of this Section,
c. Siting Recommendations: In selecting compensation sites, the City encourages applicants to
pursue siting compensation projects in disturbed sites which were formerly wetlands, and especially
those areas which would result in a series of interconnected wetlands.
d. Timing: Compensatory projects shall be substantially completed and approved by the City prior
to the issuance of an occupancy penmit Construction of compensation projects shall be timed to
reduce impacts to existing wildlife and flora, The Reviewing Official may elect to require a surety
device for completion of construction.
15. Cooperative Wetland Compensation: Mitigation Banks or Special Area Management
Programs (SAMP):
a. Applicability: The City encourages and will facilitate and approve cooperative projects wherein a
single applicant or other organization with demonstrated capability may undertake a compensation
project under the following circumstances:
i, Restoration or creation on-site may not be feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, or
other factors; or
ii, Where the cooperative plan is shown to better meet established regional goals for flood
storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions,
b. Process: Applicants proposing a cooperative compensation project shall:
i. Submit a permit application;
ii. Demonstrate compliance with all standards;
iii. Demonstrate that long-term management will be provided; and
iv, Demonstrate agreement for the project from all affected property owners of record,
c. Mitigation Banks: Mitigation banks are defined as sites which may be used for restoration,
creation and/or mitigation of wetland alternatives from a different piece of property than the property
to be altered within the same drainage basin, The City of Renton maintains a mitigation banle A list
of City mitigation bank sites is maintained by the Public Works Department With the approval of
the Public Works Department, non-City-controlled mitigation banks may be established and utilized,
(Ord, 5450, 3-2-2009)
d. Special Area Management Programs: Special area management programs are those wetland
programs agreed upon through an interjurisdictional planning process involving the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the Washington State Department of Ecology, any affected counties andlor
cities, private property owners and other parties of interest The outcome of the process is a regional
wetlands permit representing a plan of action for all wetlands within the special area,
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01122/10
Page 24 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c. Compensation Payments to Mitigation Bank: Compensation payments, amount to be
determined by the Reviewing Official, received as part of a mitigation or creation bank must be
received prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
16. Mitigation Plans:
a. Required for Restoration, Creation and Enhancement Projects: All wetland restoration,
creation, and enhancement in conjunction with restoration and creation projects required pursuant to
this Section either as a permit condition or as the result of an enforcement action shall follow a
mitigation plan prepared by qualified wetland specialists approved by the City.
b. Timing for Mitigation Plan Submittal and Commencement of any Work: See subsection F8
of this Section.
c. Content of Mitigation Plan: Unless the City, in consultation with qualified wetland specialists,
determines, based on the size and scope of the development proposal, the nature of the impacted
wetland and the degree of cumulative impacts on the wetland from other development proposals, that
the scope and specific requirements of the mitigation plan may be reduced, the mitigation plan shall
address all requirements in RMC 4-8-120D23, Wetland Mitigation Plan, and subsection F8 of this
Section.
d. Performance Surety: As a condition of approval of any mitigation plan, the Reviewing Official
shall require a performance surety per RMC 4-1-230 and subsection G of this Section. (Amd. Ord.
4851,8-7-2000; Ord. 5137,4-25-2005)
N. ALTERNATES, MODIFICATIONS AND VARIANCES
iii. Wetlands -Modifications: An applicant may request that the Administrator grant a
modification as follows:
(a) Modifications may be requested for a reduction in creation/restoration or enhancement
ratios for a Category 3 wetland; however, the creation/restoration ratio shall not be reduced
below l: I.
(b) In addition to the criteria ofRMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, the following
criteria shall apply:
(I) The proposal will result in no-net loss of wetland or buffer area and functions.
(2) The proposed modification is based on consideration of the best available science as
described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific
information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
P. ASSESSMENT RELIEF -WETLANDS:
I. City Assessments: Such landowner should also be exempted from all special City assessments on the
controlled wetland to defray the cost of municipal improvements such as sanitary sewers, stonn sewers,
water mains and streets. (Ord. 5000,1-13-2003; Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005)
Q.MAPS:
4. Streams and Lakes: See Figure 4-3-050Q4 for reference map identifying Class 2 to 4 water bodies.
Water class shall be determined in accordance with subsection LI ofthis Section. For Class I waters,
refer to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations.
5. Wetlands: Refer to the City of Renton Wetland and Stream Corridors Critical Areas Inventory and
see Figure 4·3-050Q5 for reference map.
6. Drainage Basins: See Figures 4-3-050Q6a and b for maps identifying basins and subbasins in the
Renton vicinity. ["Lower Cedar River Basin" by Figure 4-3-050Q6a, Surface Water Facilities Basins;
and "Maplewood Sub-Basin" by Figure 4-3-050Q6b, Surface Water Facilities Sub-Basins
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 25 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 4-3-050Q4, STREAMS AND LAKES
1"
• i ,I
I ! t '
• ",", ,'J ..
'I" •
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/22110
Page 26 of 55
Logl!lnd
Streams CI.M15 ifi.;;ati()n
TYPE
.----4 _ :::o:v. 4
Streams and Lakes
DElt.8T1bei·4. 2007
.,
-$-
ISLl!:';·;:f.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(Amd. Ord. 5355, 2-25-2008; Ord. 5468, 7-13-2009)
figure 4-3-050Q5, WETLANDS
MERCER
Renton Municipal Co<le -Roads
Wotiands
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0 lI221l 0
Page 27 of 55
Cree""
RiVDr.!i
'.,
__ aty BonmdaIy
lakes _ _ _ Munkill8lily Boun<krics
, ,
/\
I
Far Refj,reJl(:e Only
j 1lDc:h r Mile,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 2
FIELD NOTE SKETCH MAP
and
FIELD DATA FORMS
By John Comis Associates (JCA)
Note: For test plot locations, see the Field Note Sketch Map in this appendix and the
"Wetland Delineation Map", Figure 5 in this report.
Cairnes. Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 28 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
io/ll)otrt l~/!.k:fl rD
D.,1t 1\(" ~ (;)\.1 c.a Av t
f(.fri @. R.~T"' I\j v)~ r~(j"~. c..."~",, ... tl('...l"-¥,
N· rt(1,r"C F~T 2A-4(,
I ~ lld,~6\s;~"'--
,
Lt'N'-~;-·-· -
-Ii)" "$ ,:!"c Qll-l", TIO"lS'(AMC. 0 3' .0) ·N()ILM~h.· -ry11~i... c:..c..1"'_A1"C('\Q"\f':'3~I!>· -_
I .J (;;'O! L. i" __ f :" ~'t4·f(!;t . ---
" 5~]ojll'-I>K-W&"f-~~"" OF_ ~~C-_, __
• t-hE""'''''rilJ'1 <J(1'\-.~~ AVi! N£, DUJN~6
C."I-"~i [(.oq\~ ~o / -ro W. By M~~'5J
I ----+----
12--j"i / ~cr C9
[l.f'i/Vi
12111/09
FNSM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD DATA FORM
Routine Onsite Wetland Determination
(1997 WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Cor s Wetland Delineation Manual
Pro'ect/Site: Short Plat of the Jericho Ave. Pro ert Date: 12/9/09 and 12/11109
Applicant/Owner: Andy Carines, Cairnes Construction LLC
@ 126 .. Jericho Av. NE, Renton. WA 98059
Investigator: John G. Com is (PWS). John Comis Associates JCA Job
No: 091203
Jurisdiction: City of Renton
County/State: Kine; County. WA
S/T/R: SEY. of Sec, 1O-T23N-R5E
Do nonnal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)?
[s the area a potential problem area?
II
I VEGETATION (Dominant Plant Species)
Yes(gJ NoD
YesD No(gJ
YesD No(gJ
Dominant plant species (Scientific Name) Indicator Status
I. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) F AC+
2. alder, red (Alnus rubra) FAC
3. fern, lady (Athyriumfilix-femina) FAC
4. hardhack [Doug. Spiraea] (Spiraea dauglasii) FACW
5. sedge, slough (earex obnupta)
6. water-parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
% of Dominants (OBL, FACW, FAC): 100 %
Check all indicators that anniv below:
OBL
OBL
Parcel No: 1023059069
Transect ID:
Sample Plot ID: TPI
shrub
tree, Native
PNF
shrub
grasslike, per
forb, per Submrg
Regional Knowledge of Plant Communities...,X Wetland Plant List (Nat'l or Regional)~
Physiological or reproductive adaptations __ _
Technical Literature X.
Olher
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (gJ No D
Morphological adaptations
Wetland Plant Data !lase x
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Dominants are hydroDhytes. The wetland is denselv vegetated with scrub-shrub vegetation
and some trees in the northern part. The 25-foot butler around the onsite portion of Wetland "A" is densely vegetated with a
varietv of native plant species that do not require restoration or enhancement with a more diverse plant community than already
exists in this area.
HYDROLOGY I
Is it the growing season? Yes [gJ NoO Water Marks? YesO No 0 Sediment Deposits?
YesONoO
Based on: soil temp> 41°F at IS", but nonnally for Drift Lines? YesO No 0 Drainage Patterns?
'Mesic' this time of"'ear is not the 'arowino season' Yes0 NoO
Oxidized root (live) channels? Local Soil Survey?
YesONoO
Depth of Inundation: 6-8 Inches (near test plot (4 or 5 < 12" deep? Ye50 No 0 Water Stained Leaves?
feet away) in the area with some small patches of OW) Yes0 No 0
Depth to Free Water in Pit at surface" F AC Neutral? Yes 0 No 0
DeDth to Saturated Soil: "" surface Other?
Check all that ~ and ewlain below:
Stream, Lake or Gage Data: __ .
Aerial Photograph: _X __ .
Other: Tono & draina •• man,;{see Fios & And,)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (gJ No D
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Hydrology indicators are sufficient for a positive wetland determination. Saturation
appears to be above 12" for part of growing season, bottom of hole is completely submerged at this time & delineated wetland
area appears saturated by surface water runoff.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave_ Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 29 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOILS I
~ap unit Name (Series and Phase): Hydrologic Soil Group (drainage class):
Normal fine sand:y loam (or Bellin2,ham silt loam} D
Taxonomy(subgroup ): Field observations confirm Soi( Survey
Mapped type" Yes No X.
Profile Description
Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle abundance, size and "\'exture, concretions, Drawing of Soil Profile
(Inches) (Munsell. contrast structure, etc. (match description)
moistened)
0-14" IOyr2/1 Few faint redox features in Gravelly sandy loam
the upper 0-6", with organics in the
upper 6"
14-16" IOyr 4/1 distinct to prominent redox Same texture with
features at 6-]4+" fewer oreanics
Hydric Soil Indicators (check all that al ply
DYes DNa Histosol: DYes DNa Concretions:
DYes DNa Histic Epipedon: DYes DNa High Organic Content in Surface Layer or
Sandy Soils
DYes DNa Sulfidic Odor: DYes DNa Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[2JYes DNo Aquic Moisture [2JYes DNo Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Regime
[2JYes DNo Reducing DYes DNa Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Conditions:
[2JYes DNo Gleyed or Low DYes DNa Other(explain in remarks)
Chroma Colors:
HydrIc SOIl Present? Yes [2J No 0
Rationale for decisionlRemarks: Hydric soil indicators are sufficient for a positive wetland determination. Matrix color and
prominent or distinct redox features are present to indicate hydric soil also shallow root zone and blocky structure with high soil
moisture in the upper to to 12" of soil horizon indicates a hydric condition.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes [2J No 0 Is the sampling point within a wetland? Yes [2J NoD
Hydric Soils Present? Yes [2J No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes [2J No 0
Rationale/Remarks: All of 3 criteria (vegetation, soils and hydrology) are met. Edge of wetland is clearly
defined by hydrology and topography along a well defined bank along all of this side of 'Wetland A·.
Cairnes. Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/2211 0
Page 30 of 55
TP#l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD DATA FORM
Routine Onsite Wetland Detennination
(1997 W A State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Co s Wetland Delineation Manual)
Pro' ect/Site: Short Plat of the Jericho Ave. Pro ert Date: 12/9/09 and 12/11109
Applicant/Owner: Andy Carines. Cairnes Construction LLC
@ 126" Jericho Av. NE, Renton, WA 98059
Investigator: John G. Comis (PWS) JCA Job No: 091203
Do normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes[ZJ NoD
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? YesO Norzl
Is the area a potential problem area? YesO Norzl
Jurisdiction: City of Renton
County/State: King County. WA
SIT/R: SEV. of Sec. IO-T23N-RSE
Parcel No: 1023059069
II
I VEGETATION (Dominant Plant Species)
Dominant plant species (Scientific Name) Indicator Status
1. fir, Douglas (Pseudotsuga menziesii) FACU
2. maple, bigleaf (Acer macrophyllum) FACU
3. alder, red (Alnus rubra) FAC
4. blackberry, llimalayan (Rubus discolor) FACU
5. blackberry, cut-leaf (Rubus laciniatus) FACU+
6. blackberry, pacific (Rubus ursinus) FACU
7. fern, bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) FACU
8. fern. western sword (Polysticum munitum) FACU
9. elderberry, red (Sambucus racemosa ssp. pubens) FACU
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
%ofDominants (OBL, FACW, FAC):
Check all indicators that apply below:
~1!.11,-_%
Transect 10:
Sample Plot 10: TP2
Stratum
tree
tree
tree, Native
woody vine, Intro
woody vine, lntro
woody vine
fern
forb, per N
shrub
Regional Knowledge afPlant Communities~
Physiological or reproductive adaptations __ .
Wetland Plant List (Nat'! or Regional)~
Technical Literature X.
Other
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No rzl
Morphological adaptations
Wetland Plant Data Base x
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Dominants are not hydrophytes. The wetland buffer around the onsite portion of Wetland
"A" is densely vegetated with a variety of native plant species that do not require restoration or enhancement with a more diverse
plant community than already exists in this area. Noted that wild cherry. hazelnut and salal are in other parts of upland buffer.
HYDROLOGY I
Is it the growing season? Yes (8] NoD Water Marks? YesD No 0 Sediment Deposits?
YesDNoD
Based on: soil temg > 41 0 r at IS", but nonnally for Drift !.ines? YesD No 0 Drainage Patterns?
'Mesic' this time ofvear is not the 'g:rowinl2. season' YesD Nol2l
Oxidized root (live) channels? Local Soil Survey?
< \2" deep? YesDNoD
Depth of Inundation: none Inches YesD No I2l Water Stained Leaves?
YesD No I2l
Depth to Free Water in Pit: none FAC Neutral? Yes 0 NoD
Depth to Saturated Soil: none (ii) bottom at 15" Other?
Check all that apply and explain below:
Stream, Lake or Gage Data: __ .
Aerial Photograph: _X __ .
Other: To DO & drain •• e maDS (see Fi.s & ADd,)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No rzl
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Hydrology indicators are not sufficient for a positive wetland determination. No
saturation is gresent at bottom oftest hole during wet season site visit. Other field indicators are not present.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/22/10
Page 31 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):
Alderwood. gravelly sandy loam. 0-6% slopes
Taxonomy(subgroup ):
P fiI D ro Ie escrIphon
Dcpth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle abundance, size
(Inches) (Munsell, and contrast
moistened)
0-8" lO,r3/3, 100% No redox features
8-15" IOyr4/3,90% Few, faint redox
Hydrologic Soil Group (drainage class):
C
Field observations con finn Soil Survey
Mapped type? Yes X No
I
Texture, concretions, Drawing of Soil Profile
structure, etc. (match descriQtion)
Very gravelly sandy
features, IOvr4/4, <5% loam
Hydric Soil Indicators (check all that apply
DYes DNa Histosol: DYes DNa Concretions:
DYes DNa Histic Epipedon: DYes DNa High Organic Content in Surface Layer or
Sandy Soils
DYes DNa Sulfidic Odor: DYes DNa Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
DYes DNa Aquic Moisture DYes DNa Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Regime
DYes DNa Reducing DYes DNa Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Conditions:
DYes DNa G leyed or Low DYes DNa Other(explain in remarks)
Chroma Colors:
HydrIC SOIl Present? Yes D No [2J
Rationale for decision/Remarks: hydric soil indicators are not sufficient for a positive wetland determination. Matrix color
and lack of prominent or distinct redox features do NOT indicate hydric soil also deep root zone and dry. friable structure with
low soil moisture in the upper 11" during this wet season indicates a non-hydric condition.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydropbytic vegetation present? YesD No [2J Is the sampling point within a wetland? YesD No [2J
Hydric Soils Present? Yes D No [2J
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No [2J
RationalelRemarks: None of 3 criteria (vegetation. soils and hydrology) are met. Note edge of the wetland is
clearly defined by hydrology and topography along a well dermed bank along all ofthis side of 'Wetland A'.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/22110
Page 32 of 55
TP#2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD DATA FORM
Routine Onsite Wetland Determination
(1997 WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Co s Wetland Delineation Manual)
Pro'ect/Site: Short Plat of the Jericho Ave. Pro ert Date: 12/9109 and 12/11/09
Applicant/Owner: Andy Carines, Cairnes Construction LLC
@ 126 .. Jericho Av. NE, Renton, WA 98059
Investigator: John G. Com is (PWS) JCA Job No: 091203
Do normal Circumstances exist on the site? YesliSl NoD
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? YesO NoliSl
Is the area a potential problem area? YesO NoliSl
Jurisdiction: City of Renton
County/State: King County, WA
S/T/R: SEll, of Sec. 10-T23N-R5E
Parcel No: 1023059069
u
I VEGETATION (Dominant Plant Species)
Dominant plant species (Scientific Name) Indicator Status
1. fir, Douglas (Pseudotsuga menziesii) FACU
2. salal (Gaultheria shallon) F ACU
3. fern, western sword (Polysticum munitum) F ACU
4. fern, bracken (Pteridium aquilinum)
5. blackberry, pacific (Rubus ursinus)
6. blackberry, Himalayan (Rubus discolor)
7. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)
8. maple. bigleaf (Acer macrophyllum)
f Iydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
% of Dominants (OBL, fACW. fAC): 12.5 %
Check all indicators that apply below:
FACU
FACU
FACU
FAC+
FACU
Transect 10:
Sample Plot 10: TP3
tree
shrub
forb, per N
fern
woody vine
woody vine, Intro
shrub
tree
Regional Knowledge of Plant Communities..L
Physiological or reproductive adaptations_.
Wetland Plant List (Nat'! or Regional)~
Technical Literature X.
Other
Hydrophytlc Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No IiSl
Morphological adaptations
Wetland Plant Data Base x
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Dominants are not hydrophytes. The wetland buffer around this portion of Wetland "A" is
densely vegetated with a variety of native plant species that do not require restoration or enhancement with a more diverse plant
community than already exists in this area,
HYDROLOGY I
Is it the growing season? Yes [8J NoD Water Marks? YesD No D Sediment Deposits?
YesDNoD
Based on: soil temp> 41°F at 18", but normall):' for Drift Lines? YesD No D Drainage Patterns?
'Mesic' this time ofvear is not the 'Qrowinll season' YesD NolS!
Oxidized root (live) channels? Local Soil Survey?
< 12" deep? YesDNoD
Depth of Inundation: _!!2.!!!_.Inehes YesD No IS! Water Stained Leaves?
YesD No IS!
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~ FAC Neutral? Yes D NoD
Depth to Saturated Soil: none (ii) at <15" Other?
Check all that apply and explain below:
Stream, Lake or Gage Data: __ .
Aerial Photograph: _X __ .
Other: TODD & draina~e maD.lsee Fi~. & Aod.l
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No IiSl
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Hydrology indicators are not sufficient for a pOSitive wetland determination. No
saturation is present at bottom of test holc during wet season site visit. Some saturation at > 15" in bottom or test hole
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0 lI22/1 0
Page 33 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):
Alderwood. gravelly sandy loam. 0-6% slopes
Taxonomy(subgroup):
P fiI D ro Ie 'f escnpllOn
Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle abundance, size
(Inches) (Munsell, and contrast
moistened)
0-12" lOyr 3/3, 100% No redox features
12-17" lOyr4/3,90% Few, faint redox
Hydrologic Soil Group (drainage class);
C
Field observations confirm Soil Survey
Mapped type? Yes X No
I
Texture, concretions, Drawing of Soil Profile
structure, etc. (match description)
Very gravelly sandy
features, lOyr4/4, <5% loam
Hydric Soil Indicators (check all that a~ ph
DYes DNo Histosol: DYes DNo Concretions:
DYes DNo Histic Epipedon: DYes DNo High Organic Content in Surface Layer or
Sandy Soils
DYes DNo Sulfidic Odor: DYes DNo Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
DYes DNo Aquic Moisture DYes DNo Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Regime
DYes DNo Reducing DYes DNo Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Conditions:
DYes DNo G leyed or Low DYes DNa Other(explain in remarks)
Chroma Colors:
HydrIC SOIl Present? Yes D No r:;g
Rationale for decision/Remarks: hydric soil indicators are not sufficient for a positive wetland determination. Matrix color
and lack of prominent or distinct redox features do NOT indicate hvdric soil also deep root zone and dry friable structure with
low soil moisture in the upper 12" during this wet season indicates a non-hydric condition. Duff at -3 to 0" is removed for soil
sample.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic vegetation present? YesD No r:;g Is the sampling point within a wetland? YesD No r:;g
Hydric Soils Present? Yes D No r:;g
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No r:;g
Rationale/Remarks: None of 3 criteria (vegetation, soils and hydrology) are met. Note edge of the wetland is
clearly defined by overhanging vegetation and hydrology along a well defined bank along all or this side of 'Wetland
Cairnes, Jericho A ve. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01122/10
Page 34 of 55
TP#3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD DATA FORM
Routine Onsite Wetland Determination
(1997 W A State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Co s Wetland Delineation Manual)
Pro'ect/Site: Short Pial oflhe Jericho Ave. Pro ert Date: 12/9/09 and 12111109
Applicant/Owner: Andy Carines. Cairnes Construction LLC
@ 126 .. Jericho Av. NE, Renton. WA 98059
Investigator: John G. Comis (PWS). John Comis Associates JCA Job
No: 091203
Jurisdiction: City of Renton
County/State: King County. W A
S/T/R: SEV. of Sec. 10-T23N-RSE
Do normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)?
Is the area a potential problem area?
II
I VEGETATION (Dominant Plant Species)
Yes[8j NoD
YesO No[8j
YesO No[8j
Dominant plant species (Scientific Name) Indicator Status
L fern. lady (Athyriumfilix·femina) FAC
2. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) FAC+
3. alder, red (Ainus rubra) FAC
4. sedge, slough (Carex obnupta)
5. pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus)
6, willow (Salix spp,)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
% of Dominants (OBL, FACW, FAC): 100 %
Check all indicators that apply below:
OBL
FAC+
FACW
Parcel No: 1023059069
Transect ID:
Sample Plot ID: TP4
Stratum
PNF
shrub
tree. Native
grasslike, per
shrub
shrub
Regional Knowledge of Plant Communities-X
Physiological or reproductive adaptations_,
Wetland Plant List (Nat' I or Regional)...K.....,
Technical Literature X.
Other
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes [8j No 0
Morphological adaptations
Wetland Plant Data Base x
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Dominants are hydrophytes. The wetland is densely vegetated with scrub-shrub vegetation
and some trees in this part. The buffer around the onsite portion of Wetland "A" is densely vegetated with a varietv of native
plant species that do not require restoration or enhancement with a more diverse plant community than already exists in this area.
HYDROLOGY I
Is it the growing season? Yes ~ No D Water Marks? YesO No 0 Sediment Deposits?
YesO NoO
Based on: soil temp> 41°F at 18", but normally for Drift Lines? YesO No 0 Drainage Patterns?
'Mesic' this time ofvear is not the 'growing season' Yes[gJ NoO
Oxidized root (live) channels? Local Soil Survey?
YcsONoO
Depth oflnundation: ....!!.Q!!.Llnches < 12" deep? Yes[gJ No 0 Water Stained Leaves?
Yes[gJ No 0
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~ 4" FAC Neutral? Yes 0 No 0
Depth to Saturated Soil: 3" Other?
Check all that apply and explam below:
Stream, Lake or Gage Data: __ '
Aerial Photograph: _X __ .
Other: TODO & draina2e maDS (see Fi., & ADd,)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes [8j No 0
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Hydrology indicators are sufficient for a positive wetland determination. Saturation
appears to be above 12" for part of growing season. bottom of hole is completely submerged at this time & delineated wetland
area appears saturated by surface water runoff.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave, Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 35 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOILS I
Map unit Name (Series and Phase): Ilydrologic Soil Group (drainage class):
Norma! fine sandy loam (or Bellin2,ham silt loam) D
Taxonomy(subgroup ): Field observations confirm Soil Survey
Mapped type? Yes No X.
Profile Description
Depth Ilorizon Matrix Color Mottle abundance, size and Texture, concretions, Drawing of Soil Profile
(Inches) (Munsell. contrast structure, etc. (match dcscrigtion)
moistened)
0-4" IOyr 2/2 Few faint redox features in Gravelly sandy loam
the upper 0-4'\ with organics in the
upper 14"
4-14" IOyr 211 distinct to prominent redox Same texture with
features at 4-14" fewer organics
14-16" IOyr 411 prominent redox features Same texture with
at 14+" fewer or2anics
Hydric Soil Indicators (check all that a~ ph
DYes DNo Histosol: DYes DNo Concretions:
DYes DNo Histic Epipedon: DYes DNo High Organic Content in Surface Layer or
Sandy Soils
DYes DNo Sulfidic Odor: DYes DNo Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[2JYes DNo Aquic Moisture [2JYes DNo Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Regime
[2JYes DNo Reducing DYes DNo Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Conditions:
[2JYes DNo Gleyed or Low DYes DNo Other(explain in remarks)
Chroma Colors:
Hydnc SOIl Present? Yes [2J No D
Rationale for decisionlRemarks: hydric soil indicators are sufficient for a positive wetland determination. Matrix color and
prominent or distinct redox features are prescnt to indicate hydric soil also shallow root zone and blocky structure with high soil
moisture in the upper 12" of soil horizon indicates a hydric soil.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes [2J No D [s the sampling point within a wetland? Yes [2J NoD
Hydric Soils Present? Yes [2J No D
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes [2J No D
RationalelRemarks: All of3 criteria (vegetation, soils and hydrology) are met. Edge of wetland is defined by
vegetation and hydrology along this southern side of 'Wetland A'. The area is less well defined by topography in
this area as it does not have the steep banks that were present in the other areas, but vegetation and hydrology are
still good markers.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 36 ofSS
TP#4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD DATA FORM
Routine Onsite Wetland Detennination
(1997 WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Co s Wetland Delineation Manual)
Pro·ect/Site: Short Plat of the Jericho Ave. Pro ert Date: 12/9/09 and 12/11109
Applicant/Owner: Andy Carines. Cairnes Construction LLC
@ 126xx Jericho Av. NE. Renton. WA 98059
Investigator: John G. Comis (PWS) JCA Job No: 091203
Do nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? YesC8l NoD
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? YesO NoC8l
Is the area a potential problem area? YesO NoC8l
Jurisdiction: City of Renton
County/State: King County. WA
S/T/R: SEV. of Sec. 10-T23N-R5E
Parcel No: 1023059069
II
I VEGETATION (Dominant Plant Species)
Dominant plant species (Scientific Name) Indicator Status
I. alder, red (Alnusrubra) fAC
2. blackberry, Himalayan (Rubus discolor) F ACU
3. fern. western sword (Po~vsticum munitum) FACU
4. fern, bracken (Pleridium aquilinum) FACU
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
% of Dominants (OBL, FACW, FAC): 25 %
Check all indicators that apply below:
Transect ID:
Sample Plot ID: TP5
Stratum
tree, Native
woody vine, Intra
forb, per N
fern
Regional Knowledge afPlant Comrnunities-L
Physiological or reproductive adaptations __ .
Wetland Plant List (Nat'! or Regional)~
Technical Literature X.
Other
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No C8l
Morphological adaptations
Wetland Plant Data Base x
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Dominants are not hydrophytes. The wetland buffer around this portion of Wetland "A" is
denselv vegetated. This plot is located on an old haul road crossing thm Wetland "A" that has become overgrown with a variety
of native and introduced plant species (Him. Blackbeny). See determination 'rationale' for recommendation for enhancement.
HYDROLOGY I
Is it the growing season? Yes r8l No 0 Water Marks? YesD No D Sediment Deposits?
YesDNoD
nased on: soil temu > 41t'lF at IS", but nonnally for Drift Lines? YesD No D Drainage Patterns?
'Mesic' this time ofvear is not the 'e:rowilU! season' YesD NolS]
Oxidized root (live) channels? Local Soil Survey?
< 12" deep? YesDNoD
Depth ofInundation: none Inches YesD No IS] Water Stained Leaves?
YesD No IZI
Depth to Free Water in Pit: none rAC Neutral? Yes D NoD
Depth to Saturated Soil: non.@ bottom at IS" Other?
Check all that apply and explain below:
Stream, I.ake or Gage DaL"1: __ .
Aerial Photograph: _X __ .
Other: TODD & draina •• maD~" Fi.s & ADd.)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No C8l
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Hydrology indicators are not sufficient for a positive wetland determination. No
saturation is mesent at the bottom of the test hole during wet season site visit. Other field indicators arc not present. This plot
is located on an old haul road crossing thru Wetland "A".
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 37 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):
"Non-soil" for old haul road fill. gravelly sandy loam
Taxonomy(subgroup ):
P fiI D ro Ie escrlptlOn
Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle abundance. size
(Inches) (Munsell, and contrast
moistened)
0-15" lOyr3/3, 100% Few, faint redox
features, may be relic
Hydric Soil Indicators (check all that a pI
DYes DNo Histosol: DYes DNo
DYes DNo Histic Epipedon: DYes DNo
DYes DNo Sulfidic Odor: DYes DNo
DYes DNo Aquic Moisture DYes DNo
Regime
DYes DNo Reducing Conditions: DYes DNo
DYes DNo Gleyed or Low DYes DNo
Chroma Colors:
Hydnc SOlI Present? Yes 0 No [gJ
I
Hydrologic Soil Group (drainage class):
C
Field observations confirm Soil Survey
Mapped type" Yes No X.
Texture, concretions, Drawing of Soil Profile
structure, etc. (match descrigtion)
Concretions:
High Organic Content in Surface Layer or Sandy
Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other(explain in remarks)
Rationale for decision/Remarks: hydric soil indicators are not sufficient for a positive wetland determination. Matrix color
and lack of prominent or distinct redox features do NOT indicate hydric soil. also deep root zone and dry. friable structure with
low soil moisture in the upper 12" during this wet season indicates a non-hydric condition.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic vegetation present? YesO No [gJ Is the sampling point within a wetland? YesO No [gJ
Hydric Soils Present? Yes 0 No [gJ
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No [gJ
RationalelRemarks: None of 3 criteria (vegetation, soils and hydrology) are met. Note edge of the wetland is
clearly defined by hydrology and topography along an old haul road that has been filled with earthen material
through this part of 'Wetland A'. Ifthere is underlying hydric soil it has been buried for quite some time based on
the agedness of trees established in and around this area. Based on the soil and vegetation, we estimate that this
roadway has been in place for at least 20 years and has not been used for at least 7 years. A new wood chip trail
along the haul road with clearing of the invasive and introduced vegetation would enhance this area for both wildlife
and pedestrian access, viewing and casual nature study oflhis area. See TP #6 for adjacent plot in unfilled area.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01122/10
Page 38 of 55
TP#5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD DATA FORM
Routine Onsite Wetland Determination
(1997 WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Co s Wetland Delineation Manual)
Pro'ect/Site: Short Plat of the Jericho Ave. Pro ert Date: 12/9/09 and 12/11/09
Applicant/Owner: Andy Carines, Cairnes Construction LLC
@ 126 •• Jericho Av. NE, Renton, WA 98059
Investigator: John G. Comis (PWS) JCA Job No: 091203
Do normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes[8j NoD
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? YesD No[8j
Is the area a potential problem area? YesD No[8j
Jurisdiction: City of Renton
County/State: King County, WA
SITIR: SEY. of Sec. 10· T23N·R5E
Parcel No: 1023059069
II
I VEGETATION (Dominant Plant Species)
Dominant plant species (Scientific Name) Indicator Status
I. alder, red (Alnus rubra) F AC
2. blackberry, Himalayan (Rubus discolor) F ACU
3. fern, western sword (Polysticum munitum) FACU
4. fern, bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) FACU
5. fir or hemlock (fallen) (unknown spp.) FACU
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
% of Domin ants (OBL, FACW, F AC): _1",1,-_%
Check all indicators that applY below:
Transect 10:
Sample Plot 10: TP6
Stratum
tree, Native
woody vine, Intro
lorb. perN
rem
tree
Regional Knowledge of Plant Communities..L
Physiological or reproductive adaptations_.
Wetland Plant List (Na!' I or Rcgional)..K....,
Technical Literature X.
Other
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No [8j
Morphological adaptations
Wetland Plant Data Base x
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Dominants are not hydrophytes. The wetland buffer around the onsite portion of Wetland
"A" is densely vegetated with a variety of native and non-native plant species (Him. Blackberry). This plot is in the bottom ofa
root wad depression that was left by a large "wind-thrown" fir tree (-20" dbhl.
HYDROLOGY I
Is it the growing season? Yes ~ No D Water Marks? YesD No D Sediment Deposits?
YesD NoD
Based on: soil temp> 41°F at 18", but normallv for Drift Lines? YesD No D Drainage Patterns?
'Mesic' this time ofvear is not the 'Qrowin2: season' YesD Nor2J
Oxidized root (live) channels? Local Soil Survey?
< 12" deep? YcsDNoD
Depth of Inundation: ....!!Q!!L Inches YesD No r2J Water Stained Leaves?
YesD No r2J
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8" after 10 min. F AC Neutral? Yes D No D
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8" in bottom of root wad Other?
deoression
Check all that apply and explain below:
Stream, I.ake or Gage Data: __ .
Aerial Photograph: _X __ .
Other: TODO & draina •• rna.' (see Fi.s & ADd.l
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No [8j
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Hydrology indicators are not sufficient for a positive wetland determination. Although
saturation is present at the bottom of the test hole, this is made in a depression left by the large tree when it was wind-thrown.
This analysis is done during the wet season site visit and the presence of hydrology at this depth is not unusual nor does it
indicate the presence of sufficient wetland hvdrology in this plot area.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 39 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):
Alderwood. gravelly sandy loam. 0-6% slopes
Taxonomy(subgroup);
P iii D ro Ie 'j" eSCflPllOn
Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle abundance, size
(Inches) (Munsell, and contrast
moistened)
0-6" IOyr3/3, 100% No redox features
6-14+" IOyr4/4,90% Few, faint redox
features, <2%
Hydric Soil Indicators (check ali that 3Hh
DYes DNa Histasol: DYes DNa
DYes DNa Histic Epipedan: DYes DNa
DYes DNa Sulfidic Odar: DYes DNa
DYes DNa Aquic Moisture DYes DNo
Regime
DYes DNa Reducing DYes DNo
Conditions:
DYes DNa Gleyed or Low DYes DNa
Chroma Colors:
Hydnc SOIl Present? Yes 0 No lSI
Ilydrologic Soil Group (drainage class):
C
Field observations confirm Soil Survey
Mapped type" Yes X No
I
Texture, concretions, Drawing of Soil Profile
structure, etc. (match description)
Very gravelly sandy
loam
Concretions:
High Organic Content in Surface Layer ar
Sandy Sails
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other(explain in remarks)
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Hydric soil indicators are not sufficient for a positive wetland determination. Matrix color
and lack of prominent or distinct redox features do NOT indicate hydric soil. also deep root zone and dry, friable structure with
low soil moisturc in the upper 12" during this wet season indicates a non-hydric condition. Sample is taken from under root
wad of large fallen tree.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic vegetation present? YesD No lSI Is the sampling point within a wetland? YesD No lSI
Hydric Soils Present? Yes 0 No lSI
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No lSI
Rationale/Remarks: None of3 criteria (vegetation, soils and hydrology) are met. Note edge of the wetland is
clearly defined by vegetation and hydrology along a well defined bank along both sides of 'Wetland A' and the old
haul road that extends across the wetland in this area. This plot is at the upland edge of Wetland "A" on the east side
ofthe wetland.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave, Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 40 of 55
TP#6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD DATA FORM
Routine Onsite Wetland Determination
(1997 W A State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Co s Wetland Delineation Manual
Pro'ect/Site: Short Plat orthe Jericho Ave, Pro ert Date: 12/9/09 and 12/11/09
Applicant/Owner: Andy Carines, Cairnes Construction LLC
@ 126 •• Jericho Av. NE. Renton. WA 98059
Investigator: John G. Comi. (PWS) JCA Job No: 091203
Do normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes[2J NoD
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? YesO No[2J
Is the area a potential problem area? YesO No[2J
Jurisdiction: City of Renton
County/State: King County. W A
SITIR: SEV. or Sec. 1O-T23N-RSE
Parcel No: 1023059069
Transect ID:
Sample Plot ID: TP7
II I VEGETATION (Dominant Plant Species)
Dominant plant species (Scientific Name) Indicator Status
1. alder. red (Alnus rubra) FAC
2. cherry, bitter (Prunus emarginata) FACU
3. fern, bracken (Pteridium aquilinurn) FAClJ
4, blackberry, Himalayan (Rubus discolor) FACU
5. fern, western sword (Polysticum munitum) FACU
6, blackberry, pacific (Rubus ursinus) FACU
7. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)
8. grape, Oregon (Mahonia nervosa)
9. hazelnut, beaked (Cory/us cornuta)
Ilydroph)1ic Vegetation Indicators:
% of Dominants (OBL, fACW, fAC): 22 %
Check all indicators that apply below:
FAC+
NI(UPL)
FACU
Stratum
tree, Native
tree
fern
woody vine, Intro
forb. per N
woody vine
shrub
shrub
shrub
Regional Knowledge of Plant Communities~
Physiological or reproductive adaptations __ ,
Wetland Plant List (Nat'l or Regional)...K......
Morphological adaptations
Technical Literature X. Wetland Plant Data Base X
Other
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No [2J
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Dominants are not hydrophytes. The upland buffer around the onsite portion of Wetland "A"
is densely vegetated with a variety of native plant species that do not require restoration or enhancement with a more diverse
plant community than already exists in this area.
HYDROLOGY I
Is it the growing season? Yes [8J NoD Water Marks? YesD No D Sediment Deposits?
YesD NoD
Based on: soit temp> 41llF at 18", but nonnally for Drift Lines? YesD No D Drainage Patterns?
'Mesic' this time of year is not the 'growing season' YesD Nol:8J
Oxidized root (live) channels? Local Soil Survey?
< 12" deep? YesD NoD
Depth of Inundation: ~Inches YesD No I:8J Water Stained Leaves?
YesD No I:8J
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ...!!Q!!£ F AC Neutral? Yes D No D
Depth to Saturated Soil: none (a) bottom at IS" Other?
Check all tbat apply and explain below:
Stream, Lake or Gage Data: __ '
Aerial Photograph: X ,
Other: Topo & draina2e maps (see Fi2S & ADdx)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No [2J
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Hydrology indicators are not sufficient for a positive wetland determination. No
saturation is present except at bottom of test hole during wct season site visit. Other field indicators are not present.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave, Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/2211 0
Page 41 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):
Alderwood. gravelly sandy loam. 0-6% slopes
Taxonomy(subgroup ):
P iii D TO Ie escnptlOn
Depth Ilorizon Matrix Color Mottle abundance, size
(Inches) (Munsell, and contrast
moistened)
0-18" lOyr3/3 Few, faint redox
features, <2% to 14"
Hydric Soil Indicators (check all that a ply
DYes DNo Histosol: DYes DNo
DYes DNo Histic Epipedon: DYes DNo
DYes DNo Sulfidic Odor: DYes DNo
DYes DNa Aquic Moisture DYes DNa
Regime
DYes DNa Reducing DYes DNa
Conditions:
DYes DNa G1eyed or Low DYes DNa
Chroma Colors:
Hydnc SOIl Present? Yes D No [8J
Hydrologic Soil Group (drainage class):
C
Field observations confirm Soil Survey
Mapped type? Y cs X No
I
Texture, concretions, Drawing of Soil Profile
structure, etc. (match description)
gravelly sandy loam
Concretions:
High Organic Content in Surface Layer or
Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other(explain in remarks)
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Hydric soil indicators are not sufficient for a positive wetland determination. Matrix color
and lack of prominent or distinct redox features do NOT indicate hydric soil. also deep root zone and drY. friable structure with
low soil moisture in the upper 12" during this wet season indicates a non-hydric condition.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic vegetation present? YesD No [8J Is the sampling point within a wetland? YesD No [8J
Hydric Soils Present? Yes D No [8J
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No [8J
Rationale/Remarks: None of 3 criteria (vegetation, soils and hydrology) are met. Note edge of the wetland is
clearly defined by vegetation, hydrology and topography along a well defined bank along this side of 'Wetland A'.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 42 of 55
TP#7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD OAT A FORM
Routine Onsite Wetland Determination
(1997 W A State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Co s Wetland Delineation Manual)
Pro'ect/Site: Short Plat ofthe Jericho Ave. Pro ert Date: 12/9/09 and 12/11/09
Applicant/Owner: Andy Carines, Cairnes Construction LLC
@ 126xx Jericho Av. NE, Renton, WA 98059
Investigator: John G. Comi, (PWS) JCA Job No: 091203
Do normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes~ NoD
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? YesD No~
Is the area a potential problem area? YesD No~
Jurisdiction: City or Renton
County/State: King County, WA
S/T/R: SEV. or Sec, 10-T23N-R5E
Parcel No: 1023059069
Transect 10:
Sample Plot 10: TP8
11 I VEGETATION (Dominant Plant Species)
Dominant plant species (Scientific Name) Indicator Status
I. alder, red (Alnus rubra) FAC tree, Native
tree 2. maple, bigleaf (Acer macrophyJlum)
3. fern, western sword (Polysticurn munitum)
4. fern, spreading wood (Dryopteris expansa)
5. fern, bracken (Pteridium aquilinum)
6. blackberry. pacific (Rubus ursinus)
7. blackberry, Himalayan (Rubus discolor)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
% of Dominants (OBI., FACW, FAC): 14 %
Check all indicators that apply below:
Regional Knowledge of Plant Communities~
Physiological or reproductive adaptations __ .
Technical Literature X.
Other
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No ~
FACU
FACU
NI(FAC-)
FACU
FACU
FACU
forb, per N
forb, per N
fern
woody vine
woody vine, Intro
Wetland Plant List (Nat'l or Regional)-.lL..,
Morphological adaptations
Wetland Plant Data Ba<.;e X
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Dominants are not hydrophytes. The upland buffer around this portion of Wetland "A" is
densely vegetated with a variety of native plant species that do not require restoration or enhancement with a more diverse plant
community than already exists in this area.
HYDROLOGY I
Is it the growing season? Yes r8J NoD WaterMarks? YesO No 0 Sediment Deposits?
YesONoO
Based on: soil temp> 4JoF at J8", but normally for Drift Lines? YesO No 0 Drainage Patterns?
'Mesic' this time ofvear is not the 'erowing: season' YesO No[8J
Oxidized root (live) channels? Local Soil Survey?
< 12" deep? YesO NoD
Depth of Inundation: none Inches YesO No [8J Water Stained Leaves?
YesO No [8J
Depth to Free Water in Pit: none FAC Neutral? Yes 0 NoD
Depth to Saturated Soil: none (iiJ bottom at 18" Other?
Check all that apply and explain below:
Stream, Lake or Gage Data: __ '
Aerial Photograph: _X __ ,
Other: TODo & drain ••• mao;;; •• Fi.s & ADd.)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No ~
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Hydrology indicators are not sufficient for a positive wetland determination. No
saturation is present at bottom oftest hole during wet season site visit. Other field indicators arc not present.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01122/10
Page 43 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOILS I
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Hydrologic Soil Group (drainage class):
Alderwood l gravell): sandy loam 2 0-6% slo~es C
Taxonomy(subgroup): field observations confirm Soil Survey
Mapped type? Yes X No
Profile Description
Depth Horizon MatTix Color Mottle abundance. siLe Texture. concretions, Drawing of Soil Profile
(Inches) (Munsell, and contrast structure, etc. (match description)
moistened)
0-18" IOyr3/3 Few, faint redox Gravelly sandy loam
features, <2% to 14'"
Hydric Soil Indicators (check all that aDD"
DYes DNo Histosol: DYes DNo Concretions:
DYes DNo Histic Epipedon: DYes DNo High Organic Content in Surface Layer or
Sandy Soils
DYes DNo Sulfidic Odor: DYes DNo Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
DYes DNo Aquic Moisture DYes DNo Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Regime
DYes DNo Reducing DYes DNo Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Conditions:
DYes DNo G leyed or Low DYes DNo Other(explain in remarks)
Chroma Colors:
Hydnc SOt I Present? Yes D No [8]
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Hydric soil indicators are not sufficient for a positive wetland determination. Matrix color
and lack of prominent or distinct redox features do NOT indicate hydric soil. also deep root zone and dry. friable structure with
low soil moisture in the upper 12" during this wet season indicates a non-hydric condition.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic vegetation present? YesD No [8] Is the sampling point within a wetland? YesD No [8]
Hydric Soils Present? Yes D No [8]
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No [8]
Rationale/Remarks: None of3 criteria (vegetation, soils and hydrology) are met. Note edge of the wetland is
clearly defined by vegetation, hydrology and topography along a well defined bank along this side of 'Wetland A',
Cairnes, Jericho Ave, Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 44 of 55
TP#8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD DATA FORM
Routine Onsite Wetland Detennination
(1997 W A State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Cor s Wetland Delineation Manual)
Pro' ect/Site: Short Plat of the Jericho Ave. Pro ert Date: 12/9/09 and 12/11/09
Applicant/Owner: Andy Carines. Cairnes Construction LLC
@ 126xx Jericho Av. NE. Renton. WA 98059
Investigator: John G. Com is (PWS). John Comis Associates JCA Job
No: 091203
Jurisdiction: City of Renton
County/State: King County. WA
S/TIR: SEY.O of Sec. 10-T23N-R5E
Do nonnal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)?
Is the area a potential problem area?
II
I VEGETATION (Dominant Plant Species)
Yesl2] NoD
YesD Nol2]
YesD Nol2]
Dominant plant species (Scientific Name) Indicator Status
1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) FAC+
2. fern, lady (Athyriumfilix-Jemina) FAC
3. sedge, slough (Carex obnupta) OBL
4. blackberry, Himalayan (Rubus discolor) FACU
5. willow (Salix spp,) FACW
6, alder, red (Alnus rubra) F AC
7. hardhack [Doug, Spiraea] (Spiraea douglas;;) FACW
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
% of Dominants (OBL, FACW, FAC): 86 %
Check all indicators that ?pply_below:
Parcel No: 1023059069
Transect lD:
Sample Plot 1D: TP9
Stratum
shrub
PNF
grasslike, per
woody vine, Intra
shrub
tree, Native
shrub
Regional Knowledge of Plant Communities---.X
Physiological or reproductive adaptations __ ,
Wetland Plant List (Nat'l or Regional)~
Morphological adaptations
Technical Literature X. Wetland Plant Data Base X
Other
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 12] No D
Rationale for decisionlRemarks: Dominants are hydrophytes. The wetland is densely vegetated with scrub-shrub and forested
vegetation in the northern part. The 25-[00t buffer around this portion o[Wetland "A" is densely vegetated with a variety of
native plant species that do not require restoration or enhancement with a more diverse plant community than already exists in
this area. Note the large D, iir just east of this plot are situated on an upland hummock within Wetland "A".
HYDROLOGY I
Is it the growing season? Yes rsl NoD Water Marks? YesD No D Sediment Deposits?
YesDNoD
Based on: soil temp> 41°F at 18", but nonnally for Drift Lines? YesD No D Drainage Patterns?
'Mesic' this time o[year is not the 'growing season' YeslZ:l NoD
Oxidized root (live) channels? Local Soil Survey?
YesDNoD
Depth of Inundation: 2" {iust east ofthis plot} < 12" deep? YeslZ:l No D Water Stained Leaves?
YeslZ:l No D
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 2" after 10 min. F AC Neutral" Yes D NoD
Depth to Saturated Soil: 2" Other?
Check all that apply and explain below:
Stream, Lake or Gage Data: __ '
Aerial Photograph: _X __ ,
Other: TODO & drainaee maD' (,ee Fie, & ADdx)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 12] No D
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Hydrology indicators are sufficient for a positive wetland determination. Saturation
appears to be above 12" for part o[growing sea<;on bottom of hole is completely submerged by surface water runoff.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave, Plat in Renton
By John Com is Associates
Date: 01/2211 0
Page 45 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOILS I
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): lIydrologic Soil Group (drainage class):
Norma. fine sandy loam (or Bellingham silt loam) D
Taxonomy(subgroup): Field observations confirm Soil Survey
Mapped type? Yes No X .
P til D ro Ie .j" eSCrlDllOn
Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle abundance, size and Texture, concretions, Drawing of Soil Profile
(Inches) (Munsell. contrast structure, etc. (match description)
moistened)
0-4" lOyr 212 Few faint redox features in Gravelly sandy loam
the upper O~4", with organ ics in the
upper 14"
4-14" IOyr 2/1 distinct to prominent redox Same texture with
features at 4-14" fewer or2snics
4-14" IOyr 4/1 distinct to prominent redox Same texture with
features at 14+" fewer of2:anics
Hydric Soil Indicators (check ali that ap ph
DYes DNo Histosol: DYes DNo Concretions:
DYes DNo Histic Epipedon: DYes DNo High Organic Content in Surface Layer or
Sandy Soils
DYes DNo Sulfidic Odor: DYes DNo Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[2JYes DNo Aquic Moisture [2JYes DNo Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Regime
[2JYes DNo Reducing DYes DNo Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Conditions:
[2JYes DNo G leyed or Low DYes DNo Other(explain in remarks)
Chroma Colors:
Hydnc Soli Present? Yes [2J No D
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Hydric soil indicators are sufficient for a positive wetland determination. Matrix color and
prominent or distinct redox features are present to indicate hydric soit. also shallow root zone and blocky structure with high soil
moisture in the upper 12" or50il horizon indicates a hydric soil condition.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes [2J No D Is the sampling point within a wetland? Yes [2J NoD
Hydric Soils Present? Yes [2J No D
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes [2J No D
RationalelRemarks: All of 3 criteria (vegetation, soils and hydrology) are met. The edge of the wetland is well
defined by vegetation, hydrology and topography along this side of 'Wetland A". Note that this is the wetland test
plot pair for TP-8 and is located in the flow path toward the twin 12" dia. concrete culverts that are established under
the old haul road that extends across Wetland "A" in this area.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Com is Associates
Date: 01/22110
Page 46 of 55
TP#9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 3
WETLAND RATING FORMS
Completed by John Comis Associates
(Dated 12111/09)
Source: Washington State Department of Ecology, "Washington State Wetlands Rating
System, Western Washington", August 2004, WDOE Pub #04-06-025, revised 'version 2'
of August, 2006)
Note: the categorization (or rating) of wetlands is done for regulatory purposes based on the 3-tiered
system as required and specified by the City of Renton Municipal Code. The categorization of wetlands is
applicable to buffer standards and setback requirements. The current WDOE Wetland Rating Form is
completed by JCA to support the recommendation for wetland category(s) that may be approved by the City
in accordance with Code requirements.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 47 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Wetland name or number --A-
WETLANI) RATING FORM -WESTERN WASHINGTON
Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users
,\ f'
Name of wetland (ifknown): \"';e:rL~N.o A .. Date of site visit: 13J.ll/Cf{
Rated byJOHN c::c,,,,,W> eW5
j
Trained by Ecol ogy 0 Yes ~_ Date oftrainin~Q"""
SEC: IS'... TWNSHP: '"2...> RNGE: StE: Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No V f
7....007
~Y"r Map of wetland unit: Figure £ Estimated size bN5\"J"C ... 0 .bz:z.... ~.
SUMMARY OF RATING
= 2.7,07(.. SF
Of'FSoIT'C ~ ().:;; 5' 4<:' ..
Category based on FUNCTJONS provided by wetland
I II III !/IV
L.o~ I.... --:: 0.9 7Z 4<:..
s,~
Category 1 = Score >=70
Category II = Score 51 .. 69
Category lIT = Score 30~56J«1-
. Category iV';:Score <:m ....
Score for Water Quality Functions
Score for Hydrologic Functions
Score for Habitat Functions
TOTAL score for Functions
Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
./
I 11_ Does not Apply;..'
j f /'
Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) III L I
Summary of basic information about the wetland unit
Wetland Unit has Special
Characteristics
Estuarine
Natural Hcritall:e Wetland
BOil:
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
Coastal Lagoon
I"terdunal
None oflhe above
Wetland Rating Form -western Washington
version 2
i/
Wetland HGM Class
used for Ratinll:
Denressional v
Riverine
Lake-frinll:e
Slope
Flats
Freshwater Tidal
Check if unit has multiple
HGM classes nresent
August 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below?
If you answer YES to any orthe questions below you will need to protect the wetland
according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland.
Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection YES
(in addition to the protection recommended for its category)
SP I. Has Ihe weIland unil heen documented as a hahilatfill' any Federally lisled
Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE specie.I)?
For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the
appropriate state or federal database.
SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as hahitatfill' any State listed
Threatened 01' Endangered animal species?
For the purposes orthis rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the
appropriate state database, Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are
categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form).
SP3. Does Ihe weiland unil contain individuals of Priority species listed by the
WDFW.lill' the slale:'
SP4. Does Ihe wetland unit have a local significance in addition /0 ilsfunclions?
For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master
Program, thc Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as
having special significance.
To complete the next part ofthe data sheet you will need to determine the
Hvdrogeomorphic ctass of the wetland being rated.
NO
\
l
\
i
.I
/
i
I
(
,I
I
I
\
~
The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This
simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland tunctions. The Hydrogeomorphic
Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions
on classifying wetlands.
\Vetland Rating Form -western Washington
version 2
2 August 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Wetland name or number ~ __
Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being
rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which
hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
l. Areth~_Yl:.aJ.!:r levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during tloods)'?
No -go to 2) YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe
'-~-~. . .... ---" ~
If yes. is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per
thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)
l/your wetland can he classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the/arms.!",. Riverine
",<'1land,. llit is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that
were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt
Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were
categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this
revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept.
Please note. however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine
wetlands have changed (see p. ).
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it.
GrOULl4water and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
'NO -go to 3) YES -The wetland class is Flats . ~ ... -.. ,,_.,
I f your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional
wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria"
_The vegetated pa.1 of the wetland is on the shores ofa body of permanent open water
(without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 hal in size;
~AL~ 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)?
NO -go to 4 . . YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
__ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
__ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually
comes li'om seeps. It may flow subsurlace. as sheetllow, or in a swale without
distinct banks.
__ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded?
NOTE: SUI/ace water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in
vel'}' small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually
.. ' ......... ::.JJi diameter and less than I foot deep).
Nb -go to 5''':') YES -The wetland class is Slope '.------.. .' .
Wetland Rating Form -western Washington
version 2
3 Augus12004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
\\/ctland name or number ~
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
__ The unit is in a valley. or stream channel. where it gets inundated by overbank
tlooding hom that stream or river
__ The overbank tloading occurs at least once every two years.
NOTE: The riverine lInil can conlain depressions Ihat are filled with wafer when the river is
. . .. no/jlooding
:!!-~=_~~~030 YES -The wetland class is Riverine
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year. This means that any (Jutlet, i/present. is higher than the
inferior o(the wetl~
NO -go to 7 . YES r The wetland class is Depressional ... :,,_ \ .d '--A *'
.,,~ "'"" ...
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very tlat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
tlooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious
natural outlet.
NO -go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be ditlicult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine tloodplain. or a small
stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of tlooding along its sides. GO BACK AND
IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMLS DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7
APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use
the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several
HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is
recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit
being rated. If the area ofthc class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the
wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area.
HGM Classes within the wetland unit beinf!, rated HGM Class to Use in Ratinf!,
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional
Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under
wetland wetlands with special
characteristics
I r you are unable sti II to determine wh ich of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you
have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional
for the rating.
,~ • -;-T' ',,~ ,~, , r""" Ii "./ '-...", IE . (,. :'_'" ') ,," ...... ·11 .. __ " \'
Wetland Rating Form --western Washington
version 2 "~r'·,_, ..,.... __ ,::<" ...... ..:..-""~J.....,.-"-. 1'\,-rJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\Vctland name or number ~
D
D
D
D
D
D
Depressional and Flats Wetlands
WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to
improve water qual ity
D I. Docs the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland:
Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points"'" 3
Unit has an_in~~.~_'!1.~.~t~~!Ji:. !!£~!~ OR highly constricted permanently flowing olltlct(.:££.ln"is··::L":)
Unit has an ullconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permunentlyflowing) pOints-:·=-T
Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanel1t surface outflow and
no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points == 1
Uf ditch is not pC!rmanentlyflowinK /l'et.U unit as "inlermittenllyjlowing ")
Provide photo or drawing
S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS
definitions)
YES poi.D1§~
NO <points = 0)
D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent. shrub. andlor f?re£tC~din class)
Wetland has pel'sistent. ungrazed. vegetation> = 95% of area points = 5\
Wetland has persistent. ungrazed. vegetation> = 1/2 of area po II1K"'"3 "
Wetland has persistent. ungrazed vegetation> = III 0 of area points = I
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0
Map of Cowardin vegetation classes
D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation.
This is the urea qfthe wetland unit thai is ponded/or at least 2 months, bul dries out
sometime during the .l'car. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate
arca as the averaKe condition 5 out 0/10 }WS.
Area seasonally ponded is> Y, total area of wetland
Area seasonally ponded is> 'f. total al'ea of wetland
Area seasonally ponded is < V. total area of wetland
,point~~'=j:)
points = 2
points = 0
Points
(only 1 SC(lr1;':
per box)
(see p.38)
Figure.±.
.1'-
Figure_
Figure_
Map of HydroDeriods ~----------------------------~~~~~~--~-----D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above I { I I
~~~~~--~--~~----~--~------~~-------+---~-D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44)
Answer YES ifyoll know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water
D
coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams. lakes or
groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the fallowing conditions
provide the sources qfj)()lllllant.'l. A unit may have pollutants coming/rom several
sources. but any single source would qual{fy as opportunity.
-Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft
-Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland
-Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland
...i.,./" A stream ors.ill.v.~!:t~ischarges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas,
. /farmed fields, (-oaGs. or clear-cut logging
U Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland
-Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen
,'~~~ ~ Other ___ ~ ______ ~~_-,--,,--,--,-_~
/YES )nultiQIicr is 2 NO multiplier is 1
TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D I by D2
Add score to table on p. I
multiplier
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\\/etland name or number _L""
D Depressional and Flats Wetlands
HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to
reduce flooding and stream degradation
03. Ooes the wetland unit have the 120tential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit
Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no oullet) pl?i~'~s =_4
Unit has an inte~',!1iH~!J!.lt. flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outl~ints = 2)
Unit is a "Nat" depression (0. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface au flc)w"aiid
no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is. a man-made ditch points = 1
«{ditch is not pel'manent(vflowing (real unit as "infermitJenrlyf1owing")
Unit has all utlconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet "(Permunenth'.!10lvinK) points = 0
D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods
Estimate the height olponding above the bottom qflhe outlet. For unils with 110 outlet
measure/i'om the sur/ace ofpermanenl ..... aler or deepesl parI (if dry).
Marks ofponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7
The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5
Marks of p~nding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet p(jints = 5
Marks are at least 0.5 flto < 2 f\ from surface or bottom of outlet l1~ints =-j-.....,
Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surfae;t at trap' -""
water points = I
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0
D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed
Estimate 'he ratio o/the area afupstream basin contrihuling swjaee wafer to the wetland
10 Ihe area oflhe wetland unit ilself
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points = 5
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit .···poi~~
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0
Entire unit is in the FLA TS class points = 5
D Total for 0 3 Add the poillts ill the boxes abuve
D 04. Ooes the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion?
A nswer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage. or
reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream pn~~ and aquatic
resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answef NO the water
coming i~Jo .. .!he_ ,ve(land is controlled by a structure such as flood gate. tidegate,f'iap
valve. reservoir "lc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is
from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur.
Nole which of Ihe following indicators oj'opportunily apply.
-Wetland is in a headwater ofa river or stream that has flooding problems
-Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems
-Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise
flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems
-Other ~-~"e::.: 1'.'/:.r;·'I· '" J •
YES mUltiplier is 2 ( No) multiplier is 1 r-..J'~1c:. t I""'c; <.i.
D TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score /i'om D 3 by D 4
Add score to table all p. J
Wetland Rating Form -western Washington
version 2
6 August 2004
Points
(only 1 score
per box)
(see p,46)
~ '.-
-.;--
.---
--.---
I '-\ I
---~~ (see 1'.49)
multiplier
\
--, .:--,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Wetland tlalllt: or number ___ .'_._. _
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Points
(only I score
HABITAT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat per box)
H 1. Does the wetland unit have the I!otential to provide habitat for many species?
H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see p. 72) Figure~
('heck the !)pes (!( VC&ftulion classes present (as defined by Cowardin)-Size thresho/d./()r each
class is ~'4 acre or more than 10% a/the area (funit is smaller than 2.5 acre8.
__ Aquatic bed
__ Emergent plants
_ !./Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have> 30% cover)
i/Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover)
If the unit has uj(Jresfed class check (t
v""The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy. sub-canopy. shrubs. herbaceous.
moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon
Add (he number (~fvegela(jon structures thaI qualijjJ_ ljyou have:
4 structures or more points ~ 4
Map of Cowardin vegetation classes (:r-~i;~~iUre~ poini~-::;b .~
2 stniCTures--,-----points ~ 1 --
I structure points ~ 0
H 1.2. Hydroperiods (see p. 7}) Figure_
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperlods) present within the wetland. The waler
l'ef;ime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % acre to count. (see text for
description.'; of hydroperiod,\)
__ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points ~ 3
'~asonallY flooded or inundated 3 types p'resent points ~ 2
. Occasionally flooded or inundated ·2 ty pes preseii1) poi~t ~ 1)
__ Saturated only ltyjJc-present poinis ~ 0 -__ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to~ the wetland
__ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to. the wetland
__ Lake-fril'ge wetland ~ 2 points
__ Fre.,h water tidal wetland ~ 2 points Map of hydroperiods
H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75)
COllnt the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 fl'. (different patches
C!f the same species can be comhined to meet the size threshold)
You do not have to name the species.
Do 110t il1dude Eurasian Milfuil, reed canarygrass. purple loosestrife. Canadian Thistle
If you counted; > 19 species points ~ 2
Lisl species helow ~lyou I,vanlto; ~5 -19 speci,"-) eoints ~ 1::1
< 5 speCies'--'" points ~ 0
I
-'-
Total for page +
Wetland Rating Form -western Washington
version 2
13 August 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
Wetland name or number I:
H IA. Interspersion of habitats (see p. 76)
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation
classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water Of
mudflats) is high. mediul11, low, or none.
o
None = 0 points Low = 1 point
~'\l
~
High = 3 points
[riparian braided channelsJ
NOTE: If you have four or 1110re classes or three vegetation cla"es and open water
the ratin is alwa s "hi ,h". Use rna of Cowardin ve etation classes
H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (see 1', 77)
Check 'he hahilalfealures Ihal are presenl in Ihe weiland. The number qfchecks is Ihe
number (?f puints you put into the next column.
'/'Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long).
2Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland
__ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) andlor overhanging vegetation extends at
least 3.3 Ii (I m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft
(10m)
__ Stable steep banks offille material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning
(> 30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cui shrubs or trees thai
have not yel turned grey/brown)
./ At least ';' acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas
that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (I·trueturesfor egg-laying by amphibians)
:/ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants
igure_
NOTE. The 20% stated in early prinling.' oflhe manual on page 78 is an error.
1-------------"--'----"--"-----=--='---------4-----
H 1. TOTAL Score -potential for providing habitat I 10 I
'-____________ -'-'A.::dd:::...:..:lh"'e"'.':.:::·c"'or;.::e.e.sJ..:'..:;o""m'-'Hc=I.c.:.1'-, H,-,-,-I.",2,--, ,-,Hc.:.I",.3.!-, .:..:lfc:.!:...:.4,,-, ..:.:H:..:.!.;..:.5,---,,-____ J
Comments
Wetland Rating Form -western Washington
version 2
14 August 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\oVetland name or number _~_
H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species'!
H 2.1 Buffers (vce p. 80)
Chouse the description that best represents condition q(bujfer f?f l'vetland unit. The highest scoring
criterion that applies to the wetland is to he used in the rating. See text/or definition of
"undisturbed. "
-100 111 (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open waler >95%
ofcircul11ference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer, (relatively
undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5
-100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas_ or open water>
50% circumference. Points = 4
-50 m (17011) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95%
circumference. Points = 4
-100111 (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas. rocky areas, or open water> 25%
circumference, . Points = 3
-50 m (17011) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas. or open water f"L">
50% circumference. 1'\1..') '0: ,D£ ~f' 'JJ,_-A (O,"L-r) . 'Poiu"ts=3)
If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above
-No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95%
circumference. Light to moderate grazing. or lawns are OK. Points = 2
-No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50<1/0 circumference.
Light to moderate grazing. or lawns are OK. Points = 2
-Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1
-Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled
fields. paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = O.
-Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1
Aerial photo showing buffers
H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81)
H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor
(either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest
or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries. other wetlands or undisturbed
uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavil.v used gravel
roads, pClved roads, are con.sidered hreaks in the corridor1--___ . _______ _
YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) (NQ_= go to H ~-')
H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and UnlJroTen~;;getate corridor
(either riparian or upland) that is at least son wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or
forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25
acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, ifil does not have an undisturbed corridor as in
the question above? _ .. _
YES = 2 points (,,010 H 2.3) (j:J()_':.!-'i23)
H 2.2.3 Is the wetland:
within 5 mi (8km) ofa brackish or salt water estuary OR
within 3 mi ofa large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR
within I mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? ,"''''_'_ .,, ___ _____
YES = 1 point ( NO = 0 poi'!!L)
Figure ..L
t r>, -
Total for page----'_-::-::..· _
Wetland Rating Form .. western Washington
version 2
15 August 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Wetland tHllllC or number A . __
H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82)
Whieh of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the
connectioNs do no! have to he relatively undisturbed.
These are DFW definitions. Check with your locol DFW biologist if there are any questions.
~_Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with fiowing water that contains elements of
both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
__ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres).
__ ClifTs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft.
__ Old-growth forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species.
forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8
trees/acre) > 81 em (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age.
__ Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 em (2 I in) dbh; crown cover
may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay. decadence. numbers of
snags. and quantity ofJarge downed material is generally less than that found in old-
growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
__ Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where
grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community.
__ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size O. I 5 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft).
composed of basalt. andesite. and/or sedimentary rock. including riprap slides and mine
tailings. May be associated with c1iITs.
~_Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages
__ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where
canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%.
~_Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open
space and lIses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a
corridor connecting other priorily hahitals, especially those that would otherwise be
isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10
acres) and is surroundcd by urban development.
~_Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi-
enclosed by land but with open. partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean. and
in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff Irom the land.
The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation.
Along some low-cnergy coastlines there is appreciable di lution of sea water. Estuarine
habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean-derived salts measure less than
0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons.
Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of
beaches. and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial
landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags. mature trees. dunes. meadows) that are important to shoreline
associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g .. sand/rock/log
recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control).
If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points
If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points ~ __ ........ -........... _
If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point \. No habitats = 0 pointy
NOle: All vef,etated lvellands are by definition a priority hahitat but are nrji7ncluded in this
list. Nearhr lvertandy are addressed in question H 2.4)
Wetland Rating Form -western Washington
version 2
16 August 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\Vetland name or number --L-L
H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description o/the landscape around (he wetland (hat
hestfits) (fee p. 84)
There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y2 mile, and the connections between them are
relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some
boating. but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads. fill, fields, or other
development. points ~ 5
The wetland is Lake·fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake· fringe
wetlands within y,; mile points ~ 5
There are at least 3 other wetlands within y, mile. BUT the connections between them are
disturbed ~
The wetland is Lake-hinge on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe
wetland within y, mile points ~ 3
There is at least I wetland within y, mile. points ~ 2
There arc no wetlands within Y2 mile. points ~ 0
H 2. TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat
Total Score for Habitat Functions
Wetland Rating Form -western Washington
version 2
Add the scoresFom H2.I.H2.2, H2.3. H2.';
TOTAL for H 1 from page 14
-add the points for HI, H 2 and record the result on
p. I
17 August 2004
3
r-----
I (::, I
----.
10 -----
fro
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 4
TYPICAL DETAILS FOR BUFFER
BOUNDARY FENCES AND SIGNS
Cairnes, Jericho Ave, Plat in Renton
By John Com is Associates
Date: 0 112211 0
Page 48 of 5 5
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\--------
I
" i
/~" POSTS ARE PRECUT
,,/ FOR FENCE RAIL
~~f INSERTS
-4" TO 6" ROUGH
/ CEDAR RAIL
4"X4" ROUGH CEDAR POST
(TRIANGULAR) -~------t~~-
2' MI~-J
_------EARTH OR
CONCRETE
NOTES:
POSTS AND RAILINGS ARE
PRECUT FOR ASSEMBLY
3 RAILS ARE PERMITIED
FENCES SHALL BE
PLACED AT THE APPROVED
BUFFER EDGE
JOHN COMIS ASSOCIATES
N·T. S.
g:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l1
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
ATTACH SIGN TO
POST WITH TWO
5/16" GALVANIZED
LAG BOLTS WITH
WASHERS--~
~~~~~~~;;;;;;;;;u --~3' TO GRADE
(minimum)
PRE·PRINTED
SIGN
f--o-----l!....:..:!.<~ C EDA R OR
PRESSURE· TREATED
POST S ET2.'INT 0 HOL E
.THEWETLAND/STREAM SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ATTH E BOUNDARY OF TH E
SENSITIVEAREA BUFFER .
• ONESIGN SHALL BE POSTED AT EACH LOCATION NOTED ON PLAN AND SHALL
BESTATIONEO IN A PROMINENT LOCATION. SIGNS MAY ALSO BEATTACHED
TO FENCES.
.SIGNS AREAVAILABLE FROM J.L. DARLING CORPORATION, TACOMA.
CITY OF REM"'R)N
WETLAND BUfFE.R SIGN INSTALLATION DETAIL
TYPICAL SIGN DETAIL, JCI\ 4125106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 5
I RESUMES FOR WETLAND AND
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WILDLIFE CONSULTANTS
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0 I 12211 0
Page 50 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JOHN G. COMIS
Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS, Certification No. 000810, dtd Nov 27,1995)
Wetlands Specialist (Listed as Certified "Wetlands Specialist" by Pierce County, since 1992)
EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science, Environmental Bioengineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, 1973
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
Consoer, Townsend & Associates, junior engineer, 1974-77
Pierce County Public Works, civil engineer II, planning & drainage engineer, 1977-89
John Com is Associates, principal as a sole proprietorship, 1989-2005
Incorporated, JCA, Inc., 2005 to present
QUALIFICATIONS: Mr. Comis has worked a total of36 years in public sector surface water
management and private sector wetland consulting. Mr. Com is' education, research, and
experience combine the highly technical fields of water biology and water engineering. John has
experience in wetland delineation's and mitigation plans including large and small-scale projects.
Private consulting projects primarily deal with wetlands including identification, delineation, and
mitigation for new developments. Wetland projects include over 800 private developments in
Pierce, King, Kitsap, Lewis and Thurston Counties, including work within the City's of Algona,
Auburn, Bellevue, Bothell, Bonney Lake, Buckley, Enumclaw, Edgewood, Federal Way, Fife,
Fircrest, Issaquah, Kent, Lakewood, Milton, Olympia, Pacific, Puyallup, Renton, Sumner, Tacoma
and University Place. John has also assisted clients with flood plain and drainage studies including
runoff modeling and backwater analysis.
Public sector experience involves many aspects of drainage and surface water management from
basin level planning to site specific analysis and design. John has experience with computer
models used for estimating runoff, routing stream flows, calculating flood plain elevations and
sizing retention/detention facilities. On many projects, John has worked closely with soil
scientists, fishery biologists, civil engineers, surveyors, and regulatory agency staffs at all levels of
government. He has frequently been involved in interdisciplinary project teams at both the
planning and implementation stages.
In academic research, John directed two National Science Foundation projects for an
interdisciplinary research team on Kelsey and Coal Creeks, King County, Washington. He has
conducted wetland, drainage, and flood studies at all levels of project development. This has
provided opportunities to put theory into "on-the-ground" applications for wetland delineations,
stream inventories, FEMA flood plain analysis and regulations and other aspects of surface water
management.
AFFILIA TlONS: Member, Society of Wetland Scientists; Society for Ecological Restoration;
Washington Native Plant Society~ National Audubon Society
File; lRES-JGCl.doc (Jan. 2010)
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 51 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CATHERINE A. COMIS
Wildlife Biologist and Native Landscape Designer
EDUCA TION: Bachelor of Landscape Architecture (BSLA),
University of Washington, Seattle, 1978
Bachelor of Arts, Near Eastern Studies,
University of Washington, Seattle, 1972
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
US Army, Lieutenant, Military Intelligence Corps, 1972-1976
TRA, landscape designs, park plans, and comprehensive master plans, 1978-1982
Richard Haag & Associates, landscape designs, 1983
Edward Chaffee & Associates, residential & commercial landscape designs, 1983-1987
John Com is Associates, principal, mitigation plans & monitoring, 1989-present
Natural System Designs, principal, habitat assessments, designs and bat studies, 2000 to present
QUALIFICA TIONS: Kate has continued her studies in wildlife science with courses in Basic Bird
Biology Cornell University (10 week Program), 1995, and Master Birding Workshops for avian
identifications and general habitat assessment. Kate has continued to work and study both in the US and
abroad with wildlife biologist's at Bat Conservation International (BCIl workshops and sponsored
research projects, 1998 thru 2009. These include bat management and research, netting, acoustics and
cave gating. The bat research projects include "Bats in the Mexican Coffee Agro-ecosystem", Chiapas,
Mexico in 2007; "Founder's Bat Conservation International Workshop Instructor", western Uganda in
2008; and "Vertical Canopy Utilization of Bat Carnivores and Frugivores", Barro, Panama in 2009.
Kate Com is has served as both a designer and project manager for numerous residential and commercial
landscape design and comprehensive master plan projects including park projects. She has served as a team
member for landscape designs and recreational plans that included studies of wildlife habitats, wetland and
stream mitigation and restorations.
Her experience includes stream corridor restoration for park and recreation facility design; multi-use
equestrian, pedestrian and bike trails. Preparations of site plans include all aspects of site surveys, cost
estimating, construction drawings, specification 'Writing, project inspections and management. She has
worked on wildlife studies and consulted with other project biologists doing habitat evaluations and
enhancements on Public Utility District (PUD) projects.
Various parks and recreation projects in eastern Washington State include the Chelan County "Entiat Park",
"Lincoln Rock Park" and "Daroga Park Master Plan" at the Rocky Reach Reservoir. She has worked on the
Chelan County PUD projects for "Mason Park" at Lake Chelan and "Douglas County River Park" at Rock
Island Reservoir. These parks were established as a minimum requirement for recreational area
development along the reservoirs after damming of the Columbia River.
She also worked for private clients on designs for recreational projects such as Camp Benbow @ Lake
Tanwax, Pierce County Jewish Camping Association; Camp Orkila@Orcas Island, YMCA of Greater
Seattle; and Camp Sealth @ Vashon lsland, Seattle-King County Campfire Council.
AFFILIATIONS: Society for Ecological Restoration; National Audubon Society; the Wildlife Society,
Bat Conservation lntemational (BCl), American Society of Mammologists and Acta Chiroptera.
File: IRES-CACl.doc (Jan. 2010)
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 0112211 0
Page 52 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 6
REFERENCES
FOR WETLAND ANALYSIS
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/22/10
Page 53 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT-SPECIFIC REFERENCES
I. Brady, N.e. 1974. The Nature and Properties of Soils, 8th Edition. McMillan Publishing
Co., New York.
2. Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y -87-1, by the Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., together with
clarification and interpretation guidelines by the USACOE, 1992. [Also see Washington
State 1997 Manual reference, below 1
3. Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains. Valleys. and Coast Region, ed. J. S. Wakeley, R.
W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDClEL TR-08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Anny Engineer
Research and Development Center.
4. Cooke, Sarah Spear (Editor). 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western
Washington & NW Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society & Washington Native Plant Society,
Seattle, Washington.
5. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.e. Golat and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deep Water Habitats ofthe United States. U.S. Department ofinterior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.e., Publication FWS/OBS-79/31, 131 pages.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.htm (Version 04DEC 1998).
6. Guard, B. Jennifer. 1995. Wetland Plants of Oregon and Washington. Lone Pine Publishing,
Redmond, Washington.
7. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora ofthe Pacific Northwest. University of
Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
8. Hruby, T. August 2004 (Revised version 2, 2006). Washington State Wetlands Rating System
for Western Washington -Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE)
Publication # 04-06-025.
9. Jacobson, Arthur Lee. November 200 I. Wild Plants of Greater Seattle, a field guide to native
and naturalized plant of the Seattle area, published by Arthur Lee Jacobson, Seattle, WA.
10. John Comis Associates. March, 23, 2005. "Wetland Reconnaissance for the Jericho
Propertv. at 500 Jericho Av. NE. in the City of Renton. Parcel No.1 023059069. situated in
the SE Y, of Section IO-T23N-R5E. W.M. King County. WA" (JCA Job#050309) [includes
partial delineation of onsite and offsite wetland for the subject site 1
II. Knobel. 1980. Field Guide to the Grasses. Sedges and Rushes of the United States. Dover
Press, New York.
12. Kollmorgen Corp. 1975. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Baltimore, Maryland.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Com is Associates
Date: 0 I 12211 0
Page 54 of 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13. Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. BC Forest Service
Research Program. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, Canada.
14. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species ThaI Occur in Wetlands: Northwest
(Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report-88 (26.9). Including 1993
Supplement.
15. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1986. Wetland Plants ofthe State of Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Biological Report-86 (WI2,47).
16. Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Beyers. 1979. Wetland Values-
Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79-RI, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
17. Renton Municipal Code (RMC). Title 4, Development Regulations, Chapter 3,
Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts. Last amended by Ord. 5472, July 13,
2009. [http://www.codepublishing.com/wairenton/j.
18. US Department of Agriculture and Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 1973. Soil
Survey of King County Area. Washington.
19. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Hvdric Soils in the Pierce
County Area. Washington. Prepared in cooperation with the National Technical Committee
for Hydric Soi Is.
20. US Department of Agriculture, NRCS. 2003. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United
States, Version 5.01. G.W. Hurt, P.M. Whited, and R.F. Pringle (eds.). USDA, NRCS in
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX.
21. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification
and Delineation Manual. Publication #96-94. March 1997. [Note: this manual has been
reviewed and approved for use by the Seattle District Corps of Engineers and is consistent
with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual (see COE reference above)].
22. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2004. Washington State Wetlands Rating System-
Western. WDOE Pub. #04-06-025. August 2004 (Revised version 2, 2006). Olympia,
Washington.
23. Washington State Department of Fisheries. Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon
Utilization-Volume 1.1975. Olympia, Washington.
24. Washington Department of Ecology. Washington State Hydric Soils Guidebook. Publication
No.90-20. July 1990. Olympia, Washington.
Cairnes, Jericho Ave. Plat in Renton
By John Comis Associates
Date: 01/22110
Page 55 of 55