Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMisc - 1 of 2Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report ''l :J -•. i Prepared for King County King County ................ ______ _ April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain Prepared for King County Division of Capital Planning and Development Facilities Management Division, DES King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue, Room 320 Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) CITATION Parametrix. 2015. Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain. Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, Washington. April 2015. CERTIFICATION Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County The technical material and data contained in this document were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal, as a professional engineer licensed to practice as such, is affixed below. Approved by Jenny Bailey, Project Manager April 2015 I SS4-1S21-084 (A/3T200BI TABLE OF CONTENTS lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 1. OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 1-13 2. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................. 2-1 3. OFFSITE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 RESOURCE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 FIELD INSPECTION ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3.1 TDA 1 (A-Line Stations 1+00 to 14+82) ............................................................................ 3-2 3.3.2 TDA 2 (C-Line Stations 201+11to206+50) ........................................................................ 3-2 3.3.3 TDA 3 (B-Line Stations 101+77 to 110+00) ...................................................................... 3-2 3.3.4 TDA 4 (B-Line Stations 110+00 to 132+50) ...................................................................... 3-3 3.3.5 TDA 5 (B-Line Stations 132+50 to 143+17) ...................................................................... 3-3 3.4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS ...................................................................... 3-3 3.5 MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS ................................................................. 3-3 4. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN .................................... 4-1 4.1 EXISTING SITE HYDROLOGY (PART A) ............................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY (PART B) ....................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PART() .......................................................................................... 4-2 4.3.1 Flow Control ..................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3.2 Conveyance System ......................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.3 Water Quality Treatment ................................................................................................. 4-3 4.4 FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM (PART D) ............................................................................................... 4-3 4.5 WATER QUALITY (PART E) ............................................................................................................. 4-4 5. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ............................................................................ 5-1 5.1 MONSTER ROAD STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 TDA 3 CATCH BASIN ...................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 TDA 4 BOX CULVERT ..................................................................................................................... 5-1 6. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES .................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 STREAM DISCIPLINE REPORT ........................................................................................................ 6-1 6.3 CRITICAL AREA STUDY (DRAFT) ..................................................................................................... 6-1 6.4 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE DISCIPLINE REPORT (DRAFT) ........................................................... 6-1 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 7. OTHER PERMITS .......................................................................................................................... 7-1 8. CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ................................................................................................. 8-1 9. BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT .......................... 9-1 10. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL.. ........................................................................... 10-1 11. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 11-1 LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 TIR Worksheet ............................................................................................................................ 1-2 1-2 Site Lo cat ion ............................................................................................................................. 1 · 10 1-3 Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics .............................................................. 1-11 1-4 Soi Is ......................................................................................................................................... 1-12 LIST OF TABLES 1-1 Effective Impervious Area Comparison .................................................................................... 1-14 2-1 Summary of Core and Special Requirements ............................................................................ 2-1 4-1 Comparison of Peak Runoff Rates .............................................................................................. 4-4 APPENDICES A Project Design Drawings B Land Cover Area Calculations C Offsite Analysis -Resource Review and Site Visit Photos D KCRTS Runoff Modeling Documentation E Box Culvert Design Calculations Grading Within the Floodplain -Cut and Fill Calculations G King County Surface Water Design Manual Operation and Maintenance Excerpts April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (N3T200B) Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain Kins County ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADS BMP BNSF cfs CSWPPP EIA FEMA FHWA GIS KCRTS KCSWDM M&O NEPA NPDES NRCS Renton Addendum Segment A TIR TDA Tukwila Addendum WSDOT April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) Advanced Drainage Systems best management practice Burlington Northern Santa Fe cubic feet per second construction stormwater pollution prevention plan effective impervious area Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Highway Administration geographic information system King County Runoff Time Series King County Surface Water Design Manual maintenance and operations National Environmental Policy Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Natural Resources Conservation Service City of Renton 2010 Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual Lake to Sound Trail Segment A technical information report threshold discharge area City ofTukwila Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Washington State Department of Transportation Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King county 1. OVERVIEW 1.1 Proposed Project King County, together with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile-long trail segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile-long Lake to Sound Trail. This trail, known as the Lake to Sound TraH Segment A (Segment A) or the Two Rivers Trail, will provide non- motorized access to recreation and employment centers for a variety of users such as bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, wheelchair users, and skaters. This technical information report (TIR) provides stormwater management documentation for Segment A and has been prepared in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM, King County 2009a). The TIR Worksheet (Figure 1-1) provides a general overview of the components of this report. A site location map is presented in Figure 1-2. Design drawings for the proposed project are provided in Appendix A. 1.2 Existing Site Conditions The Segment A project corridor lies within the Black River drainage basin, as shown on Figure 1-2. The corridor extends from the Green River Trail along an informal dirt footpath south of the Black River, crosses beneath the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific railroad trestles, crosses Monster Road southeast of the Monster Road bridge, crosses over the Black River east of the Monster Road bridge, and follows an existing gravel maintenance road along the north bank of the Black River and the Black River Riparian Forest until reaching Naches Avenue SW. Five threshold discharge areas (TDAs) have been identified for the site, as shown on Figure 1-3. Topography in the site area is relatively flat; therefore, portions of the proposed trail in TDA 1 pass through the Black River floodplain. Surface runoff from most of the site travels as sheet flow discharging directly to the Black River (TDAs 1 and 3) or to wetlands in the Black River Riparian Forest (TDAs 4 and 5). Runoff from the portion of the proposed trail that approaches and crosses the existing Monster Road (TDA 2) is collected into the storm drain systems on the north and south sides of the roadway. The north Monster Road storm drain system drains to an existing ditch that discharges to the Black River on the southeast side of the bridge. The south Monster Road storm drain system is conveyed southwest of Monster Road and continues onto private property adjacent the Black River. Northeast of the project area near the Black River Riparian Forest, a steep hillside drains towards the proposed site. There are four existing culverts in this area (TDAs 3, 4, and 5) that convey surface water flows beneath the existing gravel maintenance road. Soils in the project area (Figure 1-4) were classified west (TDAs 1, 2, and 3) and east (TDAs 4 and 5) of Monster Road. The west area, including Monster Road, is identified as Newberg silt loam-hydrologic soil group A/B-while the east area is Woodinville silt loam-hydrologic soil group D (NRCS 2013). April 2015 I 554-1521-084 {A/3T2008) 1·1 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Project Owner Phone Address King County Facilities Management Division (Jason Rich) 206.263.7314 201 So. Jackson St., Rm 700 Seattle, WA 98104 Project Engineer """"'C"'ra'"ig"""'B""ui""'tr"'ag._o"------ Company -'-P""ar""a""m"'e""tr'"ix"------- Phone 206.394.3639 [81 Landuse Services Subdivision/Short Subd. / UPD D Building Services M/F I Commercial I SFR [81 Clearing and Grading D Right-of-Way Use D Other Technical Information Report Type of Drainage 0 Full/ D Targeted Review: D Large Site Date (include revision dates): Jul~ 2013 Date of Final April 2015 Project Name Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Ave SW DDES Permit# _N~/~A _________ _ Location Township _2_3_N _________ _ Range _0_4_E _________ _ Section SE 14, S 13, and NE 23 Site Address D DFW HPA 0 Shoreline Mgmt D COE404 D Structural D DOE Dam Safety Rockery/Vault/ [81 FEMA Floodplain D ESA Section 7 D COE Wetlands D Other Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) [81 Full/ D Targeted Type D Large Site Date (include revision dates): Aeril 2013 Date of Final April 2015 Type: D Standard D Complex D Preapplication D Experimental D Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) I Date of Approval: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Monitoring Required Start Date: Completion Date: Oves~No Describe Community Plan: _G_re_e_n_R_iv_e_r_V_a_lle~Y~-------------------- Special District Overlays: _N~o~n~e~------------------------- Drainage Basin: _Bcc.l""a""ck=R'-'iv=-e"-r,-'-WR=l'-'A'--'9'----c~~-~-~~~~-~-~------- Tukwila: Conservation/Duration Control, Existing Conditions Target Stormwater Requirements: Renton: Peak Rate Flow Control Standard, Existing Conditions Target ~ D ~ D ~ D River/Strea m Green & Black Rivers Lake Black River Riparian Wetlands Forest-Wetlands 1-6 Closed Depression Floodplain Green & Black Rivers Other Soil Type N Wo D High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) D Other Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Slopes 0-4% 0-2% 2 D D D D D D Steep Slope Erosion Hazard Landslide Hazard Coal Mine Hazard Seismic Hazard Habitat Protection Erosion Potential slight slight D Sole Source Aquifer C8J Seeps/Springs 1/9/2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET REFERENCE LIMITATION/ SITE CONSTRAINT Core 2 -Offsite Analysis D [81 Sensitive/ Critical Areas Maintain wetland hydrology; no net fill in floodplains D D D D SEPA Other Additional Sheets Attached Threshold Discharge Area (name or description): Core Requirements (all 8 apply) TDA 1 -A-Line Stations 1 +00 to 14+20 Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: 1-continuous sheet flow to Blk River Offsite Analysis: Level: 1Z11 D 2 D 3 Dated: February 21, 2013 Flow Control Level: 0 1 0 2 0 3 or Exemption Number 0100 increase = 0.1 cfs (incl. facility summary sheet) Conveyance System Small Site BMPs with basic & full dispersion Erosion and Sediment Control Maintenance and Operation Financial Guarantees and Liabilit Spill containment located at: N/A ESC Site Supervisor: To be identified in construction SWPPP Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Responsibility: D Private IZ) Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: D Yes D No Provided: D Yes IZ) No Water Quality Type: D Basic D Sens. Lake Enhanced Basic Bog (• 1 d f lt h et) Or Exemption No. N/A -no pollution-generating surfaces inc u e ac, 1 Y summary s e Landscape Management Plan: D Yes IZI No Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: D CDA O SDO O MDP O BP D Shared Fae. IZJ None Re uirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Flood Protection Facilities Source Control (comm./ industrial landuse) Oil Control Other Drainage Structures Describe: Type: D Major IZ) Minor D Exemption None 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): 22.58 feet Datum: NAVO 88 Describe: NIA Describe: N/A Describe any structural controls: High-use Site: D Yes IZ) No Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: D Yes IZ) No With whom? 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 3 1/9/2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Threshold Discharge Area (name or description): Core Requirements (all 8 apply) TDA 2 -C-Line Stations 201 +11 to 206+50 Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: 1-Ditch outfall to Black River Offsite Analysis: Level: ~ 1 D 2 D 3 Dated: February 21, 2013 Flow Control Level: D 1 D 2 D 3 or Exemption Number Q,oo increase< 0.1cfs (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at: NIA ESC Site Supervisor: To be identified in construction SWPPP Erosion and Sediment Control Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: D Private ~ Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: D Yes D No Provided: D Yes ~ No Type O Basic O Sens. Lake D Enhanced Basic D Bog Water Quality (• 1 d f lt s mmary she t) Or Exemption No. NIA -no pollution-generating surfaces added Financial Guarantees and Liability ,nc u e ac, 1 Y u e Landscape Management Plan: D Yes ~ No Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: 0 CDA D SDO D MDP D BP D Shared Fae. l2J None Requirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Flood Protection Facilities Source Control (comm./ industrial landuse) Oil Control Other Drainage Structures Type: D Major ~ Minor D Exemption D None 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): 22.58 feet Datum: NAVD 88 Describe: N/A Describe: N/A Describe any structural controls: High-use Site: D Yes ~ No Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: D Yes ~ No With whom? Describe: Four catch basins and 12-inch conveyance pipe installed to maintain Monster Road runoff collection in existing roadway conveyance system. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 4 1/9/2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Threshold Discharge Area TOA 3 -B-Line Stations 100+00 to 110+00 (name or description): Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: 1-continuous sheet flow to Blk River Offsite Analysis: Level: ~1 []2 []3 Dated: February 21, 2013 Flow Control Level: 01 02 03 or Exemption Number 0100 increase < 0.1 cfs (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs with basic & full dispersion Conveyance System Soill containment located at: N/A ESC Site Supervisor: To be identified in construction SWPPP Erosion and Sediment Control Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: D Private 0 Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: D Yes 0No Financial Guarantees and Provided: D Yes 0No Liability Water Quality Type: D Basic D Sens. Lake D Enhanced Basic D Bog Or Exemption No. NIA -no pollution-generating surfaces (include facility summary sheet} Landscape Manaoement Plan: D Yes D No Special Requirements las aoollcablel Area Specific Drainage Type: 0 CDA O SDO U MOP U BP O Shared Fae. 0None Requirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Type: LJ Major IZI Minor O Exemption LJ None Delineation 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): 22.58 feet Datum: NAVO 88 Flood Protection Facilities Describe: N/A Source Control Describe: N/A (comm./ industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: High-use Site: D Yes 0No Oil Control Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: 0Yes 0No Wrthwhom? Other Drainaqe Structures Describe: Catch Basin Type 2 and 12-inch conveyance pipe (connect to existing CB) near B-Line Sta. 105+05. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 5 1/9/2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET fiCT.:t11ItJ.'J: ~ l:: .:~!; 1;.iZ:LT~~J~];Jr~:::1r~~J:'!:~~ .:fa; ·: "'«·it ~~:~.r ... :.:i~-:: ~:(!~1:::rr~:c r~~f~ !5J.m~ Threshold Discharge Area TDA 4 B-Line Stations 110+00 to 132+00 (name or description): Core Reauirements (all B applvl Discharae at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharae Locations: 1-continuous sheet flow to wetlands Offsite Analysis: Level: IXl1112113 Dated: Februarv 21, 2013 Flow Control Level: LJ 1 LJ2 LJ3 or Exemption Number 0100 increase< 0.1cfs (incl. facility summarv sheet) Small Site BMPs with basic & full dispersion Conveyance Svstem Spill containment located at: N/A ESC Site Supervisor: To be identified in construction SWPPP Erosion and Sediment Control Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: D Private IZI Public If Private, Maintenance Loa Reauired: D Yes 0No Financial Guarantees and Provided: D Yes 1Z1 No Liability Water Quality Type: D Basic D Sens. Lake D Enhanced Basic D Bog Or Exemption No. N/A -no pollution-generating surfaces (include facility summary sheet) Landscape Management Plan: D Yes 0No Special Reauirements (as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: LJ CDA LJ SDO LJ MDP LJ BP LJ Shared Fae. ~ None Reauirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Type: LJ Major LJ Minor LJ Exemption ~ None Delineation 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): 18.58 feet Datum: NAVO 88 Flood Protection Facilities Describe: NIA Source Control Describe: N/A (comm./ industrial land use) Describe any structural controls: High-use Site: D Yes 1Z1 No Oil Control Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: D Yes 1Z1 No With whom? Other Drainaae Structures Describe: I Box cuhert to be installed at Station 125+95. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 6 1/9/2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Threshold Discharge Area (name or description): TDA 5 B-line Stations 132+50 to 142+50 Core Requirements (all 8 apply) DischarQe at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharae Locations: 1-continuous sheet flow to wetlands Offsite Analysis: Level: [:8J1 []2 []3 Dated February 21, 2013 Flow Control Level: 01 02 03 or Exemption Number 0100 increase< 0.1cfs (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs with basic & full dispersion Conveyance System Spill containment located at: N/A Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: To be identified in construction SWPPP Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility O Private ~ Public If Private, Maintenance Loa Required: 0 Yes D No Financial Guarantees and Provided: 0 Yes 181 No Liability Water Quality Type: 0 Basic LJ Sens. Lake O Enhanced Basic LJ Bog (include facility summary sheet) Or Exemption No. NIA -no pollution-generating surfaces Landscape Manaaement Plan: 0 Yes 0No Special Requirements las aoolicablel Area Specific Drainage Type: LJ CDA LJ SDO LJ MDP LJ BP LJ Shared Fae. ~ None Requirements Name: Type: D Major D Minor D Exemption 181 None Floodplain/Floodway 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): 18.58 feet Delineation Datum: NAVD 88 Flood Protection Facilities Describe: N/A Source Control Describe: N/A (comm.I industrial landusel Describe any structural controls: Oil Control High-use Site: 0 Yes 181 No Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: 0 Yes 181 No With whom? Other Drainaae Structures Describe: I 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 7 1/9/2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION [8J Clearing Umtts [8J Stabilize Exposed Surfaces [8J Cover Measures [8J Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities [8J Perimeter Protection [8J Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities D Traffte Area Stabilization D Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas [8J Sediment Retention D Other D Surface Water Collection D Dewatering Control [8J Dust Control D Flow Control Flow Control T VOAIDescriotion Water Qualltv Tvru>JDescrtotion LJ Detention B Biofiltration D Infiltration Wetpool D Regional Facility D Media Filtration D Shared Facility D 011 Control [8J Flow Control BMPs basic and full dispersion D Spill Control D Other D Flow Control BMPs ti?J WQ not applicable, no Other oollution-aeneratiflQ surfaces LJ Drainage Easement D Covenant bJ Cast in Place Vault ti?J Retaining Wall D Native Growth Protection Covenant D Rockery> 4' High D Tract D Other D Structural on Steep Slope D Other I. or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated Into this worksheet and the attached Technical information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here Is accurate. 7'-7-201{; 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 8 1/9/2009 Parametrix ~ N 300 600 -Feet UNINC. KING COUNTY CITY OF TUKWILA Concrete Recycling Plant CITY OF RENTON Sources: King County, City of Renton, VI/DFW2014, WSOOT Legend: -Proposed Trail -City Boundary ~~ .... ""'j-,; Black River Riparian Forest -Existing Trail ~ Railroad W2A Wetlands Mart.in Luther King Way s Figure 1-2 Site Location Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A ! c 'I 6 N 300 600 r~, ..-/ 4.9QIJ 1;.-,- ! · BlaoJl!ftiver !£sio.-, ,----·---~---------J / # , "' ' -- CiJYOF -T!Jt{\A/1 LA Q .. '+' I' it .. -"1 Sources: King County, City of Renton. WDFW 2014, WSDOT. Legend: TDA1a-Tukwila -TDA3 -Existing Trail -TOA 1 b-Renton -TOA 4 City Boundary c:::::J Subbasin t:,"LL'.IJ Wetlands ~. -t1•1f\11l'Y9 Way S Springbrook,f lillfl:k River Basin Black River ~~, ... :,--... _;·\,:--~: ~ Floodway Floodplains (100-year) Figure 1-3 Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Feet ---TOA 2 -TOA 5 ___.____._ Railroad :.:;:"<-...:"~ Black River Riparian Forest Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Parametrix J, N 300 fiOO ~Fee! CITY OF Pu TUKWILA Sources King County, City of Renton. WDFW2011. WSDOT. NRCS Soils Legend: TOA 1 a-Tukwila ---TOA 3 -Existing Trail TOA 1 b-Renton ---TOA 4 City Boundary ---TDA2 ---TOA 5 ----+-----+-Railroad Ur Hydrologic Soil Group -C A/8 -D Figure 1-4 Soils Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A I Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 1.3 Developed Site Conditions The proposed Segment A trail is designed to integrate into the existing landscape with as little alteration as possible. As previously stated, the paved trail will follow an existing dirt path and maintenance road. The trail will generally follow existing contours and maintain the current surface water flow patterns and discharge locations. Specific elements that will be included in the Segment A project are: • Constructing a 12-foot-wide asphalt pavement trail with 2-foot-wide shoulders and 1-foot-wide clear zones from the edge of the pavement (approximately 2.9 acres of impervious surface) • Performing minor grading to construct the trail (approximately 1,410 cubic yards of cut and 2,980 cubic yards of fill, disturbing an area of approximately 0.72 acres outside the proposed trail footprint). Performing ground improvements, which will disturb an area of approximately 0.17 acres, to mechanically improve the physical properties of weak soils in the vicinity of the proposed trail bridge footings. Constructing an undercrossing feature (a fenced canopy supported by posts) beneath two railroad bridges to protect trail users from potential falling debris Installing a new trail bridge over the Black River to the east of the existing Monster Road Bridge, which cannot be improved to safely accommodate the envisioned trail use Installing a pedestrian-actuated signal crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge Installing approximately 250 feet of sidewalk improvements at the southwest approach to Monster Road Building a retaining wall near the south approach to Monster Road Building three retaining walls north of the proposed trail bridge over the Black River to minimize fill impacts to adjacent areas • Constructing up to two 10-foot by 20-foot pull-out rest areas (one at the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest and one just west of the Black River Pump Station) • Installing one box culvert and five new catch basins • Building two retaining walls, one on each side of the box culvert to avoid impacts to adjacent wetlands • Installing split-rail fencing and plantings to minimize the potential for disturbance to sensitive wildlife Restoring the remaining disturbed areas with native plantings and soil amendments The Segment A alignment and profile will be adjusted and walls may be designed to minimize cut and fill impacts. Table 1-1 provides a comparison of the existing and proposed effective impervious area (EIA) for each TDA within the project site. Dispersion best management practices (BMPs) will be used along the trail to maintain the existing sheet flow stormwater patterns wherever possible. The effective impervious fractions applied to the actual total impervious areas within each TDA are O percent of total impervious for portions where full dispersion is applicable, 50 percent of total impervious where basic April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) 1-13 Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County dispersion will be used, and 100 percent of total impervious where no dispersion is feasible. A detailed summary of impervious area calculations for each TOA is provided in Appendix B. Table 1-1. Effective Impervious Area Comparison Station TDA1 Start End Tukwila Length (mile) Total Area (acre) Green River Trail to Monster Road (A-Line Segment) la 1+00 7+65 0.13 0.36 Renton EIA2 (acre) Existing Proposed 0.01 0.13 Green River Trail to Monster Road (A-Line Segment) -continued lb 7+65 14+20 0.12 0.42 Monster Road Bridge (C-Line Segment) 201+11 206+50 0.10 1.05 Monster Road to Naches Avenue (B-Line Segment) 101+77 110+00 132+50 110+00 132+50 143+17 Total Project 1-14 1 TDA = Threshold Discharge Area 2 EIA=effectiveimperviousarea 0.16 0.43 0.20 0.52 1.36 0.64 0.03 0.85 0.12 0.14 0.05 1.20 0.18 0.87 0.07 0.07 0.15 1.47 Discharge Location Sheet flow to Black River Sheet flow to Black River Ditch outfall to Black River Sheet flow to Black River Sheet flow to wetlands Sheet flow to wetlands April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King county 2. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS Both the City of Tukwila and the City of Renton have adopted the KCSWDM with jurisdictional addenda. Therefore, the Segment A trail stormwater design follows the guidelines provided in the KCSWDM, the City of Renton 2010 Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (Renton Addendum, Renton 2010), and the City ofTukwila Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards (Tukwila Addendum, Tukwila 2010). All three manuals identified above apply requirements based on the size of a project. The Segment A project will result in greater than 2,000 square feet (approximately 0.05 acre) of new and replaced impervious surface (Table 1-1); therefore, the project requires a full drainage review. According to Table 1.1.2.A in the KCSWDM, projects subject to a full drainage review must meet eight core requirements and five special requirements. In addition, the 2010 Renton Addendum lists a sixth special requirement that must be reviewed. The core and special requirements were evaluated for each TDA and summarized in Table 2-1. The details of the analysis, including the basis of hydrologic and hydraulic design, are discussed in subsequent sections of this TIR. Core and Special Requirements CR!: Discharge location CR2: Offsite Analysis CR3: Flow Control CR4: Conveyance System Table Z-1. Summary of Core and Special Requirements Proposed Stormwater Management Approach Preserve existing discharge locations to Black River and riparian wetlands. Offsite analysis complete. TDA la is subject to Tukwila level 2 Conservation Flow Control Standard (match flow durations from one-half of 2-year through SO-year frequencies). TDAs lb to 5 are subject to the Renton Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (level 1/Basic Flow Control) matching existing conditions, (match the 2-, 10-, and 100-year peak rate flows). The Segment A project is subject to a flow control exemption because it will result in no more than 0.1 cubic feet per second {cfs) increase ln the 100-year peak flow rate in each TDA. Typically, runoff will sheet flow from the paved trail to the adjacent gravel shoulder and then to existing drainage pathways. At Monster Road, the project will install connections to the existing roadway conveyance systems to maintain existing drainage patterns. A new pedestrian bridge will be constructed to cross over the Black River east of the Monster Road Bridge. The bridge is designed to have 3 feet of freeboard from 100 year floodplain to bottom of superstructure elevation. A new box culvert at B-Line Station 126+00 will be designed to convey discharge from offsite areas at the 25-year peak flow with 6 inches offreeboard. Near B-Line 105+00, one new catch basin will be installed to extend an existing pipe. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) TIR Section Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County Core and Special Requirements CRS: Erosion and Sediment Control CR6: Maintenance and Operations (M&o) CR7: Financial Guarantees and Liability CR8:Water Quality SRl: Other Adopted Requirements SR2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation SR3: Flood Protection Facilities SR4: Source Control SRS: Oil Control SR6: Aquifer Protection Area 1 Table 2-1. Summary of Core and Special Requirements Proposed Stormwater Management Approach The construction stormwater pollution prevention plan (CSWPPP) will be prepared and submitted to the Cities of Tukwila and Renton prior to construction as a separate document. King County will provide maintenance and operations for the trail. King County will provide financial information at the time of permit application. Non-motorized trails are considered non-pollution generating impervious surfaces and water quality treatment is not required. Therefore, a water quality analysis is not required for the Segment A trail. No area-specific requirements apply to this project. The trail is located within the 100-year floodplain in TDA 1. The trail design provides onsite compensatory storage for trail grading within the 100- year floodplain in TDA 1. This special requirement is not applicable to this project because it does not meet the commercial development permit threshold. This special requirement is not applicable to this project because the trail is not a pollution-generating surface and does not meet the high-use site threshold. This special requirement is not applicable to this project because the trail is not in an Aquifer Protection Area. 1 Special Requirement 6 is specific to the 2010 Renton Addendum. 2 n/a=notapplicable TIR Section 10 n/a2 n/a n/a n/a 2-2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) I lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technicol Information Report Drainage ond Floodplain King County 3. OFFSITE ANALYSIS This section presents the Level 1 downstream analysis performed for the site in compliance with KCSWDM Core Requirement Number 2. The intent of the downstream analysis is to identify potential offsite flooding, erosion, water quality, and/or other hydrology-related issues that may be created or aggravated by the proposed project; evaluate issues identified; and take appropriate measures to prevent creating or aggravating potential problems. The elements of the downstream analysis are described in the sections below. 3.1 Study Area Definition and Maps The study area includes the proposed Segment A project site, Wetlands 1 through 5, and the overland flow path to the Black River. As shown on Figure 1-3, the study area lies within the Black River Basin in the Springbrook 17 and 18 Subbasins. The study area extends through the cities ofTukwila and Renton, within Section 13, Township 23N, Range 04E. 3.2 Resource Review The King County geographic information system (GIS) was accessed through the web-based iMAP tool (King County 2013) to identify past studies, known drainage problems, sensitive areas, wetlands, migrating river studies, King County-designated water quality problems, and floodplain/floodway studies within the study area. Map sets were reviewed for information on land use, zoning, surface water features, stormwater services, groundwater, critical areas, and shorelines (Appendix C). Based on the review of the King County GIS information, the following water resource-related elements exist within the study area: Black River and Green River • Black River Riparian Forest • Floodway and 100-yearfloodplain • High susceptibility to groundwater contamination within TDA 1 • Shoreline designation along the Green River in TDA 1 • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge point in TDA 1 In addition, the Green River is classified as having a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, and the Black River and Springbrook Creek are city-designated Shorelines [Renton Shoreline Master Program 4-3-090-B]. 3.3 Field Inspection Parametrix performed a Level 1 field inspection of the trail corridor on February 12, 2013. The weather was overcast and cool. The purpose of the field inspection was to identify any drainage or erosion problems downstream of the project corridor. The field inspection was also used to verify TDA boundaries and their connections 0.25 mile downstream of their trail discharge location. Photographs from the field inspection are provided in Appendix C. Aprll 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) 3-1 Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 3.3.1 TDA 1 (A-Line Stations 1+00 to 14+20) TDA 1 begins within the city of Tukwila from Station 1+00 to Station 7+65 between the Green River and the soccer fields at Fort Dent. Land cover consists of well-established grass and planted trees with an access road composed of a compacted tire track. Soils are classified as Newberg silt loam, hydrologic soil group A/B (NRCS 2013). The ground surface is relatively flat with small undulations. Runoff in this area infiltrates into the soil on the south side of the proposed trail. Any runoff on the north side of the proposed trail that does not infiltrate will flow into the Black River. Two railroad trestles and one overhead water line are located between Station 6+95 and Station 8+00. The trestles form a cover over this area and intercept the rainfall. The portion of TDA 1 from Station 7+65 to Station 14+82 lies within the city of Renton. Land cover in this area is established grass, shrubs, and trees surrounding a compacted dirt path/access road. Runoff between Stations 7+65 and 10+50 tends to sheet flow to the north towards the Black River. From Stations 10+50 to 14+20, runoff sheet flows along the path/access road and then discharges at approximately Station 10+50 to the north and the Black River. 3.3.2 TDA 2 (C-Line Stations 201+11to206+50) TDA 2 is located along Monster Road and includes areas south and north of the road. The south approach consists of the KP Corporation driveway and roadway, sidewalk, and wide shoulder associated with Monster Road. The north approach consists of the vegetated area between Monster Road and the south embankment of the Black River, where the proposed pedestrian bridge approach and abutment will be installed and the pedestrian bridge will cross over the Black River. Monster Road consists of a 60-foot to 90 foot-wide paved area (roadway, sidewalk, and existing bridge) that will not change from the existing impervious land cover. Runoff from the portion of the proposed trail that approaches and crosses the existing Monster Road (TDA 2) is collected into the storm drain systems on the north and south sides of the roadway. The north Monster Road storm drain system drains to an existing ditch that discharges to the Black River on the southeast side of the bridge. The south Monster Road storm drain system is conveyed southwest of Monster Road and continues onto private property adjacent the Black River. Runoff from TDA 2 sheet flows southeast on top of the bridge and is collected in a piped conveyance system that discharges to a roadside ditch north of Monster Road, adjacent to C-Line Station 203+70. The ditch flows northwest adjacent to the bridge and discharges to the Black River. Land cover and related runoff quantities will not change for TDA 2; therefore, the piped conveyance system and roadside ditch are expected to have adequate capacity for the proposed project. 3.3.3 TOA 3 (B-Line Stations 101+77 to 110+00) TDA 3 follows along the existing gravel access roadway from Station 101+77 to Station 110+00. Soils in TDA 3 are classified as Woodinville silt loam, hydrologic soil group D (NRCS 2013). Drainage along the roadway in TDA 3 tends to sheet flow to the southwest along the gravel road and then discharges to the south into the Black River. An ecology block barrier exists between the existing 12-foot-wide gravel road and the Black River to the south from Station 101 +00 to the point at which the access road splits near Station 105+00. Beyond the split at Station 105+00, the proposed project follows the alignment to the north, where the existing access road narrows to approximately 10 feet. Wetland 5 is located on the northwest side of the gravel roadway between Stations 102+25 and 106+00. Drainage from this area enters a catch basin, is conveyed beneath the access road through a 12-inch culvert near Station 3-2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 105+18, and discharges into the Black River. Wetland 6 is located on the southeast side of the trail between Stations 105+90 and 107+ 10. Drainage in this area sheet flows diagonally across the gravel roadway from the northwest to the southwest towards Wetland 6. A slight ridge exists at Station 110+00 where TDA 2 ends and TDA 3 begins. 3.3.4 TDA 4 (B-Line Stations 110+00 to 132+50) Topography in TDA 4 gently slopes from the northwest to the southeast and runoff sheet flows to nearby wetlands. Soils are classified as Woodinville silt loam, hydrologic soil group D (NRCS 2013). Beginning at Station 110+00, the gravel roadway narrows to approximately 6 feet in width and then narrows to 4 feet around Station 124+00. A low point is located near Station 126+00 where a small drainage ditch (approximately 12 inches wide) crosses from the north to the south and discharges into Wetlands 3 and 4. The main contribution offlow in this ditch is from a 12-inch culvert located on the north side of the road that directs drainage under the railway. The gravel road gently slopes uphill towards Station 132+50 where there is a slight high point. Water from the nearby wetlands slowly flows through the Black River Riparian Forest to the Black River, which is approximately 300 to 1,000 feet south of the gravel roadway. The water then flows towards the Black River Pump Station dam to the west, then to the convergence point with the Green River. 3.3.5 TDA 5 (B-Line Stations 132+50 to 143+17) The ground surface in TDA 5 is relatively flat, with a slight downward slope to the south towards the Black River. Soils are classified as Woodinville silt loam, hydrologic soil group D (NRCS 2013). Runoff from the existing access road/path discharges to the west/southwest to the Wetland 1/2 Complex, which is a series of interconnected wetlands located on either side of the existing road. The width of the access road/path is approximately 4 feet wide throughout TDA 5. The elevation along the project alignment is very flat between Stations 132+50 and 138+00, holding at approximately 28 feet. Runoff in this area slowly sheet flows to the southwest. A catch basin with a solid lid is located near Station 133+00 on the north side of the gravel road. This catch basin is connected on the north to an 18-inch ADS (Advanced Drainage Systems high-density polyethylene) pipe and on the south to a 24-inch ADS pipe. This system appears to convey drainage from the north side of the railway to the Wetland 1/2 Complex located approximately 90 feet to the south of the gravel road. Near Station 139+50, a 12-inch culvert connects the Wetland 1/2 Complex across the access road. Drainage from the wetlands reaches the Black River approximately 600 feet to the southwest. Water flows to the west in the Black River where it joins with drainage from TDAs 2 and 3 more than 0.25 mile downstream. 3.4 Drainage System and Problem Descriptions The existing drainage systems consists of the cross culverts, and Monster Road conveyance systems described in Section 3.3. There appears to be adequate capacity and no apparent drainage problems. 3.5 Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems No existing problems were identified and no potential problems are anticipated. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) 3.3 Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technicol Information Report Drainage and Floodplain Ki11gCountv 4. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The flow control analysis and water quality evaluation for the project is presented in the following sections. 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology (Part A) Existing soil types, land cover, and runoff patterns are described for each TDA in Section 3.2. This section describes runoff modeling assumptions and site parameters used in analyzing the existing site hydrology. Drainage Area Delineations TOA boundaries for the project vicinity were delineated based on existing site topography. Within each identified TOA, the site boundaries were delineated based on the proposed cut-and-fill line. Some clearing may take place beyond the cut-and-fill line; however, these areas will be restored to vegetated cover. The vegetated areas beyond the cut-and-fill line were not included in the runoff modeling analysis. Land Cover Existing land cover within the site boundary for each TDA was identified based on field investigation and review of aerial photography. The existing cover in TDA 1 was generally modeled as forest, with the exception of the existing railroad crossings, which were modeled as impervious surface. The existing compacted dirt path/road in TOA 1 was not differentiated from the forested area in the model. TDA 2 consists of the impervious surface of Monster Road and the vegetated Black River embankment where the bridge approach and abutment will be installed. The existing land cover was modeled as impervious surface area and till forest. In TDAs 3, 4, and 5, the existing gravel maintenance road was considered impervious surface with an effective impervious fraction of 0.50 based on Table 3.2.2.E of the KCSWDM. The ineffective impervious portion of the maintenance road was modeled as grass and the remaining area in TDAs 3, 4, and 5 was modeled as forest. Soils Soil types were sorted into hydrologic soil groups based on Natural Resources Conservation Service classifications (NRCS 2013) and model soil types based on Table 3.2.2.B of the KCSWDM. Newberg silt loam (TDAs 1, 2, and 3) is considered hydrologic soil group A/Band was modeled as till. Woodinville silt loam (TDAs 4 and 5) is considered hydro logic soil group D and was modeled as till. 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology (Part B) The proposed condition is shown on the design drawings provided in Appendix A. Modeling assumptions and site parameters used in analyzing the proposed site hydrology are discussed in this section. Drainage Area Delineations The proposed trail will maintain the existing drainage patterns along the trail corridor. Therefore, proposed drainage areas will match existing drainage areas. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (N3T200B) 4·1 lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County Land Cover Within each TDA, proposed land cover was determined by separating the total site area into (1) the portion that will be the proposed trail, and (2) everything else, which will be shrub/forest. The area of the proposed trail was calculated as 16-foot width (the 12-foot-wide paved trail and two 2-foot-wide gravel shoulders) multiplied by the length of the TDA segment. The trail and gravel shoulders are considered new impervious area based on the KCSWDM definition. The total impervious area proposed for each TDA was assigned an effective impervious percentage based on the flow dispersion BMP planned for that portion of the trail. In TDA 2, remaining areas outside of the proposed trail and the impervious surface of Monster Road were modeled as grass. For all other TDAs, remaining areas within the proposed site boundary will be shrub/forest and were modeled as forest. BMP Adjustments Following the guidelines in Table 1.2.3.C of the KCSWDM, impervious portions of the trail that will be fully dispersed were modeled as forest, while portions of the trail that will receive basic dispersion were modeled as SO percent impervious and SO percent grass. 4.3 Performance Standards (Part C) This section discusses applicable design standards from the KCSWDM and the Renton and Tukwila Addenda. 4.3.1 Standards Flow Control The Cities of Renton and Tukwila have designated area-specific flow control standards for each of their jurisdictions. The portion of the project within the city of Tukwila (TDA la) is subject to a Level 2 Conservation Flow Control Standard matching existing conditions, which requires proposed target surfaces to match existing runoff flow durations for one-half of the 2-year frequency through the SO- year frequency (Tukwila 2010). The remainder of the project area is located within the City of Renton and is subject to a Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (Level 1/Basic Flow Control) matching existing conditions, which requires runoff from proposed target surfaces to match the 2-, 10-, and 100-year peak rate runoff flows for existing conditions (Renton 2010). Target Surfaces Flow control requirements apply to areas identified as target surfaces. Target surfaces for Basic (Peak) Flow Control Areas include new impervious and new pervious surfaces that are not fully dispersed. Target surfaces for Conservation Flow Control Areas include areas not fully dispersed that are new impervious surface; new pervious surface; existing impervious surface added since January 8, 2001; and certain types of replaced impervious surface. Flow Control Exemption In both jurisdictions, projects are exempt from constructing flow control facilities for a given TDA if the 100-year peak runoff flow from the proposed target surfaces will be within 0.1 cfs of the existing 100- yea r peak runoff flow. 4-2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200BJ 4.3.2 Conveyance System Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County The Segment A project will maintain the existing drainage patterns of dispersed sheet flows from the trail surface within TDAs 1, 3, 4, and 5. For off-site runoff that passes through the project site, existing culverts and storm pipes will either remain undisturbed or be extended to account for the trail alignment and width. TOA 2 is located on Monster Road, and the proposed trail and sidewalk improvements will require additions to the existing conveyance systems to maintain existing drainage patterns. Also, one new box culvert will be constructed in TOA 4 in Renton at the existing ditch location near B-Line Station 126+00 to convey the off-site drainage to the opposite side of the trail and discharge in the same location as the existing ditch. The proposed pedestrian bridge and abutments are designed to be above the 100-year floodplain elevation. Construction activities will occur outside of the Black River ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and project improvements will not change the shape of the Black River channel. Therefore, no conveyance or hydraulic analyses were performed for the pedestrian bridge crossing over the Black River. Further discussion of the pedestrian bridge is provided in Section 5.2. The existing onsite conveyance systems will not experience a change in contributing flow characteristics as a result of the proposed project, therefore, the proposed modifications to the Monster Road conveyance systems and trail culverts do not require conveyance capacity analysis. Similarly, the proposed box culvert will replace an existing ditch that flows across the current access road near station. The contributing runoff will not change as a result of the trail project, therefore, culvert will be sized to convey at least as much capacity as the existing ditch. 4.3.3 Water Quality Treatment Water quality treatment is required by the Cities of Renton and Tukwila for runoff from pollution- generating surfaces. The Segment A project will not include any pollution-generating surfaces; therefore, no water quality treatment is proposed. 4.4 Flow Control System (Part D) Flow Control Facility Exemption The proposed Segment A project will maintain 100-_year peak flows for each TOA within the 0.1 cfs threshold and will therefore be exempt from requirements to construct flow control facilities. The King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS, King County 2009b) software was used to simulate runoff flows from existing and proposed conditions (including dispersion BMPs) for the Segment A project. Table 4-1 summarizes the modeling results. Detailed results of flow modeling for each TOA are provided in Appendix D. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) 4-3 Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County Table 4-1. Comparison of Peak Runoff Rates Existing Cover (acre) Proposed Cover (acre) 100-Year Peak Runoff (ds) Total Area Shrub/ Shrub/ TDA (acre) EIA1 Grass Forest EIA1 Grass Forest Existing Proposed Change 1 0.78 0.04 0.73 0.31 0.18 0.29 0.1 0.2 0.1 2 1.05 0.85 0.21 0.87 0.18 0.4 0.4 0 3 0.52 0.12 0.40 0.14 0.07 0.31 0.1 0.1 0 4 1.36 0.14 1.22 0.07 0.02 1.27 0.1 0.1 0 5 0.64 0.05 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.37 0.1 0.1 0 1 EIA:effectiveimperviousarea Flow Dispersion BMPs The Segment A project will employ basic and full dispersion BMPs wherever possible. The following design requirements apply: Basic Dispersion: The dispersion device is sheet flow provided by the 12-foot-wide paved trail and 2-foot-wide gravel shoulders. A 10-foot-wide vegetated flow path is provided to meet the requirements of the sheet flow dispersion method. The dispersion flow path is less than 15 percent in grade, covered in native vegetation, and located between the trail and the downstream drainage feature (wetlands and/or Black River). There are no landslide hazard areas or septic systems downstream and the dispersion will not create flooding or erosion impacts downstream. Full Dispersion: • The dispersion device is sheet flow provided by the 12-foot-wide paved trail and 2-foot-wide gravel shoulders. • A 100-foot-wide vegetated flow path is provided to meet the requirements of the sheet flow dispersion method. • The dispersion flow path is less than 15 percent in grade, covered in native vegetation, and located between the trail and a downstream drainage feature (wetlands and/or Black River). There are no landslide hazard areas or septic systems downstream and the dispersion will not create flooding or erosion impacts downstream. The locations of dispersion techniques within each TDA are listed in Appendix B. The Segment A trail, along with the proposed sheet flow dispersion components, will be located within wetland buffers in TDAs 3, 4, and 5. As discussed in the critical area report (Parametrix 2015b), the proposed trail alignment will result in some impacts to adjacent wetland buffers; therefore, a wetland mitigation site will be developed. The critical area report details the impacts study, the selection of the mitigation site, and the size of the mitigation site. 4.4 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) 4.5 Water Quality (Part E) Lake ta Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County The Segment A project will not include any pollution-generating surfaces; therefore, no water quality treatment is proposed. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T2008) 4-5 Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 5. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The Segment A project will maintain the existing dispersed sheet flow drainage patterns within each TDA and leave all existing cross-culverts in place. The project will include the new conveyance system components discussed below. 5.1 Monster Road Storm Drain Systems Two existing conveyance systems are located on Monster Road: one on the north side of the road, and another along the gutter line of the south sidewalk, in front of the KP Corporation property (TDA 2). As shown on the design drawings presented in Appendix A, the project will install a new ramp and pedestrian-actuated signal crossing at the southeast end of the Monster Road bridge (C-Line Station 202+50). To accommodate the new flow line that will be created by the pedestrian safety improvements, a lateral connection with the 12-inch storm drain pipe will be established by installing one new catch basin in the gutter and a second catch basin in the existing conveyance system on the north side of Monster Road. The south trail approach to Monster Road will follow the existing Monster Road sidewalk and a new sidewalk will be installed further north. The new sidewalk will create a new gutter flow line and a depressed area southwest of the trail ramp. To accommodate for the modified runoff patterns, one new catch basin will be installed in the depression between the sidewalk and the trail southwest of the trail ramp (C-Line Station 202+37), and a second catch basin will be installed in the gutter near the driveway entrance to the KP Corporation property (C-Line Station 203+34). Collected runoff will be conveyed via 12-inch storm drain pipe from the catch basin near the trail ramp (C-Line Station 202+37) to the catch basin in the new gutterline (C-Line Station 203+34), and re-connect to the existing storm conveyance system in the existing catch basin located south side of the trail near C-Line Station 203+33. Drainage problems have not been documented in this area and the contributing area will be less than or equal to the existing area; therefore, 12-inch storm drain pipes similar to the existing pipe systems will have adequate capacity to convey runoff. As a result, no calculations were performed. 5.2 Pedestrian Bridge As previously discussed, the proposed pedestrian bridge and abutments will be constructed above the Black River 100-year floodplain elevation. The Black River 100-year floodplain elevation at the proposed pedestrian bridge is calculated at 22.57 feet (NAVD 88) using the 1995 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The trail surface across the bridge is 6- feet above the floodplain elevation, which allows up to 3-feet in bridge depth from top of trail to the bottom of any bridge element, plus 3-feet of clearance from the bottom of any bridge element to the 100-year floodplain elevation. Additionally, the north and south pedestrian bridge abutments will be installed outside of the 100 year floodplain elevation. The 3-foot clearance to base of bridge meets the bridge clearance design requirements for rivers where the 100-year peak flow exceeds 100 cfs (Section 6.03.F of the King County Road Standards, Section 6.02.F). The project does not propose changes to the Black River channel and all work will be done outside of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). As a result, the project does not anticipate the trail bridge improvements to have conveyance impacts to the Black River, and no calculations were performed. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) S-1 Lake to Sound Trail· Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County Floodplain elevations are further discussed in Section 6.1, and the bridge design drawings are found in Appendix A. 5.3 TOA 3 Catch Basin The project will install a new catch basin in TDA 3 near B-Line Station 105+05 with a 12-inch storm drain pipe to tie into the existing catch basin. The existing catch basin collects offsite runoff and overflow from Wetland 5. The proposed trail cannot avoid covering this catch basin; therefore, it will be raised to grade and a solid locking lid will be installed. To maintain existing flow patterns, the new catch basin will be installed west of the trail perpendicular to the existing catch basin. This area does not have documentation of drainage problems and the contributing area will be less than or equal to the existing area. Therefore, a 12-inch storm drain pipe extending the existing pipe will have adequate capacity to convey runoff. As a result, no calculations were performed. 5.4 TOA 4 Box Culvert The project will construct one new box culvert in Renton at the existing ditch location near B-Line Station 126+00 to convey the upstream drainage to the opposite side of the trail and discharge in the same location as the existing ditch. The existing ditch is 1 foot wide and 1 foot deep with 2:1 side slopes and a longitudinal slope of 5.26 percent. The maximum capacity of this ditch is 13.29 cfs. No signs of erosion or drainage problems were evident during the downstream analysis. Because there will be no change in the area contributing runoff to the culvert, the project did not perform a separate drainage basin analysis for contributing flow, and will instead design a culvert that will convey at least 13.29 cfs when half full. Based on stakeholder negotiations, a concrete box culvert with a 48-inch rise and 40-inch width will be installed. The culvert will be set flat and countersunk with stream bed gravel with a depth of approximately 2 feet at the upstream end and approximately 1 foot at the outfall. The culvert will convey 29.6 cfs at 1 foot deep (1 foot offreeboard) and 59.2 cfs at full flow capacity. Culvert analysis and design documentation is provided in Appendix E. 5-2 April 2015 I 554·1521·084 (N3T2DOB) 6. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 6.1 Floodplain Analysis Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County Floodplain impacts include any site activity that will place material at or below the 100-year floodplain elevation within a floodplain boundary. The Green and Black River floodplain boundaries and elevations within the vicinity of the Segment A project were identified based on 1995 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map 53033C, Panels 0975F and 0976F (FEMA 1995). The project team depicted the floodplain boundary in the design drawings and floodplain figures using City of Renton GIS Data (Renton 2015), which is a digital interpretation of the 1995 FEMA FIRM. The floodplain boundary is shown on Figure 1-3 and in detail in Appendix F. Approximately 1,050 feet of the Segment A trail alignment is located within the Green River and Black River floodplains in TDA 1, from the connection to the Green River Trail at A-Line Station 1 +00 to Station 11+50. In TDA 3, approximately 350 feet of the proposed trail alignment is located in the Black River floodplain from B-Line Station 101 + 77 to approximately Station 105+50. The remainder of the trail in TDA 3 and the entire length in TDA 4 is located adjacent to the floodplain. The trail in TDA 5 is located in the floodplain from B-Line Station 132+50 to the end of the project at Naches Avenue (B-Line Station 143+17). The FEMA floodplain elevation west of the Black River Pump Station (A-Line Station 1+00 through 17+76, and B-Line Station 101+78 through 105+50 is 19 feet NGVD 29, which translates to 22.57 feet NAVD 88 in the project datum. East of the Black River Pump Station, the FEMA floodplain elevation is 15 feet NGVD 29, which translates to 18.57 feet NAVD 88. Based on floodplain elevations, the proposed trail is beneath the 100-yearfloodplain elevations in TDA 1 from A-Line Station 1+00 to Station 11+50. The remainder of the trail will be constructed above the floodplain elevations. The proposed vertical alignment of the trail will approximate existing grade as close as possible while providing smooth transitions for ADA compliance and positive drainage towards the river. Between A- line Stations 1 +00 and 12+25, approximately 217 cubic yards of fill will be placed and approximately 242 cubic yards of excavation will be conducted. The net result of the project will remove approximately 25 cubic yards of material below the floodplain elevation. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix F. 6.2 Stream Discipline Report In support of the WSDOT Environmental Classification Summary form for the NEPA Documented Categorical Exclusion process, this report describes streams and aquatic resources in the project vicinity, including two fish-bearing streams. This report also evaluates potential impacts to streams and stream buffers from the proposed project, presents avoidance and minimization measures included in the project design, and discusses conceptual mitigation for unavoidable impacts (Parametrix 2015a). 6.3 Critical Area Study A critical area report (Parametrix 2015) has been prepared to evaluate the proposed trail impacts to the wetlands and associated buffers along the trail corridor in Renton. Because of the amount of wetland buffer impacts created by the new trail alignment, there will be a wetland mitigation site. The critical area report details the impacts study, the selection of the mitigation site, and the size of the mitigation site. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) 6-1 Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 6.4 Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report This report provides information in support of the WSDOT Environmental Classification Summary form for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documented Categorical Exclusion process by describing vegetation and wildlife resources in the project vicinity, evaluating potential impacts to critical areas from the proposed project, and presenting mitigation for potential impacts (Parametrix 2015c). 6·2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) 7. OTHER PERMITS Other permits required for this project include: City ofTukwila Shoreline Master Program • City of Renton Shoreline Conditional Use Permit • NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T2DOB) Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain KmgCounty 7-1 8. CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County The construction stormwater pollution prevention plan (CSWPPP) will be prepared and submitted to the Cities of Tukwila and Renton prior to construction as a separate document. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200BJ 8-1 Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 9. BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT The Segment A project is a public improvement project led by King County within the public county right-of-way. Quantities will be prepared for the work elements pertaining to the project, and an engineer's estimate will be provided to establish an opinion of cost for the project. However, bonding worksheets usually prepared for private developer projects have not been developed for this public county project. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) 9-1 Lake ta Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 10. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Operation and maintenance of the Segment A trail will be provided by King County staff after completion of the project. Applicable operation and maintenance guidelines from the KCSWDM are provided in Appendix G. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) 10-1 Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 11. REFERENCES FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1995. Flood Insurance Rate Map for King County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas. Map 53033C, Panels 0957F and 0976F. Effective September 29, 1989; Revised May 16, 1995. King County. 2009a. King County Surface Water Design Manual. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. January 2009. King County. 2009b. King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) Hydrologic Simulation Model for Implementing the Runoff-Files Methodology, Version 6.0. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division. March 2009. King County. 2012. King County Geographic Information System Floodway and Floodplain data layers. Available at: http://www5.kingcounty.gov/gisdataportal/. Data generated 2012. King County. 2013. King County iMap Interactive Mapping Tool. Accessed at: http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/gis/Maps/iMAP.aspx. May 2013. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2013. Web Soil Survey Application. Accessed at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm. April 2013. Parametrix. 2015a. Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A: Stream Discipline Report. Prepared for King County, Seattle, Washington. April 2015. Parametrix. 2015b. Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A, Final Critical Area Study. Prepared for King County Parks Division. Seattle, Washington. April 2015. Parametrix. 2015c. Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A: Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report. Prepared for King County, Seattle, Washington. April 2015. Renton, City of. 2010. Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. City of Renton Public Works Department, Surface Water Utility. February 2010. Renton, City of. 2015. GIS Data. FEMA Floodplain Boundary. http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=29887. Data Downloaded May 30, 2015. Tukwila, City of. 2010. Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards. City ofTukwila Public Works Department. Fourth Edition, revised April 2010. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2013. Web Soil Survey. Accessed at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm. April 2013. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) 11-1 Appendix A Project Design Drawings ~ l ~IREV1510NS Puget Sound LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE DE!ilGNECl J.D~AK DR ... Votl 1---t------------t---+---l M. Miu.ER CHECKED Y. HO Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington Contract No. XX --·"'~ UNliORPORATED ., ' . ·• -::..::--:::· -tf' '114,~·-,f:',',, ,' ,..~, ~ --J -/ ~n.. ~., I ·---...,,;;----+ -....,,~ \ ~ I • ..,,.., ~--' \'r-~,..-,,--I •'. \ ~ '·°' I # -----, ,: '•1 _.,;s _-~-•. END'-., I · • • ' •,\ !i~ BLA~'i<'-',· ROJECT / , ~ ~ ',,/ , 'f<PARIANRIVE' t9CJ01ts•-set_6~ ~t~ ~, \ ', ~ ~ \;, ~~ ,..... ,.. I~.~ /l !1 .--·--- '-~, , T :..._ _u,.!._ ... ·. ~ ,-BL..ic1,: ' -------' --~" ~'(t.f(I. \~ . . I ~ --------st=-~--~-4,-.al" ------·- • ·" :rlA~ \ii I ----·~ SW i --.. ---- --. ·::0~ -_Ii ---_ SW 7TH ST .,.. \11 ' -- I' I• ,, >I :\= ~ ~ VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCM.E i ~ i ~ ~ I "' t: .. §il ~ lj L.-- $'\ff:GradY "41t# ::-::::::::) f--- 1-405 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW COVERSHEET DAA'MNGNO 1 OF 47 G1 f ! t j 6 ABBREVIATIONS: ACP ASPI-W.T CONCRETE PAVEMENT BOC BACK Of CURB BOW BACK OF Sl)EWAJ.K BP BEGIN PROfLE BVCE BEGIN VERTIQ6.L CURVE ELEVATION eves BEGIN VEmlCAL CURVE STATION CB CATCH BISIN C&G CURB ANO GLITTER C/L CENlERLINE CONC CDNCRtlE CONST CONSIRUCTION CMP C~RUGATEO METAL PIPE CDS CITY Of RENTON CP CONCRETE PIPE csrc CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE DIA DIAMETER O!, DIP DUCTILE IRON PIPE E EAST, £ASTINC EDA EDGE OF ASPHALT EOG EDGE OF GRAVEL EDP EDGE OF PAVEMENT EP END PROflLE EVCE END \IERTIOO. CURB ElEVAMN EVCS END VERTICAL CURB STATION EX, EXIST EXISTING FOC FACE OF CURB FL FLANGE. R.OWUNE G GAS GB GRADE BREAK HMA HOT MIX ASPHAl T HORIZ HORIZONTAL ID tNOENTlflCATION IE INVERT ELEVATION KC KING COUNTY lf LINEAR FEET lP LOW POINT LT LEFT ME MATCH EXISTING MIN MINIMUM MON MONUMENT N NORTH, NORTHING N.I.C. NOT IN CONlRACT NO. NUMBER NST NOT STEEPER TIWJ OHWM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK R:EVl~ONS '"' " PC PT P/L PRC PUD PVI R RT ROW or R/W SD SOt.lH ss STA TOA m TESC TYP vc VERT w ws WSOOT ""'"" • D""'-"' """ M, MILLER """"' Y, HO APf'ROYED INDEX TD DRAWINGS DWGNO. SHTNO. SHEETmLE POINT OF CURVE GeNERAL POINT OF TANGENT 1 G1 COVER SI-EU 2 G2 ABBREVIATIONS ANO SHEET UST PROPERTY LINE 3 G3 LEGEND 4 G4 SURVEY COHTROL PLAN POINT Of REVERSE CURVATURE 5 G5 SURVE.Y COmROI... PLAN 6 GS A-LINE CONSTRUCTION BASELINE CONTROL PUBLIC UTILITY DIST1'1CT 7 G7 C-UNE CONSTRUCTION BASELINE CONTROL POINT OF YERTir.AI... INTERSECTION 8 GB 8-UNE CONSTRUCTION 8'SEUNE CONTROL RADIUS D£NOUTl0N 9 DM1 DEMOUTlON AND TESC PLAN RIGHT 10 DM2 DEMOUTlON AND TESC PLAN RIGHT-OF-WAY 11 DM3 DEMOUTlON AND TESC PLAN 12 -DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN STORM DR.1111 13 DM5 DEMOUOON AND TESC PLAN 14 OMS DEMOL.mON AND TESC PLAN STORMWATER MANHOLE 15 DM7 DEMOUTlON AND TESC PLAN 16 ... DEMOl.JTION AND TESC PLAN SANITARY SEWER 17 DM9 DEMOUTION AND TESC PLAN STATION TYPICAL SECTIONS THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA 18 CS1 lYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS TELEPHONE PLAN & PROFILE TH4PORARY EROSION MID SEDIMENT CONTROL 19 C1 PLAN AND PROFlLE 20 C2 PLAN AND PROFlLE TYP1CAI. 21 C3 PLAN AND PROFlLE 22 C4 PLAN AND PROFILE v£RTlCAI... CURVE 23 C5 INTERSECTION PLAN VERTlCAI. 24 cs PLAN AND PROFllf 25 r:, PLAN AND PROFllf WATER 26 C8 PLAN AND PROFlLE 27 C9 PLAN AND PROFILE WATER SER\SCE 28 C10 PLAN AND PROFllE 29 011 PLAN AND PROFllE WASHINGTON STATE 30 C12 PLAN AND PROFllE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 31 013 PLAN AND PROFILE 32 C14 PLAN AND PROFllE 33 C15 SIGN SCHEDUL£ AND GR.'DING DETAIL STORM DRAINAGE 34 SD1 CULVERT DETAILS WALL PROfl.EI 35 WP1 GRAVITY BLOCK WALL PROFILES NOT INCLUDED WD1 GRAVITY BLOCK WALL DETAILS (90,C SUBMITTAL) DETAILS 36 D1 DETAILS 37 D2 DETAILS 38 D3 DETAILS 81GNAUZAT10N 39 TS1 SIGNAL PlAN 40 TS2 SIGtw.. WlmNG D~RA.M 41 TS3 SIGNAL POLE SCHEDULE AND DETAILS 42 TS4 PE0ESTRw. PUSH BLm'ON POST DETAILS 43 TS5 SIGNAL DETAILS STRUCTURAL 44 s, BRIDGE PLAN AND ELEVATION NOT INCLUDED 52 AOOmONAL STRUCnJRAL PlANS (901 SUBMITTAL) MITIGATION 45 MP1 MmGI\TION PLAN ... MP2 MmGI\TION Pl.ANTING DETAILS 47 MP3 MmGATION NOTES NOT INCLUDED MP4 MmGATION PLAN FOR GROUND lt.tPRO\IEMENTS (901 SUBMITTAL) a& 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -I I P~LCTN~ DRAWIN6NO, DNli INCH AT FUU. •CAL&. LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL 2 OF 47 IF NaT, acALE ACc:ORDINCILT ABBREVIATIONS AND ''"1i...1M'1084PA --·--=>ONG.l'LAHNNCl.~N\MO,-NT.LIClm'tt:1!5 SEGMENT A ,,., I SHEET LIST --.:;;.-; 1"-"1-l'iR.t. 'A""'' G2 Dl1.lPRIL201:5 1:.::.::.::;;o GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW LEGEND DESCRIPTION ROW LINE RAilROAD C/L PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT LINE FOUND MONUMENTS REBAR & CAP HUB & TACK PKNAIL PROPERTY CORNER STREAM BUITTR EDGE or WATER WETLAND FlAG ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION DITCH LINE STORM DRAJN LINE CULVERT QUARRYSPALi CATCHSASIN,TYPE1 CATCHBASIN,TYPE2 INLCT PROT£CTION SANITARY SEWER LINE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER VAULT CL£ANOUT CONTOURS MAJOR CONTOURS MINOR FlLTERFABRICFENCE HIGHV1SIBILJT'l'f'INCE CLEARING AND GRUBBING LIMITS CLEARING LIMITS Flll LINE SAWCUT UNE ASPHALT EDGE CONCRETE LINE CURB ANO GUTI[R LINE EDGE OF PATCH EDGE OF GRAVEL JURISDICTIOWJ...OffCH ROCKERY CONCRETE BARRIER ~IR[VISIONS ~ = ---_B/W_ --- --_RAILROAD C/L __ _ • __ ---2..~-- • Gi) 0 © ii'1 --___ , ___ _ -o-c-c-o-o- c:cx::::r:::i ::X-:CG DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED Y. HO LEGEND = SPUT RAIL FENCE LINE BARBWIRE FENCE LJNE WOOD FENCE LINE CHAIN LINK FENCE LINE HOG WIRE FENCE UN[ WOOD GUARDRAIL GUY ANCHOR POWER POL£ WITH LIGHT FLOOD UGHT UTILITY POLE PP W/ UG DROP PP W/ UG DROP & XMFR OVERHEAD POWER POWER POWER VAULT POWER TRANSFORMER POWER MANHOLE POWER HANDHOLE POWER CABINET POWER RISER POWER METER SOLID LIO J-BOX LUMINAJRE TELEPHONE VAULT TELEPHOI£ RISER TELEPHOI£ MANHOLE TELEPHONE TV RISER 1V GAS WJ .. ..VE GAS WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT WATER MffiR WATER VALVE WATER BLOW OFF VALVE WATER POST INDICATOR SPRINKLER HOO ROT•90 IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE = ._. 4111(ll!T•AVEWENESU,l£ll!OO oa,ewew,s,.,..oro~•'°'"' T<:l>4"''°"'°'''"''"'"' EXISTING ,; ...... '.\- Tl c:J ~.,,,1 ill [CJ []J " LEGEND = TRAfTIC SIGNAL POLE W/ LAMP TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE TRAFflC CONTROL LOOP (SQ) TRAFflCCONTROLCABINEr PEDESTRIAN POLE MONITORING WELL SURFACE POST SIGN LTO ARROW STO ARROW TREES WETlAND SYMBOL WETl.ANO BOONOARY VEGETATION RETAINING Wfil ROCKERY HANDICAPPED SYMBOL BUILDING LINE CONCRETE STAlR LINE WOOD STAIRWAY ASPHALT PATH CEMENT CONCRm SIDEWAI.J( ENGINEERED SOIL MIX l..MOSCAPE AREA RAMP DETECTABLE WARNING RESTORATION PlANTING ARfA TESTPITORB0REH0L£ LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW = - c!;.. CJ C:=J CJ CJ !lillill:iilll CJ TP._, ORBHI_# EXISTING __ ....:r-(--,..,_,_ -=---_', -T.l EB '6 'i if !I 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3 OF 47 LEGEND G3 ---------------/ B/...\cK RIVER 1 ~~1;- 9 , KCP~~~7229500060 /I ~~ lllKT~FOIFON~m-..::.....I "' ""',· ·::/J -~r . ""0,020,2, -,)--'!!i!!Y_ ,I--] ""~<-;-:,___-_1:_s_p_cJ~INACE DITCH J ---7'.._-1 ~'?/•,--' , I 1XC::}.1 , _/--/ ,1.,-~.,-~ :ii r _>j\ ___ 1~~;~~-:.~-·/ -~.:;;~I! -1 >~;<:i \~-"l': r.:----&~~-~.;(~~~41-. -._,,-·,", ,-;?-_.,,,.-;;-~J\. \ _--;,;:',--=:-:>, ~--' ·----,:-UI ~J, ~-.1_ .. " .. ,.;:·1~ Jt-/\1~ ;\)>--"-~--?':',:,-~~c::~-1~ >-·----• -.:; ~"If_;f1~~~4t~--;vi:::.:\c"~,;f~~~~~r~5 't("7z-c;:."--J ,_.ck-' -----"-=------\ _r:,V-\; .j~i\ '-,/--!\ /~]'c/\-11-~~.Es~~~~'(-~ --_ ·:"1t;-,!j,,:~'°i~JijJJI\i '~~li'\,,,~/-)~*"'-'-~~zy~~r?'f-.:1 k '-r-:::,, / ·r~,p:7;,;-i)i'!-:-~ =-~~l_;.~ J ___ :-~~~~-~ ..... ~f_-~r\~")~~ #V{',,,~ ~:,;!L;.,,..;.;;w ~~ .. ~ ----,..-=~-;:,----==--~=-----_::_ ~ -'+--,-cc--__::_-______,....,..._ -----~c PARCEI._MO. m.!049001 \ I I --"!.~"""' \ -1 g IRE\IISWNS DESlGNED J. DVORAK DIIAY<lol M. ~ILLER CIIECKED Y. HO -ONE INCH AT FULL IICALI!!:. IF NOT. IICALE -'CCOROINGt. Y IILiNAME 1 0;~ 521084PA T2T2DM-1 554 1521 OB4 {A/2C 0"'1APRIL 2015 ~ _jC~ 0 20 40 I \ \ :s:s ~l I J \ \ d~- §g~ 5~~ <11llll!'>-AVH<JENCSl.lTE1800 eeLLeVIJCW,.S,I"""'"""'°" ,.,,..,,,200,,,.os.,,,,,, ~C PARCEL NO. 7229:,(1(1:\20 ·- LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW DEMOLITION NOTES: Q MAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESS INFORMATION. 0 REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. 0 ~~~~~Sl~?~lriA~~i~J~~R FILL PAVEMENT 0 ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C-SHECTS FOR ELEVATIONS. © REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK. © INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 0 REMOVE BEA~ GUARDRAIL. © REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. 0 REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. ® REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE. G RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS @ ~~~t~,ttT~~~~~E TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED @REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. @REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. @PROTECT EXISTING TREE. R@F R TO TiiE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SEE DET 1 FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER. DJ ® ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SLIP-RESISTANT. ADA-COMPLIANT COVER. @ADJUST WATER MITTR BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. @PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: 0 ~c5;i~~!Tgt~1f;A:sci~i~T6~ 0;C,:J1 ~~4~~20-oo. @NOT USED. @ ~~~~s6~f fi~.c~~N ~~~~~ft5f. 0 ~JJ~~~g~ ~:~~Bl~~o~L1T6~~~~N 1.30.17-00. 0 ~g~~zci~~.PWo~lcf6~iJ~GfW~~ ~1J: ~:g~I~~ WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. © ~~te~ ~~~K. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING GENERAL NOTES: L SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 186 BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIMIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3 THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1 +00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFlCATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. LEGEND: -l......L..J... SAWCIJT ~ DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHA.RGE AREA ID NO. ----TDA BOUNDARY ~ CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL , ASPHALT CONG. PAVEMENT REMOVAL --N--HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE -a-a-SILT FENCE e INLET PROTECTION 60% REVIEW SUBMITIAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN DR~WING NO 90F47 DM1 ' i ' --\ -i~· ' ;:.,-7'\ " --~~ x:/ -0 ...----11'l1~-1cj) ~ \ ,~ I -' 72295005.50 c?~)IIU;,tt,- <e acu """"" J'l!,----":':i:,~.ro ',, """-__ " ·, \ I ·-----"=-= __ .,,,,. / ' \ '--._ ·~.. ----.. ..,__. ,, __ ,,,.,. --' '\ ' / \t BLACJR -----,-,;;.~ ____ "\•!¢""' / \ \, \_ \~Cl ------,---I, ';-·, '!],,----/-· "" '.__ ~ ------i,:s:, --,~ --,,,.,,. ~ ' 'I"'. ---: I/ ,) ------<?''' "'':.ii:)',;;,., '-, ' ' J"' w, ... , 1 14 _,>-' , ---'-. lfl --/ . ' .-~----L-~-----I ' ' / ----=-.. , "' ~ IP ?~-_ .__ S-<---T'--±==--l-::~_ro-.,.:J~1.,~/-~--~~-,~\~ I ;;;_f\,,1 >)~3 ---/--/ , '-/, k .=Q, 9''\'13'LT~"' '/ 14 '" S' Ii\ c---.r--;;r--, /, / ./ ,,-I ~~A 12+ \ .. ' '~ 18 ~ I >, ,\'i ,I •, -_ , ••i-,,,,, , '. <#\/_, , I -~-~~:::::-, 1-• 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN , ~ 4 /,, ., , ~ Job> .. , .. -. •:. ··-''"'""' '·-· '" ,,_ . ,,--~----/ ,,. ~·-,--. ' . -' . ~-. '<'-•·-A---/-~Tc.··~-~=~--'c-"CS~ <~ ,J r, I /'~--~~--=-~I ' 7-,-f'----L.,L_-,,.-__ ~--_ _ ,al•NE -13+00',., ~ti\ . ., l;j,,s/ ""-_ ---• , ;, • 12~_ -----_ ~ -"-"""'---'>,-4il\ ~V I""'" ,,;,;. --'-~--=--,----/"', -J.----.\ II'.>,'( 4/~ / ~---' --,'I __ '._ ____ _:,.__=~~=~~*" -~O Y c..,1:::../;, I -"-"~"-' I ". /,7' -':cc---c,-~~CQ=-°'.=f'--~, --------=--:-:\~ ~' -7 -:Y~----"' "--;w--.,,&/o,--,." -"'=='""::~~" ---:=::::-"~;;:,:__~-e-l'LL_ ___ ., _ __::-.:::::_"~~ 'l:!, / • / , /_ -· ----~-=-~---,,,., ,,,, 3 I .\\ •,,;;;,;,;;-' ' ;,_;----~----------·•; ---. --' ®"""" '"" --'\ ~'\, ,( l-1 -----r--------r=-----.... .:._~ ~\--------.,..~--!-----I ------. F'I...AN ~ -JF~ 0 20 40 AIREl'ISIONS Dts1GIIIEO J. Dvc:fo1AK DRAM, t---+------------4---+---l M. MILLER CHECKED Y. HO LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW DEMOLITION NOTES: 0 MAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESS INFORMATION 0 REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. 0 ~~~~~~Sl~S~~T:A~i~iNJit~~~R. FILL PAVEMENT © ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHffi GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. 0 REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTIER AND SIDEWALK © INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTr' PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPEClAL PROVISIONS. 0 REMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL. © REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS ©REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. ® REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE @RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. @ ~~:~N~/~T~~~UtE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED @REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. @REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. @PROTECT EXISTING TREE R@F R TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SEE DET 1 FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER. OJ @ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SLIP-RESISTANT, ADA-COMPLIANT COVER @ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. @PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE TESC CONTROL NOTES: 0 ~JJ~~~A1Tgt~1fiA~t6~r1T6~ 0l~J 1 ~~4t20-oo. @NOT USED. 0 ~~~~s6~i ffgc~:N ~~~i~,o;~gf ©rtJ~~:g~ ~:i~81 ~o~L1f6~N~CA~NI.JO 17-00. © ~~~~Lzci~~:i~;~c~y~~:g~~G~1 ~~~ ~~5i :~g~I~~ WrTH PLASTIC SHEETING. © ~~e~; i:K. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2 CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18K BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIMIT Will NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1 +OD AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07 .16( 4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB LEGEND: -1......L..L..L SAWCUT cm) DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO ----TDA BOUNDARY CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ASPHALT CDNC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL -N--HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE -C-0-SILT FENCE e INLET PROTECTION 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN 100F47 DM2 i GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SiEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN RDAOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2 CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE 1HAN 18" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIMIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4 A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB :ZS:IREVISIDNS DESIGNED J. DVORAK ~,w M. ~ILLER MCKEO Y. HO -ONE li'ICH AT FULL SCALE. II'" NOT, IICAL..E ACCONDINGLY nit N~r.lE JOB s;1521084PAT2T2Dk-4-1 554-1521 OB4 (A/2C OA~RIL2015 / / ~,,~ STA 203+58, 40.4'RT PLAN ~ 0'"0 SCALE IN FEET ~ ----1 P"""""""""i 0 20 ,4.Q ,,, '"'TH~VENUE~e sure,ooo BE.rn•Jc...,.,.._,lONOOC¢< 1<2'<$11~)<,)F<:>S<"'""'' LEGEND: ....L..i....L.. SAWCUT ~ DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO ----TDA BOUNDARY ' CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REf..10VAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL --N-HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW DEMOLITION NOTES: 0 MAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESS INFORMATION. 0 REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. 0 ~~~z~~Sl:s~~,:A~g~:N;~~~~R. FILL PAVEMENT 0 ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. © REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUITER AND SIDEWALK. © INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROV1SIONS. 0 REMOVE BEAM GUARDRAJL © REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS © REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. ® REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE. @RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. @~i~~Nksm-~ii~~E TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED @REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. e REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. @PROTECT EXISTING TREE. R@R TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SEE OET 1 FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER. 03 @ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SUP-RESISTANT, ADA-COMPLIANT COYER @ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. ® PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: 0 ~c8Jt~~!Tgt~1f~wNsci~i~r6~ 0;~J1~~46~20-oo. @NOT USED 0 W1i~~s6~i fft.c~~N ~~~~~f;~gf 0 rc5Z~~~lg~ ~/¥~Bl~~O~Lk6~~&JNl.30.17-00. © ~~~~Lzci~~.~~~c~~fiJHJZG~ 1~~ ~~~: :g~1~~ WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. © ~~e~:{ ~~f<. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING ------- --~------r;r-----~-~ 0sTA 205+96, 7.9'RT AND LT = END --r-· 60% REVIEW SUBMIITAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN DRA1Mt/GNO 11 OF 47 DM3 ' ~!REVISIONS ',-< :-~"---~:;:---------- <~ --'-_7--.:::::;:-----/~WETLAND BUFFER KCPAACEL~IJ2:l,l490l0 ---'!.!__-----_ 14 3 TOTAL WETLAND5 ; -------------.!'LL _I'::\ f 100-YEAR FLOODPLJJN / ----~ (1995FIRM) / ~ A '"11,. ..._..._ ..._ ----- c.,; ............ --14 / ---:r -~------or~ -------,,,--~ -~- ~~ c.11'-- ' ---. J. ,(,,, "---~-- DESIGNED J. DVORAK ORA~ M. MILLER rnEa<rn Y. HO -ONE INCH AT l"ULL SCALE. lF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY :4PAT2T2DM-1 'Ai]S,_' ------!'4_ PLAN ® dCALE IN FEE~ ~ 0 20 40 <1'tOOTMA'°'SUEMESUlrE,!IOO aa.E\'UE:\',<SH,"°'OfH«"' '"""''""'''"'''"''" ~, ,J ,ce=~mo,oo,,o LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW DEMOLITION NOTES: 0 MAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESS INFORMATION © REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. 0 ~~~~~~Sl~~?~~T:A~iiN:J:~~R FILL PAVEMENT 0 ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. © REMOVE CEMENT CONG. CURB AND GUTIER AND SIDEWALK. © INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 0 REt.lOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL © REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. 0 REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. ® REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE @RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. © ~:~t~v56~~~~RE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED @REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. @REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2 @PROTECT EXISTING TREE. R@F R TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SEE DCT 1 FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER DJ @ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SLIP-RESISTANT, ADA-COMPLIANT COVER @ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE @PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE TESC CONTROL NOTES: 0 ~Csz;~AiTit~1fiAisci~~~T6~ 0JeiJ1 ~~46~20-00. @NOT USED. 0 ~l~~t~6~i ~gc~JN ~~~iRfigf 0 ~g;;~A~ 1 g~ ~~~ 1~ioo5 iLIT6~N~ci~NU0.17-00. © ~J~LLZ~~:i~'tr~c~~~iJ~~Gr~~~ W~~: :~g~I~~ WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. © ~~~e~ ~~~i<. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18~ BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIMIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3 THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1 +00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. LEGEND: .....i....i.... SAWCUT ~ DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO ----TDA BOUNDARY CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL =~~ ASPHALT CONG. PAVEMENT REMOVAL --N.-HIGH VIS181UTY SILT FENCE -c-c-SILT FENCE e INLET PROTECTION 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN 12 OF 47 DM4 Ktl'NICR.NQ.1:rz.7Jm!D ... I I c,-------<>---=::~o--o-----~-~o--------o INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTIUTY EASEMENT ~~,_J I I PLAN ® .___;.CALE IN fE6 0 20 40 l .. ------..:..: ____ -:=, .. ~-~---;;;:..--J...-CG--co--~< '-==-M=-==...::::--------==,t; -~-="'==iw / /~ -z ~~4::; :r ---,~ .~ I DEMOLITION NOTES: CD MAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESS INF"ORIAATlON. 0 REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFlC UARKER. ©~~~:~JA~~=~R. Flll PAvEMENT © AO.JUST CATCH IIASIN OR MANHOLE TO FlNISHED GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. © REMM CEMENT CONC. C~B AND GLITTER AND SIDEWALK. © INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PMKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 0 REMOVE BEAM GUARDRAL © REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. 0 REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION Pm THE ENG1l'£ER 1S DISCRETION. ® REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN LINK FENCE ANO GATE. @RELOCATE ECOLOGY Bl0CKS. @fJJl:NG BY si:.~E TO BE ADJUSTED TO FlNISHED @REMOVE DAANAGE STRUCTURE. @REMCNE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. @ PROTECT EXISTING TREE. R@TO THE SPECIAL PROVISlc»JS AND SEE DET 1 FOR INSTAUATION OF ROOT BARRIER. D3 ® ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOL.£ TO F1NISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITI-l SUP-RESISTANT, ADA-COMPLIANT COVER. @ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. ® PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: \ lll:/Wial.:r,m,4llm!I / 0~~SWt!~~:r~~=~~46~20-oo. C -c--c--c-~--~-c ~·,~~C---c~~ -c-@Nor USED. ' _0 ___ 0--0--::.-----INGRESS, EGRESS 14 ( ( 3" • I \.:./W(JH WSOOT STD. PLAN 1-.30,15-01, t , P/L ,---,-------__ .---= UTIUTY EASEMENT Cm!D """. c , , 14 10 ©INSTALL HIGH vis1B1UTY s1Lr rn«:E 1N ---=------~--,-~ . ~-=·-J ~-·"-·- : \1~~~~;=~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~;:±61~!~===- • ffl --------~~------i----==-----=-o-=-c I+ 2. CUT OR GRIND STIAIP NO MORE THAN 18" BELOW FlNISHED (I)~----,6'fi ---~==::;;..::;;--~ -----------. _ :! GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS U~IT • • <'. I ~ j • t " I )' -~~-~--------------= -· __ ... _... < 3. THE TRAJL SEGMENT LOCATEO BETWEEN STA HOO AND _. ::-.:ti _..----~/---_____ -,,.::_____ -------------l'2--.~.,..,.~ ~ 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE -I , ---~--=-~ -.-WILL NOT BE AI.Lcr,,e), ~ 1-~-~,-JIE~=Vlli ---/-_.,. _ .• .--..::.:.:,, .L .. , ..::.:..-:--:-:-::.:;;: .. , -· · · -14 U) COtrnW:TOR IS AL.ER1ED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE + ;,:___-· / \_ H , J WEMND BUFFER W STANGARO SPECIFICATIONS. u, I Q J / ', I z 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNIJERL>JN BY A c, :; CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON TliE \ / ..,. -·-·-·-_ _ INGRESS, EGRESS 111;:1t11m111.;;;.,"m f:z:: PLAN. ASPf-W...T REMOVAL SIW.L NOT DAMAGE THE SL.AB. / / /. --_ AND UTIUTY EASEMENT au""" ', [ 100-YEAR F\.OOOPlAIN I.) LEGEND: I / .,/ --·--', (1995 FlRM) .... ~ l\-·-·-·-r· ·-·-·-·-·-· ___ . ...c-=-).··•c / ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~---·-·-""'·•c::::::~-·-·-·-,-·-·-r ~·: (]!ID. :=E THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO . -·-·-·-·-·-· / '\ · \ ----_ ----TOA BOUNDARY I \, ? e:::::J CEMENT CONC. SfflEWIJ.J( REMOVAL PLAN ® l ib;\Jfc'f.j ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL i-i-iiiiil SCALE IN FEET e----! -N-HIGH VISIBILITY SILT ITNCE 0 20 40 -D-D-SILT FENCE • INLET PROTECTION 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ~ RE\1SIONS Oo\TE OESl,r«»DVCRAK 1~~N~1 ;A 1111,HFI·--· --1 i ~WR =Es=~) o'WT @~~;~:::~:•i L'--GR-E-EN_R_1v_E_R-TRA_IL_TO_N_A_C_HE_S_A_v,_s_w __ 1 L...----------------~ L---....., LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A DM5 DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN ORo\'MNGNO. 130F47 I ~C~H0.1J2~ - DEMOLITION NOTES: / 0 MAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESS INFORMATION. -----=~----~~~=--=-=---~-~ ~.£..:._--=.::::_=-ri-=-==---=--=--==--,::=--~--=-=J'"-=--------=----=...-""= -=---=,;;::--------P/L ©REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. ~--=-~---"'--.==p,o-~0-~ ~~ [INGRESS EGRESS --~ ---"--=--=-a:...:.-==--, f3'REMOV[ RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER FILL PAVEMENT p/L -=--v""="""~ ~-----(iQ!D AND UTIUTY EASEMENT '-'---------------~ I VDEPRESSION WITH LOOP SEALANT rt:-I ~ 14 "" ~l 14 c, u I 0ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE J: 0 ,:(,,! I 14 ~-----------------------------------------------------------"/i!4t-,6-'-/-~ 'b SEE C-SHECTS FOR ELEVATIONS ~ !f.o 14 2 TOTAL J ______________ ----::__~~~~----:_&-.;; ---------_-:__:___ --_----:------)c _ -----::;,.--_.:.'-::1_--=----7 _ ----1.----=--...!--i____ ©REMOVE CEMENT CONG CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK 0 ' ------------=--------_-_-:;------,, 7 ~7 14 3-lf>I:AL::.:--=-------=---------=---=----3.=----_ ..:____j----..,;:'°'----'s :..il'...::..:_" --~~ ;cl -----~~-)f!J-__ -,----f-c= _ _cc_-_-==£±'<---=:cc:_--=--~ ~'t:f®---cc----~--~---~ -"--,=--=--==t._-=---~c._n-'-.:_cc! i, _, -JO©INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A SEE KING i\2-'--;.;_;._J~~¥JJ}~--S,:-:--=-..::-r---~~L, _:__JJ_"=-=~__;,=4 t~.:_~--"~""-~-=--<e="'---=-=~=~~~=-~--=-~=~=-'2,,.--~=.;,_=c-~~'--"~~-r-=J-==-:~~--tJi $~~~E~~~"~R:~liNc;AIL IN THE APPENDIX OF fflJ --(-< _,:;,::-~-=-~~~-=-~--,_:z::tF...:--=------\ -( 121+00 122+oo -~ ~ I --1---1~-=~-;=-p~.:;_~-=---~=d~ 0REMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL ~fc,,C~-,,,=~f97C"=-= = +:--=--= _-__ --~ -~-:_~cc -~~=--=:'-~-=-=~=--=-~~~=--==-:-~~~~=~__:_~::::_~--'~-=-~~_' 1 ~~ =_J-/--:~©REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS __.I_ --------_ _ -----==--..,:,..:-~---~-ffi-r::::=a~~~~_:ti=~ij-ff=-~__a=-o-::-~~o3!Qcc-CG -------=-:._-:_-_-=--=--)f~Y:--1.:51~ ~ W ©REMOVE MCTAL GATE SALVAGE TO LOCATION --------ro...::=::-~-=oCG~o:=£.'b--=-=6=-!fi==~-o-a---0 'l I -o-o-:=_'b-=---,, --1 f ~ z PER THE ENGINEER s DISCRETION !,~~~~~,,_J ', -_ ~----------------------------------------Y---il~B'-=-cF.=a~.<o__a:i_0 , ~¥ co-:J @REMovE ANo 01sPosE oF cHA1N uN, FENCE AND cm 01 1 \ 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN-----------l -----------\_ ~ \, ~% lj,\RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS , l---------(199s FIRM) -----------.::.~ ....c~ ~o ~ t/JI -------------,1 =1 14 --1 -~~ fu'EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED lO FINISHED m -----------3 ' INGRESS, EGRESS 3 -------14 ,:S \:.;:/GRADE BY OTHERS (I)\ ,".'_ ------------1------_ AND UTIUTY EASEMENT -----1 1 @REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. ffit \' /-' l ~c P~L t.:i 3=::--1---: 0 REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. -1 CTl"l" Of RENTON _,,,. r \ @PROTECT EXISTING TREE. R@F R TO THE SPECIAL m' ~CPfo/lC(llf(l ~77'J20011~ I c,f",OfR(IIJ(.l< / C _,,,. PROVlSIONS AND SEE OCT 1 FOR INSTALLATION j ----\ PLAN 16 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED '& --: ~ OF ROOT BARRIER. D3 SCALE IN FEET N @ GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SLIP-RESISTANT, i-i--iii,j P"""""""""1 ADA-COf.1PLIANT COVER KCPAACEL~l32J049010 O 20 4o @ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. @PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: --------_ccc----=cc=~c-_oc,ec=~~:-~----------~ _'c__-__ -------=-=-=--c=-=-::-_::---------=---=-=---~-,-~------==--.::,-..=-------f rpcfi~:;,~-~ . : &L--~ .. ·ik~ """'="" ~, ~:~ ~---"~---:~~ =~~c-1~ \ if-:=:;5;2:zir.'f~;g~~==. ··::.:····~~-~~)j/£i£iiiii '. C ::.~ c=0=~~ '&G--~"i"~-----~~:--, "'-~ ~-~-=-,--+ ~----=---=_c--....,-.. =-'llatlNE---+---_ 'm+oo -~~---=--L----,,_ -'Sl::: 0 ~c~~A~gt~1f:1J~ci~~~T6~ 0 ;~: 1~~46~20-oo. @NOT USED. 0 w~A~6~f ~gc~~N ~~~i~r;~gf 0~~~A~g~ ~:i~1~roo~Llf6~NgCA~Nl.30 17-00 © wi~~LLzci~~-pi~~cr~~iJJ~G~l~~R~ ~~5; :~g~I~~ WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. \t==;~=?.¥:S;; .. ==~R~._.-~ =~,~=,c.~2~~/ .. ~~~~~.;;:::-:; :;(_-c,_;___ ;'~'"~ r_ ~ -co-oo~--,&;:--~ / 1 , ""-' ! '---.. ~~o;-o,-co-o;-c,-c,-oo~-"'----Cl __ ---a.._:-1+ •c--~ ,_ 14 ---fL-~~~H-H~ J ,-I , ~N~a-a-a-a=C=IJ-C=<r-e~\5=!!-rf.--'.j,o:> fl\ r-,r,-....,; ~----::=-~;;-~CG z-'!!_____ --"' ;,. -" ~ l~, \, o '\1\ '.I ~"--) ~-"---/ / --~-.~ tnl ---;::;:; -" _ -__ ,,...__--,,---=---=--"--_.... 1 ,, \1 I ,_, / ;.,lr~~:::::.'li 1l , :...--/..., _ I") --~~-------.,=~=-------it-l--,-1------------_______ 14 ----~-_ ,< ,. ;,--~--r V --~)_;----,L -CC-JC------,c_ f l_/ '\ r \ ' -------------------) 1/- .,a,. ,,-t,-:,_ __ ------;;....-r--r)-_ 1 _ L___-c__~ ,_ '--~-j ' ' 1 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN 4 -l------------Ul N __ L ' j' l --"--~_, I (1995 FIRM) --W .. , , ' 'o ,' 4 ' ,, Z ti.I 3 '--1 / ""-i'..: 1 INGRESS EGRESS 1:i 1 rwETlAND auFFrn , -T ' T I ---Ju 0 \ -' ' WETLAND3 0 ---------------~O UTILITY EASEMENT l:z: // I ·-" I --I- I KCP.<RCElN0377!12001T1 -.JI .• :,J!.-----~CP1'!(:[Lt«)IJ~9(112 rs " I Cll'TOf~[IITON ~' / ®""""" ,c I "-' I \ !L -· '~-"'~ I DESIGNED J. DVORAK ~!REVISIONS DRAWN l---t-----------t---J--4 M MILLER CHECKED Y. HO PLAN (f) JM.EINFE6N 0 20 40 "'"""""'"'-"'M£Scn,,ooo aeLLEVUSW•s.-<i,,::m:,"IJ&IO' "4'>•>SO,OOF<2"4>00X> LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW © ru~~~ J~~K. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING GENERAL NOTES: SEE PLAN AND PROFlLE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18M BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIMIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED 3 THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1 +00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. LEGEND: --L..L..L...L.. SAWCUT ~ DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. ----TOA BOUNDARY CD.1ENT CONG SIDEWALK REMOVAL ,---·-·1 ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL --N--HIGH VISIBILIT'I' SILT FENCE -a-a-SILT FENCE • INLET PROTECTION 60% REVIEW SUBMITIAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN DRA~NG NO 14 OF 47 DM6 DEMOLmON NOTES: l=---::~~==--:E:---:::o-=.=i~O~ o~-o -o , v~---O!i -c---,o='-"'-==-=-=-----==-~---==.._:, __ ---= ---. 0MAINlAIN EXISTING METAL .GATE SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS I Oft.( _______ 'lll~llFD1 , rei KCP~l!:"Jr~'lOOlll ~~--:r~ESS,EGR[SS if"---~-==----.::-.--=:-::..::.=.._~....:_.:_""T=..::---I ICl'ARCELMOl 32 J049020 FORACCESSINFORMATION i I _, -OEr..1 '-, -_ -._ --Ji-1 / / AND lfflU.IY---E'-iEMENT -:,._=---~~c-....::-,...._ I / ,,.,.-t11P ..._,, 0 REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. "41 -;_J _'_~1~--~//«-CO -\ I~ ~::Y (':. __ _:_ -__l -----cc.=~ / ___ .-;,--~-~-, ---,~-CC.,,=:£:-', 0REMOVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER. FILL PAVEMENT i~~~~:)~i~~~~~:;lS!;~:;~~~:~~~:i~:<~~~~":,~~"~~~~~~~;I~~~;:~~, "'tc=----~=r------~--a:=-;j!:;=~--.,=r-=..~;;==-"=-~'1,-J-.~ .-.--"~w-co-"~. ~-~-~-~~ ~--.-~ ,. -fl 0REMOVE BEAM GUARORAJL i,~~~~~ _s_~~~-----y-o--o0~(..o.-o;-_) ("----~~:3;~-=~---a-a-c~a ;/ ) N -==:c__ -"~ -~~~~· '···"':_>_-. __ ./ :--..~?:f ©REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS ' ''\ ;-' ' ' C > j ' ' ' -----, 7'• --;:..,~ ' -~ \_...'-" _;' / "1_. r,._,/ '" / ------~~~::.;:_-c,..,./J :!~>--~----~ ·,,-©REMOVE MCTAL GAT~. SALVAGE TO LOCATION m,------------, ;~=~-,;,;.~;------~------ 1 '.,~------Ir-------------~'c.-~~-LF[------------.-i~-----' /1/ ~ .... / .~.' ~ ~ @:::o:EA~~Gl~l~~::,a~SFC~~i:LINK FENCE AND GATE (/)I (1995 FlRM) -~ ·ee 14 lS · --------. . .... --+. ~ '; -Q % ,' . -1-,-----·.:_-_-:_--· _ .s .. ·---._ ~ \!_yRELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. m\ ~ ~ 1 INGRESS. EGRESS / ~ , -~--.--.o-,:;·~.-.1.-.. --.·--, -.. , {...... 0 ,x1STING STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED -1 ____ L ,1 AND uT1LrTY EASD,1ENT1 WETLAND BUFFER ~ -__ />_:·_---i~-,>, \-r---:..:.-~ \:../GRADE BY oTHERs. ~· ------, ..... ~ :''::l"" "' a,, / ----;-~~- 1 -,,.,.,-/ /<· '.:. :/:~!----... f fi'4'REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. i:,L.__ ------1-----------/-~ _ ,>>:,..,f: ··:', 1 1, ,~,"! @, REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. Cli'l'Ol"IIOl'TON ,-----'., ,': ,',','I --~ I 1 / <e e~: =•" T ! ( ' T ' 1. 4 @PROTECT EXISTING TREE. R@F TO THE SPECIAL 2 ) 1 11,.,,CJ PROVISIONS AND SEE DET 1 FOR INSTAUATION I -/ ~ OF ROOT BARRIER. D3 ' I @ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED I' , GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SLIP-RESISTANT, : ,.;;.;?ALE IN FEh ~ ,',;.ETLANO 112 \ / @ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. PLAN j I ADA-Cm..1PUANT COVER. ! o 20 40 COMPLEX \/ @PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. ~ PAACO.. lfO 1~23049020 -KCP'11CELNO~n9200117 ------------------------------------TESCCONTROLNOTES: ------------------------, /-_:_---------INGRESS, EGRESS @NOT USED. cnrorREN'ION -------------------------------~--~=-=~-=--=-=-=-=--.:--=·=~ h5 0~iz~:it~1ftAJWNS6~i~T6~0J&CJJ~~46~2Q-Q0. ------.. ___ EL..,___-_ . .'j--... i ·~~-,. ------{AND UTILITY EASEMENT '3',.INSTALL SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE ---100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ----------"' ~4 ' .. ,--, / i,-'ill-./ '.1. ---\::/WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-30.15-01 -----(1995 FIRM) ---------------------~"--_ -1 --, -.\_/ 1'J ~' 14 -------. ©INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE IN ----------·--------; co co /.---,~----..... / ) , --ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1.30.17-00. -----. ----::.~-~-"-~-~-~-'"----'"-"-"-<-"f-"~"+'4"-, 6+ --------O ---) ©INSTALL TEMPORARY BYPASS TO DIVERT WATER AROUND ~~~~02~:~£~:~~:;:~> ~~~:~.:.=:~:::-~ f~~ .. -··~..::;;3i~~~ @ID ~ :,J': ·;,.iJL,//~·.::,._,,,c,:'.: ----~-c-.:c.:cc:>~,::~::---~'<::--~.-'::_~~."'-./ 2. CUTORGRINDSTUMPNOMORETHAN18"BELOWFINISHED ~~j:._~-'cx.~~111---~~--) 14 '\ .. ---::Yr~; / --------·---------~~~->~' ':-::<-·, --~ GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIMIT ~.---~,--H. ~~-4 ->":-t.JJ_r...., 14 -----. *'~,--.__ <'::.::,!'!:' Will NOT BE ALLOWED. 'pl : ,_.,,e 15 ----~~--*'~ ~Q 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 ANO q . ~ ~--\_ WETLAND BUFfER -----.. '---j---._ Ir CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE ~ ; ~\ --. ..... _ '·.. __..y~ 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE c,V 1"D UTIUlY EASEMENT ,ce-~ ,._,, ---( ·'~--h,"! 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNOERlAIN BY A -__,. -INGRESS, EGRESS · ~ .· )"--.. .,lJ .iJ: STANDARD SPECIFICATlONS. 'Z(tll CJN OF ROOW --...._ 'i(-frlf CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE l '-...-.. ,0._ OJi PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. (I), --~ -, ' LEGEND· 4 -~~ --· >:\ .1\",,.-/ ~ 1' .....i.....i... SAWCUT E, + (,~ ,,,.~-1$ crnID DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. + I /,...T' ----TOA BOUNDARY ~\ 1 'g,"' CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK RE"DVAL J.! [==1 ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL I I \-·., __ .. .,.-/---.,,.-,,,--~--;,c--~~,~ ~IRE,'1SIONS DESIGNED J. DVORAK "'''" M. MILLER 1---1-----------f--+--j et,Et~o WETLAN01 J2 COMPLEX /,.:t;---N--HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE IJ...(j -c--c-SILT FENCE PLAN ~ ---~-ffi 7~ e INLET PROTECTION . ., -.. --~ ~ -------------/-~~-112c~;,_~ 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL m>OITt<~l<SNUE'IE WTE1'"'° 8H'.EVI.FW> ... Nlll0'<11Dl< r,,.,,..,,,,r,i,;,si.e)O LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN ORA\l,\NG ~O 15 OF 47 DM7 A\ 7 ;· '~ '\ ) 1 __ ,"f---~---,7,----;,,c--, WETLAND1/2 '\ ; ' //' INGRESS EGRESS -WETLAND 2A COMPLEX ~ 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN / [ND UTILITY EASEMENT ~-. (1995 Fl~M) L END PROJECT ,. ', '' ' --, -------------------'--------------' 4l5 EU~· EPSTA143+17.37 ,i \ ..( '~c'-i ~ -~-"""'"----";f" ~~~,, --'',"" --------f~----~-. 14 , ..,......}I ..,_;,:::. ... ..-,;::,4::.e7]{)'~ _[ f -.r-;---. ----I=---~-1 ~'~ ,-;j---.:""'----4--------,r ~,v:--r-~ ~ 7 _..,...,_1 ) :_:~--,--------s::--=-=:::.... ..... --==----------:::' -, /~ e" ~ , -·=s.:---~-~ '-<;sJ, l"f {z ?:;, ";'~ ::--~ '-\=c-,.,2i::.-~,-0':;-~ -c-~----;t'----', }R___:-.'.',, <' ~ \-, --.::, _ .,ti' ·v --J ---"'-:----~------'-"- ""'.--J,d'1__-'\,, 'ki~~, ----( \. !!, I !" 1~1 ~::c/ n "¥; l~, ~ 0 I <) ~ 0 Z-< " }!.~ r i! "'~\ _°' \ 1 1 :;;l'i ';,_~,,/ 0 '\ 1' -----f:\ <\ J¢f l .. J--.-! f{, --cc ~~G.~cl.i?CG?J"co-.lf(~ t ~ 1 \ ~( r o \ 11 .. 11 c ; r I \ \ l r .. ( 1 ,_> -;, ~~ -\_ };f ; ~ ,:;::1 i1-1~· /~ ~--~ ~4--~~ .• ··1 1 ~ ~~~3t ---\~~=~~~~-41 --r141 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~EiAvii~ -c;;, -I ---------?, )3', ~Jl:1:-~-~~~i±ij£G W,..,,....)..co m-ro 't.;;: ~P:,. ... §:!~-:r,MttrcG .Pl cy,z_....tl!._~3!....3£~--•--~N I .-1 --__ / ' =-="-~-~ l'\~~~~~~~co,,,ff.~1'--,,,,!< ~~ /\ '' /' '' -, '\ --~:;..i_:. __ ,CC.--j'"',~-,-ic,t-- .,. / J.--I '-/ , ..> I \J..--;:::-=i--,, -\ ·--,,1 ,/---__ )('i"; ~\ F -------& ;~ <, -:, "<_,_\ .. ,i __ --, /' ,~ . -.,_ __ i ----. \< > ;,, \/J ~ ', ~IREVISIONS '", K(~.Ml:[LNU l:12~9012 ~ ' -~ '!\ r ,OCH- ~\ / /, \ 'i,, . .t,--/ ', ~ / \ ~\ / ', / ~CPHlCO.IIO ll2J049090 \ / / Cll'rOFRENTON ' /, \ DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRA~ t.1.t.llLLER CHECK£0 Y. HO WETLAND 1 / 2 COMPLEX 1084PAT2T2DM 1 '"' PLAN ~ ciCALEINFE2-I~ 0 20 40 '" '"""~VE~JE~E su,·E1000 aco.•cvuc;,•s,"'•ro~~ '"""""'"''"'""""'' KC F'ARC!l r;o 132l049C6~ Cffi'Ofll'",)IT()N LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A ,.,.,- WETLAND1 /2 COMPLEX GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW DEMOLITION NOTES: 0 MAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESS INFORMATION. 0 REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. 0 ~~~~~~s1:s~?T:A~~iN;~t~~R FILL PAvEMENT 0 ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. © REMOVE CEMENT CONC CURB AND GUTIER ANO SIDEWALK. © INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 0 REMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL. © REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS 0 REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION . ® REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE G RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS ® ~:~t~YSTiT~~~UtE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED @REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 0 REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. @PROTECT EXISTING TREE R@F R TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS ANO SEE OCT 1 FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER 03 @ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SLIP-RESISTANT, ADA-COMPLIANT COVER 0 ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE @PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE TESC CONTROL NOTES: 0 ~c~~~AtTgt~1~:'~Ns~~~T6~ 0JcJJ 1~~46~20-oo. @NOT USED. 0 ~lr:~~~i ffgc~~N ~~~iRfigf 0 tc~~~A~g~ ~:i~Bl~~0SiLIT6EN~t5.~N 1.30.17-00 0 ~g~~LLZ~~-pi~~C~~~;g~~G~~~~ ~~~: :~g~16~ WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. © ~~~~~ ~;~K. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING GENERAL NOTES: SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL ANO RELOCATION 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIMIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1 +00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE /lf'PROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB LEGEND: _...i.....i.... SAWCUT ~ DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO ----TOA BOUNDARY CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ==-1 ASPHALT CONC PAVEMENT REMOVAL --N-HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE -CJ-CJ-SILT FENCE e INLET PROTECTION 6Do/o REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN DRAWINGNO 160F47 DMB ~--_ _ _ _ (fgg5~M~00DPLAJN /~AJJ+,i:9,"T9TIT-------------~~ -= _ --~Qll\lJJ -a - I -'---"-___/ --A_-~/ ~----...__ -CUf"ON'!'XlJ IQ ------ . ----~~ ;.=__ -~-----r~ 4~-~O _-J--..... -.;_----;;_·-:;z~~~-;;_ ~-----~--~cc--=-::..::_::~--=--=-=~--=-=-=:=-~ ---------~~c::.::l-;_=--~~-:.-±..:.:t----J~ (9 1 ' // ~l,._J.1!:~ 2411'LT ----------~1---,~-~~--~~~~-~~--=-~-=--_-_-_~_-=..::..A:-'l ! ----~---:cc/ I; lf1?,-~:= v~ ,~ ~ "., ~-== I 1----t--:-:J · · .... ,,,,1 I ,, ,.. .. POSSIBLE GROUND IMPROVEMENT I kl I .. ~.c:cc+ ~p . ···· .... ,, J ·'11·.·· .. LIMITS,TOBEDETERMINED... r I I ·( ·1·· · · . ·cc.l~<J·li·· ... ···· .. . -•~'-···•••··••-•···· -=-······· ~:~~:~ -tH~~:_:~.~~:~·~:-·. ·-------sr-:---=--".':'""-.~-~--: ;;; ""'· J¥f-. .. .. . . I .. re i I . . . . 1· . 1 I I I BLACK RIVER : . -1-( I I . STA.J6+66, '":4'=--=-=--=-~L:~~~-= ~-:TA.'.:""·:::.""_:_~-~~--=-~ ~- -----=-:...~ -~ -fi" ' ~ 11. ¥i!=-oN r~ ~ ---,} 0HWM-=tt",9• ________ OHWM~11.9·_ ... ····· r -·-----~ 1 1 . .~. --~--< ·· T, I I I · l j 1 .. .. . <• . 1~ :' I , I 1 1 j ( . "-· ........................ . ~.r~.,, J:> . ./ 1.1 ·~:c . I ±l" . J. 1 · ·· ··· ···1··n• .. ". ·····_;· __________ _ ·r-11 , ' \ I ' _.I __ _._ -"-=-· 0~ 1 ·, . ··. t ~-: . L --------. ".• ······· .. · .. , ··.. • • "<::>. i. r~111· · ~) -t . :· ,\. :.-·' t ~11.:1······ ~--~~ --~-~-.~-::::--. -.. -----. --"e-•J.,...;; __ ..{ __ ;;_+·· · 1 -4 ·· 1 · ··1.J. ·.·· ············· ·· ..... t ..... -·· ·· ···· ·······t -~" ··... ·<' ·0\,~ ·"'' -~ ~-.. -----,:.!---····~-i L '. ·, •••. ,., 100-YEAR;'i_';;;,DPLAIN ..• "•,~:_o." ......... ~. . . . )~ +-~~ .. .. .. . f r1· . . 1--:------- ~ " "·"'-(1995 FIRM) ~>-......~·","' . ~1--: + I 8 l \ * ' '<: "·.·... x><~=~:~~;£~tENT . iI r... ~ -I -i i'•'icj,,.c:. 1~i.::."\LOODPLAIN ': ~' >( ·"' " 11 I : I I ~ I O I -14 '>< ... ,,: '·,, ) " I . II C II ' (I IC:.,..-""' .... ; 0~ ,....... N U • ·~~ ~ . / , ~ 1 ' I '":::~ Li ""'~ <~ r t 1'8~ ..... c.c~--,~-b,~, ,. "' ' -c!:' ---' -~ ------ti i""' ' .. ,~~- ~IRE\IISIO..S : "' "',1,""-fl, I • rec-~-~-~~~ ' ,... , • . "'· •• y ·g, I \ ···1 ~..... • . "' J... i1·· • -L.I·· I~ STA.!6+08, 36.9'RT -~.,... · ". •• ,-. PLAN ' ~ · ·•· DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRA'Mj 1.1. MILLER Cf-lECKED Y. HO -ONE INCH AT FULL SCALI!:. IF NOT, 8CALE ...ccoAOIINGLY SCALE IN FEET .. oi---ii 10 9o 4\11<lllHA"ruo..£~E S,.,lE1""' 8'll..,_,. ... ,....NGTON9"'.Jll< ,,,., .. oioc,..,., .. ,,., LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRA!L TO NACHES AVE SW DEMOLmON NOTES: 0 MAINlAJN EXISTING METAL GATE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FDR ACCESS INFORMATION . 0 REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. 0 ~~~~~~s1:s~~JA~c5~:N;EA~~R. FILL PAVEMENT 0 ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO Fl NISH ED GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. 0 REMOVE CEMENT CONG. CURB AND GUTIER AND SIDEWALK. © INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 0 REMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL © REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS 0 REMOVE METAL GATE. SAf.VAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. @REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE. @RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. @ ~:6~N~/~T~~~us~E TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED © REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. @REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. @) PROTECT EXISTING TREE. R@F R TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SEE DET 1 FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER. @ADJUST EXISTING WATER YM..VE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SUP-RESISTANT, ADA-COMPLIANT COVER. 0 ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. @PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE TESC CONTROL NOTES: 0 i<:s;~~~AtTit~1f :A~Ns6~~~T6~ 0:&CJ1 ~~46~20-00. @NOT USED 0 w~~ALJ7s6~f ~~-C~~N ~~~~~,°igf_ 0 ~cSJ~~;Jg~ ~:~~l~~DO~L 1T~~~JN 1.30. 17-00. @ ~~~~LzJ~~-Pi=c~~~ifril~c~ 1 ~R~ ~~lJ: ~g~1~~ WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. © g~~e:~ ~~~K. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18~ BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIMIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1 +00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHA£0LOGICM.. SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16{4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERtAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH StAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHAU. NOT DAMAGE THE StAB. LEGEND: --'-..L..L....L SAWCUT {m> DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE PR.EA ID NO. ----TOA BOUNDARY CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REtJOVAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL --N--HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE -a-c-SILT FENCE e INLET PROTECTION 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN ORAl'tiNl,NO 170F47 DM9 i < I f l ! I I ~ " I l " i l ~""\~L=JI -""" ?:i I REVISIONS ,_rt A-LINE STA 1+00 TO 10+36 A-LINE STA 11+215 TO 11+38 A-LINE STA 16'98 TO 11+28 B.I..JtE STA 104+ID TO 106+15 B-1.INE STA 125+45 TO 128+75 TYPICAL SECTION ffi NO SCALE ~ 1. D.51 FROM A-LINE STA 4+34 LT TO STA 4+& LT. 2. 2!1 FROM A-LIi£ STA 11+50 RT TO STA 13+oo RT. J. B-LIP£ TIWfSfflONS FROM SEC1ION C AT STA 1Cl4+00 TO SECTION A AT STA 104+IIO. 4. B-1..lN[ lRAlmTIDNS FROM SEC1ION A AT STA 106+15 TO SECmN C AT STA 106+75. 5. 9-lN: mMSITJONS F10I SECTlCI« C r,,T 5Tr,, 124+85 10 SECT10N A AT STA 125+45. II, 8-LN: 1WHSrTIONS FROM SECTION A AT STA 126+75 10 SECTION C STA 127+35. ~ --4--- GROUND = TRAIL SECTION WITH FENCE h TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND FENCE I TRAL SECTION WITH WALL AND BLOCK PEDESTRIAN BARRIER --J. DVORAI< .. , .. ~ILLER """"" Y. HO I TOP c, \ ROA1JIIAY \ 16' A-LINE STA 10+36 TO 11•25 TYPICAL SECTION (i) NO SCAl£ GROUND [ EXOTING ":>?°~ f---~V_/ARIES ~ EXlsr».c BRIDGE: """""""'"" C-UNE STA201•19 T0201+43 TYPICALSECTION (?) NO SCALE -~ C-UNE STA 201 +'3 TO 203+58 TYPICAL SECTION CD NO SCAI...E rJti)r "1108lHAVfNJfNfSU<Te1'lOO BE_J.E'o,\,e,WJ.s-<l"GTCHOO(JO• ,., .... ,,..,,,.,,,,..,.,., GROUND _,,o """'1NC \ GROUND -\ ~lM'l,~l't"t SOlS J:1.lYP B.IJNESTA 101+87T011M+00*9 B-LINE STA 106+75 TO 12t+85 MINES1A 127+3STO 143+18 TYPICAL SECTION (I\ NO SCAl£ USE[ DEl'MWl GRIDING AT SHEET C15 7 )W.U #JA AND ..... ,,. EXISTING GROUND RESTilRm WIIH NATNE SOlS TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND FENCE I I I VAAl[Sl'lYP I TO 2'-fl" AT I WAL.1. APPRO,t,CHES ~ ~ ~-f ~rsTJ:t; {.9-1 iY~';} -· TRAIL SECTION WITH FENCE NO SCALE CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 0 HIM a.. J% PG 64-22. © CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE. 0'SEl..fCTIIORROWltt:l...HAI..IL ©:r~~\=tER © !WA CL it2• PC 64-22. © ~~~ ;"~~ SEIDi~ AND 0 GRAVJIY BlOCK WALL.. © ~~~~~1R~l~GUT1ER © ~tt=L~~~~~!.:r™ ~ CEMENT CONC. TIWTIC CURB PER WSDOT \:;I STD. Pl.AN F'-10.12-D.l. 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS DR~WIHG NO 18 OF 47 CS1 GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW --------------'>~~-,, '-... SLA.c1< RIIIER I -6_ I RE\o1SIONS "'\ ........_ __ -0-c.,, .• -) (~~..Qti.WM..._-·1_~ 1· \_ FORT DENT PARK -------. -----~ _!~~~~49001 PLAN ® dCALE IN FE6 ~ 0 20 40 ,oo·vc "P)il~b\J.W EL-22.84' f<:54.!8 ;;,::rr= / 1 STA 4+82, B.O'LT ;-"' I END o.s:r. CUT SLOPE --t ~ SIDE ONLY) / I ----;7'---1 I -~ -·-1 I "° "° -----T--------i --i----~1- 35 t -I -T·~---+------t-----J---,---- 30, r;~;s;_~,1+oooo I 1 . 1 •~=: I 1-----1 !1! 35 30 ~ 25 V _, I I 009' l ---\ 25 J - zo !-, ----+----+----+- 15+---~----+-- ,,~ ,:,~ ~@ 'l '.i~ 1+00 DESIGNED ·12 ri J, DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED Y. HO ?I~ _L 2+00 ·13 .~ '"18 :· ~ -EXISUIG --~D I~ _-1.9_!% 20 I ,. wS ~~ H I ' I I i i" ,:-.I~ ~ ~ '.-,1~ :1~ :i~ --•. ~ '. ~ ~. ~ "~ .~ 5 JN ", N N 'T'" 'IN !N .. N '' N 'J N N :-)2 3+00 A-LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1M-20· VERT: 1 ~,.,5' '11•0,$TKA\'lc>«!EN!W"E1000 oec.•va,WASH,,cnatu1000, T''"™='<2S'l•0'6l 4+00 S<GO LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW 5+50 CML CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET CS AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 1 O. ,;\ GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE \::.J CONCRET£ BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F ("';\ INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - \.V 6 Fl LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-18. @) NOT USED /7.\ INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD '-/ PER DETAIL 1, SHEET 01. /"."::\ INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER \:.::) DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. C\ INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER ~ DETAIL 5, SHEET DL r.:'\ INSTALL CONCRITT WARNING BAND \!.:I PER DETAIL 4, SHEET 01. @ r:~LL D~NCED CANOPY PER @ tlt·~o6~ff i:.c~LA~~-~Jo~o, WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE ,.:,\ INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE ~ STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. ~ INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE ~ DETAIL 2, SHEET 02. /;';;\ INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE v.::J 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS f;;;\ BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE 'CJ WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. @) ~:T~D ~~V1S~E~icF~:A~frA[~~ @ ~irf~, c~~~N6oi 0 ~~D. 0~/!t~64 AND 104.2. SE£ PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CSl FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING ANO DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: <!!ID DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. ----TOA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 19 OF 47 PLAN AND PROFILE C1 ~IREVISIONS -BLACK RIVER ---___ I ___ P-1L----- KCPmcrl/l072 aw HELD CURRENT FIELD LOCATED CENTERLINE OF EASTERLY BNSF RAILS. f' :g I OVERHEAD WATERLINE I ~' ;;:-Li ---l-~----~ :s /: 13 ~~ ~~ u:-z.-- oo ~~ ""' Kto~JtF~;~o 1 KC!'AACELN<l.rnl0,!90Ctl ( 01/RR.IIIOAAVCO \ L£SSEE-Ul>R!I ~foil\ ..._J.CA~ 0 20 40 -, -<!!ED,_ 30 ----i----------~ r--I ! "" ,:r!_~;Oo= 35 j --rn ;?,\i'iasoo -! __J ----'t/fii 301 ___ -~=::_ ----------------, ---r--I _ __ 125 I 8 8 I ---~ ~ 25 ~ -J ~ --j' ------1 ~ ---1-: ____ -'<:µ\~---+------, 20 135 I, ~d . ~d Ii -""""'° ·-----•w GRADE~ __ 20 LI ·-I --I '"' i 1 I ------l-----.c~+--t--J15 I I EXISTl"g_j I UQ GROUND \_ 2-12" SD 15f----+-- 10~- 51 __ I I_ +-+--ff 1~ _J~ .~ ~j; ~~ ~-1~ i~ 5+50 6+00 DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAVIN M MILLER CHECKED Y. HO 7+00 -ONI!! INCH AT FUL.1..1$CAU1i. IF NOT,9CAL.eACCORDINGLY BL15210B4PAT2T2CC-C1 '' 554-1521-084 (A/2C DATiPRIL 2015 I --+-----+--+----,---r-, 10 ----l-~ I ~ I : !:" ,;i; 1~ f g 11l _ _:_ .·: ~ ·-~ 10 _-~ 0 ~I~--'-.~ -,~ 1i ___ - 8+00 A-LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1"=20' VERT: 1" .. 5' ,u,,»TH~','£"'-'ENE Su•Tt '"°" SELLE<U,,..A.S><l>.i,TQN""""' ; ·~·~=' .,, ... ,,., ... o LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW 0 ~ 10+oo CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. f':"\ GUARDRAJL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE \.V CONCRCTE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. r,;'\ INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - \:_) 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-18 @ NOT USED C,\ INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD \.:..:J PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. /;":;\ INSTALL FIXED BOLLA.RD PER v_y DETAIL 2, SHEET D1 ~ INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER ~ DETAIL 5, SHEET 01 t::\ INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND ~ PER DETAIL 4, SHEET 01 @ ~JJ~¥-D~~NCED CANOPY PER ~ INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 \:.::,; PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-1020-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE @ INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS Q. INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP SEE \'.V DETAIL 2, SHEET 02 f::::'\ INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE ~ 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PU.NS (;;;:\ BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE ".::::J WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2 @ ~iT~~ c:;v~r:;E~icF~:AoL~Alt~~ @ ~SPTt~1 c~~~N~o~ 0 ~iD. 0t0Jt~64 AND 104 2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT LEGEND: Gm) DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO ----TOA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 20 OF 47 PLAN AND PROFILE C2 f ! I ~ " l • I KCFW!Cll.Nl:n.722!!,DQ.l20 ~-----'-----,,--..... ~.,:r::: BLACKFt~:~~~~~:~~::g~ ~:L ~~~~:~uo~:~: :~:E:: ~D BLACK RIVER -------KCl'I\RCEI.Nl,722951XWO 0:,.1111 WJ MY. en """-""' "IL()JI.~-""' •=•= ,,.~--------_::; HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE ------~ -~z::-:-=~~==:~~-0) BEAM GUARDFWL I\NCHOR lYPE 10. ~IRE\IISIONS ---- oo~--~--------- 35 I PVISIA~~-= EL-1 .«.' K•I .82 ----_ lj:,----- PLAN ------------SCAl:::E""tN"r"EET" 20 4-0 I i l MONSTER r ~ :-----___ ::::::::-::.::::::.::.::.::.:_ © GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE ~: J~/f~]©~~~1it;[;~s;t;: ~ ------------~--PLAN C-20 10-02 AND C-1B i...:, b.,,.. / ----® NOT USED . .. --l--+---+----l 45 ------" I I I I !r i . ~ ~ 135 30 ~ INSTAl..l. REMOVABLE BOUARD \!Y PER DETAIL 1, SHEET 01. @ INSTALL FlXED BOLLAAD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET 01. ~ INSTALL BOU.ARD STRIPING PER \!.:;/ DETAIL 5, SHEET 01. r.:'\ INSTAl..l. CONCRETE WARNING BAND '-::.I PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. @) ~NH~~\~NCED CANOPY PER @ ~~~~-~c~~~-~fo!o, WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. @ ~~ ~~U~~D1 ~1~~~E LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. /;;;\ INSTAl..l. lYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE \!V DITAIL 2, SHEET D2. c.:\ INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE ~ 12 IN. DIAM,, LENGTH AS NOTID ON PlANS . ~ BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE \::::.J WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN rs-2. @ :r~D ;;~~E~O\~:'~frJJS:. @ ~~1 c~~~~or~. 0~~~64 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET 02. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 1 25 LEGEND: EXISTING ~+=11·++i---t-t11 DRAINAGETHRESHOLD 25b ; j:+!~ ~/// ~.;;;::::++~----n•; !:~ ; :::=_: .. " . -=-= _. .. m --~~-• -·-·--------~~ 30 I ,~ ffl ialli Nld 15 I-----+----+----+- +1 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING /I.ND DE-LIMBING Of TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL AJ.JGNMENT. -115 ;@ ~I~ ~I~ 10+00 ;1~ "'"""' J. DVORAK ~·~ M, MILLER """'"' '(._!:!Q_ ~I~ 11+00 ;:';1~ NN ~I~ ~1a ::i1~ N<'\ 12+00 ~I~ A-LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1·=20' VERT: 1·=s· ~I~ r-:.~ ~~ NIO g::;i ;1~ Nl::J 001::i ~~ q,;; ~I~ 13+00 14+00 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL EHOlN~~-PLAIINUt<i ,_lf<,OU~CZS 11 SEGMENT A '1"00THA,;'.NUEN~ SUTE 1300 """"""""""'"'""1°'8!!004 r...-.,,.,,,0,,.,,,.,..,m GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW 001~ N-~~ vi~ ~,;j a,$ ;;:;g 15+00 OVER 4-IN CSTC 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND PROFILE DRA'MNGNO. 21 OF -47 C3 f ! " i ' " t ~ I a ~IRE..,SIONS OESlGNED WALL 1 ~ ] I ll! I I 11: 5 SHEETS ~ ~ ,.50S o.osx _ o.~ ,_,./ \ . \ \ ------ 25 ----'\ 25 \ I ~f-----+-------l-->C-"-9."C,2"'2.5,e_71-.I 100-(I ~LAIN 20 f-' ----t----+----t------+----+---+----,i----f-----+,' 20 I / I 15 t-' ----+----+----+---~ + I : 15 I 1D II -----t-r---+--+------+-~- 1 I I / I --t, 10 -1--..... -+-,/ SURFACE WA El.IV. / TIDALLY IN UENCED ;1: ~I~ ~I~ o!lill ~~ ;1~ 15+00 16+DO ;1~ PROFILE HORIZ: 1•:20' VERT: 1•::::5' I , I :~· _..._ i i --]~ ',,_~~1~ ~1~ ~; ~1~ 17fil0 17+76 J, DVORAK """' I.I. Miu.ER <>ro<ro Y. HO LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTtS 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 .A.ND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. 0 ~g:c~~i ~~~ifl~~R ~~~~Giro. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. © ~N~~o~~Po~~i~ts~f s3rb. - Pl.AN C-20.10-02 AND C-1B. @ NOT USED @ ~~~ET~t~?~A:H~~~D (.':;\ INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER \:.:,I DETAIL 2, SHEET 01. @) INSTALL BOUARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET 01. r,;\ INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND \'..:,I PER DETAIL 4, SHEET 01. @ ~HSJ~ O~NCED CANOPY PER @ ~ESJ~:r ~C~~~-i6~io~01 WITH ROUND HEAW-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. @ INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. Q INSTAJ..l. TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE \:.::,I DETAIL 2, SHEET 02. r;;..... INSTAJ..l. PVC STORM SEWER PIPE \}.:,/ 12 IN. DIAM .. LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. @ ~~\6~Ni~Hi~E LtKPEr:N~~OOT sm PLAN rs-2. @ wr~D ~~~E~O\~:ifr~t~~ @ ~~:1t1 c~~~~o~0 ~~0. o;~~YD4 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS 1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND OE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: ~ DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. ----TOA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMIITAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DR/1.'M~C MO. 220F 47 PLAN AND PROFILE C4 I ! .! ! ' i " / I CURB FLOW LINE ELEVATION DATA POINT ELEVATION DESCRIP110N NORTHING EASTING 100 MATCH EXIST. FL 101 MATCH EXIST. FL AT APPROACH SL.AB 102 30.77 FL 103 J0.60 FL 104 30.26 FL 105 29.62 FL 106 29.00 FL, AP 107 28.17 FL 108 27.33 FL 109 26.34 FL 110 25.92 Fl. PC NOTE: ADDITIONAL GRADING FOR SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS. RAMPS ANO TR.6FFIC ISi.ANOS TO BE PROVIDED WITH 90-PERCENT SUBMITTAL THE POINTS SHOWN HERE WERE PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE POSITIVE DR>JNAGE. ~IRE'v1SIOOS ... ~ .. J. DVORAK ""'" M. MILLER """"" Y. HO CML CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 0 ~~ ~~E~COF~.3o~lg~~ PER 0 ~SJ~~~E~ER c:~~\~B F-10.12-03. 0 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB ------PER WSDOT STD. PLAN F-10.12-03. ----------------© ~:~~R~OI~~~ F:~e15~: r--.---~-_ ---___ --~ © ~~J;N;~DO~IR~~O~~URB /--->L,:._:~ -_/-----------BLICKRr/El,':IIIFOR~TllH f-40,16-02. ;::::::.=:;, -~J c··---Isr,-"'l04+o7, 5.9'LT /_-----_ ----__ -©RAISE/REPLACE MANHOLE OR CATCH l_=:---------: t Bro~---------------BASIN TO RNISHED GRADE. ~,~:L~c--;----0~ ~-~ ' ~n~ -----=----cHANNELIZATIONNOTES: , ol;; , :j ~--~c8B----/7\ DOUBLE YELLOW CENTER LINE WITH RPM'S, ~ '\ N, END f's\. -----------0 PER COR STD. PLAN HD01 AND H007. __ ----w . . \::..I ___ ~ ------r;;\ THERMOPI.A511C CROSSWALK PER COR <"1100TH,VEMJ<NE SUITE>aoCI BeLCe>USV."-'eNCfO'<llolOO< 1,25, .. .,....,,,,,. .... '"" 205+00 ___ --t--------\!J SID. PLAN 127. "" --O 0 ~r~g:~~ p~INJJblTOP BAR ---0 ~ii~. ~~INFG_Jifr;~i~.PER STA 205+96. 7,9'RT ~END --------------------~ ~~ i:~.~'.NE PER DTL 1, COR STO -------© ~p~~~-ARROW PER COR (j) ~~E~~EA~~PK~\~ RPM'S, STORM DRAINAGE NOTES: OJ ~~~Ti~5-~~~,rv;~ 1 R~~~u~ VANED GRATE PER WSDOT STD PLAN 8-30.30-01. #~~>-:~!~\~;:~?\: 0 ~~~-~2~0~ 'wi~R Rm>AOJGl;~ SOLID METAL COVER PER WSOOT STD PLAN 8-30.20-02. 0 CONNECTION TO DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 0 ~T~~ s:~~u~~D1~~~:.E lENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. IT] ~~ ~ ~~ ~-~~-2~~~·1 p~ RECTANGULAR VANED GRATE PER WSOOT STD PLAN B-.30.30-01. [!] ~:~ ~b1~g~· ~0:+°~,..Wm~RIFY STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DETAIL ffi 1·=10' LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET C51 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACES ARE NOT CALLEO OUT WHERE Al.READY INCLUDED IN CURB RAMP DETAILS. LEGEND: Ela ,:--:-, Lc..:..c:...J m ~ - ROADWAY PAVEMENT REPAIR. SEE APPLICABLE SECTONS ON sHm CS1. CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE PAITERNED CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY I DETAILS PROVIDED AT go,: SUBMITTAL DRIVEWAY RESTORATION, 4-IN CO~MERCW. HMA OVER 4-IN CSTC 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION INTERSECTION PLAN DRA'IIING "O. 23 OF 47 C5 BEGIQ~!l~i~9+ WETLAND BUFFER~- _,--· ~~--~~~:-;:::;:--ms200l19 ----. _, ----- ~ --~----,.-Cfl'rOFRENWN ~IRE'-1SIONS ;v :(' ~'·X .,'.'X°'"·' r ·)~·.. ~-·-••• ~ r-4 ,"/" ' I:? _I,,_ \ , C ~,r '",""!' I "-~-•• ~ ~' , "·,, ,,/, ,[ -,, 1 r :-----r-_o-: -~ 1 , ~~rl'--·_,..,--, \ • -'-_:-:-~_Cr :-:1~c-/· -,1°' ':: ,;-' ;;-5-\ -:" '··;;--+' '~"...., ~"' ... "---~~,·,-~,-~~,_...1\, ·,, r)'1s-'c ./), ---'=:e } ~ " ~-' ci:;.. 7 -,--" ' --'\r-/ \<. -C ~-;._ ', \ _/\~ '/ _ _,r__ -~,cc.-~N!-~ p;. ~~~ ~\ ~ -~~~~~~~::-~--==~/'":,:::~·"-~-:-~~~--'.~~:.;~~== -~--~ 4 '~ m,~~-"' ·,,.-~ ~ STA 101+87 TO , ~ \ ,.;, •' '. ,, ~ ,, _ _ ;:;'tih;, -'\ : _ STA 104+00 B \ ij'~ ,, \.<'\ ~ ~. ---------·, ,,~,;'' ',------cs WETLANDS 8LACIOW~ I ~f ~', '-. · , ~~ -~----'"~.'.'75"' ,,;;-.:,,7, 10.e·m .. -~"' Hi 3 _ "'. 0 ~ ·-•, -C::-c, -:----;s~;""":-:------;;;;;;;:~,_-:;-.,.;-;:"-C--::'::-: ~"/ '".; ~ ,,• \ '• -~ C -__ ..'--'':"'"-'C/:.s1:_-'.'«:"'~CEQ_B'~f-: --/ ' ~-. \ :'• ,~--__ / -----=--------;:;;,r,;;-,0 y -; "' • '" ~------------__;'~ v.-~ -""-=-··' -~-'~~--"""""" \ --"'. ' -~ ''-=.:-:::-----------··.· • PLAN ·. ~\ 1 . _-.. -. . . . -· .. · .. I .-:,;-;;c2--~_...,.c~'\ 50 r --srALE IN FEET " 0 P""""""""'j 20 40 50 45 · i ___ l 1 i I I I -i -~ I :-I I I I i ,----1--- 1 • ' ' : ' . I i ! I N ,\~.:;.. 30' ---+ ---I n-----w·~ ~ ,=.,I 40 I ~ H 45 '40 1$ $ - • r ' "' --r----------1---i:~~· ---~";'sr~,"~JL·_·l1' __ 292~ 050:g ~.w GROUND L07X 11 ;1~ =~ ~~ 1.,_5_9_! 20~ :! 7 _ 1 _L -I -, 101+00--· ··-·· ~ I~ ;cl i;:-------N ~ •· 1~ I-< " 99+15 10D+DO 102+DD 1D3+00 DESlGNED J. DVORAK DRA'M'I 1-,j_ MILL.ER CHECKED Y. HO ;4PAT2T2CC-C1 UK B-LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1",,.20· VERT: 1"=5' I I~ ~ 1'i 30 25 ~ f N N 104+00 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10 (7\ GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE \V CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F r,:;'\ INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE J 1 - \..:../ 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSOOT STD PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-18 ® NOT USED ~ INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD \.'..Y PER DETAIL 1, SHEET 01 r.::;\ INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER ~ DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. /;";\ INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER \},;;) DETAIL 5, SHEET 01. r;';\ INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND v.::_; PER DETAIL 4, SHEET 01 @ ~il:tlo~~NCED CANOPY PER r,:>,. INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 ~ PER WSDOT STD. PLAN 8-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE ~ INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE \:.J STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM, LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS ~ INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE \:.::) DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. ~ INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE \.'..:) 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PL.ANS ~ BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE \:::::) WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2 @ ~~T~~ G:tv~~E~i\Ko:~LiTAJl~~ @ ~~T{~, c~~~N~0~o~iD. o;~~w~6 4 AND 104 2 SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CSl FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT LEGEND: C!1IID DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO ----TDA BOUNDARY 6D% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING 240F47 PLAN AND PROFILE CG glREVISIONS I -=::~-------.:;:::;:::~~:::~ ==-~----=::,;__---::;;::_:;;_;----- WETLAND5 ----.?4_ PLAN ® dCALE IN F[b~ 0 20 40 KCl'AACatlO IS2»oo2(1 - I I ' I \iC-:-WEJllAND -"fl'.E8 I I I I I I KCF'lol!C£ttlOJ779200119 ClfYl'S"ROOOH 20' WIDE WING WALL EASEMENT NO. 6626569 ' ' I --r 50 I ~~ SOr----1---~~, r1~~-I -i II I .. ~~:~·· !~ T r~1------'40 ~ I . 1. '~c-r---, --H I . ------+, -+--------t- :~ ~~~~ :. -----1---- 0.18 ' ~ -i 111 ----1---,' 35 ~l I Jll J i i ,111- 25 I · 1.u 25 t::J~~g j ! ~ 20 ---------H-~1~ '-1~ ~F----j:ll .I.: =:;i, ~·8: ~i'i ;:~ =~ :" ·-[;; -. ~ ' ~ -. : ;,1~ ~ ~ -I~ -~ -" ~ -, ~ -~ -~ ~ 11>1+-00 105+00 DESIGNED J. DVORAK DR~\IN I_ 106>00 B-UNE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 n=20' VERT: 1n:5' 1D7+00 en~ l -,,,. ~1: z:I~ -·~1~ 108+00 -----+----j 20 ii~ ~1:s 'J!~ ~I~ 108+75 CML CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR lYPE 1 O. r.;"\ GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE \::.J CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. © ~N~~io~~Po°s~A~~~~s~f s~. - PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-18. @ NOT USEO r.":\ INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD ~ PER DETAIL 1, SHEET 01. ~ INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER ~ DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. ,.:;'\ INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER ~ DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. I'::\ INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND \'..:I PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. @ r:~L D~NCEO CANOPY PER Cd\ INSTALL 48" CATCH BAS!N TYPE 2 \!.V PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAl/i-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE I::,'\ INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE ~ STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. (';';;\ INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE ~ DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. C\ INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE \:.::I 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON ·PLANS. ~ BLACK VINYL CHAIN UNK FENCE V:::./ WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER W'SDOT STD PLAN FS-2. @ ~f 1~~ ~;v~~E~icF~Rw~~Ali~~ @ ~~f~1 c~~~N~o~0~o. 0~~~64 AND 104.2 SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS 1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: ~ DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. ----TOA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 25 OF 47 M. MILLER CHEO<ED Y. HO '11100T><>VB<USNE.Sl.'TE'OOC HHLi'<il£W"""'""''ON'""°' T<:,sas•11200•m<S•o'°' LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A PLAN AND PROFILE C7 GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW I kCP-'flCEl.:S,132»19020 I ~~,--·~=·:==··--·==,•=>]~c-=' @ID ii··· I ---i /a 0 .j I 1- ~I I :__ ICC ::E1 ""-:Cai';;'~"'"' ---r· PLAN ® ----:iCALE IN FE6 :4' 0 20 40 I \v,A ~" I :,----,---,------I--IOQ~ -, -r~-~-~r i-,----,------____ : PVl STA 11 +72.35 : E~::¥g' I ! ,ffl ------:q I --------'--___ ;____ PVI STA 11 +22.35 1 ---+--------40 f:.:l I "' EL:25 ' M ;, ---+---·· -+---~~·--------: --t-'"'" ----;·-----1------;35 0,15 I "-. ' C I I 30 ------4!:~---·--1 30 > {l I , 25 +--J' ~--····L-bEXISTINGI -=-------~I ! ~','1' 11 25 ..., 8 GROUND I t;; ~ B~ -+ -+----+------~---I I I I --II~ J~ 20 N ?lg I 108+75 f;;;;._IR(\i\SIONS -I~ g 109<-00 :;i g ·I~ [~ L'~ -:ae g ,-g :;'g ····-··--- 110+00 OESKlNED - ~ g J. DVORAK ONIE INCH AT FULL SCALI:. ORAWN IFNDT,SCA1..2~LY M. MILLER 084PAT2T2CC Cl t--+-----------+--+---,CHE:'.t~O 1521-084 (A/2C PRIL2015 :g g 111-tOO ·.: _1__1 1'i ;,~ B-LINE PROFILE HORIZ. 1H=20' VERT: ln,,,5• ""OOfHA'IEWENE:WlE:1800 RFIFVlJFW,,,.SSl>«lT0N .. OO< ,.:,,,,a,~,,i,,,,,,c,,;, '., ~ 1'i 11 112+00 ~ . ~ ~ ~ I~ 113+00 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW 113+50 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10 (";'\ GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE \V CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD PLAN C-7, DESIGN F ~ INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - \::J 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-18 @ NOT USED ~ INSTALL REMOVABLE BOUA. RD v_y PER DETAIL 1, SHEET 01 Q,, INSTALL FIXED BOLLA.RD PER ~ DETAIL 2, SHEET D1 (';'";\ INSTALL BOLLA.RD STRIPING PER 'v.:::J DETAIL 5, SHEET 01. f":":\i. INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND \;2.J PER DETAlL 4, SHEET D1 @ ~s;~L D;~NCED CANOPY PER I':::\ INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 \.'..::) PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE r.;,i, INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE \.:..:.J STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM, LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS Q INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE \:::I DETAIL 2, SHEET 02. D,. INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE ~ 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS Dr, BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE \:::J WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2 @ ~r~~~ G:tV~~E~CF~tADL~i-l>Jl~~ @ ~s;:L~, c~~~N~o~o~~D. D;~~W~Y04 AND 104 2 SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT LEGEND: ml> DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO ----TOA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 26 OF 47 PLAN AND PROFILE ca \ "'-~ ,,,~-I "' I ~=-~~~~----::::-~~-=--~'=,==,=-~-,=-=, --,~1:-p~~-_,_____:__--;-___::=--==,===~------::::._:_-:.::~.:=:--~=~~~c, I J}__h.=~=---~----=~-~~/ ---,--INGRESS, EGRESS C!li&) (( j \ -7 \ /U ---<.-'·--I A~ln IITllllV t'A<::nin,IT ( I ( / 0 ., ------,-----,_,-· --'---., ,J----, aol -/:__---------------\_,NGRESS, EGRESS ·-~. r---, AND UTILITY EASEtJENT Kt P.1!1CEL NO 1nm:ill! I ;' CITTfT~ \/ 4D--------~- 35 --1 -- 30 l--' -------+ ~ ~ 0 20 40 r~ 1 I 1 1 1 1 -:-]rt I I~~}: r~NISHED 251 I I I \__cRAoc "' l----11 I ],,,. i !25 EXISTING • 1 1 r -_I ~ ' I ! i I I I 20 f-------+-----+- 1) 113+50 f;;;;,_IRE....,SIONS ,g o:g -.,~ ~ -:?: -g -:g ,,~ :g r~ .g -1~ 1~ ·llll -.-~ 1~ ,j~ J~ "I~ +5 C ~ ~J~ ;t ,-i ,--;~ ~ ~ ~ -~~ "'~ :'jt=j -I~ :· ~ :··;~ ;:~ ~'~ : ~ ~:~ ~:~ :.:~ i;~ ------------------------------- 114+00 115+00 DESICNEO J. DVORAK_ ORAffi 116"00 B-UNE PROFILE HORIZ: 1"=20' VERT: 1"=5' 117-IOO 11B+oO 118+50 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET CS AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. © gg:g~ ~:R~tr~~R T~si~rG:TD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F r;\ INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - \V 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-18 ® NOT USED f;"'.7\ INSTALL RD.10VABLE BOLLARD \:..Y PER DETAlL 1, SHEET 01. ~ INSTALL FIXED BOLL.ARO PER \:.Y DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. r.':;\ INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER ~ DETAIL 5, SHEET 01. I:':\ fNSTALL CONCRffi WARNING BAND \'.:/ PER DETAIL 4, SHEET 01. @) ~JJ:.~\~~NCED CANOPY PER r,';\ INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN lYPE 2 v..::.J PER WSDOT STD PLAN 8-1020-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE @ INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS r.;;;.,. INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE ~ DETAIL 2. SHEET 02. @ \~~~~ o~J .. s~~RG~HS~E~i~i ON PLANS t:::\ BLACK VINYL CHAIN UNK FENCE \::.'::I WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSOOT STD PLAN FS-2. @ ~r~D c:;v:E~icF~:AoL~TA~~~ @ ~iT;~, c~~~~0~o~D. o;~w~~4 AND 104.2 SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: ~ DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. ----TOA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRA\\ING NO. 27 OF 47 f.l MlLLER ,----+-------------+--+-----i CHErE~Q '1t10HTHA,,..1MeN•,.,TE1':lO OELLe\/UE-N<>JC,,0&00< LAKE TO SOUND lRAIL SEGMENT A PLAN AND PROFILE T '"'"""''~ F '"'58038:l C9 GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW KCPIIRClll()UlJOW02Q ... %' --------,-;~---------------I L:tEJ~,,/,G",;.,';IMENT \,,::-:c·,· ~ \ ' ·,.. ,( ~ ~ -, :; KCPAACIJ..r.o.;m20011 a \ KCPARCELNOJ1moo,17 I ~ c11Y CF RO/TON \ ® or REWOH I : ' I .._JCA~~~,';....,~ 0 20 40 35,----------1---1-----r --~--i !J r---, ------~:35 ~1.----c---··-· ---t----1 -r-:INl::,--±-----t • ,$ ' ~ --+---,• 25! ·----------'"'°L 1 .·--·--.,. • ------25 I ,,,. 1 201-----i-20 15 c------,--------j ,.n 1 1 1 ,,: _ 1 __ _ -t b _ :;; o ~ ., I:: " ~ , ~ c: ~ ~ II"' N l,<i ,<i !.; ,<i ,:.; . ,<i '" IN N N N ('I N __ ·JN ___ -N iN_ 118"'50 119+00 12D+OD ~IRE~SION5 --~--15 :ii r11 . I .. ro , ,.,, co IN o ,.,, '° m 'N Li1 'co l:l ;; ··I;; I:'.] 1:i ::; :; :; ·1::. :1 1::l N N IN N N ~---·-=------N N L_ N iN ~ 121+00 122+00 123...00 123•50 B-UNE PROFILE HORIZ: 1~=20' VERT: 1~=5' I CML CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10 r;\ GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE \':...I CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOl STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F r,;\ INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - \V 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-18. @ NOT USED t::;'\ INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD \..:.Y PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. Q INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER \:v DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. @ INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. f'::\. INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND 0 PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. @ rJ~:}L oi:NCED CANOPY PER I':;;\ INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 \'.J PER WSDOT STD. PLAN 8-1020-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE ® INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. C\ INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE ~ DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. r,";;\ INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE \;.:) 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS r::;:.,. BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE \!:.'.:.) WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. @ ~r1~~ G:;v~E~icF~:AoLtTA~~~ @ ~~:~, c~~~N~0~o~o. D:~~w~~4 AND 104.2 SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CSl FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT LEGEND: ~ DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO ----TOA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 28 OF 47 11 I I I:::~,~~:, I~ I I ..... ,rn,--, .,., ·~ I LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A PLAN AND PROFILE C10 0CLL£V\.-EWASHIN(o1CtHOOC4 ''"''"'"""'"'""''"" GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW \ I I \ ~C P"gL:Ri;;:00117 WETLAND4 /- WETLAND3 PLAN ~ ____ECALE IN FEh w 0 20 40 ,c PN<C!J.NO 1!2304~12 ~-- 40 1 2 30 1so·vc PVi STA 125+9\2.35 El=2B.78' K ... 44.54-I :11 ,II I t~;.~,,1 ~ ~ ilg g1REVISl0NS ~ 30 -~i~ • ... 7 FlNSHEO 1.32'1. 20 I · · I -- ! \_,,,STING I aj GROUND 1 20 i ~i~ I ~ii I ~.~ 1511 I ::!~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ J~ ~ ~ ~ ~J ~ '. ~ ,·,: ~ 1231'50 124+00 D[SIGN(D J. DVORAK DR~'IIN M. MILLER 125->tO -~ "N 12&,00 B-LINE PROFILE HORIZ· 16 =20' VERT: 1M=5' -~ ~ ~ ~ •j,~ 1--+-----------4--.+---iCHE~E~O '111oal~AV!'"-'ENE SUTEHIOO OELLEV""W"'"NGlOH""'°' T,,. ... .,,,, • .,,. .. .,., ~1~. '" 1.05i ~:I~ ~I~ 127+o0 ~14 1 •I~ '.''I() ',N LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW ·1~ ?: ~ 128+10 ,,i, :~ I I I I I I 40 35 3D j 25 2D 10 t '~ N 128+50 CML CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET CS AND HAYE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. © gg:~~ :RNR~f~~~~R T~si~~Gfro. PlAN C-7, DESIGN F. ,,;'\ INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - \:.I 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT sm. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-18. @ NOT USED c.'\ INSTAL.1.. REMOVABLE BOLLARD \'...:I PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. (;;;\ INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER ~ DCTAIL 2, SHEET 01. r,";\ INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER \:.::.I DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. t:":\ INSTALL CONCRCTE WARNING BAND ~ PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. @ rJJ~Ll D;~NCED CANOPY PER I':;\ INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 ~ PER WSDOT SID. PLA.N 8-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. r.:;'\ INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE \:J STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. ~ INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE ~ DETAIL 2. SHEET 02. /;';.\ INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE V.:.J 12 IN. DIAM .• LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS r::;::.,. BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE \V WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSOOT STD PLAN FS-2. @ ~~T~~ ~tV~~E~i\~RWAtfrA[~~ @ ~i~AL~, c~~~N6o~0~D. 0t~~64 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: SEE SHEET CS 1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING ANO OE-UMBJNG OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: (E) DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA JO NO. ----IDA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ORA'MNGNO. 29 OF 47 PLAN AND PROFILE C11 r~f ~~j~~~f-----------a-,,-, ~>-" CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HA.VE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. © GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE CONCRITT BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD PLAN C-7, DESIGN F © INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20 10-02 AND C-18 . -----~--------- =-r--:~~~,--f------f.Oa'!,~-':-;-f-----f---~~------F---~---=---==t--,:-_"F_-_-::-::--F---- '"' --------- ~1 50 ·-1·. Kf.PARCHt,/(l IJ]J0,1901'.1 C!T'IOFRENTal I . ,. :+ "fi4F" -~ . --+----,-----t l 30 ~H-----+----+--------+----+---;,, ---- 25r----+---- '-2.11::1: 20 I ! !_J~ ~ :-·: ~ -.1: i'l 128+50 129+DO ~IRE\<1SIOIIS 12 DESWNID J. DVORAK DRA~ I.A. MlillR CHECKED Y. HO N -1~ i'l \I~ 13D<GQ -ONE INCi-i AT FULL SCALI:. IF NOT, IICAU! ACCOltDINGL V PAT2T2CC-Cl ,o -~ :'i KCPAACElN0132304901l (ITYOfRt"1"0II PLAN ~ ___JCALE IN FEh ,J 0 20 40 100'VC P\11 STA 130+72.35 El-25.93' K,.264-8 :'i ~~ 131+QQ B-LINE PROFILE HORIZ· 1M=20' VERT: 1-=s· ~1 •. H I~ ·1 I I i ~ ;!: -,.~ w,~l><A'll:SU<NC :;u1"EUOOIJ aELLEWE"IASH>HulON"'OO< ,.,., .. 0,00,,,,.,.,,., FINISHED GRADE T / WETLAND 1 / 2 COMPLEX ----T -~I I • ----_j __ .. / I I --50 45 ----: "' srr;,vc+f'·" I 1--! I ~1 !i!_~ ~i 35 ----40 132+QO \_ I -I 30 EXISTING I GROUND --+----+----+----+----+--------, 25 ----t----+---~------j------j--------j2Q i;;; ,'?j Tl:2 gj -,~ --1:;; gj gj ~ gj 133+00 133+50 @ NOT USED r.7\ INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLA.RD ~ PER DETAIL 1, SHEET 01. ~ INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER ~ DETAIL 2, SHEET 01 (,'":;\ INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER ~ DETAIL 5, SHEET 01 C:'\ INSTALL CONCRETE WARNI.NG BAND \.'..:J PER DETAIL 4, SHEET 01 ® tJJ~L Dj~NCED CANOPY PER r.";;\ INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 v::.J PER WSDOT STD. PLAN 8-1 D 20-01 WITH ROUND HEAV'i"'-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE ~ INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE ~ STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS ~ INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP SEE \.'.V DETAIL 2. SHEET D2 . (";";;\ INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE ~ 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS ~ BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE \.:-.;:,) WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2 @ ~~T:~~ G;;v~~E~cro:A~fTAi~~ @ ~iTt1-~1 c~~~N6o~o~~D. D~~~W~Y04 AND 104 2 SEE PROFILE ON SHEET 02. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT LEGEND: <!JED DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO ----TOA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRA'MNG'IO 30 OF 47 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A PLAN AND PROFILE C12 GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW KCf'AACfl_M'llJ2.l040020 .. ---~--~----- \_/-/ I ---- --- ---KCPARCELl(IJ779200111 01YOFRCNIOH --~---~ Al'O UTIUlY EASEMENT --------------- _____ :-:..=----=-:.:::------- -~/\,,_-------,,f5;5 ...... -.,-,_\__ -._-.-. ._ r!NGRESS EGRESS / \ ---__, _____ , _____ ,--=.:-----,-----,-----,--~-----,-=-,-,: __ , _____ , _____ ,~, __ \ _____ , _____ }___ __ , ___ ,;~ -~ -------..-.._/ AND UTILITY EASEMENT ___________ "' --- @ID ~c~;:=!lll12 -;. -- ------------- I I -,------;;:--,.,.-.,, ~ d~ I 50 I I \ - 45 I t I I 40 f----------1------t-- WETLAN01 /2 COMPLEX 0 20 40 ---------------------~::=~~-=--~ 1---------i-·------ ~ ;,-weTLAN~ / COMPLEX I I 150 I 1~$~,,J: -19.:59 ~ ~ rFlNISHEO ~ 301 I -1 I I I GRAOC ~ 35 I I I I -~ I I I ~~ I I I I :LEJ(1sr1,c -u» ' ci I 30 ~ 1- ,,~' ---+- 20~----+- -.~ ?'gj .,-L'ie "Im ;11~ ~1~ 133+50 13'+00 ~IRE,,,SIOl<IS ·,1~ _~, ~ D[SICNEO J. DVQfi~K_ ~ I , I~ ?!gj 135+00 ;,I:; ,~J N .YBOUl-lD Ir;'.; ' 1: ~ 11 ~ I : 20 ,I: -lg "I ' "I ' '' ~ Ci~ -~----+---~---~---~----'~ i1! i=: 'N ~I~ :.1~ ~:1: 0 H~ ,1~ ·-1::: ~ :: ~ ;,~1: ;@ ~I~ ~.~ 136+00 137+00 138+00 138+50 B-1.INE PROFILE HORIZ: 1~=20' VERT: 1~=5' LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL CML CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. I © GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE 8 CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. , ' 0 ~Ni~~o~~Po1~A~~W'4~st6l s~b. - / PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-18. @ NOT USED r,':,\ INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD \!..'.I PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. @ INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2, SHECT D1. @) INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET 01. C":\ INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND ~ PER DETAIL 4, SHEET 01. @ rJJ:}\~NCED CANOPY PER ~ INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 \:.::.I PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. r.:;"\ INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE \:...J STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. ~ INSTAf..l TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE \:::Y DETAIL 2, SHEET 02. r::;,.,_ INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE \:.:I 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. ~ BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE '.::::J WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. @ Wf ~~ G;;v~E~icF~:A~frAJTh~ @ ~rt~, c~~~~o~0 ~6. o:~~~64 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS 1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL AUGNf..1ENT. LEGEND: ml) DRAINA.GE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA. ID NO. ----TOA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWINCNO 31 OF 47 D~A\IN 1--+------------i---t---i M. MILLER CHEO<ED Y. HO <'1100Tt<~l'ENUE'<E SUTElllOO 8ELLE\/UEW .... '"3TC'<ll&IO< 1,20,~o:IOOf<2'lffi6),;l EIIGll,EEAING.PI..A-t(UNYl~AL~ 11 SEGMENT A PLAN AND PROFILE C13 GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW ' \ \,\ ,"----~---,-----,--T-, \ \ f / INGRESS, EGRESS ~ WETLAND2A \ \, _.,,, · . ~ /,.-.\. /{. AND UTILITY EASEMENT \ .,--12 ~\-------,_} // \ __ ''-''---r--\\-o~i· ------ANDUTILITYEASEMENT \ ~r r l ,----, : \ <eh<a"'"'m"" ·-~ \ I i cm Of ~OO(llj ,, ;\ ' / \ "'O \ / \ WETLAND1/2 > I I---- \ ,/ _,/ \\..,,,, ', COMPLEX KC P.lRW. ~ m~m \ JY \ oTYorR0,[(11 /,, ' : \ I KC F'Al«:El NO. Bl.l04Wj(J CIIYOfllENTOl,i \ ~ __JC~ 0 20 40 . -. ----------. I KCPNlCH~ 1Jl304!0M CrrlOfFIEHUI WETLAND 1 /2 COMPLEX ~lr;:l25 ' CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET CS AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10 © GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD PLA.N C-7, DESIGN F © INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-1B @ NOT USED (';:;\ INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD \.'.2 PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. t:'"'::\ INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER \:.!I DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. ~ INSTALL BOUARD ST-RIPING PER ~ DETAIL 5, SHEET D1 I:":\ INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND \:..::J PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. @ r~Jtf D~~NCED CANOPY PER @ ~E5;A~so~;· scT'6.c~u.~s~-~2Eo~o1 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE (;:;\ INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE ~ STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS ~ INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP SEE \'..V DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. @ \~~~~ o:'M~, s~iNR;Hs~~E~o~rDE ON PLANS. @ ~~~\6rrtA1fH~~E L~NKP[:N~f DOT STD PLAN FS-2 @ ~~T!~ ~;v~E~icF~:Aol~TA~~~ @ ~iTtL~1 c~~~N~o~ 0 ~iD. 0~~t~~4 AND 104.2 SEE PROFILE ON SHEET 02 GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING ANO DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT !l.62% o.44" I 20 LEGEND: mID DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. ~IRE\IISIOtlS +-I>, ''.I: !)-j ) , ~] j ,:1--.-+--1~----+--!~ ----+-c1~-:i-----1~ ----t--1~ t--- 138+50 139+00 DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED Y. HO 140..oO -ONII= INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALI! ACCORDINGLY 1n+00 B-LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1":20' VERT: 1"=5' '" 11>lT~AV,:>uJENE S<Ji,E•eo<: ""llE';cew;,,;>11,>:STW""°"' T<1>•$HJ«IC•>"I<''°' ~ -I lg: ,~ , ...... --------- :gg 1~ ~ I LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A I~ 1- GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW 15 10 ,:g I~ I 143+00 143+17 ----TOA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 32 OF 47 PLAN AND PROFILE C14 SIGN SCHEDULE SIGN NO. PROPOSED LOCATION DESCRIPTION MUTCDSIGN STA OFF 1 SEE SHEET TS 1 CROSSWALK D3-1 2 SEE SHEET TS 1 CROSSWALK D3-1 3 C 4+46 STOP HERE ON RED R10-6a 4 C 5+J8 STOP HERE ON RED R10-6a 5 SEE SHEET TS1 CROSSWALK -STOP ON RED R10-23 6 SEE SHEET TS 1 CROSSWALK -STOP ON RED R10-23 7 SEE SHEET TS 1 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL W11-15 8 SEE SHEET TS1 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL W11-15 9 SEE SHEET TSl TRAIL CROSSING W11-15P 10 SEE SHEET TS 1 TRAIL CROSSING W11-15P 11 A 13+70 SIGNAL AHEAD W.3-3 12 C 5+00 BlKE ROUTE D11-1 13 8 100+56 BIKE ROUTE Dll-1 14 C 2+51 BIKE ROUTE D11-1 15 C 5+00 ARROW M6-1 16 B 100+56 ARROW M6-1 17 C 2+51 ARROW M6-1 18 B 100+50 EXISTING TRAIL SIGN N/A 19 B 142+97 EXISTING TRAIL SIGN N/A 20 B 143+15 NO DUMPING N/A 21 B 143+15 NO STOPPING OR STANDING N/A NOTES: 1. MOUNT ON MAST ARM, PER CITY OF RENTON STANDARD PLAN G011 2. MOUNT ON SIGNAL OR LIGHT STANDARD, PER WSOOT STD. PLAN G-30.10-01. 3. FLUORESCENT YELLOW-GREEN BACKGROUND. 4. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL 2, THIS SHEET, UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE IN THE REMARKS. 5. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS FOR SIGN LOCATIONS. SIZE _ X 9" X 9" 24"X30" 24"X30" 24"X30" 24"X30" 30"X30" 30"X30" 24·x1s" 24"X18" 18"X18" 24":<18" 24"X18" 24MX18" 12"x9· 12·x9· 12"X9" N/A N/A N/A N/A A-LINE AND B-LINE INTERSECTION GRADING PLAN ~IRE\,1SIONS POINT 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 O(Sl<lt,1(0 J. DVORAK M. t.llLLER CHECKED Y. HO ELEVATION NORTHING EASTING 28.31 176555.06 1290767.16 28.31 176542.07 1290767.53 28.57 176527.76 1290770.99 28.57 176529.16 1290776.83 28.57 176530.57 1290782.67 28.31 176540.86 1290783.02 28.12 176548.83 1290786.71 27.94 176554.94 1290793.02 28.06 176559.94 1290789.70 28.18 176564.95 1290786.39 28.25 176559.42 1290777.00 28.18 176551.88 1290780.55 POST SIZEITYPE REMARKS • SEE NOTE 4 N/A SEE NOTE 1, MCK TO BACK WITH SIGN 2. N/A SEE NOTE 1, BACK TO BACK WITH SIGN 1. 4"X4" / WOOD 4"X4" / WOOD N/A SEE NOTE 1. N/A SEE NOTE 1. N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 4"X4" / WOOD 4''X4n / WOOD 4"X4n / WOOD N/A NOTE 2. 4"X4" / WOOD 4"X4" / WOOD N/A NOTE 2. 4"X4" / WOOD EX1STING SIGN, NEW POST N/A PROTECT IN PLACE 4"X4" / WOOD EXISTING SIGN, NEW POST. N/A REMOVE AND DISPOSE -----F-----F ~ A.UNE AND MINE INTERSECTION GRADING PLAN DETAIL 1M=10' t1,1oeTt1Al'El<\JENE."-'Tl''""' OELLE'iuEW,,SHl...,lONNQC< '"'""'"""'''2''"""'"' 4~4 PRESSURE TREATED FIR POST. INSTAil W/ CRUSHED ROCK COMPACTED BACKf1L1.~0V1DE4" !P;~,*'~Jl:,rlE ,~::-;:::: . II.I I J"TYP. b · ;;, ~ -~= ~--=1~-f-~-:t -I I ~~~,I -I I iT I POST-MOUNTED SIGNAGE NOTE· 1 USE 7' t.lOUN11NG HEK,HT FOR TRAFFICSK,NS. LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW 1lWL NOTE: 1. STAKE SIGN LOCATIONS FOR APPROVAL 2. SEETHISSHEETFORSIGNSCHEOUL.E. SIGNAGE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE ffi 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SIGN SCHEDULE AND GRADING DETAIL ORMIINGNO. 33 OF 47 C15 :1 i i ~ i l ~ ! 1 § " ! t I ~ • J ~ t ;; j i t s ,L- 50' -----~-------~------~so· 40' 40' ~:~g ~:'~ I•- EXCAVATION CLASS A ~ ISTING GROUND 30'1 \ t=~' / / !30' / ! STREAMBED ~IX IE 22.9-4 w -- 10' ~' PRECAST REINF. CON .... SPLIT BOX CULVERT ~ STA 125+95 (FACING WESn HHrieH e HORJZ: 1~=10' VERT: 1~=5' :'c I r ·10' :~oxR~Jcli::___j GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR WALlS LEVElJNG PAD I I I, ~IREY1Slct1S ... ...., ~ BUITRAGO "'"~ M,__MILLER """"" Y. HO SECTION NO SCALE >.11(113TH~-JE•E.S'-"1E!l100 oc,.1..,;.uw,s:1,e~·o,,000, '"'"""""'''''"''""' .. ill . h~~z;;.;: TOP OF CULVERT LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A FENCE NOTE 1 CEMENT CON~ 2 I HMA CL CURB, TYP 2 3/B PG 64-22 - &i".- csrc (VARIES) CULVERT COVER DETAIL NO SCALE LLl NOTE: ·ANCHOR CURB TO CULVERT UD OR CAST /IS ONE UNIT i:"""PLACE FENCE POSTS ON EITHER SIDE OF CULVERT. DO NOT CQt,l,IECT TO CURB. FACE OF CURB 1/2~ R CEMENT CONCRETE CURS DETAIL ffi NO SCALE TRAIL 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ORAIMNGNO. 34 OF 47 CULVERT DETAILS S01 GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW ~IRrnSJONs .. ,:::-·=~=-=- I , , , , I i I ': I : I l\. ABuTMrnr' 1 :, f '\ STA = 16+29.98 , \ I I Ii I I:'. !I'·:, , !: ~ :: '. ·:~·: ', I . I ' : I ' " : ::L:1 -: I , , , ~ I I I I I I I I I ), "'' I I I I I ---j ABUTMENT, 1.~~~, ---+-----. -sfA---•----+-&il-:a . --- 1 ELEV : 2~.57' 50'1-----l ---,- 40'f---+---+---+ 30' 20'f---+--- 10' O' ~~ ~ 16+<10 DESIGNED J. MERTH DRAWN A. VAl.E:NOA CHECKED Y. HO 16+50 " i \: \: I. \: I\ \i \o~·-o· I: ': I .. I\ i i I : , I : I 'I I I I: I ' " ' : I: ' : : I : I.: i:·, \' : : : /: I 'i ! iii '·, , I'.'',,\, I'\, . \_\ '·o. I ' I:: . I ' ,) .\.., I , , I'. , " , \, , \ . : • ,i : : I'-,,_., ': '\ ' I · .. ( ' ' . , .. _ , .. 1 ; 1 I ', '° : i i 2 ', :, ~, \ ·,. k·. \ \\'A\ PREM.ilu~AC'ro~io' BRID~E I :'-\ 11': ' \ \ \ \ : : ',!',', l :,:._,), \\\' ~~ i1~~li1:': :':\.,,1,\',11': \'·\ ~----+--tt-:::•:,,~·~ ~ 11r 1! ,, :: -,:P,1: \ \, f I ! ' I ,, ' ' 'L' I , ,, I I I. I I I I I I I I, I I I I' I I I I I I' I: ' I ' ' I \~~Jl ' -· PLAN ~ --~ .n> ~ ELEVATION ABUTMENT _t a I[ 6-RG _-1 I , lf~:';;r,~;0,-I ~ I 1-I T J 17<00 .,,, __ ,,..,...,.._ IIElilWE.W_"llmlN_ t.GU!IU2QIF---- z 2 "' I ;,- ? ;,, STEEL PIPE'- PILE, TYP 17+50 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW A-LINE PROFILE It_ TRAIL ALIGNMENT 1 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE I 12'-0" INSIDE OF HANDRAIL TOP CHORD PREMANUFACTURED BRIDGE VERTICAL POST I SAFETY RAIL STEEL BAR GRATING FLOOR BEAM TYPICAL PREMANUFACTURED BRIDGE SECTION 1/2"=1'-0~ 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BRIDGE PLAN AND ELEVATION DRANNG NO. 440F 47 S1 Appendix B Land Cover Area Calculations Appendix B a Land Cover Area Calculations TDA1 Stations Existing Proposed Total (A-Line) Impervious Pervlous Impervious Pervious Jurisdiction I Area Wldlhffl] Area [sf] Area (sfJ Width[ft] Area [sf] Width kea[sf] lcomments (sf] Total Gravel Trail crossing Total Tolal EXISt Shrub/ Asphalt Gravel Crossing Total Post-BMP Total New Replanted Sta Start Sta End Length (50% EIA) lmperv Effective lmpeN Forest Trail Shoulders lmperv Width Dispersed lmpeN G,ass Grass Shrub/ lfll Feature Width (Both) Feature IMdlh Forest ICllyolTU-, Newberg aolls = TIii TDA1A 1+00 6+95 595 0 0 0 0 12 4 0 16 8 4760 8 4760 Basic dispersion 6+95 7+26 31 0 18 18 558 0 0 18 18 18 558 0 0 BNSF 0Yerpass 7+26 7+65 39 0 0 0 0 12 4 0 16 8 312 8 312 Basic dispersion Subtotal [sf] 115473 558 14915 5630 5072 4771 Subtotal [ac] 0.355 0.013 0.342 0.129 0.116 0.110 1c11yo1-1 -1 7+65 Newberg solls = TIii TDA 18 7+86 21 0 0 0 0 12 4 0 16 8 168 8 168 Basic dispersion 7+86 7+99 13 0 18 18 234 0 0 18 18 18 234 0 0 Union Pacific Overpass 7+99 11+00 301 0 0 0 0 12 4 0 16 8 2408 8 2408 Basic dispersion 11+00 13+56 256 0 0 0 0 12 4 0 16 16 4096 0 0 No dispersion 13+56 14+20 64 0 18 18 1152 0 0 18 18 18 1152 0 0 KP Corp driYeway, ~ LU change Subtotal[sf] 18428 1386 17042 8058 2576 7794 Subtotal [ac] 0.423 0.032 0 391 0.185 0.059 0.179 ITDA1 . ''. iCRTi Hourly, Hl&torle Total [sf) 33901 1944 31957 13688 7648 12666 Q100 = 0.08 cfs Total IacJ 0.778 0.045 0.734 0.314 0.176 0.288 Q100 = 0.19 cfs increase of0.11 cfs) TDA2 Stations Existing Prooosed Impervious P&rvious Impervious Pervious Total (C-line) A,e,[sfl Areafsfl Width ft Area s Area sfl Jurisdiction I Area Total Exist Replanted 1comments Isl] Total Exist Shrub/ 1 ~~~:i~o lmp~:ous Total New Sta Start Sta End Length lmperv Forest lmperv Grass Shn.ti/ (ft( Forest 1c11yo1-I· Newberg &Oils= TII C-Line 201+11 206+50 539 36828 9071 36826 1073 37901 7998 Monster Rd and Ped Bridge 1;~:ia,,~~ I\Cn,Q Hourly, Historic 46899 36828 9071 37901 7998 0 Q1DO = 0.40 cfs Subtotal [ac] 1.064 0.846 0.208 0.870 0.184 0.000 Q100 = 0.44 cfs 'lnc~ase < 0.1 cfsl 1 of3 Appendix B -Land Cover Area Calculations TDA3 Stations Existing Proposed (B-Lioe) Impervious Pervlous Impervious Pervious Total Wldt:h(ft] Area {sf] Area (sf) Wtdth[ft] Area [sf] Width Area (sf] JIJisdidion I Area Comments (sf] Total Gravel Trail Crossing Total Total Exist Shrub/ Asphalt Gravel Crossing Total Post-BMP Total New Replanted Sia Start Sta End length (50% E1A) lmperv Effective lmperv Forest Trail Shoulders lmperv Width Dispersed lmperv Grass Grass Shrub/ (ft( Feature Width (Both) Feature Width Forest IC1fl'Olllenidn I ' ' /., fl"IMD8"0' WOodinvlle soils = Tilt 17+11 17+76 65 0 0 14 910 0 0 14 14 14 910 0 0 Bridge over Black River 101+77 103+00 123 12 0 6 736 12 4 0 16 16 1968 0 0 No dispersion 103+00 105+o0 200 12 0 6 1200 12 4 0 16 8 1600 8 1600 Basic Dispersion 105+00 107+o0 200 10 0 5 1000 12 4 0 16 8 1600 8 1600 Basic Dispersion 107+00 110+00 300 10 0 5 1500 12 4 0 16 0 0 0 0 Full DisoersiOn ITDA* ,, I ' ,/ -,',' rm.K,., Hourly, Historic Total (sf] 22724 5348 17376 6078 3200 13446 Q100 = 0.08 cfs Total [ac] 0.622 0.123 0.399 0.140 0.073 0.309 Q100 = 0.09 cf& ICincrease < 0.1 cf&) TDA4 Stations Existing Proposed (B-llne) Impervious I I Pervious mpervious Pervlous Total Widlh[ftl Area [sf] Area(sf] Width{fl] Area [sf] Width Area (sf] Jurisdicllon I ma Comments (sf] Total Gravel Trail Crossing Total Total Exist Shrub/ Asphalt Gravel Crossing Total Post-BMP Total New Replanted Sta Start Sta End Length (50% EIA) tmperv Effective lmperv Forest Tra~ Shoulders lmperv Width Dispersed lmperv Gra~ Grass Shrub/ (ft] Feature Wklth (Both) Featl.l'"e Width Forest jCltl'OI-J' /. 'I',. ,, l'fVl\'D'l'"'""" 8ok = TII 110+00 124+00 1400 6 0 3 4200 12 4 0 16 0 0 0 0 Full Dispersion 124+00 124+33 33 4 0 2 66 12 4 0 16 0 0 0 0 Full Dispersion 124+33 125+50 117 4 0 2 234 12 4 0 16 8 936 8 936 Basic Dispersion 125-t50 126-t75 125 4 0 2 250 12 4 0 16 16 2000 0 0 Walls.· No Dis.pers.ion 126-t75 132+50 575 4 0 2 1150 12 4 0 16 0 0 0 0 Full Disoersion ITDA4 , .. · [l<CftT<J-rly,Hl9torlc Total [sf) , .. ,~ 1 6900 53204 2936 936 56232 Q100 = 0.15 cfs Total [ac] 1.367 0.135 1.221 0.067 0.021 1.268 Q100 = 0.13 cfs (increase< 0.1 cfs} 2of3 Appendix B -Land Cover Area Calculations TDAS Stations Existing Proposed Total (B-line) Impervious Pervlous Impervious Pervlous Jurisdiction I Area Wldth[ft] Area [Sf] Area (sf) Width(ft] Area [sf) Width Area [sf] Comments 1,n Total Gravel Trail Crossing Total Total Exist Shrub/ Asphalt Gravel Crossing Total P~st-BMP Total New Sta Start S1a End Length (50% ElA) lmperv Effective lmperv Forest Trail Shoulders lmperv Width D1~=d lmperv ft Feature Width (Both) Feature Replanted Grass Grass Shrub/ Forest City of Renton Woodinville soils = Till 132+50 132+59 9 4 0 2 18 12 4 0 16 Full Dispersion 2~· 1 Basic Dispersion FuH Dispersion 2764 Basic Dispersion 0 Full Dispersion 132+59 135+85 326 4 0 2 652 12 4 0 16 • 2608 135+85 138+27 242 4 0 2 484 12 4 0 16 0 0 138+27 141+75 346 4 0 2 696 12 4 0 16 8 2784 141+75 142+50 75 4 0 2 150 12 4 0 16 0 0 142+50 143+17 67 4 0 2 135 12 4 0 16 16 1078 No Dis~rsion KCRTS Hourly, Historic 53921 16221 IQ100 = 0.07 cfs 0.124 0.372 Q100 = 0.12 cfs 'lncr~ase < 0.1 cf!l_ TDAI Total [sf] , ,.~3 2135 25948 6470 Total [ac] 0.646 0.049 0.596 0.149 3of3 Appendix C Offsite Analysis -Resource Review and Site Visit Photos Land Use & Zoning (Property Information) Legend -, '-County Boundary D Urban-.4"12llulac. UR•Urban~one00ps5arn, .# Contours (100ft tight) Urban-1clulac: R•1 •~lill.ono00 .,...,.. Highways D Rur.ilClyUrban-Ana R~·-4001*an Streets Rur.ilTown R~·-600psacn ~ H~ D Rur.il Noighbod,ood commmm1 c .... R~·Raliclonl.w,800 .,....., Maiok D Ruto11Ana1clu/2.5.100G C1 R-·12 • llooidontial.12 00 pa acro loc.11 D -R• 11 • llooidontial. 18 00 pa..-. D Lakes and Large Rivers fCMatry D R·24·-2400psacn ;./ Streams Avriouk ... R..ill--4600psacn ~ Tribal Lands D Minin9 NB • N.;ghl,a,'hood- ~ fannland preservation --......... ca .commtMlilyBu:anem propertlas D Kine CounlyOpen ~ Syst.,. RB •R...,.._ Parcels D OU..-0 .Offioo D UnincO<J)Ofalad KC Zoning D ··-Parks D 1,..10 -~ .... oo.,.,o ..... • OU.. Comprehensive Plan Land Use A.-3!-~aneoo.,.~ ..... 2009 Colot Aerial Photos (8in) u.....,.,,...... A.dMly c ... ,. COf'IWlltltlil.y 8Ulalal Ca\UI" f -fonst 2009 Colot Aerial Photos (121n) NoiQllbod!OOd-C"""" D ........... RA.•2.11 • Rutoll Ana. ono 00 pa 5..., Commmm-o(C.,._. UrbanPlan~t RA.•!•Rur.ilAna, ... 00 ps5...,. UrbanR->12llulac. RA.•10 • Runl Ana, ono 00 ps 10..., (cont) (cont) Hydrographic (Water Resources) Hydrographic (Water Resources) Legend Hydrogauge& l.oai 11111 IIIOOERATE + ACTIVE Parce l s 11111 SE\IERE + -~ Aoodways • Sooy& ill 100 Year Floodplain ,. I County Boundary D Lakes and Large Rivers ,..; Contours (100ft light) ,N Streams Highways Wetiand& (1990 Su-vey) D King County Drainage Basin& • Kin9 COU11'y Wdland Suney Street& • N-W-ln,w,tOl}'Sunooy ~ Higt,way Channel Migration Hazard -Area& (cont) (cont) KingCounty Stormwater ~ King County Storm water Legend I County Boundary ~ H~ • Baic:FlowContnll /. /V Contot.n (100ft light) -• C-....FlowContnll ... Drainage Studies Local • ---c-• Neighborhood Orai nage [ Parcels Projects D Lakes and Large Rivers • Regional Stonnwalar Facilities ;./ Streams • Resldantial Stonnwalar m Drainage Complaints Facilities Landslide Hazards • Commerc ial Slonnwalar • undacloH,omd Facilities • undaclo Hazad !k.._ * Surface Walar Engineering Walar Quality Projects • Baic:W-QualilyT--.. Highways • _._.T_, D Ki"!! County Drai nage Basins • !!av o,.._ Ana Streets AowControl (cont) (cont) KingCounty Groundwater The lnformaticn included on thi1 map I\U DNf1 compiled by stiff~=:.~=-~°"-=:~:::~~ ~\!'~!ew:':1.'::.:~ llableforanygeneral,apecial,incllrect.,incidental,«~• ~s induding, bul not limited '?, lost 1'9\191"11.1!1S or lost lhe use o, misuse of Iha information contained on 1h11 map. Arly ll8le Of this map or information on this map11 prohibited 111111:oepl by King County . KingCounty Date· !Y7/2013 Sosce: King Ccutty iMAP-Groundwater Progt*'1 (hftp://www matrokc.gowG1$1iMAP) Groundwater Legend Groundwater Sources D Lakes and Large Rivers ca-,2 • GiraupAW• ;./ Streams Ca-,3 • GraupBW• Wetlands (1990 S1XYey) • ou..w• ., Well-head Protection Area: 6 ,ti Month Radius • Groundwater Quality Sampling Sites Ii Wellhead Protection Area : 1 Year Radius I County llol.ndary /• • Wellhead Protection Area : 5 ,..; Contours (100ft light) Year Radius Highways • Wellhead Protection Area : 1 O D King County Drainall" Basins Year Radius Streets Areas Suscapt.abla to Groundwater Contamination ~ Hlgll-i, -'-- l.oc,I • Modium Parcels • High D Groundwater Mana9Bment Critical Aqui.,r Recharge Area Areas • c.-,, (coot) tQ King County Sensitive Areas ~~~:!~w':'rr=..=!>'~'tr~=~-=-~Of~:g:::::=~ ~i~~~~~~~:t·~r:=}~~lhal~ootir:=:=:.=~w=:on~~~·~~ u., map or information on this map is prohibited except by wrmen pe,mi11sion ct King County. Date : 517/2013 $°"1:8· King COll\ty iMAP. Sensitive Areas (http://www.metrokc.govJGISIIMAP) 117911 ti King County Sensitive Areas Legend -, '-County Boundary ffl ---• Lanclllide "-d 0.-,. ,./ Contours (100ft li ght) m Url>an SWDM Water Qua lity CAO Shoreline Condition ffl UitJon/R...i -Wa•Oualily Trul!Wll ~ Higl, D Lakes and Large Rivers • _.._.Trul!Wll ~ Medium ;./ Streams • BOQO...,.MII ~ Low Channe l Migration Hazard SWDM R ow Control Areas Highways • --c- Streelll 1111 MOO£RAT'E • c--...Aow ConllOI ~ H..-, 1111 SEVERE • Flood-flowConllOI -m SAO Wetland CAO Tri butary Bas ins l.oc,j Critical Aquilar Recha!ll!! Area D 1..owsr-.,Bains L Parcels D U_T-.,Bains Shoreline Management • ca-,.1 Des ignation • c..-,.2 c..-,.3 ml c...,_ SWDM Landslide Hazards Im ~-• Lanclllide H.arad Im -(cont) (cont) ~noincM11donlti1~w':::.=~~ .. to~:=:.._~~or..qea:::'::r==-= Tl1S ll~UMM•surwyprocjJC(.==notbelllbll~l!'ly~.~.T:rect.i"ICldenlal.OI'~ tQ King County ~ir'dlding. but not limited to, loll,....,...or io.c from ltlt uMorml1UMOftheinformltioncontaned on lhilmap.My .... al ttu map or lnlonnatlonon lhla map 11 prohibited except by Wfltlen Plfffll cl f<lngCourwy 0-:517/2013 Sc,,.,ct: King Ccudy IMAP· Senalllve Ar9a1 (htlp.llWWW ffllll'OkC.govSSAMAP) Shoreline Master Program Ul ' S 121THST "' t " ~ 0 ~ :z:, "' ~ !! i t ,, ' ~, -~ .. ~ _, " Sf21TkA. ,lo~ 1',-0 ,i S 121TMST S 12&T'HST _. "' ~ ~ The Information induded on~$ map has ~ compiled by. KIIJI County staff from a Yaiety of scuws. and IS ~ 10 change wi1tlolA l'IOIICe. King ~~~onsorw8'TW1ties,expressorimplied,utoao:uracy,~.tl'l'lelineM.or~totheUMotsuehirtoonation. damages i~~~~~i:~·~·~c=~flOl~=:!:"S:~~~~~~: this map ot information on this map is prctlibitad except by written penni$$ion at King County Date· 517/20 13 Sou,:;t: King Coe.my iMAP -Sho,-tine Master Program {http:IIWWW.metrokcgov,'GISIIMAP) "I,,.,-- ,h~-1' I ~ King County .. i Shoreline Master Program Legend /. I County Boundary ; ...... D Priority Gap ...... Shoreline Facilities Local D -......Gap ...... t.i a-Launch ;./ Sho<eline of Statewide Sho<eline Public Acces& Significance ... c~ or Picnic Ana D 1<aov C°""ty Na .... u,nds ilnic,maj Aeons) 0 --;/ Sho<eline Roache& D 1<mvc ..... ,,,_c1n1om..1A<ionsJ • hinwninv-Sho<eline Oe&ignation • 1978 D P8RS"'-'y SMP • T,_0<PatinvLot D T- Shoreline Current Land Use ~ Na .... Lake final Quality 0 DOTOutf* ~ c-• Low-0...y • fmyTormiNII ~ Runl • LowMedium Rudi Ou*y • MaineOoct;s ffl RUG61C-Medium Ruell Qualy 0 NPOES~Point ~ Utban • Medium Hjgl, Rucll Qualy a -ffl U-unl • Hig/1-Qualy ... RogionalSl-..-F..wty Shoreline Designation· Manne Final Quality ... --Current • LowRuellQu.ilty • --• Low Medium Ruell Ou*y /:). SO.-..-faality • ~-...-~ Medium Rudi Oualily * Wll•CnntedUsm • f""""1y-• --• Medium High Ruell Oualily Trails • Higl,RudJQuolity • c--JV P-Trail River Final Quality • R--;./ On-Trail • Rmidonliol-• Low-Quality /./ Soft-Trail • Higl,_y_ • LowModiumRucllQualy ... SutfaooU-. Sho<eline Reach Restoration ModiumRudJQuallly ~ Contoun; (100ft light) • • ModiumHighRucllQualy [ Parcels A • Higl,RucllQualy • B Parks Sho<etine Jurisdiction· Land • C D KaovCo,mty,_ Use • D D County • E • Utban ...,;,,g D Cly • f ~zonir11) D -· G • RaGUl'OII zonmv D f- H • Op.,-~ D Parl<Datriot • I Shoreline Jurisdiction D --D Lakes and Larve Rivers D Ol.hiw Giowiarn"*'lt ;./ Streams Highways Shoreline Public Access Streets Priority ~ Hq,way (cont) {cont) ~~~~-=·=!Y~--:;;~==.:.~~or";;:::'l:~=~ (; K ing County Thil 1Snot inlll'lded _forUM•a.aneyproduct::,.OulttlhallnolbeliablefOf1t1ygenerll.tpeC:ill,irdtect,ineidentll,0t~ damagts including, but not ~mited to, lost rewnuu or lost ~ from the uu or millJN of lhe nfOrmMion conllllned on lhie map. AA'J sele of this map or information on lhis map is prohibited except by written permiUIOl"I of King Courty Date: 517/2013 So.,,;e: King COt.nty IMAP -~ M..-Pft9W'I (htlp"./Jwww.metrdtc.gov«:iilSAMAP) Project start, looking west at Green River Trail (near A-Line Station 1 +00) Looking west (near A-Lin e Stat ion 3+00) Looking west (near A-Line Station 5+50) Looking west (near A-Line Station 6+00) Looking west at railroad crossings (near A-Line Station 8+25) Looking west (n ea r A-Lin e Station 11+00) Lookin g eas t at Monster Road driveway (near A-Lin e Station 13+50) Looking north at Monster Road (near A-Line Station 14+00) I Looking northwest at Monster Road (near A-Line Station 14+50/C-Line Station 201+75) Look ing north at Monster Ro ad (near A-Line 15 +00/C-Lin e Station 202+20) I Lo ok ing northwest at Monster Road (n ea r A-Line Station 16+20/C-Line St at ion 202+50) Looking north at pedestrian cross i ng loc at io n over the Black River (near A-Lin e 16+00/ (-Lin e Station 202+50) :;-J: . . . Loo kin g so uth at pedestrian crossing location over the Bla ck Ri ve r (near A-Line l 7+50/B-Line 102+50) Looking east at Monster Road (near B-Line Station 102+50) Looking west (near B-Line Station 105+00} Looking east (near 8-Line Station 105+00) Looking west (near B-Line Station 121+00) Location of proposed box cu lv ert, looking west (near B-Lin e St ation 126+00) Project End , looking north (B-Line Station 143+17) Appendix D KCRTS Runoff Modeling Documentation Appendix D -KCRTS Runoff Modeling Documentation TDA 1 Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series L2SA1pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor 1.00 Data Type Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest Impervious Total Area 0.73 acres 0.05 acres 0.76 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12salpre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak ! Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series L2SA1dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest Till Grass Impervious Total Area 0.27 acres 0.18 acres 0.31 acres 0.76 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12saldev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) I Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks LogPearson III Coefficients Mean--1.572 StdDev-0.187 Skew--0.062 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob 0.075 100.00 0.990 0.066 50.00 0.980 0.058 25.00 0. 960 0.047 10.00 0.900 0.045 8.00 0.875 0.038 5.00 0.800 0. 027 2.00 0.500 0.019 1. 30 0.231 LogPearson III Coefficients Mean--1.024 StdDev-0.115 Skew-0.390 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.188 100.00 0.990 0 .171 50.00 0.980 0.155 25.00 0. 960 0.134 10.00 0.900 0.129 8.00 0.875 0 .117 5.00 0.800 0.093 2.00 0.500 0.077 1. 30 0.231 Appendix D -KCRTS Runoff Modeling Documentation TOA 2 Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series L2SA2pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor 1.00 Data Type Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest Impervious 0.21 acres 0.84 acres Total Area 1.05 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa2pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rate Rank I Computed Pea ks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Flow Rates--- Time of Peak Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series L2SA2dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Grass Impervious Total Area 0.18 acres 0.87 acres 1.05 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa2dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) I Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks LogPearson III Coefficients Mean--1.661 StdDev-0.096 Skew-0.528 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob 0.398 100.00 0.990 0.365 50.00 0.980 0.334 25.00 0. 960 0. 293 10.00 0.900 0.284 8.00 0.875 0. 261 5.00 0.800 0.214 2.00 0.500 0.184 1. 30 0.231 LogPearson III Coefficients Mean--0.631 StdDev-0.100 Skew-0.505 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.435 100.00 0.399 50.00 0.363 25.00 0.317 10.00 0.308 8.00 0.282 5.00 0.229 2.00 0 .196 1. 30 2 0.990 0.980 0. 960 0.900 0.875 0.800 0.500 0.231 Appendix D -KCRTS Runoff Modeling Documentation TOA 3 Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series L2SA3pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1. 00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest 0.40 acres Impervious 0.12 acres Total Area 0.52 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa3pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) I Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series L2SA3dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest Till Grass Impervious Total Area 0.31 acres 0.07 acres 0 .14 acres 0.52 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa3dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks LogPearson III Coefficients Mean--1.431 StdDev-0.118 Skew-0.498 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.077 100.00 0.069 50.00 0.062 25.00 0.053 10.00 0.051 8.00 0. 04 6 5.00 0.036 2.00 0.030 1. 30 0.990 0.980 0. 960 0.900 0. 875 0. 800 0.500 0.231 LogPearson III Coefficients Mean--1.348 StdDev-0.120 Skew-0.466 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.094 100.00 0.990 0. 085 50.00 0.980 0. 07 6 25.00 0. 960 0.065 10.00 0.900 0.062 8.00 0.875 0.056 5.00 0.800 0.044 2.00 0.500 0.036 1. 30 0.231 3 Appendix D -KCRTS Runoff Modeling Documentation TDA 4 Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series L2SA4pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1. 00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest Impervious Total Area 1.22 acres 0. 14 acres 1.36 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa4pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) I Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series L2SA4dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1. 00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest 1.27 acres Till Grass 0.02 acres Impervious 0.07 acres Total Area 1.36 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa4dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks LogPearson III Coefficients Mean--1.239 StdDev-0.158 Skew-0.370 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0. 14 8 100.00 0.990 0 .131 50.00 0.980 0 .114 25.00 0. 960 0.093 10.00 0.900 0.089 8.00 0.875 0.078 5.00 0.800 0.056 2.00 0.500 0.044 1. 30 0.231 LogPearson III Coefficients Mean--1.356 StdDev-0.199 Skew--0.023 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.127 100.00 0.990 0.112 50.00 0.980 0.098 25.00 0. 960 0.078 10.00 0.900 0. 075 8.00 0.875 0.065 5.00 0.800 0.044 2.00 0.500 0.031 1. 30 0.231 4 Appendix D -KCRTS Runoff Modeling Documentation TOA 5 Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series L2SA5pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1. 00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest 0.60 acres Impervious 0.05 acres Total Area 0.65 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:l2sa5pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) I Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series L2SA5dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest 0.37 acres Till Grass 0.13 acres Impervious 0.15 acres Total Area 0.65 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa5dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) I Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks LogPearson III Coefficients Mean--1.618 StdDev-0.176 Skew-0.175 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.065 100.00 0.990 0.058 50.00 0.980 0.050 25.00 0. 960 0.041 10.00 0.900 0.039 8.00 0.875 0.034 5.00 0.800 0.024 2.00 0.500 0.018 1. 30 0.231 LogPearson III Coefficients Mean--1.282 StdDev-0.127 Skew-0.544 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0 .116 100.00 0.990 0.103 50.00 0.980 0.092 25.00 0. 960 0. 077 10.00 0.900 0.074 8.00 0. 875 0.066 5.00 0.800 0.051 2.00 0.500 0.042 1. 30 0.231 5 Appendix E Box Culvert Design Calculations Project Description Friction Method Solve For Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Normal Depth Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow Type GVF Input Data Worksheet for Existing Ditch 125+95 Manning Formula Discharge Supercritical 0.030 0.05260 1.00 2.00 2.00 13.28 2.00 4.47 0.45 4.00 1.22 0.01793 8.84 0.69 1.69 1.66 ft/ft ft ft/ft (H:V) ft/ft (H:V) IP/a ft' ft fl fl fl ft/fl ft/a fl fl Downstream Depth 0.00 ft Length 0.00 fl Number Of Steps 0 Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss D01M1stream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope Critical Slope 6/26/2013 8:46:27 AM 0.00 ft 0.00 ft Infinity ftis Infinity ftis 1.00 ft 1.22 ft 0.05260 ft/ft 0.01793 ft/ft Bentley System&, lnc. Haestad Methods SoHlliaa~uter V81 (SELECTseries 1 l [08.11.01.03] 27 $lemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06796 USA +1.203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Friction Method Solve For Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Nom,al Depth Height Bottom Width Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Vll6dlr Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number ....... ""' Slope Full Flow Type Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss Average End Depth Over Rise Normal Depth Over Rise Downstream Velocity Manning Formula Discharge Supercritical 0.028 0.05260 ft/ft 1.00 ft 2.00 ft 3.33 ft 2Ui .. 11'1'$ 3.33 ft' 5.33 ft 0.62 ft 3.33 ft 1.35 ft 50.0 % 0.02281 ft/ft 8ill9 Ml 1.23 ft 2.23 ft 1.57 iU!l,•#(8 0.21040 ft/ft 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0.00 % 50.00 % Infinity ft/s Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solllliol:t~ter V81 (SELECTserles 1) [OS.11.01.031 6/25/2013 8:49:64AM 27 Siemens Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06796 USA •1·203~755·1&66 Page 1 of 2 Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope Critical Slope 6125/2013 8:49:64AM Worksheet for BOX 125+95 · 1 ft depth Infinity ft/s 1.00 ft 1.35 ft 0.05260 ft/ft 0.02281 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Sol9*iott~asterV81 (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03) 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203·755·1666 Page 2 of 2 Appendix F Grading Within the Floodplain -Cut and Fill Calculations Lake to Sound Trail April 2015 -Black and Green Rivers Prepared By: MD 4/2/2015 Floodplain Fill Impacts Checked By: CAB 4/6/2015 Station Fillstl Exe sn Fil!lctl Exc(ctf floodplain Elevation= 19.00ft NGVD 29 FEMA 1995 1+00 floodplain Elevation = 22.57 fl Coverted to NAVO 88 1.36 0.00 NAVO 88 is project datum 1+25 0.11 0.00 FIRM Panels 957 and 976 1.36 0.00 1+50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1+75 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 2<-00 0.03 0.00 1.94 0.00 2+25 0.13 0.00 3.98 0.00 2+50 0.19 0.00 3.61 0.00 2+75 0.10 0.00 9.81 0.00 3<-00 0.69 0.00 8.56 0.00 3+25 0.00 0.00 2.67 0.00 3+50 0.21 0.00 12.47 0.00 CitvofTukwtla 3+75 0.78 0.00 I Cltv In FIii I Cltv Floodnleln Exe I 20.90 0.00 3122.29 147 76 ICF 4+00 089 0.00 115.64 5.47 CY 20.64 0.00 110.17 !Total Impact (CY) 4+25 0.76 0.00 9.53 21.87 4-tSO 0.00 1.75 0.00 73.88 4+75 0.00 4.16 120.01 52.01 5+00 9.60 0.00 264.89 0.00 5+25 11.59 000 259.38 O.OC 5+50 9.16 0.00 205.25 0.00 5+75 7.26 0.00 182.88 0.00 6+00 7.37 0.00 196.38 0.00 6+25 8.50 0.00 208.63 0.00 6+50 8.19 o.oc 252.75 0.00 6+75 1203 0.00 322.63 0.00 7+00 13.78 0.00 320.63 0.00 7+25 11.87 0.00 285.00 0.00 7+50 10.93 0.00 228.75 0.00 7+75 737 0.00 176.00 0.00 Citv of Tukwila Page 1 of2 Lake to Sound Trail April 2015 • Black and Green Rivers Prepared By: MD 4/212015 Floodplain Fill Impacts Checked By: CA84/6/2015 Station Fill STJ Exe sn Fill tCTJ ExC<CTI floodplain Elevation -19.00 n NGVD 29 FEMA 1995 8+00 6.71 0.00 City of Renton 156.00 0.00 6+25 5.77 0.00 264.00 000 8+50 1535 0.00 456.13 0.00 8+75 21.14 0.00 473.50 0.00 9+00 16.74 0.00 311.13 0.00 9+25 8.15 0.00 61.43 0.00 9+31.48 10.81 0.00 5.90 0.09 9+32.01 11.45 0.34 26.34 0.72 9+34.34 11.16 0.28 3.21 0.08 9+34.63 10.98 0.28 114.89 2.15 9+50 3.97 0.00 83.75 0.00 9+75 2.73 0.00 108.38 0.00 City of Renton 10+-00 5.94 0.00 Cltv Flood lain Fill Cltv F oodolaln Exe 173.25 584.13 272390 6382.55 CF 10+25 7.92 46.73 100.89 236.39 ICY 161.25 1600.00 -135.51 Total Impact (CY) 10+50 4.98 81.27 180.38 1800.13 10+75 9.45 62.74 131.25 1248.50 11,00 1.05 37.14 13.13 805.50 Floodwav Boundarv 11+25 0.00 27.30 0.00 341.25 11+50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11+75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12+25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12+50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12+75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13+25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13+50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13+75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14+00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14+25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14+50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14+75 0.00 0.00 Total FIii Total Exe 5846.19 6530.30 CF 'H6.63 241.86 CY Total Impact (CF) -684.11 ISWll lml!!~ l!al :lli.li Page 2 of2 Begin Project ---·- ~~ ~ii~~~· . '/,:1_t_$~-~- \ \ \ ~-- \ \ \ \ 1arametrix ,/ -~--· i G.reen Rive~i~2.ss i i \,,.-·""" ---,- \ \ :- . . i I i i i City of Tukwi~ \ fz--C" ,. (' ' '\ ) "1 /,.f I i i Ii Tr Jr ,, i I / West Approach City of Renton DATE.Apr,115,2015 FILE·BL1~10&4PAT3T200f'-01 Legend: ,-·-··"'-,··-·= FEMA Floodplain Boundary 200 ~ FEMA Baseflood Elevation (NAVDB8) SCALE IN FEET :;z.--f'c~ppro;ch /-'.'---J i -·-·-·1~ ,, . .2 " la! 1 a, I~ '' C _J..,,,'{ _/ ., ,;><; 4 I ' l;E 'ii / ~i '\,_; ~~~ r I J "er, , ----' ' 'l 1 Black River . · 1 \ Pump Station 1 Black River Forest \ ·, ·, \. 18.57. -~'., End Project • FEMA Boundaries from 1995 FIRM. ~ -----~ '• ................ , . . '·,. '· -..... , i i \ .. _ '· Figure 1 ' ·,. ' ·, ·,. ' ·,. ' ·, Project Site Map ·,. '· I I I r-1 I / j I i I I i .! LJ \ j~-ity_ of Tukwila Renton I / < \ ·.i ,L _, ... I i ; ; I ; I ; ; ., ! \) I ; .; .. i '; ; 'i 'i i i r·, ! i ! j I : : 1' L.j I 'I I! 11 ~ : : ' ' G) ! t .J i i Appendix G King County Surface Water Design Manual Operation and Maintenance Excerpts APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FAClLITTES NO. 5 -CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Structure Sediment Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from the Sump of catch basin contains no bottom of the catch basin to the invert of the sediment. lolfo'est pipe into or out of the catch basin or is VJithin 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin. Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than % cubic foot which No Trash or debris blocking or is located immediately in front of the catch basin potentially blocking entrance to opening or is blocking capacity of the catch basin catch basin. by more than 10%. Trash or debris in the catch basin that exceeds No trash or debris in the catch basin. 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the loy,,est pipe into or out of the basin. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate No dead animals or vegetation odors that could cause complaints or dangerous present within catch basin. gases (e.g., methane). Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Damage to frame Corner of frame extends more than% inch past Frame is even with curb. and/or top slab curb face into the street (If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than X. inch. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. separation of more lhan X inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks in walls or Cracks wider than 14 inch and longer than 3 feet. Catch basin is sealed and bottom any evidence of soil particles entering catch structurally sound. basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that catch basin is unsound. Cracks wider than 14 inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than 1'4 inch wide at at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence the joint of inle-Uoutlet pipe. of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Settlement/ Catch basin has settled more than 1 inch or has Basin replaced or repaired to design misalignment rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than %:-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than Xi-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of inle-Uoutlet pipes. the catch basin at the joint of the inleUoutlet pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oi I film. lnle-UOutlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. lnle-Uoutlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inle-Uoutlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). --- Damaged Cracks wider than %:-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than 1.1..-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inleUoutlet pipe. at lhe joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-9 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL. CONVEYANCE. AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 5 -CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed Metal Grates Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design (Catch Basins) standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% Grate free of trash and debris. of grate surface. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Grate is in place and meets design Any open structure requires urgent standards. maintenance. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Cover/lid protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens lNith proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and Remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual ~ Appendix A A-IO APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE RcQUIRFMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 6-CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES (ALSO APPLICABLE TO CULVERTS) Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance ls Performed Pipes Sediment & debris Accumulated sediment or debris that exceeds Water flows freely through pipes. accumulalion 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Vegetation/roots Vegetation/roots that reduce free movement of Water flows freely through pipes. water through pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Damage to protective Protective coating is damaged; rust or corrosion Pipe repaired or replaced. coating or corrosion is weakening the structural integrity of any part of pipe. Damaged Any dent that decreases the cross section area of Pipe repaired or replaced. pipe by more than 20% or is determined to have weakened structural integrity of the pipe. Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 Trash and debris cleared from square feet of ditch and slopes. ditches. Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment accumulation design depth. and debris so that it matches design. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation 'Nhere County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BM Ps implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water Water flows freely through ditches. through ditches. Erosion damage to Any erosion observed on a ditch slope. Slopes are not eroding. slopes Rock. lining out of One layer or less of rock. exists above native soil Replace rocks to design standards. place or missing (If area 5 square feet or more, any exposed native Applicable) soil. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-II APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL. CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 8 -ENERGY DISSIPATERS (AS APPLICABLE TO GRAVEL SHOULDERS OF TRAIL) Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed. Site Trash and debris Trash and/or debris accumulation. Dissipater clear of trash and/or debris. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution sud"I Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other Ulan a surface oil film. Rock Pad Missing or moved Only one layer of rock exists above native soil in Rock pad prevents erosion. Rock area five square feet or larger or any exposure of native soil. Dispersion Trench Pipe plugged with Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the Pipe cleaned/flushed so that it sediment design depth. matches design. Not discharging water Visual evidence of water discharging at Water discharges from feature by properly concentrated points along trench (normal sheet flow. condition is a "sheet flow'' of water along trench). Perforations plugged. Over 1/4 of perforations in pipe are plugged with Perforations freely discharge flow. debris or sediment. Water flows out top of Water flows out of distributor catch basin during No flow discharges from distributor "distributor" catch any storm less than the design storm. catch basin. basin. Receiving area over-Water in receiving area is causing or has No danger of landslides. saturated potential of causing landslide problems. Gabions Damaged mesh Mesh of gabion brok.en, twisted or deformed so Mesh is intact, no rock missing. structure is weakened or rock may fall out. CorTosion Gabion mesh shol/iJS corrosion through more than All gabion mesh capable of X of its gage. containing rock and retaining designed form. Collapsed or Gabion basket shape deformed due to any All gabion baskets intacl structure deformed baskets cause. stands as designed. Missing rock Any rock missing that could cause gabion to No rock missing. loose structural integrity. Manhole/Chamber Worn or damaged Structure dissipating flow deteriorates to % or Structure is in no danger of failing. post, baffles or side of original size or any concentrated worn spot chamber exceeding one square foot which would make structure unsound. Damage to wall, Cracks wider than %-inch or any evidence of soil Manhole/chamber is sealed and frame, bottom, and/or entering the structure through cracks, or structurally sound. top slab maintenance inspection personnel deterrnines that the structure is not structurally sound. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than %-inch at the joint of the No soil or water enters and no water inle-Uoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering discharges at the joint of inle-Uoutlet the structure at the joint of the inle-Uoutlet pipes. pipes. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-13 APPENDIX A MAl1'TENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE. AND WQ EAC:IUTIES NO. 11 -GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) (OBEY RESTBl~IIQN§ WIIl::!IN WETLAND§ AND B!,!FFER§) Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance ls Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash or litter Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot Trash and debris cleared from site per 1,000 square feet (this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemenled if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. ·" Gi:ass Q~ 9J:Q1;11=1dsg110~ mgi~,ed kl a -~ Rei9Rt RQ 9~8iilte~ tl=laR S iR~86. Trees and Shrubs Hazard Any tree or limb of a tree identified as having a No hazard trees in facility. potential to fall and cause property damage or threaten human life. A hazard tree Identified by a qualified arborist must be removed as soon as posslble. Damaged Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or Trees and shrubs with less than 5% broken which affect more than 25% of the total of total foliage with split or broken foliage of the tree or shrub. limbs. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or No bloVvfl down vegetation or knocked over. knocked over vegetation. Trees or shrubs free of injury. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately Tree or shrub in place and supported or are leaning over, causing exposure adequately supported; dead or of the roots. diseased trees removed. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual~ Appendix A A-16 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Areas Report Prepared for King County .. ----------------~~~~'.all-----· April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study Prepared for w King County Parks Division 201 South Jackson, Seventh Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) CITATION Parametrix. 2015. Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study. Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, Washington. April 2015. TABLE OF CONTENTS Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study KmgCounty 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 PROJECT FEATURES ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 PROJECT AREA AND SETIING ........................................................................................................ 1-2 1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.5 PURPOSE OF REPORT .................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.6 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................. 1-4 1.7 APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ......................................................................................... 1-4 2. METHODS ................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 WETLANDS .................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3.1 Identification and Delineation ......................................................................................... 2-1 2.3.2 Wetland Classification and Rating ................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.3 Wetland Functional Assessment ...................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 STREAMS ....................................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS .................................................................. 2-6 2.6 AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD .............................................................................................. 2-7 2.7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................... 2-7 3. RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 GENERAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Topography ...................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.3 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.4 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.5 Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 WETLANDS IN STUDY AREA .......................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 STREAMS ..................................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.3.1 Green and Black River Basins ......................................................................................... 3-14 3.3.2 Green River .................................................................................................................... 3-15 3.3.3 Black River ...................................................................................................................... 3-16 3.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS ................................................................ 3-18 3.5 AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD ............................................................................................ 3-18 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study Ki11gCounty TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 4. IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 WETLANDS .................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Permanent Wetland Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Permanent Wetland Buffer Impacts ................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.3 Temporary Wetland Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.4 Temporary Wetland Buffer Impacts ................................................................................ 4-2 4.2 STREAMS ....................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Permanent Stream Impacts ............................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.2 Permanent Stream Buffer Impacts ................................................................................ 4-20 4.2.3 Temporary Stream Impacts ............................................................................................ 4-21 4.2.4 Temporary Stream Buffer Impacts ................................................................................. 4-21 4.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS ................................................................ 4-21 4.4 AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD ............................................................................................ 4-21 5. MITIGATION ............................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION ................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 RESTORATION OF TEMPORARY IMPACTS ..................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION ...................................................................................................... 5-2 5.3.1 Regulatory Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation ................................................ 5-2 5.3.2 Site Selection .................................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3.3 Mitigation Site Existing Conditions .................................................................................. 5-3 5.3.4 Proposed Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 5-4 5.3.5 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards ............................................. 5-4 6. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 MONITORING ................................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1.1 Quantitative Monitoring .................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1.2 Qualitative Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................. 6-2 6.3 CONTINGENCY MEASURES ............................................................................................................ 6-2 7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 7-1 LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................... 1-3 3-1 Critical Areas .............................................................................................................................. 3-3 3-2 Critical Areas .............................................................................................................................. 3-4 3-3 Critical Areas .............................................................................................................................. 3-5 April 201S I SS4·1S21-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 3-4 Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics ............................................................. 3-19 4-1 Critical Areas lmpacts ................................................................................................................. 4-3 4-2 Critical Areas lmpacts ................................................................................................................. 4-5 4-3 Critical Areas lmpacts ................................................................................................................. 4-7 4-4 Critical Areas lmpacts ................................................................................................................. 4-9 4-5 Critical Areas Impacts .............................................................................................................. 4-11 4-6 Critical Areas Impacts .............................................................................................................. 4-13 4-7 Critical Areas Impacts........................................................................................... . ......... 4-15 4-8 Critical Areas Impacts........................................................................................ . ......... 4-17 4-9 Critical Areas Impacts....................................................................................... . .................. 4-19 LIST OF TABLES 2-1 Key to Plant Indicator Status Categories ................................................................................... 2-2 2-2 Criteria for Wetland Rating Categories as Specified by Ecology and the City of Renton .......... 2-3 2-3 Criteria for Stream Classifications as Specified by Washington State and the Cities of Renton and Tukwila ................................................................................................................... 2-5 2-4 Criteria for FWHCA Designations as Specified by the Cities of Renton and Tukwila ................. 2-6 3-1 Summary of Wetlands in the Project Area ................................................................................ 3-6 3-2 Summary of Wetland Functions for Wetlands in the Project Area ........................................... 3-6 4-1 Wetland and Buffer lmpacts ...................................................................................................... 4-1 4-2 Stream and Buffer Impacts ........................................................................................................ 4-2 6-1 Contingency Measures for the Mitigation Site .......................................................................... 6-3 APPENDICES A Wetland Determination Data Forms B Wetland Rating Forms C Wetland Functions and Values Forms D Site Photographs Mitigation Plans April 2015 I 554-1521+084 (B/3T300B) ACRONYMS AASHTO BMP CFR cfs Cities CMAQ Corps CWA DNR Ecology EPA ESA FAC FACU FACW FEMA FHWA FWHCA HGM HPA LWD NEPA NRCS OBL OHWM PAA PEM PFO RCW RM SEPA SMP April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials best management practice Code of Federal Regulations cubic feet per second City of Renton and City of Tukwila Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (program) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Washington State Department of Natural Resources Washington State Department of Ecology U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Facultative Facultative Upland Facultative Wetland Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Highway Administration fish and wildlife habitat conservation area hydrogeomorphic classification Hydraulic Project Approval large woody debris National Environmental Policy Act Natural Resources Conservation Service Obligate ordinary high water mark Potential Annexation Area palustrine emergent palustrine forested Revised Code of Washington river mile State Environmental Policy Act Shoreline Master Program Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County ACRONYMS (CONTINUED) TESC TMC TNW UPL USDA USFWS WAC WDFW WRIA WSDOT vi temporary erosion and sediment control Tukwila Municipal Code Traditional Navigable Water Upland U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Administrative Code Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Water Resource Inventory Area Washington State Department of Transportation April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T3008) Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview King County, together with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW, runs parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across a proposed non-motorized pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road, and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (Figure 1-1). Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non- motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non-motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A provides a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. 1.2 Project Features Segment A is typically approximately 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide shoulders and 1-foot-wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. The project includes: • Constructing a 12-foot-wide asphalt pavement trail with soft-surface (gravel) shoulders. • Performing minor grading to construct the trail (approximately 1,410 cubic yards of cut and 2,980 cubic yards offill, disturbing an area of approximately 0.72 acre outside the proposed trail footprint). • Performing ground improvements which would disturb an area of approximately 0.17 acre in addition to other disturbances from the trail. Installing a new trail bridge over the Black River to the east of the existing Monster Road Bridge, which cannot be improved to safely accommodate the envisioned trail use. • Installing a pedestrian-actuated signal crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge. Constructing an undercrossing feature beneath two railroad bridges to protect trail users from potential falling debris. • Installing one box culvert for terrestrial habitat enhancement. • Building retaining walls near the south approach to Monster Road, north of the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Black River, and on either side of the box culvert. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) 1-1 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County • Installing split-rail fencing and plantings to discourage incursions into sensitive areas and to improve visual screening for sensitive wildlife. Constructing two approximately 10-foot by 20-foot pull-out rest areas (one at the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest and one east of Monster Road and northwest of the Black River pump station) 1.3 Project Area and Setting The Segment A project area is a linear corridor mostly within an existing trail corridor (see Figure 1-1). Segment A is located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. Two parallel railroad tracks (BNSF and Union Pacific) cross the western quarter of the proposed trail corridor on elevated bridges heading north-south. Another set of BNSF railroad tracks are located north of the eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail corridor with an east-west bearing. These tracks tie into the north-south tracks north of the project area. East of the railroad bridges, the proposed trail alignment is within the city of Renton; west of the railroad bridges the proposed trail alignment is within the city of Tukwila. The project area is described from east to west below. The east terminus is located at a cul-de-sac on Naches Avenue SW near an office park. The eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail alignment from Naches Avenue SW to the new pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road (approximately 4,100 linear feet) follows an existing gravel maintenance road south of the BNSF east-west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest. The gravel maintenance road is currently used for walking and pet exercise. The existing road surface in most of this portion consists of compacted gravel ranging from 10 to 12 feet wide. Areas immediately outside the edge of the existing gravel surface generally consist of grasses, low-growing annual plants, blackberry thickets, and native riparian trees. Uses outside this portion of the project area include a concrete recycling plant and an area zoned for light industrial uses just north of the railroad tracks. The proposed trail alignment crosses over the Black River using a proposed new non-motorized pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road Bridge, then crosses Monster Road south of the river. For the western quarter of the proposed trail alignment, west of Monster Road, the alignment lies south of the Black River. For the first 150 feet west of Monster Road, the alignment is on existing paved surfaces, and then it follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges for 650 feet. The westernmost 600 feet of the proposed trail alignment is on maintained lawns associated with Fort Dent Park. West of the railroad bridges, the area south of the proposed trail alignment is dominated by Fort Dent Park and the Starfire Sports Complex. The confluence of the Black and Green rivers is located just north of the west end of the Segment A project area. Commercial businesses are north of the Black River and south of the trail corridor. 1.4 Project Purpose and Need The purpose of the Segment A project is to design and construct an alternative non-motorized transportation corridor and multi-use recreational trail between Naches Avenue SW in Renton and the Green River Trail in Tukwila. Segment A would provide non-motorized access to recreation and employment centers and would complete a link in the Regional Trail System network. The trail is intended to safely accommodate a variety of user groups such as bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, wheelchair users, and skaters. Trail design standards will safely accommodate different ages and skill levels within those groups. 1-2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) e 61 ~ :'j UNINC. KING COUNTY , __ , _______ .... Concrete Recycling Plant CITY OF RENTON Martin Luther King Way S Black River Riparian Forest ii I i!lr-------~ ~ z ~ ':P-ar_a_m-e7tr--:ix'---'~---,s=-ou-,ca.es--:, K-::-;,-, C.L..o-u,-ty,-'-:-C-,ty--,of-Re-,to-,--:, v..o=Fw-,o-,4-, WS-"-"-DO_T _____ __,__...,__ __ _1._ ________ __i__---1.-L _____ __J D N 300 600 Feet Legend: Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King county Completion of Segment A would provide the following benefits: Serve local and regional non-motorized transportation needs and provide access to the trail for local communities. Help satisfy the regional need for recreational trails and provide safe recreational opportunities to a wide variety of trail users. • Provide a critical link in the Regional Trail System. • Provide economic and health benefits to communities along the trail. 1.5 Purpose of Report Investigation of critical areas is required by the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP), as outlined in Renton Municipal Code 4-3-090 (Shoreline Master Program Regulations), and Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.44 and 18.45 (Shoreline Overlay and Environmentally Sensitive Areas). This Critical Area Study is intended to provide information in support of project planning and to facilitate permitting. This report describes wetlands, streams (watercourses), fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs), and Areas of Special Flood Hazard. It also presents measures included in the project design to avoid and minimize impacts on these critical areas. Specific objectives of this report are as follows: Review, compile, and analyze existing wetland, stream, and FWHCA data for the project site and vicinity. • Identify and document wetlands, streams, and FWHCAs in the study area. • Evaluate potential impacts on wetlands, streams, FWHCAs, and their associated buffers from the proposed trail. Identify mitigation measures to protect wetlands, streams, FWHCAs, and their associated buffers, and present compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Other critical areas regulated by the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, such as geologically hazardous areas and critical aquifer recharge areas, are not addressed in this report. 1.6 Study Area For the field investigation, the study area comprises the area within 100 feet of the trail corridor, from Naches Avenue SW parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Road, and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park. 1.7 Applicable Laws and Regulations King County is receiving federal funding through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program for the design of this segment of the Lake to Sound Trail. Federal funding triggers requirements for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Historic Preservation Act. An Environmental Classification Summary, ESA Biological Assessment, and Cultural Resources Survey Report have been prepared for this project. 1-4 Apdl 2015 I 554-1521-084 (8/3T3008J Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Wetlands and streams within the study area are subject to federal, state, and City of Renton or City of Tukwila regulations. At the federal level. wetlands and streams are regulated by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which regulates placement of fill in waters of the United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for issuing permits under Section 404 of the CWA. In June 2007 and December 2008 (revised version), the Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a joint memorandum that clarifies CWA jurisdiction following the Supreme Court's decision in the Rapa nos case. Guidance in the memorandum identifies situations where a developer may need to obtain a CWA Section 404 permit before completing work in wetlands, tributaries, or other waters of the United States. CWAjurisdiction may also be extended to waters that are not Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs) of the United States if either of the following two standards is met. The first standard extends regulatory jurisdiction to non-navigable tributaries ofTNWs that are relatively permanent and wetlands that directly abut (there is a surface connection) these waters. The second standard requires a case-by-case determination ("significant nexus" analysis) for non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent tributaries and adjacent wetlands that have characteristics that may significantly affect TNWs. Activities that affect wetlands and streams may also require a water quality certification (Section 401 of the CWA), which is administered at the federal level by the EPA and implemented at the state level by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Ecology reviews projects for compliance with state water quality standards and makes permitting and mitigation decisions based on the nature and extent of impacts, as well as the type and quality of wetlands or streams being affected. Activities that use, divert, obstruct, or change the flow of a water of the state, including some wetlands, typically require a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) chapter 220- 110 regulates water-crossing structures and describes requirements for a HPA from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Under the Renton SMP (4-3-050 and 4-3-090) and TMC (16.52, 18.44 and 18.45), the Cities of Renton and Tukwila designate and regulate activities within critical areas and their buffers, including wetlands, streams, special flood hazards, and FWHCAs. These regulations describe the Cities' requirements for the identification, rating, and categorization of wetlands, streams, FWHCAs, and buffers; mitigation and performance standards; as well as the requirements for Critical Area Studies (or Sensitive Area Special Studies). Development of the proposed trail would require land use and shoreline permits from the Cities. All local permit applications and other land use decisions are also subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, unless specifically exempted. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) 1-5 2. METHODS Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County This report is based on a review of existing information and field investigations. The goal of these efforts is to document existing information to reflect current site conditions and collect new information for conducting the project design and assessing impacts. 2.1 Review of Existing Information Prior to conducting fieldwork, biologists reviewed maps and materials including, but not limited to: • King County iMap (King County 2015). • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA, NRCS 2010a). • National Wetlands Inventory online interactive mapper (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2010). • Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage Program database (DNR 2014). • Priority Habitats and Species database (WDFW 2015). • SalmonScape fish database and mapping application (WDFW 20144). A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region (Williams et al. 1975). • Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 (Green/Duwamish River) Limiting Factors Analysis (WSCC 2000). 2.2 Field Investigation Project biologists performed field investigations over multiple site visits between November 2010 and February 2011 to identify and document wetlands. The biologists also conducted site visits on February 1 and March 29, 2011 to characterize streams, FWHCAs, and potential off-site compensatory mitigation areas. Site investigations in the vicinity of the mitigation area were conducted during multiple site visits in March 2012. 2.3 Wetlands 2.3.1 Identification and Delineation The methods specified in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) were used by project biologists to delineate on-site wetlands. Additionally, the methods specified in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (Corps 2010) were used. These methods comply with those in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997). Wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. An area must have at April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) 2-1 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County least one positive indicator of wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology to be considered a wetland. The delineated wetlands were instrument-surveyed by professional land surveyors. Wetland determination data forms from the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region {Version 2.0) (Corps 2010) were recorded for each wetland (Appendix A). Vegetation The dominant plants and their wetland indicator status were evaluated to determine if the vegetation was hydrophytic. Hydrophytic vegetation is generally defined as vegetation adapted to prolonged saturated soil conditions. To meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion, more than 50 percent of the dominant plants must be Facultative (FAC), Facultative Wetland (FACW), or Obligate (OBL), based on the plant indicator status category assigned to each plant species by the USFWS (Reed 1988, 1993). Table 2- 1 lists the definitions of the indicator status categories. Scientific and common plant names follow currently accepted nomenclature. Most names are consistent with Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973) and the PLANTS Database (USDA, NRCS 2010b). During the field investigations, dominant plant species were observed and recorded on data forms for each sample plot (Appendix A). Soils Table 2-1. Key to Plant Indicator Status Categories Plant Indicator Status Category Obligate Wetland Plants Facultative Wetland Plants Facultative Plants Facultative Upland Plants Upland Plants Source: Environmental Laboratory(1987) Symbol Definition OBL Plants that almost always{> 99% of the time) occur in wetlands, but which may rarely{< 1% of the time) occur in non-wetlands. FACW FAC FACU UPL Plants that often (67% to 99% of the time) occur in wetlands, but sometimes {1% to 33% of the time) occur in non-wetlands. Plants with a similar likelihood (33% to 66% of the time) of occurring in both wetlands and non-wetlands. Plants that sometimes (1% to 33% of the time) occur in wetlands, but occur more often {67% to 99% of the time) in non-wetlands. Plants that rarely(< 1% of the time) occur in wetlands, and almost always {> 99% of the time) occur in non-wetlands. Generally, an area must have hydric soils to be a wetland. Hydric soil forms when soils are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Biological activities in saturated soil result in reduced oxygen concentrations that produce a preponderance of organisms using anaerobic processes for metabolism. Over time, anaerobic biological processes result in certain soil color patterns, which are used as indicators of hydric soil. Typically, low- chroma colors are formed in the soil matrix. Brightly-colored redoximorphic features form within the matrix under a fluctuating water table. Other important hydric soil indicators include organic matter accumulations in the surface horizon, reduced sulfur odors, and organic matter staining in the subsurface. Soils were examined by excavating sample plots to a depth of 18 inches or more to observe 2-2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study K1ngCountv soil profiles, colors, and textures. The depths of the sample plots ranged between 18 and 20 inches deep with varying widths, with the exception of two upland sample plots that were shallower because of the presence of quarry spalls or cobbles. Munsell color charts (GretagMacbeth 2000) were used to describe soil colors. Hydrology The project area was examined for evidence of hydrology. An area is considered to have wetland hydrology when soils are ponded or saturated consecutively 12.5 percent (sometimes 5 to 12.5 percent) of the growing season. In King County (Sea-Tac Airport station), the growing season generally lasts from early March (March 9) to mid-November (November 17) (USDA, NRCS 2002), so ponding or saturation must be present for approximately 32 consecutive days. Primary indicators of hydrology include surface inundation and saturated soils. Secondary indicators of hydrology include drainage patterns, watermarks on vegetation, water-stained leaves, and oxidized root channels. 2.3.2 Wetland Classification and Rating Delineated wetlands were classified according to the USFWS Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classifications were assigned to wetlands using the Corps methods established in a Hydrogeomorphic Classification System for Wetlands (Brinson 1993). Wetlands were rated according to the Renton SMP (4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington -Revised (Hruby 2004) (Appendix B). Table 2-2 summarizes the state and local jurisdiction wetland rating criteria for each wetland category. Buffer widths assigned to wetlands in the project area reflect requirements of the Renton SMP( 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv.(c)). No wetlands were identified within the City ofTukwila. Table 2-2. Criteria for Wetland Rating Categories as Specified by Ecology and the City of Renton Category I Category II Category Ill Category IV Hruby(2004) Ecology' Wetlands of exceptional value in terms of protecting water quality, storing flood water and stormwater, and/or providing habitat for wildlife as indicated by a rating system score of 70 points or more. These are wetland communities of infrequent occurrence that often provide documented habitat for sensitive, threatened, or endangered species and/or have other attributes that are very difficult or impossible to replace if altered. Wetlands that have very important resources as indicated by a rating system score of between 51 and 69 points. These wetlands occur more commonly than Category I wetlands but still require a high level of protection. Wetlands that have important resource value as indicated by a rating system score of between 30 and 50 points. Wetlands that are of limited resource value as indicated by a rating system score of less than 30 points. They typically have vegetation of similar age and class, lack special habitat features, and/or are isolated or disconnected from other aquatic systems or high quality upland habitats. Rentonb Wetlands shall be rated based on categories that reflect the functions and values of each wetland. Wetland categories shall be based on the criteria provided in the Washington State Wetland Rating System/or Western Washington, revised August 2004 {Ecology Publication #04-06-025). These categories are generally defined above. Renton SMP (4-3-090 0.2.d.ii) April 2015 I 554-1521-084 {B/3T3008) 2-3 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 2.3.3 Wetland Functional Assessment Functions of individual wetlands were assessed using the WSDOT Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects (Null et al. 2000) (Appendix C). This method allows evaluation of wetland function, using best professional judgment and readily observed environmental characteristics. For example, an area of open water may provide habitat for waterfowl or aquatic animals. The upland habitats and buffers surrounding wetlands were also considered in the evaluation, because adjacent land uses affect the performance of wetland functions. Project biologists reviewed the indicator characteristics present for each wetland and assigned a summary rating of low, moderate, or high for each wetland function. Functions that were considered most relevant to this project are grouped into three categories: habitat, water quality, and hydrological support. Habitat functions include providing fish, avian species, and other wildlife access to food, cover, and breeding and rearing opportunities. Hydrological functions assessed include groundwater recharge/discharge, base flow support, and flood flow alteration (storage and desynchronization). Water quality functions include protection and enhancement through sedimentation, erosion protection, and nutrient retention/nutrient transformation. 2.4 Streams The Cities of Renton and Tukwila do not specifically define streams, but refer to streams as water courses. The City of Renton defines a watercourse as a channel in which a flow of water occurs either continuously or intermittently (Renton SMP 4-6-100). The City of Tukwila defines watercourses as a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally, including the Green/Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. Watercourses do not include irrigation ditches, stormwater runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices. The edges (ordinary high water mark [OHWM]) of project area streams were identified by project biologists and instrument-surveyed by professional land surveyors. Streams associated with the project (Green River and Black River) in the city of Tukwila (west of the railroad bridges) are regulated under TMC 18.44, while in the city of Renton (east of the railroad bridges), the Black River and all of the Black River Riparian Forest is regulated under Renton SMP 4-3- 090. Table 2-3 lists the stream classification criteria as specified by these entities. Buffer widths assigned to streams in the project area reflect requirements of the Renton SMP (4-3-090 D.2.d.iv.(c)) and TMC (18.45.080.D). 2-4 Apr;1201s I S54-1521-084 (B/3T300BJ TypeS Type F Type Np TypeNs Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class4 ClassS Type 1 (S) Type 2 (F) Type 3 (Np) Type4 (Ns) Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Fino/ Critical Area Study Kmg(ounty Table 2-3. Criteria for Stream Classifications as Specified by Washington State and the Cities of Renton and Tukwila Washington Statea Streams and waterbodies that are designated "shorelines of the state" as defined in Chapter 90.58.030 (Revised Code of Washington [RCW]). Streams and waterbodies that are known to be used by fish, or meet the physical criteria to be potentially used by fish. Fish streams may or may not have flowing water all year; they may be perennial or seasonal. Streams that have flow year round, but do not meet the physical criteria of a Type F stream. This also includes streams that have been proven not to contain fish using methods described in the Forest Practices Board Manual Section 13. Streams that do not have suliace flow during at least some portion of the year, and do not meet the physical criteria of a Type F stream. Rentonb Class 1 waters are perennial salmonid-bearing waters which are classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State. Class 2 waters are perennial or intermittent salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 2; and/or (b} Historically and/or currently known to support salmonids, including resident trout, at any stage in the species lifecycle; and/or (c) Is a water body (e.g., pond, lake) between one half (0.5) acre and twenty (20) acres in size. Class 3 waters are non-salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 3. Class 4 waters are non-salmonid-bearing intermittent waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 4. Class 5 waters are non-regulated non-salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a} Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and/or (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre (e.g., pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M of this Section. Tukwilac Watercourses inventoried as Shorelines of the State, under RCW 90.58. These watercourses shall be regulated under TMC Chapter 18.44, Shoreline Overlay. Those watercourses that are known to be used by fish or meet the physical criteria to be potentially used by fish and that have perennial (year-round) or seasonal flows. Those watercourses that have perennial flows and do not meet the criteria of a Type F stream or have been proven not to contain fish using methods described in the Forest Practices Board Manual Section 13. Those watercourses that have intermittent flows (do not have surface flow during at least some portion of the year) and do not meet the physical criteria of a Type F watercourse. WAC222·16-031 RentonSMP(4-3·0SOL.1.a) TMC (18.45.100.A) RCW = Revised Code of Washington April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) 2-5 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 2.5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Proposed alterations to FWHCAs are regulated by both Cities (referred to as Fish Conservation Areas by the City of Renton). As defined in the Renton SMP, critical habitats are Category 1 wetlands and habitat associated with the documented presence of species proposed or listed by the federal government or the State of Washington as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority species. Areas designated as FWHCAs by the City of Tukwila are mapped by the City; they include areas with which endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, as well as habitats and species of local importance. Table 2-4 provides a list of habitat types afforded protection under the City of Tukwila critical area regulations. Project biologists reviewed existing information (listed under Section 2.1), the USFWS King County Species List, and NOAA Fisheries Service Species List to identify any potential FWHCAs in the project vicinity. See the Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report (Parametrix 2015a) for additional information about FWHCAs associated with wildlife species. 2-6 Table 2-4. Criteria for FWHCA Designations as Specified by the Cities of Renton and Tukwila Rentona 1. Areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; 2. Waters of the State (i.e., the Green/Duwamish River itself}; 3. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas; 4. Areas critical for habitat connectivity; and 5. The approximate location and extent of known fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are identified in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and are shown on the Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline Jurisdiction map. Only the salmon habitat enhancement project sites completed or underway are shown as Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas on the Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline Jurisdiction Map. Streams are shown as watercourses. The river is not shown as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area for the sake of simplicity. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas correlate closely with the areas identified as regulated watercourses and wetlands and their buffers, as well as off-channel habitat areas created to improve salmon habitat (shown on the Sensitive Areas Map) in the Shoreline jurisdiction. The Green/Duwamish River is recognized as the most significant fish and wildlife habitat corridor. In addition Gilliam Creek, Riverton Creek, Southgate Creek, Hamm Creek (in the North Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and Johnson Creek (South PAA) all provide salmonid habitat. Tukwilab 1. Areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; 2. Habitats and species of local importance, including but not limited to bald eagle habitat, heron rookeries; 3. Commercial and recreational shellfish areas; 4. Kelp and eelgrass beds; 5. Mudflats and marshes; 6. Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; 7. Waters of the State; 8. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas; and 9. Areas critical for habitat connectivity. Renton SMP (4-3-090) TMC (18.45.1SO) April 2015 I 554-1521·084 (B/3T300B) 2.6 Areas of Special Flood Hazard Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County The City of Tukwila and the City of Renton regulate Areas of Special Flood Hazard (TMC 16.52 and RMC 4-3-050) to minimize loss and damages caused by flooding. Areas of Special Food Hazard are defined as the land in the floodplain subject to one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year (TMC 16.52.030 and RMC 4-3-050.1) Floodplain elevations were taken from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Number 53033C0976F and Map Number 53033C0957F. (FEMA 1995). The project team depicted the floodplain boundary in the project plans and floodplain figures using City of Renton GIS data (Renton 2015), which is a digital interpretation of the 1995 FEMA FIRM. A floodplain analysis was performed for the Lake to Sound -Segment A project and is provided in the Final Technical Information Report (Parametrix 2015b). 2.7 Impact Assessment Impacts on wetlands, streams, FWHCAs, and associated buffers were assessed by overlaying the proposed design onto project base maps showing wetlands, streams, FWHCAs, and buffer locations. Impact areas were determined as the area of intersection between the proposed design and the base maps. In some areas, multiple impact types (e.g., stream buffer and wetland buffer) were present in a single location. In this report, all stream and riparian buffer impacts are reported; however, for purposes of compensatory mitigation, overlapping impacts were assigned based on the following hierarchy: wetland, stream (below OHWM), wetland buffer, and stream buffer impacts. Areas of Special Flood Hazard impacts include any site activity that will place material at or below the 100-year floodplain elevation within a floodplain boundary. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) 2-7 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 3. RESULTS This section describes overall site conditions as well as the specific condition of the wetlands, streams, FWHCAs, and buffers within the study area (as defined in Section 1.6). 3.1 General Habitat Characteristics Characteristics of the project area, including land use, topography, soils, vegetation, and fish and wildlife are described below. 3.1.1 Land Use The primary land use in the areas surrounding the project is commercial business and recreational park. In contrast to regional trends, much of the area consists of relatively undisturbed riparian hardwood forest. The area in Renton, south of the BNSF railroad corridor, is dominated by large trees and dense thickets of shrubby wetland (Black River Riparian Forest). The portion north of the railroad corridor, however, consists of an active concrete recycling plant and an area zoned for light industrial uses, supporting essentially no vegetation. The western end of the study area extends into Fort Dent Park in Tukwila. Additionally, some of the properties near the project area, specifically at the eastern end of the study area, have office park structures with associated driveways, parking lots, lawns, and ornamental plantings. 3.1.2 Topography The project area is generally flat, sloping gently from the east to the west. To the north is a gravel mining operation and an apartment complex, which are located at a considerably higher elevation than the project area. Additionally, there are steep slopes down from the banks of the Black River, south of the project area, between the Black River Pump Station and Monster Road. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 15 feet to 25 feet. 3.1.3 Soils The majority of the study area is mapped as Woodinville silt loam (USDA, NRCS 2010a). A small portion of the study area (near the northeastern most part) is mapped as Tukwila muck. The Woodinville series consists of deep, poorly drained soils formed in recent alluvium on flood plains and low terraces. Slopes are Oto 2 percent. The Tukwila series consists of deep, very poorly drained soils formed in organic material that is stratified with diatomaceous earth and volcanic ash. Tukwila soils are in depressions on stream terraces and glacial uplands. Slopes are Oto 1 percent. Information on soils observed during field investigations is provided in Section 3.2. 3.1.4 Vegetation Vegetation within the project area consists of both wetland and upland species. Wetlands in the project area contain emergent, shrub, and forested habitats. Dominant vegetation includes reed canarygrass (Pha/aris arundinocea), black cottonwood (Popu/us balsamifera), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), red- osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), Pacific willow (Salix lucida), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), and narrow-leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia).Wetland habitats on the site are further detailed in Section 3.3. Upland plant communities within the project area consist primarily of upland forest and herbaceous vegetation. Vegetation includes red alder (A/nus rubra), tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), salmonberry, April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/313008) 3-1 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), black cottonwood, western redcedar, western swordfern (Polystichum munitum), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos a/bus). The DNR Natural Heritage Program does not identify any rare plants within or in the vicinity of the project area. 3.1.5 Fish and Wildlife Wildlife species present in the study area are adapted to a wide variety of conditions. Characteristic species include European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), American robins (Turdus migratorius), American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), dark-eyed juncos (Junco hymalis), spotted towhees (Pipilo maculatus), house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), house sparrows (Passer domesticus), black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus), Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana), raccoons (Procyon lotor), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus). The Duwamish and lower Green River serves as a migration and rearing area for anadromous salmon ids, with no spawning habitat available (Williams et al. 1975). Three Pacific salmon species inhabit the Green/Duwamish River basin in significant numbers, Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (0. kisutch), and chum (0. keta) salmon. Pink (O. gorbuscha) and sockeye (0. nerko) salmon are occasionally seen in the Green River basin, but the Green River is primarily a chum, coho, and Chinook salmon stream (Williams et al. 1975). Although sockeye salmon are occasionally seen in streams that are not tributaries to lakes, sockeye almost always require a rearing lake below or near their spawning area (Foerster 1972). Anadromous game fish using these waters include steelhead (0. mykiss), sea-run cutthroat trout (0. clarki clarki), Dolly Varden (Salvelinus ma/ma), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). WDFW (2011) data indicate that Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead trout, and cutthroat trout have documented presence within the Black River in the study area. The type of use is listed as migration for all species except coho, which use the lower Black River for juvenile rearing. Conditions favorable for Chinook salmon spawning and rearing do not exist in the project area; recent information and historical records (Harza 1995; Williams et al. 1975) indicate that Chinook do not use this area for these life history activities. However, very small numbers of adult fall Chinook migrating up the Green River occasionally stray into the Black River and become trapped above the Black River Pump Station (the pump station cannot pass adult salmon downstream). Adult Chinook were observed entering the Black River and attempting to spawn near the SW 27th Street culvert, in Springbrook Creek, 2.3 miles upstream of the project area, in fall 1997 (WSCC 2000). 3.2 Wetlands in Study Area The National Wetlands Inventory identifies four wetlands in the study area: three palustrine forested wetlands with a seasonally flooded hydrologic regime and one constructed riverine lower perennial unconsolidated bottom wetland with a permanently flooded hydrologic regime. Biologists identified and delineated five wetlands in their entirety (Wetlands 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) and delineated portions of larger wetland complexes in the study area (Wetlands 1/2 Complex and BR) (Figures 3-1 through 3-3). All wetlands are within the city of Renton. Classifications of the delineated wetlands are provided in Table 3-1; wetland functions are summarized in Table 3-2. General wetland characteristics are discussed below. Also included in this report is specific information for each of the sample plots (Appendix A), wetland rating forms (Appendix B), wetland functional assessment forms (Appendix C), and site photographs (Appendix D). 3-2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Parametrix _\ N 100 200 -reet Legend: Proposed Trail Alignment City Boundary Sources King County, City of Renton Parametnx WSDOT, Aenals Express 2009 Wetland ---River Ordinary High Water Mark Wetland Buffer River Buffer Figure 3-1 Critical Areas Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Parametrix i N 100 2DO ~~~liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilreel Legend: Proposed Trail Alignment -------City Boundary Sources King County. City of Renton, Parametrix, 'JI/SOOT, Aenals Express 2009 Wetland ---River Ordinary High water Mark Wetland Buffer River Buffer Figure 3-2 Critical Areas Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Parametrix _\ N IOC 208 ~~~!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilFeel Legend: Proposed Trail Alignment City Boundary Sources King County, City of Renton Parametnx WSDOT, Aenals Express 2009 Wetland Wetland Buffer Figure 3-3 Critical Areas Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King county Table 3-1. Summary of Wetlands in the Project Area Area Buffer Widthb Ecology USFWS Wetland (acre) City of Renton' (feet) Rating' Classificationd 1/2 Complex >50f 100 PFO 0.18 IV so IV PEM/PFO 0.04 IV so IV PFO 0.30 Ill 75 Ill PEM 0.83 Ill 75 Ill PEM 0.88 Ill 75 Ill PEM/PFO BR "'l.9f 100 PFO Renton5MP(4-3-090D.2.d.u) RentonSMP(4-3-0900.2.d.iv.(c)) Hruby(2004) Cowardinetal.(1979) Brinson{1993) Wetland size estimated based on aerial interpretation PFO=palustrineforested,PEM=palustrineemergent Table 3-2. Summary of Wetland Functions for Wetlands in the Project Area Nutrient and Erosion Control Production of General Flood Flow Sediment Toxicant and Shoreline Organic Matter Habitat Wetland Alteration Removal Removal Stabilization and its Export Suitability 1/2 Complex High Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Low Low Low NA Moderate Low Low Low Low NA NA Low Moderate High High NA Low Low Low Low Low NA Low Low Low NA NA NA Low Low BR High Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate HGM Classlficatlone Riverine/ Depressional Depressional Depressional Depressional Depressional Slope Riverine/ Depressional Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates High Low Low Low Low Low High Table 3-2. Summary of Wetland Functions for Wetlands in the Project Area (continued) Habitat for Habitat for Wetland-Wetland-Education Habitat for Associated Associated General Fish Native Plant or Scientific Uniqueness Wetland Amphibians Mammals Birds Habitat Richness Value and Heritage 1/2 Complex Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low NA NA 3 Low NA NA NA NA NA NA 4 Low NA NA NA NA NA NA Low NA Low NA NA NA NA 6 Low NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BR Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low NA NA Note: Functions assessed using WSDOT method (Nutl et al. 2000); see Appendix C for indicator characteristics present in each wetland. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Wetland 1/2 Complex Size: >50 acre (>2,178,000 square feet) City of Renton Rating: Category II Ecology Rating: Category II Buffer: 100 feet USFWS Classification: Palustrine Forested HGM Classification: Riverine/Depressional Sample Plots: Wl-SPl, Wl-SP2, W2-SP1, and W2-SP2 The Wetland 1/2 Complex is located west and east of the north end of Naches Avenue SW and north of the Black River, extending outside the study area to the south and east (Figure 3-3). Wetland 1/2 Complex was initially delineated as two separate wetlands in the field, but after further review of hydrologic conditions and connections, it was determined to be one wetland complex. Wetland hydrology is supported by overbankflow from the Black River, stormwater runoff from nearby surfaces, and a shallow groundwater table. A large openwater area (Black River) located upgradient of the Black River Pump Station is associated with the Wetland 1/2 Complex. Much of the interior of the Wetland 1/2 Complex is seasonally inundated, while some outer portions are saturated. Inundation was observed throughout most of the wetland with depths of up to 12 inches of water. The wetland drains to the Black River, which meets the Green River near the western portion of the study area. The Wetland 1/2 Complex is composed of a forested community. Vegetation is dominated by black cottonwood, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, red alder, Pacific willow, and common ladyfern (Athyrium filix-femina). Soil west and south of the proposed trail (Wl-SPl) was examined to a depth of 20 inches, consisting of two layers. The top layer is an 18-inch dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) clay loam and the lower layer is a gray (2.5Y 6/1) clay loam. East of the proposed trail (W2-SP1), the top layer is a 9-inch very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silt loam with yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) redoximorphic features. The lower layer is a gray (10YR 6/1) silty clay loam. Soils in the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Woodinville silt loam. The buffer surrounding the Wetland 1/2 Complex consists of generally disturbed areas of upland grasses and forbs near the existing gravel maintenance road to the east and north, and forested areas closer to the wetland. Vegetation in the generally forested buffer includes red alder, bigleaf maple, western swordfern, salmonberry, black cottonwood, red elderberry, and Himalayan blackberry. A portion of the buffer located north of Wetland 1 and adjacent to an existing gravel maintenance road has been planted with native vegetation and includes western redcedar, salmonberry, grand fir (Abies grandis), and bigleaf maple. Other portions of the buffer north of the Wetland 1/2 Complex have historically been filled with asphalt, concrete rubble, and other debris. The Wetland 1/2 Complex is a palustrine forested wetland under the Cowardin (1979) system, and is a riverine/depressional wetland under the HGM system (Brinson 1993). According to the City of Renton (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and Ecology, the Wetland 1/2 Complex is rated a Category II. The wetland scored 56 points on Ecology's rating form (22 points for water quality, 16 points for hydrologic functions, and 18 points for habitat functions) (Appendix B). The City of Renton requires a 100-foot buffer for Category II wetlands with a habitat score of less than 20 points (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv). April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T3DOB) 3-7 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Wetland 3 Size: 0.18 acre (7,62S square feet) City of Renton Rating: Category IV Ecology Rating: Category IV Buffer: 50 feet USFWS Classification: Palustrine Scrub-shrub /Palustrine Emergent HGM Classification: Depressional Sample Plots: W3-SP1 and W3-SP2 Wetland 3 is located north of Wetland 1 and south of the existing gravel maintenance road and BNSF rail tracks (Figure 3-3). A portion of Wetland 3 is adjacent to the maintenance road. Wetland hydrology is supported by surface water coming from a culvert located north of the wetland under the BNSF rail tracks. The source appears to be surface runoff from the concrete recycling plant to the north. Soils were saturated, and some pockets of inundation were observed in channels and micro- depressions. The wetland is seasonally saturated. Water flows from Wetland 3 into a small drainage channel that drains to Wetland 1. Wetland 3 consists of a shrub community and an emergent community. The emergent community is dominated by reed canarygrass and the shrub community is dominated by young Oregon ash with some Himalayan blackberry. The sample plot was examined to a depth of 18 inches and consisted of four layers that appear to have been historically disturbed. Soils examined in Wetland 3 are composed of a 2-inch layer of duff above a 6-inch layer of dark gray (SY 4/1) clay loam. Beneath those layers is a 6-inch layer of dark gray (SY 4/1) gravelly clay loam with strong brown (7.SYR 5/6) redoximorphic features over a 4-inch layer of dark gray (SY 4/1) sandy clay loam with strong brown (7.SYR 5/6) redoximorphic features. Some areas of the wetland contain debris in the soil. Soils in the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Woodinville silt loam. The buffer of Wetland 3 consists primarily of upland grasses and forbs on fill. The buffer is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and black cottonwood. The soils have been historically disturbed and contain asphalt, concrete, and other construction debris. Wetland 3 is a palustrine scrub-shrub/palustrine emergent wetland under the Cowardin (1979) system, and is a depressional wetland under the HGM system (Brinson 1993). According to the City of Renton (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and Ecology, Wetland 3 is rated a Category IV. The wetland scored 29 points on Ecology's rating form (14 points for water quality, S points for hydrologic functions, and 10 points for habitat functions) (Appendix B). The City of Renton requires a SO-foot buffer for Category IV wetlands with a habitat score of less than 20 points (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv). 3-8 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) I Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Wetland 4 Size: 0.04 acre (1,700 square feet) City of Renton Rating: Category IV Ecology Rating: Category IV Buffer: 50 feet USFWS Classification: Palustrine Forested HGM Classification: Depressional Sample Plots: W4-SP1 and W4-SP2 Wetland 4 is located just southwest of Wetland 3 and north of the Wetland 1/2 Complex (Figure 3-3). Wetland 4 likely was originally excavated. Wetland hydrology is supported primarily by runoff from the fill surrounding Wetland 4 and possibly from a subsurface connection to Wetland 3. Wetland 4 is seasonally saturated. Soils were saturated in the wetland and some pockets of inundation were observed in small depressions. Wetland 4 does not have an outlet. Wetland 4 consists of a forest community dominated by Oregon ash and black cottonwood. The understory is thinly populated with reed canarygrass. The sample plot was examined to a depth of 18 inches and consisted of two layers. Soils examined in Wetland 4 are composed of a 10-inch layer of dark gray (SY 4/1) clay loam with strong brown (7.SYR 4/6) redoximorphic features. Beneath this layer is an 8-inch layer of dark gray (SY 4/1) silty clay loam with strong brown (7.SYR 4/6) redoximorphic features. Soils in the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Woodinville silt loam. The buffer of Wetland 4 consists of an upland forest community dominated by black cottonwood and Himalayan blackberry. The soils have been disturbed and contain asphalt, concrete, and other construction debris. Wetland 4 is a palustrine forested wetland under the Cowardin (1979) system, and is a depressional wetland under the HGM system (Brinson 1993). According to the City of Renton (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and Ecology, Wetland 4 is rated a Category IV. The wetland scored 25 points on Ecology's rating form (10 points for water quality, 9 points for hydrologic functions, and 6 points for habitat functions) (Appendix B). The City of Renton requires a SO-foot buffer for Category IV wetlands with a habitat score of less than 20 points (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv). April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) 3-9 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study KingCountv Wetland 5 Size: 0.30 acre (13,192 square feet) City of Renton Rating: Category Ill Ecology Rating: Category Ill Buffer: 75 feet USFWS Classification: Palustrine Emergent HGM Classification: Depressional Sample Plots: W5-SP1 and W5-SP2 Wetland 5 is located north of the existing gravel maintenance road, east of Monster Road, and south of the BNSF rail tracks (Figure 3-1). The wetland is possibly a created feature because the slopes are lined with quarry spalls and there are culverts at the inlet and the outlet, as well as a catch basin located just south of the wetland. Wetland hydrology is supported by surface water coming from a culvert located north of the wetland under the BNSF rail tracks outside of the study area. The source is likely overflow from detention ponds located on the concrete recycling plant to the north. Wetland 5 is occasionally inundated. The wetland was inundated to a depth of approximately 18 inches during one site investigation, while soils were saturated with no inundation during another site visit. Water flows from Wetland 5 into a culvert that drains to the buffer of the Black Riverto the south. Wetland 5 consists of an emergent community, although shrubs are located along the eastern boundary. The emergent community is dominated by narrow-leaf cattail. The dominant shrub along the boundary is red-osier dogwood. The sample plot was examined to a depth of 18 inches and consisted of a single layer. Soils examined in Wetland 5 are composed of a dark gray (2.SY 4/1) sandy loam with strong brown (7.SYR 5/8) redoximorphic features. Soils in the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Woodinville silt loam. The buffer of Wetland 5 consists primarily of upland shrubs and young trees on fill. The buffer is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and red alder. The soils have been disturbed and contain quarry spalls and other rocks and debris. Wetland 5 is a palustrine emergent wetland under the Cowardin (1979) system, and is a depressional wetland under the HGM system (Brinson 1993). According to the City of Renton (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and Ecology, Wetland 5 is rated a Category Ill. The wetland scored 49 points on Ecology's rating form (22 points for water quality, 16 points for hydrologic functions, and 11 points for habitat functions) (Appendix B). The City of Renton requires a 75-foot buffer for Category Ill wetlands with a habitat score of less than 20 points (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv). 3-10 April 201S I S54-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Wetland 6 Size: 0.83 acre (36,210 square feet) City of Renton Rating: Category Ill Ecology Rating: Category 111 Buffer: 75 feet USFWS Classification: Palustrine Emergent HGM Classification: Depressional Sample Plots: W6-SP1 and W6-SP2 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study KmgCounty Wetland 6 is located in the fork of the existing gravel maintenance roads west of the Black River Pump Station (Figure 3-1). A portion of Wetland 6 is adjacent to the maintenance road. Wetland hydrology is supported by surface water runoff from the surrounding compacted soils. Soils were saturated in portions of the wetland and inundated in two small depressions. Wetland 6 does not have an inlet or outlet and is seasonally saturated. Wetland 6 consists of an emergent community dominated by reed canarygrass. A small stand of black cottonwood is located on the western edge. The sample plot was examined to a depth of 18 inches and consisted of two layers that appear to have been historically disturbed. Soils examined in Wetland 6 are composed of a 4-inch layer of very dark gray (2.SY 3/1) clay loam with dark olive brown (2.SY 3/3) redoximorphic features. Beneath this layer is a 14- inch layer of dark gray (2.SY 4/1) fine sandy loam with dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/6) redoximorphic features. Soils in the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Woodinville silt loam. The buffer of Wetland 6 consists primarily of upland grasses and forbs on fill. The buffer is dominated by bentgrasses (Agrostis spp.), tall fescue, Himalayan blackberry, and black cottonwood. The buffers are dissected on three sides of the wetland by the gravel maintenance roads. Wetland 6 is a palustrine emergent wetland under the Cowardin (1979) system, and is a depressional wetland under the HGM system (Brinson 1993). According to the City of Renton (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and Ecology, Wetland 6 is rated a Category Ill. The wetland scored 41 points on Ecology's rating form (16 points for water quality, 17 points for hydrologic functions, and 8 points for habitat functions) (Appendix B). The City of Renton requires a 75-foot buffer for Category Ill wetlands with a habitat score of less than 20 points (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv). April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) 3-11 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Wetland 7 Size: 0.88 acre (38,508 square feet) City of Renton Rating: Category Ill Ecology Rating: Category Ill Buffer: 75 feet USFWS Classification: Palustrine Emergent/Palustrine Forested HGM Classification: Depressional Sample Plots: W7-SP1 through W7-SP6 Wetland 7 is located south of the existing gravel trail, northeast of the Black River Pump Station, and north of the Black River (Figure 3-2). Wetland 7 is located topographically above the existing trail. Wetland hydrology is supported by precipitation and surface water runoff from the surrounding compacted soils. Soils were saturated in portions of the wetland and inundated in small depressions and shallow, narrow drainages throughout the wetland. Wetland 7 likely drains to the south and east below the soil surface and is seasonally saturated. Wetland 7 contains emergent and forested communities. The emergent portion is dominated by reed canarygrass and the forested portion is dominated by a stand of red alders on the eastern side of the wetland. The sample plot located within the emergent community was examined to a depth of 18 inches and consisted of two layers. Soils examined in Wetland 7 are composed of an 8-inch layer of dark gray (2.SY 4/1) silt loam with dark yellowish brown (lOYR 3/6) redoximorphic features. Beneath this layer is a 10-inch layer of dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1) silt loam with dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/6) redoximorphic features. Soils in the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Woodinville silt loam. The buffer of Wetland 7 consists primarily of upland grasses and forbs to the north and west, shrubs to the south, and a narrow forested stretch to the east. The buffer is dominated by reed canarygrass, black cottonwood, and Himalayan blackberry. Wetland 7 is a palustrine emergent/palustrine forested wetland under the Cowardin (1979) system, and is a depressional wetland under the HGM system (Brinson 1993). According to the City of Renton (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and Ecology, Wetland 7 is rated a Category Ill. The wetland scored 37 points on Ecology's rating form (16 points for water quality, 4 points for hydrologic functions, and 17 points for habitat functions) (Appendix B). The City of Renton requires a 75-foot buffer for Category Ill wetlands with a habitat score of less than 20 points (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv). April 2015 I 554·1521·084 (B/3T300B) Wetland BR Size: >1.5 acres (>65,340 square feet) City of Renton Rating: Category II Ecology Rating: Category 11 Buffer: 100 feet Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County USFWS Classification: Palustrine Forested/Palustrine Emergent HGM Classification: Riverine/Depressional Sample Plots: WBR-SPl and WBR-SP2 Wetland BR is southeast of the existing gravel trail, east-northeast of the Black River Pump Station, and north of the Black River (Figure 3-2). Wetland BR is hydrologically associated with the Black River and is part of the greater Black River Riparian Forest. Wetland hydrology is supported by overbank flow from the Black River, stormwater runoff from nearby surfaces, and a shallow groundwater table. A large openwater area (Black River) located upgradient of the Black River Pump Station is associated with Wetland BR. Much of the interior of Wetland BR is seasonally inundated, while some outer portions are saturated. Shallow inundation was observed throughout most of the wetland with depths of up to 2 inches of water. The wetland drains to the Black River, which meets the Green River near the western portion of the study area. Wetland BR is composed of forested and emergent communities. Vegetation is dominated by red alder, Pacific willow, reed canarygrass, yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), and common ladyfern in the forested community. The emergent community is dominated by common cattail. Soil in Wetland BR was examined to a depth of 18 inches and consisted of three layers. The top layer is a 5-inch very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) silt loam with organics. The middle layer is a dark greenish gray (lOY 4/1) clay loam with strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) redoximorphic features. The lower layer is also a dark greenish gray (lOY 4/1) soil with strong brown (7.SYR 4/6) redoximorphic features, but has a texture of loamy sand. Soils in the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Woodinville silt loam. The buffer surrounding Wetland BR consists of a slope primarily dominated by Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. Some planted trees are located on the slope as well. They include western redcedar, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis). Much of the buffer has been historically disturbed. Wetland BR is a palustrine forested wetland under the Cowardin (1979) system, and is a riverine/depressional wetland under the HGM system (Brinson 1993). According to the City of Renton (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and Ecology, Wetland BR is rated a Category II. The wetland scored 54 points on Ecology's rating form (24 points for water quality, 12 points for hydrologic functions, and 18 points for habitat functions) (Appendix B). The City of Renton requires a 100-foot buffer for Category II wetlands with a habitat score of less than 20 points (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv). April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) 3-13 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 3.3 Streams Additional information is provided in the Stream Discipline Report (Parametrix 2015c). 3.3.1 Green and Black River Basins The Black River Basin makes up part of the Green River Watershed, which also includes Springbrook Creek, Mill Creek, Soos Creek, Jenkins Creek, Covington Creek, Newaukum Creek, Crisp Creek, and other tributaries. The Green River Watershed contains a population of about 400,000 people and is approximately 492 square miles (King County 2012). Land use varies considerably throughout the watershed. In the Upper Green River sub-watershed it is used primarily for forest productions. The Middle Green sub-watershed is a mix of residential, commercial forestry, and agricultural land uses. The Lower Green River sub-watershed, in which the project area is located, is a mix of residential, industrial, and commercial land uses. The Green-Duwamish Estuary sub-watershed is a mix of residential and industrial uses (King County 2012). The project site is located within WRIA 9, the Green-Duwamish River basin. The Duwamish River is defined as the portion of the Green/Duwamish River system downstream from the confluence of the Black River (River Mile [RM] 11.0) to Elliott Bay (RM 0.0), while the Green River extends upstream from the Black River. For this report, the term 'Duwamish River' pertains to the first 11 miles of the river system, while the term 'Green River' pertains to both the portion of river above RM 11.0 and the river system as a whole. Historically, the Green, White, Black, and Cedar rivers flowed into the Duwamish River, and the system drained an area of over 1,600 square miles. In the early 1900s, the Black, White, and Cedar rivers were diverted, reducing the Green River drainage over 60 percent to just 483 square miles (Blomberg 1988). Also, in 1913 the City of Tacoma constructed a diversion dam on the Green River, near the town of Palmer, at about RM 50.0. In 1963, the Howard Hanson Dam was built at RM 53.0. Both of these structures completely blocked fish migration to the upper Green River and its tributaries. Flow in the Green River is regulated by the operation of the Howard Hanson Dam. River velocities are dissipated as the river widens and currents converge with tidal pressures. Characterized by wet and dry seasons, discharge of the river varies seasonally. The wet season extends from November to July, and the dry season from August to October. The mean monthly flow rate in the lower Duwamish varies from 400 cubic feet per second (cfs) in August to 2,600 cfs in January. Stream banks are sloped and diked to contain flows of up to 11,000 cfs (Williams et al. 1975). According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the maximum regulated flow for the 100-year recurrence interval is 12,000 cfs at the project site. The Lower Green River basin begins at the Auburn Narrows (RM 31) and continues to just downstream of the confluence with the Black River in Tukwila (RM 11). The lower Green River basin is composed of two areas that are split by the Black River basin to the north and the Mill Creek basin to the south. The lower Gren River basin is mostly on the urban side of the urban growth boundary and contains portions of the cities of Kent, Auburn, Tukwila, Federal Way, and SeaTac. Land uses include residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural, as well as major highways, including Interstate 5. There are extensive areas of office/commercial and multi-family residential development. This area has developed rapidly over the past 20 years. 3-14 April 2015 I S54-1521-084 (B/3T300B) 3.3.2 Green River Stream Type Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County The project alignment intersects the Green River at about RM 11.0 on the right bank of the river (see Figure 1-1). According to the DNR stream typing system, the Green River is a Type S stream, designated as a shoreline of the state. Within the project area, the stream is located within the local jurisdiction of the City of Tukwila, which also classifies the Green River as a Type S stream. The shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the river OHWM. According to the Tukwila SMP (Section 7.7), "the buffer will extend 125 feet landward from the ordinary high watermark, determined at the time of development or redevelopment of the site or when levee replacement or repair is programmed." The remaining 75 feet landward of the buffer is also regulated under the Tukwila SMP. Fish Habitat Identified limiting habitat factors in the lower Green River Watershed include (1) urbanization, water diversions, and revetments that have resulted in disconnection of the river from floodplain off-channel habitats such as sloughs and adjacent wetlands, (2) reduction of large woody debris and associated instream complexity, such as pools and riffles, (3) creation of adult salmon migration problems due to low flows, (4) chronic water quality problems, and (5) severe reductions in riparian habitats and associated functions (WSCC 2000). Currently, the reach within the study area is used by all native anadromous salmon id species for rearing and migration (see Fish Presence below). Water Quality Conditions The Green River has no listed exceedances on the 2012 Ecology 303(d) list within or immediately adjacent to the project limits (Ecology 2015). A 303(d) reach is located over 0.5 mile upstream from the project area, with recorded exceedances for stream temperature, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliform. Biological Conditions Fish Presence The Duwamish and lower Green River serves as a migration and rearing area for anadromous salmon ids, with no spawning habitat available (Williams et al. 1975). Three Pacific salmon species inhabit the Green/Duwamish River basin in significant numbers: Chinook, coho, and chum salmon. Pink and sockeye salmon are occasionally seen in the Green River basin, but the Green River is primarily a chum, coho, and Chinook salmon stream (Williams et al. 1975). Although sockeye salmon are occasionally seen in streams that are not tributaries to lakes, sockeye almost always require a rearing lake below or near their spawning area (Foerster 1972). Other anadromous fish using these waters include steel head, sea- run cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden, and bull trout. Studies of juvenile salmonids in the Duwamish and lower Green River (Williams et al. 1975; Warner and Fritz 1995) have demonstrated the species presence, their timing within the project vicinity, and various characteristics of the fish. These investigations show that subyearling Chinook and chum salmon use shallow-water shoreline habitats of various characteristics during their migration to the ocean. Juvenile pink salmon are likely to be found in the same areas during their spring migration period. The young salmon appear to prefer relatively protected shorelines with gradual slopes and depths of less than about 6 feet. However, they are also found along hard, steep to vertical substrates that are either natural or artificial. The young salmon tend to remain close to the shoreline but apparently cross deep water at night (Stober et al. 1973; Bax et al. 1979). April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) 3-15 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Yearling Chinook, steelhead, and coho also use shoreline areas but appear to be less shoreline-oriented than the subyearling migrants. The substantially larger yearlings are commonly found in the near- surface water well away from the shoreline. Su bad ult and adult bull trout and Dolly Varden are likely to forage within the project vicinity during their late spring to summer migrations into Puget Sound. Juvenile salmon migrating past the project site include Chinook produced from the Soos Creek Hatchery, located about 39 miles upstream from the site. The juvenile migration period potentially extends from late February through mid-June. During this period, wild fish commonly occur farther upstream and are more numerous in tributaries compared to hatchery fish. Stream Buffer Conditions Overstory riparian vegetation on the right bank of the river is generally limited to a relatively narrow (20 to 50 feet wide) zone with a sparse overstory of deciduous and coniferous trees. Trees include scattered Douglas fir, black cottonwood, western redcedar, and non-native alder (A/nus spp.) and spruce (Picea spp.) species. Understory vegetation consists primarily of shrubs, with sumac (Rhus spp.), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), red-osier dogwood, bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), and substantial amounts of Himalayan blackberry. Invasive vegetation dominates the outer portion of the riparian zone, including a large amount of Himalayan blackberry and various grass species. A single line of ornamental trees is present on the south edge of the riparian zone, directly adjacent to Fort Dent Park. In addition, portions of the riparian zone consist of patches of bare ground. The vegetation is not adequate to provide the full range of riparian functions, although low to moderate levels of stream shading, large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, leaf litter production, and bank stability are provided by the existing riparian zone. Much of the shrub vegetation overhangs the river, offering some overhead cover for fish. 3.3.3 Black River Stream Type According to the DNR stream typing system, the Black River is a Type S stream, designated as a shoreline of the state. Within the project area, the stream is located within the local jurisdictions of the Cities of Tukwila and Renton (see Figure 1-1), although the majority of the Black River is within Renton. Within Renton, the Black River is classified as a Class 1 water (shoreline of the state) (Renton SMP 4-3-090 F.1). The regulated buffer within shoreline jurisdiction (the Standard Vegetation Conservation Buffer width) includes lands within 100 feet, as measured on a horizontal plane, from the OHWM. Within Tukwila, the stream is classified as a Type S (shoreline of the state) stream. The regulated buffer extends 200 feet from the river OHWM. According to the Tukwila SMP (Section 7.7), "the buffer will extend 125 feet landward from the ordinary high watermark, determined at the time of development or redevelopment of the site or when levee replacement or repair is programmed." The remaining 75 feet landward of the buffer is also regulated under the Tukwila SMP. Fish Habitat The Black River enters the Green River near Tukwila, on the right bank, at RM 11.0. On the Black River, a dam and pump station, which is approximately 600 feet upstream of Monster Road, prevent tidal upstream inundation of the river channel and maintain downstream flow, regardless of tidal influences. A De nil fishway allows upstream fish passage at the pump station, and an air lift pump arrangement aids downstream migrants in passing the structure during the spring months (Harza 1995). April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County The project site is located in a developed setting, zoned industrial, with large amounts of impervious surface within the project vicinity. A large gravel pit (Stoneway Concrete) is located north of the Monster Road Bridge; warehouses and an industrial operation are located to the north and south of the trail alignment; and railroad tracks run both parallel and perpendicular to the trail alignment. lnstream habitat within the project area is dominated by run-type channel morphology, with maximum stream depths of greater than 6 feet. At the time of the site visit (February 2011), the wetted width was approximately 25 feet, and no pools or riffles were observed. Bank-full width was estimated at 30 feet. Stream bed material consisted almost exclusively of sands and silts. The streambanks are relatively steep (approximately a SO-degree angle) and bank condition appears to be relatively stable. Underneath the Monster Road Bridge, both stream banks are 100 percent armored with riprap, from the edge of the water to the bridge deck. No LWD was observed in the study area, and the presence of the pump station above the project site precludes LWD recruitment from upstream. Overall, the quality offish habitat is poor, with little habitat diversity. Within the study area, the Black River would probably be used for migration or possibly rearing, although instream cover is somewhat limited. Water Quality Conditions The Black River from RM 0.25 to 1.44 is on the 2012 Ecology 303(d) list for exceeding the fecal coliform criteria (Ecology 2015). This exceedance includes the reach of the Black River between Monster Road Bridge and the Black River Pump Station. Biological Conditions Fish Presence WDFW (2014, 2015) data indicate that Chinook salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon, steel head trout, and cutthroat trout have been documented in the Black River within the study area. The type of use is listed as migration for all species except coho, which use the lower Black River for juvenile rearing. Conditions favorable for Chinook salmon spawning and rearing do not exist in the project area. Recent information, as well as historical records (Harza 1995; Williams et al. 1975), indicate that Chinook do not use this area for spawning and rearing. However, very small numbers of adult fall Chinook migrating up the Green River occasionally stray into the Black River and become trapped above the Black River Pump Station (the pump station cannot pass adult salmon downstream). In the fall of 1997, adult Chinook were observed entering the Black River and attempting to spawn near the SW 27th Street culvert in Springbrook Creek, 2.3 miles upstream of the project area (WSCC 2000). Bull trout are not known to occur in the Black River and there are no documented occurrences of spawning (WDFW 1998). Water temperatures in the Black River basin are too high to support reproduction by this species (Harza 1995; Rieman and Chandler 1999). Stream Buffer Conditions The stream buffers in the Black River within the project area are relatively degraded, of limited widths, and composed of herbaceous, shrub, and non-native species. Downstream of Monster Road Bridge, the stream buffer widths vary between 50 and 100 feet on the north side of the river to about 75 to 150 feet on the south side. Upstream of the bridge, vegetated buffer widths average from 100 to 150 feet on both sides of the Black River. The vegetated buffer consists of lightly forested and herbaceous plant communities, although the forested zone is restricted to within 50 feet of the river. Vegetation includes April 2015 I 554~1521-084 (B/3T300B) 3-17 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County red alder, tall fescue, salmonberry, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, black cottonwood, western redcedar, western swordfern, bigleaf maple, red elderberry, and snowberry. Under existing conditions, the riparian corridor is not fully functioning, but it does provide some functions that support aquatic species, including some level of small woody debris or LWD recruitment, overhead stream cover, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality maintenance. 3.4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas The Black River Riparian Forest is designated as a Natural Area by the City of Renton and is therefore considered a Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Area. Regulations for Class 1 Streams and Lakes that would serve as FWHCAs are provided in the Renton SMP development and use standards, including but not limited to SMP 4-3-090 D.2.c.iii. The Black River Riparian Forest is primarily forested riparian and wetland habitat, which supports a diverse wildlife community, including bald eagles (Haliaeetus /eucocephalus) and a colony of great blue herons (Ardeo herodios) that has actively nested here every year since 1986 and has been one of the largest such colonies in the Puget Sound region (Stenberg 2007). Data from the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species program indicate that the Black River Riparian Forest is also used by many waterfowl species, including bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), mallard (Anas plotyrhynchos), gadwall (Anos strepero), wigeon (Anas americana), scaup (Aythya affinis), and green-winged teal (Anas crecco) (WDFW 2011a). Other bird species commonly found in riparian and wetland habitats in the Puget Lowlands include osprey (Pandion haliaetus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamoicensis), and a variety of songbirds. Mammals present may include coyotes (Canis latrans), raccoons (Procyon lotor), beavers (Castor canadensis), mice (Mus muscu/us), voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus), and moles (Sea/opus aquaticus). Reptiles and amphibians that use these habitats include garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis), Pacific chorus frogs (Pseudacris regilla), and long-toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodoctylum). 3.5 Areas of Special Flood Hazard Portions of the Segment A trail alignment are located within the Green and Black River floodplains (Figure 3-4). The threshold discharge areas (TDAs) identified for the site are depicted in Figure 3-4 and described in the Technical Information Report (Parametrix 2015b). The length of trail within Areas of Special Flood Hazard, as well as the cut and fill quantities, are provided in Section 4-4. 3-18 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) r~J.,, -• -T,.llal!\l!l~'f'9 Way S 'Springbrook 'i¥' aiiff:k River Basin ' -. /~-1~ i ·Blaqli,River Basi!!,. : ,,•' .. .,,,_ ,----·---~·-·----·--' g ~ ...... ' ,,. '.""! .... f",, }JJrO;,,, ~ -.... ~ ..... .. Parametrix ,.-~·-,--. · ···~-~~ Sources King County, City of Remon, vvurvv Lu·14, vv.::,uu1 L\ Legend: TDA 1 a-Tukwila ---TDA 3 -Existing Trail t:::::J Subbasin Floodway N 300 ---TDA 1b-Renton -TDA4 City Boundary Z:.,_b Wetlands Floodplains (100-year) 600 Feet ---TDA 2 -TOA 5 --+--+-Railroad :,\~~-"· Black River Riparian Forest Figure 3-4 Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King county 4. IMPACTS This chapter describes the extent and type of permanent and temporary impacts on critical areas and associated buffers that would occur as a result of the proposed project (Figures 4-1 through 4-9). 4.1 Wetlands No wetlands would be permanently or temporarily affected as a result of this project. However, some impacts on wetland buffers are unavoidable (Table 4-1; Figures 4-1 through 4-9). Some overlap between stream buffers and wetland buffers occurs in the project area. Where this overlap occurs, impacts on these areas were calculated as wetland buffers. Table 4-1. Wetland and Buffer Impacts Wetland Buffer Temp. Impacts Perm. Impacts Temp. Impacts City of Renton Perm. Impacts acres acres acres acres Wetland Rating" (square feet) (square feet) (square feet) (square feet) 1/2 Complex 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.27 (11,941) 0.07 (2,848) IV 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.06 (2,695) 0.01 (600) IV 0.00 (0) 0.00 (OJ 0.00 (OJ 0.00 (OJ Ill 0.00 (OJ 0.00 (0) 0.14 (6,154J 0.02 (980J Ill O.OO(OJ 0.00 (OJ O.Dl (531) 0.02 (874J Ill 0.00 (OJ 0.00 (OJ 0.00 (0) 0.00(0) BR 0.00 (OJ 0.00 (OJ 0.00 (OJ 000 (O) Totalb o.oo IO) 0.00(0) 0.49 (21,321) 0.12 (5,302) Renton SMP (4-3-090.D.2.d.ii) Total acreage of impact was determined by converting the square footage of the total impact into acres and then rounding to the nearest 0.01 acre. Total quant1t1es include buffer impact areas that occur where wetland and stream buffers overlap. Perm.= Permanent, Temp. =Temporary 4.1.1 Permanent Wetland Impacts No wetlands would be permanently affected as a result of this project. 4.1.2 Permanent Wetland Buffer Impacts Permanent impacts on the buffers of four wetlands would result from minor grading to construct a modular block retaining wall and widen the trail (see Figures 4-1 through 4-9). A total of approximately 0.49 acre (21,321 square feet) of impacts on project area wetland buffers are anticipated as a result of this project. This total includes those buffers that overlap with stream buffers. These buffers are generally low functioning and are composed primarily of grasses and forbs along the existing maintenance road edge. These impacts would affect the buffers of the Wetland 1/2 Complex, Wetland 3, Wetland 5, and Wetland 6 (Table 4-1). April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) 4-1 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 4.1.3 Temporary Wetland Impacts No wetlands would be temporarily affected as a result of this project. 4.1.4 Temporary Wetland Buffer Impacts Temporary impacts on wetland buffers would occur from construction-related activities including, but not limited to, clearing vegetation. A total of approximately 0.12 acre (5,302 square feet) of temporary impacts on wetland buffers are anticipated as a result of the construction of the Segment A portion of the Lake to Sound Trail. This total includes those buffers that overlap with stream buffers. These impacts would affect the buffers of the Wetland 1/2 Complex, Wetland 3, Wetland 5, and Wetland 6 (Table 4-1). 4.2 Streams This section describes the extent and type of temporary and permanent effects on streams and aquatic resources that could occur as a result of the proposed project. The project would result in 0.60 acre (25,926 square feet) of permanent impacts and 0.10 acre (4,455 square feet) of temporary impacts on stream buffers of streams in the study area (Table 4-2; Figures 4-1 through 4-5). Impacts that would occur where stream and wetland buffers overlap were calculated as wetland buffer impacts. Stream Green River Black River Totalc Table 4-2. Stream and Buffer Impacts Stream City of Tukwila IT) Temp. Impacts •/Renton (Rlb Perm. Impacts acres acres Typing (square feet) (square feet) s (T) 0.00 (O) 0.00 (O) S (T)/1 (R) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00(0) 0.00 (O) Stream typing according to Tukwila SMP (Section 7. 7) Stream typing according to Renton SMP (4-3-090 F.1) Buffer Perm. Impacts Temp. Impacts acres acres (square feet) (square feet) 0.06 (2,418) 0.01 (559) 0.54 (23,508) 0.09 (3,896) 0.60 (25,926) 0.10 (4,455) Total acreage of impact was determined by converting the square footage of the total impact into acres and then rounding to the nearest 0.01 acre. Total quantities do not include areas that occur where wetland and stream buffers overlapj these areas were calculated as wetland impacts (see Table4·1). Perm. = Permanent, Temp. = Temporary 4.2.1 Permanent Stream Impacts The project does not include construction activities below the OHWM of any stream; therefore, the project would not result in any stream fill, nor would alterations to fish passage structures be required. The new pedestrian bridge over the Black River would be 109 feet long and 12 feet wide. The portion of the bridge spanning the OHWM of the river would be approximately 44 feet long, meaning approximately 528 square feet of the river would be affected by shading from the bridge. Shade from overwater structures such as bridges can be a migration barrier for fish. Juvenile salmon ids avoid dark, shaded areas under structures, resulting in loss of access to habitat, blockage of movement, and potentially increased exposure to predators. In addition, shade from overwater structures can provide hiding cover for some non-native species, such as small mouth bass, that prey on native fish. 4·2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) ----.J City of Tukwila 1 Param2S.x om,"""'"" FILE:BL1S21064PA.T3T300B4-1_CA1 N 600 SCALE IN FEET 't ~ ~- 1\ ' \\ //_/ ~ .. -----' I ~ }LI __ j '\ -----------------_/,, ' r : .c u .. z ~ 1''\,~ s. .. t -------------~-- / '--,,"----._____ ! ___ _J_ Figure 4-1 Critical Areas Impacts Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A --------~"' -----"'"' --"' -"' ---', GreenRNer ----', --' --------- ot-wiM ---~~ River ----------==-~~-r---v::~ Parametrlx 1 ;; Green '~iver Trail -~---'~-~--------4----u -;-- / ---~l~~:_-:._--:_-::.-;.-:=.----c<---=~---------.... -............ ,,::. ........ -~/ o,===-.==-u-= 0 _~0==--=== ~=~•c ____ ,==-=~:~ -~ ---~~~~-:::----~~=~--~:;·-,2f; : ,,,-=:==~~::_:::_:_:J::':1-- DATE:Apr,18,2015 FILE: BL1521064PAT3T300B_CA2-8 Legend: 40 Wetland/Stream Buffer Wetland Boundary Drainage Fill Line Cut line Existing Asphalt -- ----------------------------------- ~ Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact -Stream Buffer Temporary Impact -Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact f: +:·:,:-;·:I Wetland/Stream Buffer Permanent Impact SCALE IN FEET -cc-o.-cG-cc-cc-Clear and Grubbing ~ Proposed Trail ~ Stream Buffer Permanent Impact -Wetland/Stream Buffer Temporary Impact a':Cr-A-"c--i'~~C') ---/':l,.j. Cll , .. ' I :I '/~! I Cll --,Cl) J~ ,"fi ·-,~ I ----------, I Figure 4-2 Critical Areas Impacts Lake to Sounri Trail -Segment A I I J----~: I!! :::, -~ u.. t 1:--~liiijli~~---~-~ . i~--l ~----t J-~t-~~~~ ~f ,--i. r·t-:;J-c< 't,J:,. ~:c.:.rl 1\/· -1r· .. ~---~ ____ _l __________ ~---~--~- 1 l Parametrlx OATE:ApilB,2015 1 40 SCALE IN FEET FILE. BL 1S21084PAT3T300B_CA2-8 Legend: Wetland/Stream Buffer Wetland Boundary Drainage -cc-cc-cG-cc-cc-Clear and Grubbing --~-offivM ,-------~--- --........................... e,c?c,t -.............._~i,e,. -----------------, __ _ ------- -----..."","'---..,-.. .................. -- "'"- "'"-......... _~ Off~- ------------- --- ---i I I ------------ -------------------: I Fill Line ~ Wetland Buffer Pennanent Impact -Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Figure 4-3 Cut line -Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact t: +: +:·:·:·:I Critical Areas Impacts Wetland/Stream Buffer Permanent Impact Existing Asphalt ~ Proposed Trail ~ Stream Buffer Permanent Impact -Wetland/Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A I I ~-__Q!:frYM..........._........_ I I ~, Parametrlx DATE·Ap,118,2015 FILE·BL1521064PAT3T3008_CA2-8 1 40 SCALE IN FEET Legend: Wetland/Stream Buffer -----r-----r-----r-----F-Fill Line Wetland Boundary -----c-----c-----c-----c-Cut Line Drainage Existing Asphalt Clear and Grubbing c::=:::J Proposed Trail sNSf Rai\waY -------~ ---------l~-,-I i~l JJ I CD ~JC: rn -I I'll :ii: ~ Wetland Buffer Pennanent Impact -Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Figure 4-4 -Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact f:.: · ~,: ·: · :1 Critical Areas Impacts Wetland/Stream Buffer Permanent Impact ~ Stream Buffer Permanent Impact -WeUand/Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A : aNSf Rai\VJ31 Propose~j_Jrai!-on I _" E_xisting Gravel Path t"" /-§ Wetland 6 W6-SP 1 ,, ____ ,-----c__,_ ;,!..--__;!----::,L,;-~"'+-___£_,u___ ___ ,ii-,~" J -,_-\3 W6-SP2 -" ____ E±~:2~=~-----------~---------------------,_ ---~ ~---*'--_,, -,, "'i' Estimated Buffer OHWM ---Black River DATE April8,2015 FILE:BL1521084PAT3T300B_CA2-e Legend: ---------------Wetland/Stream Buffer Wetland Boundary Drainage Clear and Grubbing \ ~ Fill Line Cut line Existing Asphalt Proposed Trail ~ -~ Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact Stream Buffer Permanent Impact -~ ~ - e~ v~,. Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Permanent Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Figure 4-5 Critical Areas Impacts Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A L,---;,~ __ ,_, ___ , ___ , ___ , ___ , __ , __ ,_, __ ,_,--=--==--====------- : _// ,.,--ffip?sed Trail on c' ---, , =' ---/ ---"fi I ---: ---• ----___ _J -----· --, ' ~. ', / . --- 1 ' , J -, ' I Qi ', ',, / R! --' , ' ' I \ ',, / : '-._ / ~ -~ I , I I ',, I § I Parametrlx DATE Apf'il6,2015 1 40 SCALE IN FEET tl J~,'<l,:s ..._1:1, Wetland BR FILE· 8L1521Cl84PAT3T300B_CA2-H Legend: ', / W7-SP2 / ', I I ', 0 ,,.-_ _, / ' J I '-, I @ I ', / W7-SP1 / /,.-,, '-/ I / ' -~ ' @ WBR-SP2 Wetland/Stream Buffer Wetland Boundary Drainage @ W7-SP3 Fill Line Cut line Existing Asphalt Wetland 7 ~ Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact -Stream Buffer Temporary Impact -Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact f: ·:,~·:·:·:I Wetland/Stream Buffer Permanent Impact -o.-ro-CG-CG-o:.-Clear and Grubbing ~ Proposed Trail ~ Stream Buffer Permanent Impact -Wetland/Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Figure 4-6 Critical Areas Impacts Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Proposed Trail on :/f\ -- _/_---------,,...-...-.----<c ----------c ----------' -'_,_ ,;;·:. 0 . --,,.,_ Dra,..,, . . Parametrlx DATE:Apri18,2015 FILE· BL 1521084PAT3T300B_CA2-8 ;) 40 SCALE IN FEET . -----. f -=-='--1_, @ W3-SP1 i I @ \ ,. Wetland J.~ 1 I , , \ 0 I ' 0 =~ ' ,-, 3 \ 6 , , I "•= \ / i ' # \ Legend: I V '. _._.---" \ I c ~-~ I I ,, -J ' I , , ! i I w ... nd . --,_, / I • I ' ' ' ,/ I ,' \ ,,,' \ I \ I ,__ ,,,~ ~ /,-------/ --''4<.0 / --/ ',, 'Q.;,'" I ---/' ----/ --------- Wetland/Stream Buffer Wetland Boundary Drainage Clear and Grubbing -I \ // \ / \ / \ // ', .,..,. ', .,,.,." \ / ', ,,/ ' / ... ____ ,,..,, Fill Line ~ Cut Line -Existing Asphalt ~ Proposed Trail ~ Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact - Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact f: ·: ·:·:·:·:I Stream Buffer Permanent Impact -Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Permanent Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Figure 4-7 Critical Areas Impacts Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A I I I I I I I 5t,1Sf Ra\\wa1 ,r---._ I I I \ -,C-->" ___ __,---,,, __ !-100' ~ +-·,,_--~--r--,c-~~~ f Buffer ·~ I r h I Parametrlx DATE: April 8, 2015 FILE· Bl 15210B4PAT3T3008_CA2-II 1 40 SCALE IN FEET Legend: Wetland/Stream Buffer Wetland Boundary Drainage -w-oo-CG-cc-oo-Clear and Grubbing Proposed Trail on Existing Gravel Path ---+-a.-----ta1-----is,------~ c::=J (}) W1-SP2" Wetland 1 /2 Complex Fill Line Cut line Existing Asphalt Proposed Trail ~ -~ --:'",,.,,_,,',,, ~;.:.-~---~-----------= .... ;;; ', ............ -,;,. Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact - Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact f: +: +: ·: -: · :j Stream Buffer Permanent Impact - glj -!~ <I) Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Pennanent Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Temporary Impact 0 Figure 4-8 Critical Areas Impacts Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Parametrlx DATEc"Apri16,2015 ;;I 40 SCALE IN FEET I / I I I I I FILE: BL15210&4PAT3T300B_CA2-8 100, s(;~,. Legend: l l Wetland/Stream Buffer Wetland Boundary Drainage Clear and Grubbing -----r-----r-----r-----f- -----c----c-----c-----c- _i_lL~ --- c=J Wetland 1 I 2 Compl1t_x WetlamM /2 Cqmplex Fill Line c=J Cut line -Existing Asphalt Proposed Trail ~ (\') W2-SP2 l / Wetland Buffer Pennanent Impact - Wetland Buller Temporary Impact f: •: •: •: ·: · :! Stream Buffer Permanent Impact - i Wetland 1 / 2 Complex Naches Ave SW :%,. (!l ~ '!!. Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Permanent Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Figure 4-9 Critical Areas Impacts Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County The Black River is not considered to be an important migratory corridor for salmonids because the Black River pump station immediately upstream of the study area presents a substantial barrier to upstream and downstream migration. In addition, reaches of the Black River and Springbrook Creek upstream of the project action area are unlikely to provide suitable spawning or rearing habitat for Chinook salmon or high-quality spawning or rearing habitat for steel head. Moreover, the narrow footprint and north- south orientation of the bridge (minimizing the amount of time that any given point receives shade over the course of a day) would further diminish the potential for the structure to cast shade that presents a migration barrier for any juvenile salmon ids that may pass through the project action area. All bridge components spanning the Black River would be designed and installed in accordance with the provisions of the HPA and other permits issued for the project. Per WAC 220-660-030, the HPA would include provisions designed to ensure no net loss of habitat functions necessary to sustain fish life. Compliance with the provisions of the HPA and other permits would be expected to avoid or minimize the potential for adverse effects resulting from bridge construction. Any unavoidable impacts would be addressed through compensatory mitigation. 4.2.2 Permanent Stream Buffer Impacts Permanent impacts on stream buffers would occur where the proposed trail alignment encroaches into currently vegetated areas within the regulatory buffers on the Green River and the Black River. As previously discussed, there is some overlap between stream buffers and wetland buffers. The total amount of riparian buffer that would be subjected to permanent impacts would be 0.73 acre (31,641 square feet) (see Figures 4-2 through 4-5). Of this area, 0.13 acre (5,715 square feet) also falls within wetland buffers and are identified as wetland buffer impacts for regulatory purposes. For this analysis, therefore, the project would result in 0.60 acre (25,926 square feet) of permanent impacts to riparian buffers (Table 4-2). Permanent riparian buffer impacts would occur along the Black River and the Green River. In almost all cases, the quality of the riparian buffer that would be permanently displaced is low to moderate. Much of the riparian impact area along the Black River consists of grass or non-native herbaceous and shrub species. However, there would be removal of some scattered larger trees (approximately 10 trees of greater than 4 inches diameter at breast height from the riparian buffer). The existing buffer functions are still somewhat degraded, compared to fully forested conditions, and these functions are provided at a low or moderate level. The predominant cover type within the project footprint is urban, consisting primarily of the gravel surface of the existing maintenance road. Where the existing surface is not composed of gravel, a worn dirt trail exists and is largely free of trees and shrubs. Clearing for trail construction would affect approximately 0.44 acre and is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in a substantial reduction in plant cover in the study area. Some low-growing plants would be replaced with hard surfaces, however, and the overhead canopy may be slightly reduced in some places. Based on the nature and location of buffer impacts, no substantial degradation of riparian functions (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, water temperature maintenance) or process (e.g., water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; LWD recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; stream channel formation/maintenance) would result from permanent project- related clearing. No substantial effects on stream habitat or fish resources in any of the project area streams are anticipated. 4-20 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 4.2.3 Temporary Stream Impacts The project does not include construction activities below the OHWM of any stream; therefore, the project would not temporarily affect any streams. 4.2.4 Temporary Stream Buffer Impacts Temporary impacts on stream buffers would occur from minor clearing and grading during project construction, as well as from potential erosion, sedimentation, and noise disturbance during construction. As previously discussed, there is some overlap between stream buffers and wetland buffers. The total amount of riparian buffer that would be subjected to temporary impacts would be 0.11 acre (5,312 square feet) (see Figures 4-2 through 4-5). Approximately 0.01 acre of this area (857 square feet) also falls within wetland buffers and are identified as wetland buffer impacts for regulatory purposes. For this analysis, therefore, the project would result in 0.10 acre (4,455 square feet) of temporary impacts to riparian buffers (Table 4-2). Temporary riparian buffer impacts would occur along a very small portion of the Green River, with the vast majority of impacts occurring within the Black River riparian buffer. Because the portions of the affected buffer are degraded (as discussed above) and these riparian areas would be replanted once construction is complete, temporary clearing is not expected to have a substantial effect on stream habitat or fish resources in any of the project area streams. Construction activities occurring directly adjacent to project area streams could increase turbidity and total suspended solid levels. However, no earthwork or riparian clearing would occur within 25 feet of the OHWM of the Green River or below the OHWM of the Black River. Along most of the proposed trail corridor, no ground-disturbing work would take place within 40 feet of any streams. Furthermore, any construction-related effects would be avoided through the development and implementation of best management practices (BMPs), including temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) and spill prevention control and countermeasures plans. 4.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Additional information is in the Stream Discipline Report (Parametrix 2015c). The Black River Riparian Forest is designated as a Natural Area by the City of Renton and is therefore considered a Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Area. The clearing and grading for trail construction would permanently convert some existing vegetated cover within the area of the project footprint to a developed condition. Nearly all clearing would occur along the existing maintenance road, most of which consists of hardened surfaces or low functioning vegetated cover dominated by non-native plants. Some low-growing plants would be replaced with hard surfaces, and the overhead canopy may be slightly reduced in some places. No impacts on wetlands or streams would occur. See the Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report (Parametrix 2015a) for additional information about potential impacts to FWHCAs associated with wildlife species. 4.4 Areas of Special Flood Hazard Approximately 1,050 feet of the Segment A trail alignment near the western end of the proposed trail corridor (from A-Line Station 1+00 to Station 11+50) would be below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. Other trail segments in TOA 3 and TOA 5 would be located within the mapped floodplain of the Black River (Figure 3-4) but the elevation of the constructed trail would be above the floodplain elevation (Parametrix 2015b). April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) 4-21 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County The proposed vertical alignment of the trail would approximate existing grade as close as possible while providing smooth transitions for ADA compliance and positive drainage towards the river. Between A- line Stations 1+00 and 12+25, approximately 217 cubic yards of fill would be placed and approximately 242 cubic yards of excavation would occur, for an overall net removal of approximately 25 cubic yards of material below the floodplain elevation. Detailed calculations and further information are provided in the Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report (Parametrix 2015b). 4-22 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 5. MITIGATION The Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A project would mitigate impacts on wetlands and streams in accordance with the mitigation sequencing requirements established by NEPA, CWA, and local wetland protection programs (TMC 18.45 and Renton SMP 4.3.090). According to NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] paragraphs 1508.20), the definition of mitigation is as follows: 1. Avoiding the impact all together by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 5.1 Avoidance and Minimization Consistent with the above sequencing requirements, a high priority was placed on avoiding and minimizing critical area and buffer impacts. Wetlands and streams in the study area have been avoided to the greatest extent feasible with no permanent or temporary impacts anticipated. King County would apply the following strategies to critical area and buffer impacts during the design, permitting, and construction phases: Use a retaining wall to narrow the trail footprint in the vicinity of wetland boundaries and some riparian buffers. Limit earthwork near streams and wetlands to the dry season to reduce the potential for sediment runoff. Construct the trail on an existing gravel maintenance road to minimize impacts on functioning riparian buffers. Where feasible, widen the trail on the north side of the existing corridor to minimize impacts on buffers and wildlife habitat. Use appropriate sediment and erosion control BMPs (e.g., mulching, matting, and netting; filter fabric fencing; sediment traps) to reduce the risk of erosion and reduce or minimize the chance of sediments entering project waterbodies. • Prepare and implement a TESC plan for clearing or removing vegetation, grading, ditching, filling, excavating, and conducting embankment compaction to minimize and control pollution and erosion from all vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. 5.2 Restoration of Temporary Impacts All temporarily affected areas would be restored to pre-construction conditions and re-planted or seeded with native species. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T3DOB) S-1 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 5.3 Compensatory Mitigation Because permanent impacts on wetland buffers and stream buffers could not be completely avoided, King County would replace the buffer area and functions lost through compensatory mitigation. Mitigation measures for offsetting these impacts on wetland buffers and stream buffers are described below and included in the Mitigation Plan (Appendix E). 5.3.1 Regulatory Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation The City of Renton SMP (4-3-090 D.2.d.x.e) states that "Compensation for wetland buffer impacts shall occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts shall include enhancement of degraded buffers by planting native species." Therefore, impacts on wetland buffers would be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 at a minimum. Stream buffer would be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 at a minimum, as well. No wetlands were observed in the portion of the study area within the city of Tukwila. The following provisions of RMC 4-10-095 Shoreline Master Program Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures, and Sites apply to the proposed development F. Partial and Full Compliance, Alteration of an Existing Structure or Site Major Alteration Expansion of Install site improvements that protect the ecological impervious surface functions and processes of the shoreline, consisting by more than 25%; of either: o Full compliance with Vegetation Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-090Fl, Vegetation Conservation, consisting of revegetation of a native community of the full required* buffer, or 100% of the area between an existing building and the water's edge if the full buffer cannot be planted, or at least 10 ft., or o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that would provide at least equal protection of ecological functions and processes as the full required* setback and buffer. This requirement is met by a revegetation plan for areas between the trail and OHWM where the trail is within the 100 foot Vegetation Conservation Area of the Black River. This provision will be implemented for wetland buffers in conjunction with RMC 4-03-090.D.2.d.xii. Vegetation Management Plan Required: In order to maintain effective buffer conditions and functions, a vegetation management plan shall be required for all buffer areas, to include: (a) Maintaining adequate cover of native vegetation including trees and understory; if existing tree cover is less than a density of twenty (20) trees per acre, planting shall be required consisting of seedlings at a density of three hundred (300) stems per acre or the equivalent; (b) Providing a dense screen of native evergreen trees at the perimeter of the buffer if existing vegetation is not sufficient to prevent viewing adjacent development from within the buffer. Planting shall be required equivalent to two (2) rows of three feet (3') high stock of native 5-2 April 2015 ] 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Fino/ Critical Area Study King County evergreens at a triangular spacing of fifteen feet (15'), or three (3) rows of gallon containers at a triangular spacing of eight feet (8'). Fencing may be required if needed to block headlights or other sources of light or to provide an immediate effective visual screen; (c) Providing a plan for control of invasive weeds, and removal of existing invasive species; (d) Providing for a monitoring and maintenance plan for a period of at least five (5) years, except this provision may be waived for single family residential lots at the discretion of the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee. King County developed plans for habitat improvements or restoration to mitigate the effects of the project. This mitigation plan focuses on providing compensatory mitigation measures for riparian and wetland buffers at equal or greater functions than would be affected by the project. The mitigation sites would be planted at a ratio of at least 1:1 to offset project impacts. The riparian buffer component of the overall mitigation would consist of planting native trees and shrubs within the regulated riparian buffer of a fish-bearing stream (Black River). Although mitigation was considered upstream or downstream of the project, or at a similar subbasin in the same geographic area, on-site mitigation (within the project area and regulated buffer of the Black River) was selected as the preferred option. Any trees with trunks larger than 4 inches in diameter that are removed within sensitive areas or shoreline zones in the City of Tukwila would be replaced as prescribed by TMC requirements. 5.3.2 Site Selection The regulations of the local jurisdictions (Cities of Tukwila and Renton) identify a preference for compensatory mitigation to be conducted within the same subbasin and on site (TMC 18.45.090 F.5; Renton SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d x.(i)). However, the Cities may consider off-site compensation if the applicant demonstrates that this provides a greater ecological benefit. King County considered multiple mitigation opportunities located on the project site. The identification of available parcels for mitigation is dependent upon size, current site conditions, land use, real estate conditions, local jurisdiction code, and future land use proposals. Based on the Cities' preference for on-site mitigation, project staff first considered opportunities within the trail right-of-way for compensatory mitigation. On-site mitigation opportunities within the trail corridor are constrained by the narrow linear right-of-way, limited buffer area available for enhancement, and adjacent land uses and features (e.g., railroad tracks). Off-site opportunities in the same subbasin and out of the sub basin (in the same WRIA) were also explored. The proposed mitigation sites are located outside of the trail right-of-way, but near the trail (Appendix E). The first site (Mitigation Site 1) was selected because it is located in the vicinity of both stream (Black River) buffer and wetland (Wetlands 7 and BR) buffer, dominated by invasive species, and large enough to accommodate all of the project's wetland buffer mitigation needs at a single location. The second site (Mitigation Site 2) was selected because it is within the buffer of the Black River and adjacent to the trail. The proposed mitigation sites are located within the city of Renton and are owned by the City of Renton. Currently the proposed Mitigation Site 1 is being used as a natural area and is part of the Black River Riparian Forest. Mitigation Site 2 is on the sloped banks of the Black River at the western end of the Black River Riparian Forest. 5.3.3 Mitigation Site Existing Conditions Proposed Mitigation Site 1 is located between the Black River, Wetland 7, and Wetland BR. It is dominated by reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Aprll 2015 I 554-1S21-084 (B/3T300B) S-3 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Proposed Mitigation Site 2 is located northeast of Monster Road, north and south of the Black River. It is dominated by Himalayan blackberry with butterfly bush (Buddleja sp.). Few native species are present in low numbers including Scouler's willow (Salix scou/eriana), snowberry, Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), and Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii) at the water edge. A few trees are scattered on the site, primarily black cottonwood. The top of bank on the south side of the river consists of grasses and forbs, including poison hemlock. Rock and broken pieces of concrete are on top of and within the soil. 5.3.4 Proposed Mitigation Proposed conceptual mitigation includes enhancement of approximately 0.49 acre of wetland buffer and 0.38 acre of stream buffer at Mitigation Site 1 and enhancement of approximately 0.22 acre of stream buffer at Mitigation Site 2 (see Appendix E). The proposed enhancement at both mitigation sites would include a combination of invasive vegetation removal, tilling of soil, addition of compost (where needed) and mulch, and planting of native vegetation. Riparian mitigation may also consist of planting, or underplanting, in an area where existing riparian conditions are degraded. This type of mitigation would offset the project's impacts on stream resources by maintaining or enhancing those riparian functions that support water quality and fish habitat. The riparian functions that would benefit from mitigation include LWD recruitment, stream temperature regulation, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality functions. The goal of the mitigation effort is to augment the Black River corridor by establishing native vegetation and enhancing buffer functions of the stream and Wetland 7 in areas dominated by invasive species. These efforts would meld with previous and future enhancement activities performed by others. Impacts to FWHCAs, outside of wetland and stream buffers, would be compensated for with additional plantings where views toward the heron nesting colony are not already obscured by existing vegetation. Such plantings, combined with fence installation along the southern edge of the alignment of the trail adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, are expected to reduce the potential for disturbance to wildlife in the natural area. These plantings would be qualitatively monitored for general health and rigor in conjunction with the wetland buffer compensatory mitigation monitoring (qualitative) during Years 1, 2, and 3. 5.3.5 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The overall goal of the mitigation is to replace the habitats and functions lost as a result of the project. The proposed mitigation would accomplish this by enhancing 0.49 acre of wetland buffer and 0.60 acre of stream buffer. Specific goals and objectives formulated to achieve this result are presented below. Mitigation Goal Goal: Enhance 0.49 acre of wetland buffer and 0.60 acre of stream buffer to native forested upland. Achievement of this goal is expected to increase the production of organic matter by planting trees and shrubs in the enhanced buffer; increase wildlife habitat; and improve biological diversity by planting with a variety of native riparian plant species. Mitigation Objectives and Performance Standards Objective 1: Establish a minimum of 0.49 acre of forested wetland buffer and 0.60 acre of forested stream buffer by planting native trees and shrubs. S-4 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake ta Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Performance Standards: Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Objective 2: Survival of planted woody species in enhanced wetland buffer and stream buffer areas will be at least 80 percent. Native woody species will achieve a minimum of 35 percent areal cover in the enhanced wetland buffer and stream buffer areas. Native woody species will achieve a minimum of 60 percent areal cover in the enhanced wetland buffer and stream buffer areas. Limit invasive non-native species throughout the mitigation site planting areas. Performance Standard: Years 1-5 Himalayan blackberry, cutleaf blackberry (Rubus Jaciniatus), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), butterfly bush, poison hemlock, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and reed canarygrass will not exceed 20 percent areal cover in all planting areas. Objective 3: Provide upland wildlife habitat. Performance Standard: Increase in areal cover of native woody species in the planted buffer, as measured in Objective 1 to be used as a surrogate to indicate increasing habitat functions. Objective 4: Protect the mitigation site from anthropogenic disturbance. Performance Standard: Years 1-5 Conduct yearly qualitative monitoring to assess the status of the sites during the 5-year monitoring period for human disturbance, including but not limited to filling, trash, and vandalism. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) 5-S Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study KmgCountv 6. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE 6.1 Monitoring The mitigation areas would be monitored during and after construction. During construction, monitoring would ensure that the BMPs are observed to minimize impacts, and the on-site construction work (including earthwork and planting) would be coordinated to ensure that the site is constructed as designed. After construction is completed, an "as-built" mitigation report would be submitted to the Cities of Renton and Tukwila within 1 month of mitigation installation. Post-construction monitoring of the mitigation areas would be performed over a 5-year period by qualified biologists. Monitoring would be performed quarterly the first year and annually for subsequent years to ensure that the goals and objectives of the mitigation are being met. A combination of qualitative and quantitative monitoring activities would be used to assess the management objectives and associated performance standards described in this mitigation proposal. Activities would include conducting site visits to monitor unnatural site disturbance, taking photographs to document site development, and collecting data for the quantitative evaluation of performance standards. The results of the monitoring will be submitted to the Cities of Renton and Tukwila following each monitoring event. Appropriate contingency measures will be developed, as needed, by a qualified professional to ensure that the sites develop healthy vegetation that meets the obligations described in this mitigation plan and the associated permits. 6.1.1 Quantitative Monitoring The following bulleted items describe the methods to be used for the quantitative monitoring, monitoring schedule, and report deadlines. • The mitigation sites will be assessed by an appropriate quantitative vegetative cover field assessment methodology. The line intercept method will be used for determining percent areal cover for woody and invasive species. Quantitative vegetation assessments will follow the same method in each consecutive monitoring year. Quantitative vegetation assessments will be performed between June 15 and September 15 of each monitoring year. Monitoring reports will be sent to agencies requiring monitoring reports by February 15 of the following year. • Quantitative monitoring will include photographic documentation of the sites from permanent photograph stations. 6.1.2 Qualitative Monitoring Qualitative assessment will be performed yearly to visually assess the health of plants and identify areas that may need control of non-native invasive species or other maintenance activities. Additionally, during Years 1, 2, and 3 the screening plantings (SP-1 on Sheet MPl in Appendix E) will April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County also be qualitatively monitored to visually assess the health of the plants and identify areas that may need control of non-native invasive species or other maintenance activities. 6.2 Maintenance The proposed mitigation is intended to achieve the performance standards with minimal ongoing maintenance. Planted vegetation species should be adapted to varying site conditions in the Puget Sound lowland; however, supplemental irrigation might be needed during the first two growing seasons after installation to ensure the long-term survival of the plants. The need for irrigation would be evaluated based on the conditions observed during the establishment period. To ensure rapid establishment of the plant community, trees and shrubs would be planted closer together than would generally occur in natural mature stands. Some natural mortality is expected to occur during the monitoring period. All dead and downed woody material would be left in place to provide micro habitats for wildlife. Plants would be replaced as needed to meet performance standards. Maintenance to control nuisance species in the mitigation areas may be necessary. During the monitoring period, if it becomes evident that invasive species are impeding establishment of desirable native plants, measures would be implemented to control nuisance species. A progressively aggressive approach would be used to control nuisance species. Control measures would first include hand cutting and/or grubbing and removal; if this fails, an environmentally sensitive herbicide (Rodeo® or equivalent) may be applied. 6.3 Contingency Measures If monitoring indicates that the sites are not meeting performance standards, contingency measures would be implemented (Table 6-1). Site conditions would be evaluated to determine the cause of the problem and the most appropriate countermeasures. Information from the annual monitoring program will be used to identify any maintenance and/or corrective actions. If problems are identified in monitoring, King County biologists will determine the cause of the problem and implement proper maintenance or corrective activities. These activities will be discussed in the annual monitoring report. 6-2 April 2015 I 554·1521·084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Table 6-1. Contingency Measures for the Mitigation Site Problem Less than 80% of planted woody species survive in Year 1 Percent cover for woody species not met in Year 3 or 5 Invasive species exceed percent cover threshold Performance standards not met at Year 5 April 2015 I 554-1521·084 (B/3T300B) Contingency Measure King County biologists {or other qualified biologist) would assess the site 1 to determine what conditions are preventing the plants from thriving. Appropriate measures would be taken to correct any conditions that are limiting growth. lost plants would be replaced with appropriate native species unless appropriate native woody species are volunteering at a rate sufficient to replace them. Additional measures (such as 1 providing additional protection) would be considered if necessary. : Additional protection could include the use of an herbivore repellent 1 (Plantskydd or equivalent). King County biologists (or other qualified biologist) would assess the ' sites to determine what conditions are preventing the plants from thriving. Appropriate measures would be taken to correct any conditions that are limiting growth. ; Implement/revise invasive species control plan. Continue the monitoring regime for 1 additional year. The sites would continue to be evaluated every year until they meet the stated performance standards associated with management objectives. Other contingency measures may be implemented during this period. 6-3 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 7. REFERENCES Bax, N. J., E.0. Salo, and B.P. Snyder. 1979. Salmonid outmigration studies in Hood Canal. Final report, phase VI. FRI-UW-7921, 89 p. Fish. Res. Inst., Univ. Wash., Seattle. Blomberg, G., C. Simenstad, and P. Hickey. 1988. Changes in Duwamish River estuary habitat over the past 125 years. Pages 437-454 in Proceedings. First annual meeting on Puget Sound research. Volume 2. Prepared by the Puget Sound water quality authority. Seattle, Washington. Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. La Roe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2014. Natural Heritage Program GIS Layer. Olympia, Washington. DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2010b. DNR Forest Practices Water Typing. Available at: http ://www. d n r. wa .gov /Business Perm its/T opics/ForestP racticesA pplications/Pages/f p wate rtyping. film<_. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication #96-94. Olympia, Washington. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015. 2012 Washington State Water Quality Assessment (305[b] report and 303[d] list). Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html. Accessed February 3, 2015. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y- 87-1, Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1995. Flood Insurance Rate Map for King County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas. Map Number 53033C0976F and Map Number 53033C0957F. Effective September 29, 1989; latest revision May 16, 1995. Foerster, R.E. 1972. The sockeye salmon. Bulletin 162. Ottawa, Canada: Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 422 p. GretagMacbeth. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) 7-1 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Harza. 1995. Comprehensive fisheries assessment of the Springbrook, Mill, and Garrison Creek watershed. Bellevue, Washington: prepared for City of Kent, Washington. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington -Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 04-06-025. King County. 2012. Green River Watershed. Available at: http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/watersheds/green-river.aspx. Accessed February 27, 2012. King County. 2015. King County iMap Interactive Mapping Tool. Available at: <http:ljwww.kingcounty.gov/operations/gis/Maps/iMAP.aspx>. Accessed April 2015. Null, W.S., G. Skinner, and W. Leonard. 2000. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects. Washington State Department of Transportation Environmental Affairs Office. Olympia, Washington. Parametrix. 2015a. Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report. April 2015. Seattle, Washington. Parametrix. 2015b. Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report. April 2015. Seattle, Washington. Parametrix. 2015c. Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Stream Discipline Report. April 2015. Seattle, Washington. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1993. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Northwest Region 9 Supplement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Renton, City of. 2015. GIS data. FEMA Floodplain Boundary. Available at: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=29887. Data Downloaded March 30, 2015. Rieman, B.E. and G.L Chandler. 1999. Empirical evaluation of temperature effects on bull trout distribution in the Northwest. Final Report, Contract No. 12957242-01-0. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho. Stenberg, K. 2007. The Black River Heron Colony: An Annotated History. Quailcroft Environmental Services, Sammamish, WA. Stober, Q.J, S.J. Walden, and D.T. Griggs. 1973. Juvenile salmon id migration through Skagit Bay, pp.35- 70. In Ecological studies of proposed Kiket Island nuclear power site. Edited by Q.J. Stober and E.0. Salo. FRI-UW-7304. 537pp. 7-2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (B/3T300BJ Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County USDA, NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2002. Climate Information. King County, Washington. Available at: <ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/support/climate/wetlands/wa/53053.txt>. Water and Climate Center, Portland, Oregon. USDA, NRCS. 2010a. Web Soil Survey Online Interactive Mapper. Available at: < http://webso ilsu rvey. n res. usd a.gov/ a p p/WebSoilSu rvey. aspx>. Accessed December 2010. USDA, NRCS. 2010b. The PLANTS Database. Available at: http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), Online Interactive Mapper. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Warner, E.J., and R.L. Fritz. 1995. The distribution and growth of Green River chi nook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keto) outmigrants in the Duwamish Estuary as a function of water quality and substrate. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Auburn, Washington. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015. PHS on the Web: An interactive map of WDFW priority habitats and species information for project review. Available on line at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed February 2, 2015. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2014. Salmonscape fish database and mapping application. Available online at: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/salmonscape/. Accessed January 16, 2014. Williams, W.R., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization. Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. WSCC (Washington State Conservation Commission). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (Water Resource Inventory Area 9 and Vashon Island), Olympia, Washington. December 2000. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 {B/3T300B) 7-3 Appendix A Wetland Determination Data Forms WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: ~La=k=e~to~S=o~u~nd~Tr=•~il~ (T~wo=R=iv=e~rs~)-------------< Sampling Date: Applicant/Ovmer: -'=Ki"'nQ"-=C"'ou"'n"'-c-tv=-~--------------, Sampling Point: Investigator: ~C~H=o~ffm=•"~·~M~M~•~•v~1na~r=d------------< City/County: Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, R04E State· 02/04/11 SP-N1 Renton/Kina WA Landforrn {tiillslope, terrace, etc) Slope(%) 0% Local relief (concave, convex, none} concave Subregion (LRR) A I Lat Soil Map Untt Name N/A Are d1matic/hydrologic conditions on the site ~ypica .. I for this. time of year? ~ Yes ~ No Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? ~ Yes L1J_J No Are Vegetation D. Soil, D. or Hydrology D s19nif1canUy disturbed? No Are Vegetation D, Soil, D, or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No Long I oatum I NWI ctasslf1cation Upland forest (lf no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site mao showina samolina ooint locations, transects imoortant features etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? I Yes 00 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? [QJ Yes ~ No Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks Data Plot Sp-N1 is located approximately 8 feet south of the gravel trail in a swale VEGETATION -Use scientific names of olants. Tree Stratum (Plot size ~10~m~---Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Soecies? Status Number of Dominant Species ~;====================================================~~1h~a71~ace~07BL_, ~FA~C~W_,~o,_F7A_c_, -~----(A) 1-.----------------------------l r~~a~i~su~~r:;f!i°:~;:it >----------------------------+-,-~------------(B) ----=TotalCover ::c::~B~~;!,"~~.s:r~~et _10_0 ____ {A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum {Plot size _5m ___ ) o-c----------------------------< Prevale;~~~~~~=~~ksheet =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size 1m 1. Poa pratens1s 60 FAG 2. Schedonorus phoenix 20 FAG 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. -'~'---=Total Cover Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size l 1. OBL species x1= FACWspecies x2= FAC species x3= FACU species x4 = UPL species x5= Column totals (Al I (Bl Prevalence Index = B / A = Hvdroc hvtic Veaetation Indicators Dominance test is > 50% Prevalence test is s 3.0 * Morphological Adaptations • (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation• {explain) • Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must be oresent, unless disturbed or oroblematic ,_2·-------------------.~T~ota~l~Co-,.-,------< ~:sr:~t~ytic Vegetation Yes 181 No D ---- % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 Remarks Bare ground and moss make up most of ground cover (no herbaceous layer) US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version SOIL SamDlina Point W3-SP2 Profile Descriotion: Describe to the deoth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indlcators.l Depth Matrix Redox Features (inchesl Color moist % Color moist % T,oe Loe Texture Remarks 0-4 2 5Y 4/1 85 10YR4/6 15 C M Sandv loam 4+ Quarry SpaUs Fill 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Coverad or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore lming, M=Matrix L..!:!l!drlc Son Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Probl&malic Hydrlc Soils3 D __ ,, i_,._,~ ; 2cmM,ck(A10) tQ Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) ~ Black His tic (A3) . Loamy M,cky Mineral (F1 )I except MLRA 1) Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matr0< (F3) tQ: Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) ~ Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must t8: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Gleyed Matnx (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Laver (if present) I Hydnc solt pment? ~ ~ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks· HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pn·mary Indicators (minimum of one required: check. all that apply): I S,lface water {A 1 I I Sparsely Vegetated Concave S,lface (B8) High Water.Table (A2) D Water-Stame.d .. Leaves (exceptM. LRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) (B9) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (811) Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dnft Deposits (83) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Ltving Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (BS) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CG) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Other (explain m remarks) Imagery (87) Depth (in): ~ ?ndary Indicators (2 or more required): Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (02) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAG-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Field Observations Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Yes 181 No tE Yes ~ No Depth (in)' Depth (in): Surface Surface Wetland Hydrology Present? ~' _Ye_, __ 181~ Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineera Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: ApplicanUOwner: Investigator: Sect1on, Township, Range WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual -"'La"'k"e-=to'-'S"'o'cu~nd~T~r~•~il~ rT~w"'o~R~iv~e"'rs~'-----------1 Sampling Date· ~Ki~na~C~ou~n=;tv=~-~--------------1 Sampling Point ---'c~1-'c~"'~ff=T;c:-.c;=c~;,-: =~cc~'cr'c=""~'~d--------------1 ~!~~ounty: 02104111 W1-SP1 Renton/Kinq WA Landform (h1l!slope, terrace, etc) Slope(%} 2% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A I Lat N47 28' 42.29" Soil Map Unit Name NIA Are climatic/h. y~rologic. conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ~ Yes ~ No Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? LJlJ Yes LQ_J No Are Vegetation 0, Soil, D. or Hydrology D significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation D. Soil, D. or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No Long W122 14'10.03" I Datum NAO 83 I NWI classification PFO (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers m Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing samplina ooint locations transects Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? I Yes I No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? [fil Yes [g No Yes D No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample Plot W1-SP1 is located near the northern boundary of the wetland, approximately 15 feet north of Wetland Flag W1-26. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size ~10=m~--~ Absolute % Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Soecies? Status 1 Populusbalsamrfera 50 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species 2.Fraxmuslatifolia 10 FACW that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata· Percent of Dominant Species 67 -Total Cover ----60 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Ptot size _Sm ___ ) 1.Comussencea 10 FACW Prevalence Index Worksheet Total% Cover of ~ OBL species X 1 = FACW species x2 = FAC species x3 = 10 =Total Cover FACU species x4 = ----UPL species x5= Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m Column totals (A) I 1. lysimachia nummularia 10 NL ,. Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. 4. Hvdros: hvtlc Veaetatlon Indicators 5. Dominance test is> 50% 6. Prevalence test is:!> 3.0 • (A) (B) (A/B) (Bi 7. 8. Morphological Adaptations• (provide supporting data 1n remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 10. 11 Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size i 1. _10 ___ =TotalCover Wetland Non-Vascular Plants* Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation~ (explain} * Indicators of hydric sail and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or oroblematic ,-'·--------------~~~~~===-·~T~,ta~,~co~,~"------i ~~:::t~ytic Vegetation Yes 0 No D % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 Remarks Vegetation is dominated by hydrophyt1c species US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-lntenm Version SOIL Samollna Point WI-SP! Profile Descri tion: Describe to the deoth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color moist % Color moist % T,oe Loe Texture Remarks 0-18 2.5Y 4/1 85 2.SY 5/6 10 C M Clav loam 10YR 518 5 C M 18-20 2.5Y6/1 85 10YR 5/8 15 C M Clav loam 1Type C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix ~drlc S. oil Indicators: (Appllcable to all LIRRs unle.ss otherwise. noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 D Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox ($5) 12cm Muck (A10) tQ: Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic {A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (explain in remarks) ~ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D D Depleted Below Dark Surlace (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) t:Q: Th1ck Dark Surlace (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) J Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic 'J5:: Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Laver (if present)· Type: ______________ _ Depth {inches): I Hydric soil present? Remarks: Hydrogen sulfide and depleted matrix indicators are present HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pn·mary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): I S,n,ce wate,(A 1) I Sparaaly Vegetated Concave s,rt,ce (BB) Hig. h Water.Ta.ble (A2) wate.r-Stame.d .Leaves (except M·L.RA 1, 2, 4A & 48) (B9) Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drift DepositS (B3) Oxidized Rh1zospheres along Living Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Sulface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (01} (LRR A} Inundation Visible on Aerial Other (explain m remarks) Imagery (87) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): I Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAG-Neutral Test (05) Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Field Observations Surface Water Present? water Table Present? Yes D No ~ Yes~ No Depth (in): Depth (in): Surface Surface Wetland Hydrology Present? l~v_e_s __ 181~! Saturation Present? {indudes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth{m): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks The sample plot was. inundated during the site investigation US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: ApplicanUOwner: Investigator: Section, Township, Range WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual _L=a=k=e~to~S=o~u~nd~T~r=ai~l<~T~w=o~R~iv=er~s~l-------------< Sampling Date: ~K~in..__,,,ac_ou~n~tvc..,..,~-~----------------< Sampling Point: ----=~-;,1~c'~-=~mcc'23::Ca~7:-=~-=o~-'c:=''vn,=ar=d---------------, ~!~(e~ounty: 02/04/11 W1-SP2 Renton/Kina WA Landform (h1llslope, terrace, etc) H11!slope Slope(%) 4% Local relief (concave, convex, none) convex Subregion (LRR) A I Lat N47 28' 42.50" Soil Map Unit Name NIA Are ciimatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ~ Yes ~ No Are 'Normal Circumstances' present on the site? ~ Yes L...Q_J No Are Vegetation 0. Soil, D. or Hydrology D significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation D. Soil, 0, or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No Long W122 14' 09.96" ! Datum NAO 83 I NWI classification Upland forest (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? I Yes OO No Is this Sampling Point within a WeUand? cm Yes rn No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Data Plot W1 SP-2 located approximately 15 feet north of Wetland Flag W1-26. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Snecies? Status 1 PopulusbalsamJfera 50 y FAC Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata· 50 =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 2S that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Sapllng/Shrub Stratum (Plot size s_m ___ ) 1 Sambucusracemosa 50 FACU Prevalence Index Worksheet 2Rubusspectab1lis s FAC Total% Cover of M!!!!iP.!Y..Qy 3. OBL species X 1 = FACW species x2 = FAG species x3 = 55 =Total Cover F ACU species x4 = UPL species x5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m Column totals (A) I 1. Lysimachia nummularia 7S NL 2. Polystichum munitum so FACU Prevalence Index = B /A= 3. 4. Hvdrollhvtic Veaetatlon Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is s 3.0 * (A) (B) (A/B) 18\ 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting B. data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. WeUand Non-Vascular Plants • 10 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation• (explain) 11. =Total Cover • Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be aresent, unless disturbed or aroblematic Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size \ 1.Rubus armeniacus Trace FACU 2. Hydrophytlc Vegetation D 181 Trace =Total Cover Present? Yes No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 1 O Remarks: Vegetation is dominated by upland species US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-/nten·m Version SOIL Samoling Point Wl-SP2 Profile Descrl lion: Describe to the deoth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color moist % Color moist % Loe 0-20 2.5Y 3/2 100 Texture Gravelly day loam Remarks Disturbed with small scattered inclusions 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matnx, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix ~ dric Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 ~ Histosol(A1) I SandyRedox(S5) I 2cmMuck(A10) 0 Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) ~ Th;ck Dark s,eace (A 12) Redox Dark s,eace (F6) 'lnd;catora of hydrnphyfo vegetation end wetland hydrology m,st Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (exceptMLRA 1) D Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matnx (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) tE Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present unless disturbed or problematic ~ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Laver {if present): Type·--------------- Depth (inches): I Hydric soil presont? Remarks Soils appear to be historically disturbed HYDROLOGY WeUand Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): I s,eacewata,(A1) I Span•alyVegetatedConcaveS,eace(B8) Hog. h Water·T.able (A2) D Water-Staine.d .. Leaves (exc.ept MLRA 1, 2, 4A &4B) (89) Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust{B11) Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor {C1) Dnfl Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Presence cf Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilted Soils (C6) Surface Soil Cracks (86) Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) {LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial D Other (explam in remarks) Imagery (87) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): i Wa.ter-staine.d Leaves (8.9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) Drainage Patterns (810) Dry-Season water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aenal Imagery {C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aqurtard (D3) FAG-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) {LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Fleld Observations Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Yes No ~ Yes~ No Depth {in) Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? LI _Ye_•_~o~I Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (in): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology was present in sample plot during site investigation US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: ApplicanUOwner: Investigator· Section, Township, Range WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual ~La~k~e~to~S~o~u~n~d~T~ra~il~ CT~wo=R~iv~e~rs~\ _______ ____, Sampling Date: ~Ki~·n.....,,oC~ou~n~tvc..,...~-~----------------l Sampling Point -;::~c'c1~c'~-i~rncc:23"'a~.;.c:-:~ccoM'c4:="'v~,n~ar~d ___________ _, ~:~;;aunty: 12/21/10 W2A-SP1 Renton/Kina WA Landform (h1llslope, terrace, etc) Slope(%) 0% Local relief (concave, convex. none) concave Subregion (LRR) A I Lat N47 28" 38.43" Soil Map Unit Name NIA Are ciimatic/hydrologic conditions on the site ~ypical for this time of year? 1-!lS-l Yes 1..--Y-l No Are "Normal Circumstances· present on the site? ~ Yes LQJ No Are Vegetation D. Soil, 0, or Hydrology D significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation 0, Soil, 0, or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No Long W122 14' 44.53" I Datum NAD 83 I NWI classification PFO (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site man showlna samnllna nolnt locations transects Important features etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? I Yes I No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? [][j Yes DJ No Yes D No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No Remarks \/v2A-SP1 is located at the east end of the study area VEGETATION -Use scienttfic names of nlants. Tree Stratum (Plot size ~10~m~---Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Soecies? Status 1 Populus balsamifera 70 Y F AC Number of Dominant Species ~:2:,,.::,=inu::•'.::'"°:'.:'°:'.:lia::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::s:o:::::::::::::::=::::::::::::::::::•'.:'.A:'.'.c::::::~>-,1h~a~t~are~O~B-L._FA~C~W-·~o_rF~A-C_· -~-----(A) 1-,----------------------------j ;~=~i~i~~tC:s~f!1°;~~~nt 0----------------~c---~~~------+-~-~~c-~~--~~----(B) 120 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 75 ~~--that are 0BL, FACW, or FAC: _____ (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size fu!l.__) 1--o;.c::=!"oc,;,,,cc~cc."=~=b 1:,.,':"',"c----------,!cc:----c-----~:~:~~,,.u--J Prevale~~~a~~~e~!;'~rksheet ~ 3 Rosa PISocarpa 10 F AC OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 130 =Total Cover ---- Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. =Total Cover ---- Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size 1. FAC species FACU species UPL species Column totals Prevalence Index= B / A = x3= x4= xS= (A) I Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators Dominance test is > 50% Prevalence test is s 3.0 • /8) Morphological Adaptations • (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation• (explain) • Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be oresent, unless disturbed or oroblematic 1-------------------~.~T~or~,,,eo~,.=,------, ~~.r:~t~c Vegetation Yes t8I No D ---- % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Vegetation is dominated by hydrophytic species. US Anny Corps of Enginee,s Western Mountains, Valleys. and Coast-Interim Version SOIL Samplina Point W2A-SPI Profile Description: (Describe to the deoth needed to document the indicator or confinn the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color {moist} % Tvoe· Loe Texture Remarks 0-9 10 YR 3/2 90 10YR 5/6 10 Silty loam 9-20 10 YR 6/1 70 1 OYR 5/6 30 Sdtv cla loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ~Loe: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix J::!ldric Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs unless otheiwlse noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3 § ~:::~~~~;~~on (A2) ID ~~~~.:~;~~~~6) I ~= ~:~~:~:~rial (TF2) =a Black Hist1c (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mine~al (F1) (except MLRA 1} D Other (explain in remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matnx (F2) D :C: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix (F3) ....Q. Thick Dark Surf~ce (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic jJ: Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Red ox Depressions (FB) Restrictive Laver (if present): Type: ______________ _ Depth (inches): I Hydnc so;1 p,esent? Remarks: Soils meet the depleted matrix indicators HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check alf that apply): I Surtace water (A1) I Sparaaly VagelBted Concave Surface (88) High. w:ater Table (A2) D Water-Staine.d Leaves (except M. ·L.RA 1, 2, 4A & 49) (89) Saturation {A3) D Salt Crust (811) Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drift Deposits (B3) OX1d1Zed Rh1zospheres along L1vmg Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Surface Soll Cracks {86) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Other {explain m remarks) Imagery (87) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) I Water-Staine·d· Lea.ves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) Drainage Patterns {B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation V1s1ble on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (DS) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Fleld Observations Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes D No ~ Yes~ No Depth (in)· Depth (in) Wetland Hydrology Present? LI _Ye_,_.ccllllc._,! Yes No Depth (in): Surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Recent rain US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: ~L•=k=•~to~S=o~u~n~d ~T=r•~il~ (T~w=o~R=iv=e~,s~\ _______ _____, Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: --'-=K"'in"-"qC"ou"'n~tv'cc-c~-~----------------l Sampling Point 12121110 W2A-SP2 ~n;~i~~~~~~~ship, Range: ---;:c~+1~c'~-=~='23"'8~+:-=~cc~7,~='3v~,n=ar~d--------------, ~!~:;ounty· Renton/Kina WA Landform (h1llslope, terrace, etc) Slope(%} 1% Subregion (LRR) A I Lat N47 28' 38.31" Soil Map Unit Name NIA Are climat1c/hy~rolog1c conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ~ Yes ~ No Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? ~ Yes LQ_J No Are Vegetation 0. Seti, D, or Hydrology D s·1gnif1cantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation D. Soil, 0. or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Long W122 14' 03.14" I Datum NAO 83 I NWI dassificat1on PFO (If no, explain 1n remarks ) (lf needed, explain any answers in Remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site mao showina samolina ooint locations transects lmDortant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? I Yes 00 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? [ID Yes rn No Yes 181 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No Remarks Data Plot W2A SP·2 located approximately 8 feet south of Wetland Flag IN2.A·3. There have been recent rain events. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of olants. Tree Stratum (Plotsize_1o_m~---Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Soecies? Status 1 Populusbalsam11era 7S y FAG Number of Dominant Species 2Frax1nuslatrfol1a 15 FAON that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant (A) Species Across All Strata =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 66 0--------------------~~~------+-~~~~~~---~-----(B) that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ------(AIB) Sapling!Shrub Stratum (Plot size .fun__) 1.Sympllortcarpos alba 4D FACU Prevalence Index Worksheet 1-,-,_~.,~,,~,~,,~ec~ta~b,1~,,----------.,,,---~----,F7AC~---i Total% Cover of 3 OBL species Multiply by x1= =Total Cover ---- Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m 1. 2. 3. 4. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. =Total Cover ---- Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size \ FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column totals Prevalence Index = B t A= x2= x3- x4 = x5- (A) I (8\ Hvdrollhvtic Vegetation Indicators Dominance test is > 50% Prevalence test is s 3.0 • Morphological Adaptations • (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non·Vascular Plants• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation • (explain) • Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be oresent, unless disturbed or oroblematic f-C-2. ______________ ::::::::::::==~.~,~,,~,,~c""'=,------l ~:ar::~ytlc Vegetation Yes 181 No D % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 Remarks: Only snowberry is not hydrophytic US Am,y Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version SOIL Samclina Point W2A-SP2 Profile Descri lion: Describe to the denth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features linches' Color moist % Color moist % 0-9 10YR 3/2 100 9-16 10YR 4/3 100 16-20 10YR 4/3 60 5YR4/4 40 Loe' M Texture Siltu loam Siltv clav loam Siltv clav loam Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 'Loe: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix l..!:!l!dric Soil Indicators:. (Applicable to all LIRRs unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydri.c SollsJ t8 ~:::s~~\~on (A2) B ~~~::~:~~~~6) ID ~:~ ~:r:~~:!rial (TF2) i-Q Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (exceptMLRA 1) Other (explam in remarks) LY Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D L..!d Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix (F3) i__Cl Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must H2 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic L...J..!. Sandy Gleyed Matnx (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Laver (if present): Type: ______________ _ Depth (inches): I Hydnc soil present? Remarks· Soils lack hydric indicators HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pn·mary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that appJy): I Smfaca watec (A1) I Sparaely Vegetate<l Concave Surtace (88) High Water.Table (A2) D wa.te.,-.Staine.d Leave. s (.except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) (B9) Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Drift DepositS (B3) Oxid12ed RhtZospheres along Living Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction m Tilled Soils (C6) Surface Soil Cracks (86) 0 Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Other (explain in remarks) Imagery (87) Field Observations Depth (in): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) I Wa.ter-Slained Le.aves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) Drainage Patterns (810) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position {02) Shallow Aquitard {D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Water Table Present? 181 Yes D No Surface Water Present? ~ Yes ~ No Depth (in): 10 Wetland Hydrology Present? I Yes 181 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth {1n): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Hydrology was present during site investigation. Recently rained. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail {Two Rivers) Sampling Date: ~Occ-1=/0'cc5cc/171 ________ --l ApplicanUOwner: ~Ki~na~C~au~n~,tv~~-~----------------< Sampling Point: _W3=-~S~P~1~---------t ~e:~i~~~~~~ship, Range: ~1~~~;;~·. ~O~~vnard ~!~:iaunty: ~~;;.e;;;~to~n/~K~in~m~--------1 Landform {hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope(%) a% Subregion (LRR) A I Lat N47 28' 42.88" Soil Map Umt Name NIA Are dimatielhy_drologic conditions on the site typical forth1s time of year? ~ Yes ~ No Are "Norma! CJrcumstances" present on the site? LJ:lJ Yes L..QJ No Are Vegetation D, Sod, D. or Hydrology D sigmf1cantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation D, Soil, D, or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Long W12214' 22.03" I Datum NAD 83 I NWI classification PEM (If no.explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects lmoortant features etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 00 Yes I No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? [II Yes o::ll No Hydric Soils Present? Yes D No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No Remarks: VEGETATION -Use scientific names of nlants. Tree Stratum {Plot size ~10~m"------Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Soecies? Status Number of Dominant Species t:====================================================~f-,'~"·7·~·"'~07BL_,_FA~C~W_,~o,_F7A_c_, -~----(A) 1-,----------------------------l ~::i~su~~:s~i1°;:~~nt 1--------------------~~~-----+~~~~~=---~~---(B) = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 ----that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: _____ (AIB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size fun....__) hc---------------------------1 Prevale;~~~~~e:v~~~ksheet =Total Cover ---- Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m 1. Phalaris arundinacea 100 FACW 4. 5. 8. 10. 11. =Total Cover ---- Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size \ OBL species FACWspecies FAC species FACU species UPL species Column totals Prevalence Index= B /A= x1= x2 = x3= x4 = x5= (Al I HvdroC1 hvtlc Veaetation Indicators Dominance test is :> 50% Prevalence test is~ 3.0 * (Bl Morphological Adaptations * {provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non•Vascular Plants * Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation• (explain) * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be oresent unless disturbed or orobtematic i--c-2·------------------~.~T~ot~,i~co"'""''------l ~::~t~c Vegetation Yes C2l No D ---- % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks Sample plot is completely dominated by reed canarygrass. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Ve~on SOIL Sampling Point W3-SP! Profile Descri tion; Describe to the deoth needed to document the indicator or confinn the absence of indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features {inches) Color (moist) % Color {moist % Type Loe Texture Remarks 0-2 Duff/roots 2-8 SY 4/1 Clav loam 8-14 SY 4/1 85 7.5YR 4/6 15 m Sandy clay loam w/ aravel 5Y4/1 70 7.SYR 4/6 30 Sandy clay Disturbed-Multiple textures loam w/ gravel and some mclus1ons. and cobbles 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix ~drlc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LIRRs unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydri.c Solls3 D Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (S5) I 2cm Muck (A10) =c: Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) _Q_ Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Minei:al (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (explain in remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matnx (F2) D :C: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix (F3) =8: ;~~:Yo~~c;yu~~:~~ ~~~) D ~:~:~a~~~ti::~=~~?) ~~n~::n~ ~~::::t~;e;~~:::ob~e~~ti:tland hydrology must _g_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FS) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ______________ _ Depth (inches): I HydMc soil present? Remarks· Soils appear to be historically disturbed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check aft that apply): I su•acewater(A1) I SperselyVegetateOConca,esu•ace(B8) High Water Table (A2) D wate.r-Staine.d Leaves (except M·L.RA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (811) water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Livmg Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) Surface Soil Creeks (BB) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Other (explain in remarks) Imagery (87) Secondary Indicators (2 or mom required): ~ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) Drainage Patterns (810) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAG-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (DB) (LRR A} Frost-Heave Hummocks Fteld Observations Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? ~ Yes ~No Yes D No Yes D No Depth (in) Depth (in): Surface Surface Wetland Hydrology Present? l~v_e_, __ 181~1 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (in) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available· Remarks: Recent rain. Hydrology has been observed in this area during dry season in previous site visits US Anny Corps of Engineera Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: ApplicanVOwner: Investigator: Section, Township, Range: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual --"'La"'k"e-c'to'--'S"'o'cu~nd~T~r~a~il C~T~wo=R~iv~er~sL_) _______ __, Sampling Date: ~Ki~na~C~ou~n~tv------------------i Sampling Point: C Hoffman, M Maynard City/County: ~S1~3~. ~T2~3~N"", ~R704~Ec"-----------------i State: 01/05/11 W3-SP2 Renton/KinQ WA Landform (hillslope. terrace, etc) Slope(%) 3% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A I Lat N47 28' 42.59" SOil Map Unit Name N/A Are ciimatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ~ Yes LQJ No Are 'Normal Circumstances" present on the site? ~ Yes L.QJ No Are Vegetation D. Soil, 0. or Hydrology D significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation D, Soil, D. or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No LongW12214'23.11" I DatumNAD83 I NWI classification Upland forest {If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showina samplina point locations, transects important features etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? I Yes I No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? [CJ Yes ~ No Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks Data Plot W3 SP-2 located approximately 20 feet southwest of Wetland Flag W3-9. There have been recent rain events VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size ~10-m~---· Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Soecies? Status 1. Fraxmus latifolla 90 FACW Number of Dominant Species ~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t-1h~a~t~ace~O~B-L,_F~AC~W-,~o-r F~A_C_: -------(A) Total Number of Dominant t--,-----------------------------1 Species Across All Strata: l---------------------c.csrcco,"'ot"c,=,.=-,-------1--,Pa:ec::rce=a"t"ofcaDcco=m"ina=a:ct S"'p"'ec7ie=,--"'10"'0 ____ (B) ----that are OBL, FACW, or FAG: _____ (NB} SaplingfShrub Stratum (Plot size~) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1--,,----------------------------l Tn•-<>1%Coverof ~ =Total Cover ---- Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. =Total Cover ---- Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size ' 1. OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column totals Prevalence Index = B / A = X 1 = x2 = x3- x4= x5- (A) I (8) Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators Dominance test is > 50% Prevalence test is s; 3 o * Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants* Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation• (explain) * Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must be oresent, unless disturbed or oroblematic l-'-2.'-------------------.~T~ot~at~C~""'~'-------l ~::,r::t~ytlc Vegetation Yes 181 No D ---- % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 90 Remark.s: Bare ground and moss make up most of ground cover (no herbaceous layer) US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-lnten·m Version SOIL Samollna Point W3-SP2 Profile Description: {Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.} Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % 0-6 5Y 411 95 2.5Y 5/6 5 6-13 2.SY 3/3 90 10YR 5/8 10 13-18 2.SY 3/2 90 10YR 5/8 10 Tvoe Loe M M M Texture Clay loam Sandy loam w/ gravel Sandy loam w/ aravel Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2 Loc: Pl=Pore Lining, M=Matrix W;!J dric Soil In. dicators: (Applicable to all LiRRs unless oth&rwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 w...! Histosot (A1) Sandy Redox ($5) 12cm Muck (A10} D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) tQ Black His tic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F 1) (except MLRA 1) Other (explain in remarks} D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D ~ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11} Depleted Matrix (F3) t8 ~:i~!YD~~~yu:~:ri1~~~) D ~:e~e~aia;u;::!~~7) ~n~:~:. ~n~::;::i~:e~~:!ob~e::ti~e~and hydrology must ~ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type--------------- Depth (inches) I Hydric soil p,esent? Remarl<s: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check aff that apply): I Surtace wale, (A 1) I Sparaely Vegetated Coaca,e Su rt ace (BB) High Water Table (A2) water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) Water Marks (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Surface Soil Cracks (86) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) {LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial D other (explain in remarks) Imagery (87) Field Oba&rvations Depth(in): Seccndary Indicators (2 or more required): i Wa~r-Stained. Leaves (89) {MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) Drainage Patterns (810) Dry-Season water Table {C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery {C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAG-Neutral Test(D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Surface water Present? ~ Yes ~ No Water Table Present? D Yes 181 No Saturation Present? D Yes 181 No Depth{in): 13 Wetland Hydrology Present? I Yes D I Depth(in): 13 {includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engine en; Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Ven;ion WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lak.e to Sound Trail nwo Rivers) Sampling Date: ApplicanVOwner: Kinq County Sampling Point: Investigator: C Hoffman, M Mavnard City/County: Section, Township, Range: ~S~13~·~T~23~N~·~R~04~E~--------------< State: 01105111 W4-SP1 Renton/Kina WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope(%) 0% Local relief {concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A I LatN4728'41.87" Long W122 14' 23.38" I Datum NAO 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A Are climatic/hy.drologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ~ Yes ~ No Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? ~ Yes LQ_J No Are Vegetation D. Soil, D. or Hydrology D significantly disturbed? No I NWI dassificat1on PFO (If no, explain in remarks) Are Vegetation D, Soil, D. or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No (If needed, explam any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? i Yes 00 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? [][] Yes []J No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No Remarks· Sample Plot W4-SP1 is located near the southern boundary of the wetland, in the vicinity of Wetland Flags W4-4 and W4-5 VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size .u1 o.,,m'-------Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Species? Status 1FraxrnuslatJfol1a 70 y FACW Number of Dominant Species 2PopulusbalsamJfera 25 FAC that are 0BL, FACW, or FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, Of FAC Sapling/Shrub Stratum {Plot size _Sm ___ ) 1--,-----------------------------l Prevare;~~a~~~~~v!~~ksheet 4. =Total Cover ---- OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species 100 X 1 = x2= x3 = x4 - x5 = ~ Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m Column totals (A) I 1. Phalaris arundinacea 15 FACW 2. Prevalence Index= B /A= ,. 4. Hvdro1 hvtlc Veaetatlon Indicators Dominance test is > 50% Prevalence test is s 3.0 * (A) (B) (NB) (8) Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. 11 Wood\f Vine Stratum (Plot size ) 1. _15 ___ =Total Cover Wetland Non-Vascular Plants* Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation~ (explain) • Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic '-"'·'--------------~~~~====-·~r~o1=a1~c~"~"-------l ~~:,r::t~ytic Vegetation Yes 18J No D % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 Remarl<s: Forested area dominated by Oregon ash US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Ve~on SOIL Samolina Point W4-SP1 Profile Descri lion: Describe to the deoth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth /inches) 0-10 Matrix Color moist SY 4/1 5Y 4/1 % Color moist 70 7.5YR 4/6 60 7.5YR 4/6 Redox Features % T,oe LDC Texture Remarks 30 M Clavloam 40 M Siltv clav loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: Pl=Pore Lining, M=Matrix ~dric·S. oil Indicators: (Applicable to all LiRRa unless otherwi. se noted.) lndlc.atora for Pro.blematlc Hydrlc Solls 3 _Q Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (S5) 12cm Muck (A10) 0 H1stic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matnx (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (exceptMLRA 1) 0 Other{explam in remarks) =a Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D _Q_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 181 Depleted Matrix (F3) _Q_ Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 lnd,cators of hydrophytic yegetation and wetland hydrology must D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7} be present, unless disturbed or problematic :J5:: Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Laver (If present) Type: ______________ _ Depth (inches): I Hydnc ooll present? Remarks: Depleted matrix indicators present HYDROLOGY WeUand Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): I Su•ace water (A 1) I Spacsely Vegetated Cooca,e Su•ace (BB) High. Water Table (A2} D Water-Staine.d Leaves (except ML.RA 1, 2, 4A & 4B} (B9) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (811) Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposrts (BS) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Other (explain m remarks) Imagery (B7) Depth (in): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): i Wa.ter-Stained Le.aves (89) {MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table {C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAG-Neutral Test (DS) Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Field Observations Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Yes No ~ Yes ~ No Depth (in) Surface Surface Wetland Hydrology Present? ~I _ve_• __ 181~ Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe} Yes No Depth (in) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available· Remarks: Recent rain US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: ---ccla~k~e-=to~S~o~u~nd~Tr~a~il~ tT~wo=R~iv~e~rs~l-----------1 Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: ~Ki~noa...ccC~ou=n~1tv~~-~--------------1 Sampling Point: ~ev!i~~:~:C:~ship, Range: -'=~cc1~c'~'=~;c:c;c.'~-c'-:-=~'-c0~'c~=''v~1na~rd~--------------I ~!~:;aunty: 01/05/11 W4-SP2 Renton/Kina WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope(%) 2% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion {LRR) A I Lat N47 28' 42.30" Soil Map Unit Name NIA Are climat1c/hydrologic conditions on the site ~pical for this time of year? ~ Yes ~ No Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? ~ Yes L.Q_J No Are Vegetation D. Soil, D. or Hydrology D significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation D. Soil, D. or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No Long W122 14' 24.06" I Datum NAO 83 I NWI classification Upland forest (If no, explain in remarks.) (Jf needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site man showlno samnllna nolnt locations transects lmnortant features etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? I Yes I No Is this Sampling Point within a WeUand? [ID Yes rn No Yes 181 No We-Hand Hydrology Present? Yes No Remafks: Data Plot W4 SP-2 located southeast of Wetland Flag W4-1. There have been recent rain events. VEGETATION -Use sclentHlc names of nlants. Tree Stratum (Plot size ~10~m~---Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Soecies? Status 1 Papulusbalsamifera 85 y FACW Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: =Total Caver Percent of Dominant Species 33 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m 1 Sympharocarposalba 15 FACU Prevalence Index Worksheet Total% over of ~ OBL species X 1 = FACW species x2= FAC species x3= =Total Caver FACU species x4 = UPL species x5= Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m Column totals (A} I 1. Phalans arundinacea FACW 2. Prevalence Index= B /A= 3. 4. Hvdrori hvtlc Veaetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is s; 3.0 * (A} (B} (A/8) (8) 7. Morphological Adaptations • (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) We-Hand Non-Vascular Plants* 10 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation* (explain) 11 =Total Cover • Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be oresent, unless disturbed or oroblematic Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size \ 1 Rubus armeniacus 30 y FACU Hydrophytlc Vegetation Yes D No 181 =Total Caver Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 65 Remarl<s· Bare ground makes up much of ground cover (minimal herbaceous layer) US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-fnterim Version SOIL Sampllna Point \.V4-SP2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or conflm, the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (mo!st) % Color moist) % T,oe' Loe Texture Remarks 0-10 5Y 3/1 30 Clay loam wlaravel 2.SY 70 Silt clay w/oravel 10-20 2.SY 4/2 80 Clay loamw/ Distrubed aravel Variable 20 Varietvofinclusions 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Oeplet1on, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix ~ dric Soll lnd.icators: (Applicable to all LIRRs unless otherwise noted.) lndlcaton; for Problematic Hydri.c Soils3 ~ Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (S5) 12cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) [C: Black Hist1c {A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (exceptMLRA 1) D Other(explain in remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D ::Q: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thiek Dark Surface {A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ::C: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dar1( Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ....Q. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present) Type--------------- Depth (inches): I Hydric soil pn,sent? Remarks: Soils appear to be historically disturbed HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check alf that epply): I s,,tace wate, (A1) I Spacsely Vegetated Cooca,e S,nace (88) High Water.Table (A2) D Water-Staine.d Leaves (except ML.RA 1, 2, 4A & 48) (B9) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates {B13) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drift Deposits {B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Livmg Roots {C3) Algal Mat or Crust {84) Presence of Reduced Iron {C4) Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sotls (C6) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Other (explain in remarks) Imagery (B7) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): I Water-S.tained Lea.ves (B.9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aenal Imagery (CS) Geomorph1c Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAG-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) {LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Field Observations Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? {includes capillary fringe) ~ Yes ~No Yes 181 No Yes 181 No Depth {in): Depth {in): 13 13 WeUand Hydrology Present? LI _Ye_,_.ccD'--' Depth {in)· Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available· Remarks No hydrology present. US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Applicant/Owner: lnvesligator: ---cc'La~k~e""to~S=oc'u~nd~T~r~a~il r~T~wo=R=iv~e~rs~l-----------1 Sampling Date: -C~Ki~~0~off~C m~0 ~~~-'.v~M~M~a-vrna-,~d---------------i g:b~:~:~int: 01/05/11 W5-SP1 Renton/Kinq Section, Township, Range: _S~1~3~, ~T2=3~N~, _R~04~E-----------------i State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope(%) 0% Subregion (LRR) A I Lat N47 28' 31.12 Soil Map Unit Name N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site ~ypical for this time of year? ~ Yes 1-k!..J No Are "Normal Circumstances# present on the site? LJi:ilJ Yes L_gJ No Are Vegetation D. Soil, 0. or Hydrology D significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation D. Soil, D. or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No Local relief {concave, convex, none) concave Long W122 14' 49.48" I Datum NAD 83 I NWI classification PEM (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site man showing sampling point locations transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 00 Yes I No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? [ID Yes []] No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No Remarks· Sample Plot W5-SP1 1s located centrally in the southern portion of the wetland, in the vicinity of Wetland Flags WS-14 and W5-15 VEGETATION -Use scientific names of nlants. Tree-Stratum (Plot size ~''-m~---Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Species? Status 1.Alnus rubra (rooted outside of wetland) 35 N FAC Number of Dominant Species ~:,·=====================================================1,_'~"·~·~·'"-0~B_L._FA~c~w_.-,-o_r F_A_C_: -------(A) 1-7----------------------------i ~;=~i~~;~:s~f~i°;:::.t t---------------,35,------,,c.,cc.ota"'1-"co=,.cc,--------l,p-'e"',c"eo""t"of"'D"'o"m,"'oaccncctS,-p-,-ec""ie-,--cc10°'0----(B) ----that are OBL, FACW, or FAC _____ (A/8) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size .5.m_) .....,,,_s,_'"-'"-"'-'---------------------'-•_cw_----j Prevalence Index Worksheet Total%Coverof ~ :=Total Cover ---- Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m 1. Phalaris arundinacea 80 FACW 2. Typha angustifolia 60 OBL 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. =Total Cover ---- Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size l OBL species x 1 = FACWspecies x2 = FAG species x3 = FACU species x4 = UPL species x5= Column totals (A) I (Bl Prevalence Index = B / A = Hvdroa: hvtlc Veaetation Indicators Dominance test is > 50% Prevalence test is::. 3.0 • Morphological Adaptations• (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation* {explain) • Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be oresent, unless disturbed or nroblematic l----------------::::::::====~.~,~o1a~l"Co~,~"------l ~~d=~t~c Vegetation Yes ~ No D % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Dominated by reed canarygrass and cattails. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point W5-SP1 Profile Descriotion: Describe to the death needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features (mcliesl Color moist % Color moist % Tvoe Loe'" Texture Remarks 0-18 2.5Y 4/1 70 7.5YR 5/8 30 C M Sandv loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2 Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix ~ rlc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs unlns otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3 D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) E Black. H1stic (A3) Loamy Mucky.Mineral (F1) (exceptMLRA 1) D Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide {A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D --k! Histosol (A1) I Sandy Redox ($5) I 2cm Muck (A10) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 181 Depleted Matrix (F3) =ci Thick Dark Surf~ce (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 1ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Jl Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictiw Laver (if present): Type: ______________ _ Depth (inches) I H•dric soil p,esont? Remarks· Soils meet the depleted matnx indicators criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): I Surface waler (A1) I SparselyVegetaled Coacave Su<ace (88) High Water. T.able (A2) . We.tar-Stained Leaves (except·M·L.RA 1, 2, 4A & 48) (89) Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust{B11) Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along L1vmg Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (BS) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aenal Other (explain in remarks) Imagery (B7) Fleld Observations Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): i Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLIU. 1, 2, 4A & 48) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturabon Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aqurtard (D3) FAG-Neutral Test (DS) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) {LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Surface Water Present? ~ Ye, ~ No Water Table Present.? t8I Yes D No Saturation Present? t8I Yes No Depth (in) Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? I Yes 1:81 Depth (in): Surface (includes capillary fnnge) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitOring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Recent rain. US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-lnfen·m Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: ~La=k=•~to~S=o=u~nd~Tr=a~il~ CT~w=o~R=iv=e=rs~l _______ _____, Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: --'-=K"'in"--"qC,cou"'n~tv'ccc~-~--------------1 Sampling Point: ~"eV:i~~~~;~~ship, Range: ----;;~+1~'"'~""~m='23"a~+:-,,~cc!+~=''v~1n=ar=d--------------, ~!t::ounty: 01/05/11 W5-SP2 Renton/Kina WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope(%) 1% Local relief (concave, convex, none) convex Subregion (LRR) A I Lat N47 28' 30.96" Soil Map Urnt Name NIA Are climatiC!hydrotog1c conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ~ Yes Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? LID Yes Are Vegetation D. Soll, D, or Hydrology O significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation 0, Seti, D. or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No W,,W No L!dJ No Long W122 14' 49.48" I Datum NAO 83 I NWI classification Upland forest (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site mao showina samallna aolnt locations transects, lmoortant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? I Yes I No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? [CJ Yes [ii No Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes t8I No Remarks: Data Plot WS SP-2 located between the trail and the wetland in the vicinity of Wetland Flags W5-14 and WS-15 There have been recent rain events VEGETATION -Use scientific names of olants. Tree Stratum (Plot size ~10,um'--------' Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Soecies? Status 1 Alnus rubra 70 y FAC Number of Dominant Species ~;====================================================j~t~ha7t~·'~·-07BL_._FA~C~W_,~o,_F7A_c_, -~----(A) 1--,-'·--------------------------1 IC::~i~t!:s~f~lo;~::1:1 t---------------=------------+---------------(B) 70 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 50 ----that are OBL, FACW, or FAG Sapllng/Shrub Stratum {Plot size 2!D...__) -----(A/8) t-s---------------------------1 Prevale;::~~~:v!~~ksheet ~ =Total Cover ---- Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m 1. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. =Total Cover ---- Woodv Vine Stratum fPlot size \ 1.Rubus anneniacus 100 FACU OBL species FACW species FAG species FACU species UPL species Column totals Prevalence Index= B /A= X 1 = x2= x3= x4 = x5= (Al I (Bl Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators Dominance test is> 50% Prevalence test is s 3.0 • Morphological Adaptations • (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation• (explain) ~ Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be oresent, unless disturbed or nroblematic l- 2·--------------::1;;-o~O~ _-_ -------a~T~ota~l'C~o,~oc------l ~~:ar:~trc Vegetation Yes D No ll!I % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 Remarks: Dominated by Himalayan blackberry. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point W5-SP2 Profile Descri ion: Describe to the deDth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features fmches) Color moist % Color moist % Tvoe Loe Texture Remarks 0-6 5Y 3/1 30 Loam Primarily quarry spalls Soil is found between the auanv soalls 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matnx, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains iLoc PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix ~drlc So. 11 lndlcato. rs: (.Applicable to all LIRRs unless otherwi. se noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Solla 3 D Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (S5) ; 2cm Muck (A10) tc: Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matnx (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Other (explain in remarks) I Hydrogen $ulf1de (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surf~ce (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 lndrcators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ~ Sandy Gleyed Matnx (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ______________ _ Depth (inches) I Hydric soil prasent? Remarl<s: Soils have been disturbed historically Located near trail and filled with quarry spalls. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary fndicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): I S,rtacewatec (A1) I Spaeaely Vegetated Concave S,rtace (88) High w.ater.·Table. (A2) . Water-Stained .. Leaves {exc.ept MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) (89) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (811) Water Marks (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Algal MatorCrust(B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (85} D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aenal Other (explain m remarks) Imagery (87) Depth (in): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ~ Water-Stain. e.d Leaves (B9} {MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table {C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorph1c Position (02) Shallow Aqu1tard (03) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Field Observations Surface water Present? Water Table Present? Yes No ~ Yes ~ No Depth (in)· Wetland Hydrology Present? ~I _Ye_, __ o~I Saturation Present? (ineludes capillary fringe) Yes 181 No Depth (in}: Describe Recorded Data {stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarl<s: No hydrology present US Anny Corps or Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Interim Version Project Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Section, Township, Range WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual _L;;a~k~e""to~S~o~u~nd=T~r~a~il r~T~wo=R~iv~e~rs~l-----------1 Sampling Date: ~K=in-aC~ou=n=tv~~-~------------; Sampling Point: ---=~-c1~c'~'=~mcc'23"'a~7:-=~ccoM'c4~=''v~rn~ar~d--------------, ~!~~aunty: 02/04/11 W6-SP1 Renton/K1nQ WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope(%) 0% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A I Lat N47 28' 32.96" Long W12214' 44.77" I Datum NAO 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ~ Yes ~ No Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? ~ Yes LQJ No Are Vegetation D, Soil, D, or Hydrology D significantly disturbed? No I NWI classification PEM (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation D. Soil, D. or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? I Yes I No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? [fil Yes [JJ No Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No Remarks· Sample Plot \N6-SP1 is located centrally in the wetland VEGETATION -Use scientHic names of nlants. Tree Stratum (Plot size ~1a~m,_ __ _ Absolute% Dominant lndrcator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Soecies? Status Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, F ACW, or F AC· Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Sapling/Shrub Stratum {Plot size Sm 1-,----------------------------; Prevale;~~~~de~!~rksheet -Total Cover ---- OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species 100 x1= x2= x3= x4 = xS= ~ Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m UPL species Column totals (A) I 1. Phalaris arundinacea 80 2. Poasp 10 3. 4. 5. 6. FACW NL Prevalence Index = B / A = Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators Dominance test is > 50% Prevalence test is:$" 3.0 • (A) (B) (A/B) (8) 7. 6. Morphological Adaptations • (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 10 11. 90 ---- Woodv Vine Stratum /Plot size \ 1.Rubus armeniacus Trace "Total Cover FACU Wetland Non.Vascular Plants* Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation• (explain) • Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must be oresent, unless disturbed or oroblematic ,_2·--------------~TS,=a-ce;;====-·~T~ota~l'Co~,~,,--------< ~=~t~c Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Yes 181 No D Remarks: Dominated by hydrophytic vegetation US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version SOIL SamDlina Point W6-SPI Profile Descri tion: Describe to the deoth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features (inchesl Color moist % Color moist % T,oe Loe Texture Remarks 0-4 2.5Y 3/1 95 2.SY 3/3 5 C M Clav loam 4-18 2.SY 411 BO 10YR 4/6 20 C M Fine sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reducad Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix ~ dric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3 ~ Histosol(A1) i SandyRedox(S5) I 2cmMuck(A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2) I Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1) D Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 181 Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weUand hydrology must Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ...Q. Sandy Gleyed Matrix {$4) Redox Depressions (FS) Restridive Laver (if present): Type: ______________ _ Depth (inches): I Hydric so;1 p,esent? Remarks: Hydric soils present. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary fndicafo,s (minimum of one required check all that apply): I s,rlacewater{A1} I SparselyVege1ated CoacaveS,rlace(B8} Hig.h W~terTa.ble (A2) Water-Stained Leaves (except ML.RA 1, 2, 4A & 48) (89) Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust(B11) Water Marks (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Ct) Dnft Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Li'ling Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Surface Soi! Cracks (86) Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) Inundation V1s1ble on Aerial O Other (explain in remarks) Imagery (B7) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): i Wa!er-Stain. ed Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Waler Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorph1c Position (02) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAG-Neutral Test (05) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A} Frost-Heave Hummocks Fleld Observations Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? ~ Yes~ No Yes No Yes D No Depth (in): Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? Lj _Ye_, __ 181~! Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (in) Surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Soils saturated to surface. US Anny Co,ps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Section, Township, Range· WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual ---cc'La~k~e=to~S~o7u~nd~T~r~a~il r~T~wo=R~iv~e~rs~l-----------1 Sampling Date: ~Ki~naa...,c,Co~u~n=tv=~-~--------------1 Sampling Point: -~=-1cc~c'mf=T;"';cc~c-. =~""o~c;rc=na~r~d--------------1 ~!~::aunty: 02/04/11 W6-SP2 Renton/Kina WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope(%) 1% Local relief {concave, convex, none) convex Subregion (LRR) A I Lat N47 28' 32.85 Long W122 14' 44.53 I Datum NAO 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A Are climat1c/hydrologic. conditions on the site ty.pica.l for this. time of year? ~ Yes ~ No Are "Normal Circumstancestt present on the site? ~ Yes Lill No Are Vegetation D, Soil, D, or Hydrology D s1gnif1canUy disturbed? No Are Vegetation D, Soil, D, or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No I NWI classification Upland herbaceous (If no, explain in remarks.} (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, imPOrtant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 00 Ye, I No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? [ID Yes ~ No Hydnc Soils Present? Yes l8J No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarl<s: Data Plot W6 SP-2 located just south-southeast of the wetland. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size ~10=m~---Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species that are 0BL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species 50 :Total Cover ----that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: SaplingfShrub Stratum {Plot size _5m ___ ) Prevalence Index Worksheet Total% Cover of ~ OBL species x1= FACWspecies x2= FAG species x3= =Total Cover FACU species x4 = ---- UPL species x5= Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m Column totals (A) I 1. Agrostis capillaris 80 FAC 2. Plantago lanceolata Trace FAC Prevalence Index = B /A= 3. Schedonorus phoenix Trace FAC 4. Hvdroc hvtic Veaetation Indicators Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is s 3.0 * (A) (B) (A/B) (B) 7. 8. Morphological Adaptations * {provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 10 11 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 1.Rubus armeniacus ) 80 =Total Caver ---- 10 y FACU Wetland Non-Vascular Plants * Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation* (explain) * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be resent, unless disturbed or l'.lroblematic ,-2·--------------::-"1~0::::::::::=-·~T~ot~,,=eo-,-~--------< ~:r:~tr'c Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Yes D No 181 Remalks: US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Interim Version SOIL Samolina Point W6-SP2 Profile DescriDtion: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features finches) Color (moist) % Color (moist % Loe 0-9 1 OYR 3/1 70 1 OYR 3/4 30 M 9+ Texture Sandv loam Cobble Remarks Disturbed with carbon Fill 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix L!::!x rlc Soll lnd.lcators: (.Applicable to all LIRR• unless otheiwlse noted.) Indicators for Pro.blematlc Hydrl.c Solls 3 B ~:::s~~~:~Jon (A2) D ;:~Pd~~:;t~~~6) (lo ~: :.u~~f~1~~rial (TF2) lJ Black Hist1c (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 11 Other (explain in remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D tQ: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix {F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6} 3 Indicators of hydrophyt1c vegetaUon and wetland hydrology must ~ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ....Q. Sandy Gleyed Matnx (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ______________ _ Depth (inches): I Hy<lrie soil present? Remarks· HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): I Smfacewatec(A1) I SparselyVegetatedConcaveS,rface(B8) High Water Table. (A2) . D Water-Stained Leave. s (except M. LRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (89) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (811) Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Sediment Deposits {82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drift Deposits (83) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (CJ) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 1ron Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) lnundabon Visible on Aenal Other {explain in remarks) Imagery (87) Field Observations Depth {in): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ~ Water-Sta1ne .. d. Leaves {89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) Drainage Patterns (810) Ory-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation V1s1ble on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position {02) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test {D5) Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Water Table Present? Yes No S.urfaceWate.rPresent? ~ Yes ~ No Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? I Yes D I Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (in): {includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: ApplicanVOwner: Investigator: Section, Township, Range WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual ~L•~k=e~to~S~o~u=nd~T~r~•~il C~T~w~o~R=iv~e=rs~l-----------1 Sampling Date: ----'ccKi~no~C~ou~n~t '--c-c-~-~--------------1 Sampling Point: ~C~W~o=rs~l•~w~·· M=M=•=""=•=rd~--------------1 City/County: _S_13~._T2_3_N~._R_04_E _____________ ---; State: 03/01/12 WBR-SP1 Renton/Kina WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope{%) 0% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A I Lat Soil Map Unit Name N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? LEaJ Yes LQ_J No Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? lJeU Yes L!:::LJ No Are Vegetation D, Soil, D, or Hydrology D s1gnificantlyd1sturbed? No Are Vegetation D. Soil, D. or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No Long [ Datum NAD 83 I NWl classification PEM (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site maD showina samDlina Doint locations, transects, imDortant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 00 Yes 00 No Yes No Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? (ID Yes DJ No Remarks: The sample plot is located approximately 15 feet south southeast from Wetland Flag WBR-7, near the toe of the slope. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size ~1 O=m~---Absolute% Dommant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Soecies? Status 1 Alnus rubra 90 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species ~:2:::s,:=1ix:::1a:::s,:::ao:::dra:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::F:::A:=cw:::::::::~1-;-th~at~a~re_O~B_L._F~AC~W_.~o-r F~A_c_, -~-----(A) ~-----------------------------< 1~:;i~su;:~~fi1°;~~:1 1---------------~---~==~-----+~~~~~=~--~~----(B) _95 ___ =TotalCowr ::t::ti8~~;:i:.s:re:~~: _1_0_0 ____ (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size fun_________) ,_.,,, __________________________ __, Prevale~~~[~~:!~~ksheet ~ =TotalCo~r Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m 1. Phalaris arundinacea 100 FACW 2. Scirpus microcarpus 10 0BL 3 Athyrium filix-femina FACW 4 Ranunculus repens FACW 7. B. ,. 10 11. -'='---= Total Cowr Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size l 1. OBL species X 1 = FACW species x2= FAG species x3= FACU species x4= UPL species x5= Column totals (A) I /Bl Prevalence Index= 8 /A= Hvdror hvtlc Veoetation Indicators Dominance test is > 50% Prevalence test is s 3.0 • Morphological Adaptations* (pro...;de supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants* Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation~ (explain) ~ Indicators of hydric sou and wetland hydrology must be oresent, unless disturbed or oroblematic 1-'·------------------~.~T~o,~al"Co~w=c-------, ~~d8r:.:~ytic Vegetation Yes ISi No D ---- % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Dominated by hydrophytic vegetation US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point W6-SPI Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.} Depth Matrix Redox Features {inches) Color (moist) % Color {moist) % Tvoe' Loe~ Texture Remarks 0-5 2.SY 3/1 100 Silt loam Wrth organics 5-10 10Y 4/1 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M Clav loam 10-18 10Y4/1 20 7.SYR4/6 80 C M Loamvsand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 'Loe· PL=Pore lming. M=Matrix ~dric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otheiwisa noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils~ --kJ Histosol(A1) I SandyRedox(S5) ; 2cmMuck(A10) D Hisbc Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix ($6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) loamy Mucky Mine~al (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matnx (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Su~ce (A12) RedoxDark Surf. ace (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic wgetation and wetland hydrology must Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictiw Layer {ff present)· Type: ______________ _ Depth (inches): I Hydric soil present? Remarks: Hydric soils present HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): I s,•acewate,(A1) I SparselyVegetatedConcaveS,aace(B8) High Water. Ta.ble (A2) Water-Stained Leav.es (exc.ept M·L.RA 1, 2, 4A & 48) (89) Saturation (A3) SaltCrust(B11) Water Marks (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Sediment Deposits (82} Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drift Deposits (83) Oxidized Rhizospheres along li'v'lng Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) Surface Soil Cracks (86) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation V1s1ble on Aerial Other (explain in remarks) Imagery (B7) Depth{in): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): i Wa.ter-Stained. Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) Drainage Patterns (81 O) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aenal Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (02) Shallow Aquitard (03) FAG-Neutral Test (05) Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Field Observations Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Yes No ~ Yes ~No Depth(in): Wetland Hydrology Present? ~I _Ye_, __ 121~ Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth{in): Surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available· Remarks Soils saturated to surface. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site·. Applicant/Owner: Investigator· Section, Township, Range WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual ~L"ca~k~e.,,to~S~oc'u~nd~T~r~ai~I C~T~w~o~R~iv~•rs~;~\---------------i Sampling Date: _K~i~na~C~o~u~n=tv=~-~------------< Sampling Point: -~=-1""-~'-',aT='~c'l;'!'~c'', M=R"='o~cc~'f'vrn~a~,d~------------------i ~~Z:e~ounty: 03/01/12 WBR-SP2 Renton/Kina WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope{%) 1% Local relief (concave, convex, none) convex Subregion {LRR) A I Lat Long I Datum NAO 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A Are cllmatic/hydrologic conditions on the site ~ypical for this time of year? ~ Yes ~ No I NWI classification Upland herbaceous (If no, explain in remarks.) Are"NormalC1rcumstances"presentonthes1te? ~ Yes L..b:LJ No Are Vegetation D. Soil, D. or Hydrology D s·1gnificantiydisturbed? No Are Vegetation D, Soil, D, or Hydrology O naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? I Yes i No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? [ID Yes rnJ No Yes No Wettand Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks Data Plot WBR SP-2 is located approximately 25 feet north northeast from Weiland Flag WBR-7. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of nlants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 1 Om Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover SnP.cies? Status Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, Of FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 50 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size §m____) Prevalence Index Worksheet Total% Cover of 3. OBL species x1= FACW species x2= FAC species x3= =Total Cover FACU species x4= UPL species x5= Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m Column totals (A) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 70 FAr::N Prevalence Index= B /A= Hvdroc hvtic Veaetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is :,. 50% 6. Prevalence test is !ii 3.0 • ~ I (A) (B) (NB) (8\ 7. Morphological Adaptations • (proV1de supporting 8. data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants • 10, Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation• (explain) 11. 70 =Total Cover • Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be oresent, unless disturbed or oroblematic Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size 1 Rubus armeniacus 70 FACU 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes D No llil 70 =Tola!Cowr Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks Moss covers 90% of ground surface US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version SOIL Samolina Point W6~SP2 Profile Descri tion: Describe to the death needed to document the indicator or conflnn the absence of indicators. Depth Matnx Redox Features {inches) Color moist % Color moist % T~e Loe Texture Remarks 0-8 2.5Y3/2 100 S1ltloam 8-18 2.SY 4/1 65 7 5YR 4/6 30 C M Sandv loam 5YR4/6 5 C M 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Loe Pl=Pore Lming, M=Matrix ~dric Soll Indicators: (Applicable ta all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils~ W;J Histosol(A1) I SandyRedox(S5) ; 2cmMuck(A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material {TF2) Black Hislic {A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present} Type: ______________ _ Depth (inches): I Hydric so;1 p,esent? Remarks: The entire soil prof~e appears to be historically disturbed (mixed in inclusions and carbon) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators; Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check afl that apply): I Surtace wate,(A 1 I I Spara~y Vegetated Concave Su rt ace (BB) High Wate. r Table. (A2) . Water-Stained·. Leave. s (except·M·LRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (89) Saturabon{A3) SaltCrust(811) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sediment Deposits {82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor {C1) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rh1zospheres along l11Ang Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust {B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CG) Surface Soil Cracks (86) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aenal Other (explain in remarks) lmagery(B7) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): I Water-Stained·. Leaves (89) (ML.RA 1, 2,4A & 4B) Drainage Patterns (810) Dry--Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (02) Shallow Aqwtard (D3) FAG-Neutral Test (05) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Field Observations Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Yes No ~ Yes ~No Depth (in) Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? ~I _Ye_, __ o~I Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (in): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if awilable: Remarks· US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version Appendix B Wetland Rating Forms Wetland name or number ill ____ _ WETLAND RATING FORM -WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updc1ted Ocl. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): ________ W"--"e!!tl-'!Jan.,,d'----"1/'-'2~---------Date of site visit: __ ~O~l/~1~7~/~11~ Rated by: _____ __cM"'----"M"'-a"-y'-'n'-"a"'rd"-------Trained by Ecology? Yes____lL No __ Date of training: __ _,Oc,4,_,/0,,6,___ SEC: _ __,1_.,,_3 __ TWNSHP: _ __,2.e3:,_,N'------RN GE· _____Q,lli__ Is S/T/R in Appendix D" Yes ___ No X _ Map of wetland unit: Figure ______ Estimated size _____ __,>::,Sc,O'-'a"'c"'r'-"e"-s SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: 11,_--"x._ __ III, _____ IV ___ _ Category I= Score> 70 Category II = Score 51 -69 Category III = Score 30 -50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland -----II _____ Doesnotapply __ ~X~-- Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above") .. 1_11 ____ __, Summary of basic information about the wet1and unit. Old Growth Forest Coastal La oon Interdunal None of the above Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HOM classes resent X SP]. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? 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 habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species arc catc orizcd as Cate or 1 Natural Herita e Wetlands (see . 19 of data form). SP3. SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local mana ement Ian as havin s ecial si nificance. X X X X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorohic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeolllllJlhic classification groups ""'1ands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies tre ~ms r=loo lo answer how well tre wet1and functions. The Hydrogeom:,rphic Oa" of a wetland can be dcterrnioed using tre key below. Seep. 24 for mire detailed instructions on classif)ing ""'1ands. Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Ocl. 2008 Page I of 12 Wetland name or number 1/2 ____ _ Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington I. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? Ill-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) ff yow-wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. ff ii is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland Wetlands that were call 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 tenn .. 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 only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. Ill-go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? ___ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (Sha) in size; ___ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? •-goto 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). ---The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may ---flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? ---NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types qfwet/ands except occasionally in ve,y small and shallow de ressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than l foot deep). -o to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slo e 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ___ The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. ___ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are.filled with water when the river is not flooding.. 8-go to 6 YES -The wetland class is Riverine 6. Ts the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is hi her than the interior of the wetland. NO -o to 7 -The wetland class is De ressional 7. ls the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. 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 wetlaud class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base ofa slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGTC REGIMES 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 IO% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90%ofthe total area. Slooe + Riverine Riverine Slone+ Denressional Denressional Slone + Lake-frinee Lake-frinee Denressional + Riverine along, stream within boundarv Denressional Denressional + Lake-fring,e Denressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special freshwater wetland characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 2 ofl2 Wetland name or number 1/2 ____ _ Dl D2 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: , (only'! score per box) (feep.38) Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).... . ...... points= 3 Figure - Unit has an intermittently flowing. OR highly constricted. permanently tlO\ving outlet ........ points= 2 Unit has an unconstricted. or slightly comtricted. surfal:e outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points= I Unit is a ··nae depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class. with permanent surface rr;~~;h ai~~itv:~;~:esn:l~tn~:!i;;~~:~~:~i~ra~ 0 ·~~~~J:n~i;:;i~~~~v1!~\··r·;~~·i·d·;·~h~i~.~~~~::.~n! l) 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer} is clay or organic (use 1VR(:S definitions) YES ooinh:i = 4 NO ooinh:i = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub. and/or forest Cov,,rardin class): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation>= 95% of area ............................................... points= 5 Figure_ Wetland has persistent. ungrazed vegetation>= 1 /2 of area..... ....................... . ..... points= 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazcd vegetation>= 1/10 ofarca ............................................... points = I • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation< l/10 of area .................................................. points= 0 Map of Coward in veeetation classes D 1.4 Character1st1cs of seasonal ponctmg or mundat10n: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded/or at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the yeur. Do not count the area that is permanently Figure_ ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. Area seasonally ponded is> 1/2 total area of wetland.. . ......... points= 4 Area seasonally ponded is> 1/4 total area of wetland.............. . ... points= 2 4 Area seasonally ponded is< 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points= 0 Map of Hvdroperiods Total for DI Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Add the voints in the boxes above r:]:J (seep, 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? lv'ote which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, hut any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated storm water discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland == A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas. residential areas. farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging x__ Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within I 50 fl. of wetland __ Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other------------------------------- YES multiolier is 2 NO multiolier is 1 Multiplier _2 __ + TOTAL-Water Oualitv Functions Multinlv the score from DJ bv D2: then add score to table on o. 1 22 D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water !lows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ......................... , ................. points= 4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing. OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet ......... points= 2 Unit is a "flat"' depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface 2 outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ........................... points= l (If ditch is not permanently_flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") • Unit has an unconstricted, or sli2:htlv constricted. surface outlet (oermanentlv flowine) ....... noints = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure ff-om the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet ....... , ............... points= 7 The wetland is a "headwater·· wetland..... ............ . ............ points= 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ........................... points= 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to< 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet. ..................................... points= 3 • Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap ,vater points= 1 Marks of nondine less than 0.5 ft................. . .. , ................ , ................. noints -0 D 3.3 Contribution ot weuana urnt to storage in tne watersnea: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself The area of the basin is less than IO times the area of unit .................................................... points= 5 • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit ................................................. points= 3 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.......... .................... . ...................................... noints = 5 Total for D 3 Add the voints in the boxes above ::I:J Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 3 ofl2 Wetland name or number ----D4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps. protect dm,,rnstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood c:,te, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is m groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. __ Wetland is in a headwater ofa river or stream that has flooding problems. x__ Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Multiplier __ Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems --Other _2 __ YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL -Hydrolo2ic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on v. 1 16 Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 4 of12 Wetland name or number 1/2 ____ _ , ··wAriifQv'Al.liflr~ijg·;;;~~~-;'·"p,:~"''~~,~: ··' )c·.•;;;: ·i·r.rJ!! R ] Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (seep 52) R 1.1 Arca of surface depressions ,,,.·ithin the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover> 3/4 area of wetland.... . .............. points= 8 Figure - Depressions cover> 1/2 area of wetland.. . .............. points= 4 (If depressions> 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) Depressions present but cover< 1/2 area of wetland .......................................................... points= 2 No dcnrcssions nrcscnt ........................................................................................................ noints = 0 R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Trees or shrubs> 2/3 area of the unit.......................... . ..... points= 8 Figure - Trees or shrubs> 1/3 area of the wetland............ . ......................................... points= 6 Ungrazed. herbaceous plants> 2/3 area of unit............... . ..................................... points= 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants> 1/3 area of unit ..................................................................... points= 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous< 1/3 area of unit ................................................... points= 0 Aerial nhoto or mao showin!! nolv!!ons of different vee:etation tvoes Add the noints in the boxes above R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 53) • R3 Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. 1\/ote which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants . .4 unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland == A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas. residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging := ~h!i~i:~tj~; ~[r~~r:rtJfrt:~J~1ft~~u!~e~t::d h~!h1~~~t~iit~1i~tb!~i~dwhere human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for Multiplier water quality. Other ______________________________ _ YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 TOTAL-Water Oualitv Functions Multinlv the score from RI bv R2; then add score to table on n. I Does the wetland have the 1!!!!£!!1i.!!! to reduce flooding and erosion? - R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland . perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between Figure banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width ofunil) i (average width of stream between banks). R 3.2 If the ratio is more than 20 ....................................................................................... points= 9 • Jfthe ratio is between 10-20 .............................................................................................. points= 6 If the ratio is 5-<10 .................................................. points= 4 If the ratio is 1-<5.. . ........................................................................... points= 2 If the ratio is< 1 ..................................... points= I Aerial nhoto or man showin!! avera!!e widths Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large lvoody debris as . "forest or shrub" Choose the points appropriate for the besl description. (polygons need to have >90% Figure cover at person height NOT Cowardin. classes): • Forest or shrub for> 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants> 2/3 area...................................... . pomts = 7 • Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants> 1/3 area.......................... . ..... points= 4 • Vegetation docs not meet above criteria ............................................................................... points= 0 Aerial ohoto or man showine: oolve:ons of different vee:etation tvoes ~-~-------------~============~A~d~d~,h~e~n~o~i~n,~s~in~,h~e~b~o~x~es~abuo~v~e~---~ ~-+---------------------------'"'""'--------= ....... --+---~ R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage. or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. },loJe which of the following conditions app(v. __ There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings. bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. __ There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other-------------------~-----~-~-~- (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiolier is 2 NO multiolier is l + TOTAL -Hvdrolo2ic Functions Multiolv the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on o. 1 Comments: (see p.57) Multiplier Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 5 of 12 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) LI.I Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons. ofCowardin classes): Figure_ Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (IOm) wide ........................................................................... points.= 6 Vegetation is more than I6 ft.(5m) wide and< 33 ft ............................................................ points.= 3 t ~:~~:~:~~ l: k~;~~~~n6 6 r/\v)~;·~-~-i-~~-.~~~-~--I·~--~~-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: g~]~i! : 6 Ma of Coward in classes with widths marked L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include a~ open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the Figure - dominanJ form or as an under story in a shrub or forest commuro·ty. These are not C owardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit. but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed Cover of herbaceous plants is> 90% of the vegetated area ................................................... points= 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is> 2/3 of the vegetated area ..................................................... points= 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is> 1/3 of the vegetated area ..................................................... points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers> 2/3 of the unit .................... points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area ........................................... points= 1 Aquatic bed cover and open water> 2/3 of the unit.. ............................................................ points= 0 Ma with ol ons of different ve etation t es Add the oints in the boxes above :::J L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there arc pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. 1Vote which of the following conditions provide the sources qf pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Wetland is along the shores ofa lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft --~il1~~eficld~~t:r ~;~t:;Jse~vWhi~eV~3drt~ 1 if~,~fi~~nl edge --Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland == Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. oflake shore) __ Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is l + TOTAL -Water uali Functions Multi · the score from L l b ' L2; then add uore to table on . 1 L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L3 (seep. 61) Multiplier Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) Figure - 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (I Om) wide ................................................. points= 6 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide ..................................................... points= 4 J/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (1 Om) \1,1ide ................................................. points= 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ...................................... points= 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ................................... points -0 Aerial hoto or ma with Coward in ve etation classes Record the oints in the boxes above L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (seep. 64) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. __ There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. __ There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, Multiplier other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other -----,=::--:-:--:c----c--:---------,--,-,.,--,-.,------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 + TOTAL -H drolo ic Functions Multi the score from L3 bv L4; then add score to table on . I Comments: Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 6 of 12 Wetland name or number 1/2 ___ _ NS$ " S 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is 1%orless(a 1%.s/opehasa lji. verticaldropine/evaiionforl!Vely JOOji. hori=onialdistance) ......... points=-3 • Slope is 1 o/o -2o/o ................................................................................................................. points= 2 • Slope is 2% -5% ................................................................................................................. points= I • Slo e is reatcr than 5% ............... ............................................. ........... oints = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay. organic (Use A'RCS definitions). YES = 3 oints NO = 0 oints S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense. uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area............. . .. points = 6 Dense. uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1 /2 of area............... .. ......................... points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation> 1/2 of area ................................................................................ points= 2 • Dense. uncut, herbaceous vegetation> 1/4 of area ............................................................... points= I Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation ......................................................... points.= 0 Aerial hoto or ma with ve etation ol ons Figure_ ~~-------T-•.t.•l.f.•r.S~l------------~A.d_d_,_he=o-in.".'.m.th_e_b_o.xe.s.o.b.ov.e+:::J S2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams. lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources. but any single source would qua/(fy as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated storm water discharges to wetland __ Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland __ Residential. urban areas, or golf courses are within t 50 ft. upslope of wetland Other------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 + TOTAL-Water ualit Functions Multi 1 ' the score from S 1 b S2; then add score to table on S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate.for the description that best.fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually> 1/SinJ, or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). Dense. uncut, rigid vegetation covers> 90% of the area of the wetland.. . ............ points= 6 • Dense. uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland ............................................................. points= 3 : 2~~~eih~~cJ;4 ~,~~e~erset~~~;d> ~~~8:d.atiii~d··~-~-;~·-~t~ii~~-j~-~~i·~·i···ii::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: P~(~!:: 6 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts offlood flows. The slope has sma~:1:f!c2 d~f~~:sions that can ~e;,ai~ oa1ei~fsver at least t 0% of its area. (seep. 67j Multiplier ~~~--------------------------~A~d~d~th~e=o~i~nt~s~in~th~e~b~o~x~e~s~ab~o~v~e+---~ S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. __ Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems (Ans~~hNO'-if'"'· 'th'e_m_a .... u·o-r-so_u_r_ce-of""w_a_t,-er~is_c_o_n"'"tr-o"ll-ed-,-,-by-a-r-es-e-rv-o'ir---,-(e-.g-.-w--e--,I'a-n'd'is-· a-se_e_p_t~ha-,,..., •. ,-0-n- the downstream side of a dam) YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is I + TOTAL -H drolo ic Functions Multi I the score from S3 h ' S4· then add score to table on . I Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington. Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 (seep. 70) Multiplier Page 7 of 12 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cmvardinj Size threshold for each class is Figure - 114 acre or more than 10% of the area {(unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic Bed __ Emergent plants __ Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have> 30% cover) x__ Forested (areas where trees have> 30% cover) !fthe unit has aforested class check if x__ 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 the number of vegetation types that qualify. ff you have: 4 structures or more ....... points= 4 2 structures.................... oints = 1 Map of Coward in vegetation classes 3 structures ................... points= 2 1 structure .................... oints = 0 H 1.2 Hydroperiods (seep.73): Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to Figure - cover more than 10% of the wetland or J/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions ofhydroperiods). x__ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points= 3 x__ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present.. .... points = 2 x__ Occa'\ionally flooded or inundated 2 types present.. ................. points = 1 __ Saturated only 1 type present .... , ............... points= O x__ Permanently flowing stream or river in. or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Lake-fringe wetland •.•...•...•...•.• = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland ......... = 2 points Map of hydroperiods 1-1 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil. reed canarygrass, purple loose strife, Canadian Thistle. Jf you counted: > 19 species ...................... points= 2 5 19 species .......... points= I List species below if you want to: < 5 species... .. ........ points= 0 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (seep. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation (described in Hl. 1 ), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. O(Q)(ii)@ Note: If you have 4 or more classes Figure_ or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rnting is None -0 points Low=-I point Moderate =-2 points always "high". ·""·/~-, Use map ofCowardin classes. Hi . 1-1 1.5 Special Habitat Features (seep. 77): Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of point you put into the next column. x._ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter and 6 n. long) x__ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 fl. (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (I Om) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) __ At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) x__ lnva'\ive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 2()% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1 TOTAL Score -otential for rovidin habitat Add the oints in the column above 10 Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 8 of 12 I \\/etland name or number 1/2 ____ _ H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to he used in the rating See text for definition of ··undisturbed" 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part ofbuflt:r (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping. no daily human use) ............. points= 5 IOOm (330 h) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50o/o circumference ........................................................................................... . points= 4 x_ 50m ( 170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95o/o circumference...... ...................... . ................... . points= 4 __ 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference .................................................................................................... points= 3 __ 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas. rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference .................................................................... .. .......... points= 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: __ No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK .................................. points= 2 __ No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for> 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ................................................................... points= 2 Heavy grazing in buffer............ .. ............................................... points= 1 Vegetated buffers are< 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference Figure_ (e.g. tilled fields. paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points= 0 4 Buffer docs not meet any of the criteria above ............................................................. points= 1 Arial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) Comments: 112.2.1 Is the wetland part ofa relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs. forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES= 4 points (go to II 2.3) NO= go lo H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part ofa relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. ,vidc, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest. and connects to estuaries, other ·wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake· fringe wetland. if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES= 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO =goto 11 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: • Within 5 mi (8km) ofa brackish or salt water estuary OR Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture{> 40 acres) OR • Within I mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES= 1 point NO= 0 points Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 9 of 12 Wetland name or number 1/2 ____ _ H 2.3 Near or adjac~nt to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82): (see new and complete descriplions of WDFW priority habitats, and the coumies in which they can be found, in the PHS reporl http:,. 1t·dfiv. wa.gov hubiphs/ist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha ( 1 acre). __ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (fall descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. = Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species. forming a multi-layered canopy with occasionaJ small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity oflarge downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriplions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). _X __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the fonn of a dry prairie or --a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. /6/). __ lnstream: The combination of physical. biological. and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore. and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of rela1ively undislurbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendi< A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. = Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit suflicient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end. and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats= 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat= 1 point No habitats= 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in nuestion H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best.fits (seep. 84) • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 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 w·etlands within 1/2 mile ................................................................................................... points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed ........................................................................................................................... points= 3 The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................................................. points= 3 There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile ........................................................................... points= 2 There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................. ooints = O H 2 TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2. 4 , -8-1.J 1--1---------------...... ----------..;...---...:..---~---TOTALfor H 1 from pages 1 10 I i--1-----------------------...:..-...:.......:;.;.::;..;..., ___ ~ ~·-~T-o-ta_1_s_c_or_•_f_o_r_H_•_h_it_•_t_F_u_n_ct_i_on_s ______ A_d_d_1h_e~p~o-i_nt_s_fo_r_H_1_a_n_d_1_1_2~;1_h_e_n_~_c_o_M_~_e_,_•_•u_1_1_o_n~p-._1.1_~_J Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 10ofl2 Wetland name or number 1/2 ____ _ CATEGORIZATIO'\' BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. SC I. I Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES ~ Category I NO ~ go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least I acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? Cat. I YES ~ Category I NO~ Category II Cat. I The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking. ditching. filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (1/ll). Cat. II The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II lvhilc the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of I acre. Dual __ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub. forest. or un-grazed Rating or un-mowed grassland __ The \Vetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels. depressions with open water, I/JI or contiguous freshwater wetlands. C2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed \•,;etlands or wetlands that support state Threatened. Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WIVHP1DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D ___ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site __ _ YES __ Contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES -Category I NO ___ X_ not a Heritage Wetland SC3 ~(seep. 87) Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soib and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identii)' if the wetland is a bog. I/you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. I. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil). either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES= go to question 3 NO= go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES= go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the '·bog·· species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES= Is a bog for purpose of rating NO= go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16'" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the .. bog·· plant species in Table 3 are present. the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested(> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% cove.::.!;!e of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES= Category I •=Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat I Cat. I Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 11 ofl2 Wetland name or number 1/2 ___ _ SC4 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of lhese criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? Jfyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. __ Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands ofat least two three species forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. __ Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity oflarge downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. Cat. I YES ~ CateQorv I NO~X not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Laz:;oons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? __ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. __ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish(> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bollom.) YES -Go to SC 5.1 NO _X_ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? __ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). __ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub. forest. or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I __ The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square fl.) YES ~ Category 1 NO -Category 11 Cat. II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? Yl!S-Go lo SC 6.1 NO _X_ not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its Junctions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-· lands west of SR 103 • Gravland-Wes~ort --lands west of SR 105 • Oce·an Shores-opalis -lands west of SR 115 and SR I 09 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES -Category II NO -go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 ls the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and I acre? YES ~ Category III Cat. III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics • Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record onp . I. lfyou answered NO for all types enter "Nol Applicable·· on p. I Comments: Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington. Version 2 (7/06). updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 12ofl2 Wetland name or number WETLAND RATING FORM -WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2-Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among user:-. Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDF\V definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): ________ W~c=ll=an=d=3 ___________ Date of site visit: __ ~O~l/~0~5~/~11~ Rated by: ____ --M-M-a~y~n=a~rd~---Trained by Ecology? Yes___K_ No Date of training: __ ~0~4~/0~6~_ SEC: __ ~13~--TWNSHP:____l_:lli__ RN GE· ______Qc!!..L_ Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes ___ No K _ Map of wetland unit: Figure ______ Estimated size ______ o~·=18~a=c~re~ SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: n _____ III _____ IV_~x~_ Category I = Score> 70 Category II = Score 51 -69 Category III = Score 30 -50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Waler Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOT AL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland -----II ____ Doesnotapply __ ~X~-- Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above") l .... 'v ____ _. Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Old Growth Forest Coastal La oon Interdunal None of the above Flats Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HOM classes resent X If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will the s ecial characteristics found in the wetland. SPl. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? 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 habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are cate orizcd as Cate or I Natural Herita e Wetlands (see . 19 of data form). SP3. SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local mana ement Ian as havin s ecial si nificance. X X X X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomomhic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomrnphic classificarioo groops v.etlruxls in to IOOse tha fimction in similar ways. This simplifies the questions reedoo to answer row well the \\elland functions. The Hydrogeoroorphic Class of a \\elland can he dcterrnired using the key below. Seep. 24 fur more detailed instructions oo classifi,ing v.etlruxls. Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page I of 12 Wetland name or number ,)_ ____ _ Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington I. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? 1!11-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) lfyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater 1idal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetland,. If it is a SaltwaJer Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland Wetlands that were call 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 tenn "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Categoty I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (seep. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. Iii-go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a '"Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? ___ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores ofa body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size; ___ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? R-go to 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ___ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual}. ___ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ___ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow de ressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than I foot deep}. -o to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slo e 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ___ The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. ___ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. ·-goto 6 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 of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is hi her than the interior of the wetland. NO -o to 7 -The wetland class is De ressional 7. Is the entire wetland.located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. 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 difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES 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 of the class listed in column 2 is less than I 00/o of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. Slope+ Riverine Riverine Slope+ Depressional Depressional Slope+ Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine alon2 stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special freshwater wetland characteristics If you are unable still to determme which of the above cnteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 2 of 12 Wetland name or number Dl Does the wetland have the potential to impro\.'e water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water Oows out of the wetland; Unit is a depression wilh no surface wakr leaving it (no outlet) ......................................... points= 3 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently Jlo\ving outlet ........ points= 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted. surface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points= I Unit is a .. flaf' depression (Q.7 on key). or in the Flats class, ,vith permanent surface ~1i~~~~h ai~~:tv:~;~:esn~l~tn~:/1~:~~~~~:~i~ra~u.~~~~~~~i~e 8::ri~~~~t'1~~~;··p~~~:i·~1;·~h~t~·~~~~!~.7D 1 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use /\/RCS d~finitions) YES ooints = 4 NO ooints = 0 {l!Olylotor< per box) (ISeep.38) Figure_ 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent. shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): Wetland has persistent. ungrazcd vegetation>= 95% of area.. . ................... points= 5 Figure_ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation>= 1/2 of area ................................................. points= 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation>= 1/10 of area ............................................... points= I • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation< 1/10 of area .................................................. points= 0 Mao of Cowardin veeetation classes D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded/or at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanent~v Figure_ ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. Area seasonally ponded is> I /2 total area of wetland ........................................ .. .... points= 4 Area seasonally ponded is> 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points= 2 Area seasonally ponded is< 1/4 total area of wetland...... . ................................... points= 0 Mao ofHvdrooeriods __ _ Total for D 1 Add the ooints in the boxes above ( _..z_J D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you knO'w or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Alote which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qua/(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 X A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas. residential areas. farmed fields. roads, or clear-cut logging __ Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland __ Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other-----~----------~~------------- YES multiolier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 + TOTAL-Water Quality Functions Multiplv the score from DI bv D2; then add score to table on o. 1 D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface \Vater flows out of the \vetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet)................... .. ..... points= 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet .... points= 2 • Unit is a "flat'" depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ........................... points= I (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as ''intermittently flowing'') Unit has an unconstricted or sJig-htlv constricted surface outlet (permanentlv flowinP-J ....... noints = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (ijdry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet ......... points= 7 • The wetland is a "'headwater'" wetland .................................................................................. points= 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to< 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ........................... points= 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to< 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ...................................... points= 3 Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but ha,;; small depressions on the surface that trap water points= l • Marks ofnondin2: less than 0.5 ft ......................................................................................... noints = 0 D 3.3 Contribution ot wetland unit to storage in the watershed; Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the lvetland unit itself 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 ............................................... points= 3 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 ......................................................................................... noints = 5 (seep. 44) Multiplier _2 __ 14 ~~--------T.o.t.•.•.ro.r.D~3--------------~A.M~1h.e~p.,o.in.1.s.in~1h.e.b.o.x.es.a.b.o.v.e.:J:~ Wetland Rating Form~ Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 3 of 12 Wetland name or number l ____ _ ----D4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer 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 property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood {rate, tide gate. ilap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is rom groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. __ Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. __ Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Multiplier __ Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems --Other _! __ YES multiplier is 2 NO multiolier is 1 • TOTAL -Hvdroloe:ic Functions Multiplv the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on n. 1 5 Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 4 of 12 \Vetland name or number J ____ _ i ,, >wATER'l}D~~s2:tali,$ff~1 ''"''' ''.'~"'JI~*~~ '. , . , ,:,; ~!li'~ii,''\', ;;/' , cc;,\' l~i:r\ R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (sel! p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions \\ithin the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Figure_ Depressions cover> 3/4 area of wetland.. . ............................................................ points= 8 Depressions cover> 1/2 area of wetland....... . ...... points= 4 (If depressions> l/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) Depressions present but cover< 1/2 area of wetland. . ........... points= 2 No denressions orescnt ....................................................... . ...... ooints = 0 R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Figure_ Trees or shrubs> 2/3 area of the unit........ . ................................................ points= 8 Trees or shrubs> 1/3 area of the wetland................. . ................................... points= 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants> 2/3 area of unit........ . .......... points= 6 Ungrazcd herbaceous plants> 1/3 area of unit.................... . .......... points= 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous< 1/3 area of unit ................................................... points= 0 Aerial ohoto or man showine: oolve:ons of different ve2etation tvoes Add the noints in the boxes above R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide rhe sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several source!J', but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland == A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas. farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging __ Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland __ The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment. toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for Multiplier water quality. Other ~------------------------------ YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 + TOTAL -Water Oualitv Functions Multiotv the score from R 1 bv R2; then add score to table on o. I R 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 3.1 R 3.2 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland . perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance bellveen Figure_ banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/ (average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 ................................................................................................... points= 9 If the ratio is between 10-20 .............................................................................................. points= 6 lfthe ratio is 5-<10................... . ........................................................................... points= 4 • lfthe ratio is 1-<5................... . .......................................... points= 2 If the ratio is< 1........................ . ............................................ points= 1 Aerial ohoto or man showini!' averai!'e widths Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as . "forest or shrub". Choose the points appropriate/or the best description. (polygons need to have >90% Figure - cover al person height NOT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for> 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants> 2/3 area .................................. points= 7 • Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants> 1/3 area . points= 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria.......................................................................... points= 0 Aerial ohoto or man showine: oolveons of different veeetation tvoes r~--------------=====~=======~A~M=M~e~o~,o~in~t~s~in~,h~e~b~o~x~es~a~buo~v~e~---~ e---+------------------------...a"""''"""""'""'""""a;..;.;a;.;,;..;.. ..... +----' R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. ]1./ote which of the following conditions apply. __ There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges. farms) that can be damaged by flooding. __ There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon rcdds) that can be damaged by flooding (see p.57) Other Multiplier (Answer 11,10 if the major source of water lo the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 + TOTAL -Hydrolo2ic Functions Multiply the score from R3 bv R4; then add score to table on p. I Comments: Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06}, updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 5 ofl2 Average widlh of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons ofCowardin classes): Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (I Orn) wide ........................................................................... points= 6 Figure_ Vegetation is more than I 6 ft.(5m) wide and < 33 ft ........................................................... points= 3 • Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and< 16 ft ............................................................. points= 1 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide .......................................................................................... points= 0 Ma of Cowardin classes with widths marked L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest poinJs, and do not include a~ open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the Figure - dominant form or as an unde.rstory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area a/Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed Cover of herbaceous plants is> 90% of the vegetated area ................................................... points= 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is> 2/3 of the vegetated area ..................................................... points= 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is> 1/3 of the vegetated area ..................................................... points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers> 2/3 of the unit .................... points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in> 1/3 vegetated area...................... . ..... points= 1 Aquatic bed cover and open water> 2/3 of the unit .............................................................. points= 0 Ma with ol ons of different ve etation t es Add the oints in the boxes above :::J L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water. or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. iVote which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Wetland is along the shores ofa lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft --i?NeuJeJekf~t~r ~:~t::Jse~~~~hinetll~3dft~1gf!,~fi!:idd edge --Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland ~ Parks with grassy areas that are maintained. ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake ·shore) __ Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is I • TOTAL -Water ualit Functions L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L3 (see p.61) Multiplier Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) Figure - • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (1 Om) wide..... .. ............................... points= 6 • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide............. . ................................ points= 4 • 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide ................................................. points= 4 • Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ...................................... points = 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any tl~~i~1cec~:oq~~t~:e~ith"C~;-~·;d1~-~~ .. ~-·~·i~~i~l~s=e~ Record the oints in the boxes above L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (seep. 64) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? }./ote which of the following conditions apply. __ There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. __ There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, Multiplier other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 + TOTAL -H drolo ic Functions Multi I the score from L3 b L4; then add score to table on . 1 Comments: Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 6 of 12 Wetland name or number 1 ____ _ s l WATEROU;ot, Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? S I. I Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is 1% or less (a 1% slopr! fun a I.ft. vertical drop in elevation for every /(){)ji. horizonJal distance) ....... points = 3 • Slope is lo/o -2o/o ........................................................................ . .................. points= 2 • Slope is 2% -5'%. .......................................... .. ..... points= l • Slone is. ~reater than 5% ........................ . .. ooints = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (Use NRC'S definition.r;). s L3 YES = 3 points NO = 0 points Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sedimenb and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best/Us the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (> 75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mou•ed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation> 90% of the wetland area ........................................... points= 6 g~~it ~::01~ :~~;!;~~~ ::m:i:~~+:,;: :,;.:::-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~m11 = ~ Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation ......................................................... points= 0 Aerial ohoto or map with veeetation oolveons Figure_ ~-~-------T=ot.•.I.fu.r.S-I _______________ A_d_d_1h_e_v_o_1_n1_s_i_n_1h_e_h_o_x_e,_·_ah.o.v.e+:::J S2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or ground\!.rater downgradient from the wetland? ]',/ote which ofthefollmving conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated stormwatcr discharges to \Vetland __ Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland __ Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other ------,:-,-,,..--,--,-------,---,.,-~------------- YES multiolier is 2 NO multiolier is 1 + TOTAL -Water Oualitv Functions Multiply the score from S 1 by S2; then add score to table on fJ, I ., ... S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate.for the description that best fits conditions in the lt'etland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually> I/Sin), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers> 90% of the area of the wetland ............................... points= 6 Dense. uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland ............................................................. points= 3 : ~~~~e{h~~c}J4 ~f~~e~e~e~~~~;d~ ~~~~Jaiiii~d:·~-~-~-~-~~t~ti~~-i~-~~t·~·i·~·ii::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~f~!~: l S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has sma~::f!c2 ~~f~~:sions that can ~e;,ai';2 o~~j~~sver at least I 0% of its area. Multiplier Add the ooints in the boxes above ~----e--+-------------------------=----==--==--=+,----S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 70) ls the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. __ Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems ( A ns~~h~~O~if7 t~h-e_m_a~if o_r_s_o_u-,c-e_o_if"w-a~t-er-,··s-c-o-nt_r_o/"/e-d'b'y-a-,e-s-e,-,-.o.,.ir-(.,-e-.g-. -w-e.,.t 1,-a-nd-.,-is_a_s_e-ep~I h'a~t~is-on- the downstream side qf a dam) YES multiolier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 + TOTAL -Hvdroloeic Functions Multiolv the score from S3 by S4· then add score to table on o. I Comments: Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Multiplier Page 7 of12 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? II 1.1 H 1.2 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): )T Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) -Size thresholdfor each class is igure 114 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic lled 2l_ Emergent plants 2l_ Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have> 30% cover) __ Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) lfthe unit has aforested class check if: __ 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 the number of vegetation types that qualify. ff you have: 4 structures or more ....... points = 4 2 structures.................... oints = 1 Map of Coward in vegetation classes 3 structures ................... points= 2 1 structure .................... oints = 0 Hydroperiods (see p.73): Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to Figure - cover more than 10% of the wetland or 114 acre to count (see text for descriptions ofhydroperiods). __ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points= 3 ~ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present.. .... points = 2 __ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present. ....... points = I 2l_ Saturated only 1 type present .................. points= 0 __ Permanently flowing stream or river in. or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Lake-fringe wetland ................. = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland ......... = 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian ,Hi/foil, reed canarygrass, purple /oosestr1fe. Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points= 2 5 -19 species .................... points= I List species below if you want to: < 5 species ........................ points= 0 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (seep. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation (described in Hl.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low. or none. O@(ji)@ Note: If you have 4 or more classes Figure_ or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is None• 0 points Low"" 1 point Moderate,,,,. 2 points always ·'high". ·""·/~-, Use map of Coward in classes. Hi . H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (seep. 77): Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of point you put into the next column. __ Large. downed, woody debris within the wetland(> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) __ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland __ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft. (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. ()Orn) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) __ At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants J\/01£: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1 TOTAL Score -otential for rovidin habitat Add the oints in the column above 0 Wetland Rating Fonn-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 8 of 12 Wetland name or number 1 H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (see P. RO): Choose the description that best represents condition of bu.ffi?r of»'etland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies Jo the wetland is to be used in the rating See text for definition of ''undisturbed" 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part ofhuffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing. no landscaping. no daily human use) ............. points= 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > SOo/o circumference.......................... . ................... . points= 4 __ 50m ( 170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas. rocky areas, or open \Vater > 95o/o circumference .................................................................................................... points= 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas. or open water > 25% circumference.......................................................... .. .... points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas. rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference .............................................................................................. points= 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: __ No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) ofv,.·etland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK .................................. points= 2 __ X No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for> 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lav, .. ns arc OK .............................................................. points= 2 __ Heavy grazing in buffer ............................................................................................... points= I __ Vegetated buffers are< 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference Figure_ ( e.g. tilled fields. paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland)....... .. ...... points = 0 2 __ Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above .............................................................. points= I H2.2 Comments: Arial photo showing buffers Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.l Is the wetland part ofa relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 tl. wide, has at least a 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, heavi~v used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES -4 points (go to H 2.3) NO -go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the \.,.-etland part ofa relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest. and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturhed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES -2 points (go to H 2.3) NO -go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 ls the wetland: Within 5 mi (8km) ofa brackish or salt water e~tuary OR Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture(> 40 acres) OR Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES-I point NO= 0 points 0 Wetland Rating Fom1 -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 9 of 12 Wetland name or number 1 ____ _ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found in the PHS report http:, 1nifw 1ni.gov.1hab,,phslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. ( 100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). __ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (Juli descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands ofat least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay. decadence. numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. -~ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous. non-forested plant communities that can either take the fonn of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW P/lS report p. 161). __ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearsbore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nears.bore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relative(v undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity. recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice. or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0. t 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 cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit suOicient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end. and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats= 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats~ 3 points If wetland has l priority habitat= 1 point No habitats= 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland thal best fits (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile. and the connections between them arc 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 1/2 mile ..................................................................................................... points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed ........................................................................................................................... points= 3 The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................................................... points = 3 There is at least I wetland within 1/2 mile .......................................................................... points= 2 There are no wetlands within 1/2 rnile .................................................................................. ooints = 0 0 ~----. H 2 TOT AL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from HJ./, H2. 2, HJ. 3. H2.4 1 5 .J TOTAlforH lfrompage8I -5-I + Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1 -1()--i..J .......... ____________________________ .....;._~--- Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 10 of 12 \\I etland name or number :,_ ____ ~ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. SC 1.1 Is the ,>i.retland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES -Category I NO -go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES -Category I NO -Category II __ The ,...-etland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than IO% of the wetland. then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/Tl). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not. however, exclude the area ofSpartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. __ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub. forest. or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland The wetland has at lea:-;t 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, --or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) SC3 Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact W,VHP/DlVR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D ___ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site __ _ YES __ Contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO ___ X_ not a Heritage Wetland fu!2! (seep. 8 7) Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil). either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yl!S =goto question 3 NO =goto question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock. or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES= go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the ''bog .. species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES= Is a bog for purpose of rating NO =goto question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the ·'bog'" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% cove.!2$e of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES = Category I • = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating 1/11 Cat I Cat. I Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington. Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page II or 12 Wetland name or number al. ____ _ SC4 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats'? /fyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its.function. __ Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi•layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and ··OR'" so old·growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. __ Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old·growth. Cat. I YES -Cate~ory I NO-X not a forested wetland with special characteristics scs Wetlands in Coastal LaKoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? __ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. __ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the )·ear in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bot/om.) Yl!S -Go to SC 5.1 NO _X_ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? __ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking. ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). __ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un·grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I __ The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre ( 4350 square ft.) YES -Category I NO -Category II Cat. II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) ls the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES~ Go to SC 6.1 NO _X_ not an interdunal wetland for rating I/you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its/unctions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula ·-lands west of SR 103 • Gravland-Wes~ort -· lands west of SR 105 • Oce'an Shores-opalis -lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger. or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES -Category II NO -go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC6.2 ls the wetland between 0.1 and I acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES ~ Category III Cat. Ill Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics • Choose the "highest" rating if wetland/alls into several categories, and record onp . I. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable'' on p. I Comments: Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 12 ofl2 Wetland name or number 4 ____ _ WETLAND RATING FORM -WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 ~ Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): ________ W=e~tl~an~d~4 ___________ Date of site visit: __ ~0=1/~0~5~/~11~ Rated by: _____ =M~M=a~y~n=a~rd~---Trained by Ecology? Yes_x_ No __ Date of training: __ ~0~4~/0~6~- SEC:_~1=3 __ TWNSHP:_~2~3~N~ RN GE: _____Q1!L_ Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes ___ No K _ Map of wetland unit: Figure ______ Estimated size _____ ~-~0~4~a~c~re~- SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: -----II _____ JJJ _____ IV_~X~- Category I = Score > 70 Category II = Score 51 · 69 Category III= Score 30 -50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL Score for Functions ~ lli:::::::J Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland -----II _____ Does not apply __ ~X~-- Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above") .. I _iv _____ .. Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Old Growth Forest Coastal La oon lnterdunal None of the above Flats Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HGM classes resent X Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to rotect the wetland accordin to the re ulations re ardin the s ecial characteristics found in the wetland. SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? 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 habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species arc cate orized as Cate or 1 Natural Herita c Wetlands (sec . 19 of data form). SP3. SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local mana cmcnt Ian as havin s ecial si nificancc. X X X X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to detennine the Hydrogeomomhic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydmgoomorphic classification groups wetlarrls in lo those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions noo:led tr> answer how well the ""'1and functions. The Hydmgoomorphic Class of a ""'1and can be detennined using the key below. Seep. 24 tir more detailed inslluctions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington. Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 1 of 12 Wetland name or number :! ____ _ Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington I. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? II-go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe lfyes, 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) !(your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the.forms.for Riverine wetlands. !(it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland Wetlands that were call 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 tenn "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (seep. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. •-goto 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? ___ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? ---II-go to 4 YES The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ___ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may ---flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ___ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than I foot deep). II -go to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ___ The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. ___ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding .. ·-goto 6 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 of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is hi her than the interior of the wetland. NO -o to 7 -The wetland class is De ressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. 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 difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base ofa slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES 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 of the class listed in colwnn 2 is less than I 00/o of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. Slone + Riverine Riverine Slone+ Denressional Denressional Slone+ Lake-frinoe Lake-frinoe Denressional + Riverine alonP" stream within boundarv Denressional Denressional + Lake-frinP"e Denressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special freshwater wetland characteristics If you are unable still to determme which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 2 of 12 v,.: etland name or number ± ___ _ Dl . · Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface v,·atcr flows out of the wetland: •(!)l)lyl- per\,ox) .. (seep.J8) Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) .......... points= 3 Figure_ Unit ha:; an intermittently flowing. OR highly constricted, permanently flmving outlet ........ points= 2 Unit has an unconstricted. or slightly constricted. surface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points= I Unit is a "flat'" depression (Q.7 on key}. or in the Flats class. wilh permanent surface {Yl·~?t:~ 3 i~~1:tn:~;~n:sn~l~t~~~·i::~!!~~:~i~ra~u.~~~~~:1!i;7ean~i~~~:1!~?;··p·;~~·i·d·~·~h~t~·~~oJ;~~·~n! D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the :;urface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use ,"!\/RCS definitions) YES noints = 4 NO noints = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent. shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): Figure_ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation> = 95% of area ............................................... points= 5 Wetland has persis.tent. ungrazcd vegetation>= 1/2 of area.. . ............................... points= 3 • Wetland has persistent. ungrazed vegetation>= I/ IO of area.... . ............................... points= I • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation< 1/10 of area .................................................. points = 0 Mao of Coward in ve~etation classes D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently Figure_ ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. Arca seasonally ponded is> 1/2 total area ofv,,etland ........................................... points= 4 Area seasonally ponded is> 1/4 total area of wetland... . ......................................... points= 2 2 Area seasonally ponded is< 1/4 total area of wetland............................... . ........ points= 0 Mao ofHvdrooeriods __ _ Add the noints in the boxes above r _!2 _ J Total for DI D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the v,retland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundw-ater dmvngradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming.from several sources, but any single source would quulify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated stormv.,ater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland == A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields. roads. or clear-cut logging __ Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Multiplier __ Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other _I __ _ YES multinlier is 2 NO multinlier is I + TOTAL Water Oualit• Functions Multinl• the score from DI bv D2; then add score to table on n. I I 0 D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface ,1i.:ater flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet} ........................................... points= 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing. OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet ......... points= 2 Unit is a ''flaC depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class. with permanent surface 4 outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ......................... points= I (if ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") • Unit has an unconstricted or sliohtlv constricted. surface outlet fnermanentlv fiowinu; ....... noints = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet ....................... points= 7 The wetland is a "headv,1ater" wetland. . ......................................................... points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to< 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ........................... points= 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to< 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet... . .................. points= 3 Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= I • Marks of nondino Jess than 0.5 ft ......................................................................................... noints = 0 DU Contribution o1'\l,1etiand unit to storage m the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area o.fthe wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than IO times the area of unit.. .................................................. points= 5 • The area of the basin is JO to JOO times the area of the unit ................................................. points= 3 • The area of the basin is more than I 00 times the area of the unit .......................................... points= 0 • Entire unit is in the FLA TS class ................................................................................... noints = 5 Total for D 3 Add the noints in the boxes above -:JE:J Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. ioos Page 3 of 12 Wetland name or number ± ____ _ ----D4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer 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 property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate. flap valve, reservoir etc. 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. /Vote which of the following indicators of opportunity 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 Multiplier __ Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems --Other _] __ YES multiolier is 2 NO multiolier is 1 • TOTAL -Hvdroloeic Functions Multiolv the score from D3 bv D4; then add score to table on o. 1 9 Comments: Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 4 of 12 V,/ etland name or number :! ____ _ : ·; ,i.:.i:m11.{julimFUNcnt>Nii'~~~~~f~vii~'4llimY: '.,,r '< <o;~ R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Arca of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Figure_ Depressions cover> 3/4 area of wetland ............... points= 8 Depressions cover> l /2 area of wetland............ . .............. points= 4 (If depressions> 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) Depressions present but cover< 1/2 area of wetland ............................................................ points=--2 No dcnrcssions nrcscnt ........................................................................................................ noints = 0 R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Figure_ Trees or shrubs> 2/3 area of the unit ................................................................................... points= 8 • Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland ............................................................................. points= 6 Ungrazcd, herbaceous plants> 2/3 area of unit .................................................................... points= 6 lJngrazed herbaceous plants> 1/3 area of unit ..................................................................... points= 3 Trees. shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous< 1/3 area of unit ................................................... points= 0 Aerial nhoto or man showine nolveons of different veeetation tvnes Add the points in the boxes above R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 53) • R3 Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams. lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. lVote which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollu1ants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources. but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland == A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging __ Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland __ The river or stream linked to the v .. ·etland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for Multiplier \Vater qua! ity. Other ~------------------------------ YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is I TOTAL-Water Oualitv Functions Multinlv the score from RI bv R2; then add score to table on o. I Does the wetland have the l!!!ill!!i;!! to reduce flooding and erosion? - R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width o_fthe wetland . perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between Figure_ banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit) I (average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 ................................................................................................... points= 9 If the ratio is between 10 -20 .. . .................................................................. points= 6 lfthe ratio is 5-<10..... . .......... points= 4 If the ratio is I-<5........ . ........ points= 2 • If the ratio is< 1................................................ . .......... points= 1 Aerial photo or map showin2 avera2e widths R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as . ''forest or shrub" Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have > 90% Figure cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): • Forest or shrub for> l/3 area OR herbaceous plants> 2/3 area ............................................ points= 7 • Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants> 1/3 area .......................................... points= 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria ............................................................................... points= 0 Aerial nhoto or man showine-nolveons of different vee-etation tvoes Add the points in the boxes above :::::: R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity. it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. iVote which of the following conditions apply. __ There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. __ There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other Multiplier (Answer /1/0 if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides ofa dike) YES multiolier is 2 NO multiolier is I + TOTAL -Hvdrolo2ic Functions Multiolv the score from R3 bv R4; then add score to table on o. 1 Comments: Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 5 of 12 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) LI.I Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons ofCowardin classes): Figure_ Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (tom) wide............... . .............. points= 6 Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and < 33 ft ......................................... points = 3 • Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and< 16 ft ............................................................ points= 1 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide..... .. ............................................................. points = 0 Ma of Cowardin classes with widths marked L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points. a,ul do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous planJs can be either the Figure - dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total caver in the unit. but it can be in paJches. l\iOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed • Cover of herbaceous plants is> 90% of the vegetated area ................................................... points= 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is> 2/3 of the vegetated area. .. .......................... points= 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is> 1/3 of the vegetated area ..................................................... points= 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers> 2/3 of the unit .................... points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in> 1/3 vegetated area ........................................... points= 1 Aquatic bed cover and open water> 2/3 of the unit .............................................................. points= 0 Ma with ol oos of different ve etation t es Add the oints in the boxes above :::J L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water. or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. /1/ote which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Wetland is along the shores ofa lake or reservoir that does not meet ,vater quality standards __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft --~i111~uJeield~:r t:it::sse~Whi~eV~gctn~1gf t~il~~'~l edge --Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland == Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. oflake shore) __ Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is I + TOTAL-Water Qualit Functions Multi I· the score from LI b L2; then add score to table on L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (see p.6/j Multiplier L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakcshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) Figure - • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide ............................................. , ... points= 6 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide ..................................................... points= 4 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (I Om) wide ................................................. points= 4 • Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ...................................... points= 2 • Vegetation is less than 6 fl. (2m) wide (any t;(e~i:1ce,~::~~t~~e~ith·c~;~·~di~-~~·-~·t~fig~i;l~s;e~ Record the oints in the boxes above L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (seep. 64) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. __ There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. __ There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, Multiplier other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 + TOTAL -ff drolo ic Functions Multi Iv the score from L3 b L4; then add score to table on • 1 Comments: Wetland Rating Fonn ~ Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 6 of 12 Wetland name or number ± ____ _ SI Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is 1%or less (a !%slope has a I.ft. vertical drop inelevaJionforevery JOOji. horCorual distance) ......... point::;= 3 • Slope is 1% -2% ................................................................................................. points= 2 • Slope is 2% -5%. . ................................................................................................. points= 1 • Slope is greater than 5o/o ...................................................................................................... points= 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches helow the surface (or duff layer) is clay. organic (Use NRCS definitiom). s 1.3 YES = 3 noints NO = 0 noints Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (> 75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation> 90% of the wetland area ........................................... points= 6 • Dense, uncut. herbaceous vegetation> 1/2 of area................. . .. points= 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > I /2 of area...... .. ... points = 2 Dense, uncut. herbaceous vegetation > 1 /4 of area...... .......... . ............................. points = I Does not meet any oftbe criteria above for vegetation ......................................................... points= 0 Aerial photo or mao with vee:etation oolve:ons Figure_ .--s--------T-•t_a_l_fo_r_s_1 ________________ A_d_d.1h,.e_.v.,o.,i.,nt .. s.,in...,th.e_.b.o,.x._es._ab.o.,v,.e•===J S2 • S3 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the v,1etland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources. but any single source lt'ould qualify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated storm water discharges to wetland __ Tilled fields. logging. or orchards within 150 fl. of wetland __ Residential, urban areas. or golf courses arc within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other------------------------------- YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL Water Oualitv Functions Multiolv the score from SI bv S2; then add score to table on n. I Does the wetland have the l!!!!£!!.lli!.! to reduce flooding and stream erosion? , , • S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems o_fplants should be thick enough (usual(v > //Sin), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). Dense. uncut, rigid vegetation covers> 90% of the area of the wetland ............................... points= 6 • Dense. uncut. rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland...................... . ........................... points= 3 : ~~~~eih~~c)j4 ~f~~c:c~e~~~~~d> ~~~v~datiii~d··~·~-;~-~~i~!i~~·i~··~~t-;f~·id·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~:~!:: b S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least I 0% of its area. YES = 2 points NO = 0 ooints >---1---------~=-~==----~=-~=~---A-d-d-th_e_o_,o_i_nt_s_i_n_th_e_b_o_x_e_s_ab_o_v_e ___ ---~-t<---------------------------------==--------"--=~-----' S4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. (see p. 70) __ ~~t~:nd bas surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Multiplier (Answer 1\/0 1/the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiolier is 1 + TOTAL -Hvdrolo•ic Functions Multinlv the score from S3 by S4· then add score to table on p. I Comments: Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 7 of 12 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 H 1.2 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): F. Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) -Size threshold for each class is igure 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic Bed __ Emergent plants __ Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have> 30% cover) x__ Forested (areas where trees have> 30% cover) lfthe unit has a forested class check 1f" __ The forested class has 3 out of5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous. moss/ground- cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. lfyou have: 4 structures or more ....... points= 4 Map of Coward in vegetation classes 3 structures ................... points= 2 O 2 structures .................... oints = I I structure .................... oints = 0 Hydroperiods (seep. 73): Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to Figure - cover more than 10% of the wetland or 114 acre to count (see text for descriptions ofhydroperiods). __ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points= 3 x__ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present. ..... points= 2 __ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present.. ................. points = I x__ Saturated only I type present .................... points= 0 __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Lake-fringe wetland ................. = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland ......... = 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian A!ilfoil, reed canarygrass, purple /oosestrife. Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points= 2 5 -19 species .................... points= l List species below if you want to: < 5 species ........................ points= 0 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (seep. 76): Decided from the diagrams bclov,,. whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation (described in HI.I), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low. or none. O@(ji)@ None • 0 points Low c 1 point Moderate""' 2 points ·""·/~-, Hi H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (seep. 77): Note: If you have 4 or more classes Figure_ or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always '·high". Use map of Coward in classes. Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of point you put into the next column. __ Large. downed, woody debris within the wetland(> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) __ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland __ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft. (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in. or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (I Om) 0 __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) __ At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants .'hi'OTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1 TOTAL Score -otential for rovidin habitat Add the oints in the column above Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 8 of 12 W ct land name or number 1 ____ _ ff 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (,ee P. 80;: Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed" 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) ............ points= 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetaled areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50o/o circumference.................. . ..................................................... points= 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95o/o circumference .................................................................................................... points= 4 IOOm (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas. rocky areas. or open water > 25% circumference ................... . ..................... . . . points= 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference .............................................................................................. points= 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: __ No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings \l,1ithin 25m (80 ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns arc OK ................. . __ X_ No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for> 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ..... . __ Heavy grazing in buffer ................................................................................ . __ Vegetated buffers are< 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference points= 2 points= 2 .. points= 1 (e.g. tilled fields, paving. basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland)................... points= 0 __ Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above.................................................. points= 1 Arial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 8/) Comments: H 2.2.1 Is the \vetland part ofa relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES= 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO =goto H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the welland part ofa relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it docs not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES= 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO =goto H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: Within 5 mi (8km) ofa brackish or salt water estuary OR Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture(> 40 acres) OR • Within I mile of a lake greater than 20 acres'! YES= I point NO= 0 points Figure_ Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 9 of 12 Wetland name or number :! ____ _ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82): (see new and complete descri'ptions ofWDFW priority habitats. and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report Jutp:, wdfjt·. wa. gov, hab ph,li.,1.h1m) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? 1VOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greate~ than 0.4 ha (l acre). __ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Area'i of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity oflarge downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. I 58). __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous. non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). __ lnstream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions qf habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix Aj. __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess. void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils. rock, ice. or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft). composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock. including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit suflicient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats= 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats~ 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands arc addressed in auestion H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within l /2 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 \\'et lands within 1/2 mile ..................................................................................................... points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile. BUT the connections between them are disturbed ........................................................................................................................... points= 3 The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands \\rithin 1/2 mile .................................................................................................................. points= 3 There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile ........................................................................... points= 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................. points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score-opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2. I, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 5 -._J 1--+------------..... _ ..... ______________ ~--- TOTALforH lfrornpageBI I I I--+-----------------------..;...-..;...~..;;..----~ • Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. J 1 6 J Comments: Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 10 of 12 V,,/ ctland name or number 1 ____ _ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. SC I. I Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational. Environmental. or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES ~Category( NO~gotoSCl.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES ~ Category I NO ~ Category II __ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking. ditching, filling. cultivation, grazing, and has less than I 0% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the v,1etland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (1/Jl). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however. exclude the area ofSpartina in determining the size threshold of I acre. __ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub. forest. or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland __ The wetland has al least 2 of the following features: tidal channels. depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep 87) Natural Heritage v, .. ctlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangeredi or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D ___ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site __ _ YES __ Contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO ___ X_ not a Heritage Wetland SC3 l!!!ll (seep. 87) Docs the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. I/you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. I. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (Sec Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES= go to question 3 NO= go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils. either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock. or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash. or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES= go to question 3 NO= is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the ''bog'· species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES= ls a bog for purpose of rating NO= go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16'· deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the ''bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. 1s the unit forested(> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir. western red cedar, western hemlock. lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% cove.,:;,f;,!e of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES= Category I •=ls not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating 1/11 Cat I Cat. I Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06). updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 11 ofl2 Welland name or number ± ____ _ SC4 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least I acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? Jfyou ansu.,er yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. __ Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands ofat least two three species forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (8 I cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and ·'OR'' so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. __ Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay. decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. Cat. I YES ~ Cateeorv I NO-X not a forested wetland with soecial characteristics SC5 Wetlands in Coastal La1:;oons (.~ee p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? __ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks. gravel banks. shingle. or, less frequently, rocks. __ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) YES-Go to SC 5.1 NO _X_ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? __ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking. ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). __ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a I 00 ft. buffer of shrub. forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I __ The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES -Category I NO ~ Category II Cat. II SC6 loterdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) ls the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES-Go to SC 6.1 NO _X_ not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula --lands west of SR 103 , Grayland-Westport --lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 ls the wetland one acre or larger. or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES -Category II NO ~ go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0. 1 and 1 acre? YES -Category Ill Cat. 111 Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics • Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p . /. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable' on p. 1 Comments: Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 12ofl2 Wetland name or number ,5_ ____ _ WETLAND RATING FORM -WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new \VDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): ________ W=e~tl~an~d~5 ___________ Date of site visit: __ ~O~l~/0~5~/~l l~ Rated by: _____ ~M~M=ay~n-a-rd ____ Trained by Ecology? Yes___x_ No __ Date oftraining: __ ~0~4/~0~6 __ SEC: __ =13~--TWNSHP:_~2=3~N~ RNGE:___Qfil_ ls S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes ___ No X Map of wetland unit: Figure _______ Estimated size ______ 0~-~3~0~a~c~re~ SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: -----II _____ III _ ___,X;._ __ IV ___ _ Category I -Score > 70 Category II -Score 51 -69 Category Ill -Score 30 -50 Category JV -Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland -----II _____ Does not apply __ ,.,x.__ __ Final Category (choose the "highest"' category from above") .. 1 _11_1 ____ _. Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Old Growth Forest Coastal La oon lnterdunal None of the above Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HGM classes resent X Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to rotect the wetland accordin to the re ulations re ardin the s ecial characteristics found in the wetland. SP!. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat.for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? 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 habitat.for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are cate orized as Cate o I Natural Herita e Wetlands see . 19ofdata form. SP3. SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local mana ement Ian as havin s ecial si nificance. X X X X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogoomorphic classifiration groups wetlands in 1o lhose1hat fimction in similar ways. This simplifies the questioos needed 1o answer how well the wetland functions. The ttydmgeomorphic Class ofa wetland can be determined using the key below. Seep. 24 fur more delailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06). updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 1 of 12 Wetland name or number ~----- Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? •-go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwaier 71dal Fringe use theformsfor Riverine wetlands. !fit is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland Wetlands that were call 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 tenn "'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 only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. •-goto 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? ___ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size; ___ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? •-goto 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ___ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). ___ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ___ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types o..fwetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow de ressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). -o to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slo e 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ___ The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. ___ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The. riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding .. • -go to 6 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 of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is hi her than the interior of the wetland. NO -o to 7 -The wetland class is De ressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. 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 difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES 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 of the 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 Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Deoressional Slope+ Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Deoressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Deoressional + Lake-frin.e;e Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special freshwater wetland characteristics If you are unable still to determme which of the above cntena apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 2 of12 Wetland name or number ,2 ____ _ Dl Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Charackristics of surface wati.::r flows out of the wetland: '0tonly 1"""' per box) (seep:38) Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ......................................... points= 3 Figure~ • Unit has an intermittently flowing. OR highly constricted. permanently llowing outlet ........ points= 2 Unit has an unconstricted. or slightly constricted. surface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points= 1 Unit is a "tlaC depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class. with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ........................... points= 1 (if ditch i.s not oermanentlv flowing treat unit as "intermittentlv fiowinf!.") Provide photo or drawing f) 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use l'•IRC'S definitions) YES ooints = 4 NO ooints = 0 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub. and/or forest Cowardin class): Wetland has persistent. ungrazed vegetation>'°" 95% of area..................... .. ......... points= 5 Figure - Wetland has persistent. ungrazcd vegetation>= 1 /2 of area ................................................. points= 3 • \Vetland has persistent. ungrazed vegetation>= 1/10 of area.. .. .................................. points= I • Wetland has persistent. ungrazed vegetation < I/ IO of area ....................................... points = 0 Mao of Coward in ve~etation classes D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal pondmg or munaat1on: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently Figure_ ponded. F..stimate area as the average condition 5 out qf JO years. Area seasonally ponded is> 1/2 total area ofv,retland .......................................................... points= 4 Area seasonally ponded is> 1/4 total area of wetland .............................................. points= 2 4 Area seasonally ponded is< 1/4 total area of wetland................ .. ......... points= 0 Mao ofHvdrooeriods __ _ Total for D 1 Add the noints in the boxes above r _.!J_J D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 44J Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants. in groundv,1ater or surface water coming into the wetland that \\oould otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? 1\/ote which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland == A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas. residential areas, farmed fields. roads. or clear-cut logging __ Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Multiplier __ Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other 2 __ _ YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 + TOTAL -Water Oualitv Functions Multiolv the score from DI by D2; then add score to table on o. I 22 D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3. 1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ........................................... points= 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet ......... points= 2 Unit is a "flaf' depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ............... points :c,;; 1 (If ditch is not permanent~v flowing treat unit as ''intermittently flowing'') • Unit has an unconstricted. or sli_ghtlv constricted. surface outlet (verrnanentlv flow inf!.) ....... points= 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during \Vet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet ....................... points= 7 • The wetland is a "headwater" wetland .................................................................................. points= 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet.. ......................... points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to< 2 fl. from surface or bottom of outlet......... . ........... points= 3 Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= 1 • Marks of pondinrr less than 0.5 ft ......................................................................................... points= 0 D 3.3 Contnbution of wetland unit to storage m the watershed: F..stimate the ratio o.J the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself The area of the basin is less than IO times the area of unit.............. .. .................. points= 5 The area of the basin is IO to JOO times the area of the unit ................................................. points= 3 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 Total for D 3 Add the ooints in the boxes above :]:J Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington. Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 3 of12 Wetland name or number 2 ____ _ ----D4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49j Answer 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 property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood fr.ate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is rom groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. /1/ote which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. __ Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. x__ Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Multiplier __ Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems --Other _2 __ Yl!S multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL -Hvdrolo~ic Functions Multiolv the score from D3 bv D4; then add score to table on o. 1 16 Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 4 of 12 Wetland name or number 2 ____ _ : :.·•· wi\ri,ii~~·~crr0Ns11~ii~~f'~ :,,,., .. ,,""~,\i~·qli'iai@:'> :···./ ·'·1/:t:'1!tT R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Figure_ Depressions cover> 3/4 area of wetland.... ....................... . ...................... points.; 8 Depressions cover> 1/2 area of wetland .............................................................................. points= 4 (If depressions> 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) Depressions present but cover< I /2 area of wetland ............................................................ points= 2 No deoressions orescnt ................................................................................ . ....... ooints = 0 R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas v1-·ith >90% cover at person height): Figure_ • rrees or shrubs> 2/3 area of the unit.. ................................................................................. points= 8 Trees or shrubs> 1/3 area of the \\-'etland ............................................................................. points= 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants> 2/3 area of unit .................................................................... points = 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants> 1/3 area of unit ..................................................................... points= 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit ................................................... points = 0 Aerial ohoto or man showine oolveons of different veeetation tvoes Add the noints in the boxes above R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 53) • R3 R4 Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams. lakes or groundwater dovmgradicnt from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated stornnvater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland == A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields. roads, or clear-cut logging __ Residential, urban areas, golf courses arc within 150 ft. of wetland __ The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river ·water above standards for Multiplier water qua] ity. Other ------------------------------- YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is I TOTAL -Water Oualitv Functions Multiolv the score from R 1 bv R2; then add score to table on o. I Does the wetland have the .1!.!!!£!!!i.!! to reduce flooding and erosion? - R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Esttmate the average width of the wetland . perpendicular to the direclion of the flow and the width of the slream or river channel (distance between Figure - banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/ (average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20......... ........................ .................... . ............... points= 9 If the ratio is between 10-20.... .......................................... . .......................... points= 6 If the ratio is 5-<10 ............................................................................................................. points= 4 lfthe ratio is 1-<5 ............................................................................................................... points= 2 If the ratio is< 1 .................................................................................................................. points= I Aerial ohoto or man showine averaee widths R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large wooa'.v debris as . "forest or shrub" Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% Figure - cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for> 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants> 2/3 area ............................................ points= 7 Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants> 1/3 area .......................................... points= 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria......................................................... . ....... points= 0 Aerial nhoto or man showine oolveons of different veeetation tvoes ~----. Add the ooints in the boxes above ___ _. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage. or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. __ There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges. farms) that can be damaged by flooding. __ There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other Multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 + TOTAL -Hydroloeic Functions Multiply the score from R3 bv R4; then add score to table on p. I Comments: Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 5 ofl2 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons ofCowardin classes): Figure_ Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (I Om) wide....................................................... . ....... points= 6 Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and< 33 ft ............ .. points~ 3 • Vegetation is. more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and< 16 ft .................................. .. points= I • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide. .. .................................................................... points= 0 Ma of Cowardin classes with widths marked L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest poinJs, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The he.rbaceous plants can be eithe.r the. Figure - dominant.form or as an understo,y in a shrub or forest community. 7hese are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed Cover of herbaceous plants is > 90% of the vegetated area.......... .. ................................. points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is> 2/3 of the vegetated area ..................................................... points= 4 • Cover of herbaceous plants is> 1/3 of the vegetated area ..................................................... points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers> 2/3 of the unit .................... points= 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area ........................................... points = 1 Aquatic bed cover and open water> 2/3 of the unit.. ............................................................ points= 0 Ma with ol ons of different ve etation t es Add the oints in the boxes above : : : J L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface \1vater flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Wetland is along the shores ofa lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft --~iN~Jetieilst~r ~:it:;gse~vWhi~eV~~dft~1if~v~fi~~i edge --Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland == Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 fl. oflake shore) __ Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is t + TOT AL -Water ualit Functions Multi the score from Ll b L2; then add score to table on . 1 L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (see p.61) Multiplier L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshorc (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) Figure_ 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 n. ( I Om) wide ................................................. points= 6 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide ..... ~ ............................................... points= 4 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. ( I Om) wide ................................................. points= 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ...................................... points= 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ................................... points= 0 Aerial hoto or ma with Cowardin ve etation classes Record the oints in the boxes above L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (seep. 64) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. __ There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. __ There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, Multiplier other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 + TOTAL -H drolo ic Fundions Multi the score from L3 b L4; then add score to table on . I Comments: Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06). updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page6ofl2 \~/etland name or number 2 ____ _ SI S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is 1%or\css(a ]%slope has a /ft. verticaldropine/evationjOfevery JOOi. horizontal distance) ......... points= 3 • Slope is 1°/o -2% ...... .. ................................................................................... points= 2 • Slope is 2% -5%.. . ....... points= I • Slo e is reater than 5% ...... oints = 0 S I .2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay. organic (Use 1\/RCS definitions). s 1.3 YES = 3 oints NO = 0 oints Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate/or the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface(> 75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mmt-·ed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation> 90% of the wetland area........... .. ....... points= 6 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation> 1/2 of area ............................................................... points = 3 Dense, \\roody, vegetation> 1/2 of area ................................................................................ points= 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation> 1/4 of area ............................................................... points= 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation ......................................................... points= 0 Figure_ Aerial hoto or ma with ve etation ol ons ~~--------T-o_t_a_l_fu_r_S_l _________ ~=====A~~=,h~e=o~m~t~s~in=,h~e~b~o~x~es~aub~o~v~e~---~ --------------------------------------+---~ S2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 67) Answer YES if you know· or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would othern..-isc reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland'? Note which of the following, conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated storm water discharges to wetland __ Tilled fields. logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland __ Residential, urban areas. or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 + TOTAL-Water ualit Functions Multi I the score from SJ h' S2; then add score to table on S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in.the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually> I/Sin). or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). Dense. uncut. rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland ............................... points = 6 • Dense. uncut. rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland ............................................................. points= 3 • Dense, uncut, rigid veietation > 1/4 area.: ....................... : .. "·:· ......... _ .................................... po!nts = I • More than 1/4 of area 1s razed. mowed tilled or ve etatwn 1s not n 1d ............................. omts = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has sma~::f!c~ d~f~f:sions that can ~~ai~ o·a~i~f 5 ver at least 10% of its area. Add the oints in the boxes above Multiplier S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the.following conditions apply. __ ~ht~:nd has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Multiplier (Answer 1VO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 + TOTAL -H drolo it Functions Multi I the score from S3 b S4· then add score to table on . I Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 7 of 12 \Vetland name or number j_ ___ _ H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): . Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) -Size threshold for each class is Figure - /14 acre or more than 10% of the area 1/unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic Bed x..._ Emergent plants __ Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have> 30% cover) __ Forested (areas where trees have> 30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: __ 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 the number of vegetation types that qualify. lfyou have: 4 structures or more ....... points= 4 2 structures .................... oints = 1 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures ................... points= 2 O I structure .................... oints = 0 H 1.2 Hydroperiods (seep. 73): Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to Figure - cover more than /0% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). __ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points= 3 x__ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present.. .... points = 2 x__ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present.. ................. points = 1 x__ Saturated only I type present .................... points = 0 __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to. the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Lake-fringe wetland ................. = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland ......... = 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (seep. 7 5): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least IO tt2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi(foil, reed canarygrass, purple loose strife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points= 2 5 -19 species .................... points= 1 List species below if you v,rant to: < 5 species ........................ points= 0 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (seep. 76): Decided from the diagrams below \Vhether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation (described in Ht.I), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low. or none. O(Q)(ji)@ None= O points Low :c 1 point Moderate= 2 points ·~·/~-" Hi = . H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (seep. 77): Note: If you have 4 or more classes Figure_ or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always "high"'. Use map of Cowardin classes. Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of point you put into the next column. x._ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland(> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) x._ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft. (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (IOm) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) __ At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures/or egg-laying by amphibians) __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H I TOTAL Score -otential for rovidin habitat Add the oints in the column above Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 8 ofl2 Wetland name or number ~----- ff 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80j: Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland i.s to be used in the ratin1;-See text for definition of "undisturbed" 1 OOm (330 ft) of relatively undisturhed vegetated areas. rocky areas. or open ,vater > 95% of circumference. No structures arc within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) ........ points= 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas. rocky areas. or open water > 50% circumference.. . ........................................................... points= 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference ................................................................................... . points= 4 IOOm (330 ft) ofrelatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas. or open water > 25% circumference.. . ......................................................... points= 3 __ 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50o/o circumference ............................................................................................. points= 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: __ No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns arc OK ........ . . ..... points= 2 __ X_ No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for> 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lav,.:ns are OK..... .. .................... points= 2 __ Heavy grazing in buffer............................................. . ............................. points= 1 __ Vegetated buffers are< 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference Figure_ (e.g. tilled fields. paving. basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points= 0 2 Buffer docs not meet any of the criteria above.. . .................................... points= I H2.2 Comments: Arial photo showing buffers Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs. forest or native undisturbed prairie. that connects to estuaries. other v,,ctlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES= 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO= go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part ofa relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide. has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above'! YES= 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO= go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 ls the wetland: Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture{> 40 acres) OR Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES= I point NO= 0 points 0 Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 9 of 12 Wetland name or number ~----- H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the Pl JS report http:i wdfw_wu. gov'l1ah phslisr.Jmn) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. ( IOOm) of the wetland unit? NOJ'E: the connections do not have to be relativelv undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greate~ than 0.4 ha ( 1 acre). __ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west ofCa,;;cade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that I 00%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. /58). ~_Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous. non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). __ lnstream: "l"he combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshorc, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice. or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0. 15 -2.0 m (0.5 M 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock. including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sutlicient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats= 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has I priority habitat= I point No habitats= 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in auestion H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (.~ee p. 84) • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 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 1/2 mile ..................................................................................................... points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed ............................................................................................................................. points= 3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................................................... points= 3 There is at least I wetland within 1/2 mile ........................................................................... points= 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................. ooints = 0 0 ~----. Add the scores from H2.l, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 5 .J TOTALforH/frompageSI -6-I H 2 TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat + Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H I and H 2; then record the result on p. I -11-; ._...._ _____________________________ ....;. ..... ~---~ Comments: Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 10 of12 Wetland name or number i ____ _ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit wilhin a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve. Natural Area Presen·e, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES -Category I NO -go to SC I .2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES -Category I NO -Category II __ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be gh·en a dual rating (I/II). l'he area of Spartina \vould be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh ,,.:ith native species would be a Category 1. Do not. however. exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. __ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 fl. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland __ The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels. depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or ,,,..etlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (]his question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D ___ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site __ _ YES __ Contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO ___ X_ not a Heritage \\Tetland SC3 l!!!J:! (seep. 87) Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. I/you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES= go to question 3 NO= go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES= go to question 3 NO= is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present. consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog·· plant species in Table 3 are present. the wetland is a bog. 4. ls the unit forested(> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce. or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% cove..:;,:;;:e of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES= Category I a= Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating 1/11 Cat I Cat. I Wetland Rating Form -Westem Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 11 ofl2 Wetland name or number 2 ____ _ SC4 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Docs the wetland have at least I acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department offish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? !fyou. answer yes you. will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. __ Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands ofat least two three species forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on mea,;;urements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. __ Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence. numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. Cat. I YES ~ Category I No~x not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC5 Wetlands in Coastal La1:;oons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? __ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks. gravel banks. shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. __ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs lo be measured near the boltom.) YES-Go to SC 5.1 NO _X_ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all ofthc following three conditions? __ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking. ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). __ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub. forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I __ The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES ~ Category 1 NO -Category II Cat. II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -Go to SC 6.1 NO __ X_ not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-· lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport--lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis -lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger. or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES ~ Category 11 NO -go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES -Category llI Cat. Ill Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics • Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p . 1. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p. 1 Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 12ofl2 Welland name or numher WETLAND RATING FORM -WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and repnxlucihiliLy among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority hahitats Name of wetland (if known): _______ ~W=e=ll=an=d~6~----------Date of site visit: ___ 0=1/~0-5-/1-1~ Rated by: _____ _,M=M=ay,_,n~a~r~d ____ Trained by Ecology? Yes____K__ No __ Date of training: __ ~0~4~/0~6~_ SEC:_~1=3 __ TWNSHP: __ 2=3=N~-RN GE:____Q:lli_ Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes ___ No K _ Map of wetland unit: Figure ______ Estimated size ______ o,. . .,8,.3_.a,.c,_re.__ SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: -----II _____ m_~x-__ IV ____ _ Category I = Score > 70 Category II= Score 51 -69 Category III= Score 30 -50 Category IV= Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOT AL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland _____ II _____ Does not apply __ =X~-- Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above") !._n_I ____ _. Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Old Growth Forest Coastal La oon Interdunal None of the above Flats Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HGM classes resent X Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to rotect the wetland accordin to the re ulations re ardin the s ecial characteristics found in the wetland. SPl. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? 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 habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate slate database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are cate orized as Cate or 1 Natural Herita e Wetlands (see . 19 of data form). SP3. SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local mana ement Ian as havin s ecial si nificance. X X X X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The h)drogoollDIJlhic clas.sificalion groups wetlanls in ID those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions neede:I ID answer oow well the wetland functions. The Hydmgeorooiphic Class of a wetland can be dcterrnined using the key bek,w. Sec p. 24 frrmore detailed inslructions oo classifying wetlands Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 1 of 12 Wetland name or number Q ____ _ Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington I. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? 111/1-go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. /fit is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is raied as an Estuarine wetland Wetlands that were call 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 only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. 1i11 -go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? ___ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores ofa body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (Sha) in size; ___ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? •-goto 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ___ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). ___ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ___ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Su~face water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually < 3 ft diameter and less than I foot deep). •-goto 5 YES -The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ___ The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. ___ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. ·-go to 6 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 of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is hi her than the interior of the wetland. NO -o to 7 -The wetland class is De ressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. 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 difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES 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 of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90%ofthe total area. Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope+ Depressional Deoressional Slope+ Lake-fringe Lake-frine.e Deoressional + Riverine along stream within boundarv Deoressional Deoressional + Lake-fringe Deoressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special freshwater wetland characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 2 of 12 Wetland name or number Q _____ _ Dl Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? D I. I Characterbtics of surface water -nows out of the wetland: Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).. . ..... points= 3 Figure_ Unit has an intermittently tlov..-ing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet ........ points= 2 Unit has an unconstrictcd. or slightly constricted. surface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points= l Unit is a ·'flaf' depression (Q.7 on key). or in the Flats class. with permanent surface outflow and no ob,:ious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ........................... points= I (/{ditch is not permanentlv flowinQ treat unit as "intermittentlv flowinf!"J Pro"·ide ohoto or drawin2 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use 1VRCS definitions) YES noints = 4 NO noints = 0 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation>= 95% of area.......................... . .. points= 5 Figure_ • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation>= 1/2 of area........... . ................. points= 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation>= 1/10 of area ............................................... points= I • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation< 1/10 of area .................................................. points= 0 Mao of Coward in ve2etation classes D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundat10n: This is the area oj the wetland that is ponded/or at leasr 2 months. but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanent~v Figure_ ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of JO years. Area seasonally ponded is> 1/2 total area of wetland.. . . .............. . ................... points= 4 • Area seasonally ponded is> 1 /4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points= 2 0 Area seasonally ponded is< 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points= 0 Map of Hydro periods Total for DI Add the ooints in the boxes above f-8-1 ~~---------------------------------------.-----D2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there arc pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams. lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? /Vote which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutanrs coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated storm water discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards ·within 150 ft. of wetland ==: A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields. roads, or clear-cut logging x___ Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland __ Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other------------------------------- YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is I + TOTAL -Water Oualitv Functions Multiolv the score from DJ bv D2: then add score to table on o. 1 D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? 0 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet)................ . .......... points= 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet ......... points= 2 Unit is a ··nar· depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ........................... points= 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Unit has an unconstricted or sli2:htlv constricted surface outlet (permanent Iv flowine) ....... ooints = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet ....................... points = 7 • The wetland is a "headwater'· wetland ................................................................................ points= 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ........................... points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to< 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet. ..................................... points= 3 Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= I • Marks ofoondirnz less than 0.5 ft ......................................................................................... ooints = 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland umt to storage m the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself The area of the basin is less than IO times the area of unit.. .................................................. points= 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit ................................................. points= 3 The area of the basin is more than I 00 times the area of the unit. . ......... points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class ...................................................................................... points= 5 (seep. 44) Multiplier _2 __ 16 4 ~-~-------T-01.a.1.ro.r.D-3--------------~A.d.d.th_e_v_o.i.nt.s.in~th.e.b.o.x.es-ab.o.v.e~:J:J Wetland Rating Fann -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06). updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 3 of 12 Wetland name or number §_ ____ _ ----D4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer 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 property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood iate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is om groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. }./ote which of the following indicators of opportunity 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 Multiplier __ Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems --Other _I __ YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL -Hydrolo2ic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1 7 Comments: Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 4 of 12 Wetland name or number § ____ ~ wATil!l~AtiITYroNCrI1)Nl,.:~~1tiiit~'' .· >:'I ~ +x. '-~.ve.J~~li*Y. ' · . ' ·· ~·t:;'' R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R LI Area of surface depressions v,dthin the riverine wetland that can trap sediment5'. during a flooding event: Depressions cover> 3/4 area of wetland .............................................................................. points= 8 Figure - Depressions cover> 1/2 area of wetland ...... .. ............. points= 4 (Jf depressions> 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) • Depressions present but cover< 1/2 area of wetland .......................................................... points= 2 • No depressions present.......... ......................... .. ............. points= 0 R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Figure_ Trees or shrubs> 2/3 area of the unit ................................................................................... points= 8 Trees or shrubs> 1/3 area of the wetland.. ......................... .. ........... points= 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants> 2/3 area of unit........ .. ......... points= 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants> 1/3 area of unit................. . ............ points= 3 Trees. shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous< 1/3 area of unit..... .. ........... points= 0 Aerial photo or map showine oolveons of different veeetation tvoes Add the points in the boxes above R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 53; • R3 Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater do\!.rngradient from the wetland. lV'ote which of the follollling conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated storm water discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas. farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential. urban areas. golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland rhe river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment. toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for Multiplier water quality. Other-----~~~~-----~~~~------------- YES multinlier is 2 NO multinlier is I TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from RI by R2; then add score to table on p. I Does the wetland have the l!l!!£!lfu!! to reduce flooding and erosion? - R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland . perpendicular to the direction qftheflow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between figure - banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit) I (average width of stream between hanks). If the ratio is more than 20 ................................................................................................... points= 9 If the ratio is bet,~/een I0-20 .............................................................................................. points= 6 If the ratio is 5-<10 ............................................................................................................. points= 4 • If the ratio is I-<5 ............................................................................................................... points= 2 If the ratio is< 1 .................................................................................................................. points= I Aerial ohoto or man showine averaee widths R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as . ''forest or shrub". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need lo have >90% Figure - cover al person height 1VOT Cowardin classes): Fore st or shrub for > I /3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area ............................................ points = 7 Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants> 1/3 area .......................................... points.= 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria ............................................................................... points= 0 ~-~-------------~A=er~i•~l~p~lh~o~to~o~r~m~•~•P~•~h~o~w~i~••~=nol~lv=•on~s~o~f~d~i~ff~e~re~n~t~v~e=m•t=•~ti~o~n~tv=n,e~•~---~ ~-~---------------------------A_d_d_1_he.o.a_i_n_1s_i_n_1h_e_b_a_x_e_s_a_bo_v_e~---j R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides. helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. __ There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings. bridges. farms) that can be damaged by flooding. __ There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other Multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal.fringe along the sides of a dike) Yl!S multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is I + TOTAL -Hvdrolo~ic Functions Multiolv the score from RJ bv R4; then add score to table on o. I Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 5 of 12 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L 1.1 Average v.ridth of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): Figure_ • Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (I Om) wide....................................... . ............... points= 6 Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) v.ridc and< 33 ft ..... .................... . ............... points= 3 • Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and< 16 ft. . ...... ............. . ............... points= 1 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide. . ....................................................... points= 0 Ma of Coward in classes with widths marked L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate ofcoverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the Figure - dominantform or as an understory in a shrob or forest community. 7hese are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. lVOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed Cover of herbaceous plants is> 90% of the vegetated area ................................................... points= 6 • Cover of herbaceous plants is> 2/3 of the vegetated area ..................................................... points= 4 • Cover of herbaceous plants is> 1/3 of the vegetated area ..................................................... points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers> 2/3 of the unit .................... points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in> 1/3 vegetated area ........................................... points= 1 Aquatic bed cover and open water> 2/3 of the unit .............................................................. points= 0 Ma with ol ons of different ve etation t es Add the oints in the boxes above :::J L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface \,,rater flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which ofthefollowingconditionsprovide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Wetland is along the shores ofa lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft --~il,~UJe?ield~~r ~i:i:::i~e~\~hi~ev~odft~(ir t~il~~dd edge --Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland == Parks with grassy areas that are maintained. ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. oflake shore) __ Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is I • TOTAL -Water ualit Functions Multi the score from Ll b L2; then add score to table on . I L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (see p.61) Multiplier L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakcshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) Figure - 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 tl. ( I Om) wide ................................................. points= 6 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide ..................................................... points= 4 • 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. ( I Om) wide ................................................. points= 4 • Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ...................................... points= 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ................................... points= 0 Aerial hoto or ma with Cowardin ve etation classes Record the oints in the boxes above L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (seep. 64) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. __ There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. __ There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. maiure forests, Multiplier other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other ------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 + TOTAL-H drolo ic Functions Multi the score from L3 b L4; then add score to table on . I Comments: Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page6ofl2 Wetland name or number Q ____ _ · WA'fBll'OUAU1 x ~• onl,.to.1ini>Mvii wilier a,m11tv. ·. > " · ·· · i"::.., t1111li':I.·"'""" ,,!:',,~;),· s l Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is !%or less(a !%slope has al ft. vertical drop inelevationforevery1 J(){)ft. horizonlal distance) ........ points= 3 • Slope is I% -2% ......................... ............................ . ....... points= 2 • Slope is 2% -5%. ............ . ....................................... points= I • Slope is greater than 5% ...... . ....................................................... points= 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay. organic (Use NRCS definitions). s 1.3 YES = 3 noints NO = 0 noints Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover). and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation> 90% of the wetland area ........................................... points= 6 Dense. uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area.............................................. . .... points= 3 Dense. woody, vegetation> 1/2 of area.............................................. . ............... points= 2 • Dense. uncut. herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area..................... . ............... points= 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation........... . .......................... points= 0 Figure_ f--f----------------------"'A,.=e.,_ri,.=a.,_1= pho"'tc.=0-'o"r-'m=an"-'w"it,,h,_vcc•,.,2,=e.,,ta,.,t,,io"'n"p"',o"ln"-"",o"n"'s-l,.----. ~-~-------T-ot_•_l_fu_r_s_1 _______________ A_d_d_1h_e_v_o_i_n1_s_i_n_1h_e_b_o_x_es_ab_o_v_e•---J S2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland __ Tilled fields, logging, or orchards \vithin 150 ft. of wetland __ Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other------------------------------- YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 + TOTAL -Water Oualitv Functions Multiolv the score from SI bv S2; then add score to table on o. J S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows. during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usual{v > l18in), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows) Dense. uncut. rigid vegetation covers> 90% of the area of the wetland ............................... points= 6 Dense, uncut. rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland ............................................................. points= 3 • Dense. uncut, rigid ve~etation > 1/4 area.: ....................... : .. ···: ......... ._ .................................... po!nts = 1 • More than 1/4 of area 1s grazed mowed tilled. or vegetation 1s not ngid ............ . ...... oomts = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. Multiplier The slope has sma~:i;f!c2 i~f~~:sions that can ~~ai2 ~~1ei~fsver at least 10% of its area. t----,t------------~-------~-~=~-----------------0----- Add the points in the boxes above ~ ........ ____________________________ .... __________ ....... ___ _ S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? ls the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? l\"ote which of the following conditions apply. __ Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems __ Other ~------~--~--~~---~~--~~~--~~--(Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is I + TOTAL -Hvdrolo•ic Functions Multiolv the score from S3 bv S4; then add score to table on o. I Comments: Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 (seep. 70) Multiplier Page 7 of 12 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? HI.I Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) Size threshold for each class is Figure - 1/4 acre or more than /0% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic Bed x__ Emergent plants x__ Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) __ Forested (areas where trees have> 30% cover) ff the unit has aforested class check if __ 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 the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: 4 structures or more ....... points = 4 2 structures .................... oints = 1 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures ................... points= 2 I structure .................... oints = 0 H 1.2 Hydroperiods (seep. 73): Figure_ Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or 114 acre lo count (see text/or descriptions ofhydroperiods). __ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points= 3 x__ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present.. .... points = 2 __ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present.. ................. points = 1 x__ Saturated only I type present ..... points= 0 __ Permanently flowing stream or river in. or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Lake-fringe wetland ................. = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland ......... = 2 points Map of hydro periods H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least IO ft2 (different patches of the same species can he combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed canarygrass. purple loose strife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points= 2 5 -19 species .................... points= I List species below if you want to: < 5 species... . ............. points= 0 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (seep. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation (described in Hl.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas ( can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium. low, or none. O(Q)(jj)@ Note: If you have 4 or more cla'\ses Figure_ or 3 vegetation classes and open water. the rating is None ... 0 points Low"" 1 point Moderate,,,. :2 points always "high". ·""·,,.~-Use map of Coward in classes. Hi • . H 1.5 Special Habitat Featuies (seep. 77): Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of point you put into the next column. __ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) __ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland __ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft. (lm) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (IOm) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) __ At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1 TOTAL Score -otential for rovidin habitat Add the oints in the column above 0 Wetland Rating Fonn-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 8 of 12 Wetland name or number Q ____ _ H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Choose the description that best represents condition o.lbufjer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text/Or definition of "undisturhed". IOOm (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures arc within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) ............ points= 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference.................... . ....................................... points= 4 __ 50m ( 170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference .................................................................................................... points= 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference................................................ . ...................... points= 3 __ 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50o/o circumference.... .. ....................................................................... points= 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: __ No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ..................... . __ X_ No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for> 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ............. . __ Heavy grazing in buffer ........................................................ .. __ Vegetated buffers are< 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumferem;e points= 2 points= 2 points= 1 Figure_ (e.g. tilled fields. paving. basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points= 0 2 __ Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above.......................... . ...... points= 1 H 2.2 Comments: Arial photo showing buffers Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) H 2.2.1 ls the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 n. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs. forest or nath,e undisturbed prairie. that connects to estuaries. other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES~ 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO -go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part ofa relatively undbturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. 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 sL .. :e? OR a Lake- fringe wetland. if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES~ 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO -go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture{> 40 acres) OR Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES-I point NO= 0 points 0 Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06). updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page9of12 Wetland name or number Q ____ _ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82): (see neiv and complete descriptions ofWDflYpriority hahitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http:, wdtjr. wu. govi/wb ,,phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ti. (100m) of the wetland unit? lVOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). __ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forhs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands ofat least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity oflarge downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non.forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). __ lnstream: The combination of physical, biological. and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore. and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFWreport: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogcnous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 ~ 2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm ( 12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ti) long. lfwetland has 3 or more priority habitats= 4 points lfwetland has 2 priority habitats= 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat= 1 point No habitats= 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the land,;cape around the wetland that best fits (seep. 84) • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 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 1/2 mile ..................................................................................................... points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed ............................................................................................................................. points= 3 The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands \\.:ithin 1/2 mile .................................................................................................................... points = 3 There is at least I wetland within 1/2 mile ........................................................................... points= 2 There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................. ooints = 0 ~----. Add the scores from H2. l, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 5 .J TOTALforH/frompageBI -3-I H 2 TOT AL Score -opportunity for providing habitat ~.~·T•o•t•a•l•S•co·,·.·i·.·,·H•a•b•it•a•t•F•u•nc•t•io•n•,-----A-dd-th•e•p•o•in•t•s•fo•r•H-l•a•n•d•H•2•;•t•h•en-~·c·o·ro·,·h·e·,·~·u·l·to•n•p·.·1-+-g-~.J .......... ____________________ .....;. _____________ . Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington. Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page IO of12 W ct land name or number §_ ____ _ CATEGORIZATIOl\' BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes de~Tribed below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. NO_X_ SC 1. l ls the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve. Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES -Category I NO -go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 ls the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II __ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (1/H). fhe area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however. exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. __ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland __ The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open waler. or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the \\rashington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2. l Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact Wlv'HPIDNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D ___ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site __ _ YES __ Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO ___ X_ not a Heritage Wetland SC3 .!!!!n (seep 87) Docs the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. I/you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its Junction. I. Docs the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil). either peats or mucks. that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES= go to question 3 NO= go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Docs the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the ··bog'' species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES= Is a bog for purpose of rating NO= go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the undcrstory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16"" deep. If the pJI is less than 5.0 and the "'bog·· plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested(> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine. quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or weslern white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% cove.!,;;$e of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES= Category I a= Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. 1 Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating 1/11 Cat I Cat. I Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 11 ofl2 Wetland name or number Q ____ _ SC4 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least I acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? if you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. __ Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (8 l cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and ·'OR'" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. __ Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. Cat. I YES -Cateeorv I NO-X not a forested wetland with special characteristics scs Wetlands in Coastal Lai:;oons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? __ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel hanks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. __ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) Yl!S-Go to SC 5.1 NO _X_ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions'! __ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (sec list of invasive species on p. 74). __ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazcd or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I __ The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES -Category I NO -Category II Cat. II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) ls the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WIJUO)? YES-Go to SC 6.1 NO __ X_ not an interdunal wetland for rating I/you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its/unctions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula --lands west of SR 103 : 8~!~~aii~~e~~~~;aiis 1 ~}~~;e!te~[~fs}2{ 15 and SR 109 SC 6.1 ls the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES -Category II NO -go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 ls the wetland between 0. 1 and I acre, or is it in a mosaic of w·etlands that is between 0.1 and J acre? YES -Category Ill Cat. Ill Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics • Choose the "highest'' rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p . I. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable'' on p. I Comments: Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 12ofl2 Wetland name or nurnher 7 ____ _ WETLAND RATING FORM -WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2-Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definition~ for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): ________ W=e'-'tl~an~d~7 ___________ Dale of site visit: __ ~0~3/~0~8~/1~2~ Rated by: ____ --M=M=ay~n=a~rd~---Trained by Ecology? Yes_____K__ No __ Dale of lraining: __ ~0~4/~0~6 __ SEC: __ ~13~--TWNSHP:_~2=3~N~ RNGE:____Q±&_ Is S/T/R in Appendix D 0 Yes ___ No X _ Map of wetland unit: Figure _______ Estimated size _____ ~0~·~8~8~a~c~re~- SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: -----II _____ m _ __,x..._ __ IV ___ _ Category I = Score > 70 Category II = Score 51 -69 Category III = Score 30 -50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Hahitat Functions TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland -----II ____ Does not apply __ ,.,X'--- Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above") .. 1.11_1 ____ _. Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Old Growth Forest Coastal La oon Interdunal None of the above Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HGM classes resent X If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will the s ecial characteristics found in the wetland. SPI. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? 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 habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate slate database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are cate orized as Cate or 1 Natural Herita e Wetlands (sec . 19 of data form). SP3. SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its Junctions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local mana ement Ian as havin s ecial si nificance. X X X X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to detennine the Hydrogeomomhic Class of the wetland being rated. The h)drogeoroorphic classificaJioo groups wetlands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questioo; need<rl to ans\\U' oow well the wetland function~ The Hydrogrumrphic Class ofa wetland can be determined using the key below. Seep. 2A for rmrederailed instructions on classil)ing wetlands. Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page I of 12 Wetland name or number 7 ____ _ Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? • -go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the formsfor Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call 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 crnsistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (seep. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. • -go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressiooal wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? ___ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores ofa body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (Sha) in size; ___ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? •-goto 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ___ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be ve,y gradual). ___ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ___ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Swface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in ve,y small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than I foot deep). NO -go to 5 --The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ___ The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. ___ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding .. • -go to 6 YES -The wetland class is Riverine 6. ls the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. •-goto 7 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. 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. ·-goto 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS I-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 ooly if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10"/o rrmore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than I 0% of the uni~ classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. Slone+ Riverine Riverine Slope+ Depressional Depressional Slope+ Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressi anal Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special freshwater wetland characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above cntena apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depression al for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 2 of 12 D 1.1 Characteristics of surface \Nater flows out of the ,vetlan<l: Unit is a depression with no surface ,vater leaving it (no outlet) ............................... points= 3 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet ........ points = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanem(vf!owing) ....... points ,. I Unit is a ''flat'' depression (Q.7 on key). or in the Flats class, \Vith permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ........................... points= l (! ditch is not rmanentlv owin treat unit as ''intermittent/, f/owin " Provide hoto or drawin D 1.2 ·1he soil 2 inches below the surface (or dufflayer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES oints = 4 NO oints = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation>= 95% of area......... . .......................... points= 5 Figure_ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation>= 1/2 of area ............................................... points= 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation>= 1/10 of area .............................................. points= 1 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation< 1/10 of area .................................... points= O Ma of Cowardin ve etation classes D 1.4 C aractenst1cs o seasonal pondmg or rnundat1on: This is t e area o tie wet an t at is pan e or at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently Figure_ ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of /0 years. Area seasonally ponded is > I /2 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is> I /4 total area of v.:etland .......................................................... points= 2 Area seasonally ponded is< 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points= 0 Ma of H dro eriods Total for DI Add the oints in the boxes above D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in ground,\.·ater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? 1Vote which of the following conditions provide the sources <.!.(pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualifv as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated stormv .. 1ater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland == A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging x__ Residential, urban areas, golf courses are \Vithin 150 ft. of \'1-·etland Multiplier __ Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is I + TOTAL-Water ualit Functions Multi I the score from Dl b D2· then add score to table on . I D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface ,,,..·ater leaving it (no outlet) .......................................... points= 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet ......... points = 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ........................... points= I (If ditch is not permanentlyjlowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Unit has an unconstricted. or sli htl constrictedi surface outlet ermanentl owin ....... oints = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet ....................... points= 7 The wetland is a "headwater'' wetland .................................................................................. points= 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to< 3 ft. from surface or bottom ofoutlet ........................... points ~ 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to< 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet. ..................................... points= 3 Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water. points= 1 Marks of ondin less than 0.5 ll ......................................................................................... oints ~ 0 D 3.3 Contn ut1on o wet an umt to storage mt e waters e : Estimate t e ratio q t e area o upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. 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.. ................................................ points= 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit.. ........................................ points= 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class......................................................................................... oints = 5 Total for D 3 Add the oints in the boxes above Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington. Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 3 of 12 Wetland name or number D4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Ansvv·er YES if the unit is in a location in the \\'atershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helpJ\hrotect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Ansv,rer O if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wt."tland is om groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. ]Vote which of the following indicators of opportuni~ Gff/Y· __ Wetland is in a ea water of a 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 Multiplier stream that has flooding problems Other ----- YES multinlier is 2 NO multiplier is I • TOTAL -Hydrolo2ic Functions Multinlv the score from D3 bv D4; then add score to table on o. I Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 4of 12 I R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Figure_ Depressions cover> 3/4 area of wetland .............................................................................. points= 8 Dcpre::i.sions cover> 1/2 area ofv,.:etland ......................................................... . ....... points= 4 (If depressions> 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) Depressions present but cover< 1/2 area of wetland.... . .. points= 2 No de ressions resent......................................... .. ....... oints = 0 R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Figure_ ·rrees or shrubs> 2/3 area of the unit ................................................................................... points= 8 i~~:a~~d,hh~~b:Ce~~s a~l:n~t ;hz13~t::~~i: ~~ii':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: g~\~!: : ~ Un grazed herbaceous plants > I /3 area of unit ............... . ... points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazcd herbaceous< I /3 area of unit... .......... ... points= 0 Aerial hoto or ma showin ol ons of different ve etation t es Add the oints in the boxes above R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in ground\\'ater or surface water coming into the wetland that \vould otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater dmvngradient from the wetland. 1Vote which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants comingfrom several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated storm water discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland == A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed --~~~1:1~~fi:1,s,u~b:~e:;~~~.t 1 ~rri~~rses arc within 150 fl. of wetland __ The river or stream linkeJ to the wetland has a contributing basin \Vhere human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for Multiplier water quality. Other------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is I + TOTAL -Water ualit Functions Multi the score from RI bv R2; then add score to table on . 1 R 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 3.1 R 3.2 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland . perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between Figure - banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit) i (average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20................. . .......................... points= 9 If the ratio is between IO -20. ..................... . .......................... points= 6 If the ratio is 5-<10. ................... . ............. points= 4 :f ~g~ ~:~t~ t: !· t~:::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: g~i~~: : T Aerial hoto or ma showin avera e widths Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woo«v debris as . "forest or shrub" Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (po{vgons need to have >90° Figure cover at person height lvDT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for> 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants> 2/3 area..... . ....... points= 7 Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants> 1/3 area .......................................... points = 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria..... . ....... points= 0 Aerial hoto or ma showin ol ons of different ve etation t es Add the oints in the boxes above. R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage. or reduction in water velocity. it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows .. '-late which of the following conditions apply. __ There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridgesi farms) that can be damaged by flooding. __ There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding __ Other Multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is I + TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multipl the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on p. I Comments: Wetland Rating Form -Western Wa,;;hington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 5 of 12 L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons ofCowardin classes): Figure_ Vegetation is more than 33 ft. ()Om) wide........................... . ............................. points~ 6 • Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and< 33 ft......... . ......................................... points= 3 • Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and< 16 ft ............................................................. points= 1 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. \Vide .......................................................................................... points= 0 Ma of Cowardin classes with widths marked L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points. and do not include al'{V open water in your estimate qf coverage. The herbaceous p/ant.s can be either the Figure - dominant.form or as an understory in a shrub or forest comnmnity. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed Cover of herbaceous plants is> 90% of the vegetated area ................................................... points= 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is> 2/3 of the vegetated area ..................................................... points= 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is> 1/3 of the vegetated area ..................................................... points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers> 2/3 of the unit .................... points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in> 1 /3 vegetated area ............................................ points= 1 Aquatic bed cover and open water> 2/3 of the unit .............................................................. points= 0 Ma with ol ons of different ve etation t es Add the oints in the boxes above L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface v,,ater flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the folluwing conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants comingfrom several sources, but af!V single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft --~~V~Jefteld~t~r ~:it::crse~\~hi~e\1;gdft~1ir~~ft~~'t edge --Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of\vetland = Parks with grassy areas that are maintained. ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 fl. oflake shore) __ Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other -----,-,-c,---,-~-----~~~~~------------ YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is I + TOTAL -Water Qualit Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2; then add score to table on p. l L J Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L3 (see p.61) Multiplier Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) Figure - • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 !\. ( I Om) wide ................................................. points -6 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide ..................................................... points~ 4 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (I Om) wide ................................................. points~ 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ...................................... points -2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ................................... points -0 Aerial hoto or ma with Cowardin ve etation classes Record the oints in the boxes above L 4 Does the wetland have the ppportunity to reduce erosion? (seep. 64) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the.following conditions apply. __ There are human structures ~nd activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. __ There arc undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, Multiplier other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other -----~~~----------------------- YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 + TOTAL -Hydrolo ic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4; then add score to table on . I Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington. Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 6 of 12 Does the wetland have the potential to imprm:e water quality? S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slcpcis 1%orless(a /%slope has a I.ft. vertical drop inelevationforeve,y 100ft. horizontal dMance) ........ points :-3 • Slope is I o/o -2% .............................................. ........ ...... . .... points= 2 : ~:~r: l~ 2 ;:a-t~r~ 0h~·~·5%·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::···················· ·········::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: P~!gg: l S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (lJse ?./RCS ckflnilions). Y~=3 ~~ NO=O ~~ S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the \vetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil swjllce (> 75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation> 90% of the wetland area ........................................... points= 6 gi~lt ::0~]~:~~l~!:~~~ ::m:~~~+:.;:.:;:::.~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::g~!~ll: f Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation.............................. . ................ points= 0 Aerial hoto or ma with ve etation ol oos Figure_ Total for S I s 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Add the oints in the boxes above :J: (seep. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the ,vetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? !Vote which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland __ Tilled fields, logging. or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland ___x_ Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other-----~~------------------------ YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 + TOTAL -Water Qualit Functions Multi I the score from SI b S2; then add score to table on , I S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate/or the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usual~y > /;Bin), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers> 90% of the area of the wetland ............................... points= 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland ............................................................. points= 3 : ~~~~eth~~c]}4 ~f~~e:crsct~~~;d> ~~~!datiii~ct···~-~-~e"et~tiO~'i~-~~t·~r·i·d·:::::::::::: ... P~jg~~: b S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has sma~;:f!c; d~f~~:sions that can ~:a~ ;·a~~fsver at least 10% of its area. Multiplier Add the oints in the boxes above :2 S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Is the \\'etland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which oflhefollowingconditions apply. ____x Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems __ Other.~~-~---~-~~-~~~---~~--~~~---,,--,-,~-(Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is l + TOTAL -H drolo ic Functions Multi 1 • the score from S3 bv S4; then add score to table on . I Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 (seep. 70) Multiplier ;, 4 Page 7 of 12 H 1.2 H 1.3 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined hy lowardin) -Size threshold for each class is Figure - 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic Bed x__ Emergent plants __ Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have> 30% cover) x__ Forested (areas '"·here trees have> 30% cover) lfthe unit has a forested class check if· x__ 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 the number of vegetation types that qualif!'_-!fyou have: Map of Cowardin vegetation .clas!es 4 structures or more ....... pomts -4 3 structures ................... points -2 2 2 structures .................... oints = 1 1 structure .................... oints = 0 Hydroperiods (.,ee p.73): Check the types qf water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or //4 acre to count (see text/or descriptions qfhydroperiods). __ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 __ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present.. .... points = 2 x__ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present.. ................. points ~ 1 x_ Saturated only 1 type present .................... points= 0 __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Lake-fringe wetland ................. = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland .•.....•. = 2 points Map of bydroperiods Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft:2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points= 2 5 -19 species .................... points= 1 List species below if you want to: < 5 species ........................ points= 0 Figure_ H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (seep. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Coward in vegetation (described in H 1.1 ), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. O(Q)(jj)@ Note: If you have 4 or more classes Figure or 3 vegetation classes and - open water, the rating is None• 0 points Low .._ 1 point Moderate ,,.. 2 points always "high". ·""·/~-Use map of Cowardio classes. H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (seep. 77): Check the habitat.features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. __ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) __ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland __ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 fl. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 fl. (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit. for at least 33 ft. (!Om) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) __ At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1 TOT AL Score -otcntial for rovidin habitat Add the oints in the column above Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 8 of 12 Wetland name or number l ~H~2:..J-_::D.::o::_<S:..:_:lh:_:<_:w~e:;t_::l•:_:n:_:d_:h_::•:_:v_::e:_l_::h::_e_::o=p=po":'r::t::u::ni':ty::...:_to::...":p:..:ro:_:v_::id::_e::_.::h•::_b:_:i_::t•.::t_:f.::o::_r_::m_::a:_:n:::y_:s:_,:p:::_e::_ci:::_e:_:s?~----------~~ 112.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Choose the description that hest represents condition of huffer of ivet/and unit. The highest scaring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating See text for definition of "undisturbed" 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas., or open ·water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part ofbuffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) .... __ .... points= 5 100m (330 fl) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50o/o circumference ..................................................................................................... points = 4 __ 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference................................................................. . .......... points= 4 __ 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference ..................................................................................................... points = 3 __ 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference ............................................................................................... points= 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: __ No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) ofv,1etland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ................................... points= 2 __ X_ No paved areas or buildings within 50m ofw·etland for> 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK .................................................................... points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer.................................................. . ....... points= 1 Vegetated buffers are< 2m wide (6.6 fl) for more than 95% circumference Figure_ (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) .............................. points= 0 4 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above ..... points= 1 Arial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 8 /j Comments: H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part ofa relati\·ely undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries. other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that arc at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavi(v used gravel roads, paved roads. are considered hreaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part ofa relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. 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, ifit does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES= 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO= go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 ls the wetland: Within 5 mi (8km) ofa brackish or salt water estuary OR Within 3 miles ofa large field or pasture(> 40 acres) OR Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES= I point NO= 0 points Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 9of 12 Wetland name or number H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report /Ufn:, 1rd61·.wa.gov hab plislist.litm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). __ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forest.: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands ofat least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that l 00%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity oflargc downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). __A~ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the fonn of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). __ lnstream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed ncarshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFWreport: pp. /67-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological fonnations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas ofrock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit suflicient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats= 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats -3 point. If wetland has I priority habitat -I point No habitats -0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but arc not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (seep. 84) ·There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 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 \\-'ithin 1/2 mile ..................................................................................................... points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1 /2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed............................................... . ........................................................... points -3 The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................................................... points -3 There is at least I wetland within 1/2 mile ........................................................................... points= 2 f--f----Th_e_r_e_ar_e_n_o_w~et_la_n_d_s_w_it_h_in_li_2_m_1_·1e-'.-'···c.·· ... ··...c··c.··· ... ·· ... ··...c··c.··· ... ··...c··...c··c.··· ... ··...c··...c··· ... ·· ... ··-··-···-··-··-··-···-··-··-··-···-··_··_···c.·· ... ·· ... ·· ... ···-"·Pc..O ... in ... t ... s_-_04 ,_, __ _ H 2 TOTAL Score-opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2. I, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4' 12 : TOTAL for HI from page 8 • Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H I and H 2; then record the result on p. I I 17 I Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06). updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page IO of 12 W ctlan<l name or number L SC2 SC3 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. SC 1.1 1s the v,retland unit v,1ithin a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park. National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151'/ YES ~ Category I NO~ go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Js the wetland at least I acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES ~ Category I NO~ Category II __ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has !h~~ ~~~~/~~r~~h~~ 0 {0%n~f~~~v!~l1~~td~~h~~~h;~v!~tlanndn;g~~)de Jf~'i[i;a :~E;t::ti~~~1/11)~ies The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species \\-'Ould be a Category I. Do not, however1 exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. __ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazcd or un-mmved grassland The \'v'etland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, --or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland'! (This question is used to screen out most sites he/ore you need to contact WNHP/D/VR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D ___ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site __ _ YES __ Contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 llas DNR identified the v.retland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES ~ Category I NO ___ X_ not a Heritage Wetland ~(seep. 87) Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its/unction. I. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES= go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES= go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants. if present, consist of the '·bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4 NOTE: lfyou are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested(> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann·s spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES = Category I • ~ ls not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating 1/11 Cat I Cat. I Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06). updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 11 of12 Wetland name or number $C4 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? ff you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. __ OJd-growth forests: (,vest of Cascade Crest) Stands ofat least two three species fonning a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and '·OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. __ Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees arc 80 -200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity oflarge downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. Cat. I YES ~ Category I No~x not a forested wetland with soecial characteristics scs Wetlands in Coastal La1:;oons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria ofa wetland in a coastal lagoon? __ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. __ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish(> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs lo be measured near the bottom.) YES -Go to SC 5.1 NO _X_ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? __ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation. grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). __ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I __ The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square fl.) YES -Category I NO -Category II Cat. II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES-Go to SC 6.1 NO __ X_ not an interduna[ wetland for rating I/you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. (n practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula --lands west of SR 103 : 8~!~~a~t;,~e~~jl?g~aiis 1 ~nl~~d/~e~i~fsk 0i 15 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES -Category II NO -goto SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and I acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and I acre? YES -Category lII Cat. III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics • Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p . I. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p. I Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06). updated ""1th new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 12 of 12 Wetland name or number BR ____ _ WETLAND RATING FORM -WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): ________ W~e=tl=an=d=B=R~---------Date of site visit: __ ~0=3/~0~l~/~12~ Rated by: _____ ~M~M~a._y~n~•~rd~---Trained by Ecology'! Yes____x_ No __ Date of training: __ -0~4~/0~6~- SEC: __ ~13~--TWNSHP:_~2=3~N~ RNGE:_____Q±L_ ls S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes ___ No X _ Map of wetland unit: Figure ______ Estimated size ______ -~1=·=9~a~c=re=s~ SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: -----n __ ~x~-III _____ IV ___ _ Category I = Score> 70 Category II = Score 51 -69 Category III= Score 30 -50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydro logic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland -----II _____ Does not apply __ =X~-- Final Category (choose the "highest'' category from above") .. 1 _11 ____ __. Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Old Growth Forest Coastal La oon Interduna] None of the above Flats Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HGM classes resent X If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will the s ecial characteristics found in the wetland. SPI. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? 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 habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species arc catc orized as Cate or 1 Natural Herita e Wetlands (see _ 19 of data form). SP3. SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local mana ement lan as havin s ecial si nificance. X X X X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomomhic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeom:llphic classification groups wetlands in to those that fimction in similar ways. This simplifies 1he quesiioo; medal to= oow well 1he wetland fur<:tiorn. The H)'drogoomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using 1he key bek,w. Seep. 24 for moo, detailed imtructiorn on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page I of 12 Wetland name or number BR ____ _ Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? B -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) ff your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use thefonnsfor Riverine wetlands. !fit is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editioos of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeornorphic Classificatioo. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editioos, and this separatioo is being kept in this revisioo. 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 only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. •-goto 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats Jf your wetland can be classified as a Hflats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? ___ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores ofa body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (Sha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? ---•-goto 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ___ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). ___ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? ---NOTE: Suiface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than l foot deep). W-go to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ___ The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. ---NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding .. •-goto 6 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 of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 --The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. 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 difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressiooal wetland has a zone offlooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES 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. NaIB: Use this table ooly if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 1 O"/o ex-more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than I 0% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents mere than 90% of the total area. Slope+ Riverine Riverine Slope+ Depressional Depressional Slope+ Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Deoressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Deoressi on al Deoressional + Lake-fringe Deoressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special freshwater wetland characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 2 of 12 Dl.2 D 1.3 D 1.4 Characteristics of surface ,vater 1lov,.:s out ol'the wetland: Unit is a depression \Vith no surface water leaving it (no outlet).... . .............. points= 3 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet ........ points= 2 Unit has an unconstrictcd. or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanent(vflowing) ....... points= I Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key). or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outtlo\v and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch .. (I "ditch is not rmanentl owin treat unit as "intermittent!, lowin Provide The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use ]',/RCS definitions) YES oints = 4 NO oints = 0 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub. and/or forest Cmvardin class): Wetland has persistent, ungrazcd vegetation>= 95% of area. . ................................. points= 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation>= 1/2 of area ................................................ points= 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation>= 1/10 of area ............................................... points= I • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation< 1/10 ofarea .................................................. points = O Ma of Cowardin ve etation classes Characteristics o seasonal pon mg or mundatton: T1is is t e area o t e wet an that is pon e or at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condirion 5 out of JO years. Area seasonally ponded is> 1/2 total area of wetland........................... .. ............... points= 4 4 Figure_ Figure_ Area seasonally ponded is> 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points= 2 2 Area seasonally ponded is< 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points= 0 Ma of H dro eriods Total for DI Add the oints in the boxes above -12 D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 44) Answer YES if you knO\\' or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? /Vote which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated storm water discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland == A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging x__ Residential, urban areas, golf courses arc within 150 ft. of wetland Multiplier __ Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other 2 __ _ YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 + TOTAL -Water ualit Functions Multi I · the score from DI bv D2· then add score to table on . I D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flo\'1-"S out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet)................... . ....... points= 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet ......... points= 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats classi \'v'ith permanent surface O outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ........................... points= I (If ditch is 1101 permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Unit has an unconstricted or sli htl constricted1 surface outlet ermanentl owin oints = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part ((f dry). Marks of ponding arc 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet........ . .... points= 7 The wetland is a ''headwater'' wetland .................................................................................. points= 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to< 3 ft. from surface or bottom ofoutlet ........................... points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to< 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ...................................... points= 3 Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q. 7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water. points= 1 Marks of ondin less than 0.5 ft ......................................................................................... oints -0 D 3.3 Contnbutrnn o wet an unit to storage m the waters e . Estimate t e ratio o t e area o upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unil itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit .................................................... points= 5 The area of the basin is IO to I 00 times the area of the unit....................... . ................ points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit.... . .............. points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class ......................................................................................... oints = 5 Total for D 3 Add the oints in the boxes above -6- Wetland Rating Form~ Western Wa.;;hington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new \VDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 3 of 12 Wetland name or number BR ____ _ D4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer 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 property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flm>i-·s. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled bJ a structure such as flood late. tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of e water in the wetland is om groundwater in area,;; where damaging groundv,rater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apf/Y. __ Wetland is in a hea water of a river or stream that has flooding problems. x__ Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Multiplier __ Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems --Other _2 __ YES multiolier is 2 NO multiolier is I • TOT AL -Hvdrolo•ic Functions Multiolv the score from D3 bv D4; then add score to table on D. I 12 Comments: Wetland Rating Fonn-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 4 of 12 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depre5sions within the riverine wclland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Figure_ Depressions cover> 3/4 area of wetland............ . .............................. points= 8 Depressions cover> I /2 area of wetland... .. ............................. points = 4 (If depressions> 1/2 of area of unit draw pollgons on aerial photo or map) : ~~PJ~s;~~~io~~es~~!e~~t cover< 1/2 area of wet and.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: P~}~~~: 5 R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Figure_ Trees or shrubs> 2/3 area of the unit............................................ . ................. points= 8 Trees or shrubs> 1/3 area of the wetland....... . ..................... pomts = 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants> 2/3 area of unit.. . .................. points= 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants> 1/3 area of unit ..................................................................... points= 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungra7ed herbaceous< 1/3 area of unit ................................................... points= O Aerial boto or ma showio ol ons of different ve etation t es Add the oints in the boxes above R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 53) Answer YES if you kno\\/ or believe there arc pollutants in ground\'11ater or surface \\1ater coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce \\1ater quality in streams, lakes or ground·watcr downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft == Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland == A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas. residential areas. fanned __ ~:~1d~~~i~t~~b~~e:;;~t 1 ~ff~~~rses are within 150 ft. of wetland , __ Tbe river or stream linkeJ to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have Multiplier raised levels of sediment. toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality. Other ------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 + TOTAL -Water Qualit Functions Multi lv the score from R 1 b 'R2; then add score to table on . I R 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 3.1 R 3.2 Characteristics of the ovcrbank storage the \vetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland . perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between Figure_ banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/ (average width of stream hetween hanks). If the ratio is more than 20 ................................................................................................... points= 9 If the ratio is between 10 -20 .............................................................................................. points= 6 If the ratio is 5-<10 ............................................................................................................. points= 4 If the ratio is I-<5............................................. .. ................................. points= 2 If the ratio is < I................................................... .................... .. ........ points= 1 Aerial boto or ma showin avera e widths Characteristics of vegetation that slow do\\1n \\-'ater velocities during floods: Treat large wootry debris as . 'j"orest or shrub". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need lo have >90° Figure cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for> 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants> 2/3 area ............................................ points= 7 Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants> 1/3 area .......................................... points= 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria ............................................................................... points= O Aerial hoto or ma showio ol ons of different ve etation t es Add the oints in the boxes above R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answt-'f YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage1 or reduction in water \•elocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from Hooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which ofthefollowingconditions apply. There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can --be damaged by flooding. __ There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other Multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 + TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multi ly the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on p. I Comments: Wetland Rating Form -Western Wa,;;hington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 5 of 12 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons ofCov.:ardin classes): Figure_ Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (1 Om) wide ........................................................................... points= 6 Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and< 33 ft ............................................................. points= 3 Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and< 16 ft ............................................................. points= I Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide .......................................................................................... points= 0 Ma of Cowardio classes with widths marked L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choase the appropriate description thnt results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate qf coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the Figure - dominant form or as an wuierstory in a shrub or forest community. These are not C owardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquaJic bed Cover of herbaceous plants is> 90% of the vegetated area ................................................... points= 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is> 2/3 of the vegetated area ..................................................... points= 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is> 1/3 of the vegetated area ..................................................... points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers> 2/3 of the unit .................... points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in> 1/3 vegetated area ............................................ points= I Aquatic bed cover and open water> 2/3 of the unit.. .......................................................... points= 0 Ma with ol ons of different ve etation t es Add the oints in the boxes above L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there arc pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. 1Vote which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but a1'9! single source would qualify as opportunity. __ Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards __ Grazing in the wetland or \\'ithin 150 ft __ Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 fl. of wetland __ Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland __ Parks with grassy areas that arc maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 fl. oflake shore) __ Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other -----~~~-------~~~------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multiplier is I + TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2; then add score to table on L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L3 (see p.61) Multiplier Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) Figure_ 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (1 Om) wide ............................................... points = 6 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide......... . ................ points= 4 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (1 dm) wide ................................................. pomts = 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ...................................... points= 2 Vegetation is less than 6 fl. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed).... .. ............. points= 0 Aerial hoto or ma with Cowardin ve etation classes Record the oints in the boxes above L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (seep. 64) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. __ There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. __ There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, Multiplier other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other------------------------------- YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is I + TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4; then add score to table on p. I Comments: Wetland Rating Form~ Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 6 of 12 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is 1%orle:;s (a /%slope has a /ft. vertical dropinelevutianfOreve,y JOO.ft. hori::o!Ual distance) ........ points = 3 • Slope is 1 o/o -2°/o .................................................................................... . ... points = 2 • Slope is 2o/o -5o/o ............................................................................................................... points= I • Slo e is reater than 5% ................................................................ oints = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (Use /\/RCS definitions). YES = 3 oints NO = 0 oints S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate/or the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (> 7 5% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mmved and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation> 90% of the \'1-'etland area ........................................... points= 6 g~~ff r,:~~~:~~g;!;~~~ ::m:f:~~[a.:~:-:;.::::-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~i~l~:' Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation ......................................................... points= 0 Aerial hoto or ma with ve etation ol ons S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in ground\\.'ater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradicnt from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualif.v as opportunity. __ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft __ Untreated stormwatcr discharges to wetland __ Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland __ Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other------------------------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is I + TOTAL -Water Qualit Functions Multi I the score from SI b • S2; then add score to table on . I S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate/or the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > //Bin). or dense enough to remain erecr during swface flows). Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers> 90% of the area of the wetland ............................... points= 6 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1 /2 area of wetland ............................................................. points= 3 : ~~~!eth~~c}J4 r1r~~e~erset~~~~d> ~~~:d 3tiii~ct"'-~~·~e .. etatiO~'iS'~~i'~'i""i'Jt::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: P~)~!:: b S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts offload flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least I 0% of its area. YES = 2 oints NO = 0 oints Add the oints in the boxes above S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. __ Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems -(A_n_s~~h~O--if=th,-e_m_a_if,..or-so_u_r_ce-, -qf7 w_a_t'""er~is_c_o_n'"'tr-o""ll,-ed--.-.by_a_r-es-e-rv-o'ir---,(e-.g-.-w-·e"""'tl'a-n'd-is_a_se_e_p_t"ha-t'""i,-s_o_n_ the downstream side of a dam) YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is I + TOTAL -H drolo ic Functions Multi Iv the score from S3 b S4; then add score to table on . 1 Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06). updated with new \.VDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Figure_ (seep. 67) Multiplier (seep. 70) Multiplier Page 7 of 12 H 1.2 Hl.3 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): F' Check the types qfvegetation classes present (a.s defined by Cowardin) -Size threshold.for each class is igure /14 acre or more than /0% of the area (/unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic Bed x__ Emergent plants __ Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have> 30% cover) x__ Forested (areas where trees have> 30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if x__ The forested class has 3 out of5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, rnoss/ground- cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. lfyou have: 4 structures or more ....... points= 4 2 structures.................... oints = 1 Maf ~~~r;::~.i-~-~-~~~~~~~;~i~lt~s!e~ 2 I structure .................... oints = 0 Hydroperiods (seep. 73): Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to Figure - cover more than 10% of the wetland or //4 acre to count (see text for descriptions ofhydroperiods). x__ Pennanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 x__ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present ...... points = 2 X Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present.. ................. points = I == Saturated only I type present .................... points = 0 x__ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Lake~fringe wetland ................. = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland •.•....•. = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed canarygrass. purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points= 2 List species below if you want to: 5 -19 species......... . ... points= I < 5 species ........................ points= 0 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (seep. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Coward in vegetation (described in HI .1 ), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. O@(ji)@ Note: If you have 4 or more classes Figure_ or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is None "" 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate =-2 pomti always "high''. ·""·/~-, Use map of Cowardin classes !li H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (seep. 77): Check the habitat.features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of point you put into the next column. x__ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland(> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) x__ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland __ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 fl. (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (!Om) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) __ At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures far egg-laying by amphibians) __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1 TOTAL Score -otential for rovidin habitat Add the oints in the column above 10 Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 8 of 12 Wetland name or numher BR ____ _ ~H~2'..L_::D_::o'._:es:_t:.::h:::•_:w:_:•:..:'::la'.'.:n::'.d_:h:a:__:v_::e_'.t'.'.:he::__::op':p':o::r::':t::un:'i':'::ty::...:.:to'._p"..r:..:o:_:v_::id:'.:e'....h:::a:_:b:_:i_::la:_:l_:f_::o:_r_::m:_:a:.::n'.:'.y..:s~p:•c:_:i:•s:_:?~-----------1almlil!i· : · ~ H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Choose the description that best represents condition ofbuft'er of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating See text for definition of "undisturbed" __ 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures arc within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping. no daily human use) __ IOOm (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water .... points= 5 > 50o/o circumference .................................................... points= 4 x__ 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference................................................................. . ........... points= 4 __ IOOm (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference.... . ............................................... points = 3 __ 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference ............................................................................................... points= 3 lf buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: __ No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings v,1 ithin 25m (80 ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lav.:ns are OK ................................... points = 2 __ No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for> 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK..... .. ................................................... points= 2 lleavy grazing in buffer......................................................................... . ....... points= 1 Vegetated buffers are< 2m \vide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference Figure_ (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge ofwetland) .............................. points -0 4 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above .... points= 1 Arial photo showing buffers 112.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) Comments: H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part ofa relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other \\'etlands or undisturbed uplands that arc at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavi(v used gravel roads. paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES -4 points (go to H 2.3) NO~ go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part ofa relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. \Vide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects t< estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES~ 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO -go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 ls the wetland: Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estual)' OR Within 3 miles ofa large field or pasture(> 40 acres) OR Within I mile of a lake greater than 20 acres'/ YES= I point NO~ 0 points Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with nev,r WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page9ofl2 Wetland name or number BR ____ _ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (sec p. 82): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be fowui. in the PHS report http. wJfi1'.\1·u.guF,/10b phslis1.h1m) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to he relatively undisturbed __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). __ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (Juli descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-grmvth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy covcrnge of the oak component is important (Juli descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). _X __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the fonn of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 16/). __ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and \Vildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFWreport: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological fonnations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas ofrock rubble ranging in average size 0. J 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 cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sutlicient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by \Vildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats= 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats~ 3 points If wetland has I priority habitat -I point No habitats~ 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in auestion H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choa,e the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (seep. 84) There arc at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections betv.leen 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 1/2 mile. ......................... .. ..................................................... points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed................................................... . ...................................................... points= 3 The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile.......................................... . ......................................................... points= 3 There is at least t wetland within 1/2 mile ........................................................................... points = 2 t--t----Th_e_r_e_a_re_n_o_w_et_la_n_d_s_w_i_th_in_li_2_m_ile_._ .. _ ... _ .. _ .. _ .. _ ... _ .. _ .. _ ... _ .. _ .. _ .. _ ... _ .. _ .. _ .. _ ... _ .. _ .. _ .. _ ... _ .. _ .. _ .. _ ... _ .. _ .. _ ... _ .. _ .. _ .. _ ... _ .. _ .. _ .. ~ .. p~o_in_t_s_-_o _____ _ H 2 TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.l, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4: : TOTAL for HI from page 8 10 • Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. I 18 Comments: Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 10 of 12 V./ etland name or number BR ____ _ SC2 SC3 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. NO_X_ SC I. 1 Is the \>i.retland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES -Category 1 NO -go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least I acre in size and meets at least two of the follmving conditions'! YES -Category 1 NO -Category II __ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation. grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are onlv species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the ,vetland should be gi,·en a dual rating"(l/11). The area of Spartina v,1ould be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. __ At least 3/4 ofthe landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland The wetland has at least 2 of the follov1:ing features: tidal channels. depressions with open ,vater, --or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact Wl\/HP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D ___ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site __ _ YES __ Contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO ___ X_ not a Heritage Wetland .!!fil:! (seep. 87) Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks. that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES= go to question 3 NO= go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the ·'bog'· species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES= Is a bog for purpose of rating NO= go to question 4 NOTE: lfyou are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pll of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 .. deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog·• plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested(> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce. or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES -Category I • = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating 1/11 Cat I Cat. I Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated. with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 11 of12 Wet land name or number BR ____ _ SC4 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least I acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department offish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If_vou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. __ OJd.growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands ofat least two three species forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. __ Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity oflarge dov,.rned material is generally less than that found in old-growth. Cat. I YES ~ Category I No~x not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC5 Wetlands in CoastHI La2oons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the follov,ring criteria ofa wetland in a coastal lagoon? __ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. __ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface v,1ater that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) YES~ Go to SC 5.1 NO _X_ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? __ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling. cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). __ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un~grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I __ The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES ~ Category I NO ~ Category II Cat. II SC6 lnterdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) ls the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)'/ YES~ Go to SC 6.1 NO __ X_ not an interdunal wetland for rating I/you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula --lands west of SR I 03 • Grayland-Wes~ort --lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-opalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.l Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger'? YES -Category II NO -go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 ls the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre'? YES ~ Category Ill Cat. 111 Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics • Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p . I. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p. I Comments: Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 12ofl2 Appendix C Wetland Functions and Values Forms Wetland Functions & Values Form Wetland I.D. 1/2 Project: Lake to Sound Trail Assessed by: M Maynard Cowardin Class: _____EEQ_Ecology Category: __ II_Local Rating: Cat L Wetland size: _>50 ac Date:02/09/11 Occurrence Principal Flood Flow Alteration X Wetland I has a high holding capacity due to 2,4,5,6 High-Wetland I is large and forested. depressional association with the Black River and its large size. Sediment Removal X The wetland has large areas of standing water. 2,4,5,6 Moderate-Limited by opportunity. Nutrient & Toxicant Removal X The wetland provides long duration I, 2, 3 Moderate-Opportunity from surrounding urban setting. Erosion Control & Shoreline X The wetland has dense trees and shrubs. 3 Moderate Stabilization Production of Organic Matter X Wetland 1 has dense herbaceous vegetation 2,4,5,6 High-High interspersion of water and vegetation. and its Export General Habitat Suitability X The upland surrounding Wetland I is partially 3,5,7 Moderate-Plant diversity is low. developed. Habitat for Aquatic X The wetland has large areas of inundation with 1,2,4,6 High-The Black River is associated with the Invertebrates leaflitter. wetland. Habitat for Amphibians X A frog was observed in the buffer of Wetland I. 1,2,6 Moderate-Limited emergent vegetation. Habitat for Wetland-Associated X Dense trees and shrubs in the wetland. 1,3,5 Moderate-No evidence of wetland associated Mammals mammal use was observed. Habitat for Wetland-Associated X Wetland I provides valuable habitat for wetland 1,3,4,6 Moderate Birds associated birds. General Fish Habitat X Wetland 1 is associated with a fish bearing water 1,2,4 Moderate (Black River). Native Plant Richness X The wetland has limited diversity. I Low Educational or Scientific Value X No scientific value or suitable parking. Uniqueness and Heritage X No unique features or threatened or endangered species are known to be in WS-2. Wetland Functions & Values Form Wetland I.D. 3 Project: Lake to Sound Trail Assessed by: M Maynard Cowardin Class: PEM/PSS Ecology Category: IY._Local Rating: Cat l_ Wetland size: 0.18 ac Date:02/09/11 Occurrence Principal Function/Value y N Rationale Function(s Comments Flood Flow Alteration X Wetland 3 has a limited holding capacity due to 2 Low-Much of the water flow in and out of the outlets and small size. wetland is channelized. Sediment Removal X The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, but 3,4 Low-Limited area where ponding can occur. has limited opportunities. Nutrient & Toxicant Removal X The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, but 1,24 Low-Limited area where ponding can occur. has limited opportunities. Erosion Control & Shoreline X The wetland is not associated with a water Stabilization course. Production of Organic Matter X Wetland 3 has dense herbaceous vegetation and 1,2,4, Moderate and its Exoort an outlet. 5,6 General Habitat Suitability X Wetland 3 has low vegetation diversity and is 3,5 Low-Upland around wetland has been disturbed. small. Habitat for Aquatic X Herbaceous vegetation throughout wetland, but 1,4,6 Low-Inundation likely becomes very limited for Invertebrates habitat is limited by size. much of the year. Habitat for Amphibians X The wetland is adjacent to the gravel trail and is 1,2 Low-Inundation likely becomes very limited for small in size. much of the year. Habitat for Wetland-Associated X No permanent water and habitat is insufficient to Mammals support any wetland associated mammals. Habitat for Wetland-Associated X Lacks required open water ratio to support wetland Birds associated birds. General Fish Habitat X Not associated with a fish bearing water. Native Plant Richness X Low diversity and dominated by an invasive species. Educational or Scientific Value X No scientific value or suitable parking. Uniqueness and Heritage X No unique features or threatened or endangered species are known to be in WS-2. Wetland Functions & Values Form Wetland 1.0. 4 Project: Lake to Sound Trail Assessed by: M Maynard Cowardin Class: PFO Ecology Category: __l_Y_Local Rating: Cat L Wetland size: 0.04 ac Date:02/09/11 Occurrence Principal Function/Value y N Rationale Functionls Comments Flood Flow Alteration X Wetland 4 has a limited holding capacity due to 3,5 Low-Wetland 4 is small. outlets and small size. Sediment Removal X The wetland does not have dense herbaceous 3,5 Low-Limited opportunity. vegetation. Nutrient & Toxicant Removal X The wetland does not have dense herbaceous 2,3 Low-Limited opportunity. vegetation. Erosion Control & Shoreline X The wetland is not associated with a water Stabilization course. Production of Organic Matter X Wetland 4 does not provide this function because and its Export there is no outlet. General Habitat Suitability X There is only one Cowardin class and vegetation is 3 Low-Low plant diversity. sparse. Habitat for Aquatic X A stream (Black River) and other wetlands are 1,6 Low-Inundation likely becomes very limited for Invertebrates located within 1 mile. much of the year. Habitat for Amphibians X A stream (Black River) and other wetlands are 1,6 Low-Inundation likely becomes very limited for located within I mile. much of the year. Habitat for Wetland-Associated X No pennanent water and habitat is insufficient to Mammals support any wetland associated mammals. Habitat for Wetland-Associated X Lacks required open water ratio to support wetland Birds associated birds. General Fish Habitat X Not associated with a fish bearing water. Native Plant Richness X Wetland 4 has low plant diversity. 1 Low Educational or Scientific Value X No scientific value or suitable parking. Uniqueness and Heritage X No unique features or threatened or endangered species are known to be in WS-2. Wetland Functions & Values Form Wetland I.D. -~5 __ Project: Lake to Sound Trail Assessed by: M Maynard Cowardin Class: PEM Ecology Category: _l_ll_Local Rating: Catl__ Wetland size: 0.30 ac Date:02/09/11 Occurrence Principal Flood Flow Alteration X Wetland 5 is not associated with a water course 2.4 Moderate-Wetland 5 may have been and does not receive water from sheet flow . constructed for the purpose of flood storage and sediment/toxicant removal. Sediment Removal X The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation and 1.2.3.4.5.6 High-Wetland 5 may have been constructed opporh.mity from upgradient sources. for the purpose of flood storage and sediment/toxicant removal. Nutrient & Toxicant Removal X The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation and 1.2.3.4.5 High-Wetland 5 may have been constructed opportunity from upgradient sources for the purpose of flood storage and sediment/toxicant removal. Erosion Control & Shoreline X The wetland is not associated with a water Stabilization course. Production of Organic Matter X Wetland 5 has deciduous vegetation, but a 1.2.4.5 Low-Constricted outlet. and its Export constricted outlet. General Habitat Suitability X Water levels fluctuate and the wetland is surrounded by trail and railroad tracks. 3 Low-Near Monster Rd. Habitat for Aquatic X Herbaceous vegetation throughout wetland, but 1.4,5,6 Low-inundation likely becomes very limited Invertebrates habitat is limited by size and fluctuating water for much of the year. levels. Habitat for Amphibians X Herbaceous vegetation throughout wetland, but 1,4,6 Low-Inundation likely becomes very limited habitat is limited by siz.e and fluctuating water for much of the year. levels Habitat for Wetland-Associated X No permanent water and habitat is insufficient to Mammals support any wetland associated mammals. Habitat for Wetland-Associated X Wetland 5 has open water and emergent 1,2.4 Low-Ponding likely becomes very limited Birds vegetation. for much of the year. General Fish Habitat X Not associated with a fish bearing water. Native Plant Richness X Dominates are not native and plant diversity is relatively low. Single Cowardin Class. Educational or Scientific Value X No scientific value or suitable parking. Uniqueness and Heritage X No unique features or threatened or endangered species are known to be in WS-2. Wetland Functions & Values Form Wetland 1.0. --"6 __ Project: Lake to Sound Trail Assessed by: M Maynard Cowardin Class: PEM Ecology Category: __ II_I _Local Rating: Cat _1._ Wetland size: 0.04 ac Date:02/09/11 Occurrence Principal Function/Value y N Rationale Function(s Comments Flood Flow Alteration X Wetland 6 has a limited holding capacity due small 3 Low-Very small, shallow depressions size. Sediment Removal X The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, but 3.5 Low-Only two small areas where ponding can occur. has limited opportunities. Nutrient & Toxicant Removal X The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, but 2.4 Low-Only two small areas where ponding can occur. has limited opportunities. Erosion Control & Shoreline X The wetland is not associated with a water Stabilization course. Production of Organic Matter X Wetland 6 is small and has no outlet. 1,2,5 Low-Small areas of inundation and its Export General Habitat Suitability X Wetland 6 is small and surrounded by gravel 3 Low trails/drives. Habitat for Aquatic X Herbaceous vegetation throughout wetland, but 1,6 Low-Inundation likely becomes very limited for Invertebrates habitat is limited by size and small areas of much of the year. inundation. Habitat for Amphibians X Herbaceous vegetation throughout wetland, but 1,6 Low-Inundation likely becomes very limited for habitat is limited by size and small areas of much of the year. inundation. Habitat for Wetland-Associated X No pennanent water and habitat is insufficient to Mammals support any wetland associated mammals. Habitat for Wetland-Associated X Lacks required open water ratio to support wetland Birds associated birds. General Fish Habitat X Not associated with a fish bearing water. Native Plant Richness X Dominated by non-native grasses and forbs. Educational or Scientific Value X No scientific value or suitable parking. Uniqueness and Heritage X No unique features or threatened or endangered species are known to be in WS-2. Wetland Functions & Values Form Wetlandl.D. 7 Project: Lake to Sound Trail Assessed by: M Maynard Cowardin Class: PEM/PFO Ecology Category: .!ll_Local Rating: Cat "II""I ___ _ Wetland size: 0.88 ac Date: 03/08/12 Function/Value Flood Flow Alteration Sediment Removal Nutrient & Toxicant Removal Erosion Control & Shoreline Stabilization Production of Organic Matter and its Export General Habitat Suitability Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates Habitat for Amphibians Habitat for Wetland-Associated Mammals Habitat for Wetland-Associated Birds General Fish Habitat Native Plant Richness Educational or Scientific Value Uniqueness and Heritage Occurrence y N X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Rationale Principal Function(s) Wetland 7 has a limited holding capacity due to 3 slope with micro-depressions. The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, but ha,;; no opportunities. The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, but has no opportunities. The wetland is not associated with a water course. Wetland 7 has no surface outlet. 1.2. Wetland 7 is adjacent to the Black River and I.2.3, associated habitats. 5 Herbaceous vegetation throughout wetland, but 6 habitat is limited by size and small areas of inundation. Herbaceous vegetation throughout wetland, but lacks sufficient inundation. No permanent water and habitat is insufficient to support any wetland associated mammals. Lacks required open water ratio to support wetland a5sociated birds. Not associated with a fish bearing water. Dominated by non-native grasses and forhs. No scientific value or suitable parking. No unique features or threatened or endangered species are known to be in WS-2. Comments Low-Very small, shallow depressions Low-Very limited shallow areas of inundation Low-Limited habitat structure within wetland Low-Inundation likely becomes very limited for much of the year. Appendix D Site Photographs juue 2013 lake to Sound Tra il -Segment A Photograph 1. Wetland 1/2 Complex facing west from north of Naches Avenue SW on the proposed trail location. Photograph 2. Wetland 1/2 Complex facing northeast from north of Naches Avenue SW on the proposed trail location. D -1 554-152 1-084 (Bl3T300B) Critiml Areas Report King Counry lake /.IJ Sound Trail -Segment A June 2013 Photograph 3. Wetland 3 facing southeast from just south of the proposed trail location . Photograph 4. Wetland 4 facing south from the buffer north of the wetland. D-2 554-1521-084 (Bl3T300B) Critical Areas Repo rt King County Lake to Sound Trail -Segmem A Photograph 5. Wetland 5 facing northeast from the proposed trail location . Photograph 6. Wetland 6 facing west from the eastern end of the wetland. June 2013 D -3 554-1 52 /-084 (Bl3 T300 B) Critirn l Arm s Report King County lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Photograph 7. Wetland 7 facing west from the eastern boundary of the wetland. June 2013 Photograph 8. View of left bank riparian vegetation along the Black River, looking east from Fort Dent Park. Note presence of shrub vegetation and scattered small trees . Himalayan blackberry and other non-native species are also present. D-4 554-152 1-084 (Bl3T300B) Critical Areas Report King County June 2013 L,1ke ro Sound Trail-Segment A Photograph 9. View of proposed trail alignment, looking east from near the Green River Trail. Note degraded understory riparian conditions and the lack of vegetated ground cover. The trees will be maintained in place, where feasible. f (· ,/ 1:, //," , I Photograph 10 . View of riparian conditions on right bank of Black River, looking south from immediately upstream (east) of the Monster Road Bridge. Note the presence of non-native vegetation and scarcity of mature trees. D -5 554-!52 !-0R4 (Bl3T300 B) CritiCll! A rem Report King Counry June 2013 lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Photograph 11. View of existing gravel trail/proposed trail alignment, looking east from immediately upstream (east) of the Monster Road Bridge. The Black River is on the right side of the photo and the Black River Pump station is in the background . D-6 554-1 521 -084 (Bl3T3008) Critical Areas Repm·t King Coun ty Appendix E Mitigation Plans / / --_ ____J____ __ PA. i -----~· ;;-i _rJL-----J l.-5~~ I ~ ~~i ----~~~~ ~-\---·, __ -----------I I \ CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 0 ~~~ci~1~ ~~\: :i Gti~i~1~6R~'tp~:ALFtt: PROJECT REPRESENTATNE PRIOR TO STARTING CLEARING WORK. CLEAR AND GRUB ROOTS ANO REMOVE ANO DISPOSE OF All UNWANTED VEGETATION IN THIS PLANTING AREA. LIAVE SOIL IN PLACE. SEE SPECIFICATION FOR VEGETATION. ~~ \ : I ~ ~-o( I ~~ 5~ --- " ------------------b::~-~ ' I I LIST OF UNWANTED 0 ~~:~-J~fs 3;~fN~ ~~ST OVER nlE ENTIRE 0 ~; ~~PE~Nkf\;it~~ 1~ ~l;R P~N3H:~~LCH 0 ~~~ET~1f!'~.~~~ PERIMETER PROTECTION PER WSDOT E-~~~:,1~'-~~~~es~~ 1t ~ 1111 ,m Jt-~'f . -~:--=-~=c~'tJ, GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEEf MPS AND MP6 FOR PLANTING DCTAILS AND REQUIREMENTS. 2. LOOSEN AHY SOILS IN PlANTING AAE>S COMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES BY RIPPING OR TIWNG THE AREA TO A DEPTH Of 24' 3. PLANTING AREA LIMITS AND INTERPLANTING LOCATIONS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD ANO APPROVED BY PROJECTREPRESEITTATIVEPRIDRTOPLANTING BLACK RIVER '----- DRAWN J. SWENSON CH(CKEO Y. HO I]'-..._ I 1: ---------f-;----+--J -:--~-1 L 1JC I ------\ -- i 1 ·---c~_;y--• ~ <·~ . ',"' ·~~ "'· '"" ··~. ~ ~-~~=~=--~=-;~~ \5 \'4_ -----i'° .. \ ALL PLANTS TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED WITHIN MITK.ATION CLEAR~G AND GRUBBING AREAS WILL BE FlAGGEDBYPROJECTREPRESENTATIVE.NOTIFY ENGINEER 5 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF CLEARING ACTMTY. USE ONLY HAND TOOLS AND METI-IODS WHEN WORKING INSIDE THE DRIPLINE AREA or EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS ANY CHANGES TO PLANT MATERIAL, SIZE, OR SPACING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTAUATION CONTRACTOR SH,\LL ARRANGE TO MEET ON SITE WITH ENGINEERANDBIOLOGISTTODISCUSSLIMITSOF WORK AND METHODS. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS, LIMITS or WORK, AND METHOOS ARE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE -------........:.:. __ :-: _;;.--_ BLACK RJ'!ER --._]:-=-~·:::---:-~~ --.-~~ l£GEND~---WETLAND/STREAM BUFFER :...:..--.. ~_ .~~~ ---.-_:_ ~::,;::,s~::":i:;ERU,E ~;;5 &.A --=-=--. DESIRABLE VEGETATION EDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW MITIGATION PLAN ~ 8 -------~,--· X>----------u I lack River ------------1 ~~~~~11-------______ •,, ~-:,_ N"k'-'----. --------. -----~-~TJN;:---.c_-~:::_~ --:---.:--1 ?"'] ct--:----. ---------------..e.,_<.,,J f, ----------.;_ ~~~~ f"'J''f'-'..", --~l -.-._ _____ 1/;_ ' ~""::---<-----.:-------::-.:.----.c __ ;l ----=--._,____k :----..:---::-.:. Jr "'-----,:-.;.;------=---. Ji ', ~ c--.:-.-._ ,)!// } ',,__ -.-._ ___ ~:;; /1 ' "' \ ii\ '"' ·/:\~ / ~ . ,,, ' ' ' . ',, LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 8 ~~~~i~ ~~~g :t G~~:INfo/!~EJ:AL ~f PROJECTREf'RESENTATIVEPRIORTO STARTINGCLEARING WORK. CLEAR AND GRUB ROOTS ANO REMOVE AND DISPOSE Cf" All UN'HANTEO VEGETATION IN THIS PLANTING AREA LEAVE SOIL IN PlACE. SEE SPECIFlCATION FOR UST OF UNWANTED VEGETATION. 0 ;3~~-;~~ J;JA~RG ~tPOST OYER THE ENTIRE 0 ~ ~~IPE~ifi~HSu~~ib~ ~F ~~R P~NgH:iuLCH 0 ~~~ET~~~ 1;~ PERIMETER PROTECTION PER WSDOT GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET MPS AND MP5 FOR PLANTING DETAILS AND REQUIREMENTS LOOSEN ANY SOILS IN PlANTING AREAS COMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVfTlES BY RIPPING OR TILUNG THEAREATOADEPTHOF24". PLANTlNG AREA LIMrfS AND INTERPL/1.NTING LOCATIONS SHAJJ_ BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PlJ\NTING ALL PLANTS TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED WITHIN MITIGATION Cl.EARING AND GRUBBING AREJ\S WILL BE FLAGGED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATWE NOTIFY ENGINEER5DAYSPRIORT0STARTOFCLEARING ACTIVITY USE ONLY HANO TOOLS AND METHODS WHEN WORKING INSIDE THE ORIPUNE AREA OF EXISTING TR£ESAN0SHRU8S. ANY CHANGES TO PLANT MATERIAL. SIZE. OR SPACING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTJ\UATION 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE TO MEET ON SITE WITH ENGINEER ANO BIOLOGIST TO DISCUSS LIMITS OF WORK AND METHODS. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVlTIES SHALl NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS, LIMITS OF WORK. AND METHODS ARE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. LEGEND: ====-----WETLAND/STREAM BUFFER -~~,~ WETLAND BOUNDARY ---ORDINARY HIGH WATERLINE ·-------• DESIRABLE VEGETATION EDGE MITIGATION PLAN ~IRE....,SIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1----~:='_--:i:;_~_c:....::=---~;::::::_;,:=::;--:,;:~--;:.-~-=--;;~;~~J------: I ........... I I I I_ ~ --~-------·'' ,,_ -'~ -'~ _,_, ---------WETLAND 5 :....,__!_,,/_ -"-' .i.l.l ,:_ N ------- ~. -" DESIGNED J. SWENSON PLAN ® dCALEINFE6N 0 20 40 LICENSED OSCAPE ARCHITECT ~- DRA\\l'j J. SWENSON CHEC~EO Y. HO • w~J1~8bN ~ l'"'-'="'w~•-1 N BB.1.EW~.WAGHN.~teDCM r.ai---•••---- - --~--~z:-;:::::~?~-: LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 0 ~:~i~ ~~~g ~~ G~~~INfoR 5~l~~F~f PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO STARTING Cl.EARING WORK. Cl.EAR AND GRUB ROOTS AND REMOVE ANO DISPOSE OF ALL UNWANlEO VEGETATION IN IBIS Pl.ANTING AREA. LEAYE SOIL IN PLACE. SEE SPECIFICATION FOR LIST OF UNWANTED VEGETATION. 0 ~3~~lrtr~fs 3;~~RG ~i~OST OYER THE ENTIRE 0 ~ ~~PE~~~Hsu~~ ~Ft;~ P~N~H~iULCH 0 ~~LET~~fo ;~~-PERIMETER PROTECTION PER WSDOT GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET MPS AND MP6 FOR PLANTING DETAILS AND REQUIREMENTS. 2. LOOSEN J,J,N SOILS IN PLANTING /\REAS COMPACTED SY CONSTRUCTION ACTMTIES BY RIPPING OR TILLJNG THE AREA TO A DEPTH OF 24". 3 PLANTING AREA UMITS -'ND INTERPLANTlNG LOCATIONS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FlELD ANO APPROVED BY PROJECTREPRESEITTATIVEPR10RTOPL/\NTING 4. ALL PL.ANTS TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED WITHIN MmGATION CLEARING ANO GRUBBING AREAS WILL BE FLA.GGEOBYPROJECTREPRESENTATIVE NOTIFY ENGINEER 5 DAYS PRIOR TO START or CLEARING A.CTIVllY. USE ONLY HANO TOOLS A.NO METHODS WHEN WORKING INSIDE THE DRIPLINE AREA or EXISTING TREES ANO SHRUBS 5 ANY CHANGES TO PLANT MATERIAL, SIZE, OR SPA.GING MUST BE APPRO\/ED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIORTOINSTAilATION 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE TO MEET ON SITE WITH ENGINEER AND BIOLOGIST TO DISCUSS W~ITS OF WORK AND M[Tl,005. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS, LIMITS or WORK, AND METHODS ARE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. LEGEND: ====-----WETLAND/STREAM BUFFER -~~~WETLAND80UNDARY ---ORDINARYHIGHWATERLINE • .... -.-.-.--• DESIRABLE VEGETATION EDGE PLANTING QUANTITY TAB -THIS SHEET ONLY - 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 45 OF 47 MITIGATION PLAN MP3 I ~:.="' ,, . ~~$ ........ , ' A ' § ' j -/'' ~ --• ' '·-;,p; --, \ "' I ~·-. ... ' ' ) ' .I -• / -' ' ' ' ,--,,• ,' ,,__, I I _\• • ---• " ' •' I -. I I ~ .I • --A '<' ¥ ,/' ,-•• -• .--,1..,, ', ', I ' ' ·' -·-.-•/' ' ' ''" • j • • • ' --: 7 ••• ,_ j ,, ~ ;---"'" "'" = ... . r -" . ., , .,. . -' . ' -', ' • --., • ' , ·-· ' I "Z"' --.-.,,,, .. • •• ,, ~-=''" ', ,' -• -•. -· • • "/ • --_, ', .v :-j~~~-·= :: :/t=: :=·:~ r:\ 1.,,, -,\/ 1 .ce= .;.w;. J ~c .•. = •./ ..iu,. .-"" = ·'· +·· .I z --,,. . ---. ;/ ~IRE,,,,SIONS ...... -·/.--: -. .-l -'-r •· . ---" /; -, ,. .. -~ -. . . . --..; / / J.·' ---• • / J ::;;.,. i ~" ., --(,, I ---. " ' .... ' --• ' J ·-·· -" ' -"' -' ~---"' ,;;_ ,, • • • " '--.,---~ I ' • --" L_ ' " _, ' ' ', --t--'" ==" ', I I --' -s<l __ •ITT•= -', ,' I ~~"-t ,f>/~"I' DESIGNED J. SWENSON DRAWN J. SWENSON CHECKED Y. HO ' . ,, --\ / / ---• -J '--' • , I / ---\ J --___ ,__ </ I , -, ' ,,-----' / I ' -~ I \ ' \ ---J.. I \ ,,_ __,,,---•4 --,' ' ---_J 411HJ0lHAV<S£N•SUITE"l!OO 00.Lc\f\,CW•Sl-•>flClOSOOO'." '''""""'"'(l,'""'""0363 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 0 ~~iri ~~: :i G~~:INfOR sr:lRo~~t~f PROJECTREPRESENTAT!VEPRIORTO STARTINGCLEARING WORK. CLEAR AND GRUB ROOTS AND REMOVE AND [)$POSE OF AU UNWANT£0 VEGEfATlON IN THIS PLANTING AREA LEAVE SOIL IN Pl.ACE SEE SPECIFICATION FOR UST OF UNWANTED VEGETATION. 0 g;~~-;~~S J;~~NRG ~~~ST OVER THE EN11RE 0 ~ ~~PE~~}iHSliRttib~ ~F ~·1t P~NgH:RiULCH 0 :~ :;ET~A~~-~i~~~R PROTECTION PER 0 ~~ ~~EM;~r:E N~ t~: ;Ho:~~T~~ N:~s ON SHEET MP-2 GENERAL NOTES: 1 SEE SHEET MP5 AND MPS FOR PLANTING DETAILS AND REQUIREMENTS. 2. LOOSEN l>N"f SOLS IN Pt.ANTING AREAS COI.IPACTED B'l' CONSTRUCTION ACTMTIES 6Y RIPPING OR TILLING THE AREA TO A DEPTH OF 24" J. PLANTING AREA. W,OTS AND INTERPLANTING LOCATIONS SHALLBESTN<EDINTHEFIELDANDAPPR0\1:DBY PROJECTREPRESENTATfVEPRIORTOPLANTING 4. ALL PLANTS TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTEO WITHIN MmGATION CLEARING ANO GRUB81NG AREAS WIU BE FLAGGED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE NOTIFY ENGINEER 5 DAYS PRIOR TO START or CLEARING ACTIVITY. USE ONLY HAND TOOLS ANO METHODS WHEN WORKING INSIDE THE DR1PLINE AREA OF EXISTING TREES ANO SHRUBS 5 ANY CHANGES TO PLANT MATIRIAL, SIZE. OR SPACING MUSTBEAPPROVEDBYTHEPROJECTREPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 5 CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE TO MEET ON SIT£ WITH ENGINEER ANO BIOLOGIST TO DISCUSS LIMrTS OF WORK ANO METHODS. CONSTRUCTION ACTMTIES SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS, LIMITS OF WORK. AND METHODSAREAPPROVEDBYTHEPROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. LEGE.ND: ====-----WETLAND/STREAM BUFFER ' '' WETLAND BOUNDARY ---ORDINARY HIGH WATIRLINE • .-..-..-...-. ..... ..-.. OESIRABLE\JEGITATIONEDGE 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION .45 OF .47 MITIGATION PLAN MP4 BACKFlLLWITHNATIVESOILS WATER THOROUGHLY TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS ~LJ*J_l~LJ~: EXISTING S_QIL PLANTING HOLE TO BE I 2 X OIA. Of ROOTBALL SHRUB AND SMALL TREE PLANTING DETAIL ffi NO SCALE 6 1Z cfIBEE 0 = • PLANTSHR ? ~ 0 ;:'Zr" oi'"ii~ i~'~LE SPWES ~0C SHRUB GROUPt6~S 11NSINGL.£~1lgcH 0 T05Pl.ANrS EACH ~ . , X~-·- f;;;._1RE'l1Si0NS TYPICAL TREE AND SHRUB SPACING DETAIL ffi NO SCALE EDGE OF PLANTING AREA DESIGNED J SWENSON ORAl'I!. J. SWENSON CHECKW Y. HQ TREE STAKING "ARBOR TIE" "BVC" HEIIILOCK/FlR STAKE. 2"DlA. (1 PER TREE) ORIVEN INTO UND1STUR8EO SUBSOIL MIN 24" DEPTH FINISHEOGRAOE BACKFlLL WITH NATIVE SOILS WATER THOROUGHLY TO REWOVE AIR POCKETS NOTE STAKE ALL TREES J' AND TALLER. CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL ffi NO SCALE "'I ;~~~J.=,'~I ~ Iii 0 ~ " . ~ NOTE: STAKE ALL TREES 1· CALIPER AND GREATER. TREESTAKING"ARBORTIE" HARDWOOO STAKES PLANT 50 THAT TOP Of ROOT BALl 15 MN WITH THE FlNl5HED GRADE WOOD CHIP MULCH. KEEP WULCH 0Ff0FSTEl.4S FlNISHEOGRADE BACKFILL WITH NATNE SOILS WATER THOROUGHLY TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS EXISTING SUBGRADE DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL DETAIL ffi NO SCALE PLANT MATERIAL LIST QUANTITY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TREES 79 ACER CIRCINATUM * VINE MAPLE " ACER MACROPHYLLUM ' BIGLEAF MAPLE 22 BETUl.A PAYRIFERA' PAPER BIRCH 60 PICEA SITCHENSIS' SITKA SPRUCE 46 POPULUS BALSAMIFERA * BLACK COTTONWOOD 151 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII * DOUGLAS FIR SALIX LUCIDA * PACIFIC WILLOW 90 SALIX SITCHENSIS * SITKA.WILLOW 90 75 THUJAPLICATA" WESTERN RED CEDAR SHRUBS 259 CORYLUS CORNUTA BEAKED HAZELNUT 259 CRATAEGUS DOUGLASll BLACK HAWTHORN 297 HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR OCEANSPRAY ,,. OEMLERIA CERASIFORMIS INDIAN PLUM 605 MYRICA CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA WAX MYRTIE 902 ROSA NUTKANA NOOTKAROSE 644 RUBUS PARVIFLORUS THIMBLEBERRY 890 SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS COMMON SNOWBERRY = PLANTING NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL ARIWIGE TO MEET ON SITE WITH PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE TO DISCUSS LIMITS OF WORK ANO METHODS CONSTRUCTION ACTNITIES SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS, UMITS Of WORK, ANO METHODS ARE APPROVED 2. lilmG.A.TION PLANT1NG PLANS REPRESENT A CONCEPTUAL PLANT LAYOUT FlNAL PLANT LOCATIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO Pl.ANTING. J USE ONLY HAND TOOLS TO CLEAR ANO CULTIVATE SOIL UNDER IBE CANOPY (WrTHIN AND 5' OUTSIDE TI,E DRIPUNE) OF EXISTING TREES 4. All Pl.ANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN A 1-llNlf.lUM OF ONE YEAR PLANT MATERIAL f.i TO BE SUPPLIED BY COMMERCIAL NURSERIES TKAT SPECtAUZE IN PLANTS NATIVE TO THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST. PLANT SUBSffiUllONS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE 5 1,@GATION PLANTING SHALL TAKE PLACE DURING THE DORMANT SEASON (OCTOBER 1 ST TO MARCH 1ST). PLANTING MAY BE ALLOWED AT OTHER TIMES AFTER REV1EW AND WRITTEN APPROVAL BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. 6 TI,E CONTRACTOR SHALL 8E RESPONSIBLE FOR DISPOSING OF ALL DEBRIS AND EXCESS SOIL OCCASIONED BY IBIS PROJECT 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION or ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. 8 ALL DIMENSIONS FOR LISTED HEIGHT, LENGIB ANO CONTAINER SIZE ARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. 9 EXISTING AREAS DISTURBED SY CONSTRUCTION ACTMTIES AND NOT SHOWN TO SE RE-VEGETATED ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE RESTORED AND SEEDED. 1HE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPlANT ANY NATIVE WOODY VEGETATION DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH SPECIES PROVIDED IN THE PLAm MATERIALS UST AT1:1. 10. DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLANS AND SrTE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE AITENTION or THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH AFFECTED WORK. 11. COmllACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WATERING PLANTS FOR THE FIRST YEAR AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETION OF PLANTING FOR THE PROJECT COUN"TY WIU MAKE PROVISIONS FOR WATERING AS NEEDED FOR TI,E REMAINDER or THE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD AFTER THE FIRST YE"AR MIN SIZE/ CONDrTION I NOTES/ SPACING 1' CAL I CONT. or B&B 1' CAL.I CONT. or B&B 1' CAL./ CONT. or B&B 3'HT. /CONT.or8&B S1'JtKEPROPOSED 1'CAL./CONT.or8&B I i.cx:.o.T~~NOPE. 3'HT. /CONT.orB&B I ~~IN 1'x3'LIVESTAKECUTTINGI P1.ANTINOAREAS 1' x 3' LIVE STAKE CUTTING 3'HT. ICONT.orB&B 1 GAlCONT. 1 GAL CONT. 1 GAL CONT. I STAKE PROPOSED 1 GAL CONT. I SHRUBS I INOPENINFILL 1 GAL CONT. AREAS WITHIN 1 GAL CONT. PLANTING AREAS 1 GAL CONT. 1 GAL CONT. • REPLACEt.4ENT TREES. DECIDUOUS TREES ARE 1" CALIPER ANO CONIFEROUS TREES AT J' HEIGHT ARE COUNTED 1>S EQUIVALENT FOR 1 • or CALIPER REPLACEMENT FOR TREES REMOVED BY PROJECT. 60% REVIEW SUBMITIAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 46 OF 47 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A MITIGATION PLANTING DETAILS MP5 GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW 1 MITIGATION GOALS, 0BJECT1V£S, AND PERFORMANCE STANDAROS THE O'v'ERAU. GOAL Of THE MfTIGATION IS TO REPLACE THE HABITATS AND FUNCTIONS LOST ~ A RESULT OF THE PROJECT. THE PROPOSED MmGATION WOULD ACCOMPLISH THIS BY ENHANCING 0.49 ACRE OF Wm.AND BUFFER AND 0.60 ACRE OF STREAM BUITTR AND 0.60 ACRE STRfAM BUFFER AT MmGATION srrES 1 ANO 2. SP[ClflC GOALS ANO OBJECTIVES FORMULATED TO ACHIEVE TI,IS RESULT ARE PRESENTED BELOW MITIGATION GOAL GOAi.. ENHANCE 0.49 ACRE OF Wm.AND BUFFER ANO 0.60 ACRE OF STREAM BUFFER TO NATM FORESTED UPLAND ACHIEVEMENT OF ltllS GOAL IS EXPECTED TO INCREASE THE PRODUCTION OF ORGNOC MATTER BY PL.ANTING TREES mo SHRUBS IN THE ENHANCED BUFFER; INCREASE WILOLIFE HABITAT: ANO IMPROVE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY BY PLANTING WITH A VARIETY OF NAllVE RIPAR~ PLANT SPECIES MITIGATION 0BJECT1V£S AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 08.JECTNE I ESTABLISH A MINIMUM Of 0.49 ACRE OF FORESTED WETLAND BUFFER AND 0.60 ACRE OF FORESTEDSTREAMBUFfERBYPLANT1NGNATh'ETREE5,aj,j0SHRUBS. PERFORIAANCE STANDARD YEAR 1 SURVIVAi.. OF PLANTED WOODY SPECIES IN ENHANCED WETLAND BUFFER AND STREAM BUFFER AREAS Will BE AT l£AST 80 PERCENT. YEAR 3 NATIVE WOODY SPECIES Will ACHIEVE A MINU.4UM OF 35 PERCENT AREAL COVER IN THE ENHANCED WETLAND BUITTR AND STREAM BUFFER AREAS YEAR 5 NATIVE WOODY SPECIES Will ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT AREAL COVER IN THE ENHANCED WETLAND BUFFER AND STREAM BUFFER AREAS. OBJECTIVE 2. LIi.iil INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES THROUGHOUT THE t.llTIGATIDN SITE PLANTlNG AREAS. PERFORI.IANCE STANDARD YEARS 1-5 HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY, CUfLDf 81.ACKBERRY (RUBUS LACINIATUS), SCOTCH BROOM (CYTISUS SCOPARIUS). BUTTERFLY BUSH (BUODLEJA SP.), POISON HEI.ILOCK (CONIUM MACULAruM), CANADA THISTLE (CIRSJUM AR\/ENSE), BUll THISTLE (CIRSIUM \IIJLGARE), AND REED CANARYGRASS Will NOT EXCE£020PERCENTAREALCOVERINALLPLANTINGAREAS. OBJECTIVE 3. PROVIDE UPLAND WILDLIFE HABITAT PERFORMANCE STANDARD INCREASE IN AREAL COVER OF NATIVE WOODY SPECIES IN THE PLANTED BUFFER, AS MEASURED IN OSJECTIVE 1 TO BE USED AS A SURROGATE TO INDICATE INCREASING HABITAT FUNCTIONS. OBJECTIVE f: PROTECT THE MITIGATION SITE FROM ANTHROPOGENIC DISTURBANCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD YEARS 1-5 CONDUCT YEARLY QUALJTATrvE MONITORING TO ASSESS THE STATUS OF THE SITES DURING THE 5-YEAR MONITORING PERIOD FOR HUMAN DISTURBANCE. INCLUDING Bur NOT u1 .. 11TEO TO flll!NG, TRASH. AND VANDALISM 2 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE 2.1 MONITORING THE MITIGll110N AREAS WOULD Bf MONITORED O~ING ANO AFTER CONS1RUCT10N. DURING CONSTRUCTION. MONITORING WOULD ENSURE THAT THE Br.lPS ARE OBSERVED TO MINIMIZE II.IPACTS, AND THE ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION WORK (INCLUDING EARTHWORK AND PLANTING) WOULD BE COORDINATED TO ENSURE THAT THE SIT£ IS CONSTRUCTED AS DESIGNED. AfTER CONSlRUCTION IS COMPLETED, AN 'AS-BUILT' h.llTIGATION REPORT WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITIES OF RENTON AND TUKWILA WITHIN 1 I.IONTH OF MTIGATION INSTALLATION. POST-CONSTRUCTION r.lONITORING OF THE MITIGATION .\REAS WOULD BE PERFORMED OVER A 5-YEAR PERIOD 8Y QUALIFIED BIOLOGISTS. MONITORING WOULD BE PERFORMED QUARTERLY THE FIRST YEAR AND ANNUALLY FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO ENSURE THAT THE GOPJ...S AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MITIGATION ARE BEING I.IET. A COMBINATION OF QUAIJTATIVE ANO QUANTITATIVE MONITORING ACTMTIES WOULD BE USED TO ASSESS THE l.lANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND ASSOCIATED PERFORMANCE STAl'ilARDS DESCRIBED IN THIS MmGATION PROPOSAL ACTh'ITIES WOULD INCLUDE CONOUCTlNG SITT VISITS TO MONITOR UNNATURAL SITE DISTURBANCE. TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS TO DOCUMENT SITE DEVELOPI.IENT, ANO COLLECTING DATA FOR THE OUANTlTATM: EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE STANDARQS. THE RESULTS OF THE MONITORING WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE cmES Of RENTON AND TUKWILA FOLLOWING EACH MONITORING EVENT. APPROPRIATE CONTINGENCY MEASURES WIU BE DEVELOPED, AS NEEDED, BY A QUALIFlED PROFESSIOl'W.. TO ENSURE THAT THE SITES DEVELOP HEALTlff VEGETATION THAT MEETS THE OBLIGATIONS DESCRIBED IN THIS MITIGATION PLAN AND THE ASSOCIATED PERMITS I I I I 1 :::~~:: I I Y. HO A ,c APPROVED g_lREVl510NS 2.1.1 QUANTITATIVE MONITORING THE FOLLOWING BULl.ETEO f"lEMS DESCRIBE THE METHODS TO BE USED FOR THE QUANTTTATlVE MONITORING. t.lONITORING SCHEDULI, AND REPORT OfAOUNES • THE l,HTIGATION SITES WILL BE ASSESSED BY AN APPROPRIATE OU4NT1TATIVE VEGDATh'E COVER FlELD ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY. THE LINE INTERCEPT METHOD Will BE USEO FOR OaERt,m.!NG PERCENT AREAL COVER FOR WOODY ANO ltNASrvE SPECIES • QUANTITATIVE VEGDATION ASSESSMENTS WILL FOLLOW THE SAME METHOD IN EACH CONSECUTIVE MONITORING YEAR. • QUANTITATIVE VEGETATION ASSESSI.IENTS WILL BE PERFORMED BETWEEN JUNE 15 AND SEPTEMBER 15 OF EACH I.IONITORING YEAR • MONITORING REPORTS WILL BE SENT TO AGENCIES REQUIRING MONITORING REPORTS 8Y FEBRUARY 15 OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR • OOANTITATlVE MONITORING Will INCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHIC OOCUIAENTATION OF THE SITES FROM PERMANENT PHOTOGRAPH STATIONS 2.1.2 QUANmATIVE MONITORING QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT Will BE PERFORr.lED YEARLY TO VISUALLY ASSESS THE HEALTH OF PLANTS ANO IDENTIFY AREAS THAT MAY NEED CONTROL OF NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES OR OTHER MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES. ADDITIONALLY, DURING YEARS l, 2. ANO J THE SCREENING PLANJ"INGS (SP-1) WILL ALSO BE QUAIJTATIVELY MONITORED TO VISUAU Y ASSESS THE HEALTH OF THE PLANTS AND IDENTIFY AREAS THAT MAY NEED CONTROL OF NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES OR OTHER MAINTENANCE ACTMT1ES. 2.2 MAINTENANCE TI,E PROPOSED MmGATION ,S INTENDED TO ACHIEVE THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WITH MINIMAL ONGOING MAINTENANCE. PlANTEO VEGDATION SPECIES SHOULD BE ADAPTtO TO VARYING SITE CONDITIONS IN THE PUGET SOUND LOWLAND; HOWEVER, SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION MIGHT BE NEEDED DURING THE FIRST TWO GROWING SEASONS AFTER INSTALLATION TO ENSURE THE LONG-TERM SURVIVAL OF THE PlANTS. THE NEED FOR IRRIGATION WOULD BE EVALUATED BASED ON THE CO~fTIONS OBSERVED DURING THE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD. TO ENSURE: RAPID EST.e.BLISHI.IENT Of THE PLANT COl.lr.lUNITY, TREES AND SHRUBS WOULD BE PL.ANTED CLOSER TOGETHER THAN WOULD GENERALLY OCCUR IN NATURAL MAnJRE STANDS. SOME NAruR.AL MORTAI...JTY IS EXPECTED TO OCCUR DURING THE MONffORING PERIOD. ALL DEAD AND OOWNED WOODY MATERIAL WOULD BE LEFT IN PLACE TO PRDV,DE MICROHABfTATS FOR WILDLIFE. PLANlS WOULD BE REPLACED AS NEEDED TO MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. MAINTENANCE TO CONTROL NUISANCE SPECIES IN THE MITIGATION MEAS MAY BE NECESSARY. DURING THE MONITORING PERIOD. IF IT BECOr.lES Ev1DENT THAT ltNASIVE SPECIES ARE IMPEDING ESTABLISHMENT or DESIRABLE NATIVE PLANTS, MEASURES WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED TO CONTROL NUISANCE SPECIES. A PROGRESSfVELY AGGRESSIVE APPROACH WOULD BE USED TO CONTROL NUISANCE SPECIES CONTROi. MEASURES WOULD FIRST INCLUDE HAND CUTIING AND/OR GRUBBING AND REl.!OVAL. IF THIS FAILS. AN ENl/tRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HERBICIDE (RODEO-OR EQUIVALENT) I.IAY BE >f'PUEO 2.3 CONTINGENCY MEASURES IF t.lON!TORING INDICATES THAT THE SITES ARE NOT lilEETlNG PERFORMANCE STANOAROS, CONTINGENCY I.IEASURES WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED (TABLE 2-1). SITT CQN[)jTIONS WOUlD BE EVALUATED TO DaERr.llNE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEI.I AND THE I.IOST >f'PROPRIATE COUNTERMEASURES INFORMATION FROM THE ANNUAL t.lONITORING PROGRAM WILL BE USED TO IDENTIFY Nff MAINTENANCE ANO/OR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. IF PROBLEMS ARE IDENTiflED IN MONITORING, KING COUNTY BIOLOGISTS WILL DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM AND IMPLIMENT PROPER lilAINTENANCE OR CORRECTIVE ACTNITlES THESE ACTI'"1TIES WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE ANNUAL IAONfTORING REPORT. TABLE 2-1. CONTINGENCY MEASURES FDR IBE MITIGATION SITES PROBLIM CONTINGENCY lilEASURE LESS THAN 50,; OF PLANTED WOODY SPECIESSURVIVEINYEAR1 KING COUNTY BIOLOGISTS (OR OTHER Ql)AfJFIITJ BIOLOGIST) WOULD ASSESS TI-1E SIT£ TO DETERMINE WHAT CONDmONs ARE PREVENTING THE PWITS FROM THRMNG. APPROPRL'.TE MEASURES WOULD BE TAKEN TO CORRECT ANY CONDITIONS THAT ARE LIMITING GROWTH. LOST PLANTS WOULD BE REPLACED WITH APPROPRIATE NATIVE SPECIES UNLISS APPROPRlATE NATI\IE WOODY SPECIES ARE VOLUNTEERING AT A RATE SUFFlCIENT TO REPtACE TI,EM ADDITIONAL t.lEASURES (SUCH AS PROVIDING ADDmONAL PROTECTION) WOULD BE CONSIDERED IF NECESSARY. ADDITIONAL PROTECTtON COULD INCLUDE THE USE OF AN HERBiVORE REP£u..ENT (PLANTSK'l'DD OR EQUIVALENT) ~gc1~NT ~~ 0~R5 WOODY SPECIES NOT I ~JLtio~~l~f~~s (~~ g~:MI~~~:~ gh~l§~:1 INVASIVE SPECIES EXCEED PERCENT COVER THRESHOLD PERFORMANCE STANDARDS NOT MET ATY£AR5 ARE PREVENTING TI,[ PLANTS FROI.I THRMNG APPROPRIATE t.lEASURES WOULD BE TAKEN TO CORRECT ANY CONDITIONS THAT ARE LIMITING GROWTH. IMPLIMENT/REVISE INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL PLAN CONTINUE TI,E t.lONITORING REGIME FOR 1 ADDITIONAL YEAR. THE SIT£S WOULD CONTINUE TO BE EVAI._UATED EVERY YEAR UNTIL THEY MEET n-iE STAlED PERflJflMANCE STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WrTH MANAGEMENT OBJECTMS. OTHER CONTINGENCY MEASURES W..Y Bf IMPLEMENTED DURING THIS PERIOD I I 1-0')~=~ .. ~~= l"'"'"'"'"""'W""~I ... ,d,VUS VIAS><INGl~~""'°' LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW 6D% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION NOTES D~AWt.C NO 47 OF 47 MPG Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report Prepared for ' ) -/ -~ ' - King County ..... ---------------..... ~~ ..... ------· April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report Prepared for King County Parks Division 201 South Jackson, Seventh Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.8S5.542.6353 www.parametrix.com April 2015 I 554-1521-084 CITATION Parametrix. 2015. Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report. Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, Washington. April 2015. TABLE OF CONTENTS Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 PROJECT FEATURES ....................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.3 PROJECT AREA AND SETIING ........................................................................................................ 1-5 1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................... 1-6 2. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 METHODS OF ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 STUDIES AND COORDINATION ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Review of Existing Information ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.2 Field Investigation ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2.3 Regulations ....................................................................................................................... 2-2 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 GREEN/DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN SUMMARY .............................................................................. 3-1 3.3 GREEN RIVER ................................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.3.1 Stream Type ..................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.2 Fish Habitat ...................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.3 Water Quality Conditions ................................................................................................. 3-2 3.3.4 Biological Conditions ........................................................................................................ 3-2 3.4 BLACK RIVER .................................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.4.1 Stream Type ..................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.4.2 Fish Habitat ...................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.4.3 Water Quality Conditions ................................................................................................. 3-4 3.4.4 Biological Conditions ....................................................................................................... 3-5 3.5 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES .............................................................................................................. 3-5 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS .............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Permanent Effects ............................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.2 Temporary Effects ............................................................................................................ 4-2 4.2 OPERATIONAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................. 4-2 5. MITIGATION ............................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES .............................................................................. 5-1 5.2 RESTORATION OF TEMPORARY EFFECTS ...................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION ...................................................................................................... 5-2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................•.............. 6-1 LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................... 1-3 4-1 Stream Buffer Impacts ............................................................................................................... 4-5 APPENDICES A Site Photographs April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report KmgCounty ACRONYMS AASHTO BMP BNSF Corps CWA DBH Ecology ESA FEMA FHWA HPA LWD OHWM NEPA PHS RM SMP TESC WDFW WDNR WRIA WSDOT American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials best management practice Burlington Northern Santa Fe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act diameter at breast height Washington State Department of Ecology Endangered Species Act Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Project Approval large woody debris ordinary high water mark National Environmental Policy Act Priority Habitats and Species river mile Shoreline Master Program temporary erosion and sediment control Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Resource Inventory Area Washington State Department of Transportation April 2015 I 554-1521-084 1. INTRODUCTION Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County This discipline report is intended to provide information in support of the Washington State Department of Transportation {WSDOT) Environmental Classification Summary form for the National Environmental Policy Act {NEPA) Documented Categorical Exclusion process, assist project planning, and facilitate permitting. This report describes streams and aquatic resources in the area of a proposed 1.2-mile non- motorized trail, which includes two fish-bearing streams. This report also evaluates potential impacts to streams and stream buffers from the proposed project, and presents avoidance and minimization measures included in the project design and conceptual mitigation for unavoidable impacts. 1.1 Project Overview King County, together with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, WSDOT, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile segment of what would ultimately be the 16 mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW, runs parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across a proposed non-motorized pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park {Figure 1-1). Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, would be part of a Regional Trail System that provides non-motorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non- motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A would provide a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila, and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A would connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 1-1 ~ UNINC. I KING COUNTY -------J Concrete Recycling Plant CITY OF RENTON Martin Luther King Ways Black River Riparian Forest ~ 1 lt-----~J I ._P_a_r_a_m_e_tr__,,,ix_,__ ___ So_u_""'.s-,-Ki-ng_C,._o_unty-,LC-ity_of_R_en_to_n_,_'MJ_FW_20-,-•• -ws ..... o-o-T------...L--'-----'-----------.L----'L...l---------' D N :,00 600 FM! Legend: Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 1.2 Project Features Segment A is typically approximately 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide shoulders and 1-foot-wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. The project includes: • Constructing a 12-foot-wide asphalt pavement trail with soft-surface (gravel) shoulders • Performing minor grading to construct the trail (approximately 1,410 cubic yards of cut and 2,980 cubic yards offill, disturbing an area of approximately 0.72 acre outside the proposed trail footprint) • Performing ground improvements, which will disturb an area of approximately 0.17 acre in addition to other disturbances from the trail Constructing a new non-motorized pedestrian bridge, including abutments, over the Black River, northeast of Monster Road, which cannot be improved to safely accommodate the envisioned trail use Installing a pedestrian-actuated signal crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge Constructing an undercrossing feature beneath two railroad bridges to protect trail users from potential falling debris Installing one box culvert for terrestrial habitat enhancement • Building retaining walls near the south approach to Monster Road, north of the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Black River, and on either side of the box culvert • Installing split-rail fencing and plantings to discourage incursions into sensitive areas and to improve visual screening for sensitive wildlife Constructing two approximately 10-foot by 20-foot pull-out rest areas (one at the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest and one east of Monster Road and northwest of the Black River pump station) 1.3 Project Area and Setting The Segment A project area is a linear corridor mostly within an existing trail corridor (see Figure 1-1). Segment A is located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. Two parallel railroad tracks (Burlington Northern Santa Fe [BNSF] and Union Pacific) cross the western quarter of the proposed trail corridor on elevated bridges heading north-south. Another set of BNSF railroad tracks are located north of the eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail corridor with an east-west bearing. These tracks tie into the north-south tracks north of the project area. East of the railroad bridges, the proposed trail alignment is within the City of Renton; west of the railroad bridges the proposed trail alignment is within the City ofTukwila. The project area is described from east to west below. The east terminus is located at a cul-de-sac on Naches Avenue SW near an office park. The eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail alignment from Naches Avenue SW to the new pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road (approximately 4,100 linear feet) follows an existing gravel maintenance road south of the BNSF east-west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest (see the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A: Vegetation and April 2015 I 554-1521-084 1-5 Lake ta Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County Wildlife Discipline Report [Parametrix 2015a] for a more detailed description of the Black River Riparian Forest and the wildlife communities it supports). The gravel maintenance road is commonly used for walking and pet exercise. The existing road surface in most of this portion consists of compacted gravel and ranges from 10 to 12 feet wide. Areas immediately outside the edge of the existing gravel surface generally consist of grasses, low-growing annual plants, blackberry thickets, and native riparian trees. Uses outside this portion of the project area include a concrete recycling plant and an area zoned for light industrial uses just north of the railroad tracks. The proposed trail alignment crosses over the Black River using a proposed new non-motorized pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road Bridge, then crosses Monster Road south of the river. For the western quarter of the proposed trail alignment, west of Monster Road, the alignment lies south of the Black River. For the first 150 feet west of Monster Road, the alignment is on existing paved surfaces, and then it follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges for 650 feet. The westernmost 600 feet of the proposed trail alignment is on maintained lawns associated with Fort Dent Park. West of the railroad bridges, the area south of the proposed trail alignment is dominated by Fort Dent Park and the Starfire Sports Complex. The confluence of the Black and Green rivers is located just north of the west end of the Segment A project area. Commercial businesses are north of the Black River and south of the trail corridor. 1.4 Project Purpose and Need The purpose of the Segment A project is to design and construct an alternative non motorized transportation corridor and multi-use recreational trail between Naches Avenue SW in Renton and the Green River Trail in Tukwila. Segment A would provide non-motorized access to recreation and employment centers and complete a link in the Regional Trail System network. The trail is intended to safely accommodate a variety of groups such as bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, wheelchair users, and skaters. Trail design standards will safely accommodate different ages and skill levels within those groups. Completion of Segment A would provide the following benefits: 1-6 Serve local and regional non-motorized transportation needs and provide access to the trail for local communities. Help satisfy the regional need for recreational trails and provide safe recreational opportunities to a wide variety of trail users. Provide a critical link in the Regional Trails System. Provide economic and health benefits to communities along the trail. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake ta Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Methods of Analysis This study is based on a review of existing information and field investigations. The goal of these efforts was to document existing information to reflect current site conditions and to collect new information to assess potential impacts. Potential impacts on fish and aquatic resources were calculated by overlaying the proposed design onto the project base maps showing wetland, stream and buffer locations. Affected areas were determined as the area of overlap of the two sets. In some areas, multiple impact types (e.g., stream buffer and wetland buffer) were present in a single location. In this document, all stream and riparian buffer impacts are reported, although for purposes of compensatory mitigation, overlapping impacts were assigned based on the following hierarchy: wetland, stream (below ordinary high water mark [OHWM]), wetland buffer, and stream buffer impacts. 2.2 Studies and Coordination 2.2.1 Review of Existing Information Prior to conducting fieldwork, Parametrix reviewed maps and materials including, but not limited to: • Priority Habitats and Species data (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW] 2015a) Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage Program database Salmonscape database (WDFW 2015b) 2.2.2 A catalog of Washington streams ond salmon utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region (Williams et al. 1975) Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 (Green/Duwamish River) Limiting Factors Analysis (Kerwin and Nelson 2000) Field Investigation The information on streams and aquatic habitat presented within this report is based primarily on the results of site investigations conducted by project biologists. The stream surveys characterized the project area streams within and immediately adjacent to the project right-of-way. The stream investigation involved qualitative evaluations of instream habitat features, riparian vegetation, streambank stability, and fish passage obstructions within the study area (where right-of-entry allowed access). Field investigations within the Segment A project area occurred on February 1, 2011. Selected site photographs are presented in Appendix A. In addition, coordination occurred with the authors of the wetland discipline report and critical area study for this project (Parametrix 2011, 2015b), who also collected available information on ecological resources and performed field studies. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 2-1 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 2.2.3 Regulations Streams associated with the project (Green River and Black River) in the City of Tukwila (west of the railroad bridges) are regulated under TMC 18.44, while in the City of Renton (east of the railroad bridges), the Black River and all of the Black River Riparian Forest is regulated under RMC 4-3-090 (Shoreline Master Program [SMP] Regulations). Land use permits will be required by the cities. Streams, wetlands, and other sensitive resources in the project vicinity are also subject to federal and state regulations. The information in this report is intended to facilitate project planning and to support acquisition of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the WDFW, a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), as necessary. 2-2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King county This section describes existing conditions of the streams and buffers within the study area, as well as the overall site conditions. A total of two streams (Black River and Green River) and six wetlands (Wetlands 1 through 6) (see the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Critical Area Study [Parametrix 2015b] for detailed wetland descriptions) are located within the Segment A project area. Surface water runoff from the concrete recycling plant north of the project area drains under the BNSF railroad tracks and then across the existing gravel maintenance road to Wetland 3. The water has eroded a short channel through the existing gravel and then sheet flows over the wetland, where much of the water infiltrates. (As part of the trail project, a drainage culvert would be constructed to convey this runoff under the trail (Figure 1-1).) 3.1 Study Area The study area for the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A stream investigation is defined as the area within 200 feet of the Black and Green Rivers, from Naches Avenue SW, parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Forest, across Monster Road and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (see Figure 1-1). The study area also includes the Black River Riparian Forest, which is designated as a Shoreline under the City of Renton code. The following sections describe the aquatic habitat and species within the study area. This includes an overview of general site characteristics and descriptions of individual streams and aquatic habitat areas, as well as fish distribution and habitat use in each stream. 3.2 Green/Duwamish River Basin Summary The project site is located within WRIA 9, the Green-Duwamish River basin. The Duwamish River is defined as the portion of the Green/Duwamish River system downstream from the confluence of the Black River (River Mile [RM] 11.0) to Elliott Bay (RM 0.0), while the Green River extends upstream from the Black River. For this report, the term 'Duwamish River' pertains to the first 11 miles of the river system, while the term 'Green River' pertains to both the portion of river above RM 11.0 and the river system as a whole. Historically, the Green, White, Black, and Cedar Rivers flowed into the Duwamish River, and the system drained an area of over 1,600 square miles. In the early 1900s, the Black, White, and Cedar Rivers were diverted, reducing the Green River drainage over 60 percent to just 483 square miles (Blomberg 1988). Also, in 1913 the City of Tacoma constructed a diversion dam on the Green River, near the town of Palmer, at about RM 50.0. In 1963, the Howard Hansen Dam was built at RM 53.0. Both of these structures completely blocked fish migration to the upper Green River and its tributaries. Flow in the Green River is regulated by the operation of the Howard Hanson Dam. River velocities are dissipated as the river widens and currents converge with tidal pressures. Characterized by wet and dry seasons, discharge of the river varies seasonally. The wet season extends from November to July, and the dry season from August to October. The mean monthly flow rate in the lower Duwamish varies from 400 cubic feet per second (cfs) in August to 2,600 cfs in January. Stream banks are sloped and diked to contain flows of up to 11,000 cfs (Williams et al. 1975). According to the Federal Emergency April 2015 I 554-1521--084 3-1 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County Management Agency (FEMA), the maximum regulated flow for the 100-year recurrence interval is 12,000 cfs at the project site. The Lower Green River basin begins at the Auburn Narrows (RM 31) and continues to just downstream of the confluence with the Black River in Tukwila (RM 11). The lower Green River basin is composed of two areas that are split by the Black River basin to the north and the Mill Creek basin to the south. It is mostly on the urban side of the urban growth boundary and contains portions of the cities of Kent, Auburn, Tukwila, Federal Way, and SeaTac. Land uses include residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural, as well as some major highways, including Interstate 5. There are extensive areas of office/commercial and multi-family residential development. This area has developed rapidly over the past 20 years. 3.3 Green River 3.3.1 Stream Type The project alignment intersects the Green River at about RM 11.0 on the right bank of the river (see Figure 1-1). According to the WDNR stream typing system, the Green River is a Type S stream, designated as a shoreline of the state. Within the project area, the stream is located within the local jurisdiction of the City of Tukwila, which also classifies the Green River as a Type S stream. The shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the river OHWM. According to Tukwila SMP (Section 7. 7), "the buffer will extend 125 feet landward from the ordinary high watermark, determined at the time of development or redevelopment of the site or when levee replacement or repair is programmed." The remaining 75 feet landward of the buffer is also regulated under the Tukwila SMP. 3.3.2 Fish Habitat Identified limiting habitat factors in the lower Green River watershed include (1) urbanization, water diversions, and revetments that have resulted in disconnection of the river from floodplain off-channel habitats such as sloughs and adjacent wetlands, (2) reduction of large woody debris and associated instream complexity, such as pools and riffles, (3) creation of adult salmon migration problems due to low flows, (4) chronic water quality problems, and (5) severe reductions in riparian habitats and associated functions (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Currently, the reach within the study area is used by all native anadromous salmon id species for rearing and migration. 3.3.3 Water Quality Conditions The Green River has no listed exceedances on the 2012 Ecology 303(d) list within or immediately adjacent to the project limits (Ecology 2015). A 303(d) reach is located over 0.5 mile upstream from the project area, with recorded exceedances for stream temperature, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliform. 3.3.4 Biological Conditions Fish Presence The Duwamish and lower Green Rivers serve as a migration and rearing area for anadromous salmon ids, with no spawning habitat available (Williams et al. 1975). Three Pacific salmon species inhabit the Green/Duwamish River basin in significant numbers: Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (0. 3-2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County kisutch), and chum (0. keta) salmon. Pink (O. gorbuscha) and sockeye (0. nerka) salmon may occasionally be seen in the Green River basin, but the Green River is primarily a chum, coho, and Chinook salmon stream (Williams et al. 1975). Although sockeye salmon are occasionally seen in streams that are not tributaries to lakes, sockeye almost always require a rearing lake below or near their spawning area (Foerster 1972). Other anadromous fish using these waters include steelhead (0. mykiss), sea-run cutthroat trout (0. clarki clarki), Dolly Varden (Salvelinus ma/ma), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Studies of juvenile salmonids in the Duwamish and lower Green River (Williams et al. 1975; Weitkamp and Campbell 1980; Weitkamp and Schadt 1982; Warner and Fritz 1995) have demonstrated the species presence, their timing within the project vicinity, and various characteristics of the fish. These investigations show that subyearling Chinook and chum salmon use shallow-water shoreline habitats of various characteristics during their migration to the ocean. Juvenile pink salmon are likely to be found in the same areas during their spring migration period. The young salmon appear to prefer relatively protected shorelines with gradual slopes and depths of less than about 6 feet. However, they are also found along hard, steep to vertical substrates that are either natural or man-made. The young salmon tend to remain close to the shoreline but apparently cross deep water at night (Stober et al. 1973; Bax et al. 1979). Yearling Chinook, steelhead, and coho also use shoreline areas but appear to be less shoreline-oriented than the subyearling migrants. The substantially larger yearlings are commonly found in the near- surface water well away from the shoreline. Subadult and adult bull trout and Dolly Varden are likely to forage within the project vicinity during their late spring to summer migrations into Puget Sound. Juvenile salmon migrating past the project site include Chinook produced from the Soos Creek Hatchery, located about 39 miles upstream from the site. The juvenile migration period potentially extends from late February through mid-June. During this period, wild fish commonly occur further upstream and are more numerous in tributaries, compared to hatchery fish. Stream Buffer Conditions Overstory riparian vegetation on the right bank of the river is generally limited to a relatively narrow (20 to 50 feet wide) zone with a sparse overstory of deciduous and coniferous trees. Trees include scattered Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), western redcedar (Thuja p/icata), and nonnative alder (A/nus spp.) and spruce (Picea spp.) species. Understory vegetation consists primarily of shrubs, with sumac (Rhus spp.), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), and substantial amounts of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). Invasive vegetation dominates the outer portion of the riparian zone, including a large amount of Himalayan blackberry and various grass species. A single line of ornamental trees is present on the south edge of the riparian zone, directly adjacent to Fort Dent Park. In addition, portions of the riparian zone consist of patches of bare ground. The vegetation is not adequate to provide the full range of riparian functions, although low to moderate levels of stream shading, large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, leaf litter production, and bank stability are provided by the existing riparian zone. Much of the shrub vegetation overhangs the river, offering some overhead cover for fish. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 3·3 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 3.4 Black River 3.4.1 Stream Type According to the WDNR stream typing system, the Black River is a Type S stream, designated as a shoreline of the state. Within the project area, the stream is located within the local jurisdictions of the Cities ofTukwila and Renton (see Figure 1-1), although the majority of the Black River is within Renton. Within Renton, the Black River is classified as a Class 1 water (shoreline of the state) (RMC 4-3-090F.l). The regulated buffer within shoreline jurisdictional (the Standard Vegetation Conservation Buffer width) includes lands within 100 feet, as measured on a horizontal plane, from the OHWM. Within Tukwila, the stream is classified as a Type S (shoreline of the state) stream. The regulated shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the river OHWM. According to Tukwila SMP (Section 7.7), "the buffer will extend 125 feet landward from the ordinary high watermark, determined at the time of development or redevelopment of the site or when levee replacement or repair is programmed." The remaining 75 feet landward of the buffer is also regulated under the Tukwila SMP. 3.4.2 Fish Habitat The Black River enters the Green River near Tukwila, on the right bank, at RM 11.0. On the Black River, a dam and pump station, which is approximately 600 feet upstream of Monster Road, prevent tidal upstream inundation of the river channel and maintain downstream flow, regardless of tidal influences. A Den ii fishway allows upstream fish passage at the pump station, and an air lift pump arrangement aids downstream migrants in passing the structure during the spring months (Harza 1995). The project site is located in a developed setting, zoned industrial, with large amounts of impervious surface within the project vicinity. A large gravel pit (Stoneway Concrete) is located north of the Monster Road Bridge, warehouses and an industrial operation are located to the north and south of the trail alignment, and railroad tracks run both parallel and perpendicular to the trail alignment. lnstream habitat within the project area is dominated by run-type channel morphology, with maximum stream depths of greater than 6 feet. At the time of the site visit (February 2011), the wetted width was approximately 25 feet, and no pools or riffles were observed. Bank-full width was estimated at 30 feet. Streambed material consists almost exclusively of sands and silts. The streambanks are relatively steep (approximately a SO-degree angle) and bank condition appears to be relatively stable. Underneath the Monster Road Bridge, both streambanks are 100 percent armored with riprap, from the edge of the water to the bridge deck. No LWD was observed in the study area, and the presence of the pump station above the project site precludes LWD recruitment from upstream. Overall, the quality of fish habitat is poor, with little habitat diversity. Within the study area, the Black River would probably be used for migration or possibly rearing, although instream cover is somewhat limited. 3.4.3 Water Quality Conditions The Black River from RM 0.25 to 1.44 is on the 2012 Ecology 303(d) list for exceeding the fecal coliform criteria (Ecology 2015). This exceedance includes the reach of the Black River between Monster Road Bridge and the Black River pump station. 3-4 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 3.4.4 Biological Conditions Fish Presence WDFW (2015a, b) data indicate that Chinook salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon, steel head trout, and cutthroat trout all have been documented in the Black River within the study area. The type of use is listed as migration for all species except coho, which use the lower Black River for juvenile rearing. Conditions favorable for Chinook salmon spawning and rearing do not exist in the project area, and recent information, as well as historical records (Harza 1995; Williams et al. 1975), indicate that Chinook do not use this area for spawning and rearing. However, very small numbers of adult fall Chinook migrating up the Green River occasionally stray into the Black River and become trapped above the Black River pump station (the pump station cannot pass adult salmon downstream). In the fall of 1997, adult Chinook were observed entering the Black River and attempting to spawn near the SW 27th Street culvert in Springbrook Creek, 2.3 miles upstream of the project area (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Bull trout are not known to occur in the Black River, and there have been no documented occurrences of spawning (WDFW 1998). Water temperatures in the Black River basin are too high to support reproduction by this species (Harza 1995; Rieman and Chandler 1999). Stream Buffer Conditions The stream buffers of the Black River within the project area are relatively degraded, of limited widths, and composed primarily of herbaceous, shrub, and nonnative species. Downstream of Monster Road Bridge, the width of the vegetated buffer ranges between 50 and 100 feet on the north side of the river and about 75 to 150 feet on the south side. Upstream of the bridge, the width of the vegetated averages from 100 to 150 feet on both sides of the Black River. The vegetated buffer consists of lightly forested and herbaceous plant communities, although the forested zone is restricted to within 50 feet of the river. Vegetation includes red alder (A/nus rubra), tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Himalayan blackberry, black cottonwood, western redcedar, western swordfern (Polystichum munitum), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) and snowberry (Symphoricarpos a/bus). Under existing conditions, the riparian corridor is not fully functioning, but it does provide some functions that support aquatic species, including some level of small woody debris or LWD recruitment, overhead stream cover, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality maintenance. 3.5 Special Status Species Three fish species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) occur within the project area. ESA-listed salmon id populations within the Green River and the Black River are the Puget Sound evolutionarily significant unit of Chinook salmon and the Puget Sound steelhead distinct population segment. Also, small numbers of bull trout may be present within the mainstem Green River, although habitat conditions in the Black River would not support these species. No species that are candidates for listing under ESA are present in the study area; however, the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia population of coho salmon is listed as a species of concern by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries and is present in the study area. Priority fish species include all State-listed endangered, threatened, sensitive, and candidate species, and species of recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are considered vulnerable. No fish species with State candidate status occur in the study area. No State-listed sensitive, threatened, or endangered fish species occur in the study area. Coastal cutthroat trout, which are designated as priority species, may occur within the study area (WDFW 2015a). April 2015 I 554-1521-084 3-S 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 Construction Effects Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County This section describes the extent and type of temporary and permanent effects on streams and aquatic resources that could occur as a result of construction acf1vities associated with the proposed project. 4.1.1 Permanent Effects The project does not include construction activities below the OHWM of any stream; therefore, the project would not result in any stream fill, nor would alterations to fish passage structures be required. Permanent effects on stream buffers would occur where the proposed trail alignment encroaches into currently vegetated areas within the regulatory buffers on the Green River and the Black River, including areas within the construction footprint for the proposed pedestrian bridge. As previously discussed, there is some overlap between stream buffers and wetland buffers. The total amount of riparian buffer that would be subjected to permanent impacts would be approximately 31,641 square feet (0.73 acre) (Figures 4-1 through 4-5). Of this area, 0.13 acre (5,715 square feet) also falls within wetland buffers and are identified as wetland buffer impacts for regulatory purposes. For this analysis, therefore, the project would result in 0.60 acre (25,926 square feet) of permanent impacts to riparian buffers. Further details on these impacts are provided in this project's Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015b). Permanent riparian buffer impacts would occur primarily along the Black River; approximately 2,400 square feet of the affected area would be within the Green River riparian buffer. In almost all cases, the quality of the riparian buffer that would be permanently displaced is low to moderate. Much ofthe riparian impact area along the Black River consists of grass or nonnative herbaceous and shrub species. The City of Renton has determined that all trees within 10 feet of the paved edge of the trail should be removed, as should all cottonwood trees within 20 feet of the paved edge of the trail, for the protection of public safety and the trail surface. Approximately 51 trees within the regulatory buffer of the Black River in the City of Renton would be removed. All but one of these would be deciduous trees (48 cottonwoods, 1 red alder, and 1 willow). One coniferous tree (a 6-inch-diameter Douglas-fir within the clearing area for the proposed pedestrian bridge) would be removed. Twenty of the trees proposed for removal are between 6 inches and 10 inches in diameter. Eight trees are smaller than 6 inches, 13 trees would be between 10 and 16 inches, and 10 trees (all cottonwoods) are larger than 16 inches in diameter. Construction of the western portion of the trail corridor would remove 14 trees larger than 4 inches in diameter within riparian buffers in the City of Tukwila. The existing buffer functions are somewhat degraded, compared to fully forested conditions, and these functions are provided at a low or moderate level. The predominant cover type within the project footprint is urban, consisting primarily of the gravel surface of the existing maintenance road. Where the existing surface is not composed of gravel, a worn dirt trail exists and is largely free of trees and shrubs. Clearing for trail construction would affect approximately 0.9 acre and is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in a substantial reduction in plant cover in the study area. Some low-growing plants would be replaced with hard surfaces, however, and the overhead canopy would be reduced in some places. Based on the nature and location of buffer impacts, no substantial degradation of riparian functions (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, water temperature maintenance) or process (e.g., water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and April 2015 I 554-1521-084 4-1 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County pathogen removal; stream channel formation/maintenance) would result from permanent project- related clearing and no substantial effects on stream habitat or fish resources in any of the project area streams are anticipated. 4.1.2 Temporary Effects Temporary impacts to stream buffers would occur from minor clearing and grading during project construction, as well as from potential erosion, sedimentation, and noise disturbance during construction. As previously discussed, there is some overlap between stream buffers and wetland buffers. The total amount of riparian buffer that would be subjected to temporary impacts would be 0.11 acre (5,312 square feet) (see Figures 4-2 through 4-5). Approximately 0.01 acre of this area (857 square feet) also falls within wetland buffers and are identified as wetland buffer impacts for regulatory purposes. For this analysis, therefore, the project would result in 0.10 acre (4,455 square feet) of temporary impacts to riparian buffers. Further details on these impacts are provided in the project's Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015b). Temporary riparian buffer impacts would occur primarily within the Black River riparian buffer; approximately 560 square feet of the temporary impacts would be within the Green River riparian buffer. Because the portions of the affected buffer are degraded (as discussed above) and these riparian areas would be replanted once construction is complete, temporary clearing is not expected to have a substantial effect on stream habitat or fish resources in any of the project area streams. Construction activities occurring directly adjacent to project area streams could increase turbidity and total suspended solid levels. However, no earthwork or riparian clearing would occur within 25 feet of the OHWM of the Green River or below the OHWM of the Black River. Along most of the proposed trail corridor, no ground-disturbing work would take place within 40 feet of any streams. Furthermore, potential effects would be avoided through the development and implementation of best management practices (BMPs), including temporary erosion and sediment control (TES() and spill prevention control and countermeasures plans. 4.2 Operational Effects The primary potential for operational effects would be from increased stormwater runoff, which can negatively affect stream flows. Although the project would add some non-pollution generating impervious surface to the project area in the form of the paved trail, the wide buffer distance between the trail and the Black and Green Rivers would allow ample opportunity for stormwater runoff be infiltrated or intercepted before entering the waterbodies. Also, no inter-basin transfers of stormwater would occur (all stormwater would remain in the basin it originated in). Therefore, no impact to the hydrology of these streams, including base flow and peak flow, would result from operation of the project. The proposed project would not add any pollution-generating impervious surface within the project area; heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and other contaminants commonly associated with roadway runoff would not be generated on the pedestrian and bike trail and, therefore, no changes in water quality of the project area streams would result. The new pedestrian bridge over the Black River would be 109 feet long and 12 feet wide. The portion of the bridge spanning the OHWM of the river would be approximately 44 feet long, meaning approximately 528 square feet of the river would be affected by shading from the bridge. Shade from overwater structures such as bridges can be a migration barrier for fish. Juvenile salmon ids avoid dark, shaded areas under structures, resulting in loss of access to habitat, blockage of movement, and 4-2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake ta Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County potentially increased exposure to predators. In addition, shade from overwater structures can provide hiding cover for some non-native species, such as smallmouth bass, that prey on native fish. The Black River is not considered to be an important migratory corridor for salmonids because the Black River pump station immediately upstream of the study area presents a substantial barrier to upstream and downstream migration. In addition, reaches ofthe Black River and Springbrook Creek upstream of the project action area are unlikely to provide suitable spawning or rearing habitat for Chinook salmon or high-quality spawning or rearing habitat for steelhead. Moreover, the narrow footprint and north- south orientation of the bridge (minimizing the amount of time that any given point receives shade over the course of a day) would further diminish the potential for the structure to cast shade that presents a migration barrier for any juvenile salmonids that may pass through the project action area. All bridge components spanning the Black River would be designed and installed in accordance with the provisions of the HPA and other permits issued for the project. Per WAC 220-660-030, the HPA would include provisions designed to ensure no net loss of habitat functions necessary to sustain fish life. Compliance with the provisions of the HPA and other permits would be expected to avoid or minimize the potential for adverse effects resulting from bridge construction. Any unavoidable impacts would be addressed through compensatory mitigation. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 4-3 / C s C ~ -------- I I I I I I I I I -1-----1 I I :.J '"'\ \ I ~\ I \ ) y ~#~~ ~ '<: 1:: as ~ CL "' .5 cil I ... ! ! .... ::s .., ..;.m § I!! E c5l as .e ::S CD 1 tll ... ·--" u.. 1/J .... ----------~" ~~~~ ' --" ---" Green RNer --" --' --~oHWM______ ', I ' __.,,,,,-. /,J , ______ ___ -------· JJ Green River Trail -/ _ ___,/ -------~~~.!!_ ___ _ -0! i l ·~ I ,I~~-- -----cl--------------~---------~---~--- ,.---- Parametrlx D,,,.TE:~13,2015 1 40 SCALE IN FEET FILE: BL 15.21084PAT3T3006_CA2+B Legend: Wetland/Stream Buffer Wetland Boundary Drainage -w-CG-Cll-cc-CG-Clear and Grubbing C=:J :~;~:!? ,.~/~f ---'. ,, ', '-'D ' ~~ --. ,,,,__ I' :~ --I~ -C ' ----------,ii -------111;j -------------l :E ---------------------------~ I Fill Line C=:J Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact -Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Figure 4-2 Cut Line -Wetland Buller Temporary Impact f: · '. · '. -: •:•'.I Stream Buffer Impacts Wetland/Stream Buller Pennanent Impact Existing Asphalt Proposed Trail ~ Stream Buffer Permanent Impact -Wetland/Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A I I I N~-- 11 ... , ~~ u:: -~--~--OJ:iw;i;f?----------~~ ',,~ . ,~~ JI I ~ §. ! I ',,, ...nmr.-------. -,-,~ UMV'VIVI <.....~ \ \ I !I !,L • Ii ·----' 01 ---- .c I ------tlJ J:! I ~ Sl CG I I .., :Iii I I I I I l ~---------l----------~------------ Parametrlx 1 °"TE:,..,,. 13,2015 FILE: BL1621064AAT3T300B_CA2-&-I Legend: 40 SCALE IN FEET ---\ Wetland/Stream Buffer WeUand Boundary Drainage Clear end Grubbing ~ ""'---~ r--__ ---i I I 01-f~-I ... ; ---' --, ... :;;, ----, l ,llJ I"' ---------... ---------··,., ........ ',, ........ ",, Fill Line ~ Cut Line -Existing Asphalt Proposed Trail ~ ............ /,,,>; ---~ ------,,, . ;::\-- ', ',, ', ----------................. I!! 15> ~ II~ ,,> Cl) ~Z'.';' f/J •• _'::: ICI) ··. -.. '---. ·_~ __ 1· C -~"'"~= :E ~'"s""i.S -..:.z:, ca --~-1· --~~--~--~~~--------: I WeU.nd Buffer Permanent Impact -Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Figure 4-3 Wettand Buffer Temporary Impact f: ·: ·:·:·:·:I Stream Buffer Impacts Wetland/Stream Buffer Permanent Impact Stream Buffer Permanent Impact -WeUand/Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A z Z ~ I · • ~ --_ ill ~ J . / --r------.--~~o~fl --~~'1Hfl'~4-3 ~ . ... 0 I ! i ! g ! I i 8 : I ! i i 8 : I I I I I I I I I Q C ::i, ::i, ; ~-! i ~ ~ ~ a a. .. !!' cil ~ § i g: fit' 3 ~-~ I D l w. ~ ~ "§~c:5" CD IQ i CD ~I i i ~ID "' ::;; ::;; I i i 3 " " m a. a. c; m m t i i " --.. -< " 3 ~ .. ~ '8 i a ! ~ i 3 i .. i i n n n IDI 1 I : fr i I» " " 3 ~ ~ m a i i ., .. -3 3 -< g, g, ~ lo lo '8 --; ~ "2 '< 3 i 3 1 J i '< i Sl. 3 3 i i n n r-Cl) "Tl .. --· 1;' iiJ IQ a-Ill C g, 3 iii § g,t "- ~ ;: "' ... I 3 [£' 1 "O Ill !l ~ Ill )> I \ c::ll·l·>t I t'.:l:ly:I \ II f:i\vlr \a-·1l ·': I \ IJ \'l\ I \_ I I I I I 11 · 1 ;/./"/ · 1·./1--~ / / b/ / / / / / I I I ' . / I f r I /" I I ./ Y• I ( // // ',if \ //; ,/ ,V-\t; · / I 'v ; I I / I / I§/ ""·· I I I/ l I / ;-. / I /!? . / / / /": I /-' / ' ·,'' , / If :/i·· / / /!_I -;· • I I ; ,; , I / /---------~ .... I I I I/-I .... ,.,, IA/ I I', I f I , -I I ' /1 / ', , I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I \ I I I \ I \ I \ I ' I I I I I I A I \ ,I I . 1'' l I I I I I I I I I I / J I I i I ::;; /,'--,~~~ I 'f' .I I I l/J e""' I m I .1 ?5, I / I er / / 1 / I I / I I I I I I I / I I I I I I I I I I :e I I !. I I ~ I I ::I I I Q. I I Q I I I / I I I I I ./ I I I I I I / I I I I / I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ I k I I \ \ I I I I I I I I GI I • I %, I ' I Cl) \ \ ;. : -n \ \ / I 1 ,0 I ( l'• Ill I l'': Ii \ v~ ~ \ I I I I I I I I I __ __. sNSf Ra\\'1181 W6-SP1 ,_ /--1-· _::,J..--- .,:".".::'.'~:~~-: ............ 1 -···-···-···-·- W6-SP2 \_Estimated Buffer OHWM -------~ Black River OAreApti13.2015 F1LE:eL1S21064PAT3T3000_CA2-8-8 Legend: ---------------Wetland/Stream Buffer Wetland Boundary Drainage Clear and Grubbing Wetland 6 '\ c=::::J Fill Line Cu1 Line Existing Asphalt Proposed Trail " ---------- I I ~~'\ I I f I __>/ _y--- _l.1-----;,,.----- ,/ >s, I -"-__ _,,__ __ ~--ev~,~ I ,--·---~--~ ,1.--·· ;)J---- _;,,-----· _c,ec--,,--- I ,; ~/ ~ -~ Wetland Buffer Pennanent Impact We11and Buffer Temporary Impact Stream Buffer Permanent Impact -~ ~ -Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Permanent Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Figure 4-5 Stream Buffer Impacts Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 5. MITIGATION The Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A project would avoid and minimize impacts to streams by proceeding in accordance with the mitigation sequencing requirements established by the NEPA, the CWA, and other aquatic area protection programs. According to NEPA (40 CFR paragraphs 1508.20), the definition of mitigation is as follows: a. Avoiding the impact all together by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 5.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures Consistent with the above sequencing requirements, a high priority was placed on designing the project to include measures and features that avoid and minimize adverse effects on streams and stream buffers. The streams in the study area have been avoided to the greatest extent feasible and no permanent filling of streams is anticipated. King County would apply the following strategies to minimize stream and buffer impacts during the design, permitting, and construction phases: Use a retaining wall to narrow the trail footprint in the vicinity of some riparian buffers. Near streams and wetlands, limit earthwork to the dry season to reduce the potential for sediment runoff. Construct the trail on an existing gravel maintenance road to minimize impacts to functioning riparian buffers. Where feasible, widen the trail on the north side of the existing corridor to minimize impacts to riparian buffers and wildlife habitat. Use appropriate sediment and erosion control BMPs (e.g., mulching, matting, and netting; filter fabric fencing; sediment traps) to reduce the risk of erosion and reduce or minimize the chance of sediments entering project waterbodies. Prepare and implement a TESC plan for clearing or removing vegetation, grading, ditching, filling, excavating, and conducting embankment compaction to minimize and control pollution and erosion from all vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. 5.2 Restoration of Temporary Effects All temporarily affected areas would be restored to pre-construction conditions or better through re- planting or seeding and would support a level of riparian function that is the same, or greater, than under existing conditions. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 5-1 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 5.3 Compensatory Mitigation King County has developed plans for habitat improvement and restoration to mitigate for project- related effects on stream buffers. All unavoidable impacts to stream buffers would be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090) and City of Tukwila critical areas regulations (TMC 18.44 and 18.45). Specific mitigation plans would be included in permit applications for construction of the project. The mitigation plans would focus on providing riparian buffer and wetland buffer mitigation that would provide equal or greater functions than were impacted. The mitigation site would be planted at a ratio of at least 1:1 to offset project impacts. Since the riparian buffer and wetland buffer impacts have some overlap, further details on the overall mitigation plan are provided in the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015b). Broadly, the riparian buffer component of the overall mitigation plan consists of planting native trees and shrubs within the regulated riparian buffer of a fish-bearing stream (the Black River). On-site mitigation (within the project area and regulated buffer of the Black River) was selected as the preferred option. Riparian mitigation would consist of planting, or underplanting, in an area where existing riparian conditions are degraded. This type of mitigation would offset the project's impacts on stream resources by maintaining or enhancing those riparian functions that support water quality and fish habitat. The riparian functions that would benefit from mitigation include LWD recruitment, stream temperature regulation, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality functions. In addition to the riparian buffer impact mitigation described above, additional mitigation would be provided for tree removal where the proposed trail alignment runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest in the City of Renton. In that area, all trees larger than 6 inches in diameter would be replaced by new trees at a ratio of 1:1 or greater. Planting for visual screening between the trail and the Black River heron nesting colony could result in the planting of more trees than would be needed to meet this commitment (Parametrix 2015a). In addition to mitigation requirements for displacement of buffers, enhancement of buffers is required by the provisions of RMC 4-10-095.F. Shoreline Master Program Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures, and Sties. The proposed trail is categorized as a Major Alteration: Expansion of impervious surface by more than 25%. This provision requires the project to install site improvements that protect the ecological functions and processes of the shoreline, consisting of either: • Full compliance with Vegetation Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-090Fl, Vegetation Conservation, consisting of revegetation of a native community of the full required* buffer, or 100% of the area between an existing building and the water's edge if the full buffer cannot be planted, or at least 10 ft., or • An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that would provide at least equal protection of ecological functions and processes as the full required* setback and buffer. This requirement is met by a revegetation plan for areas between the trail and OHWM where the trail is within the 100 foot Vegetation Conservation Area of the Black River. 5-2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 6. REFERENCES Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County Bax, N. J., E.O. Salo, and B.P. Snyder. 1979. Salmonid outmigration studies in Hood Canal. Final report, phase VI. FRI-UW-7921, 89 p. Fish. Res. Inst., Univ. Wash., Seattle. Blomberg, G., C. Simenstad, and P. Hickey. 1988. Changes in Duwamish River estuary habitat over the past 125 years. Pages 437-454 in Proceedings. First annual meeting on Puget Sound research. Volume 2. Prepared by the Puget Sound water quality authority. Seattle, Washington. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015. 2012 Washington State Water Quality Assessment (305[b] report and 303[d] list). Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html. Accessed February 3, 2015. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015. 2012 Washington State Water Quality Assessment (305[b] report and 303(d) list). Available at: < http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.htm1>. Accessed on February 3, 2011. Foerster, R.E. 1972. The sockeye salmon. Bulletin 162. Ottawa, Canada: Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 422 p. Harza. 1995. Comprehensive fisheries assessment of the Springbrook, Mill, and Garrison Creek watershed. Bellevue, Washington: prepared for City of Kent, Washington. Parametrix. 2011. Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A: Wetland Discipline Report. October 2011. Prepared for King County, Seattle, Washington. Parametrix. 2015a. Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A: Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report. April 2015. Prepared for King County, Seattle, Washington. Parametrix. 2015b. Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A: Critical Area Study. April 2015. Prepared for King County, Seattle, Washington. Rieman, B.E. and G.L. Chandler. 1999. Empirical evaluation of temperature effects on bull trout distribution in the Northwest. Final Report, Contract No. 12957242-01-0. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho. Stober, Q.J, S.J. Walden, and D.T. Griggs. 1973. Juvenile salmon id migration through Skagit Bay, pp.35- 70. In Ecological studies of proposed Kiket Island nuclear power site. Edited by Q.J. Stober and E.0. Salo. FRI-UW-7304. 537pp. Warner, E.J., and R.L. Fritz. 1995. The distribution and growth of Green River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) outmigrants in the Duwamish Estuary as a function of water quality and substrate. Muckleshaot Indian Tribe, Auburn, Washington. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1998. 1998 Washington State salmon id stock inventory. Appendix: Bull trout and Dolly Varden. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 437 pp. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 6-1 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015a. PHS on the Web: An interactive map of WDFW priority habitats and species information for project review. Available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed January 16, 2015. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015b. Salmonscape fish database and mapping application. Available on line at https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/salmonscape/. Accessed January 16, 2015. Williams et al. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization. Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries. Olympia, Washington. Kerwin, J. and T. S. Nelson .. 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report: 6·2 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (Water Resource Inventory Area 9 and Vashon Island) Washington State Conservation Commission and King County Department of Natural Resources. December 2000. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Appendix A Site Photographs April 2015 Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Photograph 1. View of left bank riparian vegetation along the Black River , looking east from Fort Dent Park . Note presence of shrub vegetation and scattered small trees . Himalayan blackberry and other non-nat ive species are also present. t; Photograph 2 . View of proposed trail alignment , looking east from near the Green River Trail. Note degraded understory riparian conditions and the lack of vegetated ground cover. The trees will be maintained in place , where feasible. A-I 554-125 l-084(/l/2T300C) Stream Discipline Report Appendix A Apr;/ 2015 Lake to Sound Tmil -St:gmmt A Photograph 3. V iew of riparian conditions on right bank of Black River, looking south from immediately upstream (east) of the Monster Road Bridge . Note the presence of non-native vegetation and scarcity of mature trees . Photograph 4 . V iew of existing gravel trail/pro posed trail alignment, looking east from immediately upstream (e ast) of the Monster Road Bridge . The Black River is on the right side of the photo and the Black River Pump station is in the background . A -2 551-125 J-084(B/2T300C) Srream Discipline Report Appmdix A LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Lake to Sound Regional Trail, Segment A/ LUAlS-000257 February 16, 2016, 11:00 AM PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS Phone# with oreo code Email NAME (including City & Zip) (optional} (optional} Jd.S6t,, (<., J.-__ /L-14 c~IAM-i-0 P~.J~ JC,.)&-{ V'r~(el/1'.j...._(i).;,J,_ . .:c; [\J __, __, j \. T01n y B::<I ~ Pucuv,eki x., 1 t0 2rd k 4+ JcO, S,;:,ct!\-1,i:_ q '6 IO{-S'oo.;\e'-\ Qpc:qr,:-.._YY\e:fv<><. -c:,~ 'bk~ '\2,-Q"V~ ~t<'<k-c:: v-~~"-/\ '-" S°"'-'W---Vt,n'""--\(~~,--,--.. (.,I %1 ~-'-\.q_ yh.5\A.f ~q_~\\\.,, ~Z.~~~Y""o-->·\,t \/ (f »rc bll15\Jff c'-~ ()~ ~~ \]C,vm.Jefeve..vl-+<'MWl< ~ - aw r'-.. ~ ® Project Name: CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER, EXHIBITS Project Number: Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segment A LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Date of Hearing February 16, 2016 Staff Contact Kris S0rensen 1 Associate Planner Project Contact/Applicant Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King County DNRP/Parks Project Location 1.2-Mile Trail Corridor, Naches Ave SW in Renton to Fort Dent Tukwila The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Environmental Review Committee Report Zoning Maps -Cities ofTukwila Renton and Tukwila Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Vicinity Map Permit Narrative and Justification, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Final Drainage Technical Information Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Final Critical Areas Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Stream Discipline Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Draft Geotechnical Report -Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences \net for Parametrix, dated February 24, 2015 Environmental Checklist, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 17, 2015 Agency Comment; Muckleshoot Tribes, email dated May 13, 2015 Agency Comment; City of Renton Department of Community Services, dated July 23, 2015 Project Vicinity Map Biological Assessment-Bridge, prepared by Parametrix, dated August 2015 Construction Mitigation Plan Lake to Sound, 16-mile Conceptual Regional Trail Corridor 60% Construction Drawings, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 NEPA Exemption Determination, Washington State Department of Transportation document, dated September 12, 2012 and Addendum, WSDOT, dated November 3, 2015 Slopes Map, City of Renton Black River Bridge Location, Site and Exploration Plan, prepared by HWA GeoSciences, dated January 1, 2015 Wetlands Vicinity Map Stream and Wetland Buffer Impacts Maps Vegetation and Wildlife Study Area Map ~----:::::--: -----~ItentOil 0 Exhibit 24: Exhibit 25: Exhibit 26: Exhibit 27: Exhibit 28: Exhibit 29: Exhibit 30: Exhibit 31: Exhibit 32: Exhibit 33: Exhibit 34: Exhibit 35: Exhibit 36: Exhibit 37: Exhibit 38: Exhibit 39: Exhibit 40: Exhibit 41: Exhibit 42: Report to the Hearing Examiner, EXHIBITS, Page 2 LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Project Drainage Basin Map Floodplain Map; 1995 DFIRM Response email to Muckleshoot Tribes Comments, email from Kris Sorensen, dated December 10, 2015 Endangered Species Act No Effects Letter for Segment A, prepared by Parametrix, dated October 24, 2011 Endangered Species Act No Effects Letter for Segment A Pedestrian Bridge, prepared by Parametrix, dated September 30, 2015 Second Muckleshoot Tribes Comments, email December 28, 2015 Bridge Ground Improvements Limits, Plan, and Elevation Landscape Plan and Mitigation Plantings Plan Photos of Trail Route Response to Muckleshoot Comments #2, email from Kris Sorensen, dated January 7, 2016 Floodplain Impact Area WRIA 9 -Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Habitat Plan Projects Advisory Notes Hearing Examiner Report City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, adopted May 11, 2009 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Management Element and Appendix B Public Access Objectives by Reach Critical Areas Figure 3-1, prepared by Parametrix Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated Tree Retention Worksheet (-/e{L(I~ f~<;e,,,,f._{1;;,1.,1 c orz, Mc.ps [,offw(A,y€.- EXHIBIT 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT £RC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owner: Applicant/Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: January 11, 2015 Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segment A LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner City of Renton; City of Tukwila; Burlington Northern Santa Fe; Union P, King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, 7'h Floor; 201 S. Jackson St; Seattle WA 98104 Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton and Fort Dent Park in City of Tukwila The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail that links Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Additional approvals for the Tukwila portion of the trail are required. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width and is paved. In Renton, the trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). In Tukwila, the trail is located on private and public parcels that are zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) and Low Density Residential (LOR) land use designation. The trail area within Renton is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' shoreline and associated wetland buffers. Within Tukwila, the trail is located within the 200-foot Green and Black River shoreline buffer regulation areas. Parts of the trail are located in the 1995 FIRM Floodplain area. 1,500 cubic yards of grading and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 98,297 square feet of mitigation and planting areas are proposed with native species. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and is anticipated to last 12 months. N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 3 .94 acres paved Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 5.26 acres w/ shoulder --------------------- Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDA T/ON: 1. 2 mile length in Total Building Area GSF: Tukwila & Renton Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review of Non-Significance· Mitigated (DNS·M). -----------------·----- 5.26 acres w/ shoulder EXHIBIT 1 Notes None 953 0 477 WGS_ 1984_ Web _Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 953 Feet CityofB:ernon@ Finance & IT Division City of Renton Zoning EXHIBIT 2. Legend City and County Boundary ~J Olner [°! C1tyofRenton Zoning • RC-Resource Conservation J R1-ResidentiaJ 1 du/ac R4-Residential4dulac R6-Res1dent1a! -6 OU/AC RB-ResidentiaJBdu/ac R10-Residential 10dulac Information Technology. GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 1/5/2016 l • • • 1 • • • R· 14 '"-R·lO ii:to'~-=-'.~ s 134tti St ,9~·8 (. R-8 R,8 R-8 ,,flt Earl1t1Qton Pant R-8 sw Jra 1>1 R·8 R-8 CN-Commercial Neighborhood CV-Center Village CA-Commercial Arter1aj UC-Urban Center CD-Genier Downtown COR.Commerc:1al OfficeJRes1dential CO-Commercial Office IL-lndUs!nal-ligllt IM-lndustnal-Medium IH-lnli.lstnal-Heavy Th,s map ,.s a user generated sta~c output from an Internet mapping s,te and 1sforreferer1ceonly Datalayers11>a1appearonth1smaprnayormay not be JCcurate.current.orotherw1serebatle THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Zoning Dlstrict!I, Overtays, and Sub-Areas :::i-"-""'"" [ ---------~----~ @ ' ty of Tukwila p-rehensive Plan Zoning Map ,,c.<>•1-'1001"" [.'.·. !i(l_ L:... I I -· .. ! ». '""t. 0. 1'.[:.f :;a1 I ~ I ' ii '/w ' .:,J '. ~ I I! il ~ ~ J < J • City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Overlay EXHIBIT 3 None City and County Boundary 0 w:: 953 477 WGS_ 1984_Web_Mercator_Awx1l1ary_Sphere 953 Feet C] C1tyofRenlori Environment Designations D N.;!\,ral O Srore,ineH1ghlnlens1ly D Shore1inels<1latedr'1ghlntensrty D Shore11neResdential I O UrbanConservancy ---------------~ ~=n===·"::"=i~rl=:i=ct=,n="·'===.=.=======;:::::::::::::::==:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=.:,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=:::~ City of n ~on( .. ·-:-_.·.. Information Technology-GIS ~11 lU 11 r:;; RentanMapSupport@Rentonwa go~ Finance & IT Division 1/5/2016 EXHIBIT 4 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification Prepared for King County ~ King County -----------------'31111111 .;J';Jk"fllllfll. .. ____ _ April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix EXHIBIT 5 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain Prepared for King County Division of Capital Planning and Development Facilities Management Division, DES King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue, Room 320 Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) EXHIBIT 6 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Areas Report Prepared for w King County _________________ ..,,.. ,;-::'"!'Jllllfllll, _____ .. April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix I I I l t l l l EXHIBIT 7 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report RECEIVED APR 1 7 2015 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Prepared for King County -----------------;;s::,';7..,~ .. ----- April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix EXHIBIT 8 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound-Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report Prepared for King County llllll ............................................. 'JlllJfl/f//l ,:Z,~61111/1.~ ............ ... April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix EXHIBIT 9 Entire Document DRAFT Available Upon Request DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL, BLACK RIVER BRIDGE RENTON, WASHINGTON HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 February 24, 2015 Prepared for: Parametrix, Inc. -HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. EXHIBIT 10 WAC 197-11-960 Purpose of checklist: Environmental checklist ENVIRONMENT Entire Document Available Upon Request The State Envirorunental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.2\C RCW, requires all goverrunental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Goverrunental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about goverrunental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the goverrunental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining ifthere may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENT AL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A.BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A 2. Name of applicant: King County Parks 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Jason Rich, Capital Improvement Project Manager King Street Center 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 4. Date checklist prepared: April9,2015 425-430-6593 ksorensen@rentonwa.gov EXHIBIT 11 From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us) Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:43 PM To: Kris Sorensen Cc: Jill Ding Subject: PW: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM,SMV Kris, We have reviewed King County's proposed Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project referenced above and offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty-protected fisheries resources: 1. The trail appears to be proposed within or adjacent to the area of the Green and Black Rivers that were identified as a salmon habitat restoration project (LG-17 and LG-18) in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (August 2005). (seepage 7-75 in http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2005/kcr1876/CHAPTERS/Ch7-LowerGreen.pdf). How will the project ensure that there are no conflicts with these proposed salmon habitat restoration project or alternatively what alternative projects would be proposed in lieu? 2. Existing trees along the Green River should not be removed and fully avoided by this project to avoid causing further reductions in shade and contributions to the existing temperature water quality violations in the Green River that are contributing to pre-spawning mortality of adult Chinook salmon. 3. Any tree that is at least 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of the Black River should be placed back into the Black River as partial mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment function. 4. Trees should be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along both the Green River and the Black River. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's/applicant's responses. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Sabrina Mirante [mailto:SMirante@Rentonwa.gov1 Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 3:01 PM To: DOE; DOE (misty.blair@ecy.wa.gov); DNR; Erin Slaten; Karen Walter; Laura Murphy Cc: Kris Sorensen; Jill Ding Subject: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUA15·000257, ECF, CU·H, SM, SMV PLEASE SEE ATIACHED: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND NOTICE OF APPLICATION. COMMUNITY SE DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 12 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 23, 2015 TO: Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner FROM: Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director Revised Lake To Sound Trail Review Comments LUAlS-000257 SUBJECT: Upon further review of the Lake to Sound Trail project, the Community Services Department would like to submit the following revised comments: 1. There are several locations in the Plan Set where cottonwood and alder trees are proposed to be removed along the trail with no indication about how the area is to be restored. After reviewing the Final Critical Areas Report, only some of the tree removal locations are proposed to be restored. It is recommended that all disturbed areas noted in the Plan set be restored; more detail is required. In addition, we recommend that the trunks of the trees that are to be removed, be left on the ground. Stumps should be ground and the area re-vegetated. 2. There is no landscaping plan for planting along the trail. A landscape plan should be submitted as a condition of approval for the CUP and that the replanting plan be submitted prior to building permit issuance. 3. In areas identified with a 20' tree removal area, a hierarchy of planting is recommended starting from the outside edges of the gravel shoulders with grasses/groundcovers, followed by densely planted shrubs and ending with trees in the outer 20' in order to minimize trail upheaval caused by tree roots. 4. The current plans call for Cottonwood trees only to be removed within the 20' buffer. Five additional trees have been identified to be included for removal, two of which are alder trees. Please add the additional five trees for removal. 5. In areas identified with a 10' tree removal area from the paved edge ofthe trail (treed section north of Naches), a hierarchy of planting is recommended starting from the outside edges of the gravel shoulders with grasses/groundcovers followed by densely planted shrubs. Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner Page 2 of 2 July 23, 2015 6. Areas along the trail that have had clearing, tree removal, restoration, and at rest stops should include a split rail-type fence to deter public access into the riparian area. This should be noted on the plans; a detail of the fencing should be included. 7. Temporary irrigation should be included for all areas that are to be restored and for the duration of the 5 year monitoring plan. Include plans and details. 8. Interpretive Signage, particularly at rest stops about the habitat at the Black River Riparian Forest should be included as part of the design. 9. "Sensitive Area -"Please Stay on Trail" sign age should be located at rest stops, near the split rail fencing and other locations as determined. 10. A greater variety of plant materials should be added to the plant list such as Ribes spp.-native currant, Vaccinium ovatum -Evergreen huckleberry and Rosa spp.-single flowers native roses. 11. The City's standard bollard and bench details should be considered. cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Terry Flatley, Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager Todd Black, Capital Project Coordinator EXHIBIT 13 Parametrix ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIEf\ August 28, 2015 Mr. Kris Sorensen Economic & Community Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 EXHIBIT 14 ,....,. 719 2ND AVENUE, SUITE 200 I SEATILE, WA 98104 I P 206.394.3700 CITY OF fsHlTON • OJ RECEIVED \} 1~1 AUG 3 1 2015 t'C81- Lake to Sound Trail Segment A-Biological Assessment BUILD!NG DIVISION Hi Kris, On behalf of Jason Rich, King County Parks, I am submitting the enclosed Biological Assessment (BA) for the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A project. This submittal responds to your email request dated August 18th. Please note that, because the project has federal transportation funding, the BA follows the template and guidance used by the Washington State Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration is the federal lead agency. We've provided some additional language below intended to assist you with your floodplain compliance needs. In addition to fulfilling the requirements for Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation between the Federal Highway Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the enclosed BA supports compliance with the terms of NMFS' 2008 biological opinion for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The City of Renton, as the local jurisdiction with permitting authority under the NFIP, is· required to demonstrate that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect water quality, water quantity, spawning substrate, flood volumes or velocities, or floodplain refugia for ESA-listed salmon ids. The project element with the greatest potential to affect ESA-listed salmonids or their habitat is the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Black River. The potential effects of bridge installation and operation are the primary subject of analysis in the BA. Documentation of the compliance of the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A pedestrian bridge with the terms of the NMFS NFIP biological opinion is presented in Section 6 (Floodplain Analysis) of the BA. Potential effects of other elements of the proposed trail are addressed in Appendix A, October 2011 No-effects Determination for Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A. In addition, as discussed in the April 2015 City of Renton Critical Area Study for the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A project, the project will result in no net fill below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. No compensatory storage is required or proposed. The findings in these analyses support the determination that the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A project is not likely to adversely affect water quality, water quantity, spawning substrate, flood volumes or velocities, or floodplain refugia for ESA-listed salmonids. Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss further or need additional information in order to advance the processing of the shoreline conditional use permit application. Best regards, JennyBailey ~W'j~ Consultant Project Manager Cc: Jason Rich, King County Jenny Bailey, Parametrix File Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Biological Assessment Prepared for King County Parks t; King County _________________ ...,,, ;._~;J'J ...... ____ _ August 2015 Prepared by Parametrix DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNl1 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPME EXHIBIT 15 Construction Mitigation Description Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 Construction Mitigation Description: Please provide 5 copies of a written narrative addressing each of the following: • Proposed construction dates (begin and end dates) Proposed construction dotes ore unknown and will be dependent upon permitting restrictions, fish windows, seasonal rain conditions, and habitat restrictions for nearby nesting herons. • Hours and days of operation Construction operations will be generally limited between Monday and Friday during an 8-hour consecutive period between 7:00am and 6:00pm. • Any special hours proposed for construction or hauling (i.e. weekends, late nights) Night, weekend and holiday work will not be permitted. • Proposed hauling/transportation routes Haul and construction site access with be from Monster Road and Naches Avenue, depending on the section of trail to be constructed. • Preliminary traffic control plan Traffic control along Monster Road will generally include single-lane traffic and sidewalk closures using floggers and standard WSDOT Work Zone Traffic Control plans. Traffic control at Naches Avenue and the trail head will be limited to parking restrictions; this is a cul-de-sac and serves as parking for infrequent trail users. • Measures to be implemented to minimize dust, traffic and transportation impacts, erosion, mud, noise, and other noxious characteristics Temporary erosion and sediment control measures from the King County Surface Water Design Manual /2009}, Appendix D, will be applied during construction to limit dust, erosion, mud, and noise and other noxious characteristics of the construction. EXHIBIT 16 ~~I"''"""'" Puget Souml LO~!!°!.~ Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington Contract No. XX ,4 _ UNINCORPOAATED ' 1 " 1 \_ --J~,._ . ----___,_ --;-.lfo ~ ~ "%i;,,'f>r-~'c:',.';. / '•Y~""',01, \ I / . '~ro1 \ ~ --,--1 'r-~-I I _.,,. I ~ END I 0. \ ~ ~ _,,,. ~~-PROJECT 9-00 .)lfy Sur.)~t ~.,\'·J ~ \ 0 ~ --~ ,, 'l ::d.. -:,-:..: \ I # ,Qi !l,~. c:;; ~ ~. 0 'j,-_ ... ~/;;:~r MO~ ~ S\J'•' r (1, .... !::''>, ~<:-~ .:::,CS' oc:, al> i' j ~ a, ~ ~ .·· ·~ ,.,. __ 1.r_ .. ·, 167, , ~ :c 1-4 g:, ~ ~ ..... o& 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION §:~=- LAKE TO SOUND -mA!L SEGMENT"' COVER SHEET Washington State Department of Transpo1 EXHIBIT 18 NEPA Categorical Exclusion Documentation Form Federal Aid Project Number: I ~~~;/2015 I Intent of Submittal: CM2017(110) 0 Preliminary D Final [8lRe-Evaluate Agency: King County Department I Project Title: of Transportation Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A County: King County Beginning MP: NA Township(s): 23N Ending MP: NA Range(s): 4E Miles:Ll Sectlon{s): 13, 14 Part l · Project Description The Lake to Sound Trail is a continuous, 16-mile-long regional corridor linking Lake Washington to Puget Sound th.rough the Cities of Renton. Tukwila, SeaTac and Des Moines. This project develops a multi- purpose, nonmotorized route for "Segment A" of the Lake to Sound Trail and is 1.06 miles in length. Included in the project is a 114 ft. pedestrian bridge over the Black River. Segment A travels through the Black River Riparian Forest from Naches Avenue SW (City of Renton), crossing Monster Road SW, to arrive at Fort Dent Park (City of Tukwila). Part 2 -Categorical Exclusion Select QM CE from 23 CFR 771.117 {CE Guidebook -Appendix A) that fits the entire project:~ ccr s fij~ Federal Highway £dministration · Completed by (Print Official's Name): ; Lindsey Miller DOTForm 140-!00EF Revised 5/2015 NEPA Approval Signatures Date Date Date Date Telephone {include area code): 206-477-3549 Page 1 of9 E-mail address: Lindsey.miller@kingcounty.gov Part 3 -Permits, Approvals & Right of Way (ROW) Yes No Permit or Approval Yes No Permit or Approval D IZl Corps of Engineers D Sec. 10 D Sec. 404 D !SJ Water Rights Permit D Nationwide Type D !SJ Water Quality Certification -Section 401 D Individual Permit No. Issued by D IZl Coast Guard Permit D l8J Tribal Permit(s) (if any) D [8l Coastal Zone Management Certification 0 D Other Permits {List) Right-of-way use germits, 121 0 Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Permit City of Renton and Tukwil!!; Conditional Use D IZl Forest Practices Act Permit permit. City of Tukwila 121 D Hydraulic Project Approval 0 0 ROW acquisition required? If yes, amount 121 D Local Building or Site Development Permits needed: 6,000 square feet 121 D Local Clearing and Grading Permit D ~ ls relocation required? 121 D National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System D l8J Has ROW already been acquired for this project? If (NPDES) Baseline General for Construction 121 0 Shoreline Permit yes, attach responses to Appendix Fin the CE Guidebook. D JZl State Waste Discharge Permit D [ZI Has an offer been made or have negotiations begun 121 D TESC Plans Completed to acquire ROW for this project? If yes, attach responses to Appendix Fin the CE Guidebook. D l8J Is a detour required? If yes, please attach detour information. Other Federal Agencies -Does the project involve any federal properties, approvals or funding from other/additional federal agencies? D Yes IZI No If Yes, please describe. Part 4 -Environmental Considerations Will the project involve work In or affect any of the. following? Identify proposed mitigation. Attach additional pages or supplemental information if necessary_ l. Air Quality-Identify any anticipated air quality issues. . Is the project exempt from Air Quality conformity requirements? IZI Yes D No If Yes, identify exempcion-please refer to Appendix Gin the CE Guidebook for a list of exemptions. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities. . Is the project included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan? IZI Yes D No If Yes, date Metropolitan Transportation Plan was adopted: June 25, 2015 . Is the project located in an Air Quality Non-Attainment Area or Maintenance Area for carbon monoxide, ozone or PM 10? IZI Yes D No DOT Form 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 Page 2 of 11 Part 4 -Environmental Considerations (continued) 2. Critical and Sensitive Areas Is thls project within a sole source aquifer O Yes [8J No If located within a sole source aquifer, is the project exempt from EPA approval? If Yes, please 11st exemption: If No, date of EPA approval: Will this project impact Species/Habitat other than ESA listed species? 0 Yes ~ No Explain your answer. The project area provides habitat to Great Blue Heron and Bald Eagles. No nests were observed within the clearing limits of the bridge; the remainder of the project will occur in areas currently improved gravel paths ( old railroad). To minimize any potential for disturbance to breeding herons outside of the immediate project area, activity restrictions will be implemented for trail construction between January 15 and August 31. Additionally, noise in the surrounding area was typical of an industrial area (Renton Concrete Recyclers, Stoneway Concrete Black River, and Rabanco Black River Transfer Station). To comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the project will implement measures to minimize impacts to nesting birds. The Black River and nearby Duwamish river provides habitat for salrnonids including coho, sock:eye, and chum. No in-water wmk will occur as part of this project. The new pedestrian bridge over the Black River will be 14 feet wide. The portion of the bridge spanning the OHWM of the river will be approximately 44 feet long, meaning approximately 616 square feet of the river will be affected by shading from the bridge. The bottom of the bridge deck will be at least 3 feet above the elevation of the 100-year floodplain, which is approximately 10 feet higher than the OHWM. The height of the bridge above the water will reduce the intensity of any shade-related effects. The bridge will be oriented on a north-south axis, minimizing the amount of time that any given point receives shade over the course of a day. The effects of clearing (mostly invasive species) in the riparian area will be mitigated by replanting native vegetation at a nearby location in the riparian area of the Black River. Over the long term, the native grasses, shrubs, and trees planted at the mitigation site may provide greater ecological function than the mostly non-native vegetation that will be affected at the project site. ls this project within one mile of a Bald Eagle nesting territol)', winterconcentratian area or communal roost? ~ Yes D No Please see the attached Bald Eagle Form for more information. Are wetlands present within the project area? ~ Yes O No If Yes, estimate the Impact in acres: 0 acres Please attach a copy of the proposed mitigation plan. Direct stream and wetland impacts have been completely avoided. Approximately I acre of native species would be planted to compensate for stream and wetland buffer impacts. DOTForm 140-lOOEF Revised S/2015 Page 3 af 11 3. Cultural Resources/Historic: Structures -Identify any historic, archaeological or cultural resources present within the project's Area of Potential Effects. Does the project fit into any of the exempt types of projects listed in Appendix J of the CE Guidebook? D Yes [ZJ No If Yes, note exemptions below. If No: Date of DAHP concurrence: April 27, 2015 (original concurrence on 9-15-2011) Date of Tribal consultatlon(s) (if applicable):--,-,-----,--------- Adverse effects on cultural/historic resources? D Yes [ZJ No If Yes, date of approved Section 106 MOA: ------------- 4. Floodplains and Flaodways Is the project located In a 100-year floodplain? [ZJ Yes O No If Yes, is the project located within a 100-year fioodway? [ZJ Yes D Na Will the project impact a 100-yearftoodplain? [ZJ Yes O No If Yes, describe impacts. The proposed vertical alignment of the trail is adjacent to the Green and Black Rivers with a finished grade as close as possible to existing grade while still providing smooth transitions for ADA compliance and positive drainage towards the river. However, between A-Line Stations I +00 and 12+25, approximately 217 cubic yards offill would be placed and approximately 242 cubic yards of excavation would occur, for an overall net removal of approximately 25 cubic yards of material below the floodplain elevation. Tiris is the only fill and excavation activity below the floodplain elevation, and the net difference will not impact floodplain storage or function. DOTFarm 140-lOOEF Rev,sed 5/201S Page 4 of 11 Part 4 -Environmental Considerations (continued) 5. Hazardous and Problem Waste-Identify potential sources and type(s). a) Does the project require excavation below the existing ground surface? 12] Yes O No b) Will groundwater be encountered? 12] Yes O No c) Will any properties be acquired as part of this project, 12] Yes O No d) ls this site located in an undeveloped area (i.e. no buildings, parking, storage areas or agriculture? 0Yes 12] No e) ts the project located within a one-mile radius of a known Superfund Site? 0 Yes 12] No f) ts this project located within a Jc\-mile radius of a site or sites listed on any of the fallowing Department of Ecology databases? 12] Yes O No If Yes, check the appropriate boxes below. 12] Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), State Cleanup Site (SCS), or Independent deanup Program (ICP) 12] Underground Storage Tank (UST) 12] Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) 12] Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List (CSCSL) g) Has site reconnaissance (windshield survey) been performed? 12] Yes O No (Please identify any properties not identified In the Ecology or ERS database search as an attachment -name, address and property use). In the September 2012 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Hazardous Materials Discipline Report, five Ecology regulated sites, located adjacent to the proposed trail, were identified as having the potential to release contaminants to shallow soils or surface water based on their generator status or active permits. The site reconnaissance (conducted on November 2, 2015] confirmed that, with the exception of Multichem Analytical Services, the regulated sites located adjacent to the project corridor were still in operation. No spills or releases were identified for these facilities during the review of Ecology's FSID database and no evidence of spills or releases were observed during the site reconnaissance. Based an the lack of regulated USTs and lack of suspected or confirmed spills or releases; the risk of encountering contamination from these regulated and observed facilities, located adjacent to the project corridor, is low. h) Based on the information above and project specific activities, is there a potential for the project to generate, acquire or encounter contaminated soils1 groundwater or surface water? 0 Yes r8] No Please explain: As part of the Hazardous Materials Discipline Report Addendum (dated November 3, 2015) which expands the project scope to include the construction of the pedestrian bridge; King County conducted a review of Ecology's Facility/Site identification System (F/SID) and compared the updated review to the original screening (2012). Based on a review of Ecology's F/SID /http://www.ecy.wa.gov/fs/, accessed on October 15, 2015) no National Priorities List sites {Superfund sites) were located within a one-mile radius of the project limits. A review of Ecology's F/SID revealed eight sites within Y, mile radius of the project corridor that had documented contamination. Seven of the eight sites were immediately eliminated from further consideration based on the criteria described below: A hazardous materials and waste professional reviewed each site using a screening process to identify sites of concern where it was likely that contamination would be encountered during excavation and/or dewatering. A site may pose a liability to the project if the site is located within close proximity (adjacent to the proposed project area), or hydraulically upgradient, or has a confirmed release of hazardous materials or petroleum products to soils or groundwater (tradltlonally 1/2 mile or less in distance). A Y,- mile search radius was selected because it was judged to encompass areas from which contamination DOT Form 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 Page 5 of 11 could reasonably be expected to migrate to the project footprint. Seven of the eight sites (DJB Trucking-FS#2304, Arco Station & Mini Mart-FS#4552344, Anderson Joseph B-FS/18509656,, Becker Trucking Inc. Tukwila-FS/117036781, Jumbo Deli-FS# 59337954, K & N Meats-FS/172559666, and Southland Facility-FS# 99853513) were considered to have a very low likelihood of adversely impacting the project and were eliminated from further consideration due to one or more of the following reasons: o the sites· have been remedlated to levels below MTCA cleanup levels, received a No Further Action (NFA) determinations from Ecology, and were not immediately adjacent to the project area; o the sites resulted In impacts to soil only; and/or o the sites were too far from the planned project area (and those activities that would encounter groundwater) with respect to groundwater flow. The eighth facility, Graphic Packaging International Inc. -FS# 14693954-located at 601 Monster Rd, was physically situated about 500 feet southeast of the pedestrian bridge foundations (which is the only location within the project limits where project excavations will be deep enough to encounter groundwater and any contaminants that have migrated from off-site sources). To further characterize the site, King County reviewed the City of Renton permit history for the site lhttps://permitsearch.mybuildingpermit.com/SimpleSearch.aspx, acces.sed on October 31, 2015) and historical aerial photographs at Historical Aerials by NETROnline (http://www.hlstoricaerials.com/, accessed October 31, 2015), and contacted the Ecology Site Manager via e-mail (November 3, 2015), and had a phone interview with the Tricia Sweat the Health, Safety, and Environmental Manager of Grapilic Packaging (November 3, 2.0i5j. Based on a review of the available information, the underground vaults that resulted in a release to soil and groundwater were abandoned in place in the )ate 1980s (about 700 feet southeast of the bridge foundations). Between the early 1990s and 2001, a number of monitoring wells were installed on the site to determine the extent of the groundwater contamination. The Ecology LUST database notes (as provided by Donna Musa Site Manager for Ecology) stated that, in 1997, th'e petroleum hydrocarbon impacts appeared to be localized around the abandoned oil/water separator {one of the underground vaults) and the adjacent monitoring wells, and that the results from the perimeter monitoring wells suggested that the impacts were generally confined ta the site. Ms. Sweat reported that a contractor was hired in October 2015 to remove the abandoned vaults (including a sanitary sewer lift vault and the oil/water separator and its associated waste tank) and the surrounding impacted soil (this statement was confirmed by the Oty of Renton permit summary for the site). Based on the lack of off-site migration of the detected groundwater contamination, the recent removal of the source of the groundwater contamination, and the direction of groundwater flow (westerly); it is unlikely for the project to encounter contaminated groundwater or soil as a result of off-site migration from this facility. It is unlikely forWSDOT to assume liability for cleanup of contaminated soil or groundwater as part of this project for the following reasons: None of the adjacent properties appeared to have evidence of routine spills or releases to surface water or soils; None of the adjacent properties (regulated or otherwise) had documented releases to soil, surface water or groundwater; The eight sites located within Y, mile of the project limits, that were identified as having a confirmed or suspected release to soils or groundwater, were deemed unlikely to migrate contaminants into the project footprint for the following reasons: o the sites have been remediated to levels below MTCA cleanup levels, received a No Further Action (NFA) determinations from Ecology, and were not immediately adjacent to the project area; o the sites resulted in impacts to soil only; 0 groundwater impacts were confined to the site and the source was removed; and/or o the sites were too far from the planned project area (and those activities that would encounter DOT Form 140-lODEF Revised 5/2015 Page 6 of 11 groundwater) with respect to groundwater flow. For these reasons, it is concluded that no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts are expected to result from the proposed project. No further investigation is warranted at this time. It is recommended that a HazMat Specialist be contacted if additional project changes are made that can potentially alter the conclusions made in this updated investigation; such as the addition of other project work that requires excavations below 10 feet bgs (local groundwater elevation), realignment, or property acquisitions. Please see the attached technical memo regarding hazardous waste property impacts dated November 3, 2015 for more information. If you responded Yes to any of the following questions (SA-SC, SF and SH), contact your Region LPE for assistance as a "Right- Sized" HazMat Analysis Report/Memorandum most likely will be required. 6. Noise Does the project involve constructing a new roadway? D Yes f8l · No Is there a change in the vertical or horizontal alignment of the existing roadway? 0 Yes 12:J No Does the project Increase the number of through traffic lanes on an existing roadway? . 0 Yes 12:J No Is there a change in the topography? 0 Ye< 12:J No Are there auxiliary lanes extending 1-)1 miles or longer being constructed as part of this project? 0 Yes 12:J No If you answered Yes to any of the preceding questions, identify and describe any potential noise receptors withif'!_ the project area and subsequent Impacts to those noise receptors. Please attach a copy of the nolse a~alysis if required. Not applicable. If impacts are identified, describe proposed mitigation measures. Not applicable. Part 4 -Environmental Considerations (continued) 7. 4(f)/6(f) Resources: parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, historic properties, wild & scenic rivers, scenicbyways ~ ~ l.:,~ <..(&~ ~ C..,,,.r;..,,,Jf/-)~,::_ \<,, ~ l-J a. Please identify any 4(1) properties within the project limits and the areas of impacts. f ~ \.; e<.\1'.;}.J-I The Black River Riparian Forest, a park property owned by the City of Renton;, ~ Je Ff-1 ~~ fort Dent Park, a park property owned by the City of Tukwila; and an archaeological site, r v located in the north end of Fort Dent Park, eligible for listing on the National Register of ...- Historic Places (NRHP). Please see the attached 4(f) documentation. b. Please identify any properties within the project limits that used funds from the Land & Water Conservation Fund Act. None c. Please list any Wild and Scenic Rivers and Scenic Byways within the project limits. None · DOT Form 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 Page 7 of 11 8. Agricultural Lands -Are there agricultural lands within 300 feet of the project limits? 0 Yes ~ No If Yes, describe impacts: Are impacted lands considered to be unique and prime farmland? 0 Yes~ No If Yes, date of project review by Natural Resource Conservation Service {NRCS): 9. Rivers, Streams (continuous or intermittent) or Tidal Waters a. Identify all waterbodies within 300 feet of the project limits or that will otherwise be impacted. Green River (09.0001) Black River (09.0004) b. Identify stream crossing structures by type. The Black and Green Rivers are both located in WRIA 9. The proposed trail alignment is adjacent to the south side of the Black River and will cross over the Black River on a new pedestrian bridge. 10. Tribal Lands-Identify whether the project will impact any Tribal lands, induding reservation, trust and fee lands. Please do not list usual and accustomed area. Not applicable. 11. Water Quality/Stormwater Will this project's Proposed stormwater treatment facility be consistent with the guidelines provided by either WSDOT's HRM, DO E's stormwater management manual for eastern/western Washington or a local agency equivalent manual? @Yes 0 No If No, explain prop,osed water quality/quantity treatment for the new and any existing impeivious surface associated with the proposed project. Amount of existing impervious surface within the project limits: 54,450 square feet (1.25 acres) Net new impervioussurface to be created as a result of this project: 37,424 square feet (0.86 acres) The trail is considered a non-pollutant generating surface. It is exempt from flow control in both the cities of Renton and Tukwila because the proposed land cover does not increase the 100-year peak flow to equal to or greater than 0.1 cubic feet per second. The trail has been designed to direct mnoffto the 1iver side of the trail for dispersion as sheet flow. I Part 4 • Environmental Considerations (continued) I I 12. Previous Environmental Commitments Describe previous environmental commitments that may affect or be affected by the project-if any. The cities of Renton and Tukwila will be responsible for long-term maintenance of the trail; however, King County will maintain it until an agreement is reached (please see the Long-Term Maintenance Commitment Letter dated and signed February 12, 2013). DOfForm 140~100!:F Revised 5/2015 Page 8 of 11 13. Environmental Justice Does the project meet any ofthe exemptions noted in Appendix L of the CE Documentation Guidebook? 0 Yes ISi No If Yes, please note the exemption and appropriate justification in the space below. If No1 are minority or low-income populatlons located within the limits of the project's potential impacts? ISi Yes 0 No If No, attach appropriate data to support findings. If Yes, describe impacts and attach appropriate supporting documentation. Findings should be c:onfirmed using at least~ information sources. Please refer to the CE Guidebook for more information. King County reviewed Washington State Report Card and an EPA summary of United States Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS), 2008-2012, data for low income and minority populations within Yi mile of the project limits. Based on the school data, 80.7 percent of the students at the closest elementary school qualify for free or reduced price meals and the school has a total minority population of 95.9 percent. The ACS data indicated that 80 percent of the study area population consisted minority populations and 24 percent of the population (5 years or older) speaks English "less than very well" (which is above the LEP threshold of S percent of the population). Exceedance of the LEP threshold for people in the study area requires public outreach. As such, future outreach will include: updates and information on the King County website and signs posted on site to communicate the project details in Vietnamese, Tagalog, Chinese and Spanish. Because the right of way acquisitions are from railroad companies, there are no relocations or detours, a public outreach plan will be developed and implemented to include the needs of minority populations, and the project will affect non-motorized users equally; King County does not anticipate any adversely high and disproportionate effects from this project on any minority or low-income populations identified In the area. We conclude that the project meets the provisions of Executive Order 12898 and Executive Order i3166, as supported by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. : Part 5 -Biological Assessments and EFH Evaluations 1. Do any listed species potentially occur in the project's action area and/or is any designated critical habitat present within the project's action area? ISi Yes D No Attach species listings. Affected ESA Listed Species Oregon Spotted Frog proposed critical habitat or suitable habitat? Yellow-billed Cuckoo suitable habitat? Spotted Owl management areas, designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? Marbled Murrelet nest or occupied stand, designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? Western Snowy Plover designated critical habitat? Is the project within 0.5 mile of marine waters? If Yes exolain potential effects on DOTFarm 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 2. WIii any construction work occur within 0.5 mile of any of the following? LJ Yes ~ No LJ Yes ~ No LJ Yes ~ No LJ Yes ~ No LJ Yes IZI No LJ Yes~ No Page 9 of 11 3. Does the project involve blasting, pile driving, concrete sawing, rock-drilling or rock-scaling activity within one mile of anv of the followinE? U Yes IZI No LJ Yes IZI No U Yes IZI No U Yes IZI No D Yes IZI No U Yes i;g No Killer Whales and on Marbled Murrelet foraging areas. Killer Whale designated critical habitat? 0 Yes [8J No LJ Yes [8J No Grizzly Bear suitable habitat? LJ Yes [8J No LJ Yes l2'J No Gray Wolf suitable habitat? 0 Yes k'.',J No LJ Yes [8J No Canada lynx habitat? 0 Yes [8J No U Yes [8] No Columbia White-tailed Deer suitable 0 Yes 12'J No LJ Yes l2'J No habitat? Woodland caribou habitat? 0 Yes [2:,1 No LJ Yes [2:,1 No Streaked Horned Lark designated critical 0 Yes IZJ No U Yes l6J No habitat or suitable habitat? Taylor's Checkerspot designated critical LJ Yes 16J No LJ Yes IZI No habitat or suitable habitat? Mazama Pocket Gopher designated 0 Yes [2:,1 No LJ Yes l6J No critical habitat or suitable habitat? Eulachon designated critical habitat or LJ Yes [2:,1 No LJ Yes [2:,1 No suitable habitat? Rockfish proposed critica I habitat or LJ Yes k'S} No LJ Yes k'SJ No suitable habitat"/ A mature coniferous or mixed forest IZJ Yes LJ No f::'.;} Yes LJ No stand.? 4. Will the project involve any in-water work7 0 Yes [8J No 5. Wilt any construction work occur within 300 feet of any perennial or intermittent IZJ Yes D No waterbody that either supports or drains to waterbody supporting listed fish? 6. Will any construction work occur within 300 feet of any wetlqnd, pond or lake that IZJ Yes 0 No is. connected to any permanent or intermittent waterbody? 7. Does the actlon have the potentlal to directly or indirectly impact designated critical 0 Yes l8J No habitat for salmanids {including adjacent riparian zones)7 8. Will the project discharge treated or untreated stormwater runoff or utilize water [81 Yes D No from a waterbody that supports or drains into a listed-fish supporting waterbody? 9. Will construction occur outside the existing pavement? If Yes go to 9a. 0 Yes 0 No 9a. Will construction activities occurring outside the existing pavement involve clearing, IZJ Yes D No grading, filling or modification of vegetation or tree-cutting? 10. Are there any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant species located within 0 Yes l8J No the project limits? If Yes, please attach a list of these plant species within the action area. 11. Does a mature coniferous or mixed forest stand occur within 200' of the project site? [8'J Yes n No Analysis for No Effects Detennination -If there are any Yes answers to questions in Part 5, additional analysis is required. Attach additional sheets if needed. An analysis under the Endangered Species Act determined that the project will have No Effect on listed species or critical habitat, ITTJd No Adverse Effect on Essential Fish Habitat. Toe only listed species with the potential to occur in the project area are salmonids which will not be present in the project area during the summer months due to unfavorable river conditions. In addition, no in-water work is proposed. Effects to critical habitat are not expected because riparian habitat in the project area is poor quality, and effects to this habitat during project construction have been minimized. Pleas<: see the attached analysis for additional details. DOT Form 140-lOOEF Rev;sed 5/2015 Page 10 of 11 ' Analysis for RRMP ESA 4(d) determination for NMFS-A local agency must be certified by the Regional Road Maintenance Forum to utilize 4{d). Maintenance Category (check all that apply) D 1. Roadway S~rface 0 6 Stream Crossings 0 11. Emergency Slide/Washout Repair D 2. Enclosed Drainage Systems 0 7. Gravel Shoulders 0 12. Concrete D 3. Cleaning Enclosed Drainage Systems 0 8. Street Surface deaning 0 13. Sewer Systems D 4. Open Drainage Systems 0 9. Bridge Maintenance 0 14. Water Systems D 5. Watercourses and Streams 0 10. Snow and Ice Control 0 15. Vegetation Describe how the project fits in the RRMP 4(d) Program: Effect Determinations fer ESA and EFH If each Of the questions ln the preceding section resulted in a "No" response or if any of the questions were checked "Yes,"' but adequate justification can be provided to support a "no effect' determination, then check 11No Effect" below. If this checklist cannot be used for Section 7 compliance (1.e., adequate justification cannot be provided or a "may effect'1 determination is anticipated), a separate biological assessment document is required. IZI No Effect D NLTAAa Date of Concurrence 0 LTAA-Date BO Issued D RRMP4(d) DOT Form 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 7FS uhs ! 1-3ipr /'I.-~ar I t' ; Part 6 • FHWA Comments Page li of 11 EFH Determination IZI No Adverse Effect 0 Adverse Effect-Date of NMFS concurrence Local Agency Environmental Classification Summary Part 1 Prolect Oescrlotlon Federal Aid Project Number I Rout• I Date CM2017/J IOI Near State Route 900 9-12-2012 I Intent of Submltlal 0 Prellmlnarv 181 Anal 0 Re-Evaluate Agency I Federal Program TIiie Kin11 Countv "-'artment ot'Transnortation 0 20.205 181 Otlier Project Title Lake to Sound Trail • S-·-ent A Beginning MP Townships 23 N Ending MP Ranges 04 E Miles I.I Sections 13 County Kin" Countv Project Oeacriplion • Describe the proposed proJect. lncludlng the purpose and need for lhe projecL This project develops preliminary engineering for the construction of a multi-purpose, non motorized route for "Segment A~ of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A travels through the Black Forest from Naches Avenue SW (Renton) to arrive ot fort Dent Park (Tukwila). Part 2 Environmental Classification NEPA SEPA 0 Class I • Enwonmenlal Impact Slalement (EIS) 0 Categorically exempt per WAC 197-11-800 181 Class II· Cateyartcally Excluded (CE) 181 Determlnallon of Non-Significance (ONS) CE Type (from 23 CFR 771.117) {u)IJ) 181 Proied.s Requiring Documentation 0 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (Documented CE) (LAG 24.22) 0 AdopUcn 0 Programmali: CE MOU 0 Addendum 0 Class Ill • Environmental Assessment (EA) 0 Supplemental (For infonnattonal purpose only) / ) , ). NEPA Approval Signatures Ym'i~ fl{IVI.CP~ ___...;7_.,_/~1z ..... 6~~;.;,_0 - Local Agency Approving Authority Date / / ,/)'. ----, /) :i£.-( I/,.,, ;;, ,,?---/": #/ d ~ Oat& <- Hlghtays and Ldcat Programs Environmental Engineer Date/ / I Completed By (Print Official's Name) Tina Morehead DOT Form 140-IOC EF R&Vls9d01J:2011 ?:, /;{,,I I'S I > Date ' Telephone (include ams code) 206-296-3 733 Page 1 of8 Fax (include area code/ 206-296-0567 E-ma~ tina.moreheadliilkin2countv. Da.+ 3 Pe-• ... ~nn A---v-•-D-··I·· .. Yes No Permit or Annroval Yes No Pennil or Annroval a 181 Corps of Engineers D Sec.10 Cl Sec.404 a 181 Water Rlghta Permit 0 Nationwide Type D 181 Water Quality Certification -Sec. 401 0 lndMdual Permit No. Issued by a 181 Coast Guard Permit D S Trtbal Parmit(s), (If any) D 181 Coastal Zone Management Certification 181 0 Crltlcal Area Ordinance (CAO) Penna D 181 Forest Practice Act Penni! 181 D other Permits (list): 0 181 Hydraulic Project Approval Rig!!t of ll!•X !Jse P;!!!Ii(l; • Citjes ofReatuo and 0 181 Local Bu~dlng or Sile Development Permits Tukwilai Condjtiona! Use PC!rmit ~ ~ill !i!l" 181 0 Local Clearing and Grading Permit Tukwila 181 0 ROW acquisition required? If yes, amount 181 D National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System needed 6,000 l;\F (NPDES) Baseline General for Construclion 0 181 Is rekK:aton requlreo? 131 D Shorenne Permit 0 181 Has ROW already b88fl acquired for this project? a 181 State Waste Discharge Permit 0 181 Is a detour required? If yes, please attach 181 0 TESC Plans Comoleted detour infonnatlon. n.._. A c-··'·--m--••• --- WIil the proje~~~~~o~':'.~~~~-!n_~~~!~t any of the followtng? _ld~~ 1 Ufy propolled mitigation. 1. Alr Quality • ldenllfy any anticipated air quality issues. Is Iha project included In the Metropolitan Transporlation Plan? 181Yes 0No If Yes, date Metropolitan Transportation Plan was adopted. to/I/Jg Is the project located in an A~ Quality Non-Attainment Area or Maintenance Area for carbon monoxide, ozone, or PM10? 181Yes D No Is the project exempt from Air Quality conformity requirements? 181Yes DNo If yes, identify exemption, please refer to appendix H In the ECS Guidebook for the Hot of exemptions: Air Quality: Bicycle and pedestrian facilities (ECS Guidebook, October 4,201 l) 2. Critical/Sensitive Areas , Identify any known Crltlcal or Sensitive Areas aa designated by local Growth Management Act ordinances. a. Is this project within an aquifer recharge area 0 Yes il!!No a wellhead pratecllOn area DY•• ll!INo a sole source aquifer 0Yea 181 No If localed w~hin a sole source aquifer. is the project exempt from EPA approval? If yes, please list exemption lfno, date of EPA approval b. Is this project located in a Geologically Hazardous Area? Cl Yes 181No If yes, please describe c. WIii this project impact Species/Habitat other than ESA listed species? 181 Yes 0No E>rplain your answer The project area provides habitat 10 Ba.Id f.agle and Grr.:ilt Blue Heron. tmpm:ls to habitat will be minimized by localing the propostd improvements in tht: ilrCll.'i wht:re puths a.ml gravel roads already l.t'(ist. Is the project within Bald Eagle nesting territories, winter concentration areas or bald eagle communal roosts? ~Yes 0No Will blasting, pite driving, concrete saw cutting, rock drilling, or rock scaling activities occur within one mile of a Bald Eagle neoUng area? S Yes O No nnT Fnm1 141).100 EF Page 2 of 8 Part 4 Environmental Considerations· Continued d. Are wellands present within the project area? !81 Yes O No If Yes, estimated area of Impact in acre(s): Q1.__ Please attach a copy of the proposed millgsllon plan. 3. Cultural Resources/Hlstorlc Structures • Identify any historic. archaeological, or cultural resources present wrthln the project's area of potenflal effects. 4. Does the project fit Into any of the e,empt types of projects listed in Appendix C of the ECS Guidebook 0 Yes 181 No If Yes, note exemption below. lfNo: Date of DAHP concurrence 9/15111 Date ofTribal consultstian(s) (ii applicable) 8/14/11 AdveJSa affects on cultural/historic resources? 0Yes 181 No l!Yes, date of approved Section 106MOA Floodplalns and Floodways Is the project located in a 100-year floodplain? 181Yes 0No II yes, ls the project located In a 100-year floodway? !Bl Yes 0No· WIii the project impact a 100-year floodplain? 181 Yes 0No If Yes, deocribe impact&. ·n,i: lloodplain» of the OR11!n R.inr and lho Bllkk River ore loc;ll1cJ wl.Jaaml to the: ,nut alignment tfOm Station 1 +tlO at the \:Onnet;tion to the Gm:o Rivi:TTr11il le Station 14 +86 near Monster Road. 'fheproposcd llesignprovidel on-siU: tompcnsauny ston1.ge Ulrough 111:ombination o.f cut Md lill in 1hc: 11ootlploin and ndditiooat mu:a.vo.tlun ad.f44:1,.ant to the exi9ting 1mi1. Thi! prop!t will provide a ncl cut of SI cubic yards bdow 1he noodplain i;lt..-vutiun. Seethc.M.uu:hedmemoun Pk,udpl~n lmpuctAnulysis da11::dlkloW2111t. 5. Hazardous and Problem Waste • Identify po1entlal sources and type. Does this project require excavation below the existing ground surface? 181 Yes D No Is this site located In an undeveloped area (j,JI., no buildings, parking or storage areas, and agriculture (other than grazing), based on historical research? D Yes 181 No Is this project located within a one-mile radius of a site 21. a Conlimtad or Suspected Contaminated Siles List (CSCSL) maintained by Department of Ecology? ll:!I Yes [J No Is this project located within a 1/2-mile radius of a site or sites listed on any of the !oUowlng Department of Ecology Databases? 181 Yes D No If yes, check the appropriate box(es) below. 181 Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) 181 Underground Storage Tank (UST) 181 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUSl) Has site reconnaissance (windshield survey) been performed? 181 Yes O No If so identify any properties not identified in tha database search that may affect 1he pmject (narna, address and property use). Please see the attached technical memo regarding hazardous waste property impacts dated September_, 2012. Based on the information above and project specific activifles, is there a potential for the pmject to generate contaminated soils and/or groundwater? 0 Yes 181 l'lo Please explain: ~=~~~=~~1!-:=,a:J=i:~:~~="'=~=rJo!gr!t~1~1~::'iio?~=:~e:~~:,':'~~:.·~11l::~ Ma11n•l1Dltc1pl1n11o°',pa,1.dat.(I-Sepllll!lb«l012. If you responded yes to any of the above questions contact your Region LPE !or assistance before continuing with this form. DOT Fonn 140-100 EF Re11i$ed0112011 PageJota Part 4 Environmental Considerations -Continued 6. Noise Does this project involve constructing a new roadway? 0Yes 131No Is there a change in lhe vertical or horizontal alignment of the existing roadway? Does this project Increase the number of through traffic lanes on an existing roadway? 0Yes 131No DYes 181No Is there change In the topography? 0 Yes 181 No Are auxiliary lanes extending 1-1/2 miles or kmger being constructed as part of this project? CJYes l:i!INo If you answered yes lo any of the preceding questions. identify and describe any potential noise receptors within the project area and subsequent impacts to those noise receptors. Please attach a copy of the noise analysis if required. Not applicable. If impacts are identified. describe proposed mlttgaUon measures. Not applicable. 7. Parks, Recreation Areas, Wlldlife Refuges, Historic Properties, WIid and Scenic Rivers/Scenic Byways, or 4 (f)/6 (f). a. Please Identify any 4/ij properties within the project limits end areas of Impacts. The project would use portions of two Section 4(1) properties, the Black River Riparian forest nnd Fort Dent Pork. Please see the attached Lake to Sound Segment A Section 4(f) Evaluation. b. Please ldenlify any 6(1) properties within the project limits and areas of impact. None c. Please list wild scenic rivers and scenic byways. None 8. Resource Lands • Identify any or the following resource lands wilhln 300 feet of the project limits and those otherwise impacted by the projecl a. Agricultural Lands O Yes 181 No If yes, please describe all Impacts. Not applicable. If present, is resource considered lo be prime and unique farmland? 0 Yes D No If Yes, date of approval from Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) b. Forest/Timber 181 Yes D No If yes, please describe all impacts. rhe project is localed 11.djacent 10 Ille Ulm:k RiYa Ripamm For~t. ii rcfoc1vtly und·1sturbtd ripario.n hilrdwood forest Approxinnm.:ly 0.9 a1.n:-s of ripnri111Mntland area will hi: c:lcared, however this area is largely rrce lrom tree,. Md is 11oi npcctc" to reduce sp1."1:ies d1Yt:nit)' or result 1d rnbstanual rcdui.:tion in plant ~oYer in lhc 38-acr; slut.ly area. c. Mineral D Yes 181 No If yes, please describe all impacls. DOT Form 140·100 EF Page 4 of 8 Part 4 Environmental Considerations • Continued 9. Rivers, Streams (Continuous, lntenninent), or Tidal Waters a. ldenlify all waterbodles within 300 feel of lho project limits orlhat will otheiwise be impacted. Fisheries WA Slream No. Ecology 303d Report No. (if known) Reason for 303d listing fecyl c2lit<>cm Date ofReport llllllB Wsterbody common name Black River and the Green River b. Identify stream crossing structures by type. The Green and Black Rivers are both in WRIA 9. The project will create non-motorized improvements on the east side of the existing Monster Road Bridge over the Black River ( WRIA 09.0004). c. Waler Resource Inventory Area {WRIA) No. & Name 9 Duwamish-Green 10. Tribal lands • ldenlify whether the project will impact any Tribal lands, includlng reservaHon, trust and lee lands. None. 11. V!sual Quality Will the project impact roadside classlf!catlon or visual aspects such as aesthetics, light, glare or night sky. 0Yes 181No II Yes. please idenlify the impacts. 12. Water Quality/Storm Water Has NPDES municipal general penmit been issued for this WRIA? 181 Yes 0No Amount of existing Impervious surface within project limits: S.J.450 SqllllR feet( l.2S !ICtCS} Net new impervious surface to be created as a resull of project: .36.344 sqwuc fret (0.83 acre) Will this project's proposed stormwater treatment facility be consistent with the guidelines provided by either wsoors HRM, OOE's western or eastern Washington stormwaler manuals. or a local agency equivalent manual? 181 Yao ONo If no, explain proposed water quallty/quanlity treatment for new and any existing impervious surface associated with proposed project. The trail is eAempt from flow control in both the cities of Renton and Tukwila because the proposed land cover does not increase the I 00-year peak tlow of equal to or more than 0.1 cubic feet per second. However, the trail has been designed to direct stonnwater to the river side of the trail for disper.iion as sheet flow. The trail is considered a non-pollutant generating surface. OOT Forni 14Q..Hl0 EF Revised 0112011 Page 5 ore Part 4 Environmental Considerations· Continued 13. Commitments .. Environmental Commitments • Describe existing environmental ccmmitmenls that may affect or be alfecled by the project· If any . None. b. Long-Tenn Maintenance Commitments • ldenll(y the agency and/or department responsible for implementing maintenance commitments associated with this project. · The cities of Renton and Tukwila will be responsible for long-tenn maintenanc':tthis tra~ I<' "'i-~ .w..ff' ~ ~ ,.___ -; ._.;, J1¢~ 14. Environmental Justice Does the project meet any cf the exemptions, as noted in Appendix F of lhe ECS Guidebook Ill! Yes D No II Yes, Please note exemplion and appropriate Jusliflcatlon In the space below. Findings should be confirmed using at least two infonnatlon sources. Refer to ESC Guidebook for more lnfonnatian. Exemption 7: Installation of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths and filcilties within the existing right of way limits. If no, ans minority and/or low Income populations located within the limtts of the project's potential impacts? DYes ONo If no, attach appropriate data lo support finding. If yes, describe impacts and attach appropriate supporting documonlation. Part 5 Blologlcal Asseasment and EFH Evaluations 1. Do any listed species potentially occur in the project's action area and/or is any designated critical habitat within the projecfs action area? 181 Yes D No Please attach species listings. 2. Will any construction 3. Does the project involve blasting, pile Affected ESA Listed Species work occur within 0.5 driving, concrete sawing, rock drilling, or miles of any of the rock scaling activities within 1 mKe of any fellowing: of the followlna? Spotted Owl management areas (CSAs, MOCAs, designated crilical habitat, and/or potenllaiy suitable nesting/roostingffaraging habitat? 0Yes 181 No 0Yes ill!No Marbled Murrelel nest or occupied stand, designated critical habitat and/or polenllally suitable habitat? Dves 181 No 0Yes 181 No Western Sncwy Plover designated critical Oves 181 No 0Yes 181 No habitat? Is lhe project within 0.5 miles of marine waters? If yes explain potenllal effects on Killer Whales and Stelle(& Sea Lion, and on Marbled Murrelet Dves For aging areas. 181 No CJ Yes 181No Killer Whale designated critical habitat? 0Yes 181No 0Yes 181No GrizzlV bear potentially suitable habitat? CJ Yes 181 No 0Yes 181No nnT r:arm 140.100 EF Page 6of 8 Part 5 Biological Assessment and EFH Evaluations -Continued Gray Wolf potentially suitable habitat? 0 Yes 181No DYes ll!INo Canada Lynx habitat DYeo 181 No 0Yes 181No Columbia White-tailed Deer potentially suitable 0Yes habitat? 181No 0Yes 131 No Woodland Caribou habitat? 0Yes 181 No 0Yes 181No A mature coniferous or mixed fixed forest stand? 131 Yes 0No 181Yes 0No 4. Wtll the project Involve any In-water work? 0Yes 181No 5. Will any construction work occur within 300 feet of any perennial or Intermittent waterbody lhat either supports or drains to a llsted Osh supporting waterbody? 181 Yes 0No 6. WIii any construction work occur within 300 feet of any weUand, pond, or lake that la connected to any permanent or lnlermlllent waterbody? 181Yes 0No 7. Does the action have Iha potential to dlrecUy or Indirectly impact designated critical habitat for salmonids (including adjacent riparian zones)? 181 Yes 0No 8. Will the project discharge lreatad or untreated.stormwater runoff or utilize water from a waterbody that supports or drains Into a listed fish.supporting waterbody, wetland. or waterbody? Cl Yes 181No 9. Will construction work occur outside the existing pavement? If Yes. go to 9a. 181 Yes 0No 9a. WIii construction activities occurring outside the existing pavement Involve clearing, grading, filling, or modifications of vegetatloo or tree cutting? 181 Yes 0No 10. Are there any Federal listed, threatened or endangered plant species located within the project 0Yes 181 No limits? If yes, please attach a list of plant species wllhln lhe action area. Determination If each of the questions in the preceding section resulted in a •no" response or if any of the questions were checked •yes". but adequate Jusllficalion can be provided to support a "no effect" determination, then check "No effecr below. If this checklist cannot be used for ESA Section 7 compliance (I.e .. adequate justification cannot be provided or a ·may affect" determination io anticipated), a separate biological assessment document is required. ' / NOAA Fisheries USFWS Essential Fish Habitat Determination: 181 No Effect L < !.. I 181 No Adverse Effect I I l 0 NL T AA Date or Concurrence D Adverse Effect. Oeteo!NOAA 0 LTAADate BO Issued Concurrence Analysis for No Effects Oetenmlnatlon • If there are anY. "yea" answers to questions In Part 5, addltlonal analysis Is required. Please attach addltlonal sheets If needed. Please see the attached No Effects Leiter dated October 24, 20 l I for an analysis of effects. The proposed project will have no effect on bull trout, Chinook salmon or Puget Sound steelheod because: The project will not result in additional pollutant generating impervious surface within the action area; there will be no alteration of peak flows or base flows in the project area; and there will be no in-water or over-water work and appropriate Best Management Practices will be implemented to eliminate the risk of erosion and thechance of sediments entering the action area waterbodies. Temporary Erosion Sediment Control and Spill Prevention Control Plans will be prepared and implemented. DOT Form 140-100 EF Rei.iiaed 011201 t Page 7 016 Part 6 FHWA Comments Use Supplement Sheet If addWonal space Is required to comp/ere !his section. nnT FMn 1<1>-100 EF Page 6 of 8 LUA 15-000257 Segment A, Lake to Sound, Slopes Notes None 128 0 -64 VVGS_ 1984_Web_Mereator_Aux11iary_Sphere 128 Feet Cityof~Qflc!c} Finance & IT Division EXHIBIT 19 550 Monster.Rd SW Legend 0 0 fJ 0 r, City and County Boundary ~J Other (:~ City of Renton Addresses Parcels 1st Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1st Floor (")thPr R11ilrlinni::; Information Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 6110/2015 >25% & <=40% (SensiHve) • :>40% & <=90% (Protected) • >90% (Protected) Environment Designations O Naru<a O Shoreline High Intensity O Shorel,ne !sOlated High lnteosity Q Shoreline Resider1Hal O Urt:Jan Conservancy n .luriMir.tinni:i. T11smap1sausergeneratedstaticoutputfroman1n1emetfl"app111gs1teand ,srorraferenceonly Dalalayersthatappearonth1smaprnayorrnaynolbe dCcurate,curfent.orotherw1serehable THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0 10203040~ 6 ... J L, J ~ BH·2 Sc.ale: 19=20' + BORING APPORXIHATE LOCATION ANO DfSlGNA.TION ...... -~ _, . . ... ·I·\ ,,~,.. ~t:l9.·_:_:.-::.-·_ ...... ·:1j.·::: . .--.-::.{_: SI. , .'.: ·.: .. _· . .' .' ... · .' f J ii . .--.... --: -.. I : . --. .-1. h J'{·· .. ·J)RAfT)i •fr lJ ··tiii .J I~ -I . · .. --· 'I' ·. · L f/ /f ~! t t:1 io .o ' :r:.-.c+00··::-·::.1-.-:.·· P, sir'r--~, ... ,..;.._,...:_,:_.-\··.'·;..j~ .1::·::.::: ........ ~ .. : :_.,. 'I /I / -,, .. ,.--.. 1/ o~'t J , , ;:: ,.,·\'· r~ :,;;{?,,• , . YE\\ I /1~ g ~, : ,,'1\ /' . -...... '' \ 11 I /1 \ , I , .):.. :,.f \ ', <) ~ _/,I+ §& , , I ' i ~ ' ., i!!J• It l-.,.:..J I \ /I/.,,,/ ~<:. 1 1 ··r;// 0 II , ,'II' $-,., I \ , , I I >< I \ .' '/ ' '" I I ~: I I I ' V ,, { I I I I I. I·. \' i •ti•.•/4Ai/l:, · t.·····/ .. ·\ .... ·· ... ·/ 1 ..•. · .. ··i.·· •~\ I IV _. l _. _. ' ...... ·:.-\--: ... :I: . : : _·: ·: H· \ HI I ·_.I-'_.·_: _ _._.· ... :.~. _· ... : : 1.-'::: .. \·;,_i:1. ,.1 um IHWAGEoSCIENCESINC. BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WASHINGTON t=i"~~T~llll»1-t.r.KEfOIICl.tDTMl.lT,t,&ll:i!OIIIUOtRI\IBtlllWOOJC.l,C2lnl).100nowtWA2010:iw'liloomlG oF,g;r>-2/i!lll!ll5Z2fiflol SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN m >< ::c ~ m ~ l'J 0 Parametrix __\ N 300 600 -Feet ~ '1\-- / \ , UNINC. KING COUNTY Concrete Recycling Plant CITY OF TUKWILA ~~ r,,~ rop~:e,d Rlst Area f-l Black River ~ Pump Station CITY OF RENTON 4tofJs{er fr. -.ds11,, ~ I Oqk escrqls,q Sources King County, City of Renton \/IIOFW2014, WSDOT. Legend: -Proposed Trad City Boundary .......... Existing Trail -+--+-Railroad Black River Ripanan Forest Wetlands Martin Luther King Way S v~ ....._ End 'i"roject r-- sl ;1-------~ -~-- ~! /\ zr·-y I \ \ \ ___ "( --- / I o/~>\ \ I · / ,-\L __ i \ 1 '----1, ' ... \..l-- \---\ I ! \ ) ' ' J .. -I -\.~---___ L' - \ ~ :c .... c:i ~ r,.J .. Figure 1-2 Site Location Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A EXHIBIT 22 ! !<1 §~1: ~ .. z = ~ ~ '---------------------------'~ ~ (/) -----I, ~ 10 I I \ I I t~t, aJnB1.:1 aas aun4~;1:1w r, ----------\----- \ i \ \ I ! j / / I / ,/ I I ~ < i § r ' ~ ] ... ~ ~ ..... e E Cl 9 ,gJ! ! u."' I " I I ' ! • ! J J J • ~ ~ • E i i ! J £ I IDD . i ! ' • " ! > ! I j I i I I ,! i I • • ~~; J ! • • • N i ~ ~ ! D l i " . I il 2 g a 0 qp • ' l ~ i C U ' ! ' ' ' ! ' ~i I ~: I ! ·: ! ..J: I 'I l/ ~/ ,;!; I / I I I I ( I I I I ~.~, 11 10 I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I // I Ii /J I / ' ' ' ' ii ,, I !i I I I l 'I j I! I I / I' /i l ;rj. i,-t l !-' ! I I I I I I i /' 1.l /&' I + 1anna ,OOt i ! I 'Ii la :1 I I I I I I I I I / I I I I " i. ! • i J I i t • i i • 1l -' ! I f I D I I I l ! I I ! I ,, ~I ·-I 3· 11 t '! • I i ~ i l I I f I r D I I 'i 'j ! ! u g ~ § 4' -1' ! _\ N 250 SJJ -F.iet Sources: King County, City of Renton, Parametnx, WSDOT, Aenals Express 2009 Legend: Proposed Trail Alignment City Boundary Vegetation and V\/'ildlife Study Area Land Cover Type Ripanan-VVetland Herbaceous \Netland ~Urban Open Water Figure 3-1 Vegetation and Wildlife Study Area Base Map Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A m >< ::c .... 1:1:J ~ "" w $ ll c 9 j N 300 CITY OF TUKWILA CIT'f OF··· RENTP"! Sources· Kmg County, City of Renton, VVDFW2014, WSDOT . .!&gfilllt TDA1a-Tukw1la -TDAJ ~ Ex1stm9Trall 600 ~ TOA 1b-Renton -TDA4 City Boundary Feel -TDA2 -TOA 5 -+--+-Railroad [:::J Subbasin -·-~ Wetlands Martin Luth~r King Way S Springbrook 17 Black River Basin ~ 3· (Q [[ .f Figure 1-3 I ... I . .___._/ ·--..._ ~r·-----~ f z \ i Floodway Drainage Basins, Subbasins, Floodplains (100-year) and Site Characteristics Black River Riparian Forest Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A ~ ::c """ m !:I 11.J .,:. LUA15-000257 Floodplain S 13Jr1 Notes None 0 1,023 512 1,023 Feel \1YGS_ 1984_ Web_Mercator_Aux11iary_Sphere r,h,-,D~: .. ~JILUll'l> Finance & IT Division EXHIBIT 25 Legend City and County Boundary ~J Othef c~ CityofRenton t2J Floodway D Special Flood Hazard Areas (100 year flood) Streams (Classified) Information Technology • GlS RentonMapSuppor1@Rentonwa.gov 6/10/2015 Th1srt1ap1sausergeneratedstat1coutputfromanlntemetmapp1ngs1teand ,srorrelerenceoolJ DalalayersthatappearcmU-usmaprnayormayrrolb1:1 acct.ralecurrent,orottlerw,serel1abl!! THIS MAP IS NOT TO ee USED FOR NAVIGATION EXHIBIT 26 253-876-3116 From: Kris Sorensen [mailto:KSorenser.~,'\...;c11..v11nu,~v~1 Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:32 PM To: Karen Walter Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM,SMV Hi Karen, For the Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A (Renton LUA15-000257) project, I am providing King County's responses to the four comments you provided in the May 13 email below. Please let me know if you have further comments on these responses by December 28, 2015. Thank you. 1. Comment: The trail appears to be proposed within or adjacent to the area of the Green and Black Rivers that were identified as a salmon habitat restoration project (LG-17 and LG-18) in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (August 2005). (see page 7-75 in http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2005/kcr1876/CHAPTERS/Ch7-LowerGreen.pdf). How will the project ensure that there are no conflicts with these proposed salmon habitat restoration project or alternatively what alternative projects would be proposed in lieu? #1 Response: KC remains committed to the restoration of salmon habitat in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. A portion of the trail project is in the vicinity of the salmon habitat restoration project LG-18 but does not conflict with it. The trail design includes replacement of trees removed during construction. Replacement trees will be 'planted in the 50 foot wide riparian buffer on publicly-owned property along the bank of the Black River in the project vicinity. In addition existing plantings from the 2005 volunteer effort will be protected during construction. 2. Comment: Existing trees along the Green River should not be removed and fully avoided by this project to avoio causing further reductions in shade and contributions to the existing temperature water quality violations in tht Green River that are contributing to pre-spawning mortality of adult Chinook salmon. #2 Response: The trail has been sited to minimize the number of trees that need to be removed. Where tree removals are required great effort has been taken to have these be as far away from the river as feasible. Trees removed by the project will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio (requested below in question #4) or as directed by local permitting requirements whichever is greater. 3. Comment: Any tree that is at least 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of the Black River should be placed back into the Black River as partial mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment function. #3 Response: The project has committed to replanting trees in the riparian buffer and revegetating areas disturbed by construction. There are no plans for placing wood debris in the river as mitigation for this project because it already meets the overall criteria of no net loss of ecological processes and functions. 4. Comment: Trees should be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along both the Greer River and the Black River. #4 Response: We have determined that there is adequate space and we will accommodate this request. Kris Sorensen Associate Planner, Planning Division Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Parametrix ENGIHleRINO • PLANN1NO • fiMl ,Ht 108th AVENUE NE, SUITE 1800 BELLEVUE, WA 98004·5571 T. 425 • 458 • 6200 F. 425 • 458 • 6363 October 24, 2011 PMX No. 554-1521-084 (A/2T300F) Jason Rich EXHIBIT 27 Entire Document Available Upon Request King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division 20 I South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Re: No Effects Letter Lake to Sound Trail Improvements -Segment A Dear Mr. Rich: King County is proposing to develop a I.I-mile segment (Segment A) of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The project is a non-motorized trail located in the jurisdictions of Renton and Tukwila in King County, Washington. Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non-motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non- motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. We have prepared this assessment on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in response to the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings. We also evaluated the presence of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as indicated in the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act). The federal nexus for this project is federal-aid funding provided by FHWA, as administered by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Local Programs Division. This evaluation was prepared in accordance with section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, to determine whether species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered and potentially occurring in the project vicinity will be affected by project construction or operation. Effects upon critical habitat, as applicable, are also evaluated. The USFWS and NMFS species lists were accessed on their websites on September 15, 2011 (attached). Based on information provided at those websites, the following ESA-listed species could occur within the action area: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (Threatened) Steelhead trout (0. mykiss) Puget Sound ESU (Threatened) EXHIBIT 28 Entire Document Available Upon Request ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT EVALUATION: NO EFFECT DOCUMENTATION Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 and Washington State Department of Transportation Local Programs Division P0Box47390 Olympia WA 98504 Prepared by Mike Hall Parametrix 719 2nd Ave, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 September 2015 EXHIBIT 2'1 Kris Sorensen From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Monday, December 28, 2015 2:30 PM Sent: To: Kris Sorensen Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A- LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Kris, Thank you for sending us the applicant's responses to our comments to the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project. We have reviewed them and offer follow-up comments as noted below: 1. With respect to the proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG-18 and the trail, the applicant has only partially responded to the concern. We specifically requested information about how the trail is avoiding any conflicts with these restoration projects. The responses should include further discussion about how the trail was located or designed to avoid the proposed habitat restoration areas and how the trail is compatible with habitat restoration designs. In our experience, the location of trails and their uses can very much affect the remaining areas to do restoration as well as the types of restoration. The responses describe plans for tree removal/restoration and avoidance, but does not address these other issues. For example LG-17 involves a potential levee setback which could be constrained by the location of a trail that may not otherwise be relocated. The descriptor in the WRIA 9 plan for this project says: "Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. "(LG-17) The existing trail already limits the extent of levee setback and likely the creation of a low vegetated bench for juvenile salmon. Similarly, LG-18 involves creating a marsh at the confluence of the Black River and the lower Green River, which may be limited in size and scope because of the trail. The trail may limit the restoration components of these projects because of the increased use by people, dogs, etc disturbing salmon using these restored areas. A more detailed analysis and response is needed to show that the trail will not limit or preclude these restoration projects. 2. The applicant needs to explain how the project is meeting "no net loss" for riparian functions with respect to the removal of trees within 200 feet of the Green or Black Rivers and temporal losses to future wood recruitment. Neither of these waterbodies are close to having their natural wood loading rates that we would expect based on the data from Fox and Bolton (2007). The removal of trees that could otherwise recruit to these rivers through wind, snow/ice, natural decay, flooding, etc. will not be "instantly'' replaced by planting 1-2 gallon sized trees. The lack of wood in these rivers is a key habitat limiting factor per the WRIA 9 habitat limiting factors report. Further information and analysis is needed to support the claim that this project is fully mitigating for its impacts to riparian functions. We appreciate the opportunity to continue coordination with the City to resolve our concerns with this project. Please let me know if you have questions regarding these follow-up comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fishen·es Division Habitat Program 39015 t72ndAve SE Auburn, WA 98092 h \\\ ll 1( \ J\1 I \ 1 ,11 I', q I \If I! I L' /' ,1 / !· ·, : \ I it 'ti/ l ;, i \ l \\i \ I \\~ '":=· --=--. \ \\ '"-. I t '-· \~ ! :l; ,- 1 !1 I "'---·--I 1, 1,rr-~ :I, [ I! . I 11, ! Ii ! !'1\ ! jl Ii 1 I, \ 1l ii J 1/~I 1, I •1 i ti ii I I: i +·-P--1 \ :1 \' '-H-~_J Ii\ il 1 ~ ' ' : i 1 1 I: I ! \. : 1 1 i \ _J--+-• ~: ,' ! ~ ~l ! !f I ''' ~c/ ,, I I ·,-,- I I I I I I I I _I :1 •1 I I I I I I , I .1 \/ \I A EXHIBIT 30 i / / / I .. ~tr-~~ , I I ~ . ) ,'/ EXHIBIT 31 Appendix E Mitigation Plans ,I I ' ~ )f!El(TON i ! ~ " ~ 0 z z ~ en EXHIBIT 3Z Project start, looking west at Green River Trail (near A-Line Station 1+00) Looking west (near A-Line Station 3+00) looking west (near A-line Station 5+50) looking west (near A-line Station 6+00) Looking east at railroad crossings (near A-Line Station 6+25) Looking west at railroad crossings (near A-Line Station 8+25) Looking west (near A-Line Station 11 +00) Looking east at Monster Road driveway (near A-Line Station 13+50) Looking north at Monster Road (near A-Line Station 14+00) Looking northwest at Monster Road (near A-Line Station 14+50/C-Line Station 201 + 75) Looking north at Monster Road (near A-Line 15+00/C-Line Station 202+20) Looking northwest at Monster Road (near A-Line Station 16+20/C-Line Station 202+50) Looking north at pedestrian crossing location over the Black River (near A-Line 16+00/ C-Line Station 202+50) ~.;-?)' ~. . :~. ·. . Looking south at pedestrian crossing location over the Black River (near A-Line l 7+50/B-Line 102+50) Looking east at Monster Road (near 8-Line Station 102+50) Looking west (near B-Line Station 105+00) Looking east (near 8-Line Station 105+00) Location of proposed box culvert, looking west (near B-Line Station 126+00) Project End, looking north (B-Line Station 143+17) EXHIBIT 33 Kris Sorensen From: Sent: To: Cc: Kris Sorensen Monday, January 11, 2016 8:30 AM Karen Walter (KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us) jason.rich@kingcounty.gov; CaroLLumb@TukwilaWA.gov Subject: Response to Comments; RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Attachments: 6. L2ST Seg A Proj Narritive-Permit Descr & Justif.pdf; ESA NE documentation L2SA to Renton.pd!; L2S Seg A_Landscape Plan.pd! Karen, Thank you for the follow-up comments. I am providing responses helow .. u.lso, I have attached an updated study fm the Endangered Species Act ~lo-Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail "Segment A" pedestrian bridge submitted 1n December. Appendix 1\ is the original No-Effects Determination for the full trDil segment. Below are responses to your comments, with response WL focused on the WRIA 9 LG 18 und LG-17 rilans <.;ind response ff2 focused on no net loss: :11: The LG-17 project is not in the vicinity of the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project under review. LG-17 is located roughly Y, mile awdy. For LG-18, th,2 marsh area that is to be restored is outs,de of the trail project area and the 50-foot wide shoreline riparian buffer is within the proposed project area. Multiple trail route J.ltern.::itives 1Nere considered for this :>egment of the regional trail. The Segment A route was designed to have the least impact on the shorelines, mature trees, the existing sports complex, and railroad bridges in this area near the Black River and confluence with the Green River. The subject proJect will plant 21,330 square feet of the LG-13 ripJrian buffer area between the Black !liver shoreline and trail (see "BVCl" on the attached 'Landscape Plan'). The County is open to discussing placing a split rail fence adjacent the trail where the trail is tlose to t11e LG-18 project in consicleration of increased use of t11e area by people and dogs. Shoreline permits die re~uired for this project ancl fulther consideration of Lhe commem can be considered at that time Carol Lumh is the City of Tukwila staff contc1et that would likely review tile Shmeline Permits in that jurisdiction (email contact is Carol.Lumh1iiJTul<w1laWA.gov). ;z2: Th0 overall proiecc lld'; bPen rcvie'Ned tor no 11et loss ot ripariJn functions. The r1pplicJ11t h,15 submitted rnult1ple hiological c:issessrnents tllcit detail fHOJect impJCi'.5 <lncl mitigation. Trees ,Jre bein~ r(lpkinted at a rninimu1n 2:'i r,1tio, 111 r,J1 t. to ,1ecou11t for rhe temporal loss of m,;1ture trees. I am atnching to this email the ,ubnlittf~d Perm1f Marr:1t1v1~ ,1nd JustiticJt1on, wh21 e p1ge 2 11 discusses the f,Jo Net Loss requirement for ,111 .JevrloprnP.11t witt1i11 Shorc•l11w l\1L1nageinem 1\ct jurisUicrion. I believe the studies listed m the 110 net loss ;urnm<1ry were sern to you dS part 0r tlw Notice of .L\pµ!ic,Hion for the project (Critical Areas 5turJy, StrPdrn '1eporl, 11,,~l'tdtion and Wildlife Report, Floodpl,1i11 'itudy) ,rnci I ran pro'11de them as needPd. I will follow up this .'fll<1il with rhe n,·11N B1nlogic1I .L_ssess.mi::i1,r of the pedr1strit1n hrldgt~ from 1\ugu·;t 20.15 os it 1c) ;::i la1·gl:'r tile size so '/i LI 11',0 h,1VI--! rl11s study. rh rnk vo11 ior '/<J\H. ornnH~nts. \;':.rn.vite Pl.111rwr, :·[ 1n1111'~ 1;i\ni~to11 D1~ptl1 tment r>l <.urnrn11111tv ;.( [c..l,1iorrn( D2v:-dop111Pnt (-ii'/ !Jf l~HltOll ~.'..S-l \lHJ)Cj I kso rensen(Ulrentonwa .gov From: Karen Walter [mailto: KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:30 PM To: Kris Sorensen Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM,SMV Kris, Thank you tor sending us the applicant's responses to our comments to the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project. We have reviewed them and offer follow-up comments as noted below: 1. With respect to the proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG-18 and the trail, the applicant has only partially responded to the concern. We specifically requested information about how the trail is avoiding any conflicts with these restoration projects. The responses should include further discussion about how the trail was located or designed to avoid the proposed habitat restoration areas and how the trail is compatible with habitat restoration designs. In our experience, the location of trails and their uses can very much affect the remaining areas to do restoration as well as the types of restoration. The responses describe plans for tree removal/restoration and avoidance. but does not address these other issues. For example LG-17 involves a potential levee setback which could be constrained by the location of a trail that may not otherwise be relocated. The descriptor in the WRIA 9 plan for this project says: "Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. "(LG-17) The existing trail already limits the extent of levee setback and likely the creation of a low vegetated bench for juvenile salmon. Similarly, LG-18 involves creating a marsh at the confluence of the Black River and the lower Green River, which may be limited in size and scope because of the trail. The trail may limit the restoration components of these projects because of the increased use by people, dogs, etc disturbing salmon using these restored areas. A more detailed analysis and response is needed to show that the trail will not limit or preclude these restoration projects. 2. The applicant needs to explain how the project is meeting "no net loss" for riparian functions with respect to the removal of trees within 200 feet of the Green or Black Rivers and temporal losses to future wood recruitment. Neither of these waterbodies are close to having their natural wood loading rates that we would expect based on the data from Fox and Bolton (2007). The removal of trees that could otherwise recruit to these rivers through wind, snow/ice, natural decay, flooding, etc. will not be "instantly" replaced by planting 1-2 gallon sized trees. The lack of wood in these rivers is a key habitat limiting factor per the WRIA 9 habitat limiting factors report. Further information and analysis is needed to support the claim that this project is fully mitigating for its impacts to riparian functions. We appreciate the opportunity to continue coordination with the City to resolve our concerns with this project. Please let me know if you have questions regarding these follow-up comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 •aram•trix ' '"' ~ Grea~h,, ; i ...... -, ... ·-·--·-\ \ .... _, ' ~ ' ' City of Tukw1~ ! I City of Renton Legend: c=:J FEMA RDadplul Bcundaly ~ FEMA8-lloodE1ev811ort(NAVD88) 'fl • tAppro~ch ~j-:~------·--··-11 ---/ il B / . ,>--. . :I -----~~&<_ ,~ \ BlackRlver \. Pump Statton tl.57~ .:...;" ...... = Black River Forest End Project • FEMA Boundaries from 1H5 FIRM. ~ .............. , ... ................ ; i i.,, ''\ .. , Figure 1 '\\ '·,·,,, Project SHe Map m >< ::c t-1 m t-1 -I w ~ I _I - -~\ ---1 I --------{ I I ~ I i2 I ' ~------r--\ ~ I ~I I ------L;-NS"qv i n ! ' I' ! ' ! ' LJ ------1 1\?:1! I ~ : o M EXHIBIT 3S Project LG-1 B: Black River Marsh at RM 11.0 (Right Bank) Project Description This project would improve the confluence of the remnant Black River with the Green/Duwamish as an emergent marsh, increasing nutrient productivity for the surrounding system and improving access for salmonid refuge and rearing. The project is located along the lower Black River, which empties into the Green River at river mile 11.0, right bank. The project would remove about 200 cubic yards of fill from the left banldine of the Black River at the confluence with the Green just west of the railroad tracks. This small area would then be planted with appropriate native marsh vegetation and a few large stumps with root wads would be placed to provide cover. A 50 foot wide riparian buffer would be created along the banks of the Black River from the Black River Pump Station to the confluence. This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Opportunities and Constraints • The site has significant infrastructure that will make site rehabilitation challenging. Invasive plant species now dominate the site. • In 2005, volunteers organized by a Renton resident began planting native trees and shrubs on the south bank of the Black River just west of the Black River Pump Station. Black River confluence with the Green!Duwamish. Black River is to right. Railroad bridges are visible in the distance. February 200S photo. LINKAGES ClD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • Protecting and improving riparian vegetation (All-1) • Preventing new bank armoring and removing existing armoring (A/1-6) • Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge,habitat complexity (l.ow-1) ClD Habitat Management Strategies • Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetarian along banks of the mainstem and tributaries • Substitute loss of 5/ow water areas by creating new off- chonnel habitats and/or placement oflarge wandy debris along bank/Ines • Subsffrute eco/ogirol processes with habitat features Poge7-75 Green/Ouwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan-August ZOOS ProjectLG~17:· . . Levee Setback Between 11¥ 11. 7 and 11.4 (Right Bank) Lower Green River looking downstream at rivet mile 11.7. To right k Fort Dent Pork showing levee and possible bank set back a,ea. February 1005 photo. LINKAGES CJD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • Protecting and improving riparian vegetation (A/1·2) • Protecting and creating/res/JJring ha/Jitatthat provides re/ug~ habitat complexity /low-1) CJD Habitat Management Strategies • Rehabilitate existing banklines to aeate law velodty and/or shallow water habitat during juvenile mlgrotlan • Rehabilitate riparian areas by estobilshing suitable native vegetation along banks af the mainstem and tributaries • Substitute lass af slaw water areas by placement of large woody debris along banklines Project Description Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. This project would provide low velocity and/ or shallow water habitat for juvenile salmon. Opportunities and Constraints Pagel-74 Pennission must be obtained by the City of Tukwila, and implementers will need to work with the company that manages the soccer complex on this parcel to design this project in a way that minimizes impacts on current park operations. Sewer infrastructure may a1so present challenges for implementation. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan-August ZOOS ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA 15-000257 Application Date: April 17, 2015 Name: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Engir1eering Review Comments Recommendations: EXISTING CONDITIONS Water seivice is not a requirement ot this project. Sanitary sewer is not a requirement of this project. EXHIBIT 3G Version 1 Contact:Yicki Grover 425'430-7291 vgrover@rentonwa.gov A Technical Information Report (TIR) was submitted, dated April 2015 and prepared by Parametrix. The project is exempt from water quality as the new impervious surtace will not be pollution generating. The project is exempt from flow control when for a given Threshold Drainage Area (TOA); the 100 year peak runoff flow rate is within 0.1 cfs of the existing 100 year peak runoff flow rate. Testing of the runoff from the concrete recycling plant should be conducted prior to piping the flow into a wetland. General Comments 1. All construction permits will require civil plans to include a TESC Plan and a SW PPP. Plans shall conform to the Renton Dratting Standards and be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. A draft Geotechnical Report Lake to Sound Trail, Black River Bridge dated February 24, 2015 and authored by HWA Geosciences Inc. was submitted to the City of Renton (COR) on April 17, 2015. A "Final" geotechnical report will be required. 3. When construction plans are ready for review, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, three (3) copies of the Drainage Report and permit application. What is the timing of the construction phase? There are various recommendations for when and when not to be doin construction work based on various criteria from each of the re arts. Planning Review Comments Contact: Kris Sorensen f 425,430~6593 I ksorensen@·rentonwa,gov Recommendations: Planning: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any e ul ment, install im ervious surfaces, or compact the earth in an wa within the area defined b the dri line of an tree to be retained. Ran: January 07, 2016 Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNll AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPME A. REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER HEARING DATE: February 16, 2016 EXHIBIT 3r Project Name: Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segment A ~nton0 Owner: City of Renton; City ofTukwila; Burlington Northern Santa Fe; Union Pacific Applicant/Contact: King County DNRP/Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, 7'h Floor; 201 S. Jackson St; Seattle WA 98104 File Number: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Project Manager: Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a 16-mile regional trail that links Lake Washington and Puget Sound. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width, is paved, and located in the inner 50% of the buffer area. The trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zone.d Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). The trail is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' Shoreline Overlay and associated wetland buffers. 1,500 cubic yards of cut and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Portions of the trail corridor are located in the 1995 FIRM Floodplain area with a net result of 135.5 cubic yards of soil removal within the flood area. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 2.26 acres of mitigation planting areas are proposed. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption by Washington State Department of Transportation. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and last 12 months. Project Location: Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton to Fort Dent Park in City ofTukwila Site Area: 3.94 acres paved (and 5.26 acres with shoulder) for 1.2 mile length Project Location Map HEX Report_Lake to Sound Trail Segment A_LUAlS-000257 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Page 2 of 40 i 8. EXHIBITS: Exhibits 1-36: Exhibit 37: Exhibit 38: Exhibit 39: Exhibit 40: Exhibit 41: Exhibit 42: As shown in the SEPA Environmental Review Report, dated January 11, 2016 Hearing Examiner Report City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, adopted May 11, 2009 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Management Element and Appendix B Public Access Objectives by Reach Critical Areas Figure 3-1, prepared by Parametrix Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated Tree Retention Worksheet i C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. 2oning Classification: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Critical Areas: 6. Neighborhood Characteristics: City of Renton; City ofTukwila; Burlington Northern Santa Fe; Union Pacific Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC) Employment Area (EA) Trail and recreation, gravel maintenance road, street right-of-way, and railroad right-of-way and river crossings. Shoreline Natural Overlay designation, Wetlands, Flood hazard, Steep Slopes a. North: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way (Resource Conservation RC zone) and Concrete Recycling Use (Industrial Light IL zone) b. East: c. South: d. West: 6. Project Data: 7. Site Area: Office Park (Commercial Office CO zone) Industrial and manufacturing uses (Industrial Medium IM and Industrial Heavy IH zones) Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (Industrial Medium IM zone) and City of Tukwila Fort Dent Park/ Starfire Sports Complex Trail length: 1.2 miles between Tukwila and Renton Shoreline Enhancements: 98,297 square feet of restoration and planting areas 3.94 acres paved (and 5.26 acres with shoulder) for 1.2 mile length i D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Comprehensive Plan N/ A Zoning N/A Annexation -S 1801h N/ A Annexation -Monster Rd SW N/ A HEX Report Lake to Sound Trail Seament A LUA15-0002S7 Ordinance No. 5758 5758 1745 4086 Date 06/22/2015 06/22/2015 04/19/1959 09/30/1987 ) , t t J J ) J ) J C J it ~ ;t \t ~ ' ~ 3 ' • ~ ' ~ ' ' ,,, ~ _, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :) ' .~ .) :1 l .:, .) ~ EXHIBIT 3'c ········~··~~·~~~--·············-----------~ NIAP (scale varies) __: _-..!::::-_=-~--U1~~ j ~t~1 -: .'.' ~iL 't] ~~i~~~~-ur/i~~ ttr-=-- ,-'ii1u :::r _ -==T -.\-....----,=......~, ,i. r _. ~ ~ P..ini ,L ,-------. ',,,,, ii, ' .·-a•,_-_,.,'-,_ 11 ' "'~'"" -ir \ ' ,,~;,~;;,~ t:~~:~ . ,, , ;i" ·: .~::-.. "I. ,.._ ~ ',.;V;t,-i*~ ' ~ '"'" I ........ .._. __ ~,~··:.,;;r),. -;'·I• ).If ..,. ...-;;;--~·~~t ••• , ••• -.,, --·,· ,-"""••rv lL ' ...... ,., 11;;:'·=. • II I ., ·'11 '"''f , ;, Olli• 'Ill " ' r.'1/-;;;l j"1'· ,:, f , , I --'f-c-::i~~~~ " I ..Ll //, \' _I ~I•:" \1 I ~J--~..:-'-'!" h',!!lll~ ' ', ,' '' •, e•c: .. ·,~-,:· -\.;;'· --,.,·· ' . " ""' , J ;-'-. . ]I .:£:I ,,. -. ;:,::-rl-.,. ,, :'' ·, .. , -----"-~~ ·n \ \ ,,\ ',t::-, <, -~~~;:,,: ,,, . ., ':.'-. l~'c 1\;1;~·;•" r .,'<. , 1· ,, .,. ~t:C· i1 ,_,,.,. ~I 11: · ""~·sv·~,· ,\ \ . .,. .. ,_ .. _ .JI.,,.. r ,.,,. ''"··· 1 · " , r, .... , l \/'' ;,...~,,. "' 1/ , ,1 ~I 11 [1: «." \t " ~·~~~Tiiii, -\I( 111 , ~11 111 ':_ ~~ L ~-- "fYl"ICAL CROSS-SECiiOl\l(s) RlGHT-OF-~AY 2'-011 5;..!0Ul.DER # 1-'JiDTH VARIES MUI.Tl-USE TRAIL. 10'0" MIN. 12'-011 PREFERRED A."· Renton Trails and Bicycle l\11aste,· Plan Propc,sed Jmpl'01N,,n2,1Lc TWO RIVERS TRAIL: BLACK RIVER RAILROAD R.O.W. TRAIL -·------~-----· _,__ ----------·- Project Status Origin and Destination Project Length Existing Condition Proposed Cross-section User Groups Connections Project Description Constraints and Considerations PROPOSED (Part of proposed Lake to Sound Regional Trail) Monster Road SW to Naches Avenue SW 0.9 mile this segment, 3.1 miles total trail Rough path parallel to Union Pacific and Burling· ton Northern Santa Fe railroad right-of-way ""'-------- Separated multi-use trail, paved ............ Bicyclists and pedestrians Tukwila, Downtown Renton PARKS AND SCHOOLS: Fort Dent Park, Black River Riparian Forest, Renton Wetlands, Burnett Linear Park TRAILS: Green River, Interurban, Black River, Springbrook Trail, Burnett, Cedar River BICYCLE LANES: Monster Road SW Multi-use trail through Black River Riparian Forest, separate from wetland trail Possible permitting challenges 153 ··············----------------------------- ~~!~tl' (~cale \/~i~s2 I\ );.:; TYPICAL CROSS-SECiiOl\i(s) RIGHT-Of-v>IAY WIDTH VARIES .. 2'-0'1 SHOuLDER 1 MULTI-USE TRAIL 10'0" MIN. 12'-0 11 PREFERRED ii.:1· ~ ~ Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Pia,··, Proposcfd lmprov-2m21,i:c: TWO RIVERS TRAIL: FORT DENT CONNECTOR ----------·-------·-·-~-~---... ~---------- Project Status Origin and Destination Project Length Existing Condition Proposed Cross-section User Groups Connections Project Description Constraints and Considerations PROPOSED (Part of proposed Lake to Sound Regional Trail) Fort Dent Park to Monster Road SW 0.2 mile this segment, 3.1 miles total trail Rough path under Union Pacific railroad trestle ,-------- Separated multi-use trail, paved ........... Bicyclists and pedestrians Tukwila, Downtown Renton PARKS AND SCHOOLS: Fort Dent Park, Black River Riparian Forest, Renton Wetlands, Burnett Linear Park TRAILS: Green River, Interurban, Black River, Springbrook Trail, Burnett, Cedar River BICYCLE LANES: Monster Road SW Connection to Tukwila's Fort Dent Park connects the two cities and links regional trails. Use of railroad right-of-way needs, dimensions of existing railroad trestle, crossing of Monster Road SW necessitate thoughtful approach. 152 ---------------------------------- . EXHIBIT 3~ SHORELINE MANAGEM.EN SHORELINE MANAGEMENT F' 4t,q_• ~~ -Fulfilling the vision of the state Shoreline Manogemet, "'~6 ~ ~ ·,mmunity - Vt9 Oc ~ INTRODUCTION of all use of sh, human utility ana the Act relate both to (:o l.,->,. ·te their 01') t9"l ,ts of the extremely valuable a,. resources of the state. The ac ~~ ~ 0f 9~ t9.s-, accommodation of "all reasonab, priate uses" consistent with "protecting ag, Jverse effects to the public hea1en, the land The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (the Act) passed in 1971 and is based on the philosophy that the shorelines of our state are among our most "valuable" and "fragile" natural resources and that unrestricted development of these resources is not in the best public interest. Therefore, planning and management are necessary in order to prevent the harmful effects of uncoordinated and piece-meal development of our state's shorelines. There are over 18 miles and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life" and consistent with "public rights of navigation. The planning policies of master programs (as distinguished from the development regulations) may be achieved by a number of means, of shoreline in the City of Renton's planning Shorelines are of limited supply and are faced with rapidly increasing demands for uses such as marinas, fishing, swimming and scenic views, as well as recreation, private housing, commercial and industrial uses. area are under the jurisdiction of the . ,. -· -. Lake Washington from Coulon Park, Credit: City of Renton The policy goals for the management of shorelines harbor potential for conflict. The Act recognizes that the shorelines and the waters they encompass are "among the most valuable and fragile" of the state's natural resources. They are valuable for economically productive industrial and commercial uses, recreation, navigation, residential amenity, scientific research and education. They are fragile because they depend upon balanced physical, biological, and chemical systems that may be adversely altered by natural forces and human conduct. Unbridled use of shorelines ultimately could destroy their utility and value. The prohibition __ _, only one of which is the regulation of development. Other means, as authorized by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.240, include, but are not limited to: the acquisition of lands and easements within shorelines of the state by purchase, lease, or gift, either alone or in concert with other local governments, and accepting grants, contributions, and appropriations from any public or private agency or individual. Additional other means may include, but are not limited to, public facility and park planning, watershed planning, voluntary salmon recovery projects, and incentive programs. Through numerous references to and emphasis on the maintenance, protection, restoration, and preservation of 11fragile 11 shoreline, 11 natural resources," "public health," "the land and its vegetation and wildlife," "the waters and their aquatic life," 11 ecology," and 11 environment,11 the Act makes protection of the shoreline environment an essential statewide policy goal consistent with the other policy goals of the Act. It is recognized that shoreline ecological functions may be impaired not only by shoreline development subject to the substantial development permit requirement of the Act but also by past actions, unregulated activities, Green River Reach A Black/Springbrook A Springbrook B Springbrook C below the pump station From Grady Way to SW 16th Street From SW 16th Street to the City Limits PUB~IC ACCESS OBJECTIVES because further subdivision and non-single family use is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public agency actions to improve public access should include improved visual access from the existing trail and area west of Monster Road provides no public access. Public physical access from a trail parallel to water should be provided as private lands redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should include acquisition of trail rights to connect the Lake to Sound trail system to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park. The area west of Monster Road is part of the publicly owned Black River Forest where interpretive trails if consistent with ecological functions. access. Public physical access trom a water should be provided as private lands redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should include acquisition of trail rights to connect the trail system to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park. The area west of Monster Road is part of the publicly owned Black River Forest where jnterpretive trails exist. Expansion of public access should occur only if consistent with ecological functions. Interpretive trails are present in the Black River Forest. Expansion of public access should occur only if consistent with ecological functions. A trail system is present on the west side of the stream adjacent to the sewage treatment plant and should be retain_ed and possibly enhanced. A trail system is present on WSDOT right of way and crosses under 1-405. Enhancement should be implemented as part of future highway improvements or other public agency actions. A public trail parallel to the stream was developed as part of the Boeing Longacres Office Park and extends from SW 16th Street under Oaksdale. Avenue and terminates at the alignment of 19th Street at the parking lot of a pre-existing industrial building. If future development occurs in this area, a continuous trail system connecting to the continuous system to the south should be planned, consistent with protection of ecological values of wetlands and streamside vegetation. There is no trail system along the stream from SW 19th Street to the approximate alignment of SE 23rd Street. A continuous trail system is provided from 23rd Street to the city limits including portions through the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation -Bank. If future development occurs in the area of the missing trail link, a trail system connecting to the continuous system to the south should be planned, consistent with protection of ecological values of wetlands and streamside vegetation buffers. Public actions should include interim linkages of the existing trail systems, which may include interim trails or routing on public streets and sidewalks. In the future, if vegetation buffers are developed within the stream corridor and Parametrix _\ N 100 200 !"""~~---Fee; Legend: Proposed Trail Alignment City Boundary Sources· Krng County, City of Renton, Parametnx WSDOT, Aerials Express 2009. Wetland ---River Ordinary High Water Mark Wetland Buffer River Buffer ~ 'X 1-1 o:> ~ ~ D Figure 3-1 Critical Areas Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A _\ N IOO 200 ~~~---leet Legend: Proposed Trail Alignment City Boundary Sources. King County, City of Renton, Parametrix, WSDOT, Aerials Express 2009. Wetland ---River Ordinary High water Mark Wetland Buffer , .. River Buffer Figure 3-2 Critical Areas Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A ii Parametrix ~ N 100 200 ~~~---F~et Legend: Proposed Trail Alignment City Boundary Wetland Wetland Buffer Figure 3-3 Critical Areas Lake to Sound Tra/1-Segment A Denis Law Mayor EXHIBIT 41 ~ ~,__,,;~,,_. January 14, 2016 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith Is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee {ERC) on January 11, 2016: SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) PROJECT NAME: Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segement A PROJECT NUMBER: LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at {425) 430-6593. For the Environmental Review Committee, Kris Sorensen Associate Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fisheriest Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert1 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Ramin Pazookl, WSDOT, NW Region Larry Fl,her, WOFW Ouwamish Tr!bal Office US Army Corp. of Engineers Renton City Hall • I 055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: -MITIGATED (DNS-M) LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, ih Floor; 201 S. Jackson St.; Seattle, WA 98104 Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segment A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail that links Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Additional approvals for the Tukwila portion of the trail are required. A Renton Shoreline Variance from AMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width and is paved. In Renton, the trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). In Tukwila, the trail is located on private and public parcels that are zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) and Low Density Residential (LDR). The trail area within Renton is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' shoreline and associated wetland buffers. Within Tukwila, the trail is located within the 200-foot Green and Black River shoreline buffer regulation areas. Parts of the trail are located in the 1995 DFIRM Floodplain area. 1,500 cubic yards of grading and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 98,297 square feet of mitigation and planting areas are proposed with native species. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and last 12 months. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton and Fort Dent Park in City ofTukwila City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4·9·070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: January 15, 2016 January 11, 2016 1/ 11 li6 r t Date 1-1/-/¢' Date C £. l_) -;j--- c.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development l~I~ Date I I Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, 7'" Floor; 201 S. Jackson St.; Seattle, WA 98104 Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segement A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail that links Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Additional approvals for the Tukwila portion of the trail are required. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width and is paved. In Renton, the trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC) .. In Tukwila, the trail is located on private and public parcels that are zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) and Low Density Residential (LOR). The trail area within Renton is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' shoreline and associated wetland buffers. Within Tukwila, the trail is located within the 200-foot Green and Black River shoreline buffer regulation areas. Parts of the trail are located in the 1995 DFIRM Floodplain area. 1,500 cubic yards of grading and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 98,297 square feet of mitigation and planting areas are proposed with native species. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and storm water improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and last 12 months. PROJECT LOCATION: Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton and Fort Dent Park in City of Tukwila LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall provide any updated geotechnical report for the Black River Bridge which shall be submitted as part of required building permit application. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Draft Geotechnical Report-Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc, dated February 24, 2015, Exhibit 9, or any updated geotechnlcal report created for the project. 3. The applicant shall follow the bridge construction impacts avoidance measures as listed in Appendix C of the September 2015 No-Effects Determination for the lake to Sound Trail - Segment A, Exhibit 27. 4. The applicant shall follow the planting plan or an updated planting plan and monitoring and of the Final Critical Areas Study Appendix E, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015, Exhibit 6. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Native American artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. AOIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. PLAN Planning Review Land Use Version 1 I January 11, 2016 Engineering Review Comments Contact: Vicki Grover I 425 430 7291 I vgrover@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: EXISTING CONDITIONS Water service is not a requirement of this project. Sanitary sewer is not a requirement of this project. A Technical Information Report (TIR) was submitted, dated April 2015 and prepared by Parametrix. The project is exempt from water quality as the new Impervious surface will not be pollution generating. The project is exempt from flow control when for a given Threshold Drainage Area (TDA); the 100 year peak runoff flow rate is within 0.1 cfs of the existing 100 year peak runoff flow rate. Testing of the runoff from the concrete recycling plant should be conducted prior to piping the flow into a wetland. General Comments 1. All construction permits will require civil plans to include a TESC Plan and a SWPPP. Plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards and be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. A draft Geotechnical Report Lake to Sound Trail, Black River Bridge dated February 24, 2015 and authored by HWA Geosciences Inc. was submitted to the City of Renton (COR) on April 17, 2015. A "Final" geotechnical report will be required. 3. When construction plans are ready for review, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, three (3) copies of the Drainage Report and permit application. What is the timing of the construction ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisorit Notes Page2of3 phase? There are various recommendations for when and when not to be doing construction work based on various criteria from each of the reports. Planning Review Comments Contact: Kris Sorensen I 425 430 6593 I ksorensen@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Planning: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock {8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock {9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit Is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install Impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3 OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL-SEGEMENT A LUA15~D00257, ECF, SSOP, 5-CUP, 5-V BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST IN CITY OF RENTON ANO FORT DENT PARK IN CITY OF TUKWILA DESCRIPTION: THE APPLICANT REQUESTS SEPA REVIEW, SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, A SHORELINE VARIANCE, AND SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO IMPROVE AN EXISTING INFORMAL 1.2-MILE TRAIL INTO A NONMOTORIZED MULTI-PURPOSE ROUTE AND INCLUDES A NEW 114 FT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER THE BLACK RIVER. THE PROJECT IS "SEGMENT A" OF THE THE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL, A CONTINUOUS 16-MILE-1.CJNG REGIONAL CORRIDOR LINKING LAKE WASHINGTON TO PUGET SOUND. SEGMENT A TRAVELS THROUGH THE BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FORoST FROM NACHES AVE SW IN CITY OF RENTON, CROSSING MONSTER RD SW, TO ARRIVE AT FORT DENT PARK IN CITY OF TUKWILA. THE CllY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION HAS PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MITIGATION MEASURES. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016, together with the required fee with: Hearing E,caminer, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by Qty of RMC 4-11-110 and Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton Qty Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON FEBRUARY 16, 2016 AT 11:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNll AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPME EXHIBIT 42. l 1. TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 Total number of trees over 6" diameter', or alder or cottonwood trees at least 8" in diameter on project site City of _1_6~,o_o_o ___ trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: 3. Trees that are dangerous2 Trees in proposed public streets Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers Total number of excluded trees: Subtract line 2 from line 1: O trees -----0 trees -----0 trees -----8,000 trees 8,000 trees ------- 8,000 trees ------- 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, R-6 or R-8 0.2 in all other residential zones 0.1 in all commercial and industrial zones 2,400 trees 5. List the number of 6" in diameter, or alder or cottonwood trees over 8" in diameter that you are proposing5 to retain4 : 7,869 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: (if line 6 is zero or less, stop here. No replacement trees are required) 0 trees 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 0 inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: l (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 0 inches per tree 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6 : {If remainder is .5 or greater1 round up to the next whole number) 0 trees 1 Measured at 4.5' above grade. 2 A tree certified, in a written report, as dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or otherwise dangerous to persons or property by a licensed landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3 Critical areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in RMC 4-3-050. 4 Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5 The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a. 6 When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, replacement trees, with at least a two-inch (2") caliper or an evergreen at least six feet (6') tall, shall be planted. See RMC 4-4-130.H.1.e.(ii) for prohibited types of replacement trees. U :\PSO\Projects\CI ients\1521-KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\02WB5\PH-A 2 Rivers\Shoreline CUP\ TreeRetentionworksheet.docx 03/2015 Minimum Tree Density A minimum tree density shall be maintained on each residentially zoned lot (exempting single-family dwellings in R-10 and R-14). The tree density may consist of existing trees, replacement trees, or a combination. Detached single-family development': Two (2) significant trees" for every five thousand (5,000) sq. ft. of lot area. For example, a lot with 9,600 square feet and a detached single-family house is required to have four (4) significant trees or their equivalent in caliper inches (one or more trees with o combined diameter of 24"}. This is determined with the Jo/lawing formula: ( Lot Area ) ----x 2 = Minimum NumberofTrees 5,000sq.ft. Multi-family development (attached dwellings): Four (4) significant trees8 for every five thousand (5,000) sq. ft. of lot area. ( LotArea ) ----X 4 5,000 sq.ft. Minimum Number of Trees Example Tree Density Table: Lot Lot size Min significant New Trees Retained Trees Compliant trees required 1 5,000 2 2@ 2" caliper 0 Yes 2 10,000 4 0 1 tree (24 caliper Yes inches) 3 15,000 6 2@ 2" caliper 1 Maple-15 Yes caliper inches 1 Fir -9 caliper inches. 7 lots developed with detached dwellings in the R-10 and R-14 zoned are exempt from maintaining a minimum number of significant trees onsite, however they are not exempt from the annual tree removal limits. ~ Or the gross equivalent of caliper inches provided by one (1) or more trees. 2 U :\PSO\Projects\Clients\1521-KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\02WBS\PH-A 2 Rivers\Shoreline CUP\ TreeRetentionWorksheet.docx 03/2015 Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Renton Permits NOTES ON TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees The site traverses a site of about 80 acres. We did not do a tree survey over the entire site We estimate 200 trees per acre, based on the tree density in a mature Pacific Northwest Forest from the following publications: Hardwoods of the Pacific Northwest, S.S. Niemiec, G.R. Ahrens, S. Willits, and D.E. Hibbs. 1995. Research Contribution 8. Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory http:/( owic. o regon state .edu/red-a Id er-a In us-ru bra Yield tables for managed stands of coast Douglas-fir Curtis, Robert 0.; Clendenen, Gary W.; Reukema, Donald L.; De Mars, Donald J. 1982. Yield tables for managed stands of coast Douglas- fir. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-135. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 182 p. l1ttp:ljwww.fsJ~_Q.JJ_§J'.Q1JYJ/'publications/pnw gtr135/pw.y_gtr.L!~J:><)_f Portions of the site have been cleared with limited tree cover, however this estimate is likely to be relatively accurate. 2. The deduction for 60 Critical Areas includes both wetlands and buffers. Wetlands have not been fully delineated, so this is a rough estimate. It is intended to be conservative. If wetlands and buffers are a greater percent of the sit, the number of trees required to be retained would be lower. 4. Trees that must be retained: The estimate of 2,400 was based on the maximum multiplier of .3. This is the tree count for the entire site outside Critical Areas, not just the portion within or near the trail corridor. 5. Trees proposed to be retained are all trees, minus 151 designated for removal= 7849 which is 98 percent of the trees on the non-critical portion of the site. 9. Tree replacement is proposed for all trees removed. Lake to Sound Regional Trail - Segment A LUA 15-000257 Public Hearing Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner February 16, 2016 EXHIBIT 4'3 ----1tenton0 City of Renton Zoning 02/16/2016 Approximate Location City of Renton Shoreline Overlay Project Description J Project Description Project Description N~~-~!~.~-~jr:ig~ -~-.f.l.~.~~~~~-t.i~~ .. '~-- ® Site Characteristics I!":\ ~ 02/16/2016 Project Description Trail Crossing at Monster Road ,., c.; ® Site Characteristics ® Site Characteristics 2 Approvals Requested • The application was accepted for review on April 17, 2015 & determined complete on June 18, 2015. • The City ordinances that governs the development of land within Shoreline Master Program up to and including adopted ORD 5633. • Staff received one agency comment during the 90 day comment period. • On January 11, 2016 the ERC issued a DNS-M with one mitigation measure. An appeal period commenced on January 15, 2016 and ended on January 29, 2016. No appeals of the threshold determination have been filed. • The applicant requests a Shoreline Substantial Develop~ ~:~:~t~:horeline Conditional Use Permit, and Shorelint\.& Analysis ompri' ,en...,e an omp a"""'~ ,ms stflnq: e proposa compl1esw1ththeatyComprehens1,,.,Planob1ect,vesandpol1c1es. •PallqSH-z&.lnplanningforl)Ublkaccess,emphasissllollldbeplaced on foot and bicycle paths consistent with the Rfllton 131cy(:le and Trails Mait>tr Plan, ratMr th1111 road~ o,i,,;,,pt in ar,,a,wheno public ho.it laur.chi°'wouklbedes,rable. •Pollqs.tt-,O;Tra1lishculdbedevelcl"'dtoenh""Ol!'Pubhct!flJOyment ofand•cce .. to!hesho,eliM" • Troil, w,thm 1he .no,elin. should be developed as an element ofnori- motomed drfulH,on, ol1ha-C1ty"s Parks, ReuHtlon al>CtOpen Spp,;;a andTra1!sartdBicydeMasterPlanandoftheSh<>f~inel'\oblkAccesi :i;:::,a,:,, !:'.,'~':,~;:: :::i:.h•! for low impact public physi.:111 •Troibshouldbedt!~elopedasanelementola~t<!mtl\atllnks 1ogethershorelmepubikaccess1ntoan1nterconnectednetwon. •Publicacceutoandalongthewater'sedgeshouldbelinkedw~ upland commun,cy fadllllesand Ille comp..,hen"ve trail, sy!llem that prostdesnor.-motcro<edaca,sthl<:lughwtlheC.ty. •l>.systemortrailsonsep,m,teright.olwayandpublicsllffl••hcukl bedeS1ftn<!dand1mplement..dtopru11idol1nkagesalong:Lhornlill<!S ~,,';.d~n~i~eb:;: w::t"::" l.Dop, the Ceda, ANer, 1he &lad Analysis 02/16/2016 Analysis CompreheMlvePlanCompllanceandConslstency:Theproposal comp lie, w~h the City Comprehens.ve Plan obJect1ves and pol1c1es •Olli-=tlvaYf..f'.lrn:rma"'JIUbllc1cceuib!litytos~hneslll1ilpreserve ol\dimprovethenaturalamenrties. •Pallcysft.ztr.Pl>blica.:.:.ssstloutdbeprovidedtooS1Stentwithtlle exl~ITT1characterofthe:Lhorellneandconsider.1tocnofcP90rtunitin andconstralntslorphysicalar,dvi-..,alaccess,asweUucomiden,lionol e,;olo1uca!funi::'t1cns,asprov1dedlnPoli"'1Stt.JlnbleofPubhcAcc:.w ObjlldillesbvAeKh,andinconillnCtionwiththefollowin1pol!des. •PolicySft.24.Publicll<:CeSSto•ndilkin1~wm,r,..igeshouldbe loca1ed,dMi5n..d,andmalntainedlnamannerll\atprotectsthellrtural enviror,mentandshorellneecologicalfUncttonsand~c011'as«!ntwitt, publlcsa~aswellncompa~withwatil!r-de~ndentuses. Prese.,,..ticno,impruvemen1of11w!naturalprocasse,shallbeobasii: comiderali0111nthede5lt!nofshon!line&l'l!ost,:,wluchpublicocco:wis pruvided,indud,ngtrailsvsn,ms.. Analysis mp ens,ve n p pos compliesw,ththeCityComprehenslvePlanobjectlvesandpolmes •Pol,:YSH--31:Tab~ofPubllcAcco:wObjectlvesbvAeach~•ndudedln theComprehensNePlantemnlc1lappendbl.ltoutilnesthepol1cy ob;ml~• fi:ir meintaimn1 and impl<:lvint public,.:,;@"" witllin the shon,l,ne.Applicatlonofpubltcaca,ssobjl!Clivesshouldbeconsider<!il ~ongwi1ho1he,ob1&C!lvesottheSho,elirieMon1pmentAct,suchas ecolog!calrestoration•ndpnorttyure,. • ShoNlimlTiechnkelA.ppendbl.B: 81ackAIW't"/5pnn8brook Rea~hA •~areiwe-1tofMonstffA<rnlprovldesnopublicaci:e,1,Publlc ph\lslcataccentromatrailpan,llel1othewatershouldbepro"'deda, pflva1elanm-ve1op.Pubhcag,,~actionstoimprovepublle acc,,u:Lhouldirn:ludea,::qui,<tionoftrailrlihtstoconnectthetnll $'/StemtoiheGreenAlvHTrallandR!rtOentl'llrt.~areawestcf MonsterAa;id11partoftheJ1UblklyownedBl,ckl4ve,fo,e!llwhare lnterpretivelfatl•e•istExpan,ronofpubltcaa:essshould<>ecuronJ;,if consistentwothecalogicatfunct,ons.lnterpr<!tivetrailsarepi-esentin theBlackRiverf-Orest.ExpansionotpublJCaccenshouldoccuronlyif cons,,t,n1w,thecok>B1calfunctfom..Alrail.-;rtemi•p•"'entonthe west "de ofl~e ,t,e.om &<1i.Ol!'nt 10th a s,,wag11 ue,,trnf!OI plant and sho111dberata,n..dandpossibt;,enhanced. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the "lake to Sound Regional Trail 4 Segment A", LUA154 000257, ECF, SSOP, S.-CUP, S-Vas depicted in Exhibit 37, subject to one condition of approval. 3 Maps and GIS Data -City of Renton' EXHIBIT 44 r ~ Print Frlendlv Version Mapping Applications Launch COR Maps COR Maps is an interactive map that allows you to search for Renton-area information and create custom maps which include aerial photos, property boundaries, location of utility services, and much more. DISCLAIMER: All data, information, and maps are provided ''as is" without waffanty or any representation of accuracy, timeliness of completeness. The burden for determining accuracy, completeness, timeliness, merchantability and fitness for or the appropriateness for use rests solely on the user. The City of Renton makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the use of the infonnation obtained here. The user acknowledges and accepts all limitations, i'nc/uding the f.act that the data, information, and maps are dynamic and in a constant state of maintenance, correction and update. Use of these materials constitutes acceptance of this disdaimer of liability. http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=29886 Page I of I 02/16/2016