Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Critical_Areas_ Report_and_ Mitigation_Plan_250509_v1 Mark Raabe Renton, Washington Prepared By: Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Woodinville, Washington 5 May 2025 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page i Report To: Mark Raabe 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA 98178 Report Title: Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA 98178 King County Tax Parcel (214480-0535) Project Number: EE-532 Prepared By: Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. 18500 156th Ave NE, Suite 203, Woodinville, WA 98072 ______________________________ Emily Newton-Weideman, Ecologist ______________________________ Kellen Maloney, PWS Date: 5 May 2025 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Lists of Figures, Photos, Tables, and Appendices ................................................ ii 1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Report Purpose .............................................................................. 1 1.2 Limitations ..................................................................................... 1 2. General Property Description and Land Use .................................... 1 2.1 Project Location ............................................................................ 1 2.2 General Property Description and Historic Land Use ............... 1 3. Methodology ......................................................................................... 2 3.1 Field Investigation Procedures .................................................... 2 3.1.1 Routine Methodology ..................................................................... 2 4. Results .................................................................................................. 3 4.1 Analysis of Existing Site Conditions ........................................... 3 4.2 Stream 1 ......................................................................................... 4 4.3 Wetland A ....................................................................................... 4 4.4 Wetland B ....................................................................................... 4 5. Proposed Project .................................................................................. 5 6. Impacts Analysis and Critical Areas Functional Analysis .............. 6 6.1 Proposed Critical Areas Impacts ................................................. 6 6.2 Temporary Impacts ....................................................................... 7 6.3 Permanent Buffer Impacts ........................................................... 7 6.4 Critical Areas Functional Analysis .............................................. 7 6.5 Impacts on Stream and Wetland Buffers ................................... 8 7. Proposed Buffer Reductions ............................................................... 9 7.1 Stream Buffer Reduction .............................................................. 9 7.2 Wetland Buffer Reduction .......................................................... 10 8. Mitigation Plan .................................................................................. 12 8.1 Agency Policies and Guidance .................................................... 12 8.2 Mitigation Sequencing ................................................................ 12 8.3 Buffer Enhancement Plan ........................................................... 13 8.4 Toxic Vehicle Debris Removal .................................................... 14 8.5 Critical Areas Fencing and Signage ........................................... 14 8.6 Silt Fencing................................................................................... 14 8.7 Temporary Irrigation System ..................................................... 14 9. Monitoring Plan ................................................................................. 15 9.1 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards ... 15 9.2 Mitigation Monitoring Reports ................................................. 16 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page iii 10. Mitigation Construction Management ........................................... 16 10.1 Restoration and Enhancement Construction Sequencing ..... 16 10.2 Mitigation Approval .................................................................... 17 10.3 Maintenance and Contingency Plan ......................................... 17 11. Summary ............................................................................................ 18 12. References .......................................................................................... 19 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page iv List of Figures Figure 1: Existing Conditions Map Figure 2: Site Plan and Impacts Overview Figure 3: Mitigation Overview Figure 4: Enhancement Planting Plan Figure 5: Planting Specifications Figure 6: Planting Details Figures are located between the references page and the Appendices. List of Appendices Appendix A: Wetland Determination Datasheets Appendix B: Wetland Rating Forms Appendix C: Corps Antecedent Precipitation Tool Appendix D: Landscape Plan Appendix E: Bond Quantity Worksheet List of Tables Table 1: Critical Areas Summary Table Table 2: Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Summary Table. Table 3: Projected Schedule for Performance Monitoring 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Report Purpose Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. was retained to prepare a Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan for the property located at 8225 South 132nd Street in the City of Renton (King County Tax Parcel 214480-0535). As part of this assessment, we evaluated critical areas (i.e. wetlands and streams) within 250 feet of this parcel. These properties are referred to jointly as the “Site”, and the area within 250 feet of the Project Site is referred to as the “Study Area”. This report has been prepared to comply with the requirements of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) §4-3-050 – Critical Areas Regulations, and RMC § 4-3-050L – Mitigation Plan. 1.2 Limitations This report and the information provided herein was prepared per the guidance of the best available science and technical guidance documents available during the time of report preparation. The findings, discussions, and conclusions made in this report are based on the best professional judgement of the author(s) and field technicians available during the Site evaluation. All project work was limited by the scope, budget, and timing requirements of the project. The findings and conclusions provided in this report are subject to confirmation by applicable Local, State, and Federal agencies, depending on the scope of the project. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 2. General Property Description and Land Use 2.1 Project Location The Site is composed of one King County parcel (Tax Parcel 214480-0535) located at 8225 South 132nd Street in Renton in King County, hereafter referred to as “Project Site” or “Site”. The Site is located within the northeastern quarter of Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 04 East, of the Willamette Meridian. 2.2 General Property Description and Historic Land Use The Site is comprised of one adjacent undeveloped residentially zoned parcel (R-14) which is 0.61- acres. The Site is bordered to the north by South 132nd Street, and to the south, west, and east by developed single-family residence parcels. The Site is entirely vegetated with maintained lawn species and riparian areas that consist of mixed deciduous and coniferous species and relatively dense underlying shrub stratum. Vegetation Vegetation within the Study Area is grouped into two communities: maintained lawn and ornamental species associated with the surrounding residential developments, and a mixed riparian coniferous and deciduous forest species with relatively dense underlying scrub shrub and herbaceous strata. 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 2 The Site contains areas of maintained lawn and invasive herbaceous species associated with its central and northern portions while the southern portions of the Site consist of native and non- native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species. Observed vegetation onsite includes, but is not limited to: Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), red alder (Alnus rubra), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus bifrons), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), salal (Gaultheria shallon), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), curly dock (Rumex crispus), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) piggyback plant (Tolmiea menziesii), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus). Topography Topography onsite is sloped downwards to the south with the lowest elevation within the boundary of a stream at 204 feet and the highest elevation in within the northeastern corner of the Site at 236 feet. 3. Methodology 3.1 Field Investigation Procedures 3.1.1 Routine Methodology A critical areas delineation was conducted by Eastside Environmental Pros on 13 November 2024. Wetland delineations utilized the routine approach described in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Corps 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010) (referred to as “Corps Manual”) and the stream OHWM determined using the Washington State Department of Ecology’s publication, Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Compliance in Washington State (2016). Waterbodies were classified based on the water classification system according to WAC §222-16-30 per RMC §4-3-050(G)(7) and their buffers per RMC §4-3-050(G)(2). Wetlands were rated according to RMC §4-3-050(G)(9) and their buffers established per RMC §4-3-050(G)(9)(d). Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist 2018). Taxonomic nomenclature was updated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Wetland Plant List (2022). Wetland classes were determined per the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FGDC, 2013). Hydrophytic vegetation was determined using the standard procedures described in the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regional Supplement, which requires use of the dominance test, except when positive indicators of wetland hydrology and hydric soils are met, in which case the prevalence index or alternative indicators of hydrophytic vegetation may also be required. Wetland hydrology was determined based on the presence of hydrologic indicators listed in the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regional supplement. Hydrology indicators include both Primary Indicators and Secondary Indicators. To meet the definition of wetland hydrology, one 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 3 Primary Indicator or two Secondary Indicators must be observed. Examples of wetland hydrology indicators include, but are not limited to: drainage patterns drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, stream gauge data and flood predictions, historic records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. Soil test pits were excavated to a depth of at least 20 inches below the soil surface to categorize and describe soil and hydrologic conditions within the Study Area. Soils on the Site were considered hydric if one or more of the hydric soil indicators listed in the Corps Regional Supplement were present. Examples of hydric soil indicators include: presence of organic soils, reduced matrix, depleted or gleyed soils, or, redoximorphic features in association with a reduced soil matrix. Soil colors were determined using the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell Color 2009). Appendix A contains wetland determination datasheets prepared by Eastside Environmental Pros for representative locations within the Study Area. These datasheets document vegetation, soils, and hydrology characteristics. Appendix B contains wetland rating forms used to categorize wetland(s) within the Study Area. Climatic conditions were evaluated through the Army Corps of Engineers Antecedent Precipitation Tool application (Appendix C). Climatic conditions during the Site visit were drier than normal. Photos are located at the end of the report, before the Figures section. 4. Results 4.1 Analysis of Existing Site Conditions One (1) intermittent watercourse (Stream 1) and one (1) wetland (Wetland A) were identified onsite, and one (1) wetland (Wetland B) was identified offsite during the 13 November 2024 Site visit. Additionally, some protected slopes have been mapped by the City of Renton’s GIS mapper (CORMaps) and their extents are depicted within Figure 1. No other critical areas were found within the Study Area. These features are described below in Table 1. Table 1. Critical Areas Summary Table. Critical Area Category & Habitat Score / Type HGM / Cowardin Class Standard Buffer* Stream 1 Type Ns N/A 50 feet Wetland A (17-sf, 0.0004-ac) Category IV/ Habitat Score 4 Slope/ Scrub-shrub 50 feet Wetland B (2,626-sf, 0.06-ac) Category III/ Habitat Score 5 Riverine/ Emergent, Scrub-shrub 100 feet *Buildings and other structures shall be set back 15-feet from the edges of all critical area buffers per RMC §4-3-050(G)(2). 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 4 4.2 Stream 1 Stream 1 flows eastward through the southern portion of the Site (Photo 1). This watercourse’s banks can generally be described as degraded based on the presence of garbage along its northern bank and the prevalence of invasive species. The southern bank of Stream 1 is stabilized by a retaining wall of used car tires, and removal of this debris with the addition of slope stabilizing vegetation could be an option for enhancement. This watercourse is mapped by the City of Renton as a Type Ns watercourse. Additionally, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) identifies upstream and downstream fish barriers (Photo 2). Therefore, this watercourse qualifies as a Type Ns watercourse per the Interim Water Typing System (WAC 222-16-031) and requires a 50-foot buffer plus a 15-foot building setback per RMC §4-3-050(G)(2). 4.3 Wetland A Wetland A is a small, approximately 17-sf wetland located on the northern bank of Stream 1 (Photo 3). Wetland A has slope hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification (Brinson, 1993), with Palustrine scrub-shrub Cowardin classification (Cowardin et al., 1979). Vegetation identified within Wetland A includes Himalayan blackberry (Rubus bifrons), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia), English ivy (Hedera helix), and creeping nightshade (Solanum dulcamara). Hydrology in Wetland A is supported primarily by groundwater seeps. Primary hydrology indicators Saturation (A3) and High-Water Table (A2) were identified during the 13 November 2024 Site evaluation. Soils within Wetland A are characterized by a very dark brown (10YR 2/2) loam textured soil layer from 0-6 inches. This is underlain by a dark gray (10YR 4/1) and a very dark brown (10YR 2/2) loamy mixed matrix with yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) prominent redox concentrations from 6-16+ inches. These characteristics meet the Depleted Matrix (F3) hydric soil indicator. Wetland A scored 6 points for improving water quality functions, 5 points for hydrologic functions, and 4 points for habitat functions through the 2014 Wetland Rating Form. These scores total 15 points and qualify Wetland A as a Category IV wetland. Category IV wetlands with a habitat score of 4 require a standard 50-foot buffer, plus a 15-foot building setback measured from the edge of the critical area buffer per RMC §4-3-050(G)(2). 4.4 Wetland B Wetland B is approximately 2,626-sf (0.06-acres) and is located entirely offsite to the east of Stream 1 (Photo 4). Wetland B has riverine hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification (Brinson, 1993), with Palustrine emergent and scrub-shrub Cowardin classifications (Cowardin et al., 1979). Wetland B scored 8 points for improving water quality functions, 6 points for hydrologic functions, and 5 points for habitat functions through the 2014 Wetland Rating Form. These scores total 19 points and qualify Wetland B as a Category III wetland. Category III wetlands with a 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 5 habitat score of 5 require a standard 100-foot buffer, plus a 15-foot building setback measured from the edge of the critical area buffer per RMC §4-3-050(G)(2). 5. Proposed Project The applicant proposes to construct five townhomes, along with associated access driveways, an underground detention tank, a rounded rock outfall pad, manhole, gravel access maintenance road, trail, and vegetated community area (Figure 2). The proposed structural development areas are located entirely outside of wetlands and streams; however, to accommodate this project, a reduction in degraded wetland and stream buffer areas is necessary in accordance with RMC 4- 3-050I(2) and 4-3-050I(3). These temporary and permanent impacts to these critical area buffers and how they are proposed to be minimized and compensated for are outlined in the following sections of this report. Trail Per RMC 4-3-050C(4)(1) trails may be allowed by the technical administrator within critical area buffers on private properties. The City may allow private trails as part of the approval of a Site Plan provided the following criteria are met: b. Trails and walkways shall be located in the outer twenty five percent (25%) of the buffer, i.e., the portion of the buffer that is farther away from the critical area. Exceptions to this requirement may be made for: The trail has been situated 75 feet away from Wetland B’s boundary, which is within the outer 25% of the critical area buffer; thereby meeting this requirement. c. Enhancement of the buffer area is required where trails are located in the buffer. Where enhancement of the buffer area abutting a trail is not feasible due to existing high quality vegetation, additional buffer area or other mitigation may be required. Areas surrounding the trail are proposed to be enhanced within the vegetated community area and to its south, as shown in Figure 2. These areas will be planted with native vegetation, thereby meeting this requirement. d. Trail widths shall be a maximum width of twelve feet (12'). Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials which protect water quality, allow adequate surface water and ground water movements, do not contribute to erosion, are located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding, and rearing areas, and designed to avoid or reduce the removal of trees. Impervious materials may be allowed if pavement is required for handicapped or emergency access, or safety, or is a designated nonmotorized transportation route or makes a connection to an already dedicated trail, or reduces potential for other environmental impacts. 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 6 The trail has been designed to be 12 feet wide at its greatest width and to be construction of permeable paving to allow water to infiltrate into the ground. These areas are not anticipated to contribute to erosion and are not located within nesting, breeding or rearing areas and has been designed to avoid the removal of tree areas. e. Any crossing over a stream or wetland shall be generally perpendicular to the critical area and shall be accomplished by bridging or other technique designed to minimize critical area disturbance. It shall also be the minimum width necessary to accommodate the intended function or objective. No stream or wetland crossings are proposed as part of this trail; therefore, this criterion is not applicable. Exempt Activities New surface water discharges, such as rock outfall pads, are permitted within the outer 25% of a Category III wetland or stream buffer when no feasible alternative exists and when the installation will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland or stream, per RMC 4-3- 050C(9). The proposed structure is located approximately 48 feet from the boundary of Wetland A, representing a 4% reduction in the standard buffer width, and approximately 93 feet from Wetland B, representing a 7% buffer reduction. Both locations fall well within the allowable threshold for such encroachments. Moreover, these areas are proposed to be revegetated and surrounding buffer areas enhanced under the Site’s mitigation plan, which is expected to increase overall buffer function and further support the allowance (Figure 3). In addition, modifications to existing regional stormwater management facilities—such as the installation of a manhole to provide access and maintenance for existing City surface water infrastructure—are considered exempt activities within wetland and stream buffers per RMC 4- 3-050C(10). These activities are permitted provided they are designed in accordance with the most current version of the Washington State Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual or an equivalent standard. Further details regarding this structure and its installation are provided in the civil engineering plans and accompanying drainage report. 6. Impacts Analysis and Critical Areas Functional Analysis 6.1 Proposed Critical Areas Impacts The project will result in 2,247-sf of total critical area buffer impacts, including temporary clearing, permanent impacts, and buffer reduction within the buffers of Wetland A, Wetland B, and Stream 1. To offset these impacts, 2,247-sf of buffer enhancement is proposed, at a 1:1 enhancement ratio. Enhancement areas include 529-sf of temporary buffer impact restoration, 32- sf permanent buffer impact, and 1,686-sf of permanent buffer reduction. To compensate for the these impacts, 506-sf of area is proposed to be restored for the temporary buffer impacts and 1,741-sf of buffer enhancement area is proposed in accordance with RMC 4-3-050I(2) and RMC 4- 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 7 3-050I(3). These impacts are outlined below in Table 2, with the proposed enhancement methods outlined in Section 7 of this report. 6.2 Temporary Impacts A total of 529-sf of temporary buffer impacts will occur due to construction clearing and grading activities associated with the proposed gravel maintenance road, detention pond, and the pipe installation for the rounded rock outfall pad (Figure 2). These areas will be enhanced after construction as outlined in Section 8 of this report, which includes removing invasive species, replanting with native vegetation suited to Site conditions per Figures 3-5 located at the end of this report. These mitigation efforts will ensure that temporary disturbances are minimized and compensated for, allowing the buffer areas to recover and maintain their ecological functions. 6.3 Permanent Buffer Impacts A total of 32-sf of permanent degraded buffer impact will result from the installation of the rock outfall pad in an area already heavily degraded by English ivy and Himalayan blackberry. Given the existing poor buffer conditions, compensation for these impacts will be provided through adjacent buffer enhancement as described in Section 8. Table 2: Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Summary Table. Critical Areas Impact Type Total Area Temporary Buffer Impacts (sf) 529-sf Permanent Buffer Impact (sf) 32-sf Permanent Buffer Reduction (sf) 1,686-sf Total Critical Areas Impacts (sf) 2,247-sf Restoration of Temporary Impacts 506-sf Buffer Enhancement (sf) 1,741-sf Total Enhancement Ratio 1:1 Total Enhancement (sf) 2,247-sf *The wetland and stream buffer impact areas overlap; therefore, for simplicity, the temporary impacts, permanent impacts, and permanent buffer reduction areas have been combined. The same approach was used to calculate the total enhancement area. 6.4 Critical Areas Functional Analysis This analysis will cover Wetland A, its buffer, Wetland B's buffer, and the buffer along Stream 1. We will examine the ecological functions of each area, focusing on how invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry and English laurel impact their effectiveness. In particular, the role of these buffers in water filtration, erosion control, and habitat provision will be discussed. Recommendations for improving these areas through invasive species removal and native vegetation restoration will also be addressed. 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 8 Stream 1 Buffer Functional Analysis The stream buffer is currently degraded due to invasive species, erosion-prone slopes, and exposure to 6PPD-quinone from automotive tires. Dominant invasives such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus bifrons), English ivy (Hedera helix), and English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) outcompete native vegetation, reduces biodiversity, and diminishes foraging and shelter opportunities for potential adjacent wildlife. Slopes protected under RMC §4-3-050(G) face varying levels of erosion risk, exacerbated by the absence of deep-rooted native plants, leading to increased sediment runoff and degraded water quality. Additionally, sections of the southern bank are lined with tires, introducing 6PPD-quinone, a highly toxic chemical that poses acute mortality risks to coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and persists in water and sediment (Lo et al. 2023). The combined impact of invasive species and tire-based bank stabilization has significantly compromised buffer conditions, highlighting the need for restoration, ongoing monitoring, and maintenance. Wetland A and Wetland A’s Buffer Functional Analysis Wetland A is a slope wetland dominated by the invasive Himalayan blackberry, and adjacent to Stream 1. While it lacks inundation capacity due to its topographic position, Wetland A and its buffer play an important role in slowing surface water flows, reducing erosion, and protecting water quality. The dense root systems of scrub shrub species, though mainly invasive, help to stabilize soil and filter runoff. However, its lack of biodiversity limits its habitat value. Despite these limitations, Wetland A and its buffer still provide some protection to the adjacent stream by filtering sediment and pollutants. To enhance its ecological functions, invasive species removal and replanting with native vegetation would be required to improve habitat, water filtration, and erosion control. Wetland B Buffer Functional Analysis Wetland B is a riverine wetland that primarily receives its hydrology from Stream 1, providing some inundation capacity during high precipitation and flow events. Located offsite to the east, Wetland B's buffer extends onsite and is heavily impacted by invasive species, including Himalayan blackberry and English laurel, which dominate large portions of both Wetland B’s and Stream 1’s buffer. Similar to the limited functions of Wetland A and its buffer, these invasive plants reduce the buffer’s ability to perform key ecological functions such as water filtration, erosion control, and habitat provision. To improve Wetland B’s ecological value, removing invasive species and replanting native vegetation in the buffer is essential to enhance water quality, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat. 6.5 Impacts on Stream and Wetland Buffers The proposed project will result in both temporary and permanent impacts to the onsite degraded stream and wetland buffers. Permanent impacts include the removal of existing vegetation within the reduced buffer areas, which will eliminate some localized ecological functions such as habitat provision, water filtration, and erosion control. This will also increase impervious surfaces near critical areas which could alter surface water runoff patterns. Temporary impacts will occur 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 9 during construction, potentially disturbing soil and vegetation in buffer areas. However, these short-term effects will be mitigated through implementing the replanting of native vegetation and removing toxic vehicular debris from the southern bank of Stream 1. Despite these impacts by reducing the buffer, the project is expected to result in an overall ecological benefit due to the proposed buffer enhancements at a 1:1 ratio. The removal of invasive species in these enhancement areas —including Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, and any English laurel—this will reduce competition with native plants and improve biodiversity and provide preferred habitat to small mammals and birds. Additionally, the removal of tires along the southern bank of Stream 1 will eliminate a source of 6PPD-quinone, a toxic chemical harmful to aquatic life. Replanting with native vegetation will further enhance ecological functions by stabilizing soil, improving water quality through nutrient absorption and pollutant filtration, and increasing habitat availability for native wildlife and pollinators. 7. Proposed Buffer Reductions 7.1 Stream Buffer Reduction Some stream buffer reductions are required to accommodate the per RMC 4-3-050I(2) degraded stream buffers may be reduced with enhancement. A reduced stream buffer will be approved in a degraded stream buffer only if: i. It will provide an overall improvement in water quality; and This enhancement plan is anticipated to improve water quality in the stream and its buffer by removing invasive species and replacing them with deep-rooted native vegetation which will enhance water quality and hydrologic functions. Additionally, the removal of tires from the southern bank will eliminate a source of 6PPD-quinone, a toxic chemical harmful to aquatic life. ii. It will provide an overall enhancement to fish, wildlife, or their habitat; and By replacing invasive species with native vegetation these enhancement areas will provide better foraging, sheltering, and nesting opportunities for wildlife. The removal of tires and associated pollutants will improve water quality, benefiting all aquatic species. The native planting will also increase plant biodiversity to support pollinators and other wildlife. iii. It will provide a net improvement in drainage and/or stormwater detention capabilities; and This plan will improve drainage and stormwater detention by re-establishing native vegetation, which enhances soil stability and reduces erosion. The restoration of vegetated buffers will increase the capacity to absorb and filter runoff, reducing surface water flow and improving overall stormwater management in the area. 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 10 iv. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property or the City as a whole; and This plan has been designed to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed development through buffer enhancements and is not anticipated to be detrimental to other properties or the City of Renton, as a whole. This plan is anticipated to increase overall functions and values of critical areas and their buffer areas. v. It will provide all exposed areas with stabilized native vegetation, as appropriate; and The plan has been designed to encourage stabilization for any exposed areas within the enhancement area to be revegetated with native vegetation. This will ensure that soil erosion is minimized and these enhancement areas will provide long-term ecological benefits through the establishment of deep-rooted plants suited to the local environment. vi. The request is not made in conjunction with buffer reduction, and This request is not being made in conjunction with further buffer reductions, as the proposed actions are focused on enhancing and restoring the existing buffers to improve ecological functions. vii. It will provide, as part of the buffer reduction request, buffer enhancement plan prepared by a qualified professional and fund a review of the plan by the City’s consultant. The plan shall assess habitat, water quality, stormwater detention, groundwater recharge, shoreline protection, and erosion protection functions of the buffer; assess the effects of the proposed modification on those functions; and address the six (6) criteria listed above. This plan includes a buffer enhancement plan prepared by a qualified professional, which will be reviewed by the City’s consultant. This plan will evaluate the buffer’s functions related to habitat, water quality, stormwater detention, groundwater recharge, shoreline protection, and erosion control, while assessing the impacts of the proposed modifications. It will also address the six criteria outlined above to ensure comprehensive improvements. 7.2 Wetland Buffer Reduction Additionally, per RMC 4-3-050I(3) degraded wetland buffers may be reduced with enhancement. Per RMC, wetland buffer widths shall be reduced by no more than 25% of the buffer required in subsection G of this Section. i. The reduced buffer will function at a higher level than the standard buffer; and The reduced buffer will be enhanced by removing invasive species, replanting with native vegetation, and eliminating toxic debris in its buffer, located along the southern bank of Stream 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 11 1. This will improve biodiversity, stabilize soil to reduce erosion, and enhance water filtration, resulting in a higher-functioning buffer than the existing degraded condition. ii. An enhanced buffer shall never be less than seventy five percent (75%) of the standard width at its narrowest point; and The enhanced buffer has maintained at least 75% of its standard buffer width at its narrowest point as depicted in Figures 2 and 3. iii. The buffer area has less than fifteen percent (15%) slopes and no direct or indirect, short-term or long- term, adverse impacts to regulated wetlands, as determined by the City, and The entire wetland enhancement buffer area has been situated in areas containing slopes that are less than 15% as outlined in Figures 2 and 3. iv. The proposal shall rely upon a site-specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science (Ecology Publication No. 05-06-006, March 2005) and Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands (Ecology Publication No. 04-06-008, April 2005), or similar approaches; and A Site-specific evaluation has been conducted to assess current buffer functions and values of Wetlands A and B, following guidance from the Department of Ecology’s Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science and Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands. This evaluation included an analysis of buffer conditions, existing vegetation, hydrology, and habitat functions, identifying key impacts such as invasive species dominance, erosion risks, and reduced biodiversity. Based on these findings, enhancement measures were designed to improve buffer functions, including removing invasive species, replanting with native vegetation, stabilizing slopes, and improving water filtration and habitat quality. These actions align with Washington State's goal of achieving no overall net loss in the acreage and function of wetlands, as established in Executive Order 89-10. v. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; and The proposed buffer standard is based on the best available science as outlined in WAC 365-195- 905, which requires scientifically sound methods for protecting critical areas. This project incorporates site-specific assessments of ecological functions, hydrology, and habitat conditions to guide the implementation of buffer enhancements. 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 12 8. Mitigation Plan 8.1 Agency Policies and Guidance The City of Renton requires a mitigation plan through enhancement of the degraded buffers of Stream 1, Wetland A, and Wetland B in order to qualify for reduced buffer widths to accommodate this proposed development. This mitigation plan has been prepared accordance with RMC §4-3-050L. 8.2 Mitigation Sequencing To address potential impacts to critical areas, the project incorporates strategies to avoid, minimize, and compensate for any losses in buffer functions in accordance with RMC §4-3- 050L(1)(b). These measures are designed to ensure that the project maintains ecological integrity while accommodating necessary development. Avoidance The project has been designed to avoid direct impacts to wetlands and streams by situating all development, including townhomes, driveways, and stormwater infrastructure, outside of these critical areas. To accomplish this, a Site visit was conducted by Eastside Environmental Pros to establish all locations of critical areas and their buffer widths prior finalizing Site plans. By designing the Site layout to remain outside of these critical areas to the maximum extent practicable, the project ensures that no direct encroachment occurs, preserving the most sensitive areas. Minimize This project does require the reduction of degraded buffer areas through enhancement while demonstrating compliance with the subsections within RMC 4-3-050I(2) and 4-3-050I(3). Temporary impacts during construction will be minimized through the installation of silt fencing around the proposed grading limits outlined in the following Section 8.5 to prevent any mobilized sediment from entering critical areas or impacting additional buffer areas. Additionally, this enhancement is projected to increase the currently degraded buffer functions to ensure that the reductions in buffer widths do not compromise ecological integrity. Compensation To compensate for buffer reductions, this project includes a robust buffer enhancement plan that aims to restore ecological functions through invasive species removal, native vegetation replanting, and critical areas fencing and signage installation. The proposed enhancement area exceeds the impacted area at a 1:1 ratio, ensuring no net loss of buffer function. These areas are proposed to be monitored for a period of 5 years to ensure its overall success. These improvements are anticipated to enhance water filtration, reduce erosion, increase habitat diversity, and eliminate pollutants such as 6PPD-quinone from tire debris, ultimately resulting in a net gain in ecological function. 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 13 8.3 Buffer Enhancement Plan The applicant proposes to mitigate temporary and permanent buffer impacts within the reduced buffer areas by removing invasive vegetation and replanting native species. The selected plant species were chosen based on their success in adjacent areas, compatibility with soil type, water availability, sunlight exposure, and ability to reduce slope erosion. The enhancement species include big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor), tall Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), red flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and salal (Gaultheria shallon). These plantings will follow the specifications and layouts detailed in Figures 3-5. The enhancement areas currently contain significant amounts of invasive species, such as Himalayan blackberry and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), which will be removed, including the grubbing of root balls, before replanting. A three-inch layer of mulch will be applied across the entire enhancement area. To support plant establishment, the plantings will be irrigated via a temporary irrigation system capable of providing ½ inch of water to each plant at least twice per week from July 1st to October 31st. Vegetated Community Area The future vegetated community area is a portion of the proposed Buffer Enhancement Area located adjacent to the proposed trail and has been designed separately by the project Architect, in accordance with RMC 4-3-050L – Mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements (Appendix D). The stream and wetland buffer areas onsite in their current conditions are generally considered to be disturbed due to historic maintenance and large presence of invasive species (i.e. bull thistle and Himalayan blackberry). These conditions have reduced plant community diversity, habitat complexity, these areas have a limited ability to perform essential buffer functions such as pollutant filtration, erosion control, and wildlife support. To improve these conditions, the project proposes to plant a variety of native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers within the vegetated community area and surrounding portions of the buffer which are depicted and quantified in Appendix D and E. These plantings are intended to reestablish a multi-layered native vegetation structure, which will provide a range of ecological benefits. By increasing plant diversity and vegetation cover, the enhanced area will better filter runoff, stabilize soils, and provide shade that helps regulate temperature near the stream and wetland. Additionally, the use of native species supports local wildlife and discourages the spread of invasive species. The introduction of high-quality native vegetation will also promote habitat diversity by creating a range of microhabitats suitable for birds, amphibians, pollinators, and other native species. Over time, the enhanced buffer is expected to function as an ecologically connected corridor, improving the overall integrity of the stream and wetland ecosystem. These enhancements are consistent with the goals of buffer restoration as outlined in local critical areas regulations and state-level guidance, which recognize native planting and structural improvements as valid forms of ecological uplift in degraded buffer areas. 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 14 8.4 Toxic Vehicle Debris Removal A portion of the southern bank of Stream 1 is currently lined with tires along its OHWM which poses a significant environmental threat due to their chemical content. These tires contain 6PPD- quinone, a toxic byproduct of tire wear that has been identified as a "forever chemical," meaning it persists in the environment indefinitely. 6PPD-quinone has been shown to cause acute toxicity to salmon species, particularly coho salmon, by impairing their ability to survive in the waters, thereby negatively impacting the overall health of the watershed (Lo et al. 2023). As part of the overall buffer enhancement plan, the removal of these tires is an important mitigation measure. By eliminating this toxic source, water quality will improve significantly, reducing contamination levels in Stream 1. The removal of these materials will restore habitat for amphibians and downstream fish, providing a cleaner, safer environment for both aquatic and terrestrial species. In turn, this will help support biodiversity, improve water filtration, and enhance overall ecological functions within the watershed. 8.5 Critical Areas Fencing and Signage Three-board, split rail critical areas fencing and signage will be installed along the post- construction buffer, at the edge of a gravel maintenance road and trail along the southern boundary of the development (Figure 3). These installations will clearly define the post- construction critical areas buffers and prevent unauthorized human interference. This protective measure will serve as a long-term deterrent against anthropogenic influences that could degrade the ecological functions of these areas. By establishing signage and physical barriers, this will help to minimize human encroachment, prevent unauthorized vegetation clearing or dumping, and reduce potential soil compaction that could alter hydrology. Additionally, strategically placed critical areas signage will reinforce awareness by informing the public and property users of the environmental sensitivity of these areas. Together, these measures will help preserve the integrity of the critical area buffer, ensuring that its ecological functions and values remain intact over time. 8.6 Silt Fencing Temporary silt fencing is proposed to be installed along the proposed work limits to prevent mobilized sediment from entering Stream 1, Wetland A, and Wetland B during construction activities (Figure 2). This temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) method will help trap any disturbed soil and debris, reducing the risk of sedimentation in adjacent critical areas. By stabilizing this along the work limits, silt fencing will protect water quality, minimize habitat disruption, and prevent excess runoff from entering wetlands and the stream, ensuring that construction-related impacts are effectively mitigated. 8.7 Temporary Irrigation System An above ground temporary irrigation system will be provided for the buffer enhancement areas. The temporary irrigation system shall either utilize controller and point of connection (POC) from 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 15 the Site irrigation system or shall include a separate POC and controller with a backflow prevention device per water jurisdiction inspection and approval. The system shall be zoned to provide optimal pressure and uniformity of coverage. The system shall be operational by June 15 (or at time of planting) and winterized by October 15. Irrigation shall be provided for the 5-year monitoring period. The irrigation system shall be programmed to provide 1/2" of water two times per week (one cycle with two start times per week or every three days). In addition to the temporary irrigation system, a soil moisture retention agent will be incorporated into the backfill of planting pits to minimize the potential for plant mortality in the restoration areas. 9. Monitoring Plan 9.1 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The overall goal of this mitigation plan is to enhance the ecological functions of the wetland and wetland buffer to offset the impacts associated with the proposed development area. The enhancement area will be monitored for a period of 5 years per RMC §4-3-050L(3). Performance monitoring and maintenance reviews will be scheduled according to Table 3. A Baseline assessment will be provided to the City in Fall of Year 1 and a final performance monitoring report will be submitted to the City in Fall of Year 5. Table 3. Projected Schedule for Performance Monitoring Year Season Maintenance Review Performance Monitoring Report Due to Agencies 0 Fall 2025 X X BA1 1 Spring 2026 Fall 2026 X X X 2 Spring 2027 Fall 2027 X X X 3 Spring 2028 Fall 2028 X X X 4 Spring 2029 Fall 2029 X 5 Spring 2030 Fall 2030 X X X2 1 BA = Planting as-built to be completed after installation. Baseline Assessment to be completed after mitigation approval by the City and annual monitoring reports will be submitted starting Fall 2026, after one full growing season. 2 Obtain final approval from the City of Renton (presumes performance criteria are met). Objective A: Ensure Long-Term Survival and Maintenance of Planted Vegetation 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 16 Performance Standard A1: The mitigation area will have 100% survival during the Year 1 Performance Monitoring Site Visit. At least 80% of newly planted trees and vegetation must survive in subsequent years, with 80% total survival by the end of Year 5. Objective B: Control and Limit Invasive and Non-Native Species Performance Standard B1: No more than 10% cover of non-native or invasive species (e.g., Himalayan blackberry, Japanese knotweed, Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, Scots broom, morning glory, etc.) is permissible in any monitoring year. Upon completion of mitigation plantings, the City of Renton will be notified for an initial Site review to confirm compliance with these standards. The mitigation area will be monitored and maintained for five (5) years, with monitoring reports provided to the City in accordance with Table 3 to confirm compliance with the enhancement area's performance standards. 9.2 Mitigation Monitoring Reports Monitoring reports will meet the requirements of RMC 4-3-050L(3) and will include key elements necessary for assessing the success of the mitigation efforts. These reports will provide a comprehensive project overview, and outline report requirements and performance monitoring criteria. Additionally, they will evaluate vegetation establishment and assess water quality and stormwater conveyance to ensure compliance with mitigation goals. The monitoring period will extend for a minimum of five (5) years or until the City accepts the mitigation as complete. 10. Mitigation Construction Management 10.1 Restoration and Enhancement Construction Sequencing Prior to the start of work, a surveyor will stake out the work limits to ensure no additional critical area buffer impacts occur. After construction has been completed, the enhancement plan will be sequenced to ensure the success and completion of the project. The following list of activities will be completed in sequence or concurrently as the project progresses: 1. Conduct a meeting with involved parties; the landscape contractor, Eastside Environmental Pros, and the Owner and/or Owner’s representative. This meeting will discuss the enhancement and restoration plan, staging and stockpile areas, and disposal areas; 2. The installation of the temporary silt fencing along the edge of the surveyed work limits; 3. Removal of the tire debris along the southern bank of Stream 1; 4. The hand removal and grubbing of invasive Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, and bull thistle throughout the enhancement area; 5. Installation of the native plant species per Figures 4 and 5 located at the end of this report; 6. Spreading a 3-inch layer of mulch over the enhancement area; 7. Installation of critical areas fencing and signage; 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 17 8. Installing a temporary irrigation system consistent with Section 8.6 of this report; 9. Removal of the silt fencing after enhancement efforts are completed. 10.2 Mitigation Approval Upon completion of restoration area construction, Eastside Environmental Pros will notify the City of Renton in writing and schedule a Site inspection and approval. The restoration will be considered complete once the City approves the work in writing. 10.3 Maintenance and Contingency Plan A Bond Quantity Worksheet has been prepared as financial security for this mitigation project (Appendix E). This bond will include plant procurement, installation, and monitoring costs in the event that mitigation is unsuccessful. The most probable maintenance and contingency items include the following: • Replacement of any dead or dying plants after Year 1 monitoring. Replacements should be the same species or an approved substitute species; • Replanting of any dead or dying plants during the remaining monitoring period and an assessment of causation of plant mortality (e.g. lack of irrigation, exposure to sun, etc.), • Soil amendments, including topsoil and mulch where needed. • Control of invasive species within the enhancement and restoration area. This should be done by hand. • Removal of trash or debris within the restoration area. • Replacement or repair of any degraded critical areas fencing or signage. 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 18 11. Summary Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. was retained to prepare a Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan for the property located at 8225 South 132nd Street in the City of Renton. A Site visit was conducted on 13 November 2024 and identified one (1) stream (Stream 1) and one (1) wetland (Wetland A) onsite and one (1) wetland (Wetland B) offsite but within the Study Area (Figure 1). Wetland A rated as a Category IV wetland with a habitat score of 4 which requires a standard 50- foot buffer. Wetland B rated as a Category III wetland with a habitat score of 5 which requires a standard 100-foot buffer. Stream 1 is mapped by the City of Renton as a Type Ns watercourse. Additionally, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) identifies upstream and downstream fish barriers (Photo 3). Therefore, this watercourse qualifies as a Type Ns watercourse per the Interim Water Typing System (WAC 222-16-031) and requires a 50-foot buffer. All critical areas require a 15-foot building setback measured from the edge of their buffer. The applicant proposes to construct five townhomes, along with associated access driveways, an underground detention tank, a rounded rock outfall pad, a trail, vegetated community area, and a gravel access road to the pond area (Figure 2). The proposed development areas are located entirely outside of wetlands and streams; however, to accommodate this project, a reduction in degraded wetland and stream buffer areas is necessary in accordance with RMC 4-3-050I(2) and 4-3-050I(3). The temporary impacts, permanent impacts, and buffer reductions must be mitigated and Sections 7-10 of this report outline the existing degraded buffer conditions, an enhancement plan, and monitoring plan to be implemented for compensation that ensures no net loss based on best available science. The temporary buffer impact areas are proposed to be restored after construction, and the permanent impact areas are proposed to be mitigated through onsite wetland and stream buffer enhancement at a 1:1 ratio. Enhancement methods will include removal of invasive species, removal of tire debris from the southern bank of Stream 1, an in-depth planting plan consisting of native shrubs and tree species, and the installation of critical areas fencing and signage. These activities are anticipated to increase slope stabilization, decrease erosion rates, increase native biodiversity, and improve water quality and hydrologic functions. These areas are proposed to be monitored by a qualified biologist for a 5-year period as described in Section 9 and 10. 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 5 May 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. Page 19 12. References City of Renton. (2025). COR Maps – Interactive Mapping Tool. Retrieved from https://maps.rentonwa.gov/Html5viewer/Index.html?viewer=cormaps. City of Renton. (2025). Critical Areas Regulations – Stream and Wetland Buffers. Retrieved from https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/#!/Renton04/Renton0403/Renton040305 0.html#4-3-050I. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWSOBS-70/31, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, 1979. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, Vicksburg, Miss.: US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, 1987. Hitchcock, C. Leo, Arthur Cronquist, Marion Owensby, and J. W. Thompson. Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2018 update. Hruby 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Lichvar, R.W. National Wetland Plant List. ERCD/CRREL TR-12-11, Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 2016. Bonnie P. Lo, Vicki L. Marlatt, Xiangjun Liao, Sofya Reger, Carys Gallilee, Andrew R.S. Ross, Tanya M. Brown, Acute Toxicity of 6PPD‐Quinone to Early Life Stage Juvenile Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Salmon, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Volume 42, Issue 4, 1 April 2023, Pages 815– 822, https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5568 Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. 2025. http://soils.usda.gove/use/hydric/lists/state.html U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Final Report, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Online Mapper. 2025. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. "6PPD and Its Toxic Byproduct, 6PPD-Quinone." Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, accessed 16 March 2025. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. "Priority Habitats and Species Database." 2025. www.wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs Washington State Department of Natural Resources. (2025). Natural Heritage Information System. Retrieved from http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/ 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 20 March 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. APPENDICES PHOTOS Photo 1. Photo of Stream 1 and its southern bank depicting the presence of toxic vehicle debris that is proposed to be removed as part of this enhancement plan. Photo taken from the southern portion of the site facing eastward. 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 20 March 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. APPENDICES Photo 2. Photo depicting the mapped fish barriers for Stream 1 recorded by WDFW’s Fish Passage (2025). The blue line represents Stream 1 and the Site is the yellow star. Photo 3. Photo of Wetland A and its surrounding degraded buffer areas. Photo taken facing northwest. 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 20 March 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. APPENDICES Photo 4. Photo depicting the closest extent of Wetland B; photo taken facing eastward. 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 20 March 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. APPENDICES FIGURES Figure 1: Existing Conditions Map Figure 2: Site Plan and Impacts Overview Figure 3: Mitigation Overview Figure 4: Enhancement Planting Plan Figure 5: Planting Specifications Figure 6: Planting Details 220 2 2 0 230 220 A-1 A-0 A-2 SP-1 SP-2 SP-3 SP-4 2 1 0 210 S1-1A S1-1B S1-2AS1-2B S1-3BS1-4B S1-5B S1-6B S1-7B S1-8BS1-9B S1-3A S1-4A S1-5A S1-7A S1-8A S1-9A S1-6A PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE EXISTING WETLAND WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND FLAG LOCATION SOIL TEST PIT LOCATION STREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) STREAM BUFFER STREAM OHWM FLAG LOCATION 15-FT BUILDING SETBACK (BSBL) EXISTING CONTOURS (2-FT) PROTECTED SLOPE (>40% & <90%) SENSITIVE SLOPE (>25% & <40%) SLOPE (>15% & <25%) A-# SP-# 100 S-# DRAWN BY: AS DATE SCALE RAABE FEASIBILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON FIGURE FIGURE 05-05-2025 18500 156th Ave NE, Suite 203 Woodinville, Washington 98072 Bus (425) 949-6659 EASTSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROS, INC. #1 EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP AS SHOWN#1 0 ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 15'30'60' GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=30' PARCEL DATA EXTRACTED FROM KING COUNTY GIS. ELEVATION DATA EXTRACTED FROM 2021 LiDAR DATA. WETLAND BOUNDARIES LOCATED WITH EOS ARROW 100 SUB-METER GPS DEVICE. PROJECT SITE ADDRESS 8225 S 132ND ST, RENTON, WA 98178 PARCEL 2144800535 STREAM 1 TYPE Ns 50' STD BUFFER WETLAND B CATEGORY III 2,626 SF (0.06 AC) 100' STD BUFFER WETLAND A CATEGORY IV 17 SF (0.0004 AC) 50' STD BUFFER S 132ND ST 1 0 0 ' 50' 50 ' 15' EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP EXISTING FENCE, TYP. EXISTING GAS EASEMENT PER REC. NO. 20161021000561 EXISTING SEWER EASEMENT PER REC. NO 20131219000501 EXISTING TOXIC AUTOMOTIVE TIRES 100' 50 ' 220 2 2 0 230 220 2 1 0 210 SD PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE EXISTING WETLAND POST-CONSTRUCTION WETLAND BUFFER STREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) POST-CONSTRUCTION STREAM BUFFER 15-FT BUILDING SETBACK (BSBL) EXISTING CONTOURS (2-FT) PROPOSED COMMUNITY SPACE TO BE 100 IMPACT LEGEND TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACTS 529 SF PERMANENT BUFFER IMPACTS 32 SF PERMANENT BUFFER REDUCTION 1,686 SF TOTAL CRITICAL AREAS IMPACTS 2,247 SF PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS/ LOCATION OF TEMPORARY SILT FENCING 165 LF DRAWN BY: AS DATE SCALE RAABE FEASIBILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON FIGURE FIGURE 05-05-2025 18500 156th Ave NE, Suite 203 Woodinville, Washington 98072 Bus (425) 949-6659 EASTSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROS, INC. #2 SITE PLAN & IMPACTS OVERVIEW AS SHOWN#2 0 ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 15'30'60' GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=30' PARCEL DATA EXTRACTED FROM KING COUNTY GIS. ELEVATION DATA EXTRACTED FROM 2021 LiDAR DATA. WETLAND BOUNDARIES LOCATED WITH EOS ARROW 100 SUB-METER GPS DEVICE. PROJECT SITE ADDRESS 8225 S 132ND ST, RENTON, WA 998178 PARCEL 2144800535 STREAM 1 TYPE Ns 50' STD BUFFER WETLAND B CATEGORY III 2,626 SF (0.06 AC) 100' STD BUFFER WETLAND A CATEGORY IV 17 SF (0.0004 AC) 50' STD BUFFER S 132ND ST 9 0 ' 2' 4 8 ' SITE PLAN & IMPACTS OVERVIEW PROPOSED GRAVEL MAINTENANCE ROAD PROPOSED ROUNDED ROCK OUTFALL PAD PROPOSED DETENTION TANK PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROPOSED RESIDENCES PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PROPOSED WATER LINE PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE, TYP. EXISTING GAS EASEMENT PER REC. NO. 20161021000561 EXISTING SEWER EASEMENT PER REC. NO 20131219000501 EXISTING FENCE, TYP. EXISTING FENCE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING TOXIC AUTOMOTIVE TIRES TO BE REMOVED 15' 19 ' PROPOSED PERMEABLE PATH PROPOSED CRITICAL AREA FENCING PROPOSED MANHOLE 9 0 ' 7 5 ' 220 2 2 0 230 220 2 1 0 210 SD PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE EXISTING WETLAND POST-CONSTRUCTION CRITICAL AREAS BUFFER STREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) 15-FT BUILDING SETBACK (BSBL) EXISTING CONTOURS (2-FT) COMMUNITY AREA MITIGATION 100 MITIGATION LEGEND RESTORATION OF TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACTS 506 SF CRITICAL AREA BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 1,741 SF TOTAL MITIGATION AREA 2,247 SF PROPOSED CRITICAL AREAS FENCING 165 LF PROPOSED CRITICAL AREAS SIGNAGE (3) 1 5 COMMUNITY AREA MITIGATION PLANTING* DRAWN BY: AS DATE SCALE RAABE FEASIBILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON FIGURE FIGURE 05-05-2025 18500 156th Ave NE, Suite 203 Woodinville, Washington 98072 Bus (425) 949-6659 EASTSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROS, INC. #3 MITIGATION OVERVIEW AS SHOWN#3 0 ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 15'30'60' GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=30' PARCEL DATA EXTRACTED FROM KING COUNTY GIS. ELEVATION DATA EXTRACTED FROM 2021 LiDAR DATA. WETLAND BOUNDARIES LOCATED WITH EOS ARROW 100 SUB-METER GPS DEVICE. PROJECT SITE ADDRESS 8225 S 132ND ST, RENTON, WA 98178 PARCEL 2144800535 STREAM 1 TYPE Ns 50' STD BUFFER WETLAND B CATEGORY III 2,626 SF (0.06 AC) 100' STD BUFFER WETLAND A CATEGORY IV 17 SF (0.0004 AC) 50' STD BUFFER S 132ND ST MITIGATION OVERVIEW PROPOSED GRAVEL MAINTENANCE ROAD PROPOSED ROUNDED ROCK OUTFALL PAD PROPOSED DETENTION TANK PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROPOSED RESIDENCES PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PROPOSED WATER LINE PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE, TYP. MITIGATION CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING: THE FOLLOWING PROVIDES THE GENERAL SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES ANTICIPATED TO BE NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PLANTING PORTION OF THE MITIGATION PROJECT. SOME OF THESE ACTIVITIES MAY BE CONDUCTED CONCURRENTLY AS THE PROJECT PROGRESSES. 1.CONDUCT A SITE MEETING BETWEEN A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CITY OF RENTON, THE CONTRACTOR, THE PROJECT ECOLOGIST, AND THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO REVIEW THE PROJECT PLANS, STAGING/STOCKPILE AREAS, AND MATERIAL DISPOSAL AREAS. 2.REMOVE TOXIC AUTOMOTIVE TIRES LINING STREAM 1. 3.REMOVE ANY INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES WITHIN THE MITIGATION AREA, INCLUDING HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY AND ENGLISH IVY. 4.AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN CLEARED, GRADED, OR COMPACTED ARE TO BE DECOMPACTED AND AMENDED WITH ORGANIC MATTER PRIOR TO PLANTING. 5.PLANT TREES AND SHRUBS AS INDICATED ON PLANTING PLANS, SEE FIGURE 4. GROUNDCOVER WILL BE PLANTED LAST TO FILL IN REMAINING GAPS. 6.PROVIDE A 36-INCH DIAMETER, 3-INCH DEEP MULCH RING AROUND THE BASE OF EACH TREE, AND A 24-INCH DIAMETER, 3-INCH DEEP MULCH RING AROUND THE BASE OF EACH SHRUB. 7.INSTALL CRITICAL AREAS FENCING AND SIGNAGE. PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE, TYP. EXISTING GAS EASEMENT PER REC. NO. 20161021000561 EXISTING SEWER EASEMENT PER REC. NO 20131219000501 EXISTING FENCE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING FENCE, TYP. FIGURE 4 EXTENTS EXISTING TOXIC AUTOMOTIVE TIRES TO BE REMOVED (PICTURED BELOW) PROPOSED CRITICAL AREAS FENCING PROPOSED COMMUNITY SPACE TO BE PLANTED WITH NATIVE VEGETATION PROPOSED MANHOLE *SEE KLLA PLANTING PLAN ATTACHED SEPARATELY FOR LANDSCAPE DESIGN & MITIGATION PLANTING WITHIN PROPOSED COMMUNITY AREA. 220 SD 2 2 0 PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE POST-CONSTRUCTION CRITICAL AREAS BUFFER STREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) 15-FT BUILDING SETBACK (BSBL) EXISTING CONTOURS (2-FT) COMMUNITY AREA MITIGATION PLANTING* PROPOSED CRITICAL AREA SIGNAGE (3) 100 DRAWN BY: AS DATE SCALE RAABE FEASIBILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON FIGURE FIGURE 05-05-2025 18500 156th Ave NE, Suite 203 Woodinville, Washington 98072 Bus (425) 949-6659 EASTSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROS, INC. #4 ENHANCEMENT PLANTING PLAN AS SHOWN#4 0 ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 10'20'40' GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=20' PARCEL DATA EXTRACTED FROM KING COUNTY GIS. ELEVATION DATA EXTRACTED FROM 2021 LiDAR DATA. WETLAND BOUNDARIES LOCATED WITH EOS ARROW 100 SUB-METER GPS DEVICE. STREAM 1 TYPE Ns 50' STD BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLANTING PLAN PROPOSED GRAVEL MAINTENANCE ROAD PROPOSED ROUNDED ROCK OUTFALL PAD PROPOSED DETENTION POND PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROPOSED RESIDENCES PROPOSED DRIVEWAY EXISTING GAS EASEMENT PER REC. NO. 20161021000561 EXISTING SEWER EASEMENT PER REC. NO 20131219000501 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME QTY. WL STATUS AVERAGE SPACING SIZE (MIN.)NOTES ACER MACROPHYLLUM*BIG LEAF MAPLE 1 FACU 10' O.C.1 1 2" CAL.SINGLE TRUNK, WELL BRANCHED PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS FIR 4 FACU 6' O.C.2-3' HT.2 GAL., FULL & BUSHY CORNUS NUTTALLII*PACIFIC DOGWOOD 3 FACU 10' O.C.1 1 2" CAL.SINGLE TRUNK, WELL BRANCHED RESTORED/ENHANCED FORESTED BUFFER (2,247 SF) TREES * SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME QTY. WL STATUS AVERAGE SPACING SIZE (MIN.)NOTES HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR OCEAN SPRAY 8 FACU 5' O.C.24" HT.MULTI-CANE (3 MIN.) MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM TALL OREGON GRAPE 13 FACU 4' O.C.18" HT.FULL & BUSHY RIBES SANGUINEUM RED CURRANT 9 NL 5' O.C.24" HT.MULTI-CANE (3 MIN.) SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS COMMON SNOWBERRY 9 FACU 4' O.C.18" HT.MULTI-CANE (3 MIN.) GAULTHERIA SHALLON SALAL 13 FACU 2' O.C.1 GAL.FULL & BUSHY SHRUBS * PLANT SCHEDULE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME QTY. WL STATUS AVERAGE SPACING SIZE (MIN.)NOTES FARGARIA CHILOENSIS COASTAL STRAWBERRY 80 (PLANTED IN GROUPS OF 5) NL 2' O.C.PLUGS FULL & BUSHY OXALIS OREGANA REDWOOD SORREL 80 (PLANTED IN GROUPS OF 5) NL 2' O.C.PLUGS FULL & BUSHY HERBACEOUS GROUNDCOVER * *TREES AND SHRUBS ARE TO BE PLANTED FIRST. GROUNDCOVERS WILL BE PLANTED LAST, IN GROUPS OF 5, TO FILL IN REMAINING GAPS. PROPOSED CRITICAL AREAS FENCING PROPOSED MANHOLE *SEE KLLA PLANTING PLAN ATTACHED SEPARATELY FOR LANDSCAPE DESIGN & MITIGATION PLANTING WITHIN PROPOSED COMMUNITY AREA. DRAWN BY: AS DATE SCALE RAABE FEASIBILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON FIGURE FIGURE 05-05-2025 18500 156th Ave NE, Suite 203 Woodinville, Washington 98072 Bus (425) 949-6659 EASTSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROS, INC. #5 PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS AS SHOWN#5 1.MITIGATION CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING: THE FOLLOWING PROVIDES THE GENERAL SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES ANTICIPATED TO BE NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PLANTING PORTION OF THE MITIGATION PROJECT. SOME OF THESE ACTIVITIES MAY BE CONDUCTED CONCURRENTLY AS THE PROJECT PROGRESSES. 1.1.CONDUCT A SITE MEETING BETWEEN A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CITY OF RENTON, THE CONTRACTOR, THE PROJECT ECOLOGIST, AND THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO REVIEW THE PROJECT PLANS, STAGING/STOCKPILE AREAS, AND MATERIAL DISPOSAL AREAS. 1.2.REMOVE TOXIC AUTOMOTIVE TIRES LINING STREAM 1. 1.3.REMOVE ANY INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES WITHIN THE MITIGATION AREA, INCLUDING HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY AND ENGLISH IVY. 1.4.AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN CLEARED, GRADED, OR COMPACTED ARE TO BE DECOMPACTED AND AMENDED WITH ORGANIC MATTER PRIOR TO PLANTING. 1.5.PLANT TREES AND SHRUBS AS INDICATED ON PLANTING PLANS, SEE FIGURE 4. GROUNDCOVER WILL BE PLANTED LAST TO FILL IN REMAINING GAPS. 1.6.PROVIDE A 36-INCH DIAMETER, 3-INCH DEEP MULCH RING AROUND THE BASE OF EACH TREE, AND A 24-INCH DIAMETER, 3-INCH DEEP MULCH RING AROUND THE BASE OF EACH SHRUB. 1.7.INSTALL CRITICAL AREAS FENCING AND SIGNAGE. 2.PRIOR TO ANY SITE WORK, THE PROPOSED MITIGATION AREA WILL BE STAKED USING A SUB-METER GPS DEVICE. 2.PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE LOCALLY GROWN (WESTERN WASHINGTON, WESTERN OREGON, OR WESTERN BC), HEALTHY, BUSHY, IN VIGOROUS GROWING CONDITION, AND GUARANTEED TO BE TRUE TO SIZE, NAME, AND VARIETY. IF REPLACEMENT OF PLANT MATERIAL IS NECESSARY DUE TO CONSTRUCTION DAMAGE OR PLANT FAILURE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF INSTALLATION, THE SIZES, SPECIES, AND QUANTITIES SHALL BE EQUAL TO SPECIFIED PLANTS, AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS. 3.ALL PLANTS SHOULD BE INSTALLED BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1ST AND NOVEMBER 28TH UNLESS SUPPLEMENTAL WATERING IS PROVIDED IMMEDIATELY DURING PLANT INSTALLATION. 4.ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PIT-PLANTED IN PLANTING PITS EXCAVATED 2X THE DIAMETER OF THE PLANT. PITS SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH NATIVE SOIL AND SETTLED WITH WATER. 5.MULCHING: 5.1.GRADED BUFFER AREAS: ARE MULCHED PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION AS DIRECTED IN THE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS. 5.2.NON-GRADED BUFFER AREAS: PROVIDE A 36-INCH DIAMETER, 3-INCH DEEP MULCH RING AROUND THE BASE OF EACH TREE, AND A 24-INCH DIAMETER, 3-INCH DEEP MULCH RING AROUND THE BASE OF EACH SHRUB. 5.3.WATER PLANTS THOROUGHLY AFTER MULCHING. 6.INSTALLING TEMPORARY IRRIGATION 6.1.GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AN ABOVE-GROUND TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM CAPABLE OF FULL HEAD-TO-HEAD COVERAGE OF ALL PLANTED PROJECT AREAS. THE TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL EITHER UTILIZE CONTROLLER AND POINT OF CONNECTION (POC) FROM THE SITE IRRIGATION SYSTEM OR SHALL INCLUDE A SEPARATE POC AND CONTROLLER WITH A BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE PER WATER JURISDICTION INSPECTION AND APPROVAL. THE SYSTEM SHALL BE ZONED TO PROVIDE OPTIMAL PRESSURE AND UNIFORMITY OF COVERAGE, AS WELL AS SEPARATION BETWEEN AREAS OF FULL SUN AND SHADE AND FOR SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 5 PERCENT. THE SYSTEM SHALL BE OPERATIONAL FOR A MINIMUM OF THE FIRST TWO GROWING SEASONS AFTER PLANTING (THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE PERFORMANCE MONITORING PERIOD), OR LONGER IF REQUIRED TO ENSURE PROPER PLANT ESTABLISHMENT.FINAL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND APPROVAL: UPON COMPLETION OF THE PLANT INSTALLATION, CITY OF RENTON WILL BE NOTIFIED TO CONDUCT A SITE REVIEW FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION. 6.2.SYSTEM DESIGN AND MATERIALS: ELECTRONIC VALVES SHALL BE THE SAME MANUFACTURER AS THOSE USED FOR THE SITE IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR SHALL BE RAIN BIRD PEB SERIES OR EQUAL IF SYSTEM IS NOT CONTIGUOUS WITH THE SITE SYSTEM. VALVES SHALL BE SIZED TO ACCOMMODATE PRESSURE AND ZONE CONSUMPTION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SYSTEM AND SHALL BE INSTALLED BELOW GRADE IN CARSON (OR EQUAL) VALVE BOXES. WIRING SHALL BE INSULATED MULTI-STRAND TAPED TO THE MAIN AT 6-INCH INTERVALS WITH DUCT TAPE WRAPS. ON-GRADE MAIN AND LATERAL LINES SHALL BE CLASS 200 PVC BELL PIPE WITH SOLVENT WELDED FITTINGS, SECURED IN-PLACE WITH WIRE STAPLES WHERE NECESSARY ON SLOPED AREAS. LINES SHALL BE PLACED 12 INCHES BELOW GRADE IN 4 INCH PCV SLEEVES WHERE VEHICULAR OR MAINTENANCE ACCESS IS NEEDED ACROSS LINES TO THE PROJECT AREA(S). MAXIMUM MAIN LINE SIZE SHALL BE 1½ INCHES AND MAY BE LOOPED BACK TO THE POC TO REDUCE PRESSURE LOSS. LATERAL LINES SHALL BE SIZED IN DECREASING DOWNSTREAM ORDER PER RAIN BIRD DESIGN STANDARDS; THE MINIMUM LATERAL SIZE SHALL BE ¾ INCH. HEADS SHALL BE ROTOR OR IMPACT TYPE INSTALLED 4 FEET ABOVE FINISHED GRADE ON 2-INCH DIAMETER WOOD TREE STAKES. STAKES SHALL BE SECURE IN THE GROUND, EMBEDDED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 24 INCHES. HEADS AND ¾ INCH PVC RISERS SHALL BE SECURED TO STAKES WITH CONSTRICTING HOSE CLAMPS; NO FUNNY PIPE SHALL BE USED. HEADS AND NOZZLES SHALL PROVIDE MATCHED PRECIPITATION RATES FOR EACH ZONE. 2.PROGRAMMING: IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE PROGRAMMED TO PROVIDE APPROXIMATELY 1/2 INCH OF WATER EVERY THREE DAYS DURING THE DRY SEASON (APPROXIMATELY JUNE 15TH TO OCTOBER 15TH). IRRIGATION AMOUNTS IN ZONES LOCATED IN THE SHADE OR ON STEEP SLOPES MAY BE REDUCED IF APPROVED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR ECOLOGIST OR THE PROJECT ECOLOGIST/BIOLOGIST. PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS TWO BOARD FENCE DETAIL N.T.S. NOTES: 1) ALL WOOD FOR SPLIT RAIL FENCE TO BE PRESSURE TREATED. 2) END POST SHALL BE TERMINAL POST. 10' x 3.5" x 1.5" RAILS WITH TAPERED TIPS TO MEET SLOTS4.5" 6" 10" FRONT VIEW PERSPECTIVE VIEW 4.5" SLOTS 6" 10" 3'-10" 1'-6" 3.5" 10'-0" NATIVE SOIL CONCRETE FOOTING EXISTING GRADE POST RAIL SLOT 1'-3" POST (TYPICAL) END POST RAIL PITCH SURFACE TO DRAIN LCLC 1 DRAWN BY: AS DATE SCALE RAABE FEASIBILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON FIGURE FIGURE 05-05-2025 18500 156th Ave NE, Suite 203 Woodinville, Washington 98072 Bus (425) 949-6659 EASTSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROS, INC. #6 PLANTING DETAILS AS SHOWN#6 N.T.S 2 CONTAINER SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL EXISTING NATIVE SOIL SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE. MAKE SURE HOLE HAS GOOD DRAINAGE. FINISHED GRADE BACKFILL PLANTING HOLE 1 2 FULL WITH NATIVE SOIL; TAMP SOIL TO STABILIZE ROOTBALL. DO NOT DISTURB ROOTBALL. BACKFILL REMAINING PLANTING HOLE. SET SHRUB STRAIGHT AND PLACE ROOTBALL ON SOLID GROUND OR ON COMPACTED BACKFILL. MULCH 3" DEEP IN 2' DIA. RING; DO NOT PILE MULCH AGAINST STEM 2 TIMES ROOTBALL DIAMETER 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 20 March 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Wetland Determination Datasheets. Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. 13 November 2024 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: EE-532 City/County: Renton Sampling Date:11/13/2024 Applicant/Owner: Mark Raabe State: WA Sampling Point: SP-1 Investigator(s): ENW Section, Township, Range: NE - 13 - 23 - 04 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 10 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.483959 Long: -122.229453 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban land-Alderwood complex, 5 to 12 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil X, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Sample point taken adjacent to Wetland A and Stream 1 and contains areas of quarry spall. Drier than normal climatic conditions present during Site Evaluation. Sample point does not meet wetland criteria. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 60 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 90 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Prunus laurocerasus 20 Y NL 2. Rubus bifrons 50 Y FAC 3. Ilex aquifolium 5 N FACU 4. Rubus spectabilis 10 N FAC 5. 85 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Hedera helix 90 Y FACU 2. Polystichum munitum 5 N FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 95 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample point within a historically disturbed area adjacent to Stream 1. Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-1 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 2/2 100 Lo 18-20 10YR 2/2 99 10YR 3/3 1 C M Lo Faint redox concentrations 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydric soil criteria is not met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 13 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: EE-532 City/County: Renton Sampling Date:11/13/2024 Applicant/Owner: Mark Raabe State: WA Sampling Point: SP-2 Investigator(s): ENW Section, Township, Range: NE - 13 - 23 - 04 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 20 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.483959 Long: -122.229453 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban land-Alderwood complex, 5 to 12 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Sample point taken within Wetland A. Drier than normal climatic conditions present during Site Evaluation. Sample point does meet wetland criteria. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. None 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 30 Y FAC 2. Rubus bifrons 30 Y FAC 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Equisetum telmateia 15 Y FACW 2. Hedera helix 10 Y FACU 3. Solanum dulcamara 5 N FAC 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 30 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 70 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-2 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 2/2 100 Lo 6-16+ 5YR 4/1 60 10YR 3/4 10 Lo Prominent Redox Concentrations 10YR 2/2 30 Lo Mixed matrix 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydric soil criteria is met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 3 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Adjacent to Stream 1, and this wetland includes groundwater seeps within its boundary. Wetland hydrology criteria is met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: EE-532 City/County: Renton Sampling Date:11/13/2024 Applicant/Owner: Mark Raabe State: WA Sampling Point: SP-3 Investigator(s): ENW Section, Township, Range: NE - 13 - 23 - 04 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 15 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.483959 Long: -122.229453 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban land-Alderwood complex, 5 to 12 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Sample point taken adjacent to Wetland B. Drier than normal climatic conditions present during Site Evaluation. Sample point does not meet wetland criteria. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 40 Y FAC 2. Acer macrophyllum 30 Y FACU 3. 4. 70 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Prunus laurocerasus 35 Y NL 2. Rubus bifrons 15 Y FAC 3. Corylus cornuta 5 N FACU 4. 5. 55 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Hedera helix 60 Y FACU 2. Stachys mexicana 5 N FACW 3. Equisetum telmateia 15 N FACW 4. Pteridium aquilinum 5 N FACU 5. Ranunculus repens 25 Y FAC 6. Polystichum munitum 5 N FACU 7. 8. 115 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Very dense herbaceous strata with overlapping plants. Hydrophytic vegetation criteria s not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-3 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-13 10YR 3/2 100 SLo 13-18+ 10YR 3/2 90 SLo 10YR 8/6 5 SLo Mixed inclusions 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Soil within this sample point appears to have been historically disturbed, likely from the adjacent residential developments. Hydric soil criteria is not met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: EE-532 City/County: Renton Sampling Date:11/13/2024 Applicant/Owner: Mark Raabe State: WA Sampling Point: SP- Investigator(s): ENW Section, Township, Range: NE - 13 - 23 - 04 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.483959 Long: -122.229453 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban land-Alderwood complex, 5 to 12 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil X, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Sample point taken at the top of the ravine associated with the northern bank of Stream 1 and adjacent to Wetland A. Drier than normal climatic conditions present during Site Evaluation. Sample point does not meet wetland criteria. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Prunus laurocerasus 20 Y NL 2. Alnus rubra 45 Y FAC 3. Populus trichocarpa 15 N FAC 4. 80 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Rubus bifrons 30 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Ranunculus repens 40 Y FAC 2. Calystegia sepium 5 N FAC 3. Taraxacum officinale 5 N FACU 4. Cirsium vulgare 10 N FACU 5. 6. 7. 8. 60 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-4 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-7 10YR 3/2 85 10YR 5/2 15 Lo Inclusions from churning/disturbance 7-18+ 10YR 3/2 90 10YR 3/1 10 Lo Inclusions from churning/disturbance 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Soils within this sample point appear to have been historically distrubed; however, hydric soil criteria is not met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria is not met. 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 20 March 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. APPENDICES APPENDIX B Wetland Rating Forms. Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. 13 November 2024 RATING FIGURES (Located at the end of the rating forms) Figure A: Cowardin & Hydroperiod Classes Figure B: Contributing Basin Map Figure C: Habitat within 1 kilometer Figure D: 303d Listed Waterbodies Figure E: TMDLs in Basin Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland A Date of site visit: 11/13/2024 Rated by ENW Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 11-2024 HGM Class used for rating Slope Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Y N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY IV (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential L L L Landscape Potential M M L Value H M M TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 6 5 4 15 Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – 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 unit meet all of the following criteria? ___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit 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 the wetland unit being scored. 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 HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 SLOPE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance) Slope is 1% or less points = 3 Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2 Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 0 S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0 0 S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 in. Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3 Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0 3 Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1? Other sources ________________ Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0 1 S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 SLOPE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 4.1. Characteristics of plants 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 > 1/8 in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1 All other conditions points = 0 0 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems: The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 1 S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 0 Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 7 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 HABITAT FUNCTIONS - These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 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 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 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 1 H 1.3. Richness of plant species 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 and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 1 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. 1 None = 0 points Low 1 point = Moderate 2 points = All three diagrams in this row are HIGH 3points = Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 8 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). _Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) 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 weathered where wood is exposed) At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants 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 every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) 1 Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat1+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]1 = 2% If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 5 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 2 = 7% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 -2 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) 1 It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 9 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). 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). 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 multilayered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; 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; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon White Oak: Woodland 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 – see web link above). 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 – see web link above). 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. 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 WDFW report – see web link on previous page). 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 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), 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 > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 10 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland 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 No SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or unmowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II No SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV No SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4 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 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog No Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA 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 functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section No SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons 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 ponded 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 = 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 aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or unmowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category II No SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat 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 Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV No Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form N/A Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 This page left blank intentionally Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland B Date of site visit: 11/13/2024 Rated by ENW Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 10-2018 HGM Class used for rating Riverine Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Y N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential M M M Landscape Potential H M L Value H M M TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 8 6 5 19 Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – 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 unit meet all of the following criteria? ___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit 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 the wetland unit being scored. 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 HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality R 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4 Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2 No depressions present points = 0 2 R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes) Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6 Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6 Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0 8 Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above 10 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0 2 R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut within the last 5 years? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1-R 2.4 Other sources ____________________ Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3-6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found) Yes = 2 No = 0 0 Total for R 3 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion R 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is 10-20 points = 6 If the ratio is 5-<10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1-<5 points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 2 R 4.2. Characteristics of plants 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% cover at person height. These are NOT Cowardin classes). Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4 Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0 7 Total for R 4 Add the points in the boxes above 9 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1 0 R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 R 5.3. Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1 1 Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems? Choose the description that best fits the site. The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 1 R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 0 Total for R 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 7 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 HABITAT FUNCTIONS - These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 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 1 H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 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 2 H 1.3. Richness of plant species 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 and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 1 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. 2 None = 0 points Low 1 point = Moderate 2 points = All three diagrams in this row are HIGH 3points = Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 8 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). _Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) 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 weathered where wood is exposed) At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants 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 every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) 3 Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 9 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat1+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]1 = 2% If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 5 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 2 = 7% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 -2 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) 1 It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 9 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). 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). 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 multilayered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; 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; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon White Oak: Woodland 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 – see web link above). 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 – see web link above). 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. 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 WDFW report – see web link on previous page). 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 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), 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 > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 10 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland 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 No SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or unmowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II No SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV No SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4 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 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog No Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA 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 functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section No SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons 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 ponded 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 = 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 aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or unmowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category II No SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat 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 Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV No Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form N/A Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 This page left blank intentionally PLAN LEGEND EXISTING WETLAND PALUSTRINE SCRUB-SHRUB, SATURATED ONLY PALUSTRINE EMERGENT 150-FOOT BOUNDARY SEASONAL STREAM DRAWN BY: AS DATE SCALE RAABE FEASIBILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON FIGURE a FIGURE 03-20-2025 18500 156th Ave NE, Suite 203 Woodinville, Washington 98072 Bus (425) 949-6659 EASTSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROS, INC. A NTS COWARDIN AND HYDROPERIOD CLASSES A NOTES: 1.DENSE, UNCUT EMERGENT PLANTS ARE PRESENT > 2/3 OF THE WETLAND AREA. 2.WIDTH RATIO OF STREAM TO WETLAND AREA IS 1 to 5 ON AVERAGE. 15 0 ' WETLAND B WETLAND A Figure B: Contributing Basin Collapse All   Basin Characteristics P a r a m e t e r C o d e P a r a m e t e r D e s c r i p t i o n V a l u e U n i t D R N A R E A A r e a t h a t d r a i n s t o a p o i n t o n a s t r e a m 0 .3 1 s q u a r e m i l e s USGS Data Disclaimer : Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Sur vey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. USGS Software Disclaimer : This software has been approved for release by the U.S. Geological Sur vey (USGS). Although the software has been subjected to rigorous review, the USGS reserves the right to update the software as needed pursuant to further analysis and review. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the USGS or the U.S. Government as to the R e g i o n I D :W A W o r k s p a c e I D :W A 2 0 2 5 0 5 0 7 1 7 2 7 1 5 7 0 4 0 0 0 C l i c k e d P o i n t (L a t i t u d e , L o n g i t u d e ):4 7 .4 8 3 5 5 , -1 2 2 .2 2 8 7 6 T i m e :2 0 2 5 -0 5 -0 7 1 0 :2 7 :5 0 -0 7 0 0   5/7/25, 10:28 AM StreamStats https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/1/2 functionality of the software and related material nor shall the fact of release constitute any such warranty. Furthermore, the software is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use. USGS Product Names Disclaimer : Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Application Version: 4.28.1 StreamStats Services Version: 1.2.22 NSS Services Version: 2.2.1 5/7/25, 10:28 AM StreamStats https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/2/2 Maxar UNDISTURBED AREAS (2.52%) MODERATE INTENSITY LAND USE (56.64%) HIGH INTENSITY LAND USE (40.84%)± EASTSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROS, INC. 18500 156th Ave NE, Suite 203 Woodinville, Washington 98072 Bus (425) 949-6659 FIGURE # C MAP OF HABITAT WITHIN 1-KILOMETER BASHAM DELINEATION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SCALE NTS DRAWN BY: AS FIGURE C Date: 1/20/2025 ITE PLAN LEGEND 63.97 ft 303d Esri Community Maps Contributors, WSU Facilities Services GIS, King County, WA State Parks GIS, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of May 7, 2025 0 0.06 0.120.03 Miles K Assessed Water/Sediment Water Category 5 - 303d Category 4C Category 4B Category 4A Category 2 Category 1 Sediment Category 5 - 303d Category 4C Category 4B Category 4A Category 2 Category 1 Water Quality Standards All Standards 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 20 March 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. APPENDICES APPENDIX C Corps Antecedent Precipitation Tool. 13 November 2024 This normal precipitation analysis follows the methodology described by Sprecher and Warne (2000). The Corps Antecedent Precipitation application tool was used to determine that drier than normal climatic conditions were present during the 13 November 2024 Site Evaluation. Apr 2024 May 2024 Jun 2024 Jul 2024 Aug 2024 Sep 2024 Oct 2024 Nov 2024 Dec 2024 Jan 2025 Feb 2025 Mar 2025 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ra i n f a l l ( I n c h e s ) 2024-11-13 2024-10-14 2024-09-14 Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total 30-Day Rolling Total 30-Year Normal Range 30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2024-11-13 2.941339 6.04252 2.464567 Dry 1 3 3 2024-10-14 1.422047 2.656299 0.555118 Dry 1 2 2 2024-09-14 0.327559 1.304331 1.527559 Wet 3 1 3 Result Drier than Normal - 8 Coordinates 47.48434, -122.22946 Observation Date 2024-11-13 Elevation (ft)227.249 Drought Index (PDSI)Mild drought (2024-10) WebWIMP H2O Balance Wet Season Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent RENTON MUNI AP 47.495, -122.2144 18.045 1.018 209.204 0.671 9467 88 RENTON 0.5 SSW 47.4752, -122.2019 211.942 1.487 193.897 0.957 21 2 KENT 47.4172, -122.2433 28.871 5.542 10.826 2.554 1773 0 SEATTLE TACOMA AP 47.4447, -122.3144 369.094 5.822 351.049 4.664 92 0 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 20 March 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. APPENDICES APPENDIX D Landscape Plan. Landscape Architects Inc. 5 May 2025 N 0 1 ° 1 7 ' 5 4 " E 30 . 0 1 ' 14" EVG 24" FIR 14" EVG 24" FIR 22 0 210 222 218 218 21 6 216 2 1 4 2 1 2 231 230 228 220 225 23 0 235 221 222 2 2 3 2 2 4 226 22 7 22 8 22 9 23 1 232 233 234 236 237 238 2 2 0 225 230 219 221 222 223 224 226 227 228 229 231 232 233 234 23 2 23 0 2 3 7 225 230 235 223 224 226 227 228 229 231 232 233 234 236 237 87° 29' 40"89.96'N W 1° 1 7 ' 5 4 " 29 4 . 5 1 ' S W 1° 1 6 ' 5 4 " 29 4 . 5 3 ' N E PINM 3 ERIC 12 AZH 1 CROC 1 ERIC 12 AZH 1 CROC 1 ERIC 12 AZH 1 CROC 1 ERIC 6 AZH 1 CROC 1 LONN 50 UNIT 1 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 3 UNIT 2 S 132nd STREET ANEM 2 ERIC 6 CROC 1 AZH 8 QUER 2 CIST 15 CORNS 5 ESC 10 POLYM 8 VIBD 14 ACERC 2AUU 98 PRUNL 11 PRUMNV 78 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RUBS 16 THUJ 1 GRASSPAVE OR EQUAL MAINTENANCE ROAD AZH 5 AZH 4 AZH 4 AZH 4 AZH 11 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H PYR 60 HYD 3 PACH 18 HYD 3 HYD 3 PACH 18 PACH 18 PACH 18 PACH 12 HYD 3 HYD 3 BENCH BE N C H BEN C H BENCH R R R R R R R RR RUBS 26 GRAVEL PATH WETLAND BOUNDARY FENCE GSH 180 ACERC 1 RIB 7 SYMP 15 VAC 8 GSH 72 RH 6 ACERC 1 VAC 5 RUBP 12 RIB 3 ACERC 1 RUBP 22 GATE POLYM 8 AUU 24 RH 5 SYMP 32 MH MH POLYM 18 WASHED ROCK, TYP. WASHED ROCK, TYP. * ****** ********** VAC 12 PYR 18 VIBD 18 * H R KEL LANDSCAPE PLAN L-1.01 L-1.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN IN FEETPLAN 0 N 10 20 SEAL: SHEET NUMBER: SHEET TITLE: JOB NUMBER: DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS: PRELIMINARY MAY 05, 2025 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REGISTERED WASHINGTON STATE OF CERTIFICATE #301 KLLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC. KENNETH E. LARGE RA A B E T O W N H O M E S 82 2 5 S . 1 3 2 n d S T . Re n t o n , W a s h i n g t o n 9 8 1 7 8 1 - SPACING "A" SPACING "B" # OF PLANTS/SF 6" o.c. 5.20" 4.60 8" o.c. 6.93" 2.60 10" o.c. 8.66" 1.66 12" o.c. 10.40" 1.15 15" o.c. 13.00" .738 18" o.c. 15.60" .512 24" o.c. 20.80" .290 30" o.c. 26.00" .185 36" o.c. 30.00" .116 SEE GROUNDCOVER PLANT KEY FOR MAXIMUM TRIANGULAR SPACING "A". THIS CHART IS TO BE USED TO DETERMINE NUMBER OF GROUNDCOVER PLANTS REQUIRED IN A GIVEN AREA. PLANT SPACING CHART FOR USE WHEN PLANTS ARE SPACED EQUIDISTANT FROM EACH OTHER, AS IN ALL MASSED SHRUB/GROUNDCOVER PLANTINGS B A A A PLANT LOCATION 5 L1.0 PLANT SPACING CHART 12" MIN. WATERING SPECIFIED MULCH PREPARED SOIL BACKFILL 24" MIN. 1/ 2 H T . O F T R E E S GARDEN HOSE WITH 1/2" DIA. BALCK FLEX 16 ga. TIE WIRE. SECURE THRU "X"BRACE 1x3 HEM FIR STAKES 2x2 HEM FIR STAKES LEADER SHALL NOT BE CUT TREE SPECIMAN CENTRAL TREE WELL AROUND TREE 4" DEEP MIN. 48" DIAMETER OPTIONAL METHOD FOR EVERGREEN TREE INCLUDES 3 EQ. SPACED GUY WIRES W/ 2"x2"x24" CEDAR STAKES REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP 1. WIDTH OF PLANTING PIT SHALL BE 3 TIMES LARGER THAN ROOT BALL. 2. PRE-STAIN ALL WOOD. STAIN ALL FIELD CUTS SAUCER AROUND TREE 3 L1.0 TYP.DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING 4 L1.0 TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING 2 L1.0 TYP. CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING FINISH GRADE ROOTBALL APPEARANCE. REMOVE ALL BROKEN, DEAD STEMS DO NOT DISFIGURE PLANT PROVIDE SLIGHT WATERING SAUCER AROUND 5 GALLON AND LARGER PLANTS 2" HT. TYP. EXCAVATE HOLE 2 TIMES DIAMETER OF ROOTBALL. MULCH (1/2" DEPTH IF RHODOS OR AZWALEAS.) IF PLANT IS BALLED AND BURLAPED THEN REMOVE TREATED NATURAL BURLAP OFF TOP OF ROOTBALL. 2' DEPTH PREPARED TOPSOIL ORIENT SHRUB FOR BEST 2' BURLAP. FOLD BACK PREPARED SOIL 3" BERM 12" FINISH MIN. 6" MIN.BELOW ROOTBALL EXISTING SUBGRADE 1/ 2 T R E E H T . 6" MIN. FROM SIDE OF ROOTBALL1'-6" MIN. DRIVEN TO REFUSAL. SECURE TO TREE WITH GALVANIZED WIRE ENCASED IN REINFORCED DULL GREEN RUBBER HOSE AT POINT OF PLANT CONTACT. TOP OF STAKE TO POINT TO PREVAILING WIND. 2x2 HEM-FIR STAKE GRADE BACKFILL PLANTING HOLES MUST BE THREE TIMES THE DIAMETER OF THE PLANT ROOTBALL AND MUST BE BACKFILLED. PLANTING HOLES MUST BE THREE TIMES THE DIAMETER OF THE PLANT ROOTBALL AND MUST BE BACKFILLED. 5 L1.0 FENCE DETAIL 14" EVG 24" FIR 22 0 210 222 218 218 21 6 216 2 1 4 2 1 2 23 2 23 0 2 3 7 225 230 235 223 224 226 227 228 229 231 232 233 234 236 237 87° 29' 40"89.96'N W 1° 1 7 ' 5 4 " 29 4 . 5 1 ' S W 1° 1 6 ' 5 4 " 29 4 . 5 3 ' N E UNIT 1 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 3 UNIT 2 S 132nd STREET GRASSPAVE OR EQUAL MAINTENANCE ROAD BENCH BE N C H BEN C H BENCH GRAVEL PATH WETLAND BOUNDARY FENCE GATE MH MH ZONE 05 ZONE 05 ZONE 07 DRIP ZONE 01 ZONE 02 ZONE 03 4" SLEEVE FOR LATERAL AIR RELIEF VALVE 2 ROWS NETAFIN DRIP 2 ROWS NETAFIN DRIP 2 ROWS NETAFIN DRIP AIR RELIEF VALVE HOSE BIBB HOSE BIBB 4" SLEEVE FOR LATERAL NETAFIN DRIP NETAFIN DRIP HOSE BIBB 4" SLEEVE FOR LATERAL NETAFIN DRIP HOSE BIBB NETAFIN DRIP HOSE BIBB NETAFIN DRIP 4" SLEEVE FOR LATERAL 4" SLEEVE FOR LATERAL 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88888888 8 8 DV 4" SLEEVE FOR LATERAL 121212 1510 QCV DCA PRV WM C 8 STATION CONTROL CLOCK w/RAIN SENSOR 6 6 15 12 8 ZONE 04 DRIP WASHED ROCK, TYP. WASHED ROCK, TYP. AIR RELIEF VALVE SINGLE ROW NETAFIN DRIP SINGLE ROW NETAFIN DRIP 1-1/4" SCHEDULE 40 PVC MAINLINE. PLACE IN 4" DIA. SLEEVE IF BENEATH PAVEMENT. (DIAGRAMMATIC LOCATION) 1-1/4" SCHEDULE 40 PVC MAINLINE. PLACE IN 4" DIA. SLEEVE IF BENEATH PAVEMENT. (DIAGRAMMATIC LOCATION) 8 88 10 12 1088 88 8 8 1012 10 5 5 8 10 12 SSTSSTSST SST S S T EST 10 10 10 8 8 4" SLEEVE FOR LATERAL S S T S S T 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4" DIA. SCH80 PVC, SLEEVE FOR LATERAL TYPICAL 8 8 12 8 10 NETAFIN DRIP 10 8 KEL IRRIGATION PLAN L-1.11 L-1.1 IRRIGATION PLAN IN FEETPLAN 0 N 10 20 SEAL: SHEET NUMBER: SHEET TITLE: JOB NUMBER: DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS: PRELIMINARY MAY 05, 2025 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REGISTERED WASHINGTON STATE OF CERTIFICATE #301 KLLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC. KENNETH E. LARGE RA A B E T O W N H O M E S 82 2 5 S . 1 3 2 n d S T . Re n t o n , W a s h i n g t o n 9 8 1 7 8 1 - MAINLINE: 1-1/4" SCH. 40 PVC Pipe/Solvent Weld. Plan shows diagramatic location LATERAL: Class 200 PVC Pipe/ Solvent Weld, minimum 3/4" diameter size, as noted or per velocity sizing chart. IRRIGATION LEGEND 1" QUICK COUPLING VALVE: Rain Bird #44: Install in 12" Standard valve Box QCV SLEEVE PER DETAIL ZONE VALVES (24VAC Electric): Rainbird PEB series 1" for 10-20 gpm, Rainbird XCZ 100 PRBR for drip zones All shrub zone nozzles shall be installed on Rainbird 1806 spray bodies End strip spray Side strip spray Rainbird 1806 ¼, ½, ¾, full and variable angle variable radius nozzles. The nozzle arc and arc distance are not shown. CONTROLLER: Rainbird ESP w/ wireless rain shut off and soil moisture sensor which are designed to shut off or override watering during rainfall events. Mount to outside of building 5 L1.2 1 L1.2 2 L1.2 C DRAIN VALVE: see detailDV DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY Double check assembly. Use standard city detail 4 L1.2 9 L1.2 NOTE: A STATE OF WASHINGTON APPROVED DOUBLE CHECK ASSEMBLY (DCVA) IS REQUIRED ON ALL WATER SUPPLY LINES TO ANY IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE BELOW GRADE DCVA SHALL BE NO DEEPER THAN 12” AND HAVE A MINIMUM OF 6” OF CLEAR SPACE BENEATH IT. THREADED PLUGS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT EACH END OF THE FOUR TEST PORTS AND AN INDEPENDENT SHUT OFF VALVE SHALL BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE WATER METER AND THE DCVA. DRIP: Netafim drip tubing IRRIGATION NOTES; SEE ALSO SPECIFICATIONS IRRIGATION SYSTEMS MUST BE MAINTAINED AND INSPECTED PERIODICALLY TO ASSURE PROPER FUNCTIONING, ADJUST SCHEDULING AND TO MEET IRRIGATION WATER BUDGET REQUIREMENTS. REPLACEMENT OF COMPONENTS MUST BE ORIGINAL SPECIFIED PARTS OR MATERIALS, OR THEIR EQUIVALENTS. DCA 1" PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE:PRV WM 1" WATER METER 1 L1.3 M DOMESTIC LINE OR CITY MAIN 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.10 0.04 LO S S 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.35 0.44 0.53 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.26 0.13 0.27 0.01 0.02 0.55 0.68 0.82 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.04 0.41 0.70 0.79 0.88 0.97 0.14 0.18 0.22 0.26 1.23 1.41 1.59 0.40 0.52 0.64 0.30 1.06 1.10 1.24 1.37 1.51 0.28 0.34 0.42 0.50 1.92 2.20 2.40 0.78 1.00 1.24 0.59 1.65 0.22 0.96 0.11 0.61 0.18 0.36 0.02 0.07 0.72 0.90 1.08 0.26 0.36 0.51 0.14 0.54 0.28 0.57 0.06 0.22 1.15 1.44 1.73 0.79 1.20 1.68 0.46 0.86 1.44 1.62 1.80 1.98 0.86 1.07 1.30 1.56 2.53 1.89 3.23 2.43 3.11 3.87 1.83 2.17 2.30 2.59 2.88 3.17 2.85 3.55 4.31 5.15 4.04 4.61 5.19 8.05 10.30 12.81 6.06 3.46 2.23 2.02 0.67 1.26 P. S . I . LO S S VE L O C I T Y F. P . S P. S . I . LO S S VE L O C I T Y F. P . S P. S . I . LO S S VE L O C I T Y F. P . S P. S . I . LO S S VE L O C I T Y F. P . S P. S . I . 0.32 0.37 0.43 0.56 0.75 0.96 0.49 1.44 1.72 2.02 2.35 3.06 3.44 3.88 2.83 1.19 1.94 2.12 2.29 0.83 1.09 1.27 2.65 3.08 3.53 1.66 2.20 2.82 1.46 2.47 3.03 3.30 3.58 1.80 2.12 2.46 4.13 4.82 5.51 3.20 4.26 5.45 2.82 3.86 4.41 4.85 5.30 5.74 4.26 5.08 5.37 6.93 6.63 7.08 7.50 9.03 7.96 6.18 6.89 7.56 8.27 8.96 8.24 9.83 10.24 11.03 11.75 9.65 10.18 11.28 6.78 6.20 3.51 3.97 3.97 4.34 4.70 5.52 6.60 7.65 5.43 6.32 7.23 9.99 8.78 5.06 6.34 6.92 7.50 18.53 21.83 25.32 8.86 10.10 33.00 43.91 56.23 10.54 29.04 8.08 13.27 17.00 9.04 9.94 11.75 10.23 13.56 14.46 15.27 12.88 17.31 14.42 15.57 18.75 25.70 30.66 36.02 41.77 12.58 21.24 8.13 11.58 13.40 15.37 17.47 19.04 22.02 1-1/2" 1.900 1.720 3/4" .930 1" 1.315 1.189 1-1/4" 1.650 1.502 2" 2.375 2.149 15.58 5.77 4.71 3.61 1.51 2.75 0.74 1.76 0.26 0.47 0.94 1 2 1.89 2.36 2.83 4 5 6 3 1.42 3,77 4,25 4.72 5.19 8 9 10 11 6.60 7.55 8.49 14 16 18 12 5.65 7 3.30 FL O W G. P . M . VE L O C I T Y F. P . S 10.38 11.32 12.27 22 24 26 14.15 16.51 18.37 30 35 40 28 13.21 50 55 60 65 75 80 85 70 45 OD ID SIZE 20 9.43 IRRIGATION FLOW CHART THE FOLLOWING CHART IS TO BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR SIZING LATERAL PIPE. WHEN USING THIS CHART DO NOT EXCEED A VELOCITY OF 5 FEET PER SECOND. THIS CHART REPRESENTS THE FRICTION LOSS PER 100 FEET OF PIPE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALCULATE GALLONAGE USING THE HEADS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 1.050 8 L-2.01 IRRIGATION FLOW CHART 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.10 0.04 LO S S 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.35 0.44 0.53 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.26 0.13 0.27 0.01 0.02 0.55 0.68 0.82 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.04 0.41 0.70 0.79 0.88 0.97 0.14 0.18 0.22 0.26 1.23 1.41 1.59 0.40 0.52 0.64 0.30 1.06 1.10 1.24 1.37 1.51 0.28 0.34 0.42 0.50 1.92 2.20 2.40 0.78 1.00 1.24 0.59 1.65 0.22 0.96 0.11 0.61 0.18 0.36 0.02 0.07 0.72 0.90 1.08 0.26 0.36 0.51 0.14 0.54 0.28 0.57 0.06 0.22 1.15 1.44 1.73 0.79 1.20 1.68 0.46 0.86 1.44 1.62 1.80 1.98 0.86 1.07 1.30 1.56 2.53 1.89 3.23 2.43 3.11 3.87 1.83 2.17 2.30 2.59 2.88 3.17 2.85 3.55 4.31 5.15 4.04 4.61 5.19 8.05 10.30 12.81 6.06 3.46 2.23 2.02 0.67 1.26 P. S . I . LO S S VE L O C I T Y F. P . S P. S . I . LO S S VE L O C I T Y F. P . S P. S . I . LO S S VE L O C I T Y F. P . S P. S . I . LO S S VE L O C I T Y F. P . S P. S . I . 0.32 0.37 0.43 0.56 0.75 0.96 0.49 1.44 1.72 2.02 2.35 3.06 3.44 3.88 2.83 1.19 1.94 2.12 2.29 0.83 1.09 1.27 2.65 3.08 3.53 1.66 2.20 2.82 1.46 2.47 3.03 3.30 3.58 1.80 2.12 2.46 4.13 4.82 5.51 3.20 4.26 5.45 2.82 3.86 4.41 4.85 5.30 5.74 4.26 5.08 5.37 6.93 6.63 7.08 7.50 9.03 7.96 6.18 6.89 7.56 8.27 8.96 8.24 9.83 10.24 11.03 11.75 9.65 10.18 11.28 6.78 6.20 3.51 3.97 3.97 4.34 4.70 5.52 6.60 7.65 5.43 6.32 7.23 9.99 8.78 5.06 6.34 6.92 7.50 18.53 21.83 25.32 8.86 10.10 33.00 43.91 56.23 10.54 29.04 8.08 13.27 17.00 9.04 9.94 11.75 10.23 13.56 14.46 15.27 12.88 17.31 14.42 15.57 18.75 25.70 30.66 36.02 41.77 12.58 21.24 8.13 11.58 13.40 15.37 17.47 19.04 22.02 1-1/2" 1.900 1.720 3/4" .930 1" 1.315 1.189 1-1/4" 1.650 1.502 2" 2.375 2.149 15.58 5.77 4.71 3.61 1.51 2.75 0.74 1.76 0.26 0.47 0.94 1 2 1.89 2.36 2.83 4 5 6 3 1.42 3,77 4,25 4.72 5.19 8 9 10 11 6.60 7.55 8.49 14 16 18 12 5.65 7 3.30 FL O W G. P . M . VE L O C I T Y F. P . S 10.38 11.32 12.27 22 24 26 14.15 16.51 18.37 30 35 40 28 13.21 50 55 60 65 75 80 85 70 45 OD ID SIZE 20 9.43 IRRIGATION FLOW CHART THE FOLLOWING CHART IS TO BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR SIZING LATERAL PIPE. WHEN USING THIS CHART DO NOT EXCEED A VELOCITY OF 5 FEET PER SECOND. THIS CHART REPRESENTS THE FRICTION LOSS PER 100 FEET OF PIPE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALCULATE GALLONAGE USING THE HEADS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 1.050 3 L1.2 TYP. PIPE AND WIRING TRENCH 3" MIN. 3/4-INCH WASHED GRAVEL 3.0-INCH MINIMUM DEPTH OF PVC SCH 40 TEE OR ELL SCH 80 NIPPLE (2-INCH LENGTH, PVC SCH 80 NIPPLE PVC SCH 40 MALE ADAPTER HIDDEN) AND SCH 40 ELL (1 OF 2) WATER PROOF CONNECTION OF WIRE, COILED 30-INCH LENGTH PVC SCH 40 ELL PVC SCH 80 NIPPLE (CLOSE) REMOTE CONTROL VALVE VALVE BOX WITH COVER: FINISH GRADE/TOP OF MULCH PVC MAINLINE PIPE (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) BRICK (1 OF 4) PVC LATERAL PIPE 2 L1.2 TYP. QUICK COUPLER 4 L1.2 TYP. SLEEVE UNDER PAVEMENT NOTES: 1. ALL PVC IRRIGATION SLEEVES TO BE 6" MIN. Ø TYPE 3034 SEWER PIPE. 2. ALL JOINTS TO BE SOLVENT WELDED AND WATERTIGHT. 3. WHERE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE SLEEVE, EXTEND THE SMALLER SLEEVE TO 24-INCHES MINIMUM ABOVE FINISH GRADE. 4. MECHANICALLY TAMP TO 95% PROCTOR. 18" MIN. 24" MAX. 24" MIN. TO FINISH GRADE 18" MIN. 4" MIN. CLEARANCE PAVING SLEEVES DITCH PVC CAP (TYPICAL) PVC CAP PAVING (TYPICAL) MAINLINE, LATERAL, AND WIRING IN THE SAME TRENCH MAINLINE LATERAL WIRING IN CONDUIT RUN WIRING BENEATH AND BESIDE MAINLINE. TAPE AND BUNDLE AT 5-FOOT INTERVALS. ALL SOLVENT WELD PLASTIC PIPING TO BE SNAKED IN TRENCH AS SHOWN. TIE A 24-INCH LOOP IN ALL WIRING AT CHANGES OF DIRECTION OF 30° OR GREATER. UNTIE AFTER ALL CONNECTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE.NOTES: 1. SLEEVE BELOW ALL HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITH TYPE 3034 PVC TWICE THE DIAMETER OF THE PIPE OR WIRE BUNDLE WITHIN. 2. FOR PIPE AND WIRE BURIAL DEPTHS SEE SPECIFICATIONS. PLAN VIEW WIRE W/O CONDUIT PIPE PIPE SECTION VIEW 18" 12" 18" QUICK-COUPLING VALVE 2" x 2" PRESSURE TREATEDNOTE: 1. FURNISH FITTINGS AND PIPING NOMINAL QUICK COUPLING VALVE INLET SIZE. PVC SCH 40 STREET ELL PVC SCH 80 NIPPLE PVC SCH 40 TEE OR ELL PVC MAINLINE PIPE PVC SCH 40 STREET ELL (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) PVC SCH 80 NIPPLE BRICK (1 OF 2) 3-INCH MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3/4-INCH WASHED GRAVEL FINISH GRADE/ VALVE BOX WITH COVER STAINLESS STEEL GEAR CLAMPS OR EQUIVALENT SUPPORT SYSTEM PVC SCH 40 ELL (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) NOMINALLY SIZED IDENTICAL TO WOOD STAKE W/ /TOP OF MULCH 1 L1.2 TYP. REMOTE CONTROL VALVE KEL IRRIGATION DETAILS L-1.2 SEAL: SHEET NUMBER: SHEET TITLE: JOB NUMBER: DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS: PRELIMINARY MAY 05, 2025 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REGISTERED WASHINGTON STATE OF CERTIFICATE #301 KLLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC. KENNETH E. LARGE RA A B E T O W N H O M E S 82 2 5 S . 1 3 2 n d S T . Re n t o n , W a s h i n g t o n 9 8 1 7 8 1 - 5 L1.2 DRAIN VALVE FINISH GRADE/TOP OF MULCH VALVE BOX WITH COVER PVC SCH 40 TEE PVC LATERAL PIPE FILTERED DRAIN VALVE BRICK (1 OF 2) 6-INCH MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3/4-INCH WASHED GRAVEL 2" MIN. 6 L1.2 TYP. POP UP SPRINKLER HEAD SWING PIPE, 12-INCH LENGTH: PVC LATERAL PIPE FINISH GRADE/TOP OF MULCH POP-UP SPRAY SPRINKLER 1/2-INCH MALE NPT x .490 INCH PVC SCH 40 TEE OR ELL 1/2-INCH MALE NPT x .490 INCH IRRIGATION SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH IMC 18.606 9 L1.2 POINT OF CONNECTION (DCA) DOUBLE CHECK ASSEMBLY QUICK COUPLER PER DETAIL FLOW CHECK PVCGALV. 12" MIN. 3" MAX. GALV. TO METER 3 8 9 45 LID SECTION 2 1 1. 1" ROUND WASHED GRAVEL, 6" DEEP ON BOTTOM OF BOX 2. ENCLOSE 2" & SMALLER D.C.V.A. IN TWO METER BOXES STACKED ON TOP OF EACH OTHER OR, OVER SIZED. 3. MAXIMUM OF 3" DISTANCE BETWEEN UNDERSIDE OF 4. MUST INCLUDE (4) RESILIENT SEATED TEST-COCKS 5. THE D.C.V.A. MUST INCLUDE (2) RESILIENT 6. Y-PATTERN D.C.V.A. SHOULD BE INSTALLED ON SIDE. 7. WHEN TEST-COCKS ARE FACING SIDEWAYS THERE MUST BE A 6" MINIMUM CLEARANCE BETWEEN THEM 8. MINIMUM OF 12" BETWEEN LOWEST POINT 9. PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR 2" DEVICES. NOTES: 1. INSTALL ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. OF UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE & WATER DISTRICT. 3. ASSEMBLY REQUIRES TESTING AND CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO USE AND ANNUALLY THEREAFTER. FOR INFORMATION PLAN 6 7 6" MIN. LID AND HIGHEST POINT OF DEVICE. 2. ALL INSTALLATION MUST MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS CONTACT WATER QUALITY TECHNICIAN. 4. APPLY AND PAY FOR ALL REQUIRED PERMITS OF DEVICE AND DRAIN ROCK. WITH PLUGS INSTALLED. MUST HAVE REMOVABLE COVER. KEY NOTES:x 5. 2-1/2" DOUBLE CHECK ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY SEATED SHUTOFF VALVES. AND SIDE OF BOX. 10 L1.2 POINT OF CONNECTION PLAN VIEW ® ® 1 L1.3 TYPICAL NETAFIM TECHLINE CV REQUIREMENTS KEL IRRIGATION DETAILS DRIP LINE L-1.3 SEAL: SHEET NUMBER: SHEET TITLE: JOB NUMBER: DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS: PRELIMINARY MAY 05, 2025 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REGISTERED WASHINGTON STATE OF CERTIFICATE #301 KLLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC. KENNETH E. LARGE RA A B E T O W N H O M E S 82 2 5 S . 1 3 2 n d S T . Re n t o n , W a s h i n g t o n 9 8 1 7 8 1 - 2 L1.3 TECHLINE CV LAYOUT STREET TREE WELL3 L1.3 AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVE3 L1.3 1" CONTROL ZONE KIT WITH PRESSURE REGULATED BACKFLUSH FILTER 8225 South 132nd Street, Renton, WA, 98178 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan 20 March 2025 Copyright © 2025 Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. APPENDICES APPENDIX E Bond Quantity Worksheet. Eastside Environmental Pros, Inc. 5 May 2025 Department of Permitting and Environmental Review 35030 SE Douglas Str, Suite 210 Snoqualmie, WA 98065-9266 206-296-6600 TTY Relay: 711 Project Number: 2144800535 Phone:(425) 949-6659 PLANT MATERIALS (includes labor cost for plant installation) Type Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost PLANTS: Potted, 4" diameter, medium $5.00 Each 10.00 $ 50.00 PLANTS: Container, 1 gallon, medium soil $11.50 Each 40.00 $ 460.00 PLANTS: Container, 2 gallon, medium soil $20.00 Each 131.00 $ 2,620.00 PLANTS: Container, 5 gallon, medium soil $36.00 Each 9.00 $ 324.00 PLANTS: Seeding, by hand $0.50 SY $ - PLANTS: Slips (willow, red-osier)$2.00 Each $ - PLANTS: Stakes (willow)$2.00 Each $ - PLANTS: Stakes (willow)$2.00 Each $ - PLANTS: Flats/plugs $2.00 Each 160.00 $ 320.00 TOTAL $ 3,774.00 Type Unit Price Unit Cost Compost, vegetable, delivered and spread $37.88 CY $ - Decompacting till/hardpan, medium, to 6" depth $1.57 CY $ - Decompacting till/hardpan, medium, to 12" depth $1.57 CY $ - Hydroseeding $0.51 SY $ - Labor, general (landscaping other than plant installation)$40.00 HR 6.00 $ 240.00 Labor, general (construction)$40.00 HR 8.00 $ 320.00 Labor: Consultant, supervising $55.00 HR $ - Labor: Consultant, on-site re-design $95.00 HR $ - Rental of decompacting machinery & operator $70.00 HR $ - Sand, coarse builder's, delivered and spread $42.00 CY $ - Staking material (set per tree)$7.00 Each $ - Surveying, line & grade $250.00 HR $ - Surveying, topographical $250.00 HR $ - Watering, 1" of water, 50' soaker hose $3.62 MSF $ - Irrigation - temporary $3,000.00 Acre 0.05 $ 150.00 Irrigation - buried $4,500.00 Acre $ - Tilling topsoil, disk harrow, 20hp tractor, 4"-6" deep $1.02 SY $ - TOTAL $ 710.00 ITEMS Unit Cost Unit Cost Fascines (willow) $ 2.00 Each $ - Logs, (cedar), w/ root wads, 16"-24" diam., 30' long $1,000.00 Each $ - Logs (cedar) w/o root wads, 16"-24" diam., 30'$400.00 Each $ - Logs, w/o root wads, 16"-24" diam., 30' long $245.00 Each $ - Logs w/ root wads, 16"-24" diam., 30' long $460.00 Each $ - Rocks, one-man $60.00 Each $ - Rocks, two-man $120.00 Each $ - Root wads $163.00 Each $ - Spawning gravel, type A $22.00 CY $ - Weir - log $1,500.00 Each $ - Weir - adjustable $2,000.00 Each $ - Woody debris, large $163.00 Each $ - Snags - anchored $400.00 Each $ - Snags - on site $50.00 Each $ - Snags - imported $800.00 Each $ - * All costs include delivery and installation TOTAL $ - EROSION CONTROL ITEMS Unit Cost Unit Cost Backfill and Compaction-embankment $ 4.89 CY $ - Crushed surfacing, 1 1/4" minus $30.00 CY $ - Ditching $7.03 CY $ - Excavation, bulk $4.00 CY $ - Fence, silt $1.60 LF 146.00 $ 233.60 Jute Mesh $1.26 SY $ - Mulch, by hand, straw, 2" deep $1.27 SY $ - Mulch, by hand, wood chips, 2" deep $3.25 SY 200.00 $ 650.00 Mulch, by machine, straw, 1" deep $0.32 SY $ - Piping, temporary, CPP, 6"$9.30 LF $ - Piping, temporary, CPP, 8"$14.00 LF $ - Piping, temporary, CPP, 12"$18.00 LF $ - Plastic covering, 6mm thick, sandbagged $2.00 SY $ - Rip Rap, machine placed, slopes $33.98 CY $ - Rock Constr. Entrance 100'x15'x1'$3,000.00 Each $ - Rock Constr. Entrance 50'x15'x1'$1,500.00 Each $ - Sediment pond riser assembly $1,695.11 Each $ - Sediment trap, 5' high berm $15.57 LF $ - Sediment trap, 5' high berm w/spillway incl. riprap $59.60 LF $ - Sodding, 1" deep, level ground $5.24 SY $ - Sodding, 1" deep, sloped ground $6.48 SY $ - Straw bales, place and remove $600.00 TON $ - Hauling and disposal $20.00 CY $ - Topsoil, delivered and spread $35.73 CY 14.00 $ 500.22 TOTAL $ 1,383.82 Date: 04-28-2025 Prepared by: Eastside Environmental Pros Applicant: Mark Raabe C24 09/09/2015 ls-wks-sensareaBQ.xls ls-wks-sensareaBQ.pdf HABITAT STRUCTURES* path & fence installation 2 hrs invasive removal, 2 hrs soil & mulch prep, 2 hrs tire removal INSTALLATION COSTS ( LABOR, EQUIPMENT, & OVERHEAD) Critical Areas Mitigation Bond Quantity Worksheet Description Gaultheria shallon Project Description: Residential development, req. wetland & stream buffer mitigation g , Holodiscus discolor, Mahonia aquifolium, Ribes sanguineum, Symphircarpos albus, Rubus spectabilis, Rubus parviflora, Vaccinium ovatum Ribes sanguineum, Thuja plicata, Acer circinatum, Acer macrophyllum, Cornus nuttallii, Project Name: Raabe Mitigation Location: Parcel 2144800535 , Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, Symphoricarpos alba, oregana GENERAL ITEMS ITEMS Unit Cost Unit Cost Fencing, chain link, 6' high $18.89 LF $ - Fencing, chain link, corner posts $111.17 Each $ - Fencing, chain link, gate $277.63 Each $ - Fencing, split rail, 3' high (2-rail)$10.54 LF 165.00 $ 1,739.10 Fencing, temporary (NGPE)$1.20 LF $ - Signs, sensitive area boundary (inc. backing, post, install)$28.50 Each 3.00 $ 85.50 TOTAL $ 1,824.60 $ 7,692.42 ITEMS Percentage of Construction Unit Cost Mobilization 10%1 $ 769.24 Contingency 30%1 $ 2,307.73 TOTAL $ 3,076.97 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING Maintenance, annual (by owner or consultant) Less than 1,000 sq.ft. and buffer mitigation only $ 1.08 SF $ - Less than 1,000 sq.ft. with wetland or aquatic area mitigation $ 1.35 SF $ - Larger than 1,000 sq. ft. but less than 5,000 sq.ft. of buffer mitigation $ 180.00 EACH 5.00 $ 900.00 Larger than 1,000 sq. ft. but less than 5,000 sq.ft. of wetland or aquatic area mitigation $ 270.00 EACH $ - Larger than 5,000 sq.ft. but < 1 acre -buffer mitigation only $ 360.00 EACH $ - Larger than 5,000 sq.ft. but < 1 acre with wetland or aquatic area mitigation $ 450.00 EACH $ - Larger than 1 acre but < 5 acres - buffer and / or wetland or aquatic area mitigation $ 1,600.00 DAY $ - Larger than 5 acres - buffer and / or wetland or aquatic area mitigation $ 2,000.00 DAY $ - Monitoring, annual (by owner or consultant) Larger than 1,000 sq.ft. but less than 5,000 wetland or buffer mitigation $ 720.00 EACH 5.00 $ 3,600.00 Larger than 5,000 sq.ft. but < 1 acre with wetland or aquatic area impacts $ 900.00 EACH $ - Larger than 1 acre but < 5 acres - buffer and / or wetland or aquatic area impacts $ 1,440.00 DAY $ - Larger than5 acres - buffer and / or wetland or aquatic area impacts $ 2,160.00 DAY $ - TOTAL $ 4,500.00 Total $15,269.39 (16 hrs @ $90/hr) (24 hrs @ $90/hr) (10 hrs @ $45/hr) (WEC crew) (1.25 X WEC crew) (8 hrs @ 90/hr) (10 hrs @ $90/hr) (4hr @$45/hr) (8 hrs @ 45/hr) (3 X SF total for 3 annual events; Includes monitoring) (3 X SF total for 3 annual events; Includes monitoring) (6hr @$45/hr) OTHER NOTE: Projects with multiple permit requirements may be required to have longer monitoring and maintenance terms. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for development applications. Monitoring and maintance ranges may be assessed anywhere from 5 to 10 years. (Construction Cost Subtotal)